 Millions of people have gotten stents for stable coronary artery disease, yet we now know that for such patients, angioplasty and stent basement doesn't actually prevent heart attacks, doesn't even offer long-term angina pain relief, and doesn't improve survival. Why? Because the most dangerous flax, the ones most vulnerable to rupture, lead to a heart attack, or not the ones doctors put stents in, not the ones often even seen on angiogram to be obstructing blood flow. So we need to avoid the therapeutic illusion that we are accomplishing more than is shown by the evidence. I mean, it looks great, I mean, you're opening up blood flow, but if it doesn't actually help, why do it? And we're not just talking about billions of dollars wasted stent placement in the blood thinner drugs you have to go on can cause complications, including heart failure, stroke, and death. The risks are relatively low, less than a 1% chance it'll kill you or stroke you out. The 15% risk of heart attack is only if your stents clogs off at a later date, which only happens about 1% in the near term. The 13% kidney injury is legit, though, due to the dyes they have to inject, but that typically just heals on its own. The most serious complications, like death, only happen in about 150 cases, but you have to multiply that by the fact that hundreds of thousands of procedures are being done every year. In an emergency setting, like while you're actively having a heart attack, angioplasty can be lifesaving, but these hundreds of thousands are for stable coronary artery disease for which there appears to be no benefits. So then doctors are killing or stroking out thousands of people a year for nothing. And that's not even counting the tens of thousands of silent mini-strokes that may contribute to cognitive decline caused by these procedures. Between 11 and 17% of people who go through angioplasty are standing come away with new brain lesions. It's like up to 1 in 6. How do doctors convince patients to sign up for these when they don't lower the risk of death or heart attack or offer long-term symptom relief? Well, apparently by conveniently failing to inform patients that they don't lower the risk of death or heart attack or offer long-term symptom relief. Cardiologists are aware of how little they help, but studies have consistently demonstrated that patients think stents will reduce their risk of heart attack or death. More than 70% of patients erroneously believed that stents would extend their life expectancy or prevent future heart attacks. That's why this study was done to figure out where patients are getting these crazy ideas from. And the answer is that many patients are being kept in the dark, pressured into procedures that won't benefit them the way they think by doctors that overstate the benefits and understate the risks. Why would they do that? Well, one reason could be because doctors may be paid per procedure. Doctors are paid more for offering stents than common sense diet and lifestyle changes. Patients with stable coronary disease undergoing angioplasty and stent placement are frequently misinformed. Of 59 recorded conversations, only two included all seven elements of informed decision-making. In other words, telling people to have a choice, explaining the problem, discussing alternatives, pros and cons, informing patients the procedure may not work, asking if they understand, even just asking if patients have any questions and asking patients what they want to do. Only 3% of doctor-patient discussions about stents hit even just these basic elements. And that's when the doctors knew they were being recorded. So, I mean, if anything, this may be like the best-case scenario, 3%. Quoting from the Journal of the Cleveland Clinic, when it comes to angioplasty and stents, true informed consent rarely occurs. No wonder that among the nearly 1,000 patients surveyed across 10 U.S. academic community hospitals, just 1% knew the truth. Remarkably, some blame the patients for their ignorance. They're the ones that overestimate and misunderstand the benefits, like those patients with cancer who think their chemo offers the potential for a cure. I mean, they have a therapeutic misconception. Don't look at the patients to find out why so many patients are accepting procedures with questionable benefits. Patients think they're having a life-saving procedure because medical professionals want them to believe that this is so. And now it's not like those 95% of cardiologists are lying to their patients and saying that it'll reduce their risk. They just happen to conveniently have omitted that little detail. But in the absence of information to the contrary, most patients naturally assume that's the case. I mean, why would they assume that? Because patients have this crazy concept of personal care that a physician's first obligation is solely to the patient's well-being. How naive can you get? In the absence of information, or even when presented with evidence to the contrary, patients tend to believe that treatments offered will be beneficial. It's true. Even if you explicitly tell patients that stents don't reduce the risk of heart attacks, yes, you can cut that misperception in half. I mean, that's great. I mean, that with two sentences, you can dispel the myths and most people. But many participants continue to believe that anti-opalacity and stents prevent heart attacks, even when explicitly told they do not, along with a detailed explanation why. After all, I mean, why would doctors be pushing them if they didn't help? That's a good question, which we'll address next.