All posts by william-davis

Imagine you contract pneumonia.

You have a fever of 103, you’re coughing up thick, yellow sputum, breathing is getting difficult. You hobble to the doctor, who then fails to prescribe you antibiotics. You get some kind of explanation about unnecessary exposure to antibiotics to avoid creating resistant organisms, yadda yadda. So you make do with some Tylenol®, cough syrup, and resign yourself to a few lousy days of suffering.

Five days into your illness, you’ve not shown up for work, you’re having trouble breathing, and you’re getting delirious. An emergency trip to the hospital follows, where a bronchoscopy is performed (an imaging scope threaded down your airway) and organisms recovered for diagnosis. You’re put on a ventilator through a tube in your throat to support your breathing and treated with intravenous antibiotics. Delayed treatment permits infection to escape into the fluid around your lungs, creating an “empyema,” an extension of the infection that requires insertion of a tube into your chest through an incision to drain the infection. You require feeding through a tube in your nose, since the ventilator prevents you from eating through your mouth. After 10 days, several healing incisions, and a hospital bill totaling $75,000, you’re discharged only to be face eights weeks of rehabilitation because of the extreme toll your illness extracted. Your doctor also advises you that, given the damage incurred to your lungs and airways, you will be prone to more lung infections in the future, and similar situations could recur whenever a cold or virus comes long.

A disease treatable by taking a two week, $20 course of oral antibiotics at home has been converted into a lengthy hospital stay that generated extravagant professional fees, testing, and costly supportive care. You’ve lost several weeks of income. You’re weak and demoralized, frightened that the next flu or virus could mean another trip to the hospital.

Such a scenario would be unimaginable with a common infection like pneumonia, or it would be grounds for filing a malpractice lawsuit. But, as horrific as it sounds in another sphere of healthcare, it is, in effect, analogous to how heart disease is managed in current medical practice.

First, you’re permitted to develop the condition. It may require years of ignoring the telltale signs, it may require your unwitting participation in unhealthy lifestyle choices. Palliative treatments that slow, but don't stop, the progression of disease are prescribed like cholesterol drugs. The process then eventuates in some catastrophe like heart attack or similar unstable heart situation, at which point you no longer have a choice but to submit to major heart procedures. That’s when you receive your heart catheterization, coronary stents, bypass, defibrillators, etc. and you're proudly declared a "success" of medical technology.

Of course, none of these procedural treatments cures the disease, no more than a Band Aid® heals the gash in your leg. The conditions that were present that created your heart disease continue, allowing a progressive disease to worsen. At some point, you will need to return to the hospital for yet more procedures when trouble recurs, which it inevitably does.

A coronary bypass operation costs, on average $85, 653 (AHA 2008 Update; based on 2004 data). That doesn't include the $25,433 cost for the heart catheterization performed by a cardiologist to provide the surgical roadmap of your coronary arteries. If there are any complications of your procedure, then your hospital bill may total a substantially higher figure.

$85, 653 is just the upfront financial pay-off. Over the long run, your life is actually worth far more to the cardiovascular healthcare system because no heart procedure yields a permanent fix. In fact, repeated reliance on the system is the rule.

In fact, over 90% of people who enter the American cardiovascular healthcare system do so through a revolving door of multiple procedures over several years. It is truly a rare person, for instance, who undergoes a coronary bypass operation, never to be seen again the wards of the hospital because he remains healthy and free of catastrophe. A much more familiar scenario is the man or woman who undergoes two or three heart catheterizations, receives 3,4, or 6 stents, followed a few years later by a heart bypass, pacemaker, defibrillator, as well as the tests performed for catastrophe management, such as nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory blood analysis, and consultation with several specialists. Re-do bypass surgeries--a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th bypass--now comprise 25% of all bypass procedures.

The total revenue opportunity is many-fold higher than the initial 80-some thousand dollars, but instead totals hundreds of thousands of dollars per person.

What motivation can there possibly be to 1) identify coronary disease early, when in its asymptomatic stage, then 2) identify its causes, then 3) correct the causes, and finally 4) shut off the disease? You and I can accomplish this with a few hundred dollars of cost, perhaps a few thousand over many years (to cover costs of fish oil, vitamin D, niacin, and whatever else it takes to stop the expression of the disease). Nobody therefore profits substantially from your prevention effort--except you.

Then what if nobody told you that heart disease could be managed this way? That's what I mean by "disease engineering."

Stents, defibrillators, and other profit-making opportunities

16. April 2006 William Davis (2)

As a practicing cardiologst, every day I receive a dozen or more magazines or newspapers targeting practicing physicians, not to mention the hundreds of letters, postcards, invitations to "talks", etc. that I receive. All of these materials share one common goal: To get the practicing cardiologist/physician to insert more of a manufacturer's stents, defibrillators, prescribe more of their drugs, etc.

This is a highly effective and profitable area. Pfizer's Lipitor, for instance, generated $12.2 billion just last year alone. This kind of money will fund an extraordinary amount of marketing.

I'm on the www.heart.org mailing list, a website for cardiologists. I'd estimate that 90% or more of their content is device-related: discussions of situations in which to insert stents, the expanding world of implantable devices, the ups and downs of various drugs. Rarely are discussions of healthy lifestyles, exercise, nutritional supplements, part of the dialogue.

How can you protect yourself from the brainwashed physician, flooded with visions of all the devices he can put in you, all the drugs that can "cure" your disease? Simple: information. Be better informed. Ask pointed questions. The idiotic lay press tells you to ask a doctor about his education. That's not generally the problem. Some of the best educated doc's I know are also the most flagrantly guilty of profiteering medicine.

Ask your doctor about his/her philosphy about the use of medications, devices, etc. If their word is God, take it or leave it, run the other way.

Will radiation kill you?

16. April 2006 William Davis (4)

Several people have asked me lately if radiation is truly dangerous. These conversations were sparked by an editorial comment made on a column I wrote for Life Extension Magazine's April, 2006 issue on "Three ways to detect hidden heart disease".

Among the methods that were discussed in this piece was, of course, CT heart scanning. Anyone who is involved with CT heart scans Quickly recognizes the spectacular power of this test to uncover hidden, unsuspected heart disease, literally within seconds. In 2006, there's really nothing like it for the every day person to have hidden heart disease detected and precisely quantified.

Yet, the "rebuttal" to my article claimed that the broad use of heart scans was only my personal view and that, in truth, radiation kills people.

NONSENSE! If an ovarian cancer is discovered by a CT scan of the abdomen, is that unwise use of radiation? If pneumonia or lung cancer is discovered on a chest x-ray with minimal radiation exposure, have we performed a disservice. Of course not. In fact, these are often lifesaving applications of radiation.

Can radiation be used unwisely with excessive exposure? Of course. The 64 slice CT angiograms are just an example of this. Dr. Mehmet Oz announced on Oprah recently that this was a test to be used for broad screening of women for heart disease. This is wrong. The radiation required for a full 64 slice CT angiogram test is truly excessive for a screening application. You wouln't want to get breast cancer from your mammogram, would you? The radiation from a 64-slice CT angiogram is similar to that of a heart catheterization in the hospital--too much for screening. This is not to be confused with a CT heart scan for a calcium score performed on a 64 slice device. I think this can be performed with acceptable radiation exposure.

Think about what would happen, for instance, if you had your heart disease undetected, had a heart attack, and went to the hospital? During your hospitalization, you'd likely get five chest x-rays, a heart catheterization, perhaps one or more nuclear imaging tests, maybe even a full CT scan (with far more radiation than a screening heart scan). The amount of radiation of a heart scan is trivial compared to what you obtain in a hospital.

So take it all in perspective. The low level of radiation required for a simple heart scan (not an angiogram) does not by itself substantially add to your lifetime risk of radiation exposure. It may, in fact, save your life or reduce your life long exposure to radiation.

Are you using bogus supplements?

16. April 2006 William Davis (0)

I consider nutritional supplements an important, many times a critical,part of a coronary plaque control program.

But use the wrong brand or use it in the wrong way, and you can obtain no benefit. Occasionally, you can even suffer adverse effects.

Take coenzyme Q10, for instance. (Track Your Plaque Members: A full, in-depth Special Report on coenzyme Q10 will be on the website in the next couple of weeks.) Take the wrong brand to minimize the likelihood of statin-related muscle aches, and you may find taking Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, etc. intolerable or impossible. However, take a 100 mg preparation from a trusted manufacturer in an oil-based capsule, and you are far more likely to avoid the inevitable muscle aches. (Though, of course, consult with your doctor, for all it's worth, if you develop muscle aches on any of these prescription agents.)

Unfortunately, you and I often don't truly know for a fact if a bottle from the shelf of a health food store or drugstore is accurately labeled, pure, free of contaminants, and efficacious.

One really great service for people serious about supplements is the www.consumerlab.com website. They are a membership website (with dues very reasonable) started by a physician interested in ensuring supplement quality. Consumer Lab tests nutritional supplements to determine whether it 1) contains what the label claims, and 2) is free of contamination. (I have no reason to pitch this or any other site; it's just a great service.) They recently found a supplement with Dr. Andrew Weil's name on it to have excess quantities of lead!

What Consumer Lab does not do is determine efficacy. In other words, they do a responsible job of reporting on what clinical studies have been performed to support the use of a specific supplement. However, true claims of efficacy of supplement X to treat symptom or disease Y can only come with FDA approval. Supplements rarely will be put through the financial rigors of this process.

If you're not a serious supplement user, but just need a reliable source, we've had good experiences with:

--GNC--the national chain
--Vitamin Shoppe--also a national chain
--www.lifeextension.com or www.lef.org--A great and low-priced source, but they do charge a $75 annual membership that comes with a subscription to their magazine, Life Extension (which I frequently write for) and several free supplements that you may or may not need. Again, I'm not pitching them; they are simply a good source.
--Solgar--a major manufacturer
--Vitamin World
--Nature's Bounty
--Sundown

There are many others, as well. Unfortunately, it's only the occasional manufacturer or distributor that permits unnacceptable contamination with lead or other poisons, or inaccurately labels their supplement (e.g., contains 1000 mg of glucosamine when it really contains 200 mg). I have not come across any manufacturer/distributor who has systemtically marketed uniformly bad products.

It really helps to have someone to lean on

16. April 2006 William Davis (0)

Among my patients are several husband and wife teams, both of whom have heart disease by some measure. Several couples, for instance, consist of a huband who's received a stent, survived a heart attack, or has some other scar of the conventional approach. The wives generally have a substantial heart scan score in the several hundred range.

There are a few couples for which the roles are reversed: wife with bypass, heart attack, etc. and husband with a substantial quantity of coronary plaque by CT heart scan.

From them all, however, I've learned the power of teamwork. When both wife and husband (or even "significant other") are committed to the effort of controlling or reversing heart disease risk, the likelihood of success is magnified many-fold. Everything is easier: shopping for and choosing foods, incorporating supplements in the budget, taking vacations with a healthy focus, following through and sticking with your program.

Several of the couples have succeeded in obtaining regression of plaque for both man and woman. Both have reduced their heart scan scores and, as a result, dramatically reduced the potential for future heart attack and procedures.

Unfortunately, I will also see the opposite situation: One spouse committed to the program but the other indifferent. They may say such things as "You can't control what happens in the future." Or, "There's no way you can get rid of risk for heart disease. My doctor says it's hereditary." Or, "I've eaten this way since I was a kid. I'm not changing now for you or for anybody else."

Such negative commentary can't help but erode your commitment to health. Most of us recognize these sorts of comments as self-fulfulling and self-defeating.

What should you do if you have an unsupportive partner? Not easy. But it really can help to seek out a supportive partner, whether it's a friend, relative, or other significant person in your life. Of course, not everybody can find such a person. Perhaps that's another way our program can help.

I'd like to hear from anyone who does obtain substantial support of someone close, or if you are struggling to do so.

Five foods that can booby trap your heart disease prevention program

14. April 2006 William Davis (0)

There are several foods that commonly come up on people's lists of habitual foods that are truly undesirable for a heart disease prevention program. Curiously, people choose these foods because of the mis-perception that they are healthy. My patients are often shocked when I tell them that they are not healthy and are, in fact, detrimental to their program.

I'm not talking about foods that are obviously unhealthy. You know these: fried foods, greasy cheeseburgers, French fries, bacon, sausage, etc. Nearly everyone knows that the high saturated fat content, low fiber, and low nutritional value of these foods are behind heart disease, hypertension, and a variety of cancers.

I'm talking about foods that people say they eat because they view them as healthy--but they're not.

Here's the list:

1) Low-fat or non-fat salad dressings--Virtually all brands we've examined have high-fructose corn syrup as one the main ingredients. What does high fructose corn syrup do? Triggers sugar cravings, makes your triglycerides skyrocket (causing formation of abnormal lipoproteins like small LDL), and causes diabetes. The average American now ingests nearly 80 lbs of this evil sweetener per year. You're far better off with olive, canol, grapeseed, or flaxseed based salad dressings.

2) Breakfast cereals--If you've been following these discussions, you know that the majority of breakfast cereals are sugar. They may not actually contain sugar, but they contain ingredients that are converted to sugar in your body. They may be cleverly disguised as healthy--Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, etc.

3) Pretzels--"A low-fat snack". That's right. A low-fat snack that raises blood sugar like eating table sugar from the bowl.

4) Margarine--Forget this silly argument about which is worse, butter or margarine. Which is worse, strychnine or lead? Both are poisons to the human body. Who cares which is worse? Fortunately, there are now healthy "margarines" like Smart Balance and Benecol that lack the saturated fat or hydrogenated fat of either.

4) Bananas--Bananas are not all that intrinsically unhealthy. The problem is that people will say to me, "Oh sure, I eat fruit. Two bananas a day." What I hear is "I don't really eat fruit with high nutrient value, fiber, and reduced sugar release. I reach for only bananas which yield extreme sugar rises in my blood and are low fiber." Aren't they high in potassium? Yes, but there are better sources. Cut back if you are a banana freak.

Why the mis-perceptions? A holdover from the low-fat diet days and marketing from food manufacturers are the principal reasons. Of course, foods are meant to be enjoyed, but be informed about it. Choose foods for the right reasons, not because of some cleverly-crafted marketing campaign.

Breakfast of champions?

12. April 2006 William Davis (1)

I spend time every day educating or reminding patients that breakfast cereals are not health foods.

I see jaws drop in shock when I tell them that, in my opinion and despite the marketing claims, Cheerios, Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, and the like do not yield health benefits. In fact, they do the the opposite: dramatically raise blood sugar and trigger an adverse cascade of events that eventually leads to diabetes and heart disease.

Why the health claims in advertising? Because these products contain insoluble fiber, the sort that makes your bowels regular. Yes, your bowels are important to health, too. But the benefits end there.

Breakfast cereals are a highly refined, processed food that are not good for your plaque control program. What they are is a highly profitable, multi-billion dollar business, deeply entrenched in American culture ("They'rrrre grrrrrreat!"--Tony the Tiger; "There's a whole scoop of raisins in every box of Post Raisin Bran!" Bet you remember them all.)

I find it particularly upsetting when I see the stamp of approval from the American Heart Association on some products. Gee, if the Heart Association says it's good for you, it must be true! Don't you believe it. The American Heart Association relies on corporate donations, just like any other charity.

If you must eat breakfast cereals, refer to y understand what's at stake. It took me a couple years of harping on what "complications" means, but by now, my family understands that if my blood sugar is too high, I'm damaging my body. They want to keep me around for a while, so they understand that there are some foods that shouldn't be brought into the house--ever.

When other family members want to have treats at home, they are kind enough to buy things I don't like. For example, if someone wants Ben & Jerry's they buy the Chunky Monkey flavor that I find revolting, not the New York Fudge. By the same token, when my kids lived at home, I didn't buy them the brands of cookies I can't resist. There are plenty of others cookies they liked that don't tempt me at all, and those were the ones in the cupboard.

Over the years the nondiabetic members of my family learned that no one is doing themselves a favor scarfing down 300 grams of fast acting carbohydrate every day--particularly not people with a family history of diabetes and heart disease!

Medications Can Help

I'm not a big fan of medications because I've learned the hard way that drug companies lie about side effects and some of these side effects are permanent and can ruin your life. But I learned the hard way, too, that some of us (like, say me) can't get normal blood sugars no matter how low our carb intake. For us, adding a diabetic drug or two to our daily regimen may be the only way we can get normal blood sugars without a life of tormenting self-denial.

Drugs I have found useful over the years include metformin, precose, and post-meal insulin shots. The new incretin drugs, Januvia and Byetta help some people make dramatic improvements in their blood sugar, but the way that they work makes it necessary to eat a slightly higher amount of carbohydrates with them because they only work when your blood sugar rises over a certain threshold. Even with these drugs (including Januvia) I've never been able to eat more than 120 grams of carbohydrates a day, but after many years of eating an extremely low carb diet--which was the only diet that would control my blood sugars--120 grams of carbs a day feels like a completely normal diet!

Be Aware of Rising Insulin Resistance

Some people may find that eating a low carb diet is not enough to control their blood sugar because they are very insulin resistant. Perhaps they have been diagnosed with PCOS, or have to take a drug, like Prednisone that increases insulin resistance. The book, Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution by Dr. Richard K. Bernstein, the distinguished diabetes doctor, recommends Metformin as an appropriate drug for patients on a low carb diet whose blood sugars are still not completely controlled. It isn't a cure by any means, just one more tool you can use to keep blood sugars under control, and if you limit your insulin resistance you may solve both weight and hunger problems that otherwise can derail your diet.

You can read more about the different drugs available to help control blood sugars HERE. Just remember that all these diabetes drugs work best when you combine them with some level of carbohydrate restriction. How much restriction? Test your meals one and two hours after eating, and your blood sugar meter will tell you exactly how much.

Top Medical Journal Publishes Landmark Study Showing Very Low Carb Diet Most Effective and Safest for Lipids etc.

In case you are still being given out-of-date medical or nutritional advice by people who tell you that a low carb/high fat diet will give you a heart attack, take a look at this recently published study, which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

This study found that an Atkins style low carb diet not only caused double the weight loss of the low fat diet at the end of one year, but it did not adversely affect cholesterol levels.

This finding, added to the Women's Health Initiative finding (after $40 million dollars of research) that low fat dieting does NOT prevent heart disease, should lay to rest any last fears you might have about the impact of cutting carbs on your health.

The findings of this study, are not news to anyone who has tried a low carb diet and stuck with it for any period of time, but they appear to amaze the entire medical community who continue to cling to their to the "Fat is Bad" religious belief long no matter what evidenced-based medical studies might come up with.

Bottom line: You can cut your carbs way down, replace carbs with fat, and await the better health this kind of eating will provide.

Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women: The A TO Z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial.Christopher D. Gardner, PhD; Alexandre Kiazand, MD; Sofiya Alhassan, PhD; Soowon Kim, PhD; Randall S. Stafford, MD, PhD; Raymond R. Balise, PhD; Helena C. Kraemer, PhD; Abby C. King, PhD

Here's the summary of the WHI findings:

NIH News: News from the Women?s Health Initiative: Reducing Total Fat Intake May Have Small Effect on Risk of Breast Cancer, No Effect on Risk of Colorectal Cancer, Heart Disease, or Stroke

Here's a study that documents the effectiveness of lowering carbs and increasing fat and protein consumption for the control of blood sugar in the absense of weight loss:

Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by modification of diet composition. Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:16.

To Get More Help with Making a Low Carbohydrate Diet Work

My "Low Carb Facts and Figures" site, which now shares this server, has more information I collected back in the days when I used a low carb diet for both weight loss and blood sugar control.

You'll find articles there that address a few of the issues people run into while eating a very low carb diet,which are not answered in a completely honest fashion by the people who sell diet books promising you can lose weight easily while gorging on all your favorite foods--which, sadly, is 99% of all authors writing diet books.

Interview with an outspoken advocate of truth in diabetes

2. April 2008 William Davis (6)

I stumbled onto Jenny Ruhl's Diabetes Update blog after I received several very insightful comments to this blog whenever I posted a discussion on diabetes or pre-diabetes/metabolic syndrome.

Who the heck was this commenter who clearly had deep insight into diabetic issues?

It turned out to be Jenny Ruhl, a woman who learned her lessons the hard way: by receiving a belated diagnosis of (an unusual form of) diabetes, then receiving plenty of mis-guided advice from physicians on diet and treatment. Reading her many blog posts and websites, you get the clear sense of how hard this individual worked to gain the depth of knowledge she's acquired, on a par or superior to most diabetes specialists.

And she minces no words in expressing her heartfelt and carefully considered opinions. But that's what I look for: people who are unafraid to voice opinions that may not be consistent with the flow of conventional thought, but ring true and prove effective.

Dr. Davis: From your blog and websites on diabetes, it is clear that you exceptionally knowledgeable in the world of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and related disorders. Can you give us a little background on how you came to this quest?

Jenny: Though I was told I was a "classic type 2" [diabetic] by my doctors, nothing I read about diabetes corresponded to my own experience. I knew my diabetes had not been caused by obesity because I'd been a normal weight all my life until my blood sugars went out of control at which point I developed ravenous hunger and gained a lot of weight very quickly.

I also wondered at the huge gap between what Dr. Bernstein said was a normal blood sugar and what my doctors told me was a safe blood sugar for a person with diabetes. The people I met who followed Bernstein's very low carb diet had much better blood sugars and far fewer complications, but my doctors dismissed this as irrelevant. So I decided to do some research to find out who to believe. I plunged into the medical journal articles that had recently been made available on the web to see if I could answer two questions: What causes diabetes? and "What does science actually know about what blood sugar levels damage organs?"

The result was the information that became the basis for the Blood Sugar 101 site. Initially, I attempted to sell it as a book, but editors told me that though what I'd learned was "fascinating" it would be "over the head" of the typical health book buyer who wanted simple explanations and if possible, a simplistic slant towards "cure." Fortunately, the very strong response and high traffic volume to the web site proved that, as I had thought, there are a lot of people who do want more than an oversimplified overview and who, given the information they needed, were able to make huge positive changes in their health.

Dr. Davis: What do you think your life would be like if you hadn't pursued this unique course?

Jenny: Possibly a lot shorter.

People in my family die of heart attacks in their 50s, probably from undiagnosed high blood sugars. The pattern of the type of diabetes I have is to have a normal fasting blood sugar and an extremely high post-meal blood sugar after consuming very few grams of carbohydrate. When doctors diagnose using only the fasting blood test, they miss those highs, which research is now finding to be a primary cause of heart disease.

I also would have been a lot fatter. My doctors told me that I was packing on 20 lbs a year due to "normal menopausal changes" and that there was nothing I could do about it. Lowering my carbs significantly dropped all the weight I had gained and I still weigh a lot less now than I did in 1998.

Dr. Davis: You've been a keen observer of the diabetes scene for some years. Have you discerned any important trends in both the public's perception of diabetes as well as how diabetes is managed in the conventional world?

Jenny: The huge difference I see is that, over the last decade, the online diabetes community has learned the value of cutting back on carbohydrates and shooting for truly normal blood sugar levels. So people who put some time into researching diabetes online and talking with those of us who have succeeded in avoiding complications will learn that they do not have to settle for very high blood sugars and deterioration their doctors think inevitable.

Unfortunately, the media have put most of their energy into promoting the discredited idea that diabetes is caused by gluttony and sloth and to promoting the equally discredited idea that people with diabetes should eat a high carbohydrate diet and avoid fat.

So for now there is a huge divide in the quality of life of those people with diabetes who educated enough to go out on the web and educate themselves and those who get their diabetes information from doctors. Sadly most doctors still encourage patients to eat low fat/ high carb diets, and counter the very high blood sugars this diet produces with oral drugs of questionable efficacy, while assuring patients they will be safe if they maintain blood sugar levels that meet the American Diabetes Association's recommendations, though a mass of research shows these are high enough to produce every single diabetic complication possible.

Dr. Davis: I understand that you've released a new book, Blood Sugar 101. How is your book unique in the world of diabetes books? Who should read Blood Sugar 101?

Jenny: Blood Sugar 101: What They Don't Tell You About Diabetes differs from other books in that it gives the reader a much deeper understanding of what is really going on in their bodies as their blood sugar control breaks down and what sciences knows about how abnormal blood sugars cause complications. Then it gives the reader the tools they need to find what diet and/or drug regimen will brings their own, unique, blood sugars down to a truly safe level.

Unlike some books, this one does not present a one-size-fits-all solution, but recognizes that Type 2 diabetes is really a catch-all diagnosis that covers a lot of disorders that behave quite differently. That is why what works for one person with diabetes may not work for another.

Because this book provides details available nowhere else about the physiology of diabetes and the drugs available to treat it, readers will find the information they need to work with their doctors to craft a regimen that brings their blood sugar into the range that preserves and improves their health.

Dr. Davis: Before we close, tell us a little about yourself outside of your diabetes advocate role.

Jenny: I live in rural New England and am a passionate gardener. I've been online since 1980 when I was part of the team at IBM that developed the first commercial email program, PROFS. I got involved in online discussion groups in 1987 and have been messaging on bulletin boards ever since.

I was a professional singer/songwriter in Nashville in my youth and spent my middle years as a bestselling author of books about consulting. Right now a lot of my energy goes into managing the financial and software side of a family business that makes hand made pocket tools for collectors.

Dr. Davis: Thank you for your great insights, Jenny!

The Marshall Protocol and other fairy tales

31. March 2008 William Davis (144)

True to form, Dr. John Cannell has published yet another wonderfully insightful Vitamin D Newsletter.

One item caught my eye, a response to a question about the Marshall Protocol. I, like Dr. Cannell, was inundated with questions about this so-called protocol, which amounts to little more than the unfounded speculations of a non-physician, actually someone not even involved in health care.

In all honesty, I blew the whole issue off after I read Dr. Marshall's rants. They smack of pure quackery, though from somebody who clearly has a command of scientific lingo. To Dr. Cannell's credit, he took the time and effort to construct a rational response in the latest issue of the newsletter. I reproduce his response here:

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I understand Dr. Marshall conducted a study and found vitamin D is bad for you. What kind of study did he do?

Mary, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Dear Mary:

I have been inundated with letters asking about Professor Marshall's recent "discovery." Some have written that to say they have stopped their vitamin D and are going to avoid the sun in order to begin the "Marshall protocol." The immediate cause of this angst is two publications, a press article in Science Daily about Professor Marshall's "study" (which is no study but simply an opinion) in BioEssays. Dr. Trevor Marshall has two degrees, both in electrical engineering. Before I begin, I want to again remind you that I am a psychiatrist who works at a state mental hospital. In my duty to full disclosure, I must say that I have known a lot of psychiatrists in my life and a few electrical engineers. If I knew nothing else of a disagreement between two people but their professions, I would believe the electrical engineer, not the psychiatrist.

In reading his two articles, Dr. Marshall's main hypotheses are simple. (1) Vitamin D from sunlight is different than vitamin D from supplements. (2) Vitamin D is immunosuppressive and the low blood levels of vitamin D found in many chronic diseases are the result of the disease and not the cause. (3) Taking vitamin D will harm you, that is, vitamin D will make many diseases worse, not better. If you read his blog, you discover that the essence of the Marshall protocol is: "An angiotensin II receptor blocker medication, Benicar, is taken, and sunlight, bright lights and foods and supplements with vitamin D are diligently avoided. This enables the body's immune system, with the help of small doses of antibiotics, to destroy the intracellular bacteria. It can take approximately one to three years to destroy all the bacteria." That is, Dr. Marshall has his "patients" become very vitamin D deficient.

Again, Dr. Marshall conducted no experiment and published no study. He wrote an essay. He presented no evidence for his first hypothesis (sunlight's vitamin D is different than supplements). From all that we know, cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol, regardless if it is made in the skin or put in the mouth. His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. Take patients with severe dementia bedridden in a nursing home. At least some of their low 25(OH)D levels are likely the result of confinement and lack of outdoor activity. However, did dementia cause the low vitamin D levels or did low 25 (OH)D contribute to the dementia? One way to look at that question is to look at early dementia, before the patient is placed in a nursing home. On the first day an older patient walks into a neurology clinic, before being confined to a nursing home, what is the relationship between vitamin D levels and dementia? The answer is clear, the lower your 25(OH)D levels the worse your cognition.

Wilkins CH, Sheline YI, Roe CM, Birge SJ, Morris JC. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with low mood and worse cognitive performance in older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;14(12):1032-40.

Przybelski RJ, Binkley NC. Is vitamin D important for preserving cognition? A positive correlation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration with cognitive function. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007 Apr 15;460(2):202-5. Epub 2007 Jan 8.

These studies suggest that the low 25(OH)D levels are contributing to the dementia but do not prove it. Only a randomized controlled trial will definitively answer the question, a trial that has not been done. So you will have to decide if vitamin D is good for your brain or not. Dr. Marshall seems to be saying demented patients should lower their 25(OH)D levels. Keep in mind, an entire chapter in Feldman's textbook is devoted to the ill effects low vitamin D levels have on brain function.

Brachet P, et al. Vitamin D, a neuroactive hormone: from brain development to pathological disorders. In Feldman D., Pike JW, Glorieux FH, eds. Vitamin D. San Diego : Elsevier, 2005.

It is true that in some diseases, high doses of vitamin D may be harmful. For example, in the early part of last century, the AMA specifically excluded pulmonary TB from the list of TB infections that ultraviolet light helps. They did so because many of the early pioneers of solariums reported that acutely high doses of sunlight caused some patients with severe pulmonary TB to bleed to death. Thus, these pioneers developed very conservative sun exposure regimes for pulmonary TB patients in which small areas of the skin were progressively exposed to longer and longer periods of sunlight. Using this method, sunlight helped pulmonary TB, often to the point of a cure. Furthermore, it is well known that sunlight can cause high blood calcium in patients with sarcoidosis. In fact, sarcoidosis is one of several granulomatous diseases with vitamin D hypersensitivity where the body loses its ability to regulate activated vitamin D production, causing hypercalcemia.

Cronin CC, et al. Precipitation of hypercalcaemia in sarcoidosis by foreign sun holidays: report of four cases. Postgrad Med J. 1990 Apr;66(774):307-9.

Furthermore, although medical science is not yet convinced, some common autoimmune diseases may have an infectious etiology. I recently spoke at length with a rheumatologist who suffers from swollen and painful joints whenever he sunbathes or takes high doses of vitamin D. As long as he limits his vitamin D input his joints are better. To the extent vitamin D upregulates naturally occurring antibiotics of innate immunity, sunlight or vitamin D supplements may cause the battlefield (the joints) to become hot spots. I know of no evidence this is the case but it is certainly possible.

However, If Dr. Marshall's principal hypothesis is correct, that low vitamin D levels are the result of disease, then he is saying that cancer causes low vitamin D levels, not the other way around. The problem is that Professor Joanne Lappe directly disproved that theory in a randomized controlled trial when she found that baseline vitamin D levels were strong and independent predictors of who would get cancer in the future. The lower your levels, the higher the risk. Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period. Therefore, advising patients to become vitamin D deficient, as the Marshall protocol clearly does, will cause some patients to die from cancer.

Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.

I will not write again about Dr. Marshall's theories. No one in the vitamin D field takes him seriously. Personally, I admire anyone willing to swim against the tide and raise alternative theories. I have done the same with influenza and autism. However, I agree with the New York Times, An Oldie Vies for Nutrient of the Decade and Jane Brody's conclusion, "In the end, you will have to decide for yourself how much of this vital nutrient to consume each and every day and how to obtain it." I agree. You will have to decide for yourself.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

Breaking news from the American College of Cardiology meetings

30. March 2008 William Davis (1)

The American Heart Association (AHA) was kind enough to send me an e-mail headlining the breaking news from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) meetings underway in Chicago:

ISAR-REACT 3
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Multi-Center Trial (ISAR-REACT 3) of Bivalirudin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Troponin-Negative Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions After Pre-Treatment With 600 mg of Clopidogrel

TRITON - TIMI 38 Stent Analysis
Prasugrel Compared to Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing PCI With Stenting: The TRITON - TIMI 38 Stent Analysis

Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Facilities without On-Site Cardiac Surgery (NCDR)

(And four other similar reports)

Let's meld the ACC headlines with the financial headlines:

July 2, 2007
The Medicines Company announces reacquisition of all marketing rights to bivalirudin, anticoagulant growing in use for coronary angioplasty and related procedures. 2008 sales anticipated to be in the $15-20 million range, to grow to $90-110 million, a growth rate of 50% per year.

November 20, 2007
Drug manufacturing giant, Eli Lilly, vies for a portion of the $5 billion (annual revenues) oral anti-platelet market, now occupied by Plavix, with its newer, but questionably better, agent, prasugrel.

Growth of the coronary angioplasty (percutaneous coronary intervention, or PCI) doesn't ordinarily make headlines, but the performance of specific companies within the industry does. Angioplasty and cardiac device maker (inc. the drug-coated stent, Taxus), Boston Scientific, for instance, announced record sales of $8.537 billion for 2007, an increase of $536 million. How to grow this market? We could always hope for more people with heart attacks or other unstable symptoms. Or, we could . . . increase the number of hospitals capable of PCI! Brilliant.

The money behind this push for procedures is staggering. It drives enormous marketing efforts, pays Washington lobbyists, pays for many nice dinners and trips for doctors who engage in the system, and pays for very costly research.

And the AHA and ACC are kind enough to let us know about these great pieces of news.

Why health care costs are ballooning

28. March 2008 William Davis (7)

Have you ever wondered to what degree health care is driven by a profit motive?

A doctor advises you to undergo a procedure. Is that advice motivated solely by concern for your health and welfare? Or, does the generous financial compensation peculiar to procedures bias your doctor’s decision?

The billboard on the highway advertises a hospital heart program. Is it meant to raise awareness of lifesaving services? Or, is it the same as an ad for a casino or hotel chain, a marketing tool for generating business?

At one time or another, we’ve probably all shared a suspicion that healthcare is occasionally motivated by money: over-priced prescription drugs, hospitals charging higher prices to the uninsured, the three-minute doctor’s visit for $200.

Direct-to-consumer drug advertising has brought aggressive drug sales tactics front and center to the public’s attention. “Ask your doctor about . . .” is the mantra of countless 30-second spots appearing several times an hour on national television. Direct-to-consumer drug advertising has provided the American public with a $4.5 billion reminder that there’s money to be made in the world of prescription drugs (U.S. Government Accountability Office). And there’s certainly a load of money to be made. A 2003 Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology study showed that, of every dollar spent on consumer drug advertising, $4.20 was recovered through increased sales (Impact of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising on Prescription Drug Spending; Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation). A $53,000 ad run three times during the Oprah Winfrey Show is money well invested for a drug manufacturer.

The knotty issue of medical errors has recently captured attention. Unintentional medical errors—-nurses administering the wrong medication, doctor misdiagnoses or amputating the wrong leg, unrecognized medication interactions—-are an estimated $29 billion headache. Former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, reported that up to 98,000 lives are lost every year as a result of errors in healthcare delivery.

No doubt, these are all enormous problems that plague our healthcare system.

But I am going to make the case for a much larger problem. The magnitude of this problem dwarfs that of medical errors. It’s not an issue of neglect, nor is it committed in error. It is built on intentionally committed acts, systematically conducted on a massive scale, and sustained by the participation of many. It is a plague of unprecedented proportions on the health care system. It requires the willing participation of parties at multiple levels, from lone medical practitioners, to hospitals, to multi-billion dollar medical device and drug manufacturers, even to institutions like the FDA and American Heart Association.

The problem is the bizarre situation that has evolved in health care for the heart. I specify health care for the heart, not heart disease, because actual disease is not always part of the equation. Astonishingly, much of the inflated cost of heart care is based on the feared specter of heart disease, the implied threat of heart disease, the possibility, sometimes vanishingly remote, of heart disease based on some harbinger of risk. Sometimes the disease itself is nowhere in sight.

The system thrives on a culture of fear, an open ticket to over-testing and profligate spending. Ads cleverly admonish you to “Do it for your family”. Nuclear stress testing alone generates $18 billion of costs. Yet this test is normal in 80% of people tested. Worse, the 20% of “abnormal” stress test results are not always indicative of genuine disease, they are “false positive,” and are a big part of the reason that 30% of heart catheterizations fail to show disease. “My arteries checked out okay!” relieved patients will declare?-but there may have been no reason to have pursued a costly test like catheterization in the first place. But the system makes far better sense when you understand that nuclear stress tests and heart catheterizations are the bread and butter of cardiologists and hospitals, and the ticket to more financially rewarding procedures.

This approach evolved in the 1960s, when coronary heart disease itself was impossibly difficult to diagnose until a catastrophe like heart attack declared itself. But in the 21st century, coronary heart disease is easily, inexpensively, and safely detectable, decades before heart attack risk looms over your life. Yet murky, risk-based tests like stress tests and cholesterol testing continue to dominate the practice of “heart disease detection” in real-life practice.

Make no mistake: This problem is huge. The cardiovascular health care system has mushroomed into a gargantuan profit-generating mechanism, far larger than is required to deliver essential heart care. In 2003, over $431.8 billion was spent in the U.S. on cardiovascular health care, $151.6 of this on coronary disease alone (American Heart Association, Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2007 Update). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services projects that total health care spending will double to $3.6 trillion by 2014, consuming 18.7 percent of the nation's economy, much of the increase due to expanding cardiovascular costs.

Most tragically, the system has grown through the exploitation of trust. The faith we have in doctors, hospitals, and the institutions and people associated with healthcare has been subverted into the service of profit. Many practitioners and institutions have chosen to operate under the guise of doing good but instead capitalize on the public’s willingness to accept as fact the need for a major heart procedure and all its associated costly trappings.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Heart scans know no race

27. March 2008 William Davis (0)

The New England Journal of Medicine just published a new analysis of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) database authored by Dr. Robert Detrano of University of California-Irvine.

As we would expect, the study confirmed the ability of heart scans and coronary calcium scoring to predict heart attack. This study is unique, hovever, in including Hispanics, Chinese Americans, and African Americans in its 6722 participants.

The analysis confirmed that coronary calcium scores yielded similar information, regardless of race. It confirmed that people with a zero heart scan score had a nearly zero risk of cardiovascular events; it also confirmed that higher scores (e.g., >300) yielded much greater risk over the 4 years of observation: 7.73-fold greater risk for people with scores 101-300; 9.67-fold greater for scores >300.

One of the media reports on the study can be viewed on HeartWire

Bill Sardi's Knowledge of Health website and blog also has an insightful commentary.

To those of us who have used heart scans in thousands of people, the MESA results come as no surprise, having seen these phenomena played out every day in real life. Although similar results have been previously shown in a number of other smaller studies, Detrano's analysis of MESA does serve to further validate these concepts. It also serves to deliver the message more broadly into the mainstream media message.

No surprise whatsoever: Coronary calcium scores obtained through heart scans represent a measure of the disease--coronary atherosclerosis--itself. It is not a risk factor that may or may not be associated with development of coronary atherosclerosis. Thus, when heart scan scores are held up in comparison the cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, or any other risk measure, heart scan scores outshine all these measures by enormous margins as predictors of your future.

Want to know what your uncorrected heart disease future could be? Consult your heart scan score. Not your cholesterol panel.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Heart Scan Frustration

27. March 2008 William Davis (4)

Ideally, you get a heart scan and your doctor sits down with you and provides a rational, insightful discussion on what the results mean.

Is heart attack in your future? If so, when? Are blockages present? What is the role of other tests like stress tests and heart catheterizations? Do CT coronary angiograms add any important information? What is the role of cholesterol? Can diet or nutritional supplements impact on heart scan score?

But what happens if you are unable to get the answers you desire? What if you get brusque responses, or your doctor just doesn't know? Or what if there is a clear conflict of interest or the possibility of financially-tainted advice? ("You need a heart catheterization right away or you'll die of a heart attack!")

One example of this process was posted by a frustrated Member of Track Your Plaque who found that answers were virtually unobtainable from his/her doctors:

I underwent a heart scan a few weeks ago, based on a recommendation from a doctor. I assumed that, since I was paying for it, and I requested it, the results would be fully explained to me.

Late on a Friday afternoon, the radiologist who intrepreted it called me and said I would be receiving a report, and so would the doctor. I asked that she explain them to me. She said their policy was to give the report to the doctor and let him explain them. She did say I was in the 90th percentile for my age--and that 10% had a worse score. I asked where do we go from here, and she said, if you're not having symptoms, maybe lifestyle changes, but YOUR DOCTOR will let you know. I asked for a copy of the films and reports, and was told YOUR DOCTOR can request them. I called back a little later and she was gone. It was starting to sink in that I must have a terrible score. In the meantime, I did what I should have done before I went for the scan---looked up information on the internet, and read about calcium scoring. This website [Track Your Plaque] hadn't showed up in my Google search, so a lot of the information was useless.

I did manage to get the score of 186, with the breakdown per artery from someone at the clinic, but only after I insisted I paid for the test, I have a right to the information. 'Course having a score per artery didn't really help---what did it mean? ie: if a 72, how did that correlate to any blockages? Was it a big lump...or spread along the wall throughout the artery.

I had an appt. the following Tuesday with THE DOCTOR---a very busy doctor. After an hour and 1/2 wait in a crowded waiting room, I got to see him. We discussed briefly another issue, and he started walking out. I followed him out and said I wanted my full l5 minutes of time allotted in their scheduling, which seemed to irritate him.

I followed him into his office and said, WHAT ABOUT THE HEART SCAN? What do the numbers mean? He responded that he didn't know, he'd have to see the films, but don't worry--you're probably ok, and I should get a thallium stress test anyway. He said he couldn't intrepret the numbers, or give an opinion on where the plaque was or how it was configured.

I then went to the interventional cardiologist that afternoon and the thallium stress test was scheduled. I asked about the HEART SCAN, and again, no acknowledgment. I asked if he would get the films and explain the results, and again no acknowledment as he was walking out the door.

After this lengthy saga.....MY QUESTION IS....since this is a test you can order yourself (literature at center made mention of the tests you can get without a doctors request)......WHO IS THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO WHEN IT COMES TO EXPLAINING THE RESULTS?

I learned more on this website [Track Your Plaque], and the emailed book then I did dealing with two doctors and the center itself. Thinking back, there was nothing but a brochure on the test at the center. No "Track your Plaque" stuff.

Day 2
I called the scanning center and relayed my dilemma. I was put in touch with another radiologist--a very informative one, who appeared passionate about heart scans as a preventive test. He compared them to mammograms. He hadn't heard about the "Track Your Plaque" program but was going to check it out. He said people varied in their responses to the test results, as well as doctors/cardiologists as to the next step. (ie: lifestyle changes..the next test, etc). He seemed to feel blockages of more than 50% for many cardiologists would indicated angioplasty and stenting.

I'm going back to review the films with him later this week. He wasn't that concerned with the 101 reading on the right artery. The 72 on the left he had concerns with and indicated the CAT test [CT angiography] would offer more as far as how much was there, and approx. blockage, and could be a baseline to compare to in the future. He said some cardiologists would go right to angioplasty...some to a CAT which is more conservative...some might watch and encourage lifestyle changes. He said the Heart Scan doesn't show soft plaque. He also said the internist who referred me was one of only a few in the city that felt strongly about the heart scan---and probably used it to take further action via a referral, and just didn't have time to discuss it, with the way medicine is run these days.

This Member's frustrated post pretty much sums it up:

1) Doctors don't seem to have the time nor motivation to be bothered about offering advice that leads to prevention of disease.

2) The tendency is to always ask, "Are heart procedures necessary?", not "How did this happen?" or "What can we do about this to keep it from getting worse?" How about diet, supplements, and other tools to use at home?

The obvious uneasiness of the radiologist, the last physician this Member spoke with, can just as easily lead to boneheaded advice: Maybe getting a stent isn't such a bad idea. Maybe a CT angiogram is an absolute necessity.

I hear comments like this every day. It is the reason why I continue to plug away at this program and try to set things straight.

By the way, subscribers to our Track Your Plaque Newsletter just heard about our latest success story, Roy, who dropped his heart scan score over 500 points. If you are yet not a newsletter subscriber, click here.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Dr. Nieca Goldberg and heart healthy

23. March 2008 William Davis (1)

In January, 2007, $11.6 billion (2006 net sales) cereal manufacturing giant General Mills rolled out three million boxes of Wheat Chex and Multi-Bran Chex, each boasting a picture of cardiologist, Dr. Nieca Goldberg's face on the box.

Dr. Goldberg has been a frequent national spokeswoman for the American Heart Association (AHA). In a media interview, American Heart Association President, Dr. Alice Jacobs, stated that she supports Dr. Goldberg's work with the General Mills’ products. "The AHA is always in favor of educating the public on how to make heart-healthy lifestyle choices." Dr. Jacobs added that the AHA doesn't consider Goldberg's appearance on the cereal boxes ‘an endorsement’ of the products. "The content on the box is basic heart health information," she said.

Putting images of someone like Dr. Goldberg on cereal boxes appeals to a certain audience, mothers worried about health in this instance. Manufacturers recognize that the perceptions of their food need to be created and nurtured.

Eerily reminiscent of tobacco company tactics of the 20th century? Recall the Brown and Williamson claim that Kool cigarettes keep the head clear and provide extra protection against colds? Lucky Strike, Chesterfield, and Camels all promoted the health benefits of cigarettes, including prominent endorsements by physicians.

How about Philip Morris’ ads for Virginia Slims cigarettes: "You've come a long way, baby"? Interestingly, food manufacturing behemoths Kraft and Nabisco were both majority-owned by Philip Morris, now renamed Altria.

Take a look at the composition of these two "heart healthy" breakfast cereals endorsed by Dr. Nieca Goldberg and the American Heart Association:

Products like this:

--Make people fat--abdominal fat (wheat belly)
--Reduce HDL cholesterol
--Raise triglycerides
--Dramatically increase small LDL
--Increase inflammatory responses
--Increase blood pressure
--Increase likelihood of diabetes

These products are sugar and sugar-equivalents with a little fiber thrown in and a lot of marketing propaganda, aided and abetted by the misguided antics of the American Heart Association and Dr. Goldberg. It's hard to believe that Dr. Goldberg would sell her soul on something so knuckleheaded for a moment of notoriety.

As I've often said, if a product bears the AHA Check Mark of approval, be sure not to buy it.

Disease Engineering

Dr. Steven Gundry on The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show

Does fish oil ADD to statin therapy?

HDL: “H” is for “happy”

Plaquology

Thyroid perspective update

Accidental Health

Livin' La Vida Low Carb interview

Wheat withdrawal: How common?

Treat the patient, not the test

Track Your Plaque data abstract