Addictive Foods

25. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Kraft Foods, Inc. is manufacturer of Kool Aid, Oscar Mayer, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Velveeta, Honey Maid Grahams, and hundreds of other processed food products. Post cereals also falls under the umbrella of Kraft with products like Raisin Bran, Post Toasties, and Fruity Pebbles. Annual revenues in 2006 for Kraft: $34.4 billion. A big operation with enormous influence over our eating habits.

Nabisco is manufacturer of Oreos, Ritz Crackers, Chips Ahoy and many others. Like Kraft/Post, it is also a big player.

While Nabisco was owned for several years by tobacco giant RJ Reynolds, in 2000 it was acquired by Philip Morris, another big tobacco manufacturer.

More recently in Spring, 2007, Philip Morris (now called Altria--you'd change your name, too, if it was synonymous with dirt) spun off its Kraft subsidiary for a big profit. However, the management structures remain intertwined.

In other words, despite the shuffling of shares, the two industries, big tobacco and big food, are in many respects one and the same.

Is it any surprise that the same industry that made billions of dollars pushing addictive nicotine products responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is now intimately involved with addictive products produced and marketed by the processed food industry?

If you believe that food manufacturers are innocently and honestly conducting their businesses, simply think back to the testimony provided in front of Congress during the tobacco industry hearings. Broad deception, concealed truths, and outright lies were commonplace. There was no conscience involved. This was about money--and lots of it.

Why should the processed food industry, intimate with the tobacco industry, be any different?

If you want control over heart disease and your heart scan score, buy produce and buy local. Spend your time in the produce aisle, not the cereal or chip aisle. Unprocessed food, unadorned by bright labels, cartoon animals, American Heart Association endorsements, that's what we should seek.

Heart Scan Curiosities #7

25. June 2007 William Davis (1)



Here's a situation that crops up once in a while, occurring in perhaps 2% of heart scans.

The white within the circled area represents calcium, and thereby atherosclerotic plaque, situated immediately at the "mouth", or opening, of the the right coronary artery. What is somewhat unusual is that this plaque is not principally coronary, but aortic. That is, the plaque is mostly situated in the large vessel called the aorta. The three coronary arteries arise from the aorta.

In this instance, the aortic plaque involves the mouth of the right coronary artery. (In views not shown, the plaque also extends into the artery as well.) I call this a "double whammy" because the same plaque can post risk for heart attack and stroke.

Generally, aortic plaques pose risk for stroke. When aortic plaque fragments, little bits and pieces can travel upward to the brain and block an artery, thus a stroke.

In the coronaries, disrupted ("ruptured") plaques don't generally shower debris, but permit blood clot formation, resulting in heart attack.

This plaque, however, poses the theoretical risk of both heart attack and stroke because of its strategic location.

Should a plaque like this be handled any differently? I don't think so. But it does provide another reason to take atherosclerotic plaque in any artery seriously.

The nutrition counterculture

23. June 2007 William Davis (2)
When we look back over our American nutritional history over the last 50 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that much of the innovation in nutrition did not come from official agencies like the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the USDA, or the AMA.

Instead, it came from the popular culture. It came from bold, extravagant claims made by maverick figures like Ancel Keys, Nathan Pritikin, Dean Ornish, and Robert Atkins. Of course, some ideas have now fallen by the wayside, dismissed in a broad American "experiment" as ineffective, impractical, or kooky. But it permitted experimentation on an extraordinary scale with millions of people following a particular strategy at a time.

The advice of the official agencies tended to be reactionary. When nutritional deficiencies (remember those?) of the early 1900s were prevalent, they issued advice on food choices to help alleviate deficiencies. When deficiency transformed into excess after World War II, "smart" food choices from food groups and "sensible eating" became the theme.

Unfortunately, the advice was always adulterated by the enormous influence of various special interests, anxious to protect their national franchise. Powerful groups like the meat industry, wheat producers, and the dairy industry all made sure they had a big hand in crafting and influencing what was told to the American people.

The result: the advice offered by official groups has always represented the compromise of what some agency wished to convey to the people and the very powerful input of industry. What if the government decided to advise us what automobile to buy? Imagine the uproar in the auto industry when Washington tells us to buy Toyota for fuel economy and reliability. How long would that advice last?

That's why almost no knowledgeable adult follows the advice of the USDA, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Food Pyramid. I believe that we all intuitively recognize that the advice is watered-down, sometimes silly, sometimes downright unhealthy.

Nonetheless, the national experiment in diet that has taken place since 1950 has led to a collective wisdom of what is good and what is bad. The most productive conversations on nutrition therefore take place outside of the USDA and Washington. It occurs, instead, in places like bookstores, websites, and the media. Of course, there's lots of misinformation and profiteering in these sectors, as well. But like the enormous force unleashed by the collective wisdom of those contributing to the Wikipedia phemonenon, we've zig-zagged to something closer to the truth than ever uttered by an official agency.

Prescription vitamin D

23. June 2007 William Davis (32)
Niacin:

Over-the-counter: $2-5 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Fish oil:

Over-the-counter: $3-6 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Vitamin D:

Over-the-counter: $2 per month
Prescription: $70 per month



With vitamin D in particular, the prescription form is vastly inferior to the over-the-counter preparation. This is because the prescription form is ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2, not the effective human form, vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol.

When you're exposed to sun, what form of vitamin D is activated in the skin? It's all vitamin D3, no vitamin D2 whatsoever. Vitamin D3 is also far more effective than D2. People taking D3 (as long as it's oil-based) easily obtain healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood. People taking 50,000 units per day of D2 (the recommended quantity) remain miserably deficient, with minor increases in vitamin D blood levels. In short, D2 barely works at all. D3 works easily and effectively.

Moreover, D2 is the plant-based form. It is a form not found naturally in humans. D3 is the mammalian form, the same found in humans that exerts all its biologic benefits.

Then why is the prescription form of vitamin D2 (brand names Driscol and Calciferol) more expensive?

It's the same old pharmaceutical industry scam: Look for something patent protectable, regardless of whether it's superior to the non-patent protectable product, then sell it for exagerated profits. Though it is inferior and the science and clinical experience prove that it's inferior, you can still fool lots of people, including prescribing physicians. So what if you only make $50 or $100 million?

Don't fall for it. Prescription doesn't necessarily mean superior. In fact, the prescription form may be significantly inferior, as with vitamin D2. But the pharmaceutical industry carries such power and persuasion, who's going to know?

Nutrition activist Mike Adams

20. June 2007 William Davis (1)












I borrowed the above comic from the website of nutritionist, more properly nutrition activist and author, Mike Adams. His website, www.newstarget.com, was a pleasant surprise.

I was actually looking for some thoughts on pharmaceutical advertising and its pervasive and destructive effects and came across one of Adam's reports, Pharmaceutical television advertising is a grand hoax at http://www.newstarget.com/021526.html. The piece is a rant against the pharmaceutical industry's constant bombardment of the media, who have also been co-opted into their service, enticed by the enormous advertising revenues the drug industry brings.

But I was surprised to find an insightful, informative website on health issues, particularly healthy eating that rejects the manufactured food industry's intensive effort to persuade us to eat their products. While I don't agree with everything Adams has to say, his website provides some great food for thought. He also provides lots of downloadable information.

There's also some great laughs at his poke at the pharmaceutical industry with his Disease Mongering Engine at http://www.newstarget.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp, in which you get to create your own diseases. I got a real kick out of this.

CT scans and radiation exposure

19. June 2007 William Davis (8)


The NY Times ran an article called

With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests at

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/health/19cons.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182254102-vQpytpx6W/Z9gvAaNPDZvA



“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”


Where do CT heart scans fall?

Let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:



Typical effective radiation dose values

Computed tomography Milliseverts (mSv)

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT Milliseverts (mSv)

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN


If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

A heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, your exposure is around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.



Detail on radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms on multidetector devices can be found at Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305-1310, one of several studies on this issue.

Mediterranean diet vs. American Heart Association Diet

18. June 2007 William Davis (4)
In 1994, the Lyon Heart Study demonstrated a 50-70% reduction in coronary events in participants who followed a diet rich in vegetables, olive oil, fish, nuts, red wine, and enjoyed meals as a family activity. Various other studies have documented similar phenomena with less metabolic syndrome, better lipid patterns, less obesity with the Mediterranean lifestyle.

There are two fundamental differences between the Mediterranean diet and the diet advocated by the American Heart Association (AHA) for people with heart disease: the Mediterranean diet uses olive oil more liberally, such that fat calories can reach 40% of total; and, unlike the AHA diet, processed foods are not a part of the Mediterranean diet. Greeks, for instance, are far less likely to eat Count Chocula cereal for breakfast, or snack on Healthy Choice Premium Caramel Swirl Sandwich (ice cream sandwiches) or Malt-O-Meal Honey Nut Scooters. All three of these foods on listed on the AHA Heart-Check Mark heart-healthy program.

In other words, remove all the processed foods, and the AHA diet pretty closely resembles the Mediterranean diet. There are differences but they tend to be relatively small. If the only major difference is the presence of processed foods, wouldn't you therefore expect the AHA to embrace the Mediterranean diet?

Here's what their official stand on the Mediterranean diet states:

Does a Mediterranean-style diet follow American Heart Association dietary recommendations?

Mediterranean-style diets are often close to our dietary recommendations, but they don’t follow them exactly. In general, the diets of Mediterranean peoples contain a relatively high percentage of calories from fat. This is thought to contribute to the increasing obesity in these countries, which is becoming a concern.



The AHA is actually lukewarm towards the diet that was the first to show a dramatic decrease in heart attack and death. Why?

The answer is obvious, once cast in this light. To wholeheartedly endorse the Mediterranean diet might be seen as an indirect rejection of American processed foods. You know, the foods that have caused an extraordinary and unprecedented epidemic of obesity in the U.S., the foods that are manufactured by ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs--all also major financial contributors to the AHA, according to the AHA Annual Report.

I tell my patients: If you want heart disease, follow the American Heart Association diet. In my view, it is a diet founded on politics and money, not on health. How else could Cocoa Puffs be regarded as heart healthy?

Track Your Plaque in 50,000 BC

16. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Imagine we could send you back in a time machine to 50,000 BC.

However, our agreement: no modern tools or equipment. Just your brain, hands, and legs. And your landing spot will be tropical or semi-tropical, the same climate that humans spent much of their evolutionary time in.

Not only might you rub elbows with contemporaries like homo erectus and neanderthalensis, you'd also have to fend for your life and survival.

To eat, you will have to chase and kill wild game, all with your bare hands or crude tools crafted from sticks and stones. You will have to learn what wild berries, roots, and plants are edible and distingusih them from those that make you retch, make your bowels run, or kill you. You won't be able to cultivate grain, at least for a good long time, since you don't have a community that makes such an undertaking easier.

Instead, you are constantly on the run, from the moment you awake until you finally settle back as the sun sets, hopefully with a full stomach, but often empty and growling, anticipating the hunt and forage of tomorrow.

You are outdoors all day, except for the period when you hide in your cave or self-made shelter. You wear what little clothing you can make yourself from your kills, a skin or two. Your skin becomes a dark brown, a 5 foot 10 inch male will weigh 140 lbs, a 5 foot 5 inch woman 95 lbs. There are obvious downsides: your teeth will rot, you will be prone to infections, and predators view you as fair game.

But the result will be that many chronic diseases of modern life will no longer be worries for you. Heart disease? Highly unlikely. Do you need vitamin D? No, because you are outdoors virtually all day with most of your body surface area exposed to sun. Omega-3 fatty acids? You get those from the wild game you eat, since they have higher omega-3 content feeding in the wild, not eating corn like modern livestock. Since your body fat is minimal, just enough for survival, you don't need niacin.

In other words, many of the strategies of the Track Your Plaque program are modern necessities, responses to the "deficiencies" of modern life. Of course, I don't really have a time machine. I also doubt that you wish to hunt wild game every day, forage for plants and roots, run nearly-naked in the sun. You probably also have become accustomed to brushing your teeth and not viewing every animal as a potential threat to your life.

Nonetheless, I find this an interesting exercise for understanding the role of all the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program for plaque control.

When pessimism wins

15. June 2007 William Davis (3)
When I first met Hank, I immediately sensed it: anger, hostility, fear. His heart scan score of 685 just made it worse.


He didn't want to be there talking to me. His wife was giving him a hard time. Work was a constant source of irritation. The receptionist at the front desk screwed up his paperwork. Our office charges were too much.


In short, Hank was a pessimist. A bad one.


All the nutrition information out there is bunk. Only he knew how he should eat right. It's stupid to take a lot of fish oil. "You want me to grow gills?"


Among the parameters we use in the Track Your Plaque program is blood pressure during exercise, which provides a surrogate measure of blood pressure during emotional stress, anxiety, etc. "No, I don't need that. I already exercise." No amount of justification could change his mind. "A guy at work had a stress test. They said everything was fine, then Bang! He drops dead. What good is that?"


Hank did go along with a few pieces of advice.


A repeat heart scan 12 months after the first: 870, a 27% per year rate of increase. That's about what would happen if Hank had done nothing, had taken no action to try and stop or reduce his heart scan score.


I don't know if Hank will ever succeed in dropping his score. In fact, I suspect that he will fail, meaning that plaque will grow and he will eventually, perhaps in a year, two or three, require several stents, heart bypass, or have a heart attack. In other words, Hank's pessimism is a self-fulfilling phenomenon: If he believes he will fail, he will. If he believes the world is a rotten place, it is.


Is it possible to "cure" someone like Hank of his deeply-rooted pessimistic attitudes? I don't know of any easy solutions for someone with attitudes as deeply-ingrained as Hank's. (See my prior post, "Cure for pessimism?" at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html.)

I believe it does help to make someone aware of their attitudes and that it does indeed exert ill health-effects--if they will believe it. But this is a very tough nut to crack.

Bad news on CoQ10?

13. June 2007 William Davis (8)
A review of the effects of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) on the muscle aches and weakness (myopathy) of statin drug therapy was just published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

(Marcoff L, Thompson PD. The role of coenzyme Q10 in statin-associated myopathy. J Amer Coll Cardiol 2007;49(23):2231-2237.)

This is not a study, but a review of the existing scientific and clinical data available on this topic. The study authors conclude with a lukewarm statement:

". . .there is insufficient evidence to prove the etiologic [causal] role of CoQ10 deficiency in statin-associated myopathy and that large, well-designed clinical trials are required to address this issue. The routine use of CoQ10 cannot be recommended in statin-treated patients. Nevertheless, there are no known risks to this supplement and there is some anecdotal and preliminary trial evidence of its effectiveness. Consequently, CoQ10 can be tested in patients requiring statin treatment, who develop statin myalgia, and who cannot besatisfactorily treated with other agents. Some patients may respond, if only via placebo effect."

Should the media get hold of this report, be prepared for the usual "Nutritional supplement no help for drug toxicity" headlines, or "Yet another nutritional supplement shows no benefit" with parallels drawn to vitamin C or E.

There are several issue that need to be factored into the discussion:

1) This is not a study, just a review. Thus, any biases of the authors are more likely to exert themselves.

2) The understanding of CoQ10 absorption among different preparations may be an issue. I just received a mailing from Life Extension that made extravagant claims about the superior absorption of ubiquinol, to be distinguished from ubiquinone, the more common form. They claim that eight-fold increased absorption and blood levels of CoQ10 are achievable with ubiquinol. Unfortunately, virtually all the supportive data are unpublished, proprietary observations, i.e., generated by companies who make or sell it. This is as reliable as drug manufacturers who publish glowing reports on their own drugs--perhaps it's true, but it requires unbiased corroboration.

3) Despite the lack of a large, well-funded clinical trial (all are small), the issue continues to live and breathe because of the powerful anecdotal experience.

In our experience, CoQ10 does work. It doesn't work all of the time, perhaps just 80-90% of the time. It does generally require higher doses (100 mg per day, occasionally more). It very clearly must be an oil-based gelcap (just like vitamin D) to work; capsules containing powder do not work.

It's difficult to doubt when someone starts a statin drug, develops the muscle aches and weakness, begins CoQ10 and obtains distinct relief, stops CoQ10 and aches and weakness return, then only to go away again with resumption of CoQ10 . I've seen this countless times.

We do need better information on CoQ10. There's no doubt about it. For people who obtain benefit from statin therapy, I think CoQ10 remains a useful solution. A better solution would be to get rid of the offending drug. But that's not always possible--e.g., LDL cholesterol 190 mg/dl despite the best diet and "adjunctive" food effort. Then CoQ10 can be very useful.
Medical education in the days of Big Pharma

Medical education in the days of Big Pharma

30. October 2010 William Davis (43)
I received this detailed email from an unexpected source: a 3rd-year medical student.

In her email, Theresa describes her frustrations in what she is witnessing for the first time, proceeding through her training and getting exposed to the realities of medical life.

Medical training, particularly clinical training from the 3rd and 4th years of medical school, onwards through internship, residency, and fellowship training, consists largely of bullying, "pimping" (meaning rapid-fire grilling of questions at trainees), and sleep deprivation. It is an extended hazing period meant to demoralize and inculcate the trainee into following the lead of superiors. Buck the system and you're . . . out. Imagine you've just sunk $190,000 and 8 years of college into getting to your internship. You are not going to chance being thrown out on principle. So you just swallow your pride, go along with the game, and echo all the answers they want you to repeat.

While Theresa laments the sad state of modern American pharmaceutical- and procedure-obsessed medicine, she provides me with hope that some young people training to practice medicine today will carve out their own paths, not the one laid for them by the pharmaceutical industry, nor fall for the temptation of higher-paying procedural specialties like orthopedics and cardiology. I am impressed with her ability to see this so early in her career.


Dr. Davis,

I am a 3rd year medical student at ________ University. I came across
your blog today, and I'm very glad I did. I appreciate the value of your time,
so I want to be as succinct as possible while still getting across what I'm
really thinking and feeling:

From what I gathered exploring your blog for a while this afternoon, the
wellness strategies you incorporate into your practice are some of the exact
things I want to do with my future patients. Personally, I strongly believe in
staying healthy by eating right, staying active, etc. For instance, I don't eat
grains or much in the way of starches and sugars. So I love the fact that you
are helping your patients make these powerful and foundational changes in their
lives.

As I'm sure was your experience, a full appreciation of nutrition and lifestyle
as a first-line health strategy is not something that was taught to me in
medical school. I came to school with this deep conviction already in my heart
and mind, and now, on my 3rd year rotations, I am still conflicted and at a loss
as to how I'm going to be able to practice medicine the way I want to, which is
to incorporate these all-important principles into the care of my patients.

What I've come to understand about the medical field today is that the
information that exists is primarily subsidized by the pharmaceutical industry,
and dictated to medical professionals as "evidence-based" treatment guidelines
and recommendations by organizations with sincere and official sounding names
like American Heart Association and American Cancer Society. Add to that the
pressure of potential malpractice litigation and the complexities of the
insurance reimbursement game, and it seems to me like what you get is a bunch of
diagnostic and medication management algorithms that any half-trained monkey
could follow. In his sleep. Which I guess would be alright if at least they
weren't algorithms based on misguided, self-serving, profit-seeking Big Pharma,
Food Inc, insurance conglomerates, and agri-politics (I think I just made that
word up.)

A lot of well-intentioned physicians are just parroting the party
line, as their patients dutifully and gratefully chomp down their statins and
diabetes drugs and blood pressure pills. And I'm sorry, but "diabetes
education" programs with curriculum put together by drug companies? How is that
even legal? Massive corporations raking in massive profits that are dependent
on uncontrolled blood sugars telling people how to best control their blood
sugars?!

Anyway, forgive my rant. What I'm getting at is this: How can I practice
medicine, with the freedom to educate/coach/treat my patients with diet and
lifestyle changes to mitigate/reverse their chronic health conditions? Without
feeling like I automatically have to first and foremost prescribe the litany of
drugs dictated by "evidence-based" guidelines? Without excessive fear of
litigation or loss of credibility among my peers? Without having to lie through
my teeth to my patients, and tell them that eating low-fat and heart-healthy
whole grains is the best way (implication also being the only scientifically
proven way) to control their diabetes, lower their cholesterol, etc, etc, etc?

I want my patients to have the full benefit of honest nutrition and lifestyle
information, and medications and surgery as necessary. I'm afraid that there
isn't room for this kind of holistic emphasis in the medical profession today.
Are there residencies that include this kind of training or at least respect
these "unconventional" philosophies? Are there clinics or practice groups that
would allow me to practice with this emphasis, or is there a bias against docs
who do not necessarily conform to the party position? Will I have no other
option but to go it alone under the auspices of my own shingle? How do you
handle these kinds of issues in your professional life?

Sincerely,
Theresa M.


A ray of hope! Perhaps Theresa is just the first among many more medical students who refuse to submit to the brainwashing practices of the pharmaceutical industry, the same mind manipulation that has hopelessly turned most of my colleagues into their unwitting puppets.

I'll be interested in watching how Theresa's experience unfolds. I've asked her to keep us informed every so often.
Tags :

Comments (43) -

  • Sassy

    10/29/2010 8:16:32 PM |

    I would love to see your answers to her questions.

  • Tara BRIDGES

    10/29/2010 8:24:51 PM |

    Welcome to my world... only as a dietitian it is WAY worse.  Trust me.

    Not only do we have to deal with bogus "evidence-based guidelines," the loss of respect of colleagues, and risk of losing our license... We have to do it all with less than a quarter of the salary that the average physician makes and much, much less respect.

    I'm so frustrated in this field, but I'm at a loss as to what to do...

  • Tommy

    10/29/2010 8:28:25 PM |

    Timely. I was just arguing (discussing) with my cardiologist about coming off my statin (40 mg). I never had a cholesterol problem and still don't, even though I had an MI. I point to niacin and he points to Zocor. I tell him about studies and he claims I'm reading the wrong studies and that it is his job to know these things. He claims the zocor isn't for my cholesterol it is to control inflammation. I again point to studies that dispute statins ability to do that and  again suggest niacin. Again, he says he knows better. She is right...it is a sad state of affairs.

  • Jonathan

    10/29/2010 8:49:12 PM |

    @Tommy
    Maybe your doc needs to watch Tom's latest post.
    http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/10/28/video-of-the-big-fat-fiasco-speech/

    And maybe your doc doesn't need to be your doc anymore.

  • Lucy

    10/29/2010 9:54:30 PM |

    Wow-Thank you Theresa. We need more like you!

  • Lori Miller

    10/30/2010 1:28:42 AM |

    Theresa, I'm not a health care provider, just someone who leads an independent life and writes a humble blog on solving one's own health problems, so take this FWIW.

    How do you think for yourself and do things your way? Study the Socratic method. Go by results. Look at how conclusions were arrived at, and weak links in the chain. Don't hang around with people who are dishonest or have stopped thinking for themselves. Always admit your mistakes instead of justifying them.

    If colleagues disapprove of you, check yourself and see if the criticism is valid. Going by what you've said, you'll probably have to choose between professional camaraderie and the best interests of your patients.

    A couple of books that are good tools for thinking for yourself: The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton and Mistakes were Made (but not by me).

  • kellgy

    10/30/2010 1:35:05 AM |

    I know exactly how Theresa feels. After losing 95 pounds, reversing hypertension, and arrhythmias, I have returned to school for an advanced degree as a FNP. My hope is also to provide an approach of health and wellness through nutrition, education, and exercise.
    I have the feeling that there are going to be more of us than the pharmaceutical companies know what to do with. Maybe I am a hopeful optimist, but the influence of a sustainable evidenced based approach as propagated here is already having it's effects.

  • Valerie LeComte

    10/30/2010 1:43:47 AM |

    I agree with Sassy, I would love to see your answers.  I am a second year medical student and am struggling with similar issues.  
    You aren't the only one Theresa! Good luck!

  • Anonymous

    10/30/2010 1:59:07 AM |

    Theresa,

    The practice model you are seeking already exists.  Check out the Institute for Functional Medicine at www.functionalmedicine.org .  After reading your letter to Dr. Davis, I think you'll find IFM exciting.  Good Luck.

  • Anonymous

    10/30/2010 2:40:22 AM |

    Medicine isn't the only field like that. Clinical & school psychology is just as rigid with its hierarchy of gurus and 'prescriptions for care' that are questionable. I was in the field for 30 yrs. before retiring and I can tell you that if you deviate from the path you'll be drummed unceremoniously. Those smiling faces have knives behind their backs. Where do you turn for straight answers? As always, you have to find them yourself. (My identity is anonymous because my username/password is being rejected. Wonder if 'they' have gotten to blogger dotcom too. JK.)

  • Anonymous

    10/30/2010 3:07:00 AM |

    A typo in my last post; should have read:

    I was in the field for 30 yrs. before retiring and I can tell you that if you deviate from the path you'll be drummed out unceremoniously.

  • Kim

    10/30/2010 4:41:05 AM |

    Theresa, please tell me you will practice in Arizona. I need a doctor just like you. Im sick of being offered bandaids to cover up symptoms instead of figuring out a cause for the symptoms. I wish you the best and hope there are more out there like you and Dr. Davis.

  • moblogs

    10/30/2010 9:09:25 AM |

    Just hearing one account of a student upset with the status quo definitely makes me more hopeful for the future. Eventually these voices accumulate and change happens.

  • Buy Flonase Online

    10/30/2010 11:16:57 AM |

    I was in the field for 10 yrs,Medicine isn't the only field like that, before retiring and I can tell you that if you deviate from the path you'll be drummed out unceremoniously.

  • Anonymous

    10/30/2010 11:25:22 AM |

    I was at the grocery store Meijers yesterday morning.  And when there early, I typically am left having to use the self check out lanes.  I dislike using these machines.  They all to often break while using them, causing a delay as I wait for someone to come fix the problem.  Meijers employees early in the morning are often not motivated to fix much of anything I've come to find in the past.  

    So as is all to often the norm, my self check out machine gave an error.  The machine reported something was on the conveyer belt - while in reality nothing was.  No more items allowed to be checked until the error was fixed though.     I pressed the help button and with little surprise no one came to fix my problem.  So I packed up and was ready to visit another checkout machine.  This simple act apparently is the motivation Meijers employees need!  She came stomping over, full of attitude.  She really let me have it for wanting to leave the machine.  it was kind of funny.  I just smiled as she lit into me, and was working the check out computer to clear the error.  Once done and walking away, I joked, "let me guess you once were a doctor?"  She didn't like that either.  I'll be shopping at Wal-Mart across the street in the future, even though the same setup and type of employees work there.

    Hope you keep up the work doctor Davis!  I've learned a great deal from your sight, as I'm sure many others have too.  I tell everyone about this place.  Having had a life long chronic illness and seen more doctors than i wish, what disappoints me equally about the lack of care in modern medicine, is the belief by most in society that hospitals have all the answers - that taking responsibility for your own health is unreasonable and even dangerous.  I figured out quickly in my quest for an answer to my chronic health problems that I was not going to be cured in a hospital.  All to often rude, even angry doctors would let me know in one way or another all they dealt with is pharmaceuticals or procedures, items that did not work in my case.  Going outside of that was unwelcome territory.  I kept going to see doctors though.  It wasn't for me that I went.  I did it because family and friends believe in modern medical myths.  I even got to the point where I would take  family members to my meetings with physicians so they could hear what was said for themselves.  That seemed to make doctors nervous.  If I brought someone with me, they would bring a colleague with them!  I actually found these "group health gatherings" to be good, not only to further inform disappointed family members, but also for what ever reason I didn't receive the level of lip from doctors.  

    Anyway, not to bash on doctors and hospitals, just my hope is that someday a majority of people come to realize it is alright to take health care into your own hands.  Hospitals don't have all the answers, and all to often the answers that they do provide are inferior to a good proven diet and a few supplements.  I guess there will always be a place for expensive drugs and procedures, they just shouldn't be the first option, when there are other healthier and cheaper possibilities, in my opinion.

  • Anonymous

    10/30/2010 11:26:53 AM |

    I was at the grocery store Meijers yesterday morning.  And when there early, I typically am left having to use the self check out lanes.  I dislike using these machines.  They all to often break while using them, causing a delay as I wait for someone to come fix the problem.  Meijers employees early in the morning are often not motivated to fix much of anything I've come to find in the past.  
      So as is all to often the norm, my self check out machine gave an error.  The machine reported something was on the conveyer belt - while in reality nothing was.  No more items allowed to be checked until the error was fixed though.     I pressed the help button and with little surprise no one came to fix my problem.  So I packed up and was ready to visit another checkout machine.  This simple act apparently is the motivation Meijers employees need!  She came stomping over, full of attitude.  She really let me have it for wanting to leave the machine.  it was kind of funny.  I just smiled as she lit into me, and was working the check out computer to clear the error.  Once done and walking away, I joked, "let me guess you once were a doctor?"  She didn't like that either.  I'll be shopping at Wal-Mart across the street in the future, even though the same setup and type of employees work there.
      Hope you keep up the work doctor Davis!  I've learned a great deal from your sight, as I'm sure many others have too.  I tell everyone about this place.  Having had a life long chronic illness and seen more doctors than i wish, what disappoints me equally about the lack of care in modern medicine, is the belief by most in society that hospitals have all the answers - that taking responsibility for your own health is unreasonable and even dangerous.  I figured out quickly in my quest for an answer to my chronic health problems that I was not going to be cured in a hospital.  All to often rude, even angry doctors would let me know in one way or another all they dealt with is pharmaceuticals or procedures, items that did not work in my case.  Going outside of that was unwelcome territory.  I kept going to see doctors though.  It wasn't for me that I went.  I did it because family and friends believe in modern medical myths.  I even got to the point where I would take  family members to my meetings with physicians so they could hear what was said for themselves.  That seemed to make doctors nervous.  If I brought someone with me, they would bring a colleague with them!  I actually found these "group health gatherings" to be good, not only to further inform disappointed family members, but also for what ever reason I didn't receive the level of lip from doctors.  
      Anyway, not to bash on doctors and hospitals, just my hope is that someday a majority of people come to realize it is alright to take health care into your own hands.  Hospitals don't have all the answers, and all to often the answers that they do provide are inferior to a good proven diet and a few supplements.  I guess there will always be a place for expensive drugs and procedures, they just shouldn't be the first option, when there are other healthier and cheaper possibilities, in my opinion.

  • Anonymous

    10/30/2010 11:32:15 AM |

    Hope you keep up the work doctor Davis!  I've learned a great deal from your sight, as I'm sure many others have too.  I tell everyone about your writings.  Having had a life long chronic illness and seen more doctors than i wish, what disappoints me equally about the lack of care in modern medicine, is the belief by most in society that hospitals have all the answers - that taking responsibility for your own health is unreasonable and even dangerous.  I figured out quickly in my quest for an answer to my chronic health problems that I was not going to be cured in a hospital.  All to often rude, even angry doctors would let me know in one way or another all they dealt with is pharmaceuticals or procedures, items that did not work in my case.  Going outside of that was unwelcome territory.  I kept going to see doctors though.  It wasn't for me that I went.  I did it because family and friends believe in modern medical myths.  I even got to the point where I would take  family members to my meetings with physicians so they could hear what was said for themselves.  That seemed to make doctors nervous.  If I brought someone with me, they would bring a colleague with them!  I actually found these "group health gatherings" to be good, not only to further inform disappointed family members, but also for what ever reason I didn't receive the level of lip from doctors.  
      Anyway, not to bash on doctors and hospitals, just my hope is that someday a majority of people come to realize it is alright to take health care into your own hands.  Hospitals don't have all the answers, and all to often the answers that they do provide are inferior to a good proven diet and a few supplements.  I guess there will always be a place for expensive drugs and procedures - as if I have a choice in the matter - they just shouldn't be the first option, when there are other healthier and cheaper possibilities, in my opinion.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/30/2010 12:32:36 PM |

    Hi, Sassy--

    This was my simple response. I operate in the real world, too, and do not have perfect solutions. I also invited her to my office to see what it is I do and how I do it.


    Sadly, your criticisms and concerns are right on the money.

    The problem: It will take 30 years and legions of our colleagues before there is a "sea change" of practice patterns and what we do becomes the norm. In the meantime, you have a satisfying and honest career to carve out.

    Training will try to push your round shape into a square hole, forcing you to mimic the thinking of conventional medicine. It may be a compromise you have to draw. I know of few good opportunities to break out of this mold. I believe that University of Arizona offers some sort of holistic medicine training. More of these programs are popping up. While they may not be precisely what you are looking for, perhaps they offer more leeway and less dogmatic training.

    I do sense that more and more of the primary care community are slowly rejecting conventional approaches, but I estimate it's less than 5%. But it used to be practically nobody. So it's a start.

    One good thing to know: I do what I do with little friction from colleagues. Most have no idea what it is you're talking about, but most stop arguing when they see what you can accomplish. Then they kind of turn a blind eye to how you did it, rarely asking why you did worked and their approach didn't.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/30/2010 12:39:14 PM |

    Anonymous from Meijers--

    I hear you. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a huge and growing role for self-empowerment in health. It certainly will not come from conventional health channels, but from unconventional sources, such as online health information, direct-to-consumer testing, and other growing services.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/30/2010 12:40:52 PM |

    Hi, Tara--

    I empathize.

    I know several very excellent dietitians, all of whom are affiliated with hospital systems (the only ones who hire), who are deeply frustrated as you are.

    I can only hope that we achieve a "critical mass" sometime soon, numbers of dissenters sufficient to be heard and not shunned, criticized, or fired.

  • Anonymous

    10/30/2010 12:47:31 PM |

    My dad is a family physician (MD) for 30+ years and over the past few years has been implementing many more natural approaches to preventing illness. It is a DIFFICULT path to take and one that is fought every day in the exam rooms with the patients and in the hallways with other doctors.

    What amazes me is other doctors willingness to RX medications that JUST CAME OUT ON THE MARKET without having done their due research, yet they very quickly judge and frown upon my dad's approach to medicine which he arrived at after many, many months of reading and researching these alternative therapies.

    While they claim to not doubt his intentions, its clear they disapprove of his methods, even in the face of proven results (less flu, fewer office visits for his patients, improved lab results).

    The reality is, he studies more in one evening (after seeing patients all day) than others study in a year. When he employs a therapy, its because he's researched the hell out of it and he's convinced it's the right approach to take. He understands the science behind HOW it works.

    Taking a preventative approach is difficult enough, but enduring the constant judgment from others who practice big-pharma medicine is what makes my dad the top-notch physician that he is. He doesn't back down from a good opportunity to educate both patients and other physicians alike about why he's decided to prevent disease instead of simply treating it.

    How refreshing to see others (especially younger physicians) who are also enduring this difficult path. It is the right thing to do.

    (P.S. Dr Davis- Vitamin D, Magnesium, Iodine, and now Lipoprotein A....you and my dad are following similar paths. I tried getting him to check lipoprotein As on his patients about a year ago (after studying them on your blog), but he was coming up to speed on Iodine at that time. Now he's embraced lipoprotein A and I know it's going to save lives. THANK YOU!)

  • Anonymous

    10/30/2010 1:30:38 PM |

    If a physician steps outside guideline-based medicine (statins for MI), he/she would open themselves up for the lawyers if the patient had an event.  

    The system is defective, but in some situations, the fear of getting sued is stronger than any influence from pharma.  

    Also, many training programs do not allow interaction with pharma reps at this time (from what I have heard).  This has been a new development in the last 1-2 years.

  • Carolyn Thomas

    10/30/2010 4:45:44 PM |

    Interesting comments from this med student.  Welcome to the wonderful world of marketing-based medicine!

    But we live in hope! Many medical schools are in fact taking action to address the pervasive influence of Big Pharma on medical education.

    For example, here in Canada pharmaceutical companies have long supplied free lunches – and even fridges to store them in – in the student lounges of all Canadian medical schools.

    But if the association that represents Canada’s medical schools has anything to say about it, there really will be no such thing as a free lunch anymore – at least for medical students.

    This also means no more talks given by physician experts paid by pharmaceutical companies. No more unsupervised meetings with drug reps.

    The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada say that their aim is to limit the influence that the pharmaceutical industry has on medical students and residents, as well as to address the public’s concerns about the perceived coziness between medical schools and Big Pharma.

    Dr. Irving Gold of the AFMC described the potential impact of drug company relationships on these students:

    “There’s no question that the environment within which you’re trained will have an impact on the way you perceive these issues. The public has to trust that the doctors they see do not have any debts to pay to individual pharmaceutical companies or to the sector as a whole.”

    More on this at "Pens, Pizza, Parties: How Big Pharma Freebies Impact Your Doctor" on THE ETHICAL NAG: MARKETING ETHICS FOR THE EASILY SWAYED - http://ethicalnag.org/2009/12/08/pens-pizza-parties/

  • Larry

    10/30/2010 7:33:19 PM |

    Hang in there Theresa M.
    You have to do what your heart tells you to.

    Anyway.... about Dieticians and Hospital food.
    Does the average dietician really, truly, believe that the food they serve is really nutrititional ?
    Does Monsanto dictate the cirriculum ?
    We've all seen Cancer patients being fed juice, milk, bread, cereal, canned (dead) food, potatoes, cookies, cold cuts, etc.
    How can a dietician with a conscience, be part of this ?
    Not trying to be offensive, I'm just asking, as they have to know the whole paradigm is wrong.

  • Gutted

    10/30/2010 9:32:22 PM |

    Thank you, Theresa, for speaking out! Hopefully, we'll see more and more medical students like you who really care about patients' health versus playing the Big Pharma, imaging and "slice 'em up"  marketing games. Unfortunately, with all the greed I see in this world, I don't have high hopes. But please don't let that stop you!

    It doesn't help that I was victimized by the medical profession in a big way. My ob/gyn of 20 years rushed me into surgery for possible ovarian cancer. Despite a benign frozen section, he proceeded to remove all my female organs. I suspect part of the reason was to train two gyn residents. This experience has shown me how corrupt the medical profession can be. Many things in the oncologist's records gave the appearance of collusion with my ob/gyn. I now realize that the oncologist was protecting his referral base to the permanent detriment of my health. A complaint to my state's medical board resulted in no disciplinary action. The outcome of a complaint I filed with my insurance company was confidential but the doctor is still in their network.  

    After many problems from the assault on my endocrine system amd anatomy (aging 15 years overnight along with profound depression and anxiety which I'd never experienced), I started frequenting hysterectomy forums. That's when I discovered that my story is quite common. If women were getting informed consent from their gynecologists, 1 in 3 women would not be hysterectomized by age 60 (1 in 2 by age 65). 73% of women are castrated at the time of hysterectomy. These women have a much greater risk of all-cause mortality. Yet, the carnage continues to the tune of a hysterectomy every minute in the U.S.  

    The book "The Treatment Trap" is a real eye-opener into the dark side of medicine. I highly recommend it.

    Here's an article - Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science - about the flaws of medical studies:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269

    Per the article, a leading expert in medical research credibility estimates that up to 90% of published medical information is flawed.

  • Tara

    10/30/2010 11:43:40 PM |

    @ Larry

    I work in outpatient, but I can go ahead and tell you that the inpatient dietitians don't actually "serve" the food, nor do the prepare it or even choose it.  The food service company (typically Aramark or Morrison) is responsible for the selection, preparation, and serving of food to patients.  An inpatient dietitian's job is to oversee patient care related to nutrition in various disease states, calculate needs, educate, and in some cases order/manage TPN or tube feedings.

    Many of us HATE the awful food that is served in hospitals, but we have no say in the matter.  Hospitals are run like businesses, so the quality of food is not as important as the cost.  When my dad had his bypass surgery, I cooked and brought him food from home.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/31/2010 2:34:52 PM |

    Hi, Tara--

    You know, the plight of enlightened dietitians today reminds me of the way the German people must have felt when the National Socialism movement coerced them to follow their dictates on pain of imprisonment.

    The whisperings of neighbors was all it took to have the Gestapo knocking on your door at night.

    Your experience, by the way, would be a great conversation for this blog. Please tell us more.

  • blogblog

    11/1/2010 6:42:05 AM |

    I was friends with two Indonesian medical graduates. In Indonesia medicine is a six year undergraduate degree. Students spend the entire first year studying anatomy and physiology in considerable depth. They then spend the next five years working full-time in a hospital or small clinic. They begin to perform circumcisions after their first year of studies. Before graduation they must deliver a minimum of 100 babies!

  • blogblog

    11/1/2010 7:14:29 AM |

    Hi Tara,
    with respect being a dietitian or other health practitioner is simply not comparable with practising medicine. I should know because I studied exercise physiology as a postgraduate. My academic workload was probably less than 1/4 that of a medical student.

    The fact is that allied health degrees like nursing, dietitics and exercise physiology are actually quite easy.

    The amount of underlying theoretical knowledge, the workload and responsibility is vastly greater in medicine than in any other health related profession.

    The reality is you get 1/4 the pay of a doctor because your job is 1/4 as hard. You don't have to work nights, weekends and public holidays. You also don't have to be on call, work 36 hour shifts, make instantaneous life and death decisions or deal with grieving relatives like doctors do.

  • Anonymous

    11/2/2010 1:03:07 AM |

    "In Indonesia medicine is a six year undergraduate degree. Students spend the entire first year studying anatomy and physiology in considerable depth. They then spend the next five years working full-time in a hospital or small clinic. They begin to perform circumcisions after their first year of studies."

    But only on adults who ask to be circumcised, right?

    I certainly hope the mutilation of nonconsenting infants is not the standard of care in Indonesia.

  • blogblog

    11/2/2010 5:55:28 AM |

    Hi Anonymous. Indonesia is a Muslim, country so circumcision is routine for babies.

  • buy differrin online

    11/2/2010 3:52:18 PM |

    I was just arguing (discussing) with my cardiologist about coming off my statin (40 mg). I never had a cholesterol problem and still don't, even though I had an MI. I point to niacin and he points to Zocor. I tell him about studies and he claims I'm reading the wrong studies and that it is his job to know these things. He claims the zocor isn't for my cholesterol it is to control inflammation. I again point to studies that dispute statins ability to do that and again suggest niacin.

  • Tara

    11/3/2010 2:12:06 AM |

    @blogblog

    I think you missed my point... My post wasn't to complain about the difference in our salaries.  My point was that because we are in a lower position, we have an even tougher fight ahead.  It's hard to make a change when your grassroots efforts are poorly funded and your profession is not respected.

  • blogblog

    11/3/2010 7:28:16 AM |

    Tara,

    I'm sure that you are well intentioned and wish to help people but you aren't in a position to do that within the conventional dietetics framework.

    The only really influential and widely respected professionals in health care are senior medical specialists working in teaching hospitals. The opinions and knowledge of others is often deemed irrelevant.

    I am speaking from the Australian perspective so my comments may not be relevant to you.

    The dietetics profession has an extremely unethical relationship with the food processing industry. Many food manufacturers employ dietitians primarily as effective PR personnel to give their extremely unhealthy products some credibility.

    The Dietitians Association of Australia actively endorses the type of unhealthy products manufactured by their commercial partners. In the recent past the DAA has even actively promoted confectionery as part of a 'balanced' diet for children.

  • Rogue Dietitian

    11/6/2010 5:26:05 PM |

    @Tara -- you're not alone! I too am a "rogue" dietitian and am so frustrated with my colleagues. I am lucky in that I work at a naturopathic practice where my nutritional point of view is in sync with the doctors I work for. So, I am not expected or criticized for straying from the ADA/USDA grain-dairy model. I hear your frustrations with the field. Luckily, there is so much you can do with it though. I had to find my own way.

    During my internship, I had reservations about having to give diet advice I didn't believe to be prudent -- eat a low fat diet, drink lots of milk, etc. Instead, I changed the script and focused on other pieces of advice. For example, for heart patients I focused on getting them to eat more vegetables, and ditching the margarine, and "forgot" to mention the parts I don't agree with. Or for diabetics, eating fewer carbs and focusing on gluten-free sources like potatoes, brown rice, etc. My preceptors were thrilled I was getting people to eat more vegetables, and I didn't feel like I sold out. Good luck to you.

    Dr. Davis, I have only recently discovered your blog but am enjoying it. I have some non-traditional ideas on heart health I would love to dialog with you about sometime.

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/7/2010 3:59:52 PM |

    Hi, Rogue--

    That's great! A clever, "stealth," way to say what you believe.

    You are welcome to post recipes here or to go to www.trackyourplaque.com and use the "contact" link. I look forward to seeing what you've come up with.

  • rangojigi

    11/11/2010 9:21:37 AM |

    I would love to see your answers to her questions.
    buy viagra online

  • Anonymous

    11/13/2010 3:27:27 AM |

    I learned a long time ago that 99.9% of doctors are worse than useless. I don't plan to ever see a doctor again. Sadly, I'll soon be forced into the medical system, like most Americans.

  • 2medicure

    12/10/2010 4:57:30 AM |

    Well after reading your blog and the comment from all the expert i will love to visit this blog to get update about good healthy habits

  • Dana Seilhan

    12/11/2010 9:35:44 AM |

    Anonymous, no one's being forced into the medical system. They're being made to pay for insurance.  No one says you have to go to the doctor.

    I was startled to learn there are actually sound economic reasons for making everyone buy into health insurance in a given country.  Too long to explain here but the book I learned this from, well predated the "health care reform" debate.  In a nutshell, if you didn't want to have to buy a health insurance plan, you should have supported the idea of single-payer coverage.  But you didn't want that, because it was "socialist," if you are like most Americans.  So this is the alternative everybody gets to live with, since they decided it was more important to have health insurance companies than to fund health care like we do police and fire departments.  Dem's de breaks.

  • dr cate

    9/19/2011 12:48:11 PM |

    HI Tara
    I work with a dietician who, like you, has a real passion for her job. She told me that she feels like she has participate in "tragedies unfolding every day" when the doctors send patients to her expecting the usual advice. She is fighting back, though. She has a health radio show you can listen to: http://www.wkxl1450.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4182

    I encourage you to seek out doctors who think outside the box in your area. I have been so grateful to have Chris available for my patients, and I know other doctors would be grateful for someone like you, too!
    (PS I am relocating soon to Napa, CA, you don't happen to be there...?)

  • Barb

    10/5/2011 12:20:23 AM |

    Not meaning to be a s*&t disturber, but then why do an alarming number of doctors seem to only know 1/4 of what other allied health practitioners do?? Are they being taught too much 'feather' and not enough chicken??

  • jpatti

    5/31/2012 3:29:00 PM |

    I have a sister who doesn't understand much about biochemistry.  She asks me for advice all the time with various issues/problems.  Vast majority of my advice is dietary/supplements.  Sometimes, my advice is for prescription meds, which I can usually locate without a doctor (not talking narcotics or anything).

    But my advice to her in a ACUTE situation is... don't wait to ask me, do what the doctor says.  IMO, if you have a broken bone, or are actively having a heart attack, or have a big infected boil, mainstream medicine is OK, pretty much the best we've got.  

    When you have a CHRONIC disorder, or are trying to preempt having one, that is when taking your health into your own hands is good.  That is when you look up all the prescribing info for the drug they want to put you on before taking it.  That is when you become more of an expert on your disease than they are.  

    I had a CABG several years back, I've been a T2 diabetic for years, I had a bad rT3 problem, and adrenal insufficiency (reversed both the rT3 and adrenal issues and am weaned off meds), I have low sex hormones (E, P and T), I have systemic yeast.  I know more about my COMBINATION of diseases than any doctor cause I'm more INTERESTED and have GOBS of time to research each issue and the endocrinology (which includes nutrition. since cholesterol and vitamins A, D3 and K2 all profoundly effect hormones) and of how they all interact.  I can spend hours looking at a diagram of steroidogenesis and trying to figure out myself.

    So... if a doctor wants me to use more insulin for tighter control, I know I need more K-Dur to counteract the K loss from insulin else my BP will go skyhigh.  They don't.  They just see my BP go high and want to put me back on Lisinopril (which never lowered it, after 2 years of increasing doses).  I know niacin fixes my lipid panel better than statins - and that I can climb stairs on niacin.  I know that high omega 3 intake, and high vitamins A, D3 and K2, and lots of CoQ10 are absolutely required for my health.

    I DO know more than they do about my chronic stuff, and my sister's chronic stuff, and my daughter's and husband's issues.  If it's anything chronic, I WILL know more in a few weeks time than any doctor treating me.  Cause... no one can be an expert on EVERYTHING and I CARE more when it effects me or mine than they do.  I'm one of 30 patients they are seeing today; I'm the only me I've got.  I just flat out CARE more.

    But in an acute situation, I trust them.  My sister needs an MRI on her back, I agreed she needs it, and just said, "Do whatever they tell you if it's based on the MRI."  Cause... I can't become an expert in 10 minutes, and the acute stuff, they are mostly pretty good at.  Someone has to decide in those situations, and you don't have time to become an expert.

    There's other stuff mainstream medicine has gotten right.  Antibiotics as an example... though the overuse of them is what they got wrong.  Similarly, while I think we overdo vaccinations, the fact is that when polio came through a town and killed or crippled most of the children, that was some bad stuff.  Mainstream medicine gets some things right.

    The problem with medicine is that it is not evidence-based, though they say it is.  At BEST, it takes 10-15 years for good research info to change the practice of medicine.  At worst, if there is no profit motive, good research info may NEVER change the face of medicine.  

    IMO, with mainstream medicine, you take what is good and leave the rest.  But throwing out the baby with the bathwater makes no sense.  Doctors do have their uses.  No matter how we rant against their stupidity, there is some worthwhile stuff there.

    One of MY reasons for hanging out here is that Dr. Davis changes.  When I started hanging on this blog and his website and bought his first book, he wasn't discussing thyroid, or K2, and his dietary ideas were quite a bit different than today (though the anti-wheat stuff was there even then).  

    Not that I agree with him 100% about everything, but... he DOES change the way medicine does not; he actually DOES do evidence-based medicine, based on actual evidence, not just evidence provided by pharmaceutical studies.  And since evidence changes over time, and he keeps learning, his recommendations change.  That gives me confidence in his latest ideas, to go research them for myself.  

    And for those who can't really research for themselves, without a solid science background and an understanding of how to read studies, if they have cardio issues, I just tell them to go do what he says.  I've told people to read his books, sent them to the blog and website, I've even sent a few people to see him, cause they were local to him and able to get there.  Cause even if I don't agree 100% about everything, he's the only cardiologist I know who is actually reversing CHD.  

    Granted, Dr. D is a maverick and himself rants against mainstream medicine.  But... he rants agaisnt specific stupidity.  I'm sure if you were having an actual MI right now, he'd recommend a procedure to save you.  Just... he'd rather you not have the MI in the first place, which is why he rants.

    But... baby and bath water...

Add comment

Loading
All posts by william-davis

What's for breakfast?

16. March 2008 William Davis (106)
Breakfast, for some reason, seems to be the toughest meal of the day for many people.

I think it's because the quest for sweet has dominated the American breakfast for so long, with its half-century legacy of cartoon character-festooned breakfast cereals; baked flour products like pancakes, waffles, and English muffins; more recently, "healthy" alternatives like bran muffins and oat waffles.

This breakfast lifestyle has also contributed to the obesity and diabetes ("diabesity") epidemic. Breakfasts of wheat- or corn-based cereals, even those labeled "heart healthy," fruit, and whole grain breads are guaranteed paths to low HDL cholesterol, high triglycerides, flagrant small LDL, increased inflammatory responses, high blood pressure, and higher blood sugar. Such foods also make you tired, make your abdominal fat grow (wheat belly), and increase appetite so that you want more.

So what can you eat for breakfast that doesn't provoke these patterns?

I will never pretend to be terribly clever in creating meal menus, but I can tell you what has worked for me and many of my patients. Be warned: It may require you to suspend your previous notions of what "should" be included in a list of breakfast foods.

Here are some examples that you may find helpful:

--Raw nuts--one or several handfuls of raw almonds, walnuts, pecans, pistachios
--Cheeses--the real, traditional sorts like gouda, goat, Swiss, edam, etc. (not Velveeta, Cheez Whiz, etc.)
--Eggs, Egg Beaters--and "spice" them up with sun-dried tomatoes, salsa, olives, tapenades, olive oil, onions, green peppers, etc.
--Yogurt (real, of course), cottage cheese
--Ground flaxseed, oat bran--as hot cereals or added to yogurt, cottage, or other foods. Esp. helpful for reducing both total LDL and the proportion of small LDL.
--Oatmeal--slow-cooked, not the instant nonsense.
--Soups--great for winter.
--Dinner foods--chicken, beef, fish, green beans, asparagus, tomatoes, etc., most easily added by saving left-overs from dinner. You'll be surprised how filling dinner foods eaten at breakfast can be.

It's really not that tough. It just means selecting from an entirely different list of foods than you might be accustomed to.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The first lawsuit?

16. March 2008 William Davis (1)

The closing arguments in actor John Ritter's wrongful death lawsuit are over and the two doctors charged with negligence cleared, five years after his death from a dissection (tear of the inner lining) of the thoracic aorta. The family sought $67 million in damages, claiming that the aortic dissection was misdiagnosed as a heart attack and that the enlarged aorta should have been reported to Mr. Ritter two years earlier during a full body scan.

The AP story can be viewed at http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmv6HnJJPBee2gWgEYResT5m6YkAD8VDF9CO0


Well, perhaps this is the start of a trend. Up until now, it has been commonplace for doctors to ignore many of the important findings on heart scans, full body scans, and similar direct-to-the-public imaging services. For instance, similar to John Ritter's case, enlarged thoracic aortas are commonly ignored. I'd even say that as a rule they are ignored. I have seen many patients in consultation who have had large aortas identified on heart scans, yet nothing--not a thing--was done about it. While the doctors escaped a lawsuit this time, it might not happen a second time.

I truly hope that Mr. Ritter's unfortunate experience and the consequent lawsuit do not trigger the usual defensive medicine response of resorting to major procedural "solutions."

A better response would be to 1) identify the problem--enlarged aorta in this case, 2) identify the causes, then 3) correct the causes. It does not necessarily mean that a major procedure like replacing the aorta (a horrendous surgery, by the way) needs to be pursued each and every time.

It is possible that Mr. Ritter's lawsuit is just the first. Over the next several years, it could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits for all the neglected findings on tests like heart scans, body scans, and other imaging methods that are gaining expanded direct-to-consumer access.


Images courtesy Wikipedia.

The origins of heart catheterization: Part II

13. March 2008 William Davis (0)
On the afternoon of October 30th, 1958, nearly 30 years after Werner Forssmann’s fumbling attempts, Dr. Mason Sones, a 5 foot 5 inch, plain-talking, cuss-every-few-words, cigarette-wielding radiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, was performing a routine angiogram of a patient’s aorta (the large vessel emerging from the heart) in a dark basement laboratory. (In Sones’ day, imaging methods remained primitive, disease diagnosis relying more than anything else on the physician’s powers of observation and crude diagnostic procedures. Abdominal pain was assessed with exploratory laparotomy, headaches with air injected into the brain and nervous system (“pneumoencephalography”), an excruciatingly painful ordeal. Being able to track the course of x-ray dye injected into specific internal organs, whether liver, biliary tree, aorta, lungs, or coronary arteries, represented a huge advance in diagnostic tools for human disease.)

In 1958, no one had yet injected dye directly into the coronary artery of a living human.


Just as the dye injector was triggered, Dr. Sones’ eyes widened in horror when the black and white monitor showed that the catheter had inadvertently jumped into the right coronary artery. The injection pump, already triggered to release its load, proceeded to pump 30 cc of X-ray dye straight into the artery. (Modern techniques usually require only 5–10 cc of dye.) Dr. Sones recounts the incident:

“It was late in the day and we were tired. I hit the switch to rev up the x-ray generator so I could see. As the picture came on, I could see that the damn catheter was in the guy’s right coronary artery. And there I was, down in the hole [a recess to shield him from radiation]. I yelled, “Pull it out! Pull it out!”*? By that time, about 30 cc of the dye had gone into the coronary artery. I climbed out of the hole and I grabbed a knife. I thought that his heart would fibrillate and I would have to open his chest and shock his heart. [In Sones’ day, modern CPR hadn’t yet been developed as a method of resuscitation.] But he didn’t fibrillate—his heart stopped. I demanded he cough. He coughed three times and his heart began to beat again. I knew at once that if the heart could tolerate 30 cc of dye, we would be able to safely inject small amounts directly into the coronary artery. I knew that night that we would have a tool to define the anatomic nature of coronary disease.”


*An observer, Dr. Julio Sosa, reported that Dr. Sones, in his shock, also blurted, “We’ve killed him!” After all, conventional wisdom of that era, based on observations from dye injections into the coronary arteries of dogs, was that injecting x-ray dye into human coronary arteries would result in immediate death from the electrical imbalance provoked in heart muscle momentarily deprived of oxygen-carrying blood.

Thus it was established that it was indeed possible to directly inject x-ray dye into human coronary arteries and reveal its internal contours. That’s not to say that the x-ray dyes of 1958 were innocuous. Far from it. In addition to briefly interrupting heart rhythm, as happened with Sones’ first accidental attempt, the dyes used then typically caused dizziness and the sudden urge to vomit. During the first 30 years of direct coronary catheterizations, it was common for hospital staff to run to the patient’s side, bucket in hand to catch the inevitable vomit, once the heart was jump-started by coughing.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Sones’ discovery set off both an avalanche of criticism and bold predictions of how the new technique might change the course of diagnosis in heart disease.

Over the subsequent weeks and months, Dr. Sones proceeded to purposefully insert catheters into coronary arteries and create angiograms that revealed the extent of coronary atherosclerosis. He learned how to fashion new catheter shapes to facilitate access to the arteries. Sones developed an impressive experience in the new technique. For the first time, clear images of the coronary arteries were routinely obtainable for the confident diagnosis of coronary atherosclerosis before death. Dr. Sones became an unlikely celebrity in Cleveland, entertaining physicians from around the world eager to learn about his methods, politicians and celebrities, even Middle Eastern nobility complete with bodyguards and food testers.

Dr. Sones continued to work in Cleveland, furthering the techniques of heart catheterization after his fortuitous error. He died of lung cancer in 1985, 17 years after his discovery.

Thus was born the modern age of heart catheterization.

Today, over 10,000 heart procedures are performed in the U.S. every day, 365 days a year, the vast majority of which involve heart catheterization or begin with a heart catheterization. Dr. Sones' fortuitous blunder was followed by 30 years of productive refinement and development before the blatant excesses of this technique really began to be exploited.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The origins of heart catheterization: Part I

12. March 2008 William Davis (2)
The modern era of heart disease care was born from an accident, quirky personalities, and even a little daring.

The notion of heart catheterization to visualize the human heart began rather ignominiously in 1929 at the Auguste-Viktoria Hospital in Eberswalde, Germany, a technological backwater of the day. Inspired by descriptions of a French physician who inserted a tube into the jugular vein of a horse and felt transmitted heart impulses outside the body, Dr. Werner Forssmann, an eager 25-year old physician-in-training, was intent on proving that access to the human heart could be safely gained through a surface blood vessel. No one knew if passing a catheter into the human heart would be safe, or whether it would become tangled in the heart’s chambers and cause it to stop beating. On voicing his intentions, Forssmann was ordered by superiors not to proceed. But he was determined to settle the question, especially since his ambitions captured the interest of nurse Gerda Ditzen, who willingly even offered to become the first human subject of his little experiment.

Secretly gathering the necessary supplies, he made his first attempt in private. After applying a local anesthetic, he used a scalpel to make an incision in his left elbow. He then inserted a hollow tube, a catheter intended for the bladder, into the vein exposed under the skin. After passing the catheter 14 inches into his arm, however, he experienced cold feet and pulled it out.

One week later, Forssman regained his resolve and repeated the process. Nurse Ditzen begged to be the subject, but Forssmann, in order to allow himself to be the first subject, tricked her into being strapped down and proceeded to work on himself while she helplessly watched. After stanching the oozing blood from the wound, he threaded the catheter slowly and painfully into the cephalic vein, up through the bicep, past the shoulder and subclavian vein, then down towards the heart. He knew that simply nudging the rubber catheter forward would be sufficient to direct it to the heart, since all veins of the body lead there. With the catheter buried 25 inches into his body, Forssmann untied the fuming Ditzen. Both then ran to the hospital’s basement x-ray department and injected x-ray dye into the catheter, yielding an image of the right side of his heart, the first made in a living human.



Thus, the very first catheterization of the heart was performed.



An x-ray image was made to document the accomplishment. Upon hearing of the experiment, Forssmann was promptly fired by superiors for his brazen act of self-experimentation. Deflated, Forssmann abandoned his experimentation and went on to practice urology. He became a member of the Nazi party in World War II Germany and served in the German army. Though condemned as crazy by some, physicians in Europe and the U.S., after hearing of his experience, furthered the effort and continued to explore the potential of the technique. Forssmann himself was never invited to speak of his experiences outside of Germany, as he had been labeled a Nazi.

Many years after his furtive experiments, the once intrepid Dr. Forssmann was living a quiet life practicing small town medicine. He received an unexpected phone call informing him that he was one of three physicians chosen to receive the 1956 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his pioneering work performing the world’s first heart catheterization, along with Drs. André Cournand and Dickinson W. Richards, both of whom had furthered Forssmann’s early work. Forssmann remarked to a reporter that he felt like a village pastor who was made a cardinal.

Strange, but true.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Conventional therapy vs. alternative therapy

11. March 2008 William Davis (5)
Rose is a 75-year old woman, mother of four, grandmother of many more.

Rose's story started after a heart attack 18 months ago that resulted in two stents. She was advised to follow an American Heart Association diet and take Lipitor. However, some months later, after her fourth stent, she became disilluioned in the conventional approach to heart disease and sought alternative therapies to help reduce or reverse her heart disease.

She found an alternative health practitioner who advised chelation, antioxidant vitamins for "excessive oxidation," and several homeopathic preparations.

Nothing was said about diet or exercise. Nothing was said about the baked flour products and pastries that occupied at least two meals every day. Nothing was said about the candies she indulged in several times per day, nor the soft drinks. Nothing was said about the wildly fluctuating blood sugars, poorly controlled by an oral diabetes agent. Thirty pounds of weight gain over the past 5 years with no exercise or physical activity? No comment here, too.

In short, Rose was the "graduate" of the conventional approach, as typically offered nationwide thousands of times a week. She was also the recipient of the insight of at least one alternative health practitioner, eager to reject conventional notions of how to achieve heart health.

So I then met her. She was experiencing chest pains every day, several times per day. Blood pressure over 200. At 5 ft, 3 inches, weight: 186 lbs.

Initial laboratory results:

HDL cholesterol 42 mg/dl
LDL 132 mg/dl
Triglycerides 263 mg/dl
Blood sugar 173 mg/dl


You can fill in the rest. In short, Rose was a disaster. Despite the attentions of several professionals from both the conventional as well as alternative camps, she was careening rapidly towards failure. She'd been given various crutches, Band-Aids, and salves, none of which resulted in any possibility of long-term relief from her aggressive disease.

My point: As I've said previously, all we want is truth. We want effective, rational approaches that yield real benefit. A stent? All that provides is temporary restoration of blood flow. Statin agents? They do indeed reduce LDL cholesterol. But what if Rose has 8, 9, or 10 other causes of heart disease unaffected by the statin drug? It will do little or nothing.

Nobody had addressed many of the root causes of Rose's disease: insulin resistance, high triglycerides, inactivity, obesity, hypertension (and identifying the reasons why her blood pressure was so high), vitamin D deficiency (virtually guarantted to be severe), junk foods including the ones known as "whole grains."

My message: Success in heart disease, as well as all aspects of health for that matter, doesn't necessarily have to come from an "alternative" approach, nor a "conventional" approach. It comes from applying what is truly effective, regardless of what label someone applied to it.

I would no sooner trust my health and life to an alternative health practitioner hawking unusual herbs and remedies than I would submit to a heart catheterization, three stents, followed by a statin drug. There's small benefit in both approaches, but none are the best. You've got to look elsewhere for that.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The JELIS Trial

9. March 2008 William Davis (5)
The Japan eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) is a clinical trial that all Track Your Plaquers should know about.

This enormous trial followed a simple design:

Japanese men, between 40-75 years, and Japanese postmenopausal women aged <75 years with total cholesterol 250 mg/dl or greater were enrolled. A total of 18,645 subjects (mean age, 61 years; 31% male) participated: 36% had hypertension, 15% had diabetes, and 20% had coronary disease (history of heart attack or heart procedure). Average starting total cholesterol 275 mg/dl; LDL 180 mg/dl. All participants were treated with pravastatin 10 mg/day or simvastatin 5 mg/day; approximately half also received the omega-3, EPA, 1800 mg/day, in addition to one of the statin drugs.

Treatment resulted in an average LDL reduction of 26% in all participants; the group taking EPA experienced an additional 10% reduction in triglycerides. All major cardiovascular events were tracked and tabulated, including sudden cardiac death, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina pectoris, coronary artery bypass surgery, and coronary angioplasty.

After nearly five years, 3.5% of statin-only participants experienced an event; 2.8% of statin + EPA experienced an event. The (often misleading and frequently abused value) "relative reduction" was therefore 19%.

There are several features that make the JELIS trial interesting:

--There were an unusually low number of cardiovascular events in the entire group, lower than nearly all American and European trials of similar design. This likely points to the greater burden of atherosclerotic heart disease in the U.S. compared to Japan. Rates in comparable U.S.-based trials usually range from 6-14%, sometimes more.

--Both the participants without identified heart disease at enrollment and those with heart disease at enrollment obtained a similar magnitude of beneficial reduction in cardiovascular events.

--There was an unusual preponderance of women--69%--unlike most other trials of cardiovascular events. We might therefore argue that JELIS most conclusively showed that benefits of EPA are most confidently demonstrated for females.

--A fish oil preparation containing only EPA was used, rather than the usual EPA + DHA. There are discussions from some corners that argue that DHA is more important than EPA, e.g., algae sources. However, JELIS would argue that EPA does play a role. Is EPA with DHA better, worse, or no different? Unfortunately, there are insufficient data--large, randomized data like JELIS--to help us. Recall that GISSI Prevenzione used a combination of EPA and DHA, as have virtually all other trials examining the effects of fish oil. Also, keep in mind that the epidemiologic observations of the cardiovascular benefits of eating fish suggest that the naturally-sourced omega-3s--a combination of EPA and DHA--are associated with benefit.

--It's surprising that any difference at all was demonstrated, given the high intake of fish in the Japanese. In fact, blood levels of EPA in participants before taking EPA was five-fold higher than in western populations.


One potential difficulty: The study was funded by the manufacturer of the EPA preparation used, Mochida Pharmaceutical Company. We all know what that can do to results.

Nonetheless, the JELIS trial is a study that adds to the emerging wisdom in fish oil.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Omega-3 MUST be from fish oil

7. March 2008 William Davis (14)
Despite my rants in this blog and elsewhere, at least once a day I'll have a patient say, "I cut back (or eliminated) my fish oil because I get my omega-3s from _______ (insert your choice of flaxseed oil, walnuts, yogurt, mayonnaise, bread, etc.)."

(See prior Heart Scan Blog post: Everything has omega-3.)

When I point out to them that the "omega-3s" in these products are not the same as the EPA and DHA from fish oil, they invariably declare, "But it says so here on the label: 'Contains 200 mg of omega-3 fatty acids'!"

Apparently, some of my colleagues have even endorsed this concept of replacing the omega-3s from fish oil with these "alternatives."

It's simply not true. The linolenic acid that is being labeled as omega-3, while it may indeed provide health benefits of its own, cannot replace the EPA and DHA that fish oil provides.

The most graphic example of the differences between the two classes of oils is in people with a condition called familial hypertriglyceridemia. People with this condition have triglyceride levels of 400, 600, even thousands of mg/dl--very high. Fish oil, usually providing EPA and DHA doses of 1800 mg per day and higher, reduce triglycerides dramatically. A person with a starting triglyceride level of, say, 900 mg/dl, may take 2400 mg of EPA and DHA from fish oil and triglycerides plummet to 150 mg/dl. This person then decides to replace fish oil with a linolenic acid source like flaxseed oil. Triglycerides? 900 mg/dl--no effect whatsoever.

Familial hypertriglyceridemia represents an exagerrated example of the differences between the two oils. Even if you don't have this genetic condition, the differences between the oils still apply.

EPA and DHA are activators of the enzyme, lipoprotein lipase, that accelerates clearance of triglycerides from the blood. Linolenic acid from flaxseed oil, walnuts, and other food sources does not. EPA and DHA block after-eating (post-prandial) accumulation of food by-products that can contribute to coronary and carotid plaque. Linolenic acid does not. EPA and DHA block platelets, reduce fibrinogen, and exert other healthy blood clot-inhibiting effects. Linolenic does not.

The 11,000-participant GISSI-Prevenzione Trial that showed 28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in cardiovascular death with omega-3s used . . . fish oil.

The 18,000 participant JELIS trial that showed 19% reduction in cardiovascular events when omega-3s were added to statin therapy used . . . fish oil. (Actually, in JELIS, they used only EPA wtihout DHA.)

Linolenic acid is not a waste, however. It may exert anti-inflammatory benefits of its own, for instance. But it exerts none of the triglyceride-modifying effects of EPA or DHA.

EPA and DHA from fish oil and linolenic acid from foods each provide benefits in their own way. Ideally, you include both forms of oils--fish oil and linolenic acid sources--in your daily diet and obtain full benefit from each separate class. But they are not interchangeable.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Osteoporosis and coronary calcium

4. March 2008 William Davis (9)
Several studies over the years have demonstrated a curious paradox:

People with more osteoporosis (thin bones) tend to be more likely to have coronary disease (heart attacks). They also tend to have higher heart scan scores (more coronary calcification as an index of atherosclerotic plaque).

People with more coronary disease and higher heart scan scores tend to have more osteoporosis.


In other words, regardless of which way you tackle the question--osteoporosis first or heart disease first--it leads to the same conclusion: Both conditions are somehow related.

I realize I harp an awful lot on this whole vitamin D issue. But, even after correcting the vitamin D blood levels of many hundreds of people, I remain enthusiastic as ever about the untapped potential of this fascinating factor.

So I couldn't resist showing this amazing comparison of how the long-term effect can be quite graphic.

The first scan is from a 46-year old man and shows normal coronary arteries without calcium and normal density of the vertebra (a common and reliable place to measure bone density).

























The second image is from a 79-year old man with both severe coronary calcification (and therefore severe coronary disease) and severe osteoporosis.
























It makes you wonder if the disordered metabolism of calcium through vitamin D deficiency allows transport of calcium away from bone and into coronaries. This has, however, been shown to not be the case. Instead, they are separate processes, each under local control, but sharing a common pathophysiology (causative factors).

An intriguing question: Would the 79-year old still look like the 46-year old had he begun increasing his vitamin D intake at, say, age 30?

About comment responses and moderation

2. March 2008 William Davis (10)
Just a brief word about my responses to reader comments:

I appreciate the many often insightful and interesting reader comments I receive to the Heart Scan Blog. However, managing them and responding to them has simply become impossible, due to time demands.

I'm afraid that I am unable to answer questions seeking medical advice; this is for your doctor, who knows you and can diagnose and prescribe. I cannot.

I'm also unable to engage in lengthy debates; I've had commenters become very angry when I was unable to engage in lengthy conversations on some topic. Nor am I able to do Google or literature searches for commenters, or review studies, papers, or other materials.

I would urge any readers who wish to engage in in-depth discussions about these issues, talk about lipoproteins, heart disease reversal, etc. to do so on the Track Your Plaque Forums. Yes, it is a fee-for-membership website, a model that has become necessary to pay for the services we provide (not pay me).

I wish that I could answer all the concerns and questions that come my way, but it's simply physically impossible doing so while maintaining a full-time very busy cardiology practice, developing the Track Your Plaque website (which is becoming an enormous responsibility), publishing scientific data, maintaining hospital responsibilities, and spending time with my wife and family. We're all busy and I'm no different. I'm afraid that it's my responses to blog comments that I will have to sacrifice.

I invite commenters to continue to comment on these posts, as I've learned many new things by reading them and find them helpful feedback. And I do read them. Should an especially helpful comment be made, I will feature it in a new blog post, rather than respond directly.

"Flying in the fog"

2. March 2008 William Davis (3)
I received this wonderful response to The Heart Scan Blog post Hammers and Nails:

I am 65 years old. I had a stent inserted in the "widow-maker" artery (80% blockage) a year ago. I had passed out a couple of times (heart rate dangerously low - 30s). I rode to the hospital in an ambulance. Tests revealed short LBBB episodes; mild mitral regurgitation, mild tricuspid regurgitation. Catherization showed 3 vessel CAD. I was told that a medicated stent was absolutely necessary given the situation; regardless, I have to accept that. A pacemaker was installed to prevent bradycardia and keeps heart rate from dropping below 60. I have 20% L distal main blockage and 90% lesion of the high first obtuse marginal at the takeoff. The right coronary had 60% posterior lateral branch stenosis.

Since then I have reduced TG from 360 to 60, LDL from 89 to 82 (although a few months ago it was in the mid-70s), and increased HDL from 30 to 46. I went from 265lbs to 190lbs and hope to eventually get to 180lb this Spring. I did it by progressing from walking to trotting (slow run) and dietstyle changes (low-GI veggies, fruits, etc.) .













On a recent visit the cardiologist said the the LDL needs to be 70 or below to "freeze" the 90% blockage and gave me a prescription for Lipitor. I asked if there were alternatives, like diet, supplements, etc. He admitted that he did not know about those alternative but did know Lipitor. When the only tool you have is a hammer then everything is a nail. I understand that the 90% blockage is important but will not take the Lipitor to achieve the 12 points reduction. Seems like an overkill.

I asked him if there was a way to evaluate my current condition. I was told there was no way. Basically, if I have no symptoms, good. If I have symptoms then it will have to be evaluated. Death could be the only symptom. I swear he was about to say bypass surgery ($$$$$$!) was inevitable. Something is wrong with this "fly-in-the-fog-and-hope-you-don't- hit-a-mountain" approach. Hope is not a strategy!

I am confident that I can reduce LDL to below 70 based on eliminating wheat-products in my diet plus increasing oat bran in my diet. I also take fish oil daily (EPA/DHA-2g). I am looking for a new cardiologist. I just recently purchased your book and find it very instructive. In the meantime I have an appointment with my primary care physician to discuss implementing the Track Your Plaque program. I realize that the one stent will skew the scan numbers but can be used as a baseline number.


Phenomenal weight loss! That alone has likely cut this man's risk in half. But is that it? Is the cardiologist correct--take Lipitor and hope for the best?

Of course not. There are many additional strategies to employ. Eliminating wheat from the diet is an excellent idea: HDL will skyrocket, triglycerides drop even further, small LDL will drop like a stone, blood sugar and blood pressure will drop. He will have more energy, get rid of afternoon energy slumps, sleep better.

He has already added fish oil. If his cardiologist did not mention this, I would say he was guilty of malpractice. The data supporting the addition of fish oil to the treatment program of anyone with heart disease is overhwelming. GISSI Prevenzione: 11,000 participants--28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in death from heart attack. The Japanese JELIS trial of 18,645 participants--19% reduction in dangerous heart events. It's also clear that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also compound the benefits of statin agents, should this man choose to begin Lipitor.

Vitamin D brought to normal blood levels is his next "secret weapon" that will further boost his lipids and lipoproteins further into not just "normal" territory, but beyond belief. Even though we aim for 60-60-60 for LDL-HDL-triglycerides in the Track Your Plaque program, adding vitamin D can yield numbers you've never seen before. It's not uncommon, for instance, to see a 10 or 20 mg/dl jump in HDL.

Identify all other hidden causes of coronary plaque. If all the causes have not been fully identified, how can anyone hope to gain full control over coronary plaque growth?

Re: LDL cholesterol of 89 mg/dl at the start. Of course, this is a calculated value, not measured. Because HDL was low and triglycerides high at the start of his program, this means that true LDL--if actually measured--was probably more like 180 to 250 mg/dl, and it was probably nearly all small. So his cardiologist might have advised a helpful treatment, though for the wrong reasons.

Our reader has gone a long way on his own in creating his own prevention program. But there's yet more to do, particularly if the goal is reversal. It is shocking to me that a man like our reader, clearly articulate and motivated, gets virtually no advice beyond "take Lipitor" after all the procedural benefits have been reaped.

Even though one artery can no longer be "scored" due to the presence of the metallic stent, a heart scan would still be invaluable for long-term tracking purposes, just as we advocate in the Track Your Plaque program.



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD