Where do you find fructose?

14. July 2009 William Davis (25)
Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g




Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons



Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient
Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.



A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient
Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Do heart scans cause cancer?

14. July 2009 William Davis (3)
Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv


To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.




CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD
Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill



Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).


Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.


The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“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.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:


Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

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


A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

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.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally 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 or more 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 legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

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.


Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.


References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

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.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.


Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

Goodbye, fructose

12. July 2009 William Davis (35)
A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.


The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

The statin-free life

8. July 2009 William Davis (20)
Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day


Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

5. July 2009 William Davis (29)
Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

2. July 2009 William Davis (19)
There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

27. June 2009 William Davis (13)
Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.


I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!


Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

25. June 2009 William Davis (20)




The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:


Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.


I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.


William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

24. June 2009 William Davis (7)
The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.


All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

23. June 2009 William Davis (5)
Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?


9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)


Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.
All posts by william-davis

Dr. Reinhold Vieth on vitamin D

5. February 2007 William Davis (4)
A Track Your Plaque member brough the following webcast to our attention:

Prospects for Vitamin D Nutrition
which can be found at http://tinyurl.com/f93vl

Despite the painfully dull title, the webcast is the best summary of data on the health benefits on vitamin D that I've seen. The presenter is Dr. Reinhold Vieth, who is among the handful of worldwide authorities on vitamin D. In 1999, Dr. Vieth authored the first review to concisely and persuasively argue that vitamin D nutrition was woefully neglected and that its potential for health was enormous.
(See Vieth R, Am J Clin Nutr 1999 May;69(5):842-856 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10232622&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum.)

I predict that, after viewing Dr. Vieth's hour-long discussion, you will be as convinced as I am that vitamin D is crucial for health. Unfortunately, Dr. Vieth doesn't delve into the conversation about the potential effects on heart disease, since his audience was primary interested in multiple sclerosis, a disease for which vitamin D replacement promises to have enormous possibilities. Even in 2007, the data suggesting that vitamin D has heart benefits is circumstantial. Nonetheless, from our experience, I am thoroughly convinced that, with replacement to blood levels of vitamin D to 50 ng/ml, heart scan scores drop more readily and faster.

If you view Dr. Vieth's wonderful webcast, keep in mind that when he discusses vitamin D blood levels, he's using units of nmol/l, rather than ng/ml. To convert nmol/l to ng/ml, divided by 2.5. For example, 125 nmol/l is the same as 50 ng/ml (125/2.5 = 50).

Vitamin D on Good Morning America

1. February 2007 William Davis (9)

Positive comments about vitamin D made it to a discussion on Good Morning America today about the new and exciting developments in nutrition and "functional foods".

I'm thrilled that the media is conducting these conversations. It sure is making my job easier, not having to persuade patients that taking vitamin D is truly and hugely beneficial for health. I still have to struggle with my colleagues, who tell patients to stop the "poisonous" doses we use.

But I worry that many of the details behind vitamin D don't quite make it to the media conversation. These are crucial, make-it-or-break-it issues, such as:

--Vitamin D must be vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol, not D2 or ergocalciferol. D2 is virtually worthless. Little or none is converted to the active D3, despite the fact that D2 is the form often added to some foods.

--Vitamin D3 supplements must be oil-based capsules, or gelcaps. Tablets are so poorly or erratically absorbed that it's simply not worth the effort. (We get ours from the Vitamin Shoppe.)

--The dose should be sufficient to eliminate the phenemena of deficiency, which is around 50 ng/ml. I take 6000 units per day. Dr. John Cannell of www.vitamindcouncil.com takes 5000 units per day. I give my wife 2000 units per day (she's not as deficient as I was), each of my kids 1000 units per day, except for my 180 lb. 15 year old who takes 2000 units.

I fear that, when people hear that vitamin D packs fabulous effects for health, they will take a 400 unit tablet--nothing will happen. They will not obtain the benefits such as reduction of blood pressure and blood sugar; increased bone density, reduction of arthritis, dramatic reduction in risk for fractures; reduction in risk for colon, prostate, and breast cancer; reduction in risk for multiple sclerosis; reduction in inflammatory processes such as those evidenced by C-reactive protein; and facilitation of reduction of heart scan score.

Would you bet your life on chelation?

31. January 2007 William Davis (1)

Hugh's heart scan score was 1751, an awful score. Recall that, at this level of scoring, Hugh's heart attack and death risk is 25% per year.

Obviously, serious efforts need to be taken. In this situation, much as I despise drug companies and what they represent and their heavy-handed ways, I'm more inclined to resort directly to prescription agents, as well as our nutritional supplements and other strategies. The price of dilly-dallying could be his death.

Hugh and his wife asked about chelation. Now, there are five studies I'm aware of that have tried to examine the value of chelation. None showed any measurable benefit, though all were rather weak in design and small in number of participants. One study, for instance, looked at whether anginal chest pains were provoked any later after chelation. Another looked at whether calf claudication, or calf cramping while walking due to artery blockages in the leg arteries, was delayed on treadmill testing after chelation. No benefit was observed: no delay in provocation of angina, no delay in provocation of claudication.

However, the adherents of chelation have been vehement enough that the NIH has funded a large, multi-center study to settle the question once and for all. Best I can tell, the study has not been contaminated by any drug company involvement. It is meant to be an unbiased, objective study of whether chelation has any value.

My personal experience in patients who underwent chelation is that, despite spending hundreds or thousands of dollars, plaque grew at the expected rate--no effect at all.

None of this constitutes proof of efficacy nor proof of lack of efficacy. We will need to await the NIH trial to have better information.

Should Hugh bet his life on chelation? I advised him strongly against it. At this point, the only reason I can see to pursue chelation would be faith--that is, expectation based not on fact, but on hope.

The powerful forces preserving the status quo

31. January 2007 William Davis (1)

An interesting quote from the book, Critical Condition: How health care in American became big business--and bad medicine:


Politics and Profits

To protect its interests and expand its influence, the health care industrial complex has done what all successful special interests do: It's become a big donor and a high-powered lobby in Washington. In the last fifteen years, HMOs, insurers, pharmacuetical companies, hospital corporations, physicians, and other segments of the industry contributed $479 million to political campaigns--more than the energy industry ($315 million), commercial banks ($133 million), and big tobacco ($52 million). More telling is how much the health care industry spends on lobbying. It invests more than any other industry except one, according to the nonpartiisan Center for Responsive Politics. From 1997 to 2000, the most recent year for which complete data is available, the industry spent $734 million lobbying Congress and the executive branch. Only the finance, insurance, and real estate lobby exceeded that amount in the same period, with a ttoal of $823 million. In contrast, the defense industry spent $211 million--less than one-third of the health care expenditure.


These telling statistics indicate just how vigorously profit-seeking forces in heart care are trying to preserve the status quo. Hospitals want to protect their valuable procedure-driven enterprise, the pharmaceutical industry wants to protect its enormous though little-known niche of procedure-based medications (like $1200 a dose ReoPro), and the medical device industry wants to maintain the multi-billion dollar-generating machine aided and abetted by the FDA's 501k rule (that makes entry to market a breeze).

The current procedure based formula for heart disease profits so many and they are desperate to preserve it. Resistance to the deep-pocketed efforts of industry and hospitals will come from people like you and me, trying to propagate a better way.

Remember: hospital procedures for coronary disease represent the failure of prevention. They are not--any longer--successes in and of themselves.

Read a scathing insight into some of these practices by reading investigative journalists' Donald Barlett and James Steele's book, Critical Condition. I found their descriptions painfully accurate. (But don't get too angry! Remember: only optimists reverse their plaque! We need to turn the conversation in a positive direction, not just in this Blog or the Track Your Plaque website, but nationwide.)

One of the new missions for the www.cureality.com website is to help you understand just how powerful, insidious, shrewd, and pervasive the efforts to maintain the current system truly are.

Do stents prevent reversal?

27. January 2007 William Davis (3)
I've seen this phenomenon several times now: A highly-motivated Track Your Plaque participant with a stent in one artery will do all the right things--lose weight, achieve 60:60:60 in basic lipids, identify and correct hidden lipoprotein disorders, take fish oil, correct vitamin D, etc.

Follow-up heart scan shows dramatic reduction in scoring in the two arteries without stents--30% per artery. But the artery with the stent will show marked increase in scoring above and/or below the stent. (It's impossible to tell what happens in or around the stent itself from a calcium scoring standpoint, since steel looks just like calcium on a CT heart scan.) In other words, there is marked plaque growth in the vicinity of the stent, despite the fact that dramatic reversal of atherosclerosis has occurred in other arteries without stents.

Should we take this to mean that a stent destroys the opportunity for atherosclerotic plaque reversal in the stented artery? I don't know, but I fear this may be true. What dangers does this different sort of plaque pose? Is it the result of the injury imposed at time of stent implantation, some modification of flow or biologic responses as a result of the presence of the stent?

These are all unanswered questions. But I believe that it is yet another suggestive piece of evidence that the best stent is no stent at all.

At what score should I have a heart cath?

25. January 2007 William Davis (0)
This question comes up frequently: At what specific heart scan score should a heart catheterization be performed? In other words, is there a specific cut-off that automatically triggers a need for catheterization?

In my view, there is no such score. We can't say, for instance, that everybody with a score above 1000 should have a catheterization. It is true that the higher your score, the greater the likelihood of a plaque blocking flow. A score of 1000 carries an approximately 25-30% likelihood of reduced blood flow sufficient to consider a stent or bypass. This can nearly always be settled with a stress test. Recall that, despite their pitfalls for uncovering hidden heart disease in the first place, stress tests are useful as gauges of coronary blood flow.

But even a score of 1000 carries a 70-75% likelihood that a procedure will not be necesary. This is too high to justify doing heart catheterizations willy-nilly.

Unfortunately, some my colleagues will say that any heart scan score justifies a heart cath. I believe this is absolutely, unquestionably, and inexcusably wrong. More often than not, this attitude is borne out of ignorance, laziness, or a desire for profit.

Does every lump or bump justify surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy on the chance it could represent cancer? Of course not. There is indeed a time and place for these things, but judgment is involved.

In my view, no heart scan score should autmatically prompt a major heart procedure like heart catheterization in a person without symptoms.

Niacin makes NY Times

24. January 2007 William Davis (0)
In the wake of the crash and burn of Pfizer's torcetrapib, media attention has turned up the miracles of . . .good old niacin. The NY Times carried a well-written report on niacin in its recent report, An Old Cholesterol Remedy Is New Again.


(Read the entire report at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/23consume.html?em&ex=1169701200&en=670fa84ae2ea648c&ei=5087%0A)

Among their comments:

...torcetrapib worked primarily by increasing HDL, or good cholesterol. Among other functions, HDL carries dangerous forms of cholesterol from artery walls to the liver for excretion. The process, called reverse cholesterol transport, is thought to be crucial to preventing clogged arteries.

Many scientists still believe that a statin combined with a drug that raises HDL would mark a significant advance in the treatment of heart disease. But for patients now at high risk of heart attack or stroke, the news is better than it sounds. An effective HDL booster already exists.

It is niacin, the ordinary B vitamin.

In its therapeutic form, nicotinic acid, niacin can increase HDL as much as 35 percent when taken in high doses, usually about 2,000 milligrams per day. It also lowers LDL, though not as sharply as statins do, and it has been shown to reduce serum levels of artery-clogging triglycerides as much as 50 percent. Its principal side effect is an irritating flush caused by the vitamin’s dilation of blood vessels.

Despite its effectiveness, niacin has been the ugly duckling of heart medications, an old remedy that few scientists cared to examine. But that seems likely to change.

“There’s a great unfilled need for something that raises HDL,” said Dr. Steven E. Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic and president of the American College of Cardiology. “Right now, in the wake of the failure of torcetrapib, niacin is really it. Nothing else available is that effective.”

In 1975, long before statins, a landmark study of 8,341 men who had suffered heart attacks found that niacin was the only treatment among five tested that prevented second heart attacks. Compared with men on placebos, those on niacin had a 26 percent reduction in heart attacks and a 27 percent reduction in strokes. Fifteen years later, the mortality rate among the men on niacin was 11 percent lower than among those who had received placebos.

'Here you have a drug that was about as effective as the early statins, and it just never caught on,' said Dr. B. Greg Brown, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle. 'It’s a mystery to me. But if you’re a drug company, I guess you can’t make money on a vitamin.'


Of course, you and I don't have to wait for the media to endorse something. I'm nonetheless thrilled that this hugely helpful vitamin is gaining greater recognition. My preferred form nowadays is over-the-counter SloNiacin (Upsher Smith). Weve seen no liver side-effects and a minimal quantity of flushing. It's also reasonably priced, $13.99 for 100 tablets of 500 mg at Walgreen's. That's a lot cheaper than prescription Niaspan at $130 for 60 tablets.

Perhaps the notoriety will cut back on the silly responses from some physicians that I still hear about from patients: "My doctor said to stop the niacin because it's going to destroy my liver."

Wheat: the nicotine of food

24. January 2007 William Davis (1)
Yes, we know that wheat contributes to creating small LDL, drops HDL, raises triglycerides, and VLDL. We also know it indirectly slows the clearance of after-eating fats from the blood (curious, I know). Wheat products also increase inflammation (C-reactive protein), raise blood sugar, and contribute tremendously to diabetes.

What many people don't know is that wheat products also have an addictive quality: have one donut and you want another. It's true for bread, breakfast cereals, pretzels, cookies, etc. How many times have you had just one Oreo cookie?

Curiously, elimination of wheat products, unlike elimination of nicotine, usually causes the cravings to disappear. In other words, if you stop smoking cigarettes, the desire to smoke doesn't go away. With wheat products, the often overwhelming desire for more wheat products often just goes away.

But most people are simply unable to dramatically reduce or eliminate wheat products from their daily diet and therefore struggle each and every day with excessive cravings for bagels, donuts, cookies, breads, etc.

Try this useful experiment: Eliminate wheat products for a month and see what happens. Most people drop blood pressure, lose the tummy excess, feel more alert, see a drop in blood sugar, experience improvements in lipoproteins, and regain control over appetite.

Good time for a heart attack?

22. January 2007 William Davis (0)
Man Has Heart Attack At Right Place, Right Time

If Robert Ricard had picked the wrong restaurant for lunch, he might have died.

The 71-year-old Michigan man suffered a heart attack shortly after ordering a glass of wine with friends at Bentley's Roadhouse on Saturday.

Luckily, a disaster medical team was sitting nearby.


A TV station in Michigan reported the above story. You've heard these "if it wasn't for ___, so and so would have died" stories. They're reported in all cities at one time or another.

What amazes me about these common local stories is that they're accepted at all. The question that comes to my mind is "Why couldn't the heart attack have been averted in the first place?" Early identification then, as close as humanly possible, elimination of risk would have been a preferable path.

Of course, it may not be the role of the media to cast judgement on why and how the entire episode could have been completely prevented from occurring. But you shouldn't fall into the same trap of complacency. We cannot expect others to save us when the "big one" hits. Your best assurance is to never have one in the first place.

How good is the South Beach Diet?

21. January 2007 William Davis (2)
I'm a fan of the South Beach Diet.

Though it is billed as a program for weight loss (for which it is very effective), it is really a program for health. The basic approach of South Beach involves:

Eat good fats — Choose good fats from olive oil, canola oil, peanut oil, flaxseed oil, walnut oil, avocados, nuts, and fish. Omega-3 (fish oil) supplements are also fine.


Eat good carbs — Good carbs include high-fiber, nutrient-dense fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains.

Eat lean protein — Good sources include eggs, low-fat dairy, nuts, seeds, legumes, skinless white-meat poultry, fish, shellfish, lean cuts of meat, and vegetarian options such as tofu.

(From The South Beach Diet, Dr. Arthur Agatston)


There's no doubt that South Beach can yield dramatic weight loss. In my experience, the success in weight loss depends on 1) how unhealthy your diet was in the first place, and 2) how long you can stick to Phase I, the inital phase during which weight loss is most dramatic. Some people have to periodically cycle back to Phase I to break a "plateau" or to lose faster.

But South Beach is also healthy. It has all the ingredients of a healthy eating program: Low saturated and hydrogenated fats, rich in monounsaturated fats, high fiber, low- to moderate- glycemic index, vegetables and fruits, lean proteins.

The Atkins' diet, in contrast, while very effective for weiglht loss, is an unhealthy process. I've seen lots of bladder infections, constipation, skin rashes, and kidney stones. That's just in the short term. If you stick to the "induction phase" (the no carbohydrate, low fiber, indiscriminate fat initial phase) for an extended period, I suspect that other adverse internal phenemena also develop that might not show for years, like cancer. But--it does work for weight loss!

South Beach's Phase I is also carbohydrate restricted, but steers you towards healthier foods, such as healthy oils from olive and canola, raw or dry roasted nuts, and lean proteins and vegetables.

What really makes South Beach special, however, are its clever recipes. Dr. Arthur Agatston (the author) involved chefs from the restaurants in the South Beach area of Miami to help create healthy yet delicious recipes. We've tried many of them and, while they are different from traditional fare, are delicious and satisfying for the most part.

Criticisms? None, really. But, when my patients choose South Beach (which I often encourage), I often have to impress on them that the Track Your Plaque program is not about weight loss. It is about seizing control of a potentially life-threatening disease. It is a far more important goal with greater implications. Weight loss is just one aspect of a coronary plaque control effort. For this reason, we sometimes have to make changes in the South Beach program to allow for correction of specific lipoprotein patterns.

The most common modification is in people with small LDL particles. This pattern often does indeed respond to weight loss and/or niacin. However, it occasionally persists despite these efforts. We then will ask the patient to continue to restrict the re-introduction of wheat products, though it is allowed after Phase I in South Beach. In other words, for this specific and sometimes difficult to control lipoprotein pattern, a spedific modification of the off-the-shelf South Beach program is sometimes necessary. Of course, the diet is created to suit everybody. Lipoprotein analysis permits detailed insight into your patterns and it's only to be expected that specific modifications might be needed.

But, as written, you can do quite well in your plaque control program by sticking to South Beach.
Cureality | Real People Seeking Real Cures

The Framingham Crap Shoot

22. November 2008 William Davis (2)
The Framingham risk score is a risk-assessment tool that has become the basis for heart disease prediction used by practicing physicians.

The Framingham system determines that:

· 35% of the adult population in the U.S., or 70 million, is deemed “low-risk.” Low-risk is defined as the absence of standard risk factors for heart disease; low-risk persons have no more than a 1-in-20 chance (5%) of dying from heart disease in the next 10 years. Physicians are advised by the American Heart Association (AHA) and its experts that no specific effort at risk reduction is necessary.

· 25%, or approximately 50 million, U.S. adults are deemed “high-risk,” based on the presence of 2 or more risk factors. High-risk persons experience a 20%-30% likelihood of heart attack in the next 10 years. People at high-risk are candidates for preventive efforts according to the guidelines set by the Adult Treatment Panel-III (Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults; ATP-III) for cholesterol-reducing statin drug treatment and for “lifestyle-modifying” advice.

· The remaining 40% of the adult population, or 80 million people, are judged “intermediate-risk,” with the likelihood of heart attack between 5-20% over the next 10 years. This group should receive preventive advice and might be considered for statin drug treatment.


Let’s do some arithmetic. By the above scheme, the low-risk population will experience 3,500,000 heart attacks over the next decade, or 350,000 heart attacks per year.

The intermediate-risk population (without preventive treatment) will experience 8,000,000 heart attacks over the 10-year time period, or 800,000 per year.

The high-risk population, the group most likely to receive standard advice on diet, exercise, and be prescribed statin cholesterol drugs, will have their risk reduced by 35% by preventive efforts over the 10-year period. This means that heart attacks over 10 years will be reduced from 12,500,000 to 8,125,000 by standard prevention efforts, or reduced to 812,500 heart attacks per year.

These numbers are no secret. They are well known facts that have simply come to be accepted by the medical community. In other words, the standard approach to heart attack prediction makes the fact that two million people will succumb to cardiovascular events in the next year no mystery. This exercise in prediction is coldly accurate when applied to a large population.

The problem is that this approach cannot reliably distinguish which individuals will have a heart attack from those who will not.

From 100 people chosen at random, for instance, the numbers game played above will not confidently identify who among those 100 will have a heart attack, who will not, who will develop anginal chest pains and end up with stents or bypass surgery, or who will die. We just know that some of them will. Some people at high risk will have a heart attack, some people at intermediate risk will have a heart attack, some people at low risk will have a heart attack.

For any specific individual (like you or me), it’s a crap shoot.

That's why precise individual measurement of cardiovascular risk is required for real risk assessment, not applying broad statistical observations and forcing them to conform to the unique life of a specific individual, particularly risk calculators with as few risk parameters as the Framingham risk score.

At what score should a heart catheterization be performed?

21. November 2008 William Davis (2)
That's easy: NONE.

(Although I've addressed this previously, the question has come up again many times and I thought it'd be worth repeating.)

In other words, no heart scan score--100, 500, 1000, 5000--should lead automatically to procedures in someone who underwent a heart scan but has no symptoms.

This question is a common point of confusion.

In other words, is there a specific cut-off that automatically triggers a need for catheterization?

In my view, there is no such score. We can't say, for instance, that everybody with a score above 1000 should have a catheterization. It is true that the higher your score, the greater the likelihood of a plaque blocking flow. A score of 1000 carries an approximately 25-30% likelihood of reduced blood flow sufficient to consider a stent or bypass. This can nearly always be settled with a stress test. Recall that, despite their pitfalls for uncovering hidden heart disease in the first place, stress tests are useful as gauges of coronary blood flow.

But even a score of 1000 carries a 70-75% likelihood that a procedure will not be necessary. This is too high to justify doing heart catheterizations willy-nilly.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues will say that any heart scan score justifies a heart cath. I believe this is absolutely, unquestionably, and inexcusably wrong. More often than not, this attitude is borne out of ignorance, laziness, or a desire for profit.

Does every lump or bump justify surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy on the chance it could represent cancer? Of course not. There is indeed a time and place for these things, but judgment is involved.

In my view, no heart scan score should automatically prompt a major heart procedure like heart catheterization in a person without symptoms. If a stress test is normal, signifying normal coronary flow (and there are no other abnormal phenomena, such as abnormal left ventricular function), then there is no defensible rationale for heart procedures. Heart procedures like stents and bypass cannot prevent heart attacks in future; they can only restore flow when flow is poor, or stop the heart attack that is about to occur.

However, EVERY heart scan score above zero is a reason to engage in a program of prevention.

"It's genetic"

17. November 2008 William Davis (17)
At 53, Sam had been through the wringer with heart disease. After his first heart attack at age 50, he'd undergone four heart catheterizations, 5 stents, and, most recently, a bypass operation. He came to us to see if there was a better solution.

After hearing Sam's story, I asked,"Did your doctors suggest to you why you had heart disease?"

"Well, they said it was genetic, since my father went through the same thing in his early 50s, though he died after his second heart attack at age 54. They said it was bad luck and nothing could be done about it."

Though Sam's case is more dramatic than most, I hear this argument every day: Risk for heart disease is genetic.

It's true: There are indeed multiple reasons for inheriting causes for coronary heart disease, genes that heighten inflammatory responses, oxidative responses, modify lipoprotein particles, increase blood pressure, etc. There has even been some excitement over developing chromosomal markers for heightened risk.

That's all well and fine, but what can we do about it today?

In practical life, many inherited genetic patterns can be expressed in ways that you and I can identify--and correct. They are not chromosomal markers, but end products of genetic patterns. (Although there are indeed identifiable chromosomal markers, they have not yet led to meaningful treatments to my knowledge.)

These readily identifiable patterns include:

--Lipoprotein(a)--Clearly genetically transmitted, passed from mother or father to each child with a 50% likelihood, then you onto your children if you have it.

--Small LDL--Although small LDL is amplified by high-carbohydrate diets and obesity, it can also occur in slender people who do not indulge in carbohydrates --i.e., a genetic tendency. Or, it can be a combination of poor lifestyle magnifying the genetic tendency for small LDL.

--Low HDL--Particularly the extremes of low HDL below 30 mg/dl. (Although, interestingly, I am seeing more of these people, though not all, respond to vitamin D replacement. Perhaps an important subgroup of low HDL people are really Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) variants.)

--ApoE--Two variants are relevant: ApoE2 and ApoE4. In my experience, it's the E2 that carries far greater significance, though the data are somewhat scanty. ApoE4 people are more sensitive to the fats in their diet (greater rises in LDL with fats; thus, some people advocate a tighter saturated fat restriction with this pattern, though I am not convinced that is the best solution), while ApoE2 people are exceptionally sensitive to carbohydrates, develop extravagant increases in triglycerides, and are very diabetes-prone with even the most minimal weight gain. If two "doses" of the E2 gene are present (homozygotic), then the tendencies are very exagerrated. E4 people are also subject to greater likelihood of Alzheimer's, though it is not a certain risk in a specific individual.

--Postprandial disorders--We use the fasting intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) as an easy, obtainable index of the ability to clear after-eating byproducts of meals from the blood. Increased IDL has been related to increased coronary, carotid, and aortic aneurysmal disease.

--Hypertriglyceridemia-i.e., increases in triglycerides, While not all forms of high triglycerides confer risk for atherosclerosis, many do, particularly if associated with IDL, small LDL, increased LDL particle number and/or apoB.


There are more, but you get the point. There are clear-cut genetically-transmitted reasons for greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Some, like lipoprotein(a), yield very high risk. Others, like increased triglycerides, yield mixed levels of risk.

Importantly, all of these patterns--ALL--are identifiable and are treatable. Treatment may not always be the easiest thing, but they are treatable nonetheless. While lipoprotein(a), for instance, is the most difficult pattern to correct in the above list, I remind everyone that our current "record holder" for reversal of plaque and heart scan scores--63% reduction--has lipoprotein(a) that we corrected.

If you've been told that your risk for cardiovascular disease or coronary plaque is "genetic" and thereby uncorrectable and hopeless, run the other direction as fast as you can. Get another opinion from someone willing to take the modest effort to tell you precisely why.

Tim Russert Revisited

16. November 2008 William Davis (7)
A Heart Scan Blog reader brought this piece by Dr. MacDougall to my attention.

Dr. MacDougall created a fictitious posthumous conversation between himself and the late Tim Russert. MacDougall paints a picture of a hardworking, hard-living man who adhered to an overindulgent lifestyle of excessive eating. He concludes that a vegetarian, low-fat diet would have saved his life.

Beyond being disrespectful, I would differ with Dr. MacDougall’s assessment. In fact, I’ve heard an interview with Mr. Russert’s primary care physician in which the doctor claimed that Mr. Russert had been counseled on the need for a low-fat diet and, in fact, adhered to it quite seriously. Far from being an overindulgent, overeating gourmand, he followed the dictates of conventional dietary wisdom according to the American Heart Association. The low-fat diet articulated by Dr. MacDougall is simply a little more strict than that followed by Mr. Russert.

What exactly could Mr. Russert have done to prolong his life? Several basic strategies:

--Added fish oil. This simple strategy alone would have reduced the likelihood of dying suddenly by almost half.

--Eliminated wheat and cornstarch—Mr. Russert developed diabetes in the last few years of his life. By definition, diabetes is an inability to handle sugars and sugar-equivalents. Wheat and cornstarch yield immediate and substantial surges in blood sugar greater than table sugar; elimination causes weight to plummet, blood sugar to drop, and diabetes (at least in its early phases) can be eliminated in many people, particularly those beginning with substantial excess weight.

Just those two strategies alone would more than likely have avoided the tragic death that brought Mr. Russert’s wonderful life and career to an abrupt end.

Of course, he could have even taken his heart health program even further, as we do in the Track Your Plaque program. While the conversation has focused on how to avoid tragic events like sudden cardiac death, why not take it a step farther and ask, "How can coronary plaque be measured, tracked, and reversed?"

In that vein, Mr. Rusert could have restored vitamin D to normal levels; identified all hidden sources of heart disease using lipoprotein testing (though he had small LDL without a doubt, given his generous waist size, HDL of 36 mg/dl and high triglycerides); considered niacin. Simple, yet literally lifesaving efforts, that make reversal much more likely.

Those simple steps, in fact, would have tipped the scales heavily in Mr. Russert’s favor, making a heart attack and/or sudden death from heart disease exceptionally unlikely.

Water: Bottled vs. tap

16. November 2008 William Davis (4)
The Fanatic Cook has a great post discussing the findings of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on the quality of bottled water.

The full text of the study from the EWG can be viewed here.

They report that "the bottled water industry promotes an image of purity, but comprehensive testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed" . . . After analyzing 10 brands, they conclude that "tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry's refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified."

"EWG's study has revealed that bottled water can contain complex mixtures of industrial chemicals never tested for safety, and may be no cleaner than tap water. Given some bottled water company's failure to adhere to the industry's own purity standards, Americans cannot take the quality of bottled water for granted. Indeed, test results like those presented in this study may give many Americans reason enough to reconsider their habit of purchasing bottled water and turn back to the tap."


For these reasons, as well as environmental reasons (plastic bottles filling up dumpsites), I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that bottled water is something we should only use in a pinch, not habitually.

Can CRP be reduced?

13. November 2008 William Davis (17)
The JUPITER study has sparked a lot of discussion about c-reactive protein, or CRP.

If we follow the line of reasoning that prompted this study, reducing CRP may correlate with reduction of cardiovascular events. Thus, in the JUPITER study, Crestor 20 mg per day reduced cardiovascular events by nearly half.

From a CRP perspective, starting values were 4.2 mg/dl in the Crestor group of the trial, 4.3 mg/dl in the placebo group. After 24 months, CRP in the Crestor group was 2.2 mg/dl, 3.5 mg/dl in the placebo group, representing a 37% reduction.

Now, in our Track Your Plaque program--an experience that has yielded the virtual ELIMINATION of cardiovascular events--we aim for a CRP level of 1.0 mg/dl or less, ideally 0.5 mg/dl or less. The majority of people achieve these ambitious levels. In fact, it is a rare person who does not.

How do we achieve dramatic reductions in CRP? We use:

--Weight loss through elimination of wheat and cornstarch--This yields impressive reductions.

--Vitamin D--I have no doubt whatsoever of vitamin D's capacity to exert potent anti-inflammatory effects. I am not entirely sure why this happens (enhanced sensitivity to insulin, reduced expression of tissue inflammatory proteins like matrix metalloproteinase and others, etc.), but the effect is profound.

--Elimination of junk foods--like candies, cookies, pretzels, rice cakes, potato chips, etc.

--Exercise--Amplifies the benefits of diet on CRP reduction.

--Not allowing saturated fats to dominate--Yes, yes, I know. The demonization of saturated fat conversation has been largely replaced by the Taubesian saturated fat has not been confidently linked to heart disease conversation. But controlled feeding studies, in which a single component of diet is manipulated (e.g., saturated vs. monounsaturated vs. polyunsaturated fat) have clearly shown that saturated fats do activate several factors in the inflammatory response.

--Fish oil--Though I am a firm believer in the huge benefits of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation/restoration, the anti-inflammatory effect is modest from a CRP perspective. However, there are anti-inflammatory benefits beyond that of simple CRP (via normalization of eicosanoid metabolism and other pathways).

--Weight loss--A BIG effect. Weight loss drops CRP like a stone. The CRP-reducing effect is especially large if achieved via carbohydrate reduction.

Of course, this is much more complicated than taking a pill. But it is effective to achieve health benefits outside of cardiovascular risk, is enormously useful as part of a weight loss effort, and doesn't cost $1400 per year like Crestor.

In short, if CRP reduction is the goal, it certainly does not have to involve Crestor.

CRP and Jupiter

11. November 2008 William Davis (15)
What is C-reactive protein (CRP)?

It is a blood-borne protein that originates in the liver and serves as an index of the body's inflammatory state. It is triggered by yet another inflammatory signal molecule, interleukin-6.

What triggers this cascade of inflammatory markers? Any inflammatory stimulus, such as being overweight, lack of exercise, vitamin D deficiency, viral illness no matter how trivial, any inflammatory disease like arthritis, small LDL, high triglycerides, poor diet rich in processed foods, resistance to insulin, any injury, incipient diabetes, hidden cancer, lack of education (no kidding), etc.

In other words, many, many conditions, from trivial to serious, trigger increased inflammatory markers like CRP.

A recent analysis (Genetically elevated C-reactive protein and ischemic vascular disease of persons with genetically elevated levels of CRP) suggests that CRP does not, by itself, cause atherosclerotic disease. CRP is therefore simply a marker for conditions that heighten inflammatory responses.

The AstraZeneca people sponsored the enormous JUPITER study of the statin drug, Crestor, that has been causing a stir, mostly glowing pronouncements of how the world would be a better place if everyone took Crestor.

In JUPITER, nealry 18,000 people (men 50 years and over, women 60 years and over) took 20 mg per day Crestor for two years. Participants all had starting LDL cholesterols in the "normal" range of no higher than 130 mg/dl and elevated CRP of 2 mg/dl or greater.

Crestor treatment resulted in 44% reduction in nonfatal heart attack, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, revascularization (bypass surgery, stents) and death from cardiovascular causes. The reduction in nonfatal heart attack was most marked at 55%.

Admittedly, these are impressive results. Benefits held true for both males and females. At the very least, JUPITER should put to rest some of the fringe arguments that statins do not reduce cardiovascular events. They do. There is no sense in arguing against that. While we might argue about the value of statins in various subsets of people, there is no doubt that they do indeed exert a significant effect.

However, contrary to the hype and broad pronouncements of my colleagues, my concerns are:

1) Rather than shotgun the inflammatory response with a statin drug regardless of cause, doesn't it make more sense to ask why a specific individual has an increased CRP in the first place? For instance, if the answer is vitamin D deficiency, doesn't correction of the deficiency make more sense? (Vitamin D by itself reduces CRP around 60%--more than statin drugs.) Not to mention you obtain all the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D restoration, such as reduced cancer risk, increased bone density, relief from winter "blues," rise in HDL, etc. How about junk foods, obesity, and unrelated inflammatory conditions? Would we therefore indirectly be treating obesity with Crestor?

2) Crestor 20 mg per day, contrary to the study and to many statin studies, will not be tolerated for long by the majority. Muscles aches are not common--they are inevitable, sometimes incapacitating. While JUPITER showed 15% of both treatment and placebo groups experienced muscle effects--no different--this is wildly contrary to real life.

3) While there was a 55% reduction in the number of heart attacks, there continued to be a substantial number of heart attacks in the Crestor treatment arm. Clearly, reduction of CRP with Crestor, while helpful, is not a cure.

I view studies like JUPITER as simply an interesting piece of semi-scientific evidence, tainted to an unknown degree by commercial interests (including those of Dr. Paul Ridker, one of the principal investigators). It is not a mandate to use Crestor carte blanche in people with elevations of CRP.

My interpretation of these data in a practical sense is that Crestor 20 mg per day as sole therapy is useful in a disinterested, non-compliant patient who is unwilling to make substantial changes in lifestyle and nutrition. Helpful? Yes, but hardly an invitation for the world to take Crestor.

I believe that doesn't include any of the readers of this blog.

Nutritional approaches: Large vs. small LDL

11. November 2008 William Davis (13)













It is now a rare person who does not have at least some proportion of their LDL cholesterol as small particles. I estimate that, of the people who come to the office or report their data on the Track Your Plaque website, 90% have at least 40-50% small LDL particles. Some people have 100% small LDL particles. The sample NMR lipoprotein report shows the result for someone with a severe small LDL pattern (the tallest red bar labeled 1354 nmol/L, compared to the 74 nmol/L of the tiny red bar of large LDL.)

The nutritional approach for small vs. large LDL differs. Small LDL particles are most sensitive to carbohydrate intake; large LDL particles are more sensitive to saturated fats.

The conventional "heart healthy" diet that restricts saturated fat reduces large LDL but exerts no effect on small LDL. Thus, a diet that is restricted in saturated fat and weighed more heavily with "healthy whole grains" triggers small LDL particles. Followers of the conversations here recognize that small LDL particles are flagrant triggers for coronary plaque; they have, in fact, become the number one most common cause for heart disease in the U.S.

When you have lipoproteins tested, you can therefore gauge the likely result obtained when specific dietary changes are made. Follow the low saturated fat advice, large LDL will drop modestly, but small LDL skyrockets.













(Image courtesy Liposcience, Inc.)


Eliminate sugars, wheat, and cornstarch and you will see small LDL plummet (along with total LDL).

As an aside, my personal observation is that the "need" for statin cholesterol drugs can be reduced dramatically by paying attention to this important LDL size distinction.

Factory hospitals

8. November 2008 William Davis (8)
Twenty years ago, the American farming industry experienced a dilemma: How to grow more soybeans, corn, or wheat from a limited amount of farmland, raise more cattle and hogs in a shorter period of time, fatter and ready for slaughter within months rather than years?













(Image courtesy Wikipedia)

The solution: Synthetically fertilize farmland for greater crop yield; “factory farms” for livestock in which chickens or pigs are crammed into tiny cages that leave no room to turn, cattle packed tightly into manure-filled paddocks. As author Michael Pollan put it in his candid look at American health and eating, The Omnivore’s Dilemma:


“To visit a modern Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is to enter a world that for all its technological sophistication is still designed on seventeenth-century Cartesian principles: Animals are treated as machines—“production units”—incapable of feeling pain. Since no thinking person can possibly believe this anymore, industrial animal agriculture depends on a suspension of disbelief on the part of the people who operate it and a willingness to avert one’s eyes on the part of everyone else. . .”


Pollan goes on to argue that the cultural distance inserted between the brutal factory farm existence of livestock and your dinner table permits this to continue:


“. . .the life of the pig has moved out of view; when’s the last time you saw a pig in person? Meat comes from the grocery store, where it is cut and packaged to look as little like parts of animals as possible. The disappearance of animals from our lives has opened a space in which there’s no reality check on the sentiment or the brutality . . .”


The same disconnect has occurred in healthcare for the heart. The emotional distance thrust between the hospital-employed primary care physician, the procedure-driven cardiologist, the crammed-into-a-niche electrophysiologist (heart rhythm specialist) or cardiothoracic surgeon whose principal concerns are procedures—with an eye always towards litigation risk—mimics factory farms that now litter the landscape of the Midwest. The hospitals and doctors who deliver the process see us less as human beings and more as the next profit opportunity.

The “factory hospital” has allowed the subjugation of humans into the service of procedural volume, all in the name of fattening revenues. Never mind that people are not (usually) killed outright but subjected to a succession of life-disrupting procedures over many years. But whether livestock in a factory farm or humans in a factory hospital, the net result to the people controlling the process is identical: increased profits.

The system doesn’t grow to meet market demand, but to grow profits. The myth that allows this growth is perpetuated by the participants who stand to gain from that growth.

See hospitals for what they are: businesses. Despite most hospitals retaining "Saint" in their name, there is no longer anything saintly or charitable about these commercial operations. They are ever bit as profit-seeking as GE, Enron, or Mobil.

Medicare and The Law of Unintended Consequences

5. November 2008 William Davis (6)
This post carries on the line of conversation begun in The Origins of Heart Catheterization: Part I and Part II.



While Dr. Sones labored in the relative obscurity of his catheterization laboratory, the American public was experiencing a crisis in healthcare availability, particularly among the over-65 age group. The population of elderly in the U.S. was growing rapidly. Between 1950 and 1963, their ranks grew from 12 million to 17.5 million. The cost of hospital care was also increasing 6.7% annually, several times the rate of increase in the cost of living of the time. From 1950 to the day of Dr. Sones’ discovery, the average cost for a day in the hospital jumped from $29 to $40. As a result, private health insurance carriers were forced to increase rates, driving premiums higher and farther out of reach for many. Half of all elderly were uninsured. Many feared that, while the sophistication of medical services advanced, healthcare was becoming increasingly unavailable to many, perhaps most, Americans.

The pivotal contribution that ignited wide dissemination of healthcare technology didn’t come from a physician, nor someone in healthcare. It was spurred by a nearly-forgotten bureaucrat. Without the behind-the-scenes laboring of this one man, the present healthcare system might be quite different.

It was largely the work of Nelson H. Cruikshank, an ordained Methodist minister with a Master of Divinity degree and veteran of battling for rights of the elderly and poor deprived of health care. For 10 years, Cruikshank served as director of the AFL-CIO's Social Security Department and had been instrumental in getting the Social Security Disability act passed. Working on the side of organized labor but maintaining the public demeanor of a church pastor, Cruikshank gained a reputation as a fighter for the working man, one who didn’t back down from a political brawl. In an interview regarding the question of corporate-retained earnings for capital investment, he blasted the practice, calling it "taxation by corporation without representation. Through prices paid for consumer goods, buyers are providing capital for industries over which they have no control and from which they receive no dividends” (Time Magazine, Dec. 20, 1948).

For years, Cruikshank lobbied tirelessly on behalf of American unions to bring the new national healthcare bill, known as Medicare, to a vote on the floor of Congress. Numerous efforts at a national program had languished for a decade before Medicare was drafted, and the Medicare legislation remained bottlenecked for years in committees. Cruikshank’s relentless and forceful persuasion was instrumental in finally bringing the bill to a vote. Among the most vocal opponents Cruikshank parried was the American Medical Association (AMA), terrified that the new program would lead to loss of control over healthcare delivery and reimbursement. The AMA labeled Medicare "the most deadly challenge ever faced by the medical profession."

Cruikshank proved how tough he was when he faced off with Dr Morris Fishbein, then president of the AMA, in a radio debate. Oscar R. Ewing, attorney and Democratic political organizer under the Truman administration, offered these reminiscences of the debate:

“Dr. Fishbein described the horrible confusion that existed in the [government-run] British Health Service that had recently been established in Britain. He told of the utter confusion that he found existed when he was in England a few weeks previously; that there were long queues in every doctor's office, that doctors were overburdened with paper work; that a mother who wanted an extra allowance of milk for her sick child had to get a doctor's prescription for it and then go to the Health Department for permission to buy the milk. Dr. Fishbein painted a picture of complete confusion.

“After Dr. Fishbein had described all these horrible details he found existing when in England a few weeks earlier, Mr. Cruikshank pulled out this particular diary [published in a nationally-syndicated column called “Dr. Fishbein's Diary” ] of Dr. Fishbein in which he described his last visit to London. He had arrived in London Friday morning and that afternoon had gone out to spend the weekend with Lord and Lady so-and-so at their country place; that he'd come back to London Monday morning, had stopped by the Health Department to pick up some papers, and had gone on to catch the noon plane for Paris. So the questioner then asked, "Well, is your appraisal of the British Health Service based on those few hours in London?" The question was a stinger and pretty much discredited Dr. Fishbein.”

(Interview by Mr. J.R. Fuchs, April 29, 1969; Harry S. Truman Library Archives)



Cruikshank went on to point out that Dr. Fishbein had indeed never visited the offices of British general practitioners and had spent his brief stay in the company of British aristocracy, attending the Olympics, then making the rounds of Parisian night clubs. Fishbein stumbled through the remainder of the interview, trying unsuccessfully to cover up his gaff. Dr. Fishbein was forced out of his post as AMA president by his peers shortly following the humiliating episode.

Largely due to the years of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Mr. Cruikshank, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendment that enacted the Medicare program. The legislation that survived into law included Medicare Part A, the portion of the program providing payment for hospital-based diagnostic and treatment services, and Medicare Part B, allowing payment for office-based services and outpatient diagnostic tests.

Finally, after decades of political battles, a national healthcare bill had been passed. Although benefits were restricted to only those eligible for Social Security benefits, it represented a start, a first step toward greater access to healthcare for the broader American public.

At first, the full implications of the Medicare program were not apparent. But as healthcare technology advanced, including that sparked by Sones’ innovation in coronary imaging, Medicare, much as engineered in large part by Nelson Cruikshank, proved a bonanza of payment for heart procedures. Medicare also set the pace for the payment for procedures by non-government, private health insurance.

Thus the stage was set. Thanks to Medicare, over the next 40 years cardiovascular healthcare services, yielding generous revenue for practitioners and hospitals, exploded on the scene, much to the surprise of many, including the AMA. When then president of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Charles Fisch, was asked how the passage of Medicare affected cardiology, he replied, “It made cardiologists rich, as simple as that” (American Cardiology: The History of a Specialty and Its College, W. Bruce Fye, MD). Indeed, from its introduction in 1965 to 1980, Medicare payments for health claims ballooned 10-fold from $9.6 billion to $105.7 billion, a substantial portion of which went to pay for cardiology claims.

Little did Nelson Cruikshank, ministerial defender of the working man, anticipate that the Medicare he helped engineer would prove to be the catalyst for explosive growth of the modern cardiovascular healthcare system. Ironically, the program of healthcare-for-all that Cruikshank envisioned has, over the last 40 years, soured into a self-serving system that has been corrupted by the profit motive.

In too many instances, it’s a system that uses the working man as its victim, rather than its beneficiary.
All posts by william-davis

Firefighters Face Added Risk of Fatal Heart Attack

22. March 2007 William Davis (1)
Firefighters are twice as likely to die from a heart attack in the line of duty than are policemen, and three times more likely than EMTs.

That's among the headlines run today because of a report in the New England Journal of Medicine documenting a dramatically higher risk for heart attack for fire fighters putting out fires. The above headline is from an excellent report run on NPR radio. You can listen to the webcast at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047656.

The story sparked comments from experts insisting that all fire fighters should have physicals, should be in better physical condition, should be covered by health insurance (the NPR report said that 1 out of 4 fire fighters lack health insurance). Judging from the indisputable risk firefighters encounter, these are all good ideas.

But if you've been following my blog or the Track Your Plaque program, you know that physicals alone are hopeless exercises for identifying hidden heart disease. Among the solutions: identify whether or not heart disease is present in the first place--do a CT heart scan.

In fact, several local fire companies in my area have done just that: insisting that all firefighters undergo a heart scan. When groups of people like firefighters arrange for heart scans, they gain the advantage of doing so en masse, thereby allowing many scan centers to offer a dramatically reduced price to the city, town, or village that is paying for them. I've even seen many firefighters scanned at no cost.

It would also help to have health insurance, be physically fit, and have a stress test (an exception to my view that stress tests are also useless to screen asymptomatic people for heart disease). But a CT heart scan would settle the question quickly, easily, undeniably, and inexpensively.

Prophylactic bypass surgery?

20. March 2007 William Davis (0)
This question comes up around once a week:

My CT heart scan score is ____. Wouldn't I be better off just getting a bypass (or stent, etc.) and getting it over with? If I know that heart attack is in my future, why not just get it over with?

The most recent source of this question was the wife of a patient. Jack had a heart scan score of 92 in 2005. He made very little effort to correct his causes, permitting pre-diabetic patterns to persist, failed to correct vitamin D, etc. and a repeat heart scan score showed a dramatic rise to 264.

Jack's wife asked whether he should just have a bypass.

There are several problems with this line of reasoning:

1) Bypass surgery does not reduce the long term risk for heart attack.

2) The risk of bypass surgery often outweighs the risk of an asymptomatic heart scan score.

3) Bypass surgery is a temporary "fix," a fancy Band Aid for a disease that progresses after the procedure. One bypass typically prompts another, and another...

4) Bypassing arteries that have vigorous blood flow often causes the bypass graft to not "take" and close within the first few days.


Thankfully, nobody in his right mind has proposed that we perform prophylactic bypass operations.

Of course, hospitals and surgeons would jump at the chance to perform procedures in anybody with some threshhold heart scan score. It would double or triple their business overnight. At $70,000 or more per procedure, they would dance in glee. Of course, you and I would pay for their new burst of wealth by a sharp increase in our health insurance premiums. Not only that, the people who underwent the procedure would not benefit.

Lipitor 80 mg

20. March 2007 William Davis (4)
I'm seeing more and more people taking 80 mg of Lipitor per day. For the most part, these are people who come in for another opinion after a stent or heart attack and are prescribed the drug during their hospitalization.

This practice is based on the results of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 (PRavastatin Or atorVastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) trial, and the Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering (REVERSAL) trial, both reported in 2005. In the PROVE IT Trial, 4,000 people experiencing heart attacks were treated with Lipitor (atorvastatin), 80 mg, or Pravachol (pravastatin), 40 mg. There was a reduction in events like recurrent heart attack from 13.1% in the Pravachol group to 9.6% in the Lipitor group. In the REVERSAL Trial, the Lipitor group also showed no plaque growth compared to the Pravachol group, which did progress, with disease tracked by intracoronary ultrasound.

I believe that many of my colleagues took the bait. In a half-hearted effort to reduce events and trend towards better coronary plaque control, writing a prescription for 80 mg rather than a lower dose has become increasingly popular.

Some problems: Despite the favorable tolerance to high dose Lipitor in these trials, I don't know anybody who can tolerate 80 mg per day for more than a few months in real life. In my experience, people inevitably end up with intolerable muscle aches.

Also, I believe it is folly to believe that we can regress coronary plaque on a broad scale by just using one drug that addresses only a single cause (i.e., LDL cholesterol). Yes, drug companies would argue that the statin drugs are so wonderful because of their so-called "pleiotropic", or non-lipid, effects like reducing inflammation. I have seen regression of plaque once using Lipitor alone. We struggle to reduce coronary plaque using a multi-faceted approach. It is highly unlikely that Lipitor alone at a 80 mg dose will be sufficient in most people to regress plaque. How about lipoprotein(a)? Or vitamin D deficiency? Lipitor has no effect on these patterns and people do not regress just by taking statin agents.

Orlistat for weight loss

19. March 2007 William Davis (3)
In early February, the FDA approved orlistat, formerly known as prescription Xenical, for over-the-counter sale. Orlistat is a blocker of fat absorption.

The new OTC version will be called "Alli" (pronounced like "ally") and will come at a dose of 60 mg to be taken three times a day with meals. Prescription Xenical came as a 120 mg tablet. However, the company claims that the reduced dose sacrifices only 5% in reduced fat absorption, dropping from 30% with Xenical to 25% with Alli. It will cost in the neighborhood of $1 to $2 per day, or $30-60 per month, far less expensive than the $110-150 for the prescription form.

Does it work? Is it worth the money? Clinical trials document around 5-10 lbs lost over a 3 to 6 month period, 50% greater than using diet and exercise alone.

Our experience is that it works, though inconsistently. Results depend heavily on how reliant you are on fat calories. If you were to follow a low-fat diet while on the drug, you likely will lose little or no weight, since there's little fat absorption to block. However, I have witnessed more substantial weight loss of 10-20 lbs. in people who follow a higher fat intake in their diet, e.g., a traditional American diet. However, these people gain the weight back immediately because they've made no effort to modify food choices.

It is messy. Even though the clinical trials claims modest inconvenient effects like gas and greasy stools, I have found that it is, without fail, a very annoying product that results in crampiness and frequent messy stools in nearly everybody.

The company has created a glitzy website that you can view at www.myalli.com and promises to provide a personalized program and support for registrants when it is up and running by summer 2007.
I think that's a good idea, since the drug itself is no more than a temporary fix unless it's combined with long-term diet changes. However, the website, I believe, oversells the value of the drug with a drug company's usual over-the-top hints and innuendoes without actually coming out with straight pitches of the truth.

Beware of the vitamin D-blocking effect of Orlistat. The period of time you take it may be a time to resort to some modest sun exposure (10-15 minutes; be careful not to burn), rather than than oil-based vitamin D capsules, in order to avoid the inevitable vitamin D plunge in blood level.

I am not a fan of orlistat, having seen it tried many times with minimal success. However, it is another option for those who are really struggling. Personally, I would try fasting or some of the other strategies we've detailed on the www.cureality.com website before I resorted to orlistat.

Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar

17. March 2007 William Davis (5)
There's a $22 billion industry based on treating LDL cholesterol, a fictitious number.

LDL cholesterol is calculated from the following equation:

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

So when your doctor tells you that your LDL cholesterol is X, 99% of the time it has been calculated. This is based on the empiric calculation developed by Dr. Friedwald in the 1960s. Back then, it was a reasonable solution, just like bacon and eggs was a reasonable breakfast and a '62 Rambler was a reasonable automobile.

One of the problems with Dr. Friedewald's calculation is that the lower HDL cholesterol, the less accurate LDL cholesterol becomes. If it were just a few points, so what? But what if it were commonly 50 to 100 mg/dl inaccurate? In other words, your doctor tells you that your LDL is 120 mg/dl, but the real number is somewhere between 170 and 220 mg/dl. Does this happen?

You bet it does. In my experience, it is an everyday event. In fact, I'm actually surprised when the Friedewald calculated LDL closely approximates true LDL--it's the exception.

Dr. Friedewald would likely have explained that, when applied to a large population of, say, 10,000 people, calculated LDL is a good representation of true LDL. However, just like saying that the average weight for an American woman is 176 lbs (that's true, by the way), does that mean if you weigh 125 lbs that you are "off" by 41 lbs? No, but it shows how you cannot apply the statistical observations made in large populations to a single individual.

The lower HDL goes, the more inaccurate LDL becomes. This would be acceptable if most HDLs still permitted reasonable estimation of LDL--but it does not. LDL begins to become significantly inaccurate with HDL below 60 mg/dl.

How to get around this antiquated formula? In order of most accurate to least accurate:

--LDL particle number (NMR)--the most accurate by far.

--Apoprotein B--available in most laboratories.

--"Direct" LDL

--Non-HDL--i.e., the calculation of total cholesterol minus HDL. But it's still a calculated with built-in flaws.

--LDL by Friedewald calculation.

My personal view: you need to get an NMR if you want to know what your LDL truly is. A month of Lipitor costs around $80-120. A basic NMR costs less than $90. It's a relative bargain.

Menopause unleashes lipoprotein(a)

16. March 2007 William Davis (0)
Faye was clearly frustrated.

At age 52, she was having chest pains every day. A CT heart scan showed a score of zero. A CT coronary angiogram showed no plaque whatsoever.

"Everything went downhill when my menopause started. I gained weight, I started to have chest pains, my blood pressure went up, my cholesterol shot up."

She saw three physicians, none of whom shed much light on the situation. They ran through the predictable sequence of (horse, not human) estrogens, anti-depressants, suggestions for psychological counseling.

But we checked Faye for lipoprotein(a), which she proved to have at a high level of 182 nmol/l. This explained a lot.

A curious and predictable set of phenomenon occur to females with Lp(a) proceeding through the menopause. As estrogen recedes:

--Lp(a) levels rise dramatically.

--Blood pressure goes up, sometimes creating severe hypertension by mid- to late-50s.

--Chest pain can develop, presumably due to "endothelial dysfunction" or "microvascular angina", both representing abnormal coronary artery constriction facilitated by worsening expression of Lp(a).

All too often, these phenomena get dismissed as simply part of the menopausal package, when they are, in fact, important facets of this very important genetic pattern that confers high risk for heart disease.

If any of this rings familiar for you or a loved one, think Lp(a). Though Faye hadn't yet developed any measurable coronary plaque by her CT heart scan score, it was likely on its way, given the surge in Lp(a) expression as menopause unfolded--unless its recognized and appropriate preventive action taken.

Vitamin D must be oil-based

15. March 2007 William Davis (0)
I've talked about this before, but I need to periodically remind everybody:
Vitamin D must be an oil-based capsule, a gel-cap, not a tablet.

Lisa is one of early success stories: a heart scan score of 447 in her early 40's, modest reduction of CT heart scan score three years ago.

However, Lisa had a difficult time locating oil-based vitamin D. There has, in fact, been a national run on vitamin D and I'm told that even manufacturers are scrambling to keep up with the booming demand. So, she bought tablets instead and was taking 3000 units per day.

She came in for a routine check. Lisa's 25-OH-vitamin D3: 17 ng/ml, signifying severe deficiency, the same as if she were taking nothing at all. (Recall that we aim for 50 ng/ml.)

In other words, vitamin D tablets do not work. It is shameful. I see numerous women taking calcium tablets with D--the vitamin D does not work. I've actually seen blood levels of zero on these preparations.

You may have to look, but if you want to enjoy the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D replacement, it must be an oil-based capsule. Carlson's and Vitamin Shoppe have excellent prepartions. They raise blood levels substantially and consistently, and they're inexpensive. We pay $5.99 for a bottle of 120 capsules.

Vitamin D for $200?

13. March 2007 William Davis (2)
What if vitamin D cost $200 rather than $2?

In other words, what if cholecalciferol, or vitamin D3, was a patent-protectable agent that would sell for an extravagant price, just like a drug?

Vitamin D would be the hot topic. There would be TV ads run during Oprah, slick magazine two-page spreads with experts touting its outsized benefits, insurance companies would battle over how much your copay should be.

The manufacturer would host large fancy symposia to educate physicians on how wonderful vitamin D is for treatment of numerous conditions, complete with dinner, a show, and gifts. They would hire expert speakers to speak, scientists to have articles ghost-written, give out knick knacks with the brand label inscribed--just like Lipitor, Actos, Vytorin, ReoPro, Plavix . . .

After all, what other "drug" substantially increases bone density (up to 20% in adult females), enhances insulin responses 30% (equivalent to the TZD drugs, Actos and Avandia), and slashes colon cancer risk?

But it's not a drug. That is both vitamin D's strength and its weakness. It's a strong point because it's natural, phenomenally helpful across a variety of conditions, and inexpensive. It is also a weakness because, at $2 a month, no one is raking in the $12 billion annually that Pfizer makes for Lipitor that allows it to fund an enormous marketing campaign.

Vitamin D is a "discovery" of huge importance for health, including making reductions of CT heart scan scores far more likely for more people. And it comes without a prescription.

What's up with garlic?

13. March 2007 William Davis (0)

Fanatic Cook has posted an excellent summary on the recent negative attention cast on garlic preparations, at least for LDL cholesterol reduction.

Go to http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com to view.

I think Fanatic Cook is right--despite the lack of LDL reducing effects, it doesn't necessarily mean no benefit whatsoever. Anti-coagulation and anti-inflammatory effects, in particular, are well proven.

I do think, however, that it argues more in favor of sticking to whole cloves, rather than supplements. The benefits are also likely small. I would view garlic as a soft advantage for your plaque control program. You can do fine without it. You might do slightly better with it.

Drop the pretense

12. March 2007 William Davis (1)
Most hospitals maintain the "Saint _____" in their names, despite many having little or nothing to do with the church.

Out of 15 hospitals in my area, 13 are named after saints.

In my view, a more honest name would be something like "ABC Medical Enterprises, Inc." The profit motive, aggressive marketing tactics, and high CEO salaries would make better sense then. The trend to convert practicing physicians from professionals acting on behalf of patient welfare into paid employees would also be clearer.

Imagine Walmart were to change its name to "St. Mary's Emporium" Would it modify your perception of their business? I think it would. It would cause many people to believe that maybe their work was, at least in part, charitable and being done for the public welfare. But Walmart makes such pretense--they are in business for profit, just like all businesses.

It's time for the pretense to be dropped. Hospitals are cut-throat profit-seeking operations, operating under the guise of charitable, tax-free institutions. It's the farthest thing from the truth.