Chetan Phadke MD, DM

883 posts

Chetan Phadke MD, DM banner
Chetan Phadke MD, DM

Chetan Phadke MD, DM

@steth_talks

Doctor (MBBS, MD, DM (Nephrology))/ National medallist Swimmer/ Football/ Hardwork, Discipline/ Motivate, Elevate

Katılım Ekim 2012
214 Takip Edilen367 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Chetan Phadke MD, DM
Chetan Phadke MD, DM@steth_talks·
Anything you spend or invest: money, time, etc. it all just comes down to whether you will regret doing that in the future. If the answer is yes, don’t. If the answer is no, do. From the @hubermanlab podcast with @morganhousel; idea of D. Kahnemann. Cheers! 😇
English
0
1
12
4.9K
Chetan Phadke MD, DM
Chetan Phadke MD, DM@steth_talks·
Haha. Awesome. 😇
Paresh Jadav@jadav_md

@NephRodby Nephrology carries enormous cognitive load, cares for extraordinarily complex, increasingly fragile patients; yet struggles with visibility, prestige, & compensation…inevitably affecting morale & recruitment. It’s time nephrology stopped being medicine’s best-kept secret!

English
0
0
0
33
Chetan Phadke MD, DM
Chetan Phadke MD, DM@steth_talks·
@aditya_gan3500 @SridattaPawar It’s a good account for diagnosis and management of hypertension and considerations for Kidney as a primary organ. Authored, I think by Dr. Bakris, one of the best authorities on Hypertension management.
English
1
0
1
35
Dr.Sridatta A.K.A Nephron_Endowment
I often say in medicine: First ask “Why?” Then only decide “What next?” Hypertension is not always the final diagnosis. Sometimes, it is only the first clue to an underlying kidney disease. Treating only the BP number without finding the cause can delay the real diagnosis. This World Hypertension Day, let us remember: Early evaluation saves kidneys, hearts, and lives. Treat the cause. Protect the kidneys. Control the pressure. #MedTwitter #worldhypertensionday #Nephpearls
Dr.Sridatta A.K.A Nephron_Endowment tweet media
English
3
1
8
1.1K
Chetan Phadke MD, DM retweetledi
Dr.Sridatta A.K.A Nephron_Endowment
Not the physician. Not the cardiologist. Most of the patients I see have already been seen by them. Hypertension is often assumed to be the cause of renal failure, while significant proteinuria is dismissed as if it carries no value. In my own institution, cardiologist was interviewed about hypertension the same cardiologist I mentioned in Case 1. Repeated echocardiograms are ordered for pedal edema, while the renal cause remains overlooked. Patients keep moving from physician to cardiologist in circles. Many still think hypertension management is simply about prescribing BP tablets and sending the patient home. The evaluation of proteinuria, volume status, secondary causes, renal parenchymal disease, CKD progression, and target organ involvement is frequently ignored. That is why nephrology referrals happen late and only the lucky patients eventually reach a nephrologist early
English
1
1
6
345
The Wolf of College Street
The Wolf of College Street@aditya_gan3500·
This happens because cardiologists are in charge of hypertension. That is absolutely wrong. Nephrologists should be CEO of hypertension Next in line should be endocrinologists Cardiologists and neurologists should come much later I have talked about this here x.com/aditya_gan3500…
English
2
0
16
2.7K
Chetan Phadke MD, DM
Chetan Phadke MD, DM@steth_talks·
@DrNikhilMD Previously used in prophylaxis for CA AKI. It’s been removed from that too, same has been published in the latest “Comprehensive Nephrology”.
English
1
0
4
818
Dr. Nikhil Agrawal
Dr. Nikhil Agrawal@DrNikhilMD·
Nephrologists on X, I’m genuinely curious about this. During my time at Safdarjung, I rarely saw Nephrosave being used by our Nephrology department for AKI or CKD. But in my hometown, many nephrologists seem to prescribe it routinely in almost every AKI & CKD case. Is there any strong evidence or guideline-supported data behind this practice that I might be missing? #Nephrology #CKD #AKI
English
37
14
168
55.1K
Chetan Phadke MD, DM
Chetan Phadke MD, DM@steth_talks·
Unforgettable character.
Crazy Vibes@CrazyVibes_1

He was paid millions to play a miserable man — and couldn't tell where the character ended and he began. When the creators of House M.D. were casting in 2004, they wanted someone quintessentially American. British actors, they believed, couldn’t pull off the accent convincingly. They weren’t even looking overseas. Thousands of miles away in Namibia, Hugh Laurie was filming a movie and heard about the role. He couldn’t fly to Los Angeles. He couldn’t walk into a polished audition room. So he went into his hotel bathroom — the only space with enough light — propped up a camera, grabbed an umbrella as a cane, and recorded two scenes. He sent the tape, apologizing for how rough it looked. Executive producer Bryan Singer watched it and was captivated. He had no idea Laurie was British. That tape changed everything. The pilot drew seven million viewers. Respectable. Not earth-shattering. But over the following seasons, House became a global phenomenon. Laurie became the most-watched leading man on television, according to Guinness World Records. What nobody saw was the weight he carried. For eight seasons, Laurie worked sixteen-hour days. He was in nearly every scene. Los Angeles on set, London with his wife and three children — six thousand miles apart for nine months each year. The isolation crept in slowly. Laurie had battled depression since his youth, seeking help in 1996. The relentless schedule made it worse. He described “very, very black days” on set, a feeling of being exposed and trapped. The irony was impossible to ignore. Here was a man grappling with darkness, praised for playing a character defined by misery. The line between Hugh and House blurred with every episode. He kept his American accent between takes. Rode his Triumph Bonneville at dawn, finding brief freedom in speed and air rushing over him. But he never walked away. Eight seasons, 177 episodes. He stayed because it was the role of a lifetime. When House ended in 2012, Laurie stepped back. Music called. He released blues albums, toured with a band, and returned to acting on his terms — smaller, stranger roles, a Golden Globe-winning turn in The Night Manager. He didn’t disappear. He just stopped running on someone else’s clock. Playing House was like carrying a heavy, beautiful stone. You can’t set it down. But you can’t ignore its weight. Sometimes the greatest performances come from people who have lived the pain they portray. Laurie didn’t act misery. He understood it.

English
0
0
2
41
Chetan Phadke MD, DM
Chetan Phadke MD, DM@steth_talks·
Watched Hail Mary today.
Possum Reviews@ReviewsPossum

Even if we assume life is fairly common in the universe, that doesn't mean intelligence is. Life on Earth was strictly microbial for the first three billion years that it existed, then it took another 600 million years for something smart enough to make fire to emerge. And keep in mind that intelligence simply isn't necessary to survive in most ecological niches. Actually, a large brain can be a hindrance due to high calorie demands, which is why most animals are only smart enough to survive long enough to reproduce. Evolution doesn't care about the survival of the individual, which is why so many species persist by reproducing really fast. It doesn't matter if 90% of your babies die before adulthood if two members of your species can produce hundreds of offspring, and you don't need to be smart to do this. Intelligence just doesn't provide much benefit to a species until it crosses a certain threshold, and until it does, the large brain it requires is a liability for an investment that may not pay off. And even if intelligence is fairly common, that doesn't mean technology is. What a species can accomplish is limited by their biology and biome. A purely aquatic species with no ability to manipulate tools will never discover fire, and so will never master metallurgy or any other technology fire is a prerequisite to. Being land-dwelling (or at least being able to survive outside of water for long stretches of time) is a minimum requirement to becoming technological. And even if an intelligent species discovers fire, that doesn't mean they will advance beyond stone age technology. That species has to be social and cooperative. If you're forced to spend every waking moment looking for food and avoiding predators, then it doesn't matter how smart you are, you will never develop space travel on your own. And even if that species is cooperative, that doesn't mean they will advance. Humans had to decide to give up a nomadic hunter-gather lifestyle and form permanent settlements and start farming despite the obvious disadvantages, such as crowding and proximity to animals enabling the spread of disease, putting themselves at the mercy of the weather, making themselves an obvious target for raiders, and so on, before the first cities could develop. This is what led to organized warfare and the precipitating technological arms races that eventually gave rise to the bronze and iron ages. An intelligent and cooperative species that never settles down won't accomplish this. Then even if an intelligent, cooperative species manages to develop technology, they have to survive long enough to figure out space travel. Now, consider how long it took life on Earth to go from microbial to something capable of building rockets, and realize how long of a lucky stretch we needed to last for billions of years without some natural disaster resetting the clock on evolution. All it would have taken was one gamma ray burst, one nearby supernova, or one really big asteroid impact (I'm talking much bigger than the one that killed the dinosaurs) to set everything back to square one. And then, after all that, even if an intelligent, cooperative, technological species manages to get into space, there's no guarantee they will explore outside of their own solar system. It takes an extremely long time to travel between stars, so any interstellar journey would take decades or centuries, and would cost a huge amount of resources and concerted effort, and would come at a huge risk to the explorers who most likely wouldn't be able to make it back home. Unless their species happens to live a really long time, they would need multiple generations to be born, grow up, and die on a voyage of questionable profitability. By the time a species is able to attempt an interstellar journey, they might lose any interest in doing so because they will have mastered using materials from local asteroids to construct artificial habitats in orbit around their parent star. Why go through the effort and risk of colonizing other solar systems when you can just build a Dyson swarm around your own sun and support quadrillions of people indefinitely? They might even figure out how to digitize their minds and live in a virtual paradise, and forsake reality altogether. Lastly, consider the fact that the universe is only about fourteen billion years old. That sounds like a long time to us, but the Earth has been around for about a third of that time, and it took nearly all that time for us to evolve. Also consider that the star-forming era of the universe is expected to last another hundred trillion years. We probably live at the earliest time that it's even possible for a technological civilization to exist. The reason we don't see aliens might simply be because we're too early. There may come a time in the distant future when every star and every galaxy has been claimed by some galactic or intergalactic empire, and we will be the ancient forerunners to them, but that won't happen anytime soon.

English
0
0
0
19
Chetan Phadke MD, DM
Chetan Phadke MD, DM@steth_talks·
Yup. I stopped cribbing about driving to work because it was “far”. It’s just a blip. A blip.
Anish Moonka@anishmoonka

Went down the rabbit hole on this. You traveled about 17 million kilometers in your sleep last night, roughly 45 trips to the Moon in a single nap. The 600 km/s in this post is a real number. Satellites measured it by comparing our motion against the faint glow left over from the birth of the universe. But the speed alone is only half the picture. Where we're headed is the part that got me. Your body is riding four things at four different speeds, all at once. Earth spins at 1,670 km/h. Earth whips around the Sun at 107,000 km/h. The Sun circles the center of our galaxy at 828,000 km/h. And the Milky Way is tearing through space at 2.1 million km/h. You don't feel any of it. All the galaxies near us, about 100,000 of them, are being dragged toward one spot. Astronomers call it the Great Attractor. It sits about 250 million light-years away and has the combined gravitational pull of thousands of galaxies. We can't see it, because our own galaxy's dust and stars block the view completely. That whole section of sky is so obscured that astronomers named it "the Zone of Avoidance." We only know something is there because every galaxy near us curves toward the same blind spot. Infrared and X-ray telescopes eventually confirmed a massive pile-up of galaxies hiding behind the curtain. I kept digging. The Great Attractor is itself being yanked toward something even larger called the Shapley Supercluster, about 650 million light-years out. The thing pulling us is also being pulled. In 2014, an astronomer at the University of Hawaii named Brent Tully mapped all these galaxy flows and realized we're part of one enormous structure. He named it Laniakea (Hawaiian for "immense heaven"). 500 million light-years wide, about 100,000 galaxies, all draining toward the same gravitational low point like water running downhill. But Laniakea won't hold together. The expansion of the universe is speeding up, slowly ripping the whole structure apart. Our cosmic address has an expiration date. While all this plays out, the Milky Way is also drifting toward the Andromeda galaxy at about 400,000 km/h. Those two will merge in roughly 4 billion years. But that crash is happening at a fifth of the speed we're falling toward the Great Attractor. Even the collision is a subplot. You went to bed, stayed completely still for 8 hours, and woke up 17 million km from where you fell asleep. Tonight you'll do it again.

English
0
0
0
49
Anish Moonka
Anish Moonka@anishmoonka·
The research behind this is wild. If you played Pokémon as a kid, you have a tiny region in your brain that exists only because of Pokémon. Not a metaphor. Stanford put people in brain scanners and found it. The study was published in Nature Human Behavior in 2019. They scanned 11 adults who grew up glued to their Game Boys and 11 who never played. When they showed both groups images of the original 151, the players' brains lit up in one specific spot every time. Same spot across all 11 people. The non-players showed zero response. That spot is a little fold in the back of your brain that normally processes things like animal shapes and cartoon faces. In the Pokémon players, a chunk of it had been permanently reassigned. Their brains carved out a Pokémon department sometime around age 6 or 7 and just never took it down. And the reason it ended up in the same place in everyone's brain comes down to the Game Boy itself. The screen was 2.6 inches. Every kid held it at roughly the same distance. So those 151 characters hit the exact same patch of each kid's retina, thousands of times, during the years when the brain is still soft enough to reorganize itself. Where an image hits your retina in childhood is what tells your brain where to build the wiring. Reading works the same way. Humans invented writing about 5,000 years ago. There's zero evolutionary reason for a brain region dedicated to recognizing words. But every person who learns to read grows one, roughly the size of a dime, in the same part of the brain. Brain-imaging research from 2018 actually watched it appear in children's heads as they learned their letters. It grew by quietly taking over nearby tissue that wasn't doing much yet. Stanford published a follow-up this year showing this region is way smaller or missing entirely in kids with dyslexia, and that 8 weeks of intense reading practice physically grew it back. London taxi drivers show the same thing in a completely different part of the brain. Brain scans from a 2000 study found the region that stores mental maps had physically expanded, and the longer they'd been driving, the bigger it got. These drivers spend 3 to 4 years memorizing 25,000 streets before they get licensed. About half wash out. The common thread is childhood. Harvard researchers trained young monkeys to recognize new shapes and they developed brand-new brain regions in predictable locations. Adult monkeys trained on the same shapes never got those structural changes. The young brain wires itself in a way the adult brain cannot replicate. If you're wondering whether a Pokémon patch in your brain means you lost something else, no. The region sits alongside your normal visual processing areas, not on top of them. Your brain has hundreds of millions of neurons in that zone alone. The lead author noted that every participant in the study had gone on to earn a PhD.
Fanatics Collect@FanaticsCollect

A Stanford study found that people who played Pokémon heavily as kids developed a small region of the brain that responds specifically to Pokémon characters. Researchers scanned adults who grew up playing on Game Boy and showed them images of Pokémon like Pikachu and Bulbasaur. Their brains lit up in the same exact spot, a consistent area in the visual cortex tied to recognizing specific categories of objects. The reason comes down to childhood. When you’re young, your brain is more flexible, and spending hours memorizing hundreds of similar-looking Pokémon essentially trained it to carve out space just for them. (via @Stanford)

English
279
5.8K
58K
6.8M