All in the family--What to do if there's heart disease in your family

3. April 2006 William Davis (0)
What should you do if a close relative of yours is diagnosed with coronary disease?
This question came up recently with a patient of mine. The patient--a strapping, 47 year old businessman who looked the absolute picture of health--was undergoing bypass surgery. Although I'd met him for the purposes of plaque reversal, he was already having symptoms and his stress test was flagrantly abnormal, all discovered after a heart scan score of 765. On the day after the patient's bypass, the patient's brother came to me. Understandably concerned about his own health, he asked what he should do. The answer: get a heart scan.
Measure the disease with the easiest test available. If his heart scan score is zero, great--he's at exceptionally low (near zero) risk for heart attack. A modest program of long-term prevention is all that's necessary. What if his score is like his brother, should he get in line for his bypass? No, absolutely not! But he will need two things: 1) a stress test to ascertain whether or not he's safe (60% likelihood a stress test would be normal), and 2) an effort to determine how the heck he got so much plaque. (We favor lipoprotein testing, of course, for greatest diagnostic certainty.)
Message: Learn from the lessons your own family provides. Don't let this valuable information go to waste.

Unexpected effects of a wheat-free diet

17. September 2009 William Davis (59)
Wheat elimination continues to yield explosive and unexpected health benefits.

I initially asked patients in the office to eliminate wheat because I wanted to help them reduce blood sugar and pre-diabetic tendencies.

A patient would come to the office, for example, with a blood sugar of 118 mg/dl (in the pre-diabetic range) and the other phenomena of pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high inflammation/c-reactive protein, low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL), and the characteristic wheat belly. Eliminate wheat and, within three months, they lose 30 lbs, blood sugar drops to normal, blood pressure drops, triglycerides drop by several hundred milligrams, HDL goes up, small LDL plummets, c-reactive protein drops.

People also felt better, with flat tummies and more energy. But they also developed benefits I did not anticipate:

--Improved rheumatoid arthritis--I have seen this time and time again. Eliminate wheat and the painful thumbs, fingers, and other joints clear up dramatically. Many former rheumatoid sufferers people tell me that one cracker or pretzel will trigger a painful throbbing reminder that lasts a couple of hours.

--Improved ulcerative colitis--People incapacitated with pain, cramping, and diarrhea of ulcerative colitis (who are negative for the antibodies for celiac disease) can experience marked improvement. I've seen people be able to stop all their nasty colitis medications just by eliminating wheat.

--Reduction or elimination of irritable bowel syndrome

--Reduction or elimination of gastroesophageal reflux

--Better mood--Eliminating wheat makes you happier and experience more stable moods. Just as wheat is responsible for a subset of schizophrenia and bipolar illness (this is fact), and wheat elimination generates dramatic improvement, when you or I eliminate wheat, we also experience a "smoothing" of mood swings.

--Better libido--I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of losing a belly the size of a watermelon or improvement in sex hormones (esp. testosterone) or endothelial responses, but more interest in sex typically develops.

--Better complexion--I'm not entirely sure why, but various rashes will often dissipate, bags under the eyes are reduced, itching in funny places stops.


It's also peculiar how, after someone eliminates wheat for several months, re-exposure of an errant cracker or sandwich results in cramping and diarrhea in about 30% of people.

Obviously, people with celiac disease, who can even die of exposure to wheat, are even worse. What other common food do you know of that makes us sick so often, even occasionally with fatal outcome?

Is Lp(a) part of your legacy to your children?

15. September 2009 William Davis (21)
If you have lipoprotein(a), Lp(a)--the most aggressive known cause of heart disease that no one has heard of--then you need to tell your children.

Lp(a) is a "cleanly" inherited genetic pattern: If either parent has it, there's a 50% chance that you have it. If you have it, then there's a 50% likelihood that each of your children has it. (Note that each child experiences a likelihood of 50%, not 50% of your children. This is because each child is conceived as an independent statistical event. So much for romance!)

The atherogenicity (plaque-causing potential) of Lp(a) also tends to get transmitted. In other words, if your Dad had a heart attack at age 50 due to Lp(a) and you share Lp(a), then you likely share a similar magnitude of risk as your Dad. If your Mom had Lp(a), though passed quietly at age 89 without any overt evidence of heart disease, then you are likely to share the relatively benign form of Lp(a).

For most of us with Lp(a), however, it is best to assume that it has at least some potential for causing heart disease, being the most aggressive cause known. (That is, until we have the ability in everyday clinical practice to characterize Lp(a) by assessing such factors as the size of the apoprotein(a) molecule, the number of kringle "repeats" on the tail, etc. Until then, we need to rely on the crude, though helpful, observation of family history.)

At what age should you inform your children? There's no hard-and-fast rule. However, I generally suggest to patients that they talk about Lp(a) with their children when they reach their 20s or 30s, old enough to begin to understand the implications and begin to think about adopting healthier lifestyles. Is treatment required at, say, age 35? That depends on the pattern of Lp(a)-related heart disease in the family: With exceptionally aggressive forms, it might be reasonable to begin treatment at this relatively early age.

Do "Heart Healthy" sterols cause heart disease?

9. September 2009 William Davis (19)
The sterol question continues to pop up.

Sterols are an ingredient widely added by food manufacturers that allows a "heart healthy" claim, since sterols have been shown to reduce LDL cholesterol (at least transiently). HOWEVER, sterols have also been implicated in possibly increasing risk for heart disease. After all, people with the genetic condition called sitosterolemia absorb sterols into the blood and develop coronary heart disease in their teens and twenties. Those of us without sitosterolemia who increase sterol intake with sterol-enriched foods increase blood levels of sterols several-fold. Is this healthy, or does it contribute to coronary plaque as it does in people with sitosterolemia?

Below, I've reprinted a previous Heart Scan Blog post on sterols.


Sterols should be outlawed

While sterols occur naturally in small quantities in food (nuts, vegetables, oils), food manufacturers are adding them to processed foods in order to earn a "heart healthy" claim.

The FDA approved a cholesterol-reducing indication for sterols , the American Heart Association recommends 200 mg per day as part of its Therapeutic Lifestyle Change diet, and WebMD gushes about the LDL-reducing benefits of sterols added to foods.


Sterols--the same substance that, when absorbed to high levels into the blood in a genetic disorder called "sitosterolemia"--causes extravagant atherosclerosis in young people.

The case against sterols, studies documenting its coronary disease- and valve disease-promoting effects, is building:

Higher blood levels of sterols increase cardiovascular events:
Plasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study.

Sterols can be recovered from diseased aortic valves:
Accumulation of cholesterol precursors and plant sterols in human stenotic aortic valves.

Sterols are incorporated into carotid atherosclerotic plaque:
Plant sterols in serum and in atherosclerotic plaques of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.




Though the data are mixed:

Moderately elevated plant sterol levels are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk--the LASA study.

No association between plasma levels of plant sterols and atherosclerosis in mice and men.




The food industry has vigorously pursued the sterol-as-heart-healthy strategy, based on studies conclusively demonstrating LDL-reducing effects. But do sterols that gain entry into the blood increase atherosclerosis regardless of LDL reduction? That's the huge unanswered question.

Despite the uncertainties, the list of sterol-supplemented foods is expanding rapidly:




Each Nature Valley Healthy Heart Bar contains 400 mg sterols.












HeartWise orange juice contains 1000 mg sterols per 8 oz serving.













Promise SuperShots contains 400 mg sterols per container.














Corozonas has an entire line of chips that contain added sterols, 400 mg per 1 oz serving.














MonaVie Acai juice, "Pulse," contains 400 mg sterols per 2 oz serving.














Kardea olive oil has 500 mg sterols per 14 gram serving.










WebMD has a table that they say can help you choose "foods" that are sterol-rich.

In my view, sterols should not have been approved without more extensive safety data. Just as Vioxx's potential for increasing heart attack did not become apparent until after FDA approval and widespread use, I fear the same may be ahead for sterols: dissemination throughout the processed food supply, people using large, unnatural quantities from multiple products, eventually . . . increased heart attacks, strokes, aortic valve disease.

Until there is clarification on this issue, I would urge everyone to avoid sterol-added "heart healthy" products.


Some more info on sterols in a previous Heart Scan Blog post: Are sterols the new trans fat? .

Why obese people can't fast

9. September 2009 William Davis (21)
Why do obese people claim it is impossible to fast?

Most overweight people are terrified at the prospect of facing any period of time without ready access to food. Persuading them to begin a program of intermittent fasting is a hopeless cause. They just refuse.

Contrary to popular opinion, this is not just glutonny at work. It is the effect of what I call "the cycle of hunger," the 2-hour up and down cycle of rising sugar and insulin, followed by their inevitable fall. The precipitous fall of sugar and insulin triggers mental fogginess, fatigue, and insatiable hunger. (By the way, this is the same phenomenon underlying the silly notion of "grazing.")

According to an LA Times article, fasting may be difficult to impossible for some people:

"Ruth Frechman, a registered dietitian in Burbank and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Assn., says she frequently sees such extreme strategies backfire. 'You're hungry, fatigued, irritable. Fasting is not very comfortable. People try to cut back one day and the next day they're starving and they overeat.'"
(Not surprising, coming from the American Diatetic Assn. They, along with such agencies as the American Diabetes Association, are vocal proponents of low-fat, high-carbohydrate, "healthy whole grain" diets--you know, the diets that make us fat and diabetic.)

Ms. Frechman is correct: Having someone engage in a period of fasting, no matter how brief, when the diet leading up to the fast is filled with "healthy whole grains" and other carbohydrates will result in painful hunger that eventually overcomes any effort. A period of overeating typically follows the aborted attempt.

Fasting cannot work as long as the 2-hour cycle of hunger continues. The first step: Eliminate the 2-hour cycle of hunger by dramatically reducing or eliminating carbohydrates. Our preferred method is to eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars. (Just be aware of wheat withdrawal, the fatigue that develops in the first 5 days after wheat elimination that affects up to 30% of people.)

Once wheat, cornstarch, and sugars are eliminated, hunger reverts to that of physiologic need--appetite will be smaller and less intense, since it is driven by your body's needs, not by abnormal stimulation from wheat, cornstarch, and sugar. The fear of not having food dissolves, the 2-hour cycle of mental fogginess, fatigue, and hunger will be gone.

Intermittent fasting is a wonderful strategy for reducing weight; gaining control over lipids, lipoproteins, and coronary plaque; regaining appreciation for food; reducing appetite. But it's not even worth trying unless you've already eliminated the unnatural appetite triggers that will booby-trap any fasting effort.

Test your own thyroid

7. September 2009 William Davis (15)
134 people responded to the latest Heart Scan Blog poll:


When I ask my doctor to test my thyroid, he/she:

Accommodates me without question 45 (33%)

Questions why, but orders the tests 49 (36%)

Refuses because you seem "healthy" 20 (14%)

Refuses without explanation 4 (2%)

Ridicules your request 16 (11%)



That's better than I anticipated: 69% of physicians complied with this small request. After all, you're not asking for major surgery. You're just asking for a very basic test, as basic as a blood count or electrolytes. 36% of respondents said that their doctor asked why, but still complied; this is simply practicing good medicine--If there is a problem, your doctor would like to know about it.

However, the remainder--31%--were refused in one way or another. Incredibly, 11% were ridiculed.

Although this was not asked in the poll, I believe that it is a safe assumption that you asked with good reason: you're abnormally fatigued, you have been gaining weight for no apparent reason or can't lose weight despite substantial effort, or you feel cold at inappropriate times.

Let's say you're tired. Ever since last summer, you've suffered a gradual decline in energy.

So you ask your doctor to assess your thyroid. He refuses. "You're just fine! There's nothing wrong with you."

You disagree. In fact, you are quite convinced that there is something physically wrong. What do you do?

You could:

--Drink more coffee
--Exercise more in the hopes that it will snap you out of your lethargy
--Sleep more
--Take stimulants of various sorts

Or, you could get your thyroid assessed and settle the issue. But how can you get this done when your doctor won't accommodate you, even though you have perfectly fine health insurance and are simply interested in feeling better and preserving your health?

You could test your thyroid yourself. This is why we're making self-testing kits available. Test kits are available here.

This is yet another facet of the powerful revolution that is emerging: Self-directed health.

Trains, planes, and heart scans

4. September 2009 William Davis (10)
A Heart Scan Blog reader posted the following question:

It is not clear to me why getting a cardiac scan is the necessary first step, if in fact the next step would be to bring down small LDL particles which is revealed on a NMR lipoprofile or VAP test. Why isn't the NMR or VAP test the first thing?

Good question. Think of it this way:

Lipoproteins, as measured via VAP (Vertical Auto Profile) or NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), provide a snapshot of risk from a metabolic viewpoint at that moment. Lipoproteins shift with the tides of age, menopause, weight changes, even what you ate last evening for dinner (especially small LDL). There are also other factors that cause coronary plaque, as well, not revealed through lipoprotein testing, such as vitamin D deficiency, smoking, high blood pressure, phosopholipase A2, lipoprotein(a), inflammatory factors, thyroid dysfunction, omega-3 fatty acid deficiency, etc.

A heart scan, providing a coronary calcium score, provides an indirect measure of coronary plaque that is the sum total of lipoprotein and other plaque-causing factors that have accumulated up to the time of your scan--regardless of the cause.

It means that two females, each 60 years old, with 70% small LDL, HDL 42 mg/dl, triglycerides 150 mg/dl, and mild hypertension, have identical markers for potential coronary risk, but can have widely different heart scan scores. One might have a score of zero, while the other might have a score of 300.

Why would the same panel of causes measured at one moment yield wildly different quantities of plaque? Several reasons:

1) The lifestyles, eating habits, and weight of each woman differed during their earlier years, not currently reflected in this moment's lipid or lipoprotein patterns. Perhpaps one experienced several years of extraordinary stress from a failed marriage, or suffered through two years of depression that caused her to smoke and overeat.

2) There are hidden factors that affect coronary plaque growth that we are presently not able to detect, e.g., vitamin D receptor genotype, cholesteryl-ester transfer protein variants, variation in inflammatory factors. If we can't measure it, we won't know whether it might influence coronary plaque risk.


With all the changes that occur over a person's life, with the uncertainties of yet-to-be-identified causes for coronary plaque, how can you possible know what your risk for heart disease truly is? Yup--a heart scan. Do it and you will know.

D2 and D3 are two different things

3. September 2009 William Davis (15)
Helena posted this instructive comment in response to the Heart Scan Blog post, Weight loss and vitamin D. It illustrates the confusion common among physicians and pharmacists on the differences between D2 and D3.

(Edited slightly for clarity.)

Not many weeks ago a colleague of mine (let’s call him Eric) asked me if I knew the difference between D2 and D3 and I told Eric that D2 comes from irradiated mushrooms and D3 comes from wool. In other words, D3 is the same kind of vitamin as humans get from the sun. Humans just don’t get enough and we can’t produce it on our own, like the sheep can. (D3 is natural for humans, D2 is not.)

After telling Eric this, he asked me how he would know what he is taking and I gave him the medical definitions of them both (D2 = Ergocalciferol; D3 = Cholecaliciferol). Since I was aware that he had gotten his Vitamin D by prescription, I told him “I am 99.9% sure that you are taking D2, but I would be thrilled to find out I am wrong.”

Eric called his pharmacy right away and got the answer I was expecting: ergocalciferol. On confronting the person Eric was talking to, the answer he got back was that Ergocalciferol is the only Vitamin D they are giving out.

A week later, Eric had a new appointment with his doctor and decided to ask him about the D2/D3 issue. The doctor said he knew that there was a difference in them both, but could not say what, not even the basic facts I mentioned above. But the doctor stamped a post-it with what he had sent to the pharmacy just to show Eric. “Vitamin D3; 50,000IU tab” is what the stamp said.

Eric, off course, got confused and was starting to believe that the pharmacy had made a mistake by giving him Ergocalciferol (D2) since the doctor had given him D3, or at least that is what was stamped on the little note he had.

Today, after getting a refill of his Vitamin D he also got and kept all his paperwork that came along with it. Still believing that stamp the doctor had given Eric earlier, he asked me to double and triple check that my definition of D2 and D3 was correct. I did, just for my own sanity, and I was still right.

One of the sheets Eric brought me today was the “Patient Education Monograph” sheet stating the drugs and how to use it and so on. The thing that jumped out the most to me was this:

Generic Name: Vitamin D – Oral
Common Brand name(s): Drisdol, Maximum D3
Identification: PA140 Green Oval Capsule

This is the Drug Eric was given: Vitamin D 1.25 MG softgel; Generic name: Ergocalciferol

My researching mind went into high concentration mood and I started to dig. And this is what I found:

The brand name Drisdol is Ergocalciferol (D2), not D3. The Brand name Maximum D3 seems to be hard to find out there in cyber space as a brand name. But the ones I found that were called Maximum D3 seems to be the real stuff, however none of them required a prescription.

When trying to find out through the identification number on the pills (PA140) I now know for sure that Eric is taking Vitamin D2 and not the preferred Vitamin D3. The brand name, Drisdol, had the identification W on one side and D92 on the other, but it is still Ergocalciferol.

The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the medical industry does not know or care about the difference in D2 and D3 – it is all same to them. And as long as the pharmacies only give out D2 it does not matter what the doctor prescribe anyway.

I know that people are most likely to be prescribed a D2 pill than to be told to buy over-the-counter D3. But it was almost heart breaking to see the letter D and number 3 right next to the drug Drisdol, as we know is a D2 vitamin. It just didn’t make sense to me that they can be labeled as the same type of medication, when we know it is not!


Incredible.

Why prescribe plant form D2 when you can get perfectly reliable, safe, effective D3--the human form, at the health food store for about $6?

Once again, it's the peculiar false bias of physicians and pharmacists: If it's prescription, it must be good; if it comes from a health food store, it must be bogus.

Humans need human vitamin D. Plain and simple.

For more on the D2 vs. D3 issue, see the Heart Scan Post, The case against vitamin D2.

Weight loss: Different causes, different solutions

1. September 2009 William Davis (8)
Heart Scan Blog reader, Kris, related this enlightening story of weight loss (slightly edited for clarity).

Kris learned that excess weight is gained through multiple causes. The solutions are therefore multiple, not just one change in diet or two.


I started studying about my thyroid issue much earlier and did lose some weight. But ever since I started following Dr. Davis’s blog, it has given me confidence that I was on the right track. I did have my thyroid and iodine figured out from other sources, but Dr. Davis helped me to understand the issues with not only the thyroid but vitamin D3, fructose, fish oil, niacin, wheat etc. I have lost 43lb in last 14 months.

It seems to me that there are certain percentages of weight connected with different issues. For example, after I gave up alcohol and sugar, I lost about 14lbs from total weight of 243lbs, weight came down to about 229lb. Then it stopped at 229lb, even though I was in the gym almost 5 to 6 days a week with full workouts.

After I changed my thyroid medication to natural thyroid hormones (took synthetic T4 for over 10 years), the weight dropped down further 13lbs or so in matter of few days, shape of the face changed from moon shape/double chin to ordinary long face. Then it kind of stopped at around 213-216 lbs.

After giving up wheat, reducing carbs, increasing protein intake (whey protein, chicken etc. no soya, no fructose) the weight came down another 14lbs. Now it is around 200-202lbs and I am over 6.2 tall with heavy set of bones.

I feel better than I have ever in my life. More stamina, more clarity/no fog, more confidence and 99% of the time relaxed and being able to see the situation from multiple angles.

I use to be able to drink a liter or more jack denial without a problem in one evening but now can’t stand half a can of beer (I miss JD). Drinking alcohol makes me sick. I sleep well and if I wake up in the middle of the night, I have no problem going back to sleep. No more out of breath stair climbing at all.

One other thing: I used to be the most attractive meal to the mosquitoes, but not anymore. This year I haven’t been bitten once. I take my dog to the park everyday and I do not use any mosquito repellent, what a relief. I don’t know if it is because of thyroid, iodine, wheat or something else. Skin texture has changed dramatically. I do not use full soap or shampoo, 20% borax, 10 percent of my soap or shampoo for scent and rest water, mixed in a 500ml bottle. No more dandruff, dry skin, pimples for me.

Dr. Davis I am thankful to people like you who have the ability to see beyond what you have been taught and have the guts to say the way it is. Most of us work to make living on daily basis but some make their living while spreading their knowledge to save lives. Dr Davis you are one of those few people. Please keep it going.

Calling all losers!

29. August 2009 William Davis (14)
I'd like to invite anyone who has followed the Track Your Plaque Break the Weight Barrier program to consider posting their stories and photos on the Heart Scan Blog.

Because our focus is prevention and reversal of coronary heart disease, we have not made an effort to catalog the weight loss experience that people have while on the program. For many, weight loss has been substantial. (Several people this week alone have reported weight loss of 9 to 46 lbs in the past 6 months.)

It would be helpful to hear and see these results.

For those of you who don't mind having a story and photo on this Blog, please come back in future to post your results. You will find this post by entering "weight loss" into the site-specific search bar at the top of the page.

Weight loss and vitamin D

28. August 2009 William Davis (28)
At the start of her program, Penny's 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level showed the usual deficiency at 22 ng/ml.

She supplemented with 8000 units of vitamin D. Another 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level several months later showed a level of 67.8 ng/ml, right on target.

But Penny also began our diet, including the elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, and, over 6 months, lost 34 lbs.

Now a much trimmer 146 lbs (still more to go!), another vitamin D blood level: 111 ng/ml.

Penny's weight loss means that the vitamin D is distributed in a smaller total volume, particularly a lower volume of fat.

This is a common phenomenon with substantial weight loss: lose weight and the need for vitamin D is reduced. The reduction in dose is roughly proportion to the weight lost. Vitamin D should therefore be reassessed with any substantial change in weight of, say, 10 lbs or more, either up or down, because of the influence of fat on vitamin D blood levels.

Some references on this effect:

Men and women over age 65:
Adiposity in relation to vitamin D status and parathyroid hormone levels: a population-based study in older men and women.

Obese women:
Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations in obese women: their clinical significance and relationship with anthropometric and body composition variables

Obese children:
Hypovitaminosis D in obese children and adolescents: relationship with adiposity, insulin sensitivity, ethnicity, and season.

African-Americans:
Relationship of vitamin D and parathyroid hormone to obesity and body composition in African Americans.

Although the bulk of the effect is most likely due to sequestration by fatty tissue, perhaps less sun exposure in obese people also contributes:
Body mass index determines sunbathing habits: implications on vitamin D levels.

Why an RDA for vitamin D?

24. January 2009 William Davis (10)
The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine is charged with setting the values for the Recommended Daily Allowances of various essential nutrients. However, when it comes to vitamin D, the FNB decided that "evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and [an Adequate Intake, AI] is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy."

The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements lists the AI's for various groups of people:

14-18 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

19-50 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

51-70 years
Male 400 IU
Female 400 IU

71+ years
Male 600 IU
Female 600 IU


A reconsideration is apparently being planned in near-future that will (hopefully) incorporate the newest clinical data on vitamin D.

My question: Who cares what the FNB decides? Let me explain.

I monitor blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to assess the 1) starting level of vitamin D without supplementation, and 2) levels while on supplementation, preferably every 6 months (during sunny weather, during cold weather). I have done for the past 3 years in over 1000 people.

The requirement for vitamin D dose in adults, in my experience, ranges from as low as 1000 units per day to as high as 20,000 units per day, rarely more. The vast majority of women require 5000 units per day, males 6000 units per day to maintain a blood level in the desirable range. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.) A graph of the distribution of vitamin D needs in my area (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) is a bell curve, a curve more heavily weighted towards the upper vitamin D dose range.

Need for vitamin D to achieve the same blood level is influenced by age, sex, body size, race, presence or absence of a gallbladder, as well as other factors. But needs vary, even among similar people. For instance, a 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 4000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 65 ng/ml. Another 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 8000 units to achieve the same level, and 4000 units might increase her level to only 38 ng/ml. Two similar women, very different vitamin D needs. The differences can be striking.

Being a hormone--not a vitamin, as it was incorrectly labeled--vitamin D needs to be tightly regulated. We should have neither too little nor too much. I would liken it to thyroid hormones, which need to be tightly regulated for ideal health.

Now the FNB, in light of new data, wants to set new AI's, or even RDA's, for vitamin D for the U.S. This is an impossible--impossible--task. There is no way a broad policy can be crafted that serves everyone. It is impossible to state that all men or women, categorized by age, require X units vitamin D. This is pure folly and it is misleading.

The only rational answer for the FNB to provide is to declare that:

It is not possible to establish the precise need for vitamin D in a specific individual because of the multiplicity of factors, only some of which are known, that determine vitamin D needs. Individual need can only be determined by assessing the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D prior to initiation of replacement and periodically following replacement to assess the adequacy of replacement dose. Continuing reassessment is recommended (e.g., every 6-12 months), as needs change with weight, lifestyle, and age.

Sure, it adds around $100-150 per year per person for lab testing to assess vitamin D levels. But the health gains made--reduced fractures, reduced incidence of diabetes, reduced colon, breast, and prostate cancer, less depression, reduced heart attack and heart procedures--will more than compensate.

Bargains for Armour Thyroid

23. January 2009 William Davis (10)
We use Armour thyroid almost exclusively. I take it myself.

I am thoroughly convinced that, for at least 70% of people requiring thyroid replacement, the added T3 component makes a world of difference compared to isolated T4: More energy, greater alertness, better mental clarity, better weight loss, larger effects on lipoprotein(a).

However, there are substantial price disparities in different pharmacies.

For instance, in Milwaukee, a one month supply of 1 grain (60 mg) tablets costs:

Walgreen's: $36.00

Walmart: $9.54


That's a considerable price difference of nearly 400%. It therefore always pays to do a little bit of shopping.

Heart scan mis-information on WebMD

22. January 2009 William Davis (3)
If you want information on how prescription drugs fit into your life, then go to WebMD.

But, if you are looking for information that cuts through the bullcrap, is untainted by the heavy-handed tactics of the drug industry, or doesn't support the "a heart catheterization for everyone" mentality, then don't go there.

A Heart Scan Blog reader turned up this gem on the WebMD site:

Should I have a coronary calcium scan to check for heart disease?

In their report, they list some reasons why a heart scan should not be obtained:

Most of the time, a physical exam and other tests can give your doctor enough information about your risk for heart disease.

You've got to be kidding me. What tests are they talking about?

EKG? An EKG is a crude test that tells us virtually nothing about the coronary arteries or risk for heart attack. It is helpful for heart rhythm disorders and other abnormalities, but virtually useless for coronary disease unless a heart attack is underway or has already occurred.

Cholesterol? What level of cholesterol tells you whether you have heart disease? Tim Russert, for instance, had the same cholesterol values 5 years before his death as on the day of his death. How would cholesterol have told his doctor that heart disease was present? Does an LDL cholesterol of 180 mg/dl tell you that someone has heart disease, while a value of 130 mg/dl does not?

Stress test? You mean like the normal stress test Bill Clinton had 3 months before his near-fatal collapse? Stress tests are a gauge of coronary flow, not of coronary atherosclerosis. Huge amounts of coronary plaque can be present while a stress test--flow--remains normal.

No, a physical exam does not uncover hidden heart disease. The annual physical is, in fact, a miserable failure for detection of hidden heart disease.


You already know that your risk for heart disease is low or high. The test works best in people who are at medium risk but have no symptoms.

This bit of fiction comes from a compromise statement in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association "consensus" document detailing the role of heart scans in heart disease detection. Because conventional thinkers don't like the idea of very early detection in seemingly "low risk" people, nor do they like the idea of diabetics and smokers getting a heart scan because it's "obvious" that they are already at high risk, the middle ground was taken: Scan only people at "intermediate risk."

What the heck is "intermediate risk"? Are you intermediate risk?

In real life, using standard criteria (e.g., Framingham scoring) to decide who is low-, intermediate-, or high-risk fails to identify over 1/3 of people with heart disease, while subjecting many without heart disease (plaque) to needless treatment (meaning statins, since that's the only real preventive treatment on most doc's armamentarium).

Another fact: Heart scans are quantitative, not just normal or abnormal. Your heart scan score could be 5, it could be 150, it could be 500, or 5000---it makes a world of difference. The risk of someone with a score of 5000 is at very different risk than someone with a score of 5. It also provides much greater precision in determining a specific individual's risk.



The test could give a high score even if your arteries aren't blocked. This might lead to extra tests that you don't need.

This is true--if you doctor has no idea what he's doing.

This is like saying that you should never take your car to the repair shop because all mechanics are crooks. If you have an unscrupulous cardiologist who tells you that your heart scan score of 25 means you are a "walking time bomb" and heart catheterization is necessary to determine whether you "need" a stent . . . well, this is no different than the shady mechanic who advises you that your car's engine needs to be rebuilt for $3000, when all you really needed was a few new spark plugs.

Coronary plaque is coronary plaque, and all coronary plaque has potential for rupture (heart attack)--even if it doesn't block flow. This is true at a score of 10, or 100, or 1000--all plaque is potentially rupture-prone, though the more plaque you have, the greater the likelihood.


Not all blocked arteries have calcium. So you could get a low calcium score and still be at risk.

They're missing the point: ANY calcium score carries risk, so a low score should not be interpreted as having no risk. But, just because a procedure like stenting or bypass surgery is not necessary to restore flow, it does not mean that risk for plaque rupture is not present--it is.

Any heart scan score should be taken seriously, meaning sufficient reason to engage in a program of heart disease prevention.

Although not perfect, coronary calcium scoring remains the easiest, most accessible, and least expensive means for identifying and quantifying coronary atherosclerosis--whether or not WebMD and drug industry money endorse them.

Heart disease prevention for the helpless, ignorant, or non-compliant

19. January 2009 William Davis (9)
The media outlets are gushing with the "research"/marketing spinoff of the JUPITER trial, an analysis conducted by Dr. Erica Spatz of Yale University, that suggests that statin use should be expanded to many millions more Americans.

USA Today: Study: 11M more should get statins

MedPage: JUPITER Findings Could Boost Statin Use by 20%

Health Day: Millions More Americans Might Be Placed on Statins

WebMD: More May Benefit From Cholesterol Drugs: Study Shows More Would Qualify for Statin Treatment if Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are Considered


You may recall that the JUPITER trial (discussed previously in a Heart Scan Blog post) studied the cardiovascular event risk in people with "normal" LDL cholesterols (calculated, of course, not measured) of 130 mg/dl or less, along with increased c-reactive protein, a crude inflammatory measure, of 2.0 mg/dl or greater. A 54% (relative) reduction in cardiovascular events occured in the group taking Crestor 20 mg per day.

What I see is a confluence of events that have brought us to the "statin drugs are necessary for everybody" mentality:

--The low-fat diet advice of the last 40 years has increased non-fat or low-fat foods that increase LDL, since removing fat from the diet provokes small LDL particle production and increases the inflammatory measure, c-reactive protein (CRP).

--The proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the diet have also caused an enormous boom in small LDL particles, which is interpreted to the uninformed as "high cholesterol." It has also provoked CRP substantially.

--The advice to reduce salt intake has brought a broad re-emergence of iodine deficiency. When thyroid hormone production flags due to lack of iodine, LDL cholesterol (both large and small) increase.

--Our lives, which are increasingly conducted indoors, have worsened the already substantial vitamin D deficiency. While deficiency of vitamin D primarily reduces HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides, it can also cause an increase in small LDL and a large increase in CRP.


In other words, a collection of events have converged to provide the appearance of high LDL cholesterol and high CRP. This creates the appearance of a "need" for statin drugs. The JUPITER trial now exploits both the LDL-reducing and CRP-decreasing effects of statins.

I view the foisting of Crestor via the JUPITER argument on the public as taking full advantage of the helpless situation many Americans find themselves in: Reduce fat intake, eat more healthy whole grains and . . . cholesterol and CRP skyrocket! "You need Crestor! See, I told you it was genetic," says the doctor after attending the nice AstraZeneca-sponsored drug dinner.

The notion of using a drug like Crestor to suppress inflammatory patterns is absurd. There are far better, easier, cheaper ways to achieve this goal, along with dramatic reduction in cardiovascular risk. But, to the ignorant, the helpless, or non-compliant with real change in diet and lifestyle, then Crestor does serve a purpose.

I can only hope that the excessive pushing of statin drugs on the public will sooner or later trigger a revolt.

Dangerous mis-information on vitamin D

16. January 2009 William Davis (12)

Please be aware of the ignorant propagating information they have no business talking about.

This is one such example, a newsletter from pop exercise guru, Denise Austin.

Although I'm sure she means well, I have a problem with people who have little to no experience acting as experts, often simply repeating something they heard or read somewhere else. This has become particular problem with the internet, in which bad information can get repeated thousands of times, gaining a veil of "truth" through its repetition. I don't mean to pick specifically on Ms. Austin, since she joins a growing rank of pseudo-experts on vitamin D and other topics, but she provides a good example of how far wrong mainstream information can be.



Simple Steps
Do Your D!

Calcium often gets all the glory when it comes to bone health. But calcium wouldn't benefit your bones much without its partner, vitamin D!

Why? Vitamin D helps your body absorb calcium and keeps your bones strong; without enough vitamin D, the bones become weak and brittle, a condition called rickets in children, and osteomalacia in adults. Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

Unfortunately, not too many foods contain vitamin D naturally. (Tuna and sardines canned in oil are exceptions.) The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals. You can check the Nutrition Facts panel on packages and containers to see which products contain vitamin D. It should be listed after vitamins A and C, along with the percentage of the Daily Value that a serving of the food contains. The Daily Value (a standardized amount) for vitamin D is 400 IU, so if your milk has 25 percent of the Daily Value, it provides 100 IU per serving.

Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week to make enough. However, because of the increasing incidence of skin cancer in recent years, many experts are wary about recommending sun exposure.

So take a closer look at milk, yogurt, cereal, and margarine selections when you're doing your weekly shopping, and stock up on brands that are fortified with vitamin D. Challenge yourself to consume one source of vitamin D at least three days in the coming week! If you cannot eat or do not like any foods that contain vitamin D or are fortified with it, talk with your health care provider ASAP about taking a supplement. Your bones will thank you for it!



Let me list the mistakes in this piece:

Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

This is the same non-information that was the advice originally offered by the Food and Nutrition Board based on a best guesstimate due to lack of data. It is clear from newer data that doses required for full restoration of vitamin D are in the thousands of units. (My personal dose for full restoration of vitamin judged by serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is 8000 units per day.)

The information coming from the Food and Nutrition Board is about as good as the information coming from the USDA (you know, that "government" agency meant to represent the interests of ConAgra, Cargill, and Big Farming) and the American Heart Association (that represents consensus opinion from data 20 years out of date and now arm-in-arm with Big Food like General Mills, Kraft, and Nabisco). These agencies and the advice they offer has, over the past few years, become increasingly irrelevant and outdated. It is the Information Age, in which ulterior motives are becoming more readily exposed, yet they still operate by the rules of the Industrial Age and deliver a message that serves their own purposes.

Ms. Austin fell for it.


The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals.

First of all, what is a "diet expert" doing advocating industrial foods? Cereals, in particular, are among the worst foods on the supermarket shelves, whether or not they are fortified. Candy bars can be fortified, too; that doesn't make them any better for you.

The vitamin D added to these foods is, more often than not, the ergocalcferol, or D2, form that is woefully ineffective. And the dose added is trivial, usually in the 100-200 unit range per serving. The same goes for the milk, an inadequate source that we don't even factor into total intakes because of the low quantity.


Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week.

Nope. This might be true for a young person below age 30 in a southern environment. It is NOT true for the majority of people in northern climates and anyone over age 30 or 40, since we lose most of the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin as we age. A deep, dark Florida tan does not necessarily mean that vitamin D has been activated. See A tan does not equal vitamin D. Here in Wisconsin, where, despite this darn cold winter, does enjoy wonderfully warm and beautiful summers, the average vitamin D dose need ranges from 4000-8000 units per day in summer, slightly more in winter.

By the way, it is not calcium that is instrumental to bone health. It is vitamin D. Calcium is the passive bricks and mortar of bones, while vitamin D is the bricklayer, the determinant of calcium's fate, the master control of bone health. Calcium supplementation becomes almost immaterial when vitamin D is restored.

I praise Ms. Austin for her hard work, trying to help fat Americans lose weight. But please ignore her advice on vitamin D, along with the numbing repetition of this mis-information that will likely propagate from other exercise gurus, dietitians, and pseudoexperts.

A Tale of Two LDL's

15. January 2009 William Davis (10)
Kurt, a 50-year old businessman with a heart scan score of 323, had a :

--Conventional (calculated) LDL of 128 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL 241 mg/dl.


Laurie, a 53-year old woman who underwent a coronary bypass operation last year (before I met her), had a:

--Conventional LDL of 142 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL was 85 mg/dl.


(By "real, measured" LDL, I'm referring to LDL particle number in units of nmol/L obtained through NMR lipoprotein testing and dividing by 10, or just dropping the last digit to convert the value to mg/dl. This technique was arrived at by comparing the population distributions of these two parameters, LDL particle number and calculated LDL. This is the gold standard in my view. Similar numbers can be obtained by measuring apoprotein B, direct LDL, or calculated non-HDL, with diminishing reliability from first to last.)

In other words, Kurt's conventional LDL underestimated real LDL by 88%. Laurie's conventional LDL overestimated real LDL by 40%.

Interestingly, Laurie's doctor had insisted she take Lipitor for a high LDL cholesterol. Her real LDL was, in fact, low to begin with and benefits of a statin drug would be little to none. (Remember, in our Track Your Plaque approach, multiple other treatments are included, such as omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D normalization, and wheat elimination, strategies that yield benefits that others expect to obtain with statins.) Laurie's real cause of her heart disease proved to have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol, but involved lipoprotein(a) and thyroid issues.

Kurt proved to have a severe preponderance of small LDL particles--the worst kind of LDL, while Laurie had none--a benign pattern.

Then how can anyone make sense of the conventional, calculated LDL cholesterol that is generally (95% of the time) provided? If accuracy can stretch to plus or minus 80% . . . you can't. Conventional LDL is a miserably inaccurate number. The problem is that obtaining a superior number requires a step or two more testing and insight, something most busy primary care doc's simply don't have in the midst of a day filled with arthritis, bronchitis, diarrhea, belly aches, and seborrhea.

Yet conventional--I call it "fictitious"--LDL serves as the basis for this $27 billion (annual revenues) industry selling statin drugs.

This is meant to be neither an argument in favor of nor against statin drugs. However, it is plain as day that any study designed to reduce LDL cholesterol will be hopelessly clouded by calculated LDL imprecision. A calculated LDL of, say, 143 mg/dl might really be 187 mg/dl, or it might be 74 mg/dl--you can't tell by looking just at LDL. Yet billions of dollars of research and billions of dollars of healthcare costs are based on the treatment of this number.

This reminds me of the mark-to-market accounting magic that helped topple Wall Street.

I don't think that the statin world is poised for such a huge downfall. But I do see this as a source of enormous dilution of the effects of statin drugs. People who barely stand to benefit get the drugs, while others who might truly benefit are treated inadequately. It provides fuel to the growing idea that reducing LDL cholesterol fails to truly provide benefit.

I am no lover of statin drugs nor drugs in general. But I am a fan of knowing the truth. Despite my bashing of the drug industry (and make no mistake: the drug industry is a cutthroat, profit-seeking, do-anything-to-increase-sales industry), I do believe that there is a role for statin drugs (though far smaller than $27 billion per year). But the usual method of selecting people for treatment is pure fiction. The ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines? An anemic attempt to apply structure to meaningless values.

You and I do not need to subscribe to this sort of non-quantitative nonsense.

Niacin scams

12. January 2009 William Davis (0)
In the Track Your Plaque program, we often resort to niacin (vitamin B3 or nicotinic acid) to:

--Raise HDL cholesterol
--Reduce the proportion of small LDL particles
--Shift HDL towards the healthy larger fraction (HDL2b or "large")
--Reduce lipoprotein(a), the most aggressive risk factor known


But niacin comes with a crazy "hot flush," a warm, prickly feeling that usually envelops the upper chest, neck and face that is, without a doubt, annoying. Around 1 in 20 people simply cannot tolerate any amount of niacin >100 mg, while others have no problem even into the 3000 mg per day or more range. (Tolerance to niacin is genetically determined, governed by the rapidity of metabolism to the niacin metabolite, nicotinuric acid.)

The niacin flush has spawned an entire panel of niacin-like scams, agents that sound like niacin or may even contain niacin, but exert no beneficial effect whatsoever:

Flush-free niacin--I have previously posted on this useless but ubiquitous preparation that often costs several times more than conventional niacin. Flush-free niacin, or inositol hexaniacinate, does indeed contain niacin, but it is not released in the human body. You simply pass it out down the toilet, where this preparation belongs in the first place.

Nicotinamide--Also called niacinamide. While the nicotinamide/niacinamide forms of vitamin B3 can be used to treat B3 deficiency ("pellagra"), they do not reproduce the lipid and lipoprotein effects of niacin. For our purposes, they are useless.

Niacin-containing heart-healthy supplements--These are the multi-supplements that contain a little of everything that might be beneficial for the heart, but none at a dose that provides genuine benefit. Don't throw your money away.


There's also a prescription niacin, Niaspan, that costs 20-fold more than the best over-the-counter preparation, Sloniacin. Niaspan has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry. Your money, in my view, is far better spent on Sloniacin (around $12-14 per bottle of 100 tablets of 500 mg).

For more on niacin, here's an article I wrote for the Life Extension Magazine people a while back: Using Niacin to Improve Cardiovascular Health.

Deja vu all over again?

10. January 2009 William Davis (8)
HeartHawk brought a report and debate on The Heart.Org website to my attention:

Screening for risk factors or detecting disease? Debate divides the CV community. After landing on theheart.org, paste this onto your URL address:article/883239.do. (Full address: http://www.theheart.org/article/883239.do. I don't know why, but I couldn't go there directly.)

Some interesting comments:

Dr. Jay Cohn (University of Minnesota):

"They're saying that we can't identify disease very effectively so let's just stick with risk factors, which we know are very poorly predictive and nonspecific. It boggles my mind as to why they won't open up their minds to the importance of moving forward in finding better strategies to identify the disease that we are treating. It's very strange. They criticize these disease markers because they are not predictive of events, but they are looking at very short-term outcomes. We're interested in lifetime risk. We're screening people in their 40s who are concerned about morbid events in their 60s and 70s, and no trials are going to track them that long."

"You have to accept the pathophysiologic reality that heart attacks don't occur in the absence of coronary disease, and coronary disease doesn't occur in the absence of endothelial dysfunction and vascular disease, all of which now can be identified."

". . . Can we as a society and as a profession accept the idea that there is a link between the vascular abnormalities and the events? "And that that linkage is tight enough that it should allow us to accept slowing of progression of the vascular abnormalities as an adequate marker for slowing disease progression, without waiting for events to occur? As soon as you use the word surrogate, people jump up and say we have all these markers that we know don't work well—things like premature ventricular contractions [PVCs] on the electrocardiogram, LDL, HDL—but those are not the markers we're talking about. We're talking about structural and functional changes in the blood vessel and in the heart."


Wow. The idea may be starting to catch on.

As an interesting aside, Cohn et al use a 10-test panel to screen for vascular disease:

"Named for the center's benefactor, the Rasmussen score includes tests for large and small artery elasticity (compliance), resting blood pressure, blood-pressure response to moderate treadmill exercise, optic fundus photography, carotid intimal-media thickness (IMT), microalbuminuria, electrocardiography, left ventricular (LV) ultrasonography for LV volume and mass, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Each test result is scored out of 10 for low, intermediate, or high risk, and the combined results yields a score that Cohn et al believe is more predictive than any of the existing standalone tests."


The counterarguments in this debate were provided by Dr. Philip Greenland (Northwestern University), who repeated his oft-used argument that, while he accepts that vascular disease can be identified, no one has proven that measuring it improves outcomes:

"We do have that evidence for risk-factor screening. Even though people criticize risk-factor assessment because it is not sensitive enough or not accurate enough, the interesting and curious thing is that we actually have evidence that if you go to the trouble of screening for risk factors and treating them, patients have better outcomes. We do not have that evidence for any of these other tests."


An interesting debate ensues that includes Track Your Plaque friend, Dr. William Blanchet, who characteristically argues persuasively in favor of broad screening for coronary disease with coronary calcium scoring:

"If we were doing our jobs in primary prevention, we would not need to look at improved intervention and secondary prevention to reduce coronary death."


Here's a shock: Dr. Melissa Shirley-Walton, the cardiologist who previously preached the "cath lab on every corner" argument seems to have undergone a change of heart:

"What if I walked up to a gentleman and said, "you are at risk for CAD, take a statin", to which he replies, "I'm afraid of those meds". BUT if he sees his calcium score........he is then convinced to be pro-active. What is so wrong with that? What is so wrong with allowing him to spend 250.00 US out of pocket in order to save the US 150,000.00 US later on?

No hard endpoints you say with intensive therapy for primary prevention? What about extrapolating from trials for secondary prevention like HATS? ARBITER2? And what exactly is the true definition of secondary prevention? Is it truly primary prevention if we already have intima thickness abnormalities, or fatty streaks? That would more likely fall under secondary prevention by today's new standards.

So, I'm all for any visual aid that will encourage compliance with life style change, necessary medical therapy and followup. If the patient is willing to spend 250.00$ to get a calcium score, so be it. Better yet, why not lower the price so everyone can have the option if they are motivated enough to seize an opportunity?"


I have to admit that I thought that Dr. Blanchet was wasting his time trying to persuade Shirley-Walton et al, but perhaps he is having an impact, though having hammered away at them for the last year or so.

These arguments, for me, eerily echo many previous debates I've heard. But I am encouraged by the more favorable treatment the notion of atherosclerosis screening is receiving. Just 5 years ago, all coronary calcium scoring would have received from the conventionalists is "more clinical studies are needed."

So perhaps the cardiology and medical worlds are inching slowly towards broad acceptance of screening for coronary and vascular disease.

BUT, screening is not sufficient. What do you do with the information?

Here is where the conventional-thinkers stop. The question that seems to occupy them: Perhaps we should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs a statin drug or a procedure.

I would pose a different challenge: We should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs to engage in an intensive program of disease reversal using natural means and as little medication and procedures as possible.

Well, perhaps in time.

Lead to Gold: The alchemy of transforming nutritional-supplement-to-medication

9. January 2009 William Davis (25)
Here's a recipe to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Others have done it and you can do it, too!

1) Identify a nutritional supplement that works.

Find some agent deemed to fall within the broad allowances of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act . However, because this agent is already in the public domain and is essential non-patent-protectable, you may need to develop some patent protectable aspect of its production, application, or encapsulation. This patent-protected aspect may or may not provide genuine advantage, but that's not your concern. Your concern is protecting your investment and providing the appearance of exclusivity.


2) Identify a medical indication for your product.

Choose a disease or condition that is likely to yield unquestioned efficacy, e.g., omega-3 fatty acids to reduce high triglycerides in people with familial hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides >500 mg/dl). While this will restrict your ability to make market claims, it will not restrain your ability to sell or allow use of your agent for "off-label" applications. In fact, there are methods to surreptitiously promote the use of your product for off-label use, such as hiring experts to discuss the science behind your product with doctors who can prescribe your product. Ideally, your product's primary indication will provide a substantial market on its own to justify your investment. However, the eventual off-label sales can be substantial, even outstripping the sales generated through your primary indication.


3) Obtain at least $230 million to pay for the clinical trials required to obtain FDA approval.

You will also have to raise the capital to build the business to manufacture, distribute, and sell your product.


4) After FDA approval is obtained, your business is up and running, and distribution begins, start bashing the non-FDA-approved nutritional products that stand to compete in your market.

You could point out that only your product has actually passed through the rigorous FDA process. You could make claims regarding purity, potency, "approved by your doctor," etc., whether or not there is any truth behind the claim.


5) Buy that second vacation home in Aspen and the corporate jet you've been dreaming about! After all the risks you've taken, you deserve it!


That's it, plain and simple. It is a tried-and-true formula that has been applied many times.

It is a formula like this that brought Lovaza-brand omega-3 fatty acids to market, Niaspan brand of niacin, ergocalciferol form of vitamin D, Folbee (prescription combination B vitamins), with a slightly different spin for Synthroid (since the Armour Thyroid it is meant to replace is not a nutritional supplement, but a low-cost, generic thyroid replacement).

Whatever you do, don't EVER run a head-to-head comparative trial of your agent versus the nutritional supplement competition. For instance, NEVER compare Lovaza to supplemental fish oil capsules, matched milligram-for-milligram for EPA and DHA content. NEVER compare Niaspan to over-the-counter Sloniacin. NEVER compare Armour Thyroid to Synthroid. You never know what you might find. (Psssssttt! They might be equivalent!)

The formula is not a foolproof road paved with riches, however. There have been market failures, as well. Folbee, for instance, is hardly a household name. So there's risk involved, no question about it. But, should it all work out, the payoff can be big, VERY big, as it has been for Niaspan and Lovaza.

So, start thinking about how you might follow this formula for:

1) Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)--e.g., for osteopenia, low HDL, or high c-reactive protein
2) Vitamin K2--also for osteopenia
3) Magnesium--for suppression of ventricular arrhythmias (especially Torsade de Pointes)
4) Iodine--for goiter and iodine deficiency
5) Vitamin C--for uric acid reduction

Who said you can't turn lead into gold?