Yet another piece of mass media misinformation hit the airwaves today. This time it's not from the New York Times or the LA Times, both of which have previously mangled the issues surrounding heart scans. This time it's from the Boston Globe.

In an article titled What is a calcium scan for heart disease, and who should undergo the test?, the report states:

". . . calcium scans may not be a good idea, or prove terribly useful, for most people. For one thing, the scans expose a patient to significant radiation - equivalent to roughly 50 chest X-rays" said Dr. Warren Manning, chief of noninvasive cardiac imaging at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center."

As many before him, Dr. Manning is confusing two tests: CT coronary angiography and CT heart scanning. Perhaps we can't blame him: This technology has had its weakest following in the northeast, for reasons not entirely clear to me. (In fact, Track Your Plaque followers have had the greatest struggle obtaining heart scans in that part of the country.) Nonetheless, you'd think he'd have his simple facts straight before talking to the press. Unfortunately, hospital public relations departments will usually just grab whoever they can willing to talk to the press--regardless of their expertise or lack of.

The story goes on to say:

. . ." it's not clear what to do with the results from a calcium scan. If you have diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or a family history of heart disease, you already know - or should know - that you are at increased risk of heart problems and should lower these risk factors. So, a calcium scan provides little additional information," Manning said.

"Moreover, even a high score doesn't necessarily mean that the calcified plaque in your arteries is obstructing blood flow, said Dr. Adolph Hutter, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital."

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death," said Manning.

And if you get a low calcium score, a sign of little or no calcification of plaques, that's not very useful, either, because it could be wrong, or it could be right but lull you into believing you do not have to exercise and watch your diet, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels. "You can still be at risk even if your calcium test is negative," Hutter said.

It is truly shocking how little many (not all, thank goodness) of my colleagues really know about 1) heart scans, 2) coronary disease prevention, and 3) prevention in general. These same "experts" likely advocate high-dose statin drugs and low-fat diets for people at risk. They likely refer patients to the American Heart Association for diet advice and themselves obtain a lot of information from the pharmaceutical industry. The notion of identification, tracking, and purposeful reversal of coronary plaque is entirely foreign to this bunch.

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death." Well, take a look at a graph from a database of 25,000 people undergoing heart scans then observed for several years afterwards:

You can see quite clearly from the curves that heart scan scores very clearly predict your future (if no preventive action is taken). The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of heart attack and death. How much clearer can it get?

The most recent addition to this literature is the PREDICT study which concluded:

Hazard ratios relative to CACS [coronary artery calcium scores] in the range 0-10 Agatston units (AU) were: CACS 11-100 AU, 5.4 (P = 0.02); 101-400 AU 10.5 (P = 0.001); 401-1000 AU, 11.9 (P = 0.001), and >1000 AU, 19.8 (P < 0.001).

In other words, a heart scan score of >1000 is associated with a 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events (without preventive efforts). That kind of predictive power and quantitative confidence simply cannot be squeezed out of blood pressure and cholesterol values.

How about the 2008 University of California-Irvine study from the New England Journal of Medicine (do the northeast docs even pay attention to something that is published in their own neighborhood?) that reported:

There were 162 coronary events, of which 89 were major events (myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease). In comparison with participants with no coronary calcium, the adjusted risk of a coronary event was increased by a factor of 7.73 among participants with coronary calcium scores between 101 and 300 and by a factor of 9.67 among participants with scores above 300 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among the four racial and ethnic groups, a doubling of the calcium score increased the risk of a major coronary event by 15 to 35% and the risk of any coronary event by 18 to 39%.

How about the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project (men average age 43 years):

"In these men, coronary calcium was associated with an 11.8-fold increased risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (p = 0.002) in a Cox model controlling for the Framingham risk score. Among those with coronary artery calcification, the risk of coronary events increased incrementally across tertiles of coronary calcium severity (hazard ratio 4.3 per tertile)."

Calcium score provided additional information even after factoring in the Framingham risk score.

That's just a sample of the studies. There are a number more.

Add to these conversations the fact that, unlike reducing blood pressure or LDL cholesterol, the heart scan score is a quantification of the disease itself. It can also be tracked over time to gauge the success or failure of prevention efforts. To believe that blood pressure reduction or LDL cholesterol reduction is sufficient to eliminate risk is something only a fool would believe.

Contary to the above statements, the data are clear:

--The higher the heart scan score, the greater the risk. This has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt in at least a dozen published studies. In fact, heart scan scores outshine lipid/cholesterol values several-fold.

--A person with a zero score has a nearly zero risk for cardiovascular events over a 5-year timeline.

--Heart scans are the only quantitative test available of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. This means that they can be repeated to gauge progression or regression. Cholesterol does not do that. Stress tests do not do that.

--Heart scans are not the same as CT coronary angiography.

--The lack of "need" for a procedure does not equate to the absence of disease.

The power of heart scans is that they can uncover evidence for coronary atherosclerotic plaque 10 years before a cardiac disaster strikes. Witness Tim Russert's heart scan score of 210 in 1998 at age 48. 10 years later, you know what happened.

Beware the camipaign of misinformation and ignorance that continues that is hell-bent on maintaining the procedural status quo or locking us into a "drugs for all" mentality.

There are a number of ways to view the blood sugar-raising or insulin-provoking effect of foods.

One way is glycemic index (GI), simply a measure of how high blood sugar is raised by a standard quantity of a food compared to table sugar. Another is glycemic load (GL), a combination (multiplied) of glycemic index and carbohydrate content per serving.

Table sugar has a GI of 65, a GL of 65.

Obviously, table sugar is not good for you. The content of white table sugar in the American diet has exploded over the last 100 years, totaling over 150 lb per year for the average person. (Humans are not meant to consume any.)

What is the GI of Rice Krispies cereal, organic or not? GI = 82-- higher than table sugar. GL is 72, also higher than table sugar.

How about Corn Flakes? GI 81, GL 70--also both higher than sugar.

How about those rice cakes that many dieters will use to quell hunger? GI 78, GL 64.

How about Shredded Wheat cereal? GI 75, GL 62.

All of the above foods with GI's and GL's that match or exceed that of table sugar are made of wheat and cornstarch. Some, like Shredded Wheat cereal and rice cakes, don't even have any added sugar.

Stay clear of these foods if you have low HDL, high triglycerides, high blood sugar, or small LDL. Or, for that matter, if you are human.

Keep the eloquent words of New York University nutritionist, Marion Nestle, author of the book, Food Politics, in mind:

“Food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.” ??

By now, I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the hydrogenated, trans fat issue.

Hydrogenation of polyunsaturated oils was a popular practice (and still is) since the 1960s, as food manufacturers sought a substitute for saturated fat. Bubbling high-pressure hydrogen through oils like cottonseed, soybean, and corn generates trans fatty acids. These man-made fatty acids, while safe in initial safety testing, proved to be among the biggest nutritional mistakes of the 20th century.

Trans fatty acids have been associated with increased LDL cholesterol, reduction in HDL, oxidative reactions, abnormal rigidity when incorporated into cell membranes, and cancer. Trans fats still dominate many processed foods like chips, cookies, non-dairy creamers, food mixes, and thousands of others. They're also found prominently in fast foods.

Fast forward to today, and most Americans have become aware of the dangers of trans fats and many try to avoid them.

But I worry there is yet another substance that has worked its way into the American processed food cornucopia that has some potential for repeating the trans fat debacle: sterol esters.

Sterols are naturally-occurring oils found in vegetables, nuts, and numerous other foods in small quantities. Most of us take in 200-400 milligrams per day just by eating plant-sourced foods.

Curiously, the chemical structure of sterols are very similar to human cholesterol (differing at one carbon atom). Sterols, by not fully understood means, block the intestinal absorption of cholesterol. Thus, sterol esters, as well as the similar stanol esters, have been used to reduce blood levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

So far, so good.

The initial commercial products, released in the late 1990s, were Take Control (sterol) and Benecol (stanol), both of which were marketed to reduce cholesterol when 2-3 tbsp are used daily, providing 3400 – 5100 mg of sterol or stanol esters, about 10- to 20-fold more than we normally obtain from foods. Several clinical trials have conclusively confirmed that these products reduce cholesterol levels.

They do indeed perform as advertised. Add either product to your daily diet and LDL cholesterol is reduced by about 10-15%. In fact, in the original Track Your Plaque book, these products were advocated as a supplemental means of reducing LDL when other methods fell short.

In 2008, there are now hundreds of products that have additional quantities of sterol esters in them, such as orange juice, mayonnaise, yogurt, breakfast cereals, even nutritional supplements. Most of these products proudly bear claims like "heart healthy." Stanol esters have not enjoyed the same widespread application. (I believe there may be patent issues or other considerations. However, it's the sterols that are the principal topic here, not stanols.)

Now, here's where it gets a bit tricky. There is a rare (1 per million) disease called sitosterolemia, a genetic disorder that permits the afflicted to absorb more than the usual quantity of sterols from the intestine. While you and I obtain some amount of sterols from plant-based foods, absorption is poor, and we absorb <10% of sterols ingested. However, people with sitosterolemia absorb sterols far more efficiently, resulting in high blood levels of sterols that result in coronary disease and aortic valve disease, with heart attacks occurring as young as late teens or 20s. Treatment to block sterol absorption are used to treat these people.

There are also a larger number, though still uncommon (1/500) of people who have only one of the two genes that young people with sitosterolemia have. These people may have an intermediate capacity for sterol absorption.

Okay, so what does this have to do with you? Well, if you and I now take in 10-20 times greater amounts of sterol esters, do our blood levels of sterols increase?

Several studies now suggest that, yes, sterol blood levels increase with sterol ingestion. One study from Finland, the STRIP Study, showed that children who had double usual sterol intake increased blood levels by around 50%.

Similarly, a Johns Hopkins study in adults with only one of the genes ("heterozygotes") for sitosterolemia increased sterol blood levels by between 54-116% by ingesting 2200 mg of sterols added per day, despite reduction of LDL cholesterol levels.

Even people with neither gene for sitosterol hyperabsorption can increase their blood levels of sterols. But the crucial question: Do the blood levels of sterols that occur in unaffected people or in heterozygotes increase the risk of coronary heart disease? The answer is not known.

Despite the several clinical trials performed with sterol esters, all of them have examined LDL and total cholesterol reduction as endpoints, not cardiovascular events. It is conceivable that, while sterol esters reduce cholesterol, risk for heart disease is increased due to higher blood levels of sterols.

The question is not settled. For now, it is just a suspicion. But that's enough for me to steer clear of processed foods supplemented with these uncertain sterol esters. My previous recommendations for sterol ester products will be removed with the next edition of Track Your Plaque. Until we have solid evidence that there are no adverse cardiovascular effects of sterol esters, in my view they should not be part of anyone's heart-disease prevention program.

(The same argument does not seem to apply to stanol esters, such as that contained in butter-substitute Benecol, since stanol esters are not absorbed at all and remain confined to the intestine.)

Lou came into the office. Clearly, his program had gone sour.

Lou had initially obtained wonderful control over his heart scan score of 1114, having reversed modestly in his first three years of effort through correction of his multiple causes (including low HDL, severe small LDL, Lp(a), and a diabetic tendency).

But Lou now came into the office red-faced and sporting a big bulging abdomen. Blood sugar? Now in the overtly diabetic range. Lou said that his primary care doctor had suggested that he start on three new medications (glucophage, injectable Byetta, and Actos) to control his blood sugar. His doctor also told him to increase his intake of fibers by eating more "healthy" breakfast cereals like Cheerios.

Lou had apparently done just that (added "healthy" fiber-rich foods) even before his doctor had suggested it. (Lou failed to remember the several conversations we'd had about healthy eating.) Unfortunately, Lou also failed to connect his increased intake of "healthy fiber-rich foods" and his growing abdominal girth (his "wheat belly").

Here's the dirty little secret: Much of the world wants you to be diabetic. It is the health gold rush of this century. "Go West, young man!"

To find out what I mean, you need only ask: Who profits when people become diabetic? That's easy:

The pharmaceutical industry--Diabetes is a booming growth industry, a source of tens of billions of dollars of revenue, poised for enormous growth as the population ages and gets fatter. It is common for a newly-diagnosed diabetic to be given new prescriptions for two or three drugs with a monthly cost of $300. Of course, the chronic nature of the disease make this far more profitable than, say, a two week course of antibiotics. Presently, 70 new drugs are under development.

Diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk reported a 25% increase in revenues in 2007 from diabetic agents in the North American market, along with near $2 billion increase in profit for the year. Merck's recently-released DPP-4 inhibitor, Januvia, has already sold $668 million in 2007 and is growing rapidly.

The medical device and supply industry. Take a look at the Medtronic quarterly earnings report, detailing the breakdown of their record-setting quarterly revenue of $3.7 billion:

Diabetes revenue of $269 million grew 12 percent driven by sales
of consumables, the accessories required by insulin pump users, and
continuous glucose monitoring products. Revenue from international
sales grew 31 percent over the same quarter last year.

That's what I call a growth industry.

The processed food industry. The food industry is as big or bigger than the drug industry. ADM, Kraft, General Mills all have annual revenues in the $12-50 billion range. There are plenty of others.

When we're told, for instance, that Cheerios reduces cholesterol, we're not told that it skyrockets blood sugar or triggers small LDL. When we're sold whole wheat crackers, Cocoa Puffs (which the American Heart Asscociation says is heart-healthy), or granola bars, hunger is stimulated, impulse to eat more grows, blood sugar escalates, we get fat, we get diabetic. It's a simple formula.

So be aware that there is little incentive among corporate giants in the food, medical device, or drug industries to encourage behaviors that decrease the incidence of diabetes. In fact, there is enormous financial incentive to make sure that diabetes continues to grow at the startling rate it has over the last decade.

To be sure, the drug and medical device industry will also develop better tools to deal with diabetes and its complications. But the very best way to deal with diabetes is to not develop it in the first place.

This question comes up frequently:

Aren't there any alternatives to heart scans performed on a CT or EBT device?

Yes, there are.

First of all, heart scans are performed best on an electron-beam CT device (EBT) or a 64-slice multi-detector CT (MDCT) device. (While they are also obtainable through less-than-64 slice CT devices (e.g., 16 slices and less), I would advise against it because of the excessive radiation exposure and poor accuracy.) CT heart scans are not to be confused with now more popular CT coronary angiograms, which are performed on the same devices but require intravenous x-ray dye and many times more radiation.(See CT scans and radiation exposure and Heart scan frustration.) Heart scans currently form the basis for the Track Your Plaque program, a program of tracking plaque in the hopes of stopping or reversing the otherwise inevitable 30% per year increase.

Let's confine our discussion to people without symptoms, meaning people like you and me sitting at home, not in an emergency room having chest pain or other similar acute symptomatic presentation.

Among the other ways to uncover hidden coronary plaque:

--Heart catheterization--to yield a coronary angiogram. Yes, this does tell us whether coronary plaque is present. However, it is invasive, expensive, and crude. (I've performed 5000 over my career; they are crude, though useful, tools in acute settings like unstable symptoms or heart attack, a different situation.) Coronary angiography is also non-quantitative. While they provide a value like "40% blockage mid-way in right coronary" or "90% blockage in left anterior descending" they do not provide a trackable lengthwise index of total plaque volume. Identifying severe blockages in people with symptoms leads to stents, bypass surgery and the like, but it is not practical nor of long-term usefulness in apparently, healthy people without symptoms.

--Carotid ultrasound--Here's is where a lot of confusion comes from. Standard carotid ultrasound (U/S) performed in virtually every hospital and many clinics will yield crude qualitative results, e.g., "16-49% stenosis (blockage) in right internal carotid artery". The crude value range is because much of carotid U/S is based on flow velocities, not just direct visualization of the plaque itself ("2-D imaging). However, if carotid stenosis of any degree is identified, the likelihood of silent coronary plaque is much greater.

Limitations: The qualitative, non-quantitative nature of carotid U/S make it difficult to follow long-term in a precise way. Also, this is carotid plaque, not coronary plaque. It makes it very difficult to follow carotid plaque as an indirect means of tracking coronary plaque. The two arterial territories, carotid and coronary, do not track together: there are divergences in many people, with carotid plaque absent in some people with advanced coronary plaque, carotid plaque more susceptible to different risk factors than coronary. So carotid U/S is helpful for its own purposes, but not terribly helpful for coronary tracking.

How about carotid intimal-medial thickness (CIMT) obtained also with carotid U/S? CIMT is a useful index of bodywide atherosclerosis. CIMT is simply a measure not of plaque (and is measured in regions of the carotid artery away from plaque), but of the thickness of the lining of the carotid arteries. Everybody has a measurable CIMT, but it thickens as atherosclerosis grows. CIMT is a radiation-free test that takes several minutes.

Limitations: Hardly anybody does it outside of research protocols. I know of no hospital or clinic in my area that performs CIMT, though it is slowly being adopted in some centers. It is also difficult to rely on repeated tests, because there is substantial variation when one technologist or another performs it. CIMT is also a flawed index of coronary plaque. When CIMT is compared to heart scan scores, CT coronary angiography, or conventional coronary angiography, CIMT correlates about 60-70% with the degree of coronary atherosclerosis.

CIMT is therefore a useful test for research, but a distant 2nd choice--if you can obtain it.

--Ankle-brachial index (ABI)--ABI is a crude measure, simply a comparison of the blood pressure (obtained with a blood pressure cuff) in the legs divided by blood pressure in the arms. The ratio is called ABI. Any ABI <1.0, meaning less pressure in the legs compared to the arms, is indirectly indicative of advanced coronary disease. ABI is, in fact, a very powerful predictor of cardiovascular events. If ABI is <1.0, your future risk for heart attack is very high, even in the absence of symptoms.

Limitations: The vast majority of people with heart disease, even those having undergone stents or bypass surgery, have normal ABI's. Virtually all people with high heart scan scores have normal ABI's. In other words, ABI is a measure of very advanced atherosclerosis only.

--Stress tests--I lump all stress tests together in their various forms, e.g., stress thallium, stress Cardiolite, stress Myoview, persantine/adenosine Cardiolite, dobutamine echocardiography, etc. Stress tests are tests of coronary blood flow, not of plaque. Stress tests are useful in people with symptoms, like chest pain or breathlessness, since stress tests are provocative tests that can help determine whether reduced coronary blood flow is the cause behind a symptom, or whether hiatal hernia, esophagitis, gallstones, pleurisy, musculoskeletal causes, or some other process is behind symptoms.

Limitations: Stress test are virtually useless in people without symptoms. This is why people like Tim Russert and Bill Clinton, both without symptoms, underwent several (Russert 3, Clinton 5) nuclear stress tests---all normal. You know what happened to them. Stress tests do not reliably uncover hidden coronary plaque in people without symptoms. Stress tests are, like coronary angiograms, non-quantitative. They are normal or abnormal.

Outside of experimental settings, that's it.

You can probably see why I advocate CT heart scans for tracking plaque. I do not advocate heart scans because I sell them (I don't), because scan centers pay me to say these things (they don't, and in fact my relationship with my usual heart scan centers has become deeply contentious, though I still endorse the technology). I say that heart scans are superior because they are, in 2008, the only way to 1) identify and 2) track coronary plaque that is easy, safe, low-radiation, and reasonably priced (<$200 in Milwaukee at 5 centers).

The need for a technology that allows tracking of plaque, not just initial identification, is also an important distinction. People who've had some measure of atherosclerosis all catch on to this eventually. "Can I reverse it?" is an inevitable question once the disease is identified in some way. So a tool for tracking over time to gauge the success or failure of a program of prevention can be assessed.

Perhaps in 10 years, another technology will emerge as the preferred means to do the same, but better. If that proves true, we will convert to that technology. But today heart scans performed on CT heart scans are the only rational way to both detect, then track, coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let's play a game.

I'm going to list some lipid patterns and you tell me whether or not the person with these values has heart disease.

Patient 1

Total cholesterol 150 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 75 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
Triglycerides 125 mg/dl

Patient 2

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 200 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 35 mg/dl
Triglycerides 325

Patient 3

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 100 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 25 mg/dl
Triglycerides 875 mg/dl

Let's say that any one of these profiles is yours. Should you be getting your affairs in order, preparing for your cardiac catastrophe? Should you demand a stress test from your doctor, hoping that it will shed some light on your dilemma? Should you go ahead and go to the all-you-can-eat rib restaurant, content that you will be attending your granddaughger's wedding in 2020 in full health?

If you can tell, you're a lot better at this than I am.

I provide consultation to other physicians and patients on complex hyperlipidemias in my area. In other words, if someone has a difficulty to manage lipid disorder, the doctor sends the patient to me.

Managing these wildly variable values is the easy part. Deciding whether or not heart disease is concealed within the patient . . . well, that's the hard part.

Let's take it a step further: Suppose all three profiles also have 50% of all LDL particles as the abnormal small particles. And they all have a lipoprotein(a) level of 50 mg/dl, an abnormally high level.

How about now: Can you tell whether any or all of these people have hidden heart disease?

What if they are 20 years old? Does that make a difference?

What if they are all females over 65 years--how about now?

If the only tool you have to divine the presence of hidden heart disease is a lipid panel, or even a lipoprotein panel, then the best you can manage is to hazard a guess based on statistical probability. You also assume that this "snapshot" represents the sorts of values someone has had for their entire lives. You cannot factor in the fact that the first person gained 60 lbs in the last three years since completing menopause. You can't factor in that patient 2 smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years, but quit 10 years ago.

It's also foolhardy to believe that every known cause of heart disease is currently identifiable and revealed by modern-day blood testing.

A heart scan is simply a means to quantify the sum-total of risk factors--causes--that have exerted an effect up until the moment of your scan. It will reveal the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present, regardless of whether you stopped smoking 20 years ago or lost 30 lbs last year.

For these reasons, nothing can replace the value of quantifying plaque: not cholesterol, not the Framingham risk calculation, not measures of small LDL or lipoprotein(a), not the presence or absence of symptoms. In 2008, the method of choice for measuring plaque remains a CT heart scan. Perhaps in 10 years it will be some other method.

As always, let me remind Heart Scan Blog viewers that I make this point NOT to sell heart scans, which I have no reason whatsoever to do. I say this because we require a tool to track this potentially fatal disease. We require a yardstick for tracking progression or regression. The only tool that suits these purposes in 2008 is a CT heart scan.

You know that cynical old saying:

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

In other words, knowing the right person provides you strategic advantage in business, social advancement, etc.

In health, it was often true. Knowing who the better doctors were, for instance, in your city might provide you with access to better care.

Enter the Information Age. You now have access to medical information equal to that of your doctor. You now have access to patient discussions about doctors, their practices, their performance records. There is now a depth and breadth of information on health that was never available before.

I’d therefore turn the old saying into the new Health 2.0 version:

It’s not who you know, it’s what you know.

In health, information now reigns supreme, not knowing somebody else who has the right connections.

Positive: Everybody now theoretically has access to an equal amount of information, since you can access information on any topic just as easily as I can.

Negative: It puts more of the burden on you. If you screw up in health, perhaps you didn’t try to get the best information hard enough.

I love this new development, this emergence of empowerment in health. I call it self-directed health, the individual capacity to exert enormous influence over the quality of your healthcare.

This is obviously a work in progress. All the answers and tools for self-directed care, self-empowerment are not yet available, some haven’t even yet been imagined.

But they are coming.

“Do you really think I need a heart scan?” asked Terry.

“My doctor said that heart scans show too many false positives. He says that many people end up getting unnecessary heart catheterizations because of them.”

At age 56, Terry was becoming increasingly frightened. His father had suffered his first heart attack at age 53, Terry’s paternal uncle had a heart attack at age 56, his paternal grandfather a heart attack at age 50.

Is this true? Do heart scans yield too many false positives, meaning abnormal results when there really is no abnormality?

No, it is not. What Terry’s doctor is referring to is the fact that, in the decades-long process that leads to heart attack, heart scans have the ability to detect early phases of developing coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let’s take Terry’s case, for example. Given his family history, it is quite likely that he does indeed have coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Will it be detectable by performing a stress test? Probably not. In fact, Terry jogs and feels well while doing so. While a stress test abnormality that fails to reach conscious perception is possible, it’s fairly unlikely given his exercise routine.

Will Terry’s coronary atherosclerotic plaque be detectable by heart catheterization? Very likely. But why perform an invasive hospital procedure just as a screening test? Should a woman wishing to undergo a screening test for breast cancer undergo breast removal? Of course not.

Is waiting for symptoms a rational way to approach diagnosis of heart disease? Well, when symptoms appear, it means that coronary blood flow is reduced. Stents and bypass surgery may be indicated. The risk of heart attack and death skyrocket. Sudden death becomes a real possibility.

In the 30 or so years required to establish sufficient coronary plaque to permit the appearance of symptoms or the development of an abnormality detectable by stress testing, there were many years when the disease was early--too early to generate symptoms, too early to be detectable by stress testing.

That’s when heart scans uncover evidence for silent coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Should we call this a “false positive” just because it doesn’t also correlate with “need” for a catheterization, stent, bypass operation or result in heart attack within the next few weeks?

The detection of early plaque is just that: early disease detection.

Imagine, for instance, that the breast cancer that will grow into a palpable nodule or mass detectable by mammogram is detectable by a special breast scan 15 years before it becomes a full-blown tumor, metastasizing to other organs. What if effective means to halt that earliest evidence of cancer could put a stop to this devastating disease decades ahead of danger? Is this a “false positive” too?

In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

So, no, heart scans do not uncover “false positives.” They uncover early disease--true positives--years before it is detectable by standard tests or by the appearance of catastrophe. But that is the whole point: Early detection means getting a head start on prevention.

Do heart scans lead to unnecessary heart catheterizations? Yes, sadly they do. But not because heart scans are false positive. It happens because of unscrupulous or ignorant cardiologists who use the information wrongly. In my view, heart scans should NEVER lead directly to heart catheterization in an asymptomatic patient. Heart scans, as helpful as they are, do not modify the standard reasons for performing heart procedures.

If a car mechanic is dishonest and fixes a carburetor that didn't need fixing, should we condemn all car mechanics? No, of course not. We only need to develop the means to weed out the bad apples. The same applies to heart scans.

Here's a bit of lipid tedium that might nonetheless help you one day decipher the meaning of shifts in your cholesterol panel.

Recall from prior discussions that conventional LDL cholesterol is a calculated value. Contrary to popular opinion, LDL is usually not measured, but calculated from the Friedewald equation:

LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5

For the sake of simplicity, let's call total cholesterol TC; HDL cholesterol HDL, and triglycerides TG.

We've also talked in past how a low HDL makes calculated LDL inaccurate, sometimes wildly so. (See Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar.)

Here's yet another source of inaccuracy of the Friedewald-calculated LDL: any increase in triglycerides.

Let's say, for instance, that starting lipid panel shows:

TC 170 mg/dl
LDL 100 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 100 mg/dl

You're advised to follow a standard low-fat, whole grain-rich diet advocated by "official" agencies (the diet I bash as knuckleheaded). Another panel a few months later shows:

TC 230 mg/dl
LDL 140 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 200 mg/dl

(Obviously, I've oversimplified the response for the sake of argument. HDL would likely go down, LDL would change more depending on body weight, small LDL tendencies, and other factors. You'd also likely get fat.)

Now your doctor declares that your LDL has gone up and you "need" a statin agent.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

What has really happened is that the increased dietary intake of wheat and other "healthy whole-grain foods" has caused triglycerides to skyrocket. LDL increases, in turn, by a factor of TG/5, or 40 mg/dl. Thus, LDL has been inflated by the triglyceride-raising effect of whole grains.

This is yet another reason why the standard lipid panel, full of hazards and landmines, needs to be abandoned. But calculated LDL in particular is an exercise in frustration.

Though the example used is hypothetical, I've witnessed this effect thousands of times. I've also seen many people placed on statin drugs unnecessarily, due to the appearance of a high LDL cholesterol that really represented increased TG/5, usually induced by an excessive carbohydrate intake, including those commonly misrepresented as healthy such as whole grains.

In the Heart Scan Blog, I am often guilty of speaking out loud of my varied thoughts on this crazy thing that we've created called the cardiovascular healthcare machine. But I discuss it in the context of asking "How could this be done better--better outcomes, more patient-friendly, more accessible . . . more do-it-yourself?

The last part is the part that throws most people. Do-it-yourself? My colleagues would claim I'm nuts, suggesting that coronary heart disease is something manageable by yourself. In the conventional pathway, after all, coronary disease is that unpredictable, poorly detected by standard tests, condition that then leads to heart catheterization, stents, bypass , and the like.

Several factors distinguish the readers of The Heart Scan Blog that surprised me:

--Nearly 60% are women
--There are a disproportionate number of Asian people. (Can someone explain this to me?)
--A great number have graduate degrees

I believe this tells me that The Heart Scan Blog appeals to a somewhat more sophisticated audience. This, to some degree, warms my heart, since it means that I've captured the attention of some people who may be more discriminating and thoughtful in their Internet surfing.

However, I also lament the fact that these conversations are not achieving the mainstream. After all,

Alex had lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), at a high level. With a heart scan score of 541 at age 53, treatment of this pattern would be crucial to his success.

Part of Alex's treatment program was niacin. However, Alex complained about the niacin "flush" to his primary care physician. So, his doctor told him to stop the niacin and replace it with a statin drug (Vytorin in this case).

Is this a satisfactory replacement? Do statin drugs reduce Lp(a)?

No, they do not. In fact, that's how I often meet people who have Lp(a): Their doctor will prescribe a statin drug for a high LDL cholesterol that results in a poor response. The patient will be told that statin drugs don't work for them. In reality, they have Lp(a) concealed in the LDL that makes the LDL resistant to treatment.

Lp(a) responds to a limited number of treatments, like niacin, testosterone, estrogen, and DHEA. But not to statin drugs.

Now, statin drugs may still pose a benefit through LDL reduction. But they do virtually nothing for the Lp(a) itself. Unfortunately, most practicing physicians rarely go any farther than Lipitor, Zocor, Vytorin, and the like.

If your doctor tries to shove a statin drug on you as a treatment for Lp(a), put up a fight. Voice your objections that statins do not reduce Lp(a).

(Image courtesy of Brandon Blinkenberg and Wikipedia.)

What do breakfast cereals and toilet paper have in common?

You guessed it: They both belong in the toilet.

If you would like some insight into why your friends and neighbors have protruding bellies that conceal any glimpse of their toes, have to conduct that peculiar side-to-side gait that now characterizes many Americans' walking style, and are pre-diabetic or diabetic, look no further than your supermarket cereal aisle.

The Fanatic Cook has some particularly biting comments about this strangely American phenomenon at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com.

Breakfast cereals range in quality from awful to bad. I don't know of any that fit into the Track Your Plaque program that aims to eliminate the risk of heart disease.

A number of our Track Your Plaque Members have encountered unexpected difficulty obtaining the 2nd page of their NMR Lipoprofile lipoprotein results when their blood was drawn in a LabCorp laboratory. This is the page that displays the lipoprotein subclasses in graphic format: VLDL, IDL, LDL, and HDL subclasses.

If you are unable to view page 2, you're stuck with the averaged values displayed on page 1. In my view, page 1 is is a drastically "watered down" version that sacrifices some crucial information, particularly if you use NMR lipoprotein analysis in a serial fashion, comparing one study to the next over time.

Why would LabCorp do this? The response I received from a Mr. Theo McCormick, Director of Marketing at LabCorp, was some corporate-speak about . . . Actually, I'm not sure what he was saying. (Members can read the complete Track Your Plaque conversation in the Forum.)

In my view, withholding this information is none of their business. If you or your insurance company paid for the test, then the information is yours to view. This would be like saying that "Sure you paid for the blood test, but we decided that you really won't know what to do with it, so we're keeping it from you."

Please send your objections to the contact info below. Several of the Members who have participated in the Track Your Plaque Forum conversation have already done so. It can only help to add to the growing objections to this silly and unfair practice.

Alternatively, just boycott any laboratory associated with LabCorp. If they are capable of such ridiculous withholding of information, who knows what else these people do?

Contact info:

Theo McCormick, Director of Marketing
Laboratory Corporation of America
1904 Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone 919-572-7454 (Direct)
919-361-7700 Main
Fax 919-361-7149
theo_mccormick@labcorp.com

Until we hear about some real action from them, please DO NOT USE ANY LABCORP LABORATORY.

I hope I'm not getting my hopes up prematurely, but I believe that I've seen it once again: Dramatic reversal of aortic valve disease.

This 64-year old man came to me because of a heart scan score of 212. Jack proved to have small LDL, lipoprotein(a), and pre-diabetes. But there was a wrench in the works: Because of a new murmur, we obtain an echocardiogram that revealed a mildly stiff ("stenotic") aortic valve, one of the heart valves within the heart that can develop abnormal stiffness with time.

You can think of aortic valve disease as something like arthritis--a phenomenon of "wear and tear" that progresses over time, but doesn't just go away. In fact, the usual history is that, once detected, we expect it to get worse over the next few years. The stiff aortic valve eventually causes symptoms like chest pains, breathlessness, lightheadedness, and in very severe cases, passing out. For this reason, when symptoms appear, most cardiologists recommend surgical aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or a bio-prosthetic ("pig") valve.

Now, Jack's first aortic valve area (the parameter we follow by echocardiogram representing the effective area of the valve opening when viewed end on) was 1.6 cm2. A year later: 1.4 cm2. One year later again: 1.1 cm2.

In other words, progressive deterioration and a shrinking valve area. Most people begin to develop symptoms when they drop below 1.0 cm2.

Resigned to a new valve sometime in the next year or two, Jack underwent yet another echocardiogram: Valve area 1.8 cm2.

Is this for real? I had Jack come into the office. Lo and behold, to my shock and amazement, the prominent heart murmur he had all along was now barely audible.

I'm quite excited. However, it remains too early to get carried away. I've now seen this in a handful of people, all with aortic valve disease.

Aortic valve stenosis is generally regarded as a progressive disease that must eventually be corrected with surgery--period. The only other strategy that has proven to be of any benefit is Crestor 40 mg per day, an intolerable dose in my experience.

If the vitamin D effect on aortic valve disease proves consistent in future, even in a percentage of people, then hallelujah! We will be tracking this experience in future.

I asked one of the CT technologists at Milwaukee Heart Scan what quesetions are often asked by people undergoing their first CT heart scan.

"That's easy," she said. " 'How often do you call an ambulance?' "

She went on. "People are very scared when they have their heart scan. In fact, some people don't even want to see their heart scan images and don't want to know their score--even after they paid $200 for the scan!"

I think she's right. People often remember the headlines that some heart scan centers have used: "Heart scan saved so and so's life!," when a high score led to a heart catheterization, stents, or bypass surgery. It's the sort of headline that gives people the impression that ambulances pull up to the scan center whenever a score is high.

So, how often is an ambulance called to the scan center? Never. Not once. A CT heart scan score is NEVER an emergency.

Emergencies occur in other places when people can't breathe, or are having pain in their chest, or pass out, emergencies that should not take anyone to a heart scan center. When heart scans are used properly, it is the person without symptoms who undergoes a scan to look for hidden heart disease. This cannot lead to an emergency.

Of course, that doesn't mean that a high score shouldn't prompt quick action in the next few days or weeks, like seeing your doctor to discuss the results, undergoing a stress test, discussing how to stop the score from progressing.

But call an ambulance? Forget about it.

If you are contemplating a scan but are scared that it could lead to a 911 call, don't let that stop you. But, in the event that you go to an unscrupulous center or get bad information, be sure to be armed with the best information possible. One good start would be to take look at our free downloadable book, What does my heart scan show? available for free on the www.cureality.com website.

Here's a fascinating 2002 study by Dr. Brenda Davy and colleagues at Colorado State University that examined the NMR lipoprotein differences between a diet enriched in oats and one enriched with wheat. (Davy BM, Davy KP, Ho RC et al. High-fiber oat cereal compared with wheat cereal consumption favorably alters LDL-cholesterol subclass and particle numbers in middle-aged and older men. Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 76:351-358.)

36 sedentary, overweight men (average BMI around 30--obese), aged 50-75 years, were given a diet enriched with either oat bran (as oatmeal and oat bran, providing 5.5 grams of beta-glucan) or wheat (as a hot cereal or Frosted Mini-Wheats), with equivalent calories in each group. All underwent baseline NMR lipoprotein analysis.

Three months later, there were no differences in "anthropometrics" like weight, waist size, or BMI (though there was a trend towards larger waistlines in the wheat group). The NMR lipoprotein analysis was repeated.

Comparison of the lipoprotein changes revealed:

--LDL cholesterol: Down 2.5% with oats, up 8.0% with wheat.

--LDL particle number: Down 5% with oats, up 14.2% with wheat.

--Small LDL: Down 17.3% with oats, up 60.4% with wheat.

--Triglycerides: Down 7.6% with oats, up 22.0% with wheat.

The across-the-board differences between the wheat and oat effects were astounding. In particular, note the extraordinary effect on small LDL particles: wheat triggered a 60% increase.

Similar studies yielding similar results have been conducted elsewhere, including Dr. Ronald Krauss' group at University of California-Berkeley.

Now, this was a study conducted under the somewhat artificial circumstances of a study. But imagine this sort of habitual intake continues, not for just three months, but for years. After all, wheat has expanded and metastasized to all three meals, snacks, every day, 7 days a week in most Americans' diet.

What a wonderfully graphic representation of the undesirable effects of wheat products. When you see Mini-Wheats, Shredded Wheat, whole grain bread, whole wheat bread, whole wheat crackers, Raisin Bran, and the thousands of other wheat-containing products that promise health, run the other way. Grab some oat bran on the way out.

This has nothing to do with coronary plaque reversal, nor directly with the Track Your Plaque program, but I found Dr. John Cannell's discussion about the possible relationship between vitamin D and autism so compelling that I thought I just had to pass it on.

So, below are Dr. Cannell's latest thoughts. He takes some criticisms along with praise. I think we owe him a lot for continuing to doggedly promote the benefits of vitamin D.

Vitamin D Newsletter

August, 2007

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I saw an article from a Toronto newspaper about autism and vitamin D. I am currently searching for a vitamin D specialist in the Washington D.C. area to perform a medical work up on my daughter to look for vitamin D-related disorders. The reason I am in search of a vitamin D specialist is that I believe I have stumbled upon a complex relationship in my daughter involving her foot pain, vitamin D, and her autism.

In April 2006, a few weeks after my 3-year-old profoundly autistic daughter began refusing her daily PediaSure drink, she began having excruciating foot spasms lasting from 10-30 minutes at a time, several times a week. She would throw herself on the floor, curl her toes, slam her heels against the floor, and rub the tops of her feet against the carpet, all while screaming the entire time. These were horrible for her to endure, and horrible for my wife and myself to watch. This went on for a year.

From what I read, the symptom was perhaps like foot spasms associated with carpopedal syndrome or tetany. But her blood work did not support that at all. Calcium level was normal (10.2 mg/dL); 25-Hydroxy-vitamin D low (23.5 ng/ml); 1,25 dihydroxy-vitamin D normal (24.7). Despite some vitamin D deficiency, I was assured by medical professionals that nothing supported a vitamin D cause of these particular spasms, so vitamin D was dismissed. Because her calcium level was normal, they told me she did not have tetany, and vitamin D could not be the cause of the pain.

All medical consultants were stymied. I made another research effort and found a 2003 article on WebMD that stated vitamin D has been found to have some link to basic, unexplained muscle and bone pain. By chance, vitamin D was the next supplement we had at home to begin giving my daughter to treat her autism. So, in April 2007 we began giving my 4 year-old profoundly autistic daughter Vitamin D supplements. Her foot spasms which had plagued her for a year diminished within days and disappeared within three weeks. She has not had a spasm in over two months.

In addition, we noted clear improvements in her autistic condition which appear to be from the vitamin D supplements. Eye contact went from zero to fantastic. Her vocalizations increased markedly (still only babbling; she remains completely nonverbal). She appears even happier than previously (she has always been a somewhat happy child). (Please note that my wife and I have tried many dietary supplements over the past 1.5 years guided by a doctor and dietician who both specialize in autism. We honestly state that this is the only thing that has ever had a positive effect on my daughter. We have seen nothing else work.)

My daughter and vitamin D have a complicated relationship. By all counts, looking at her lab work and general condition, vitamin D should have played no role in those excruciating foot fits. And yet it is apparently exactly what is involved in them. And, my wife and I believe at the same time her autistic condition has improved from the vitamin D. The foot fits and her autism appear linked; it was not just a coincidence that this autistic child has those mysterious foot spasms, and the link appears to be vitamin D.

And so I wonder if this is just the tip of the iceberg, if perhaps there is more to know about my child's relationship with vitamin D and what that might mean for her autism. Does she have a specific vitamin D-related disorder? If so, might direct treatment of it also improve her autism further? These are the questions I would like to pose to a vitamin D specialist who could perform a medical work up on my daughter. Please let me know if you know of anyone in the Northern Virginia/Washington DC area. Also, where is the best place to get vitamin D? Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Paul, Washington, D.C.

Dear Paul:

I know of no such specialist in the Washington area, indeed no vitamin D/autism expert exists in the world. As far as a specific "vitamin D disorder," linking her spasms, autism, and vitamin D, the world's English language medical literature contains no description of such a disorder. From your daughter's case, it sounds as if PediaSure was her only regular source of vitamin D. If so, her spasms began two weeks after stopping the small amount of vitamin D contained in PediaSure. The spasms continued for a year, ending a few days after you started giving her vitamin D again, this time in the form of a supplement. Several weeks after restarting vitamin D, both you and your wife noticed an improvement in her autism. To my knowledge, this "case report" - your daughter's - is the first ever published.

As no medical literature has ever been published on any of this, all you can do is give her enough vitamin D to get her 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, known as 25(OH)D, into high normal ranges and then wait and hope. Vitamin D's extraordinary mass-action pharmacology implies that simply providing more substrate ([25(OH)D] will help children with low enzyme activity produce more activated vitamin D (calcitriol) in their brains. The vitamin D theory of autism is not simply that vitamin D deficiency in gestation or early childhood causes the disorder. Instead, the theory holds that a quantitative or qualitative abnormality exists in the enzyme system that activates vitamin D.

It could as simple as the normal variation in the enzyme, an enzyme whose activity would vary in a normal or Gaussian distribution, much like height. Some people are tall, some are short, most are in the middle. The same may be true of the enzyme that forms activated vitamin D (calcitriol), some children have a lot of enzyme and some only a little; most are in the middle. As the substrate [25(OH)D] the enzyme metabolizes fell over the last 20 years with sun-avoidance, more and more children on the low end of the enzyme curve are effected by marginally low 25(OH)D levels, explaining both its genetic basis and exploding incidence.

At this point, all your daughter needs is a physician willing to periodically measure her 25(OH)D. Then you can safely supplement your daughter with doses higher than the current Upper Limit for children (2,000 IU/day). You did not tell me your daughter's weight but, assuming she weighs about 30 pounds, even without 25(OH)D blood tests, you can safely give her 50 mcg/day which is 2,000 IU per day. In fact, the U.S. government says this dose is safe for children over the age of one. Life Extension Foundation sells 250 of the 1,000 IU capsules for about ten bucks with powdered vitamin D inside. The powder is tasteless and dissolves easily in juice. Bio Tech Pharmacal, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, told me they were going to be making a 1,000 IU capsule. Or you can get 1,000 IU capsules in a pharmacy or at Costco and crush them. A Canadian firm is now making vitamin D liquid, called Ddrops, with 1,000 IU per drop, but their mail order web site is not yet easily accessed. Beware of cod liver oil; do not use it because vitamin A inhibits the actions of activated vitamin D, and due to the potential for low-grade vitamin A toxicity.

Remember, more and more researchers now believe autism is a progressive, inflammatory, disorder. That is, the inflammation probably progressively destroys brain tissue as the child ages. As I said in my recent paper, I think there is a chance that vitamin D may have a treatment effect in young autistic children if given in adequate doses, due to its anti-inflammatory properties, and its ability to upregulate glutathione, the master antioxidant that also chelates (binds) and then helps excrete heavy metals like mercury. Unfortunately, I see no way, even if the vitamin D/autism theory turns out to be true, that vitamin D can regenerate brain tissue. However, if it stops the inflammation, and cell death, the brain could then begin to develop and learn. These are big ifs. However, you have nothing to lose by trying, the worst that will happen is that it will not help and vitamin D will be added to the long list of false-hope treatments.

Actually, there is a worse possibility. Say the parents of a three-year-old autistic child decide today that vitamin D is nonsense, another false hope, and that I'm a quack. They decide not to give vitamin D supplement their autistic child, who is probably - like your child - vitamin D deficient. Then, it turns out five years from now that scientific evidence shows vitamin D does indeed help. By that time, the child will be eight and will have suffered additional, irreparable, brain damage. In my mind, that is more tragic than another false hope.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

After that article appeared in the Toronto paper, I started my four-year-old son on 1,000 IU of vitamin D two weeks ago. So far the only thing I noticed is that after about ten days, he didn't seem so miserable. The thing that has always broken my heart is that look of sadness and suffering on his face. After about two weeks of vitamin D, I noticed he seemed less miserable. I wouldn't say he looks happy now but that look of misery seems to be gone. Will it come back? I'm not sure I can take it if it comes back. What else might happen? Also, last summer we noticed he seemed to get better, but then he got worse in the fall. We never thought about it until we read about vitamin D.

Susan, Toronto, Canada

Dear Susan:

I don't know. I think all parents have had their heart pierced by that look at one time or another. I would advise increasing the dose to 2,000 IU per day, making sure it is cholecalciferol and not ergocalciferol, and having your doctor order a 25(OH)D every two months to see if he needs higher doses. You want to get his blood level up to between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml (In many countries outside of the USA, that would be reported as between 125 and 200 nmol/L.) and keep it there, summer and winter, and that may take more than 2,000 IU/day in the winter. If vitamin D has a treatment effect, it will take many months to see its full effect. As you noted, if the theory is correct, autistic children who spend time outdoors in the summer should show some seasonal improvements - if they don't wear sunblock and they expose enough of their skin to generate significant amounts of vitamin D.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I resent you calling autism a tragedy. My son is not a tragedy and I'm glad he was born and is in our lives. He is our joy. Autism is not a tragedy.

Emma, London, England.

Dear Emma:

I'm glad he is your joy and I believe you. I'm new to the autism field and was not aware how much thought and speech control exists in the discussion of the disease. Nevertheless, I have a few politically incorrect questions. If autism is a joy, I assume you would like other parents to have an autistic child? If autism is such a joy, why is there a huge industry forming to prevent and treat it? At the risk of sounding insensitive - apparently one of the most serious charges leveled in the autism debate - autism is a tragedy. As I pointed out in my paper, research shows that having an autistic child, puts the family under more emotional stress than having a child with a fatal illness.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

Who are you to write an article on autism? You didn't even publish it in a medical journal. You are not with a university. You have not published very much. You have no expertise on autism. No autism experts support your theory. There is no evidence to support the theory. Shouldn't you leave this to experts before you give parents more false hopes?

Mary, Trenton, New Jersey.

Dear Mary:

You are right, I am a nobody; just ask my ex-wife. In the Toronto Globe, I explained why I have not yet submitted the paper. As far as giving false hopes, I've thought about that charge. Right now, regardless of what advocacy groups say, autism is rather hopeless. That is, no treatment, including vitamin D, has been shown to materially affect the clinical course of autism. As a psychiatrist, my observation is that people would rather live with a false hope than with no hope.

Furthermore, if autistic children began taking vitamin D, the worse that can happen is that a period of false hope will followed by dashed hopes and then parents will be back to hopelessness. In the meantime, they will have made their child vitamin D sufficient. Vitamin D deficiency is a serious problem in childhood.
Postgrad Med J. 2007 Apr;83(978):230-5.

The Telegraph, Why is Vitamin D So Vital?

As far as the theory having no support from experts, Dr. Richard Mills, research director of the National Autistic Society in England, was quoted in the Telegraph article on the autism/vitamin D theory: "There has been speculation in the past about autism being more common in high-latitude countries that get less sunlight and a tie-up with rickets has been suggested - observations which support the theory."

Finally, you said there is no evidence to support the theory. I assume you meant there is no proof. The first statement is absolutely false, the second absolutely true. As I detailed in my paper, there is a lot of evidence to support the theory. In fact, if anyone can come up with an autism fact, that the theory cannot explain, I'd like to know about it. Even the announcement of a link between television viewing and autism supports the theory. Furthermore, the TV/autism link is actually evidence of a treatment effect. That is, if autistic children who play outside in the sunshine more - watching less TV - have less severe illness, it may be due to the Sun-God, who bestows her precious gift of calcitriol into the brains of children playing outside in her sunlight but not into the brains of children watching TV inside in the darkness.
Natl Bur Econ Res Bull Aging Health. 2007 Winter;(18):2-3.

As far as proof the theory is true, there is, of course, none. In medicine, proof means randomized controlled human trials, the gold standard for proof. However, proof is the last step, not the first. First comes evidence, then comes a theory, then comes researchers disproving those theories. It works that way. Sometimes we never get to the last step, proof. For example, please point me to a single randomized controlled human trial proving cigarette smoking is dangerous? Instead, the convincing evidence of smoking's dangerousness lies in epidemiological studies, not randomized controlled trials. Proof, or disproof, of the autism vitamin D theory will take years, years during which young autistic brains will continue to suffer irreparable damage. Perhaps vitamin D' powerful anti-inflammatory actions will help prevent that damage, perhaps not.

It's something of a Pascal's wager, betting on vitamin D instead of the existence of God, risking your child's brain instead of eternal damnation. "If you believe vitamin D helps autism and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in vitamin D and turn out to be incorrect, your child will suffer irreparable brain damage."

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website.

I just found this great podcast of an April, 2006 National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Omnivore's Dilemma author, Michael Pollan:

Author Michael Pollan: 'The Omnivore's Dilemma'

available at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5342514

The Science Friday segment is a great encapsulation of all the fascinating spins this wonderfully insightful author has on human eating habits and the developing distortions of food choices, much magnified by the food manufacturing industry.

One of my favorite comments from Pollan: "The USDA should be called "The Department of Corn," referring to the ubiquitous dissemination of corn products into livestock and human foods that has increasingly led to the enormous health problems we're all facing in 2007.

Try a little experiment:

Side by side, try a yogurt made with fructose or high fructose corn syrup as one of the first ingredients on the label along with a yogurt made without fructose.

Yoplait and Dannon brands, for instance, fit the bill for fructose. Several brands do not use fructose products. Many of these are the unflavored or unsweetened versions. You may therefore have to add some blueberries, strawberries, or some other fruit for some flavor. ( I doubt that you would add high fructose corn syrup.) Add nuts, seeds, flaxseed, or oat bran to either.

Many people who do this will notice a peculiar effect: The fructose or high fructose corn syrup containing product is, to most, delicious. It also triggers a desire for more. You can't have just one--you've got to have another, or you've got to eat something else.

The non-fructose containing product is more likely to generate satiety, a feeling that you've had enough.

If you experience this effect, the solution is simple: avoid fructose and high fructose corn syrup. I believe that the most worrisome health effect of fructose is this hunger-increasing aspect, difficult to document, perhaps impossible to measure, but a great boon to the food industry who practice an "eat more" philosophy to increase revenues year after year.

Perhaps you will also see weight drop (since you will be more satisfied), see triglycerides drop (since fructose raises triglycerides), and maybe obtain all the downstream benefits of reduced triglycerides (higher HDL, less small LDL, less VLDL, more rapid clearance of post-prandial lipoproteins).

Most people who follow this idea gain better control over appetite, lose weight, and do better in health, including in their Track Your Plaque program.

Clinical studies can be designed in a number of ways. The ease and cost of these studies differ dramatically, as does the confidence of the findings.

The most confident way to design a clinical study is to tell neither the participants nor the investigator(s) what treatment is being offered, then to administer treatment or placebo. Neither the people doing the research nor the participants know what they are receiving. Of course, there needs to be some way to find out what was given at the end of the study in order to analyze the outcome.

This is called a “double-blind, placebo-controlled” clinical study. While not perfect since it tends to examine a treatment phenomenon in isolation (e.g., the effects of a single drug in a select group of people), it is the best sort of study design that is most likely to yield confident results, both negative and positive. This sort of design is followed, for instance, for most prescription drugs.

There are pitfalls in such studies, of course, and some have made headlines lately. For instance, beyond tending to examine single conditions in a select group of participants, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study can also fail to uncover rare effects. If a study contains 5000 participants, for instance, but a rare complication develops in 1 person out of 20,000, then it’s unlikely such an ill-effect will be observed until larger numbers of people are exposed to the agent.

Another pitfall (though not so much of study design, but of human greed) is that study outcomes that are not favorable can be suppressed by simply failing to publish the results. This has undoubtedly happened numerous times over the years. For this reason, a registry has been created for all human clinical trials as a means to enforce publication of outcomes, both favorable and unfavorable.

Despite its weaknesses, the double-blind, placebo-controlled study design remains the most confident way to show whether or not some treatment does indeed yield some effect. It is less prone to bias from either the participant or the investigator. Human nature being what it is, we tend to influence results just to suit our particular agenda or interests. An investigator who knows what you are given, drug or placebo, but owns lots of stock in the company, or is hoping for special favors from the pharmaceutical company sponsor, for instance, is likely to perceive events in a light favorable to the outcome of the study.

Now, most studies are not double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. These are notoriously difficult studies to engineer; raise lots of ethical questions (can you not treat a person with an aggressive cancer, for instance, and administer a placebo?); often require substantial numbers of participants (thousands), many of whom may insist on payment for devoting their time, bodies, and perhaps even encountering some risk; and are tremendously expensive, costing many tens of millions of dollars.

For this reason, many other study designs are often followed. They are cheaper, quicker, may not even require the active knowledge or participation of the group being studied. That’s not to say that the participants are being tricked. It may simply be something like trying to determine if there are more heart attacks in people who live in cities compared to rural areas by comparing death rates from heart attack from public records and population demographic data. Or, a nutritional study could be performed by asking people how many eggs they eat each week and then contacting them every month for 5 years to see if they’ve had a heart attack or other heart event. No treatment is introduced, no danger is added to a person’s established habits. Many epidemiologic studies are performed this way.

The problem is that these other sorts of study designs, because they generate less confident results, are not generally regarded as proof of anything. They can only suggest the possibility of an association, an hypothesis. For real proof to occur, a double-blind, placebo-controlled may need to follow. Alternatively, if an association suggested by a study of lesser design might, by reasons of a very powerful effect, be sufficient. But this is rare. Thalidomide and catastrophic birth defects are an example of an association between a drug and fetal limb malformation that was so clear-cut that no further investigation was required to establish a causative association. Of course, no one in their right mind would even suggest a blinded study.

Where am I going with this tedious rambling? Lately, the media has been making a big to-do about several studies, none of which are double-blind, placebo-controlled, but were cross-sectional sorts of observations, the sorts of studies which can only suggest an effect. This happened with Dr. Steve Nissen’s study of Avandia (rosiglitazone) for pre-diabetes and risk for heart attack and the recent study suggesting that cancer incidence is increased when LDL cholesterol is low. Both were observations that suggested such associations.

Now, those of you following the Heart Scan Blog or the www.cureality.com website know that we do not defend drug companies nor their drugs. In fact, we’ve openly and repeatedly criticized the drug industry for many of its practices. Drugs are, in my opinion, miserably overused and abused.

But, as always, I am in the pursuit of truth. Neither of these studies, in my view, justified the sort of media attention they received. They are hypothesis-generating efforts—that’s it. You might argue that the questions raised are so crucial that any incremental risk of a drug is simply not worth it.

Despite the over-reaction to these studies, good will come of the fuss. I do believe that heightened scrutiny of the drug industry will result. Many people will seek to avoid prescription drugs and opt for healthy changes in lifestyle, thus reducing exposure to costs and side-effects.

But beware of the media, acting as our Chicken Little, reporting on studies that prove nothing but only raise questions.

Add Boston Globe to the list of heart scan blunders

What's worse than sugar?

Are sterols the new trans fat?

The Diabetes Gold Rush

What else is there?

Let's gamble with your health

Who knows what

“Too many false positives”

Triglycerides divided by five

Who reads The Heart Scan Blog?

Do statin drugs reduce lipoprotein(a)?

Breakfast cereals and toilet paper

Another lipoprotein hurdle

More on aortic valve disease and vitamin D

"How often do you call an ambulance?"

Oat vs. wheat

Vitamin D and autism

Michael Pollan Podcast

Are you addicted to fructose?

Chicken Little