Posted by Mike K on Wednesday, 16 September 2015
It didn't help that we started with the 'Statins' conversation I've been expecting for several years but have, so far, been spared. It seems I've tipped over the edge of the 'how old' question even for your fairly relaxed attitude. I'm sorry that I find the whole statins/cholesterol thing such a tangled mess of claim and counter claim. I'm sorry that the research into their effectiveness (or otherwise) generally - and also in relation to type 1 is so clouded, murky and beshadowed by claims of vested interest and bias. I'm sorry that I ever read any of that stuff and couldn't just say, "Yes OK". To be honest I'm still not sure that the whole lipid/heart hypothesis isn't fundementally wrong anyway and that I have begun to suspect that the relative benefits shown in Statin studies over all those years may simply be "accurate measures for the prevailing bias". I'm sorry there is no way to accurately work out whether they would be worthwhile for me as an individual. I'm sorry I didn't, couldn't just take your word for it.
Thank you for agreeing to differ with me. And YES. I genuinely did mean that I would continue to think about this as I grow older.
I'm sorry I don't know what you mean by 'a hypo'. What number or frame of reference you wanted me to use. I'm sorry that by now (while you were still impeccably professional and cheery) you were probably wishing I would just shut up and go away.
I'm glad that you were pleased with the reductions I had seen in hypoglycaemia, particularly overnight with the combination of MM640G and CGM.
I'm sorry that it's not an option that is available to me.
I'm sorry that the CCG has approved no CGM applications on compassionate grounds in the last 2 years.
I feel sure that you would like to help more people with technology like this. I'm sorry that you are not able to.
Next year I will try to just come in, fill in my boxes on the forms, answer your questions, and then go away again.
Tags: annual review