DOCTORS

Monday I had a double-doctor-day - with the rarely seen GP in the afternoon. I go every couple years to keep the "relationship" alive - in case I get an ear infection or something.  This  GP - I "date" only for her prescription pad on which I tell her what to write.  It's never anything exotic or potentially recreational,  so she compiles.
Last time I visited her, I was about 70 pounds heavier. I guess I deserve an "A-ta-girl".
Not forthcoming.

As soon as I mention no carbs (No-carbs is the soft, politically-correct way of saying "Atkins" to MD's  - the name makes most react like Medusa).  It's fair. She's just person, not a god,  who feels a little miffed that I ignored her non-existent advice (eat less and get some exercise LOL) and I had the gaul to do OK anyway.
It pisses me off.  But I get it.

Thank goodness I have no qualms about  ignoring her advice -  I should probably just lie to her, say "yes, yes" and do what I want. I occasionally feel compelled to make an argument.  Foolish, I know - I just don't like lying to my doctor. I am paying her, why should I lie to please or placate her?

Once again we had to run through the "I don't do mammograms" thing.  (I usually turn out to be right about these things BTW.  Jot it down,  time will vindicate my position).

So it used to go like this:
1. it seems stupid to continually shoot radiation at something you are trying to prevent cancer in. If the tech has to wear a lead blanket, there is a significant amount of radiation, or hey, if it is so safe, lose the blanket "boys".
2. No statistics show any improved survivability in those who had mammograms versus not.  (True, you can look it up Harvard).
3. Somewhere between 40-60% of cells identified as breast cancer (or "pre-cancer", WTF?) are encapsulated and would never spread.  Since they can't tell them from the bad boys, they treat them the same.   That is reasonable until they can find the DNA markers to be sure. BUT in the mean time,   they should AT LEAST back those numbers out of their "treatment success" statistics.  If 40% weren't actually sick,  you can't fairly count them as "cured".
4. I think they have cancer mostly wrong. I say think "virus".

I think in 100 years people will scoff and say "do you believe what doctors used to do to cancer patients"?   Like "bleeding" and its great success rate in curing the fever... I am sure they had statistics and maybe even charts.

That was then, now I have finally distilled my answer to  "why would I go do your test when I would never act on or value the results?" It is a conversation stopper.