(Lack of ) Quality of nutritional supplements 16. May 2007 William Davis (0) In my last post, I blogged about how we must not confuse marketing with truth. They are often two different things. A patient I saw today was absolutely convinced that his fish oil was the best available in the world: purer, uncontaminated by mercury or pesticides--"not like that other crap on the shelves." I asked him how he knew this. "They say so," he proudly declared. Do you recognize this? He fell for the marketing. While there may be some truth in the manufacturer's claims, you can't believe it from the mouth of the manufacturer. True judgements about quality and purity have to come from an independent source like Consumer Reports, Consumer Lab, or the FDA. But the FDA doesn't regulate the quality and purity of nutritional supplements. On the positive side, this has allowed supplement manufacturers to keep costs down, not having to navigate arcane and complex regulatory restrictions. On the negative side, a fair number of supplement manufacturers get away with 1) producing supplements that fail to contain the stated amounts of ingredients, occasionally containing none of the essential ingredient(s), 2) contain contaminants like lead, and 3) make extravagant and often unfounded claims like "superior", "more effective", and "purer". (DHEA, for instance, is a particular landmine of poor quality. I recently suggested that a patient take DHEA; despite consistently taking 50 mg of a specific brand for several months, the blood level of DHEA-S didn't budge one bit--there was likely little or none in the capsule.)The Fanatic Cook at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com has posted some very insightful discussions on this issue and the proposed FDA regulations of supplements. They're worth perusing. I really wish regulation weren't necessary and that the industry could have policed itself. But it clearly has failed and perhaps federal oversight is not such a bad thing, as long as the FDA regulations restrict themselves to oversight over quality and purity and not to efficacy. It's the efficacy regulation that could hogtie innovation in supplement development.
Marketing and truth are not the same 15. May 2007 William Davis (0) I often remind people: Don't confuse marketing with the truth. Today, I spent a total of probably an hour and a half dissuading patients that some crazed piece of marketing trying to sell them something was not the same as truth. I spent approximately 40 minutes alone with a woman who was absolutely convinced that:--Nattokinase would cure her of all heart disease. It does not. Despite the promising health benefits of natto and vitamin K2 supplementation, nattokinase is a scam with no basis in science nor logic.--Niacin destroys your liver and homeopathic remedies are superior. Quite simply, homeopathy = quackery. No rational thinking scientist endorses the utter nonsense practiced in this strange and outrageous set of practices that requires you to suspend all reason. --Sufficient vitamin D is obtainable through a "potent" multivitamin. I know of no multivitamin preparation that even begins to provide the dose of vitamin D that is actually required by adults, nor is it absorbed since these D preparations are powder based.--Fish oil will poison you with mercury. Accordingly, one brand of fish oil claims to be the only safe form. Those of you following these posts, or the reports of the USDA and FDA, as well as the reports of Consumer Reports and Consumer Lab (www.consumerlab.com) know that, unlike fish itself, there is no mercury in fish oil capsules.--All coronary atherosclerotic heart disease is caused by heavy metal poisoning. Thus chelation with EDTA represents a cure for heart disease. People are inundated with marketing that promise extravagant cures, remove need for any medication, make you smarter, sexier, thinner, and on and on. If you see a TV ad for Ford that says they make the best cars in the U.S., do you immediately run out and put a For Sale sign on your GM car and buy a Ford? No, of course not. You recognize the ad for what it is: marketing. It may be true, but a TV commercial is not enough to convince you. Then why would an ad promising extraordinary cures for cancer or heart disease convince you that this is true? It should not. Marketing ads should only serve to alert you to the possibility of value or benefit, but should never-- never--stand alone as proof. Take marketing for what it is: marketing of a product or service, not a scientific report, not a factual report, not news. Marketing is advertising. Period.
More on erectile dysfunction 13. May 2007 William Davis (8) Several facts on erectile dysfunction and coronary plaque:If you have erectile dysfunction, there's at least a 50% chance you also have coronary plaque. If you have coronary plaque by a CT heart scan, there's a 50% chance you have erectile dysfunction. If you have symptomatic coronary disease (chest pains, breathlessness, prior heart attack), there's a 90% chance you also have erectile dysfunction.Coronary disease is characterized by a dysfunctional state of the "endothelium", or inner lining of the coronary arteries. Erectile dysfunction is characterized by dysfunction of the endothelium of the penile circulation. Same phenomenon, different territories. (There are other differences, of course, but the two conditions share this fundamental phenomenon.) If you have any doubts about the physiologic effects of the supplement, l-arginine, just give it a try if you have erectile dysfunction. The erection enhancing effects alone should convince you that a genuine artery-dilating effect is exerted by this very powerful nutritional supplement. If l-arginine fails by itself to restore full erectile capacity, there are additional strategies, both nutritional and medical, that you can consider. Our newest Track Your Plaque Special Report on erectile dysfunction is coming out any day now.
High LDL cholesterol--only 11. May 2007 William Davis (3) As a sequel to my last post, just how often can we blame an isolated high LDL cholesterol as the cause of coronary plaque and a heart scan score?In other words, how often does someone prove to have only LDL cholesterol as the cause of a heart scan score . . . and nothing else? No low HDL, small LDL, lipoprotein(a), a post-prandial (after-eating) intermediate-density lipoprotein, inflammatory responses, phospholipase A2, high triglycerides, vitamin D deficiency, etc.Rarely. In fact, I can truly count the number of people who have only LDL cholesterol as their sole cause of coronary atherosclerotic plaque on one hand. It is really an infrequent situation. Far more commonly, people have 5, 6, 7 or more reasons for coronary plaque. Thus, the idea that a statin drug to reduce LDL will cure heart disease is completely folly. It does happen--but rarely. I think I've seen it happen twice. Much more commonly, a program that addresses all the causes of coronary plaque yields far superior benefits. In my view, an effort to identify all the causes is relatively easy, makes far better sense, and provides you much greater assurance that you will succeed in conquering heart disease and removing its evil influence from your life.
Heart disease = statin deficiency 10. May 2007 William Davis (1) Judging from the conversations I hear from colleagues, what I hear from the media, and drug company advertising, you'd think that heart disease has one cause--a deficiency of statin drugs. As their thinking goes, if you have coronary disease, you need a statin drug (Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, pravachol, etc.). If you have progressive coronary disease, you need more statin drug. If you have a heart attack while on a statin drug, you need even more statin drug. Some "experts" have even proposed that we do away with LDL cholesterol and we just give everybody a statin drug at high doses. Does this make any sense to you? Doesn't it make better sense that if someone has progressive heart disease or heart attack while on a statin drug, then target the other causes largely unaffected by a statin drug? Perhaps if LDL cholesterol remains high on the statin drug, then a higher dose is justified. But more often than not, it's not a high LDL on statin drugs that responsible, it's other causes. And there's many of them: low HDL, VLDL, IDL, Lp(a), deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids, inflammatory processes, vitamin D deficiency, among others. (An important exception to this is when the conventional calculated LDL substantially underestimates true LDL as measured by LDL particle number by NMR, apoprotein B, or 'direct' LDL.) Imagine someone has pneumonia. After 2 weeks of antibiotics, they are only partly better. The solution: a higher dose of the same antibiotic--but never question if it was the right antibiotic in the first place. That's what is going on in heart disease. The doctors have been brainwashed into believing this $22 billion dollar per year bit of propaganda. The drug companies actively try to recruit the public into believing the same. Don't fall for it. The statin drugs do indeed have a role. But they are not the complete answer. More of the same when disease progresses makes no sense at all.
Fish oil and mercury 9. May 2007 William Davis (2) I often get questions about the mercury content in fish oil. I've even had patients come to the office saying their primary care doctor told them to stop fish oil to avoid mercury poisoning. Manufacturers of fish oil also make claims that this product or that ("super-concentrated", "pharmaceutical grade", "purified", etc.) is purer or less contaminated than competitors' products. The manufacturers of the "drug" Omacor, or prescription fish oil, have added to the confusion by suggesting that their product is the most pure of all, since it is the most concentrated of any fish oil preparation (900 mg EPA+DHA per capsule). They claim that "OMACOR is naturally derived through a unique, patented process that creates a highly concentrated, highly purified prescription medicine. By prescribing OMACOR® (omega-3-acid ethyl esters), a prescription omega-3, your doctor is giving you a concentrated and reliable omega-3. Each OMACOR capsule contains 90% omega-3 acids (84% EPA/DHA*). Nonprescription omega-3 dietary supplements typically contain only 13%-63% EPA/DHA." How much truth is there in these concerns?Let's go to the data published by the USDA, FDA, and several independent studies. Let's add to that the independent (and therefore presumably unbiased) analyses provided by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs (www.consumerlab.com). How much mercury has been found in fish oil supplements?None.This is different from the mercury content of whole fish that you eat. Predatory fish that are at the top of the food chain and consume other fish and thereby concentrate organic methyl mercury, the toxic form of mercury. Thus, shark, swordfish, and King mackerel are higher in mercury than sardines, herring, and salmon. The mercury content of fish oil capsules have little to do with the method of processing and much more with the animal source of oil. Fish oil is generally obtained from sardines, salmon, and cod, all low in mercury. Fish oil capsules are not prepared from swordfish or shark. Thus, concerns about mercury from fish oil--regardless of brand--are generally unfounded, according to the best information we have. Eating whole fish--now that's another story for another time. But you and I can take our fish oil to reduce triglycerides, VLDL, IDL, small LDL, and heart attack risk without worrying about mercury.
How much omega-3s are enough? 8. May 2007 William Davis (7) The basic dose we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program is 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA, the essential omega-3 fatty acids. 1200 mg EPA+DHA is generally obtainable by taking 4 capsules of 1000 mg of fish oil, since the majority of preparations contain 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA per capsule. But how will you know if a higher dose wouldn't be even better? The principal parameter to look at is triglycerides. If triglycerides remain above 60 mg/dl, we usually consider increasing fish oil. Another measure that's very important is intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, also called "remnant lipoproteins" on a VAP panel. Persistence of any IDL or remnant lipoproteins is reason to consider more fish oil. Most commonly, if there is some persistence of either, we increase fish oil to 6000 mg per day of a standard preparation, or 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA. The only time we see persistence of IDL or remnant lipoproteins with this higher dose is when triglycerides are really high. If starting triglycerides are, for instance, 500 mg/dl, then even this higher dose may be insufficient. This is when more highly concentrated preparations of fish oil may be necessary, occasionally even the prescription form, Omacor. (We currently use Omacor only when high doses of EPA+DHA are required, most because of its ou Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Heart disease reversal a big "No No" 11. November 2007 William Davis (7) I dare you: Ask your doctor whether coronary heart disease can be reversed. My prediction is that the answer will be a flat "NO." Or, something like "rarely, in extraordinary cases," kind of like spontaneous cure of cancer. There are indeed discussions that have developed over the years in the conventional scientific and medical literature about reversal of heart disease, like Dean Ornish's Lifestyle Heart Trial, the REVERSAL Trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) and the ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor). Reversal of atherosclerotic plaque in these trials tends to be small in scale and sporadic. Of course, the medical literature is swamped with studies that have nothing to do with reversal, like what stent is best, what platelet-inhibiting intravenous drug is best, when should angioplasty or stents be used and when, do implantable defibrillators save lives, improvements in coronary bypass techniques, etc. There are tens of thousands of these studies for every study that focuses on the question of atherosclerotic plaque reversal. The concept of reversal of heart disease has simply not gained a foothold in the lexicon nor in the thinking of practicing physicians. Heart disease is a relentlessly, unavoidably, and helplessly progressive disease in their way of thinking. Perhaps we can reduce the likelihood of cardiovascular events like heart attack and death with statin drugs and beta blockers. But reverse heart disease ? In your dreams! We need to change this mentality. Heart disease is a reversible phenomenon. Atherosclerosis in other territories like the carotid arteries is also a reversible pheneomenon. Rather than throwing medicines and (ineffective) diets at you (like the ridiculous American Heart Association program), what if your doctor set out from the start not just to reduce events, but to purposefully reduce your heart's plaque? While it might not succeed in everyone, it would certainly change the focus dramatically. After all, isn't this the theme followed in cancer treatment? If you had a tumor, isn't cure the goal? Would we accept an oncologist's advice to simply reduce the likelihood of death from cancer but ignore the idea of ridding yourself completely of the disease? I don't think so. Then why accept "event reduction" as a goal in heart disease? We shouldn't have to. Heart disease reversal--elimination--should be the goal. Demystification 11. November 2007 William Davis (2) Once upon a time, remember how medical information was mysterious, hospitals were places where frightening, inscrutable things happened, diseases were strange maladies that struck without reason, and obtaining information about health was like hunting for buried treasure? The full extent of many peoples' understanding of health came through relatively anemic sources like Readers' Digest. (Remember "I am Joe's Colon"?)Compare this to what we have now. If I wanted to obtain information about ankylosing spondylitis (a rare genetic disease of the spine), a Google search yields 1.46 million citations. Not all the information, of course, is helpful or relevant, but there's certain to be a bounty of information that far exceeds what you could have uncovered 40 years ago. Suppose you enter the search phrase "antithrombin III" into your Google search. Citations: over 900,000. (The number of search citations, in fact, exceeds the number of Americans with a deficiency of this blood clotting protein!)The same is true with heart disease. There was a time, not more than 30-40 years ago, when information about the heart and heart disease was hard to come by. The most you would find were superficial discussions about heart attacks, what chest pain means, descriptions of bypass surgery. Ask your doctor, you'd likely receive a brief, cursory response about how you probably shouldn't worry it. Even during medical school in the 1980s, I remember struggling to get answers to my questions from faculty during medical school and medical training. It was as if providing too much information would eliminate the advantage superiors wielded over trainees. The same selfish sentiment, the "I know something you don't know" mentality reminiscent of a schoolboy's "naa na na naa naa!" unfortunately persists. But it is rapidly disintegrating. Soon it will join the junk heap of medical mis-information accumulated over the years (a big pile, to be sure). The internet and, I'll admit (grudgingly), the media, have been responsible for demystifying the formerly mysterious and indecipherable world of health. You now have, at a moment's disposal, access to an extraordinary array and breadth of health information that was inconceivable just a few years ago.Times are changing. Doctors no longer hold the monopoly over health information. The public--YOU--are rapidly becoming the arbiters of health, the informed consumers of a soon-to-be retail product called health care, and the increasingly savvy judges of what should join the mainstream path of health. It is all part of this wave of change that I've been advocating: the emerging concept of self-empowerment in healthcare. Added to the junk heap of health-mistakes-of-years-past will be medical protectionism over health information, heart procedures, drug industry excesses, nutritional mis-information, among others. The demystification of health information will open the floodgates of individual insight into health. It delivers control over your own health destiny straight into your own lap. Everything has omega-3 8. November 2007 William Davis (5) Walking the supermarket aisles, you may have lately noticed that numerous new products are appearing sporting "omega-3s" on the label. Some products simply contain alpha-linolenic acid, a tiny amount of which is converted to the biologically active omega-3s, EPA and DHA. Natural Ovens' Brainy Bagel, for instance, carries a claim of "620 omega-3." I find this confusing and misleading, since people will often interpret such a claim to mean that it contains 620 of EPA and DHA, similar to two capsules of standard fish oil (1000 mg capsules). Of course, it does NOT. I find this especially troublesome when people will actually stop or reduce their fish oil, since they've been misled into thinking that products like this bread contain active omega-3 fatty acids that yield all the benefits of the "real stuff." Other products actually contain the omega-3, DHA, though usually in small quantities. Breyer's Smart with DHA is an example, with 32 mg DHA per container. I find products with actual DHA (from algae) a more credible claim. However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has looked at the actual contents of DHA in some of these products and found some discrepancies, including amounts of DHA less than the labeled amount and claims of omega-3 wihtout specifying DHA vs. linolenic acid. (It's probably linolenic acid, if it's not specified.) All in all, the addition of DHA to food products is a nice way to boost your intake of this healthy omega-3. However, keep in mind that these are processed, often highly processed, foods and you will likely pay a premium for the little boost. For now, stick to fish oil, the real thing. For a brief summary of the CSPI report and a link to the Nutrition Action Newsletter, see Omega-3 Madness: Fish Oil or Snake Oil. Are cardiologists the enemy? 7. November 2007 William Davis (12) I'm sitting at dinner with two colleagues. One is a cardiology colleague, another an internist who, in addition to practicing general internal medicine, also takes heart disease prevention very seriously. He has, in fact, participated in the Track Your Plaque program and dropped his heart scan score substantially. "Why don't we see you in the cath lab much?" my cardiology colleague asked me. He was puzzled, since he knew my background in cath lab work from years before, spending day and night doing procedure after procedure. He spends virtually all his days there. "Well, my patients simply don't have events any more. Heart attacks and angina among people in my program are just about non-existent. They don't have symptoms and they don't have to go to the hospital. I can't remember the last time that I was woken up in the middle of the night for an urgent procedure for one of my patients."The internist across the table smiled and expressed his agreement. "That's the same thing I'm seeing: No heart attacks, very few if any referrals to cardiologists for procedures. I remember when it was a several times a week thing. Now, almost never. "Looking at my cardiology colleague, I saw the usual cardiologist reaction: Eyes searching left and right and behind us for something more interesting. Certainly, talking about a virtual cure for coronary heart disease was just too damn dull. Such is the attitude of 98% of my colleagues: If it doesn't generate a revenue-producing procedure, why bother? Prevention is for general practitioners, the line of thinking goes. "And anyway, I'm too busy doing procedures! I don't ahve time to talk about prevention and health!" Of course, the poor general practitioner is already overloaded with caring for arthritis, flu, diabetes and all the new drugs for diabetes, headaches, vaccinations, diarrhea, and . . .oh, yes, heart disease prevention. Are cardiologists the enemy? No, of course they are are not. But they often act like they are. Talking to cardiologists is like going to the car dealer with your checkbook out, pen in hand. The salesman gets to write the check himself and you just sign it. Talk to a cardiologist and more often than not you will end up with a heart procedure--whether or not you need it. Unfortunately--tragically--they often forget what they are supposed to be doing: Taking care of a disease by preventing it. Putting in a defibrillator is not preventing a disease. Putting in three stents, laser angioplasty, and thrombectomy are not ways of preventing a disease.I'm thankful for my internist friend who sees the light. Coronary heart disease is a an easily measurable, quantifiable, preventable, and REVERSIBLE process for many, if not most, people when provided the right tools. But don't ask your neighborhood cardiologists to give you those tools. Are CETP inhibitors kaput? 6. November 2007 William Davis (9) Was torcetrapib’s crash and burn fatal for this class of drug?At the 2007 American Heart Association meetings in Orlando, Florida, Dr. Philip Barter of Sydney, Australia, presented an update of the ILLUMINATE drug trial for the once-promising drug, torcetrapib, the billion-dollar bet that Pfizer made on its first entry into the new drug class. You may recall that the crash and burn of Pfizer’s torcetrapib in December 2006 made headlines and prompted enormous disappointment for many patients and doctors who had hoped for a new drug choice to raise HDL cholesterol. Pfizer executives (heads flew!) and investors were also disappointed, anticipating release of a drug that might have become the number one biggest selling drug in the world—ever, surpassing even Lipitor's® $13 billion annual sales. Torcetrapib is the first among the “cholesteryl-ester transfer protein inhibitors,” or CETP-inhibitors, drugs that block the exchange of cholesterol and triglycerides between HDL and VLDL particles and prevent formation of the unwanted small LDL particles. Preliminary efforts suggested that effects were positively enormous. However, the 15,000-participant trial was abruptly terminated after 550 days when an excess of deaths were identified among the group taking the experimental drug: 59 deaths in control group; 93 deaths in the torcetrapib group.In addition, cardiovascular events were 24% greater in the torcetrapib group, numbering 373 compared to 464 in the no-torcetrapib group, including a substantially greater number of heart attacks and hospitalizations. Another surprise came in the way of cause of death among some of the torcetrapib patients, with an excess of deaths due to cancers (twice as many in the torcetrapib group), strokes, and infections. Why the divergence: enormous improvements in cholesterol values, yet increase in adverse effects including more heart attack? Deeper digging by the principal investigators uncovered unexpected distortions of electrolytes like sodium and potassium. They then re-analyzed blood samples from participants on both sides of the trial and discovered that participants taking torcetrapib experienced significant rise in the blood pressure hormone, aldosterone. This, they surmised, also likely accounted for the 4 mmHg average rise in blood pressure among those taking the experimental drug. (This is the same pathway blocked by blood pressure drugs like ACE inhibitors lisinopril and enalapril, ARBs like losartan.) Simultaneously (what a coincidence!) with the torcetrapib data, investigators at competing drug manufacturer, Merck, reported encouraging data with their version of CETP inhibitor, anacetrapib. In a phase II FDA trial of 589 patients, anacetrapib reduced LDL-C levels by up to 40% and increased HDL-C up to 139%. Spokesman Daniel Bloomfield, M.D., of Merck Research Laboratories reported that "The favorable lipid effects seen in this study with multiple doses of anacetrapib were significant, and confirm the continued evaluation of the clinical benefits of CETP inhibitors in the treatment of dyslipidemia." Quick to distinguish this drug from to
Heart disease reversal a big "No No" 11. November 2007 William Davis (7) I dare you: Ask your doctor whether coronary heart disease can be reversed. My prediction is that the answer will be a flat "NO." Or, something like "rarely, in extraordinary cases," kind of like spontaneous cure of cancer. There are indeed discussions that have developed over the years in the conventional scientific and medical literature about reversal of heart disease, like Dean Ornish's Lifestyle Heart Trial, the REVERSAL Trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) and the ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor). Reversal of atherosclerotic plaque in these trials tends to be small in scale and sporadic. Of course, the medical literature is swamped with studies that have nothing to do with reversal, like what stent is best, what platelet-inhibiting intravenous drug is best, when should angioplasty or stents be used and when, do implantable defibrillators save lives, improvements in coronary bypass techniques, etc. There are tens of thousands of these studies for every study that focuses on the question of atherosclerotic plaque reversal. The concept of reversal of heart disease has simply not gained a foothold in the lexicon nor in the thinking of practicing physicians. Heart disease is a relentlessly, unavoidably, and helplessly progressive disease in their way of thinking. Perhaps we can reduce the likelihood of cardiovascular events like heart attack and death with statin drugs and beta blockers. But reverse heart disease ? In your dreams! We need to change this mentality. Heart disease is a reversible phenomenon. Atherosclerosis in other territories like the carotid arteries is also a reversible pheneomenon. Rather than throwing medicines and (ineffective) diets at you (like the ridiculous American Heart Association program), what if your doctor set out from the start not just to reduce events, but to purposefully reduce your heart's plaque? While it might not succeed in everyone, it would certainly change the focus dramatically. After all, isn't this the theme followed in cancer treatment? If you had a tumor, isn't cure the goal? Would we accept an oncologist's advice to simply reduce the likelihood of death from cancer but ignore the idea of ridding yourself completely of the disease? I don't think so. Then why accept "event reduction" as a goal in heart disease? We shouldn't have to. Heart disease reversal--elimination--should be the goal.
Demystification 11. November 2007 William Davis (2) Once upon a time, remember how medical information was mysterious, hospitals were places where frightening, inscrutable things happened, diseases were strange maladies that struck without reason, and obtaining information about health was like hunting for buried treasure? The full extent of many peoples' understanding of health came through relatively anemic sources like Readers' Digest. (Remember "I am Joe's Colon"?)Compare this to what we have now. If I wanted to obtain information about ankylosing spondylitis (a rare genetic disease of the spine), a Google search yields 1.46 million citations. Not all the information, of course, is helpful or relevant, but there's certain to be a bounty of information that far exceeds what you could have uncovered 40 years ago. Suppose you enter the search phrase "antithrombin III" into your Google search. Citations: over 900,000. (The number of search citations, in fact, exceeds the number of Americans with a deficiency of this blood clotting protein!)The same is true with heart disease. There was a time, not more than 30-40 years ago, when information about the heart and heart disease was hard to come by. The most you would find were superficial discussions about heart attacks, what chest pain means, descriptions of bypass surgery. Ask your doctor, you'd likely receive a brief, cursory response about how you probably shouldn't worry it. Even during medical school in the 1980s, I remember struggling to get answers to my questions from faculty during medical school and medical training. It was as if providing too much information would eliminate the advantage superiors wielded over trainees. The same selfish sentiment, the "I know something you don't know" mentality reminiscent of a schoolboy's "naa na na naa naa!" unfortunately persists. But it is rapidly disintegrating. Soon it will join the junk heap of medical mis-information accumulated over the years (a big pile, to be sure). The internet and, I'll admit (grudgingly), the media, have been responsible for demystifying the formerly mysterious and indecipherable world of health. You now have, at a moment's disposal, access to an extraordinary array and breadth of health information that was inconceivable just a few years ago.Times are changing. Doctors no longer hold the monopoly over health information. The public--YOU--are rapidly becoming the arbiters of health, the informed consumers of a soon-to-be retail product called health care, and the increasingly savvy judges of what should join the mainstream path of health. It is all part of this wave of change that I've been advocating: the emerging concept of self-empowerment in healthcare. Added to the junk heap of health-mistakes-of-years-past will be medical protectionism over health information, heart procedures, drug industry excesses, nutritional mis-information, among others. The demystification of health information will open the floodgates of individual insight into health. It delivers control over your own health destiny straight into your own lap.
Everything has omega-3 8. November 2007 William Davis (5) Walking the supermarket aisles, you may have lately noticed that numerous new products are appearing sporting "omega-3s" on the label. Some products simply contain alpha-linolenic acid, a tiny amount of which is converted to the biologically active omega-3s, EPA and DHA. Natural Ovens' Brainy Bagel, for instance, carries a claim of "620 omega-3." I find this confusing and misleading, since people will often interpret such a claim to mean that it contains 620 of EPA and DHA, similar to two capsules of standard fish oil (1000 mg capsules). Of course, it does NOT. I find this especially troublesome when people will actually stop or reduce their fish oil, since they've been misled into thinking that products like this bread contain active omega-3 fatty acids that yield all the benefits of the "real stuff." Other products actually contain the omega-3, DHA, though usually in small quantities. Breyer's Smart with DHA is an example, with 32 mg DHA per container. I find products with actual DHA (from algae) a more credible claim. However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has looked at the actual contents of DHA in some of these products and found some discrepancies, including amounts of DHA less than the labeled amount and claims of omega-3 wihtout specifying DHA vs. linolenic acid. (It's probably linolenic acid, if it's not specified.) All in all, the addition of DHA to food products is a nice way to boost your intake of this healthy omega-3. However, keep in mind that these are processed, often highly processed, foods and you will likely pay a premium for the little boost. For now, stick to fish oil, the real thing. For a brief summary of the CSPI report and a link to the Nutrition Action Newsletter, see Omega-3 Madness: Fish Oil or Snake Oil.
Are cardiologists the enemy? 7. November 2007 William Davis (12) I'm sitting at dinner with two colleagues. One is a cardiology colleague, another an internist who, in addition to practicing general internal medicine, also takes heart disease prevention very seriously. He has, in fact, participated in the Track Your Plaque program and dropped his heart scan score substantially. "Why don't we see you in the cath lab much?" my cardiology colleague asked me. He was puzzled, since he knew my background in cath lab work from years before, spending day and night doing procedure after procedure. He spends virtually all his days there. "Well, my patients simply don't have events any more. Heart attacks and angina among people in my program are just about non-existent. They don't have symptoms and they don't have to go to the hospital. I can't remember the last time that I was woken up in the middle of the night for an urgent procedure for one of my patients."The internist across the table smiled and expressed his agreement. "That's the same thing I'm seeing: No heart attacks, very few if any referrals to cardiologists for procedures. I remember when it was a several times a week thing. Now, almost never. "Looking at my cardiology colleague, I saw the usual cardiologist reaction: Eyes searching left and right and behind us for something more interesting. Certainly, talking about a virtual cure for coronary heart disease was just too damn dull. Such is the attitude of 98% of my colleagues: If it doesn't generate a revenue-producing procedure, why bother? Prevention is for general practitioners, the line of thinking goes. "And anyway, I'm too busy doing procedures! I don't ahve time to talk about prevention and health!" Of course, the poor general practitioner is already overloaded with caring for arthritis, flu, diabetes and all the new drugs for diabetes, headaches, vaccinations, diarrhea, and . . .oh, yes, heart disease prevention. Are cardiologists the enemy? No, of course they are are not. But they often act like they are. Talking to cardiologists is like going to the car dealer with your checkbook out, pen in hand. The salesman gets to write the check himself and you just sign it. Talk to a cardiologist and more often than not you will end up with a heart procedure--whether or not you need it. Unfortunately--tragically--they often forget what they are supposed to be doing: Taking care of a disease by preventing it. Putting in a defibrillator is not preventing a disease. Putting in three stents, laser angioplasty, and thrombectomy are not ways of preventing a disease.I'm thankful for my internist friend who sees the light. Coronary heart disease is a an easily measurable, quantifiable, preventable, and REVERSIBLE process for many, if not most, people when provided the right tools. But don't ask your neighborhood cardiologists to give you those tools.
Are CETP inhibitors kaput? 6. November 2007 William Davis (9) Was torcetrapib’s crash and burn fatal for this class of drug?At the 2007 American Heart Association meetings in Orlando, Florida, Dr. Philip Barter of Sydney, Australia, presented an update of the ILLUMINATE drug trial for the once-promising drug, torcetrapib, the billion-dollar bet that Pfizer made on its first entry into the new drug class. You may recall that the crash and burn of Pfizer’s torcetrapib in December 2006 made headlines and prompted enormous disappointment for many patients and doctors who had hoped for a new drug choice to raise HDL cholesterol. Pfizer executives (heads flew!) and investors were also disappointed, anticipating release of a drug that might have become the number one biggest selling drug in the world—ever, surpassing even Lipitor's® $13 billion annual sales. Torcetrapib is the first among the “cholesteryl-ester transfer protein inhibitors,” or CETP-inhibitors, drugs that block the exchange of cholesterol and triglycerides between HDL and VLDL particles and prevent formation of the unwanted small LDL particles. Preliminary efforts suggested that effects were positively enormous. However, the 15,000-participant trial was abruptly terminated after 550 days when an excess of deaths were identified among the group taking the experimental drug: 59 deaths in control group; 93 deaths in the torcetrapib group.In addition, cardiovascular events were 24% greater in the torcetrapib group, numbering 373 compared to 464 in the no-torcetrapib group, including a substantially greater number of heart attacks and hospitalizations. Another surprise came in the way of cause of death among some of the torcetrapib patients, with an excess of deaths due to cancers (twice as many in the torcetrapib group), strokes, and infections. Why the divergence: enormous improvements in cholesterol values, yet increase in adverse effects including more heart attack? Deeper digging by the principal investigators uncovered unexpected distortions of electrolytes like sodium and potassium. They then re-analyzed blood samples from participants on both sides of the trial and discovered that participants taking torcetrapib experienced significant rise in the blood pressure hormone, aldosterone. This, they surmised, also likely accounted for the 4 mmHg average rise in blood pressure among those taking the experimental drug. (This is the same pathway blocked by blood pressure drugs like ACE inhibitors lisinopril and enalapril, ARBs like losartan.) Simultaneously (what a coincidence!) with the torcetrapib data, investigators at competing drug manufacturer, Merck, reported encouraging data with their version of CETP inhibitor, anacetrapib. In a phase II FDA trial of 589 patients, anacetrapib reduced LDL-C levels by up to 40% and increased HDL-C up to 139%. Spokesman Daniel Bloomfield, M.D., of Merck Research Laboratories reported that "The favorable lipid effects seen in this study with multiple doses of anacetrapib were significant, and confirm the continued evaluation of the clinical benefits of CETP inhibitors in the treatment of dyslipidemia." Quick to distinguish this drug from to