"You've got 10 minutes"

20. May 2009 William Davis (0)
There's a new trend in office healthcare in Milwaukee: Time-restricted office visits.



I'm told by several physicians who are employed by a major healthcare system here in town that they are peridically watched--physically watched by an administrator--to make sure that they do not exceed the allotted 10 minutes of time. My cardiologist colleagues, I gather, were at first incredulous at such intrusions into their practices, but apparently had no choice: They were employees.



Goiter, goiter everywhere

20. May 2009 William Davis (25)
The results of the recent Heart Scan Blog poll are in.

The question:

Do you used iodized salt?

The responses:

Yes, I use iodized salt every day
94 (28%)

Yes, I use iodized salt occasionally
56 (16%)

No, I do not use any iodized salt
41 (12%)

No, I use a non-iodized salt (sea salt, Kosher)
126 (37%)

No, I use a non- or low-sodium substitute
15 (4%)


Thanks for your responses.

If only 28% of people are regular users of iodized salt, that means that the remainder--72%--are at risk for iodine deficiency if they are not getting iodine from an alternative source, such as a multivitamin or multimineral.

Even the occasional users of salt can be at risk. The common perception is that occasional use is probably sufficient to provide iodine. This is probably not true and not just because of the lower quantity of ingestion. Occasional users of salt tend to have their salt canister on the shelf for extended periods. The iodine is then lost, since iodine is volatile. In fact, iodine is virtually undetectable four weeks after a package is opened.

In my office, now that I'm looking for them much more systematically and carefully, I am finding about 2 people with goiters every day. They are not the obvious grotesque goiters of the early 20th century (when quack therapies like the last post, the Golden Medical Discovery, were popular). The goiters I am detecting are small and spongy. Yesterday alone I found 5 people with goiters, one of them visible to the eye and very distressing to the patient.

It seems to me that iodine deficiency is more prevalent than I ever thought. It is also something that is so simple to remedy, though not by increasing salt intake. Kelp tablets--cheap, available--have been working quite well in the office population. My sense is that the Recommended Daily Allowance of 150 mcg per day for adults is low and that many benefit from greater quantities, e.g., 500 mcg. What is is the ideal dose? To my knowledge, nobody has yet generated that data.

Thyroid issues being relatively new to my thinking, I now find it incredible that endocrinologists and the American Thyroid Association are not broadcasting this problem at the top of their lungs. This issue needs to be brought to the top of everyone's attention, or else we'll have history repeating itself and have goiters and thyroid dysfunction galore.

For more on this topic, see the previous Heart Scan Blog post, "Help keep your family goiter free."

Goiter and the Golden Medical Discovery

17. May 2009 William Davis (19)

Thick neck, or goitre . . . consists of an enlargement of the thyroid gland, which lies over and on each side of the trachea, or windpipe, between the prominence known as "Adam's apple" and the breast bone. The tumor gradually increases in front and laterally, until it produces great deformity, and often interferes with respiration and the act of swallowing. From its pressure on the great blood vessels running to and from the head, there is a constant liability to engorgement of blood in the brain, and to apoplexy, epilepsy, etc.

The causes of the affection are not well understood. The use of snow water, or water impregnated with some particular saline or calcareous matter, has been assigned as a cause. It has also been attributed to the use of water in which there is not a trace of iron, iodine, or bromine. . . The disease is often due to an impeded circulation in the large veins of the neck, from pressure of the clothing, or from the head being bent forward, a position which is often seen in school children.


Treatment

We have obtained excellent results in many cases, not too far advanced, by a method of treatment which consists in the employment of electrolysis. . . Many cases at the present time are operated upon with entire success.

Those who are afflicted with this disease and unable to avail themselves of special treatment cannot do better than to take Doctor Pierce's Alterative Extract, or Golden Medical Discovery, and apply over the skin around the tumor, night and morning, the following, which may be prepared at any drug store:

Resublimed Iodine--One dram
Iodide of Potassium--Four drams
Soft Water--Three ounces 


Apply to the tumor, twice daily, with feather or camel hair pencil.


From The People's Common Sense Medical Adviser by R.V. Pierce, MD; 1918.

Magnesium and you-Part I

15. May 2009 William Davis (11)
If this were 10,000 B.C., you'd get your drinking water from streams, rivers, and lakes, all rich in mineral content. Humans became reliant on obtaining a considerable proportion of daily mineral needs from natural water sources.

21st century: We obtain drinking water from a spigot or plastic bottle. Pesticides and other chemicals seep into the water supply. Municipal water purification facilities have intensified water purification in most communities to remove contaminants like lead, pesticide residues, and nitrates. (For a really neat listing of the water quality of various cities, the University of Cincinnati makes this data available.)

But intensive water treatment also removes minerals like calcium and magnesium.

Many people have added water filters or purifiers to their homes,, like reverse osmosis and distillation, that are efficient at extracting any remaining minerals, converting “hard” into “soft” water. In fact, manufacturers of such devices boast of their power to yield pure water free of any “contaminant,” minerals like magnesium included. The magnesium content of water after passing through most commercial filters is zero.

Modern enthusiasm for bottled water has compounded the problem. Americans consumed a lot of bottled water, nearly 8 billion gallons last year. In the U.S., nearly all bottled water has little or no magnesium.

The result is that we can no longer rely on drinking water to provide magnesium. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA)—the amount required to prevent severe deficiency—for magnesium is 420 mg per day for men, 320 mg/day for women. In cities with the highest magnesium water content, only 30% of the RDA can be obtained by drinking two liters of tap water per day. In most cities, only a meager 10–20% of the daily requirement can be obtained. That leaves between 70–90% that needs to come from other sources. As a result, the average American ingests substantially less than the RDA.

Blast triglycerides

15. May 2009 William Davis (0)
The conventional answers to high triglycerides levels are generally: low-fat diet, a fibrate drug (Tricor, Lopid), a statin drug, and--most recently--prescription fish oil.

This is the regimen to take if you want the drug industry to get even richer and more powerful than they already are. After all, what CEO of a pharmaceutical company can stand to have his salary and benefits slashed to below $200 million this year? It's outrageous!

If you really want to blast the heck out of your triglycerides and achieve numbers like 50 mg/dl, then the regimen to consider consists of:

--Elimination of sugars, wheat, and cornstarch
--Fish oil--Sam's Club would do fine at $8 for 350 capsules, or the high-potency at $14.99 for 180 capsules (at 680 mg EPA +DHA, nearly the same potency as prescription Lovaza at 842 mg)
--Vitamin D supplementation sufficient to achieve normal blood levels (60-70 ng/ml)

Those three strategies alone can reduce triglycerides far more than any drug combination. In fact, it is rare for someone with triglycerides as high as 900 mg/dl to not reduce them to the <100 mg/dl range.

Cheerios: Prescription required?

13. May 2009 William Davis (15)
Followers of The Heart Scan Blog know my feelings about Cheerios:


Can you say "sugar"?

Cheerios and heart health


There's an interesting tussle going on between the makers of Cheerios, General Mills, and the FDA.

The FDA says that the Cheerios' package claims of:

• "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks"
• "Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is ... clinically proven to lower cholesterol. A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol."

constitute a medical claim, i.e., trying to promote Cheerios as a drug.

I'm glad that the FDA has come down on General Mills. But I find this entire episode laughable: The debate is over the purported health benefits of what I would regard as pure junk food, no better in my view than claiming that a cupcake has health benefits, or a carton of ice cream.

In my experience, Cheerios does not 1) reduce risk for heart disease, nor 2) reduce cholesterol.

It does, however, cause blood sugar to skyrocket and increase the small type of LDL--you know, the type that causes heart disease.

"Placebos are frequently of value"

12. May 2009 William Davis (1)
The treatment of angina pectoris, generally speaking, is unsatisfactory.

Any procedure that relieves mental tension is valuable. Since patients suffer particularly during the winter, I encourage winter vacations in a southern climate.

I insist that obese patients lose weight, and have found small doses of benzedrine, 10 to 20 mg. daily, helpful in curbing the appetite.

I generally forbid smoking. This is a particularly disturbing task for many patients to carry out. In such cases, I suggest that 3 or 4 cigarettes be smoked daily, knowing full well that regardless of what I say or recommend, the patients is going to continue to smoke.

Innumerable drugs, most of which are of questionable value, have been used to prevent attacks of angina pectoris. In fact, placebos are frequently of value.

Testosterone--The male sex hormone has been effective in my experience. Whether it acts as a vasodilator or merely by promoting a sense of well-being is not known.

Alcohol--Alcohol (whiskey, brandy, rum) has been used for many years in the treatment of angina pectoris. I have prescribed it in moderate quantity--an ounce several times a day--and while I have not made alcoholics of any of my patients, I also have not cured any of them with it. Preparations, such as creme de menthe, are of value in relieving "gas" of which so many patients complain.


From Heart Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Emanuel Goldberger, MD
1951

Iodine is not salt

12. May 2009 William Davis (3)
I've noticed a point of confusion recently, something I hadn't noticed in my patients before: Because of the public health advice from the FDA, American Heart Association, and Surgeon General's office to reduce sodium/salt intake, people have thought this meant reducing iodine, too.

I believe that people have drawn an equation in their minds:


Sodium = iodine


Of course, they are two entirely unrelated things.

Recall that the only reason iodine is added to many (not all) salt products is because it was a public health solution to solve the substantial nationwide iodine deficiency prevalent during the 20th century. But it was a solution conceived in 1924, when the FDA thought this was the best way to get iodine into Americans. And it worked.

Unfortunately, sodium does indeed present adverse effects in some people. As a result, "get your iodine from salt" has evolved into "reduce your sodium intake." Everyone forgot about the iodine: They forgot about the large disfiguring goiters, the poor school performance in iodine-deficient schoolchildren, the mentally-impaired offspring of iodine-deficient mothers.

So don't confuse sodium with iodine. You may need less of the former, but more of the latter.

For more on this, see "Help keep your family goiter free."

"You can't reduce coronary plaque"

10. May 2009 William Davis (9)
"I told my cardiologst that I stumbled on a program called 'Track Your Plaque' that claims to be able to help reduce your coronary calcium score.

"My cardiologist said, 'That's impossible. You cannot reduce coronary plaque. I've never seen anyone reduce a heart scan score."

Who's right here?

The commenter is right; the cardiologist is wrong.

I would predict that the cardiologist is among the conventionally-thinking, "statins drugs are the only solution" group who follows his patients over the years to determine when a procedure is finally "needed." In fact, I know many of these cardiologists personally. The primary care physicians are completely in the dark, usually expressing an attitude of helplessness and submitting to the "wisdom" of their cardiology consultants.

Quantify and work to reduce the atherosclerotic plaque? No way! That's work, requires thinking, some sophisticated testing (like lipoprotein testing), even some new ideas like vitamin D. "They didn't teach that to me in medical school (back in 1980)!"

Welcome to the new age.

Atherosclerotic plaque is 1) measurable, 2) trackable, and 3) can be reduced.

We do it all the time. (Amy still holds our record: 63% reduction in plaque/heart scan score.)

Though I pooh-pooh the value of statin drug studies, there's even data from the conventional statin world documenting coronary plaque reversal. The ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor), 40 mg per day for one year, demonstrated 7% reduction of atherosclerotic plaque using intracoronary ultrasound.

I have NEVER seen a heart attack or appearance of heart symptoms (angina, unstable angina) in a person who has reversed coronary plaque (unless, of course, they pitched the whole effort and returned to bad habits--that has happened). Stick to the program and coronary risk, for all practical purposes, been eliminated.

A heart scan score is not a death sentence. It is simply a tool to empower your prevention program, a measuring stick to gauge plaque progression, stabilization, or regression. Don't accept anything less.

Lethal lipids

8. May 2009 William Davis (15)
There's a specific combination of lipids/lipoproteins that confers especially high risk for heart disease. That combination is:

Low HDL--generally less than 50 mg/dl

Small LDL--especially if 50% or more of total LDL

Lipoprotein(a)--an aggressive risk factor by itself


This combination is a virtual guarantee for heart disease, often at a young age. It's not clear whether each risk factor exerts its own brand of undesirable effect, or whether the combined presence of each cause some adverse interaction.

For instance, lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), by itself is the most aggressive risk factor known (that nobody's heard about--there's no blockbuster revenue-generating drug for it). Each Lp(a) molecule is a combination of an LDL cholesterol molecule with a specific genetically-determined protein, apoprotein(a). If the LDL component of Lp(a) is small, then the combination of Lp(a) with small LDL is somehow much worse, kind of like the two neighborhood kids who are naughty on their own, but really bad when they're together.

Interestingly, the evil trio responds as a whole to many of the same corrective treatments:

Niacin--increases HDL, reduces small LDL, and reduces Lp(a)

Elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars--Best for reducing small LDL; less potent for Lp(a) reduction.

High-fat intake--Like niacin, effective for all three.

High-dose fish oil--Higher doses of EPA + DHA north of 3000 mg per day also can positively affect all three, especially Lp(a).


If you have this combination, it ought to be taken very seriously. Don't let anybody tell you that it is uncorrectable--just because there may be no big revenue-generating drug to treat it on TV does not mean that there aren't effective treatments for it. In fact, some of our biggest successes in reducing heart scan scores have had this precise combination.

Cholesterol effects of carbohydrates

24. March 2009 William Davis (31)
Let's take a hypothetical person, say, a 50-year old male. 5 ft 10 inches, 160 lbs, BMI 23.0. He's slender and in good health.

Our hypothetical man eats a simple diet of vegetables, some fruit, nuts, and meats but avoids processed industrial foods. By macronutrient composition, his diet is approximately 30% protein, 40-50% fat, 20-30% carbohydrate. His starting lipid panel:

Total cholesterol 149 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 80 mg/dl
HDL 60 mg/dl
Triglycerides 45 mg/dl

His starting lipids are quite favorable (though I don't often see this kind of starting panel nowadays except in athletes). We begin here because this hypothetical man is going to serve as our test subject.

We ask our hypothetical man to load his diet up on "healthy whole grains." He complies by eating whole grain cereals for breakfast, whole wheat toast; sandwiches made with whole grain bread; dinners of whole wheat pasta; snacks of granola bars, whole wheat pretzels and crackers.

Three months later, his lipids show:

Total cholesterol 175 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 130 mg/dl
HDL 45 mg/dl
Triglycerides 150 mg/dl


You can see that LDL cholesterol has increased, HDL has dropped, and triglycerides have increased. This wave of change is the hallmark of carbohydrate excess, but more specifically of overreliance on wheat products. Beyond his lipid panel, the man has gained 10 lbs, all concentrated in a soft roll around his abdomen, his blood sugar is now in the "borderline range" of between 110 and 126 mg/dl, i.e., pre-diabetic.

If we were to examine this man's advanced lipoproteins (e.g., NMR from Liposcience, or VAP from Atherotech), we would see that there has been an explosive increase in small LDL particles, along with a shift of large HDL to small, and the appearance of multiple abnormal classes of particles called VLDL and IDL (signalling abnormally slowed clearance of dietary by-products from the blood).

Familiar scenario? The "after-carbohydrate" situation is the rule among the people who I first meet who claim to be eating a "healthy" diet, though their patterns are usually much worse, with higher LDL, lower HDL, and much higher triglycerides, an exaggeration of our hypothetical man's abnormalities.

What if our hypothetical man now goes to his conventionally thinking (read "taught medicine by the pharmaceutical industry") physician? What will likely be the advice he receives? Reduce his saturated fat intake, eat plenty of healthy whole grains, take a statin drug.

Although my illustrative man is hypothetical, I've seen this scenario play out many thousands of times. It happens in real life all the time. It is predictable, it is highly manipulable. Sadly, it is rarely recognized for what it is: the result of excess carbohydrates, or what I call "Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome."

The misinterpretation of this condition has created 1) an epidemic of diabetes and pre-diabetes, 2) a nation of frustrated obese Americans, 3) a $27 billion per year statin industry, 4) another growth opportunity for the drug industry in diabetes drugs.

Wheat Belly Revisited

23. March 2009 William Davis (24)
Do you have a wheat belly?

When I first coined this phrase back in July, 2007, I had witnessed the phenomenal health effects of wheat elimination in several hundred patients.

In the nearly two years that have passed since my original post, I have witnessed hundreds more people who have done the same: eliminate pretzels, crackers, breads of all sorts, bagels, pasta, muffins, waffles, pancakes, etc.

If anything, I am convinced now more than ever that wheat is among the most destructive foods in the human diet. At least 70% of people who eliminate wheat from their diet obtain at least one, if not several, substantial health benefits.

Now, if I were trying to sell you something, say, an alternative to wheat, then you should be skeptical. If I tell you that drug or nutritional supplement X is great and you should take it, only to follow it with a sales pitch, you should be skeptical.

What am I selling? Nothing. I gain nothing by telling everyone to avoid wheat. In fact, I wish it wasn't true. Wheat foods taste good. Wheat flour makes great comfort foods. In years past, I spent many hours sitting at the bagel shop reviewing papers over a cup of coffee and a bagel. No longer.

So here, back by popular demand, the original Wheat Belly post:



Wheat Belly

You've heard of "beer bellies," the protuberant, sagging abdomen of someone who drinks excessive quantities of beer.

How about "wheat belly"?

That's the same protuberant, sagging abdomen that develops when you overindulge in processed wheat products like pretzels, crackers, breads, waffles, pancakes, breakfast cereals and pasta.



(By the way, this image, borrowed from the wonderful people at Wikipedia, is that of a teenager, who supplied a photo of himself.)

It represents the excessive visceral fat that laces the intestines and triggers a drop in HDL, rise in triglycerides, inflames small LDL particles, C-reactive protein, raises blood sugar, raises blood pressure, creates poor insulin responsiveness, etc.

How common is it? Just look around you and you'll quickly recognize it in dozens or hundreds of people in the next few minutes. It's everywhere.

Wheat bellies are created and propagated by the sea of mis-information that is delivered to your door every day by food manufacturers. It's the same campaign of mis-information that caused the wife of a patient of mine who was in the hospital (one of my rare hospitalizations) to balk in disbelief when I told her that her husband's 18 lb weight gain over the past 6 months was due to the Shredded Wheat Cereal for breakfast, turkey sandwiches for lunch, and whole wheat pasta for dinner.

"But that's what they told us to eat after Dan left the hospital after his last stent!"

Dan, at 260 lbs with a typical wheat belly, had small LDL, low HDL, high triglycerides, etc.

I hold the food companies responsible for this state of affairs, selling foods that are clearly causing enormous weight gain nationwide. Unfortunately, the idiocy that emits from Nabisco, Kraft, and Post (AKA Philip Morris); General Mills; Kelloggs; and their kind is aided and abetted by organizations like the American Heart Association, with the AHA stamp of approval on Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp Cereal, and Berry Kix; and the American Diabetes Association, whose number one corporate sponsor is Cadbury Schweppes, the biggest soft drink and candy manufacturer in the world.

As I've said many times before, if you don't believe it, try this experiment: Eliminate all forms of wheat for a 4 week period--no breakfast cereals, no breads of any sort, no pasta, no crackers, no pretzels, etc. Instead, increase your vegetables, healthy oils, lean proteins (raw nuts, seeds, lean red meats, chicken, fish, turkey, eggs, Egg Beaters, low-fat yogurt and cottage cheese), fruits. Of course, avoid fruit drinks, candy, and other garbage foods, even if they're wheat-free.

Most people will report that a cloud has been lifted from their brains. Thinking is clearer, you have more energy, you don't poop out in the afternoon, you sleep more deeply, some rashes disappear. You will also notice that hunger ratchets down substantially. Most people lose the insatiable hunger pangs that occur 2-3 hours after a wheat-containing meal. Instead, hunger is a soft signal that gently prods you that it's time to consider eating again.

You will also make considerable gains towards gaining control over your risk for heart disease and your heart scan score, a crucial step in the Track Your Plaque program.

Thank you, Crestor

20. March 2009 William Davis (9)
I'm sure everyone by now has seen the Crestor ads run by drugmaker, AstraZeneca. TV ads, magazine ads, and the Crestor website all echoing the same message:

"While I was busy building my life, something else was busy building in my arteries: dangerous plaque."

While previous drug trials with Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, and Lipitor have focused mostly on examining whether the drugs reduced incidence of cardiovascular events, Crestor studies have also focused on effects on atherosclerotic plaque volume. The best example is the ASTEROID trial that demonstrated approximately 7% reduction in plaque volume by intracoronary ultrasound.

So the AstraZeneca decision makers took the leap from cholesterol reduction to plaque reduction.

I'm sure this switch wasn't taken lightly, but was the topic of discussion at many meetings before the decision to make plaque reduction the focus of hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising. After all, billions of dollars are at stake in this bloated statin market.

Ordinarily, I couldn't care less about how the drug manufacturers conduct their advertising campaigns. But this one I paid attention to because the Crestor ads are helping fuel a new way of thinking about coronary heart disease: It's not about the cholesterol; it's about the atherosclerotic plaque that accumulates in arteries.

It's not cholesterol that grows, limits coronary blood flow, and causes angina. It's not cholesterol that "ruptures" its internal contents to the surface within the interior of the blood vessel and causes blood clot and heart attack. It's not cholesterol that fragments from the carotid arteries and showers debris to the brain, causing stroke. It's all plaque.

I took the same leap years ago, though not backed by hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing money. When I first called my book Track Your Plaque, some of the feedback I got from editors included comments like "I thought this was a book about teeth!" Even now, the word "plaque" in the book title and website is responsible for confusion.

But AstraZeneca is helping me clear up the confusion. As the word plaque gains hold in public consciousness, it will become increasingly clear that cholesterol reduction is not what we're after. We are looking for reduction of plaque.

If you are trying to develop an effective means to reduce or reverse coronary heart disease, then there are two simple equations to keep in mind:


Plaque = coronary heart disease

Cholesterol ? coronary heart disease


Plaque is the disease, cholesterol is not. Cholesterol is simply a crude risk for plaque.

While I'm no friend to the drug industry nor to AstraZeneca, some good will come of their efforts.

Supermarkets and buggy whips

17. March 2009 William Davis (17)
Will supermarkets eventually phase out, joining the history books as a phenomenon of the past? Or are supermarkets here to stay, an emblem of the industrialization of our food--easy access to foods that are convenient, suit the undiscriminating masses, stripped of nutritional value despite the prominent health claim on the package front?

Anna left an insightful comment on the last Heart Scan Blog post, Sterols should be outlawed, along with some useful advice on how to avoid this trap for poor health called a supermarket:


I rarely shop in regular supermarkets anymore (farm subscription for veggies, meat bought in bulk for the freezer, eggs from a local individual, fish from a fish market, freshly roasted coffee from a local coffee place, etc.). What little else I need comes from quirky Trader Joe's (dark chocolate!), the fish market, farmer's markets, a small natural foods store, or mail order.

When I do need to go into one of the many huge supermarkets near me, not being a regular shopper there, I never know where anything is, so I have to ramble a bit around the aisles before I find what I'm looking for (and I almost always can grab a hand basket, instead of a trolley cart).

It's almost like being on another planet! There's always so many new products (most of them I hesitate to even call food). It's really a shock to the senses now to see how much stuff supermarkets sell that I wouldn't even pick up to read the label, let alone put in a cart or want to taste. I'm not even tempted by 99% of the tasting samples handed out by the sweet senior ladies in at Costco anymore (only thing I remember tasting at Costco in at least 6 mos was the Kerrygold Irish cheese, because I know their cows have pasture access and it's real food).

What's really shocking to me is how large some sections of the markets have become in recent years. While Americans got larger, so did some sections of the supermarket (hint - good idea to limit the consumption of products from those areas). Meat and seafood counters have shrunk, though. Produce areas seem to be about the same size as always (but more of it is pre-prepped and RTE in packaging.

But the chilled juice section is h-u-g-e! And no, I don't think there is a Florida orange grove behind the cases. Come on, how much juice do people need? Juice glasses used to be teeny tiny, for a good reason. To me it looks like a long wall stocked full of sugar water. Avoiding that section will put a nice dent in the grocery expenses.

The yogurt case is also e-n-o-r-m-o-u-s! Your 115 yo Bulgarian "grandmother" wouldn't know what to make of all these "pseudo-yogurts"! Chock full of every possible variety, but very little fit to eat. The only yogurts I'll look at are made with plain whole milk, without added gums, emulsifiers, or non-fat milk solids, and live cultures (I mostly buy yogurt now and then to refresh my starter culture at home). I can flavor them at home if needed. The sterols are showing up in processed yogurts, too, along with patented new strains of probiotic cultures (I'll stick to my old fashioned, but time-proven homemade lacto-cultured veggies and yogurt instead).

I found the same "cooler spread" in the butter & "spread" section. The spread options were just grotesque sounding. Actually, the butter options weren't much better, as many were blended with other ingredients to increase spreadability, reduce calories or cholesterol/saturated fat, etc. A few plain butters were enhanced with "butter flavor" - say what? And on no package could it be determined if the butter came from cows that were naturally fed on pasture or on grain in confined pens.


Well said, Anna.

There's a huge supermarket about 1 mile away from my house similar to the one Anna describes with aisle after aisle of eye-catching cellophane-wrapped foods. I go there about every 3 or 4 months, and then I only go to get something I need in a pinch. Every time I go, I too am reminded just how many products there are that look more like junk food than real food.

But there's no real money in real food. Who gets rich off of selling green peppers, tomatoes, and eggs?

Supermarkets sell these modern industrial foods because people buy it: Look around you. You don't get to be a 250 lb 5 ft 2 inch-woman by eating too many cucumbers.

Like Anna, I drive an additional several miles to Trader Joes', buy at farmers' markets whenever possible, buy some odds and ends like wine and cheese and raw nuts at specialty stores. I grow my own basil in a big pot I keep in the kitchen and we are just about to start turning over the soil in the back yard for our vegetable garden. I don't need nor do I miss having the choice among 40 different chips, 25 brands of ready-made microwavable dinners, an entire aisle of breakfast cereasl (all of which are virtually the same with different names and labels), or 75 varieties of salad dressing.

The supermarket for me--and I hope for many of you--has become a place rarely frequented, and only for the odd forgotten item. Oh, I forgot the dog chewies the grocery does have--my dogs love them. So perhaps they are good for something after all.

Sterols should be outlawed

14. March 2009 William Davis (10)
While sterols occur naturally in small quantities in food (nuts, vegetables, oils), food manufacturers are adding them to processed foods in order to earn a "heart healthy" claim.

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


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

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

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

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

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




Though the data are mixed:

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

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




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

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




Each Nature Valley Healthy Heart Bar contains 400 mg sterols.












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













Promise SuperShots contains 400 mg sterols per container.














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














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














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










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

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

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


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

Texas today, tomorrow . . . the world?

10. March 2009 William Davis (0)
Texas state representative, Rene Oliveira, has introduced legislation that mandates heart scans for adults in the state of Texas.

Rep. Oliveira

A press release from the SHAPE Society ( Society for Heart Attack Prevention and Eradication) reads:

Assessment of heart attack risk on the basis of traditional risk factors alone such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure and so forth, while useful, misses many who are at high risk and also incorrectly flags some for high risk who are in fact at very low risk of near term heart attack; on the other hand detection of atherosclerosis by non-invasive imaging, as suggested by the SHAPE group, accurately identifies plaque and improves the ability to identify at-risk individuals who could benefit from aggressive preventive intervention while sparing low-risk subjects from unnecessary aggressive medical therapy," said Dr. P.K. Shah, Director of Cardiology at Cedars Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, a leading member of the SHAPE Task Force who is also an active member of the American Heart Association. "Sadly, these vulnerable patients go undetected until struck by a heart attack, because insurance companies don't cover the newer heart attack screening imaging tests."


Rep. Oliveira, whose coronary disease was first uncovered by a heart scan and prompted a bypass operation, states:

"It is about time that we cover preventive screening for the number one killer in Texas, and take action to reduce healthcare costs through preventive healthcare. Right now, we are extending the lives of those who can afford the procedure while hundreds of thousands of Texans with hidden heart disease go undetected because of antiquated thinking. The time has come for this change."


Is this what we've come to? Since practicing physicians are either so entranced by the drug and procedural solutions to heart disease, do we need to resort to heart scan by legislation?

It does indeed appear that we've come to this point. Should this trend catch on, it will surely mean an upfront increase in healthcare costs to cover the expense of heart scans. But in the long run, it will mean reduction in healthcare costs--dramatic reduction--if heart scans prompt effective preventive action.

What your doctor doesn't know about heart disease

9. March 2009 William Davis (12)
What causes coronary heart disease or coronary atherosclerotic plaque, this thing that we track with heart scans?

Well, here are a few little-publicized facts about heart disease that you are unlikely to hear from your When's-the-next-stent? cardiologist or the What is there besides statins? primary care doctor.

(Since everybody knows that smoking is a modifiable risk for heart disease that can be readily identified, let's focus on the blood tests that reveal heart disease causes.)


What's the number one most common cause for heart disease?

Small LDL particles. The proliferation and popularity of the snack food/processed food culture, compounded with the "eat more healthy whole grain " propaganda has launched small LDL solidly to first place as the most common reason to have heart attacks, stents, and bypass. All that advice to increase your "healthy whole grain" intake? It increases heart attack risk.


What's the number one most aggressive cause for heart disease?

That's lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). It's certainly not high cholesterol, though the drug industry loves that you think that. We could argue over whether smoking is more aggressive, but the two are pretty darned close. Combine the two--Lp(a) in a smoker--and the combination is an explosively powerful trigger for heart disease and stroke.


What's the number two cause for heart disease?

After small LDL comes low HDL cholesterol. Ask anyone who has had a heart attack: What was your cholesterol panel like? 9 out of 10 will say "My LDL cholesterol was 135 mg/dl" while knowing little or nothing about HDL, which is commonly in the 30-42 mg/dl range--sufficient to contribute to heart disease risk considerably.


Can "normal" thyroid hormone tests still contribute to heart disease?

Yes. Hypothyroidism is an exceptionally powerful risk factor for heart disease. Many people have been told that their thyroid tests are "normal," when in reality risk for heart disease may be as much as tripled from low thyroid with thyroid blood tests in the "normal" range.


Does a "balanced, healthy diet" prevent heart disease?

No, it does not. In fact, the modern notion of a "balanced, healthy diet" increases risk for heart disease. Of course, the dangers of such diets vary, depending on how you define it. If it's the diet advocated by the USDA Food Pyramid, then it is an enormously destructive diet that causes your health to careen towards both diabetes and heart disease. The American Heart Association TLC diet is little better.


Does eating fish twice a month reduce heart attack risk?

Yes, it does--but just barely. Unfortunately, large studies that show that eating fish as infrequently as twice per month reduce risk for dying from heart attack have led some authorities to suggest that's all you need to do. What they fail to understand is that the benefit is dose-dependent--the greater the intake of omega-3 fatty acids, the greater the benefit (within reason, of course). So, while the effect can be detected by eating fish twice per month, it doesn't mean that full benefits are achieved with this "dose." Full benefits are obtained by mimicking the omega-3 intake of the Japanese.


Do nutritional supplements reduce risk for heart attack?

If you are referring to vitamin D, then, yes, nutritional supplements reduce risk for heart attack . . . enormously. We need more data to validate this phenomenon, though epidemiologic observations strongly bear this out, including the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Framingham Heart Study and NHANES, all of which demonstrate a graded effect: the lower the vitamin D blood level, the greater the risk for heart attack.

Over the years, we've experienced more than our share of disappointments in nutritional supplements for heart disease, including vitamin E and B vitamins to reduce homocysteine. But I believe that nothing approaches the solid feel of vitamin D--no other nutritional supplement raises HDL, reduces triglycerides, reduces blood sugar, enhances insulin responses, reduces the inflammatory C-reactive protein, reduces blood pressure like vitamin D. Vitamin D is here to stay--and I'm very grateful.

And don't forget omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, yet another supplement with unquestioned benefits for reduction of heart attack and death from heart attack.


Why didn't your doctor counsel you on the importance of these issues?

The primary reasons your doctor didn't tell you any of the above:

1) He/she has been persuaded that only drugs are of any real use in health. Nutritional supplements? Hah!

2) Neither the number one cause of heart disease in the U.S.--small LDL particles--nor the most aggressive cause for heart disease--Lp(a)--are corrected by patent-protectable, high profit pharmaceutical agents promoted to your doctor. Instead, these abnormalities can be corrected inexpensively, without prescription. That means no expensive commercials, no media spots, no write-ups in magazines.

3) Your doctor's business is to treat crisis: sore throat, broken ankle, lung tumor, heart attack. Prevent heart disease 10 or 20 years before it shows itself? Heck, no (unless the marketing pull of the drug industry is involved, of course).


It's best that you bear in mind: What your doctor doesn't know can kill you.

Thank you, Dr. Eades

6. March 2009 William Davis (7)

Thanks to some readers of The Heart Scan Blog, I've become acquainted with Dr. Michael Eades' wonderful blog, Health and Nutrition by Dr. Michael R. Eades, MD.

Dr. Eades is co-author (with his wife, Mary Dan Eades, MD) of Protein Power

In one of his conversations, I stumbled on this exchange between Dr. Eades and one of his readers:



Reader: Regarding EBT scans, I looked up the topic on Google and read an informative 5-page article: EBT (Ultrafast CT) Scans - Godsend, or Scam? Dr. Fogoros says that false positives (where the EBT shows the presence of calcium, but the patient has little coronary artery blockage) occur about 50 percent of the time. The next step, if the EBT is positive, is to do a heart catherterization to find out whether there actually is coronary artery blockage. So the odds are that I’d have to worry!

Dr. Michael Eades: The info you got from Google is one of the reasons one shouldn’t get medical information online. As far as I’m concerned the EBT is the BEST way to determine the presence of plaque. If you have a positive calcium score, you have plaque, and there’s an end on’t (as Samuel Johnson would say). Now you may have a low calcium score for your age or you may have a calcium score that doesn’t change, which means you have stable plaque, but if you have a positive calcium score, you have some amount of plaque in your coronary arteries.

And whoever says that the next step to take if you receive a positive calcium score is a coronary artery cath is a real moron. That’s probably the last thing you would want to do if you are asymptomatic. All the cath procedure does is shows whether or not you have a blockage - you can have huge amounts of plaque (which are a disaster waiting to happen) and have a normal cardiac cath.

If you want to get a little more information on the validity of EBT than what you find on Google, take a look at Dr. Davis’ blog or get a copy of his book: Track Your Plaque. I’m not crazy about all of Dr. Davis’ dietary recommendations because he comes to diet from a different perspective than I, but the EBT info in his book is terrific.

Cheers–

Dr. Eades "gets" it. He understands that quantification of coronary plaque is a tool for prevention, not something to be subverted into the service of procedures for the financial benefit of my colleagues.

And I think that he is absolutely correct on the diet discussed in Track Your Plaque--it's due for a revision. I wrote the book in 2003, while we were still locked into the low-fat mindset. Much has changed.

Since then, our enormous experience in metabolic manipulation and lipoprotein analysis has shown that there is a far better way to correct the causes of coronary plaque and seizing hold of heart scan scores. In particular, the explosion of small LDL has prompted major changes in the diet, specifically removal of wheat and cornstarch, the foods that trigger small LDL particles.

(I am still in the midst of negotiations for release of a bigger and better Track Your Plaque II. In the meantime, Track Your Plaque Members can refer to the New Track Your Plaque Diet, Parts I, II, and III.)

Can millet make you diabetic?

5. March 2009 William Davis (10)















If wheat is so bad, what about all the other grains?

First of all, I demonize wheat because of its top-of-the-list role in triggering:

--Appetite--Wheat increases hunger dramatically
--Insulin
--Blood sugar--Wheat is worse than table sugar in triggering a rapid, large rise in blood sugar
--Triglycerides
--Small LDL particles--the number one cause for heart disease in the U.S.
--Reduced HDL
--Diabetes
--Autoimmune diseases--Most notably celiac disease and thyroiditis.

Most other "healthy, whole grains" aren't quite as bad. It's a matter of degree.

Millet, quinoa, oats, sorghum, bulghur, spelt, barley, cornmeal--While they don't trigger appetite nor autoimmune diseases like wheat does (oat can in some people), they still pose a significant carbohydrate load sufficient to generate the other phenomena like excessive insulin and blood sugar responses. The grams of carbohydrate of these grains are virtually identical to wheat: 43.5 grams per 1/2 cup (uncooked). The exceptions are barley, which is especially loaded with carbohydrates: 104 grams per 1/2 cup, while oats are lower: 33 g per 1/2 cup.

It's all a matter of degree. Some people who are exceptionally carbohydrate-sensitive (like me) can have diabetic blood sugars with just slow-cooked oatmeal or quinoa. Others aren't quite so sensitive and can get away with eating them.

People with high blood sugars (100 mg/dl or greater) can be very sensitive to the blood sugar effects of these grain carbohydrates. The best marker of all are small LDL particles measured on a lipoprotein panel, such as NMR. Small LDL particles are exquisitely sensitive to your carbohydrate intake: small LDL gets worse with excessive sensitivity to grain carbohydrates, gets better with reduction or elimination.

Flagrant small LDL, in combination with low HDL, high triglycerides, and pre-diabetic or diabetic patterns all develop from carbohydrate indulgence, along with "wheat belly."

Don't believe it? The prove it to yourself: Go to Walmart and buy an inexpensive glucose meter and check your blood sugar one hour after eating. You can gauge the health of these foods by observing the blood sugar increases. (Small LDL closely parallels blood sugar rises.)

The grain that fails to trigger any of these abnormal patterns? Flaxseed. Flaxseed is entirely protein, fiber, and healthy oils, with virtually no digestible starches. In fact, flaxseed is one of the few foods that reduces the quantity of small LDL particles.

Are you a tree?

5. March 2009 William Davis (6)
I assume you answered no. Then why would you consider taking the plant form of vitamin D (ergocalciferol)? That's the prescription form of vitamin D, often dispensed as 50,000 unit tablets.

There's nothing wrong with plants. Some of my favorite foods are plants, full of nutritional value.

Then why shouldn't vitamin D2 from plants be every bit as good as the human form of vitamin D?

I believe the issue boils down to taking hormones from non-human sources. (Remember: Vitamin D is a hormone, a very powerful one at that.) Plants can be wonderful sources of flavonoids, fibers, protein, fats, vitamins, minerals, and other healthy components. But hormones?

There are other examples of non-human hormones being given to humans with undesirable or unpredictable effects:

--Xenoestrogens, phytoestrogens, and non-human mammalian estrogens--While non-human estrogens may partially mimic human estrogens, they can also block estrogen effects, or exert altogether novel effects. Non-human mammalian estrogens like Premarin can exert very peculiar (side-)effects, despite their role as prescription estrogen supplementation in humans.

--Progestins--The synthetic versions of human progesterone, like their non-human estrogen counterparts, exert weird effects that are a world apart from real progesterone.

--Sterols--Similar in structure to human cholesterol (while not a hormone, a building block for hormones), sterols have been used to reduce intestinal cholesterol absorption. However, if sterols are absorbed into the blood, they can enormously accelerate growth of atherosclerotic plaque.

--Anabolic steroids--These modifications of the testosterone molecule build muscle, but also cause liver cancer, kidney failure, violent behavior, suicide and homicidal behavior. That's not normal.

Outside of a pharmacologic effect (e.g., prednisone in place of human cortisol), there is no reason to take a non-human hormone in place of a human hormone. For that same reason, there is NO reason to take plant vitamin D2 (prescription or over-the-counter) in place of human vitamin D3.

If the non-human hormone is identical to the human form, then there is no difficulty. The best example of this are thyroid hormones from pigs. That's what Armour Thyroid is, a thyroid hormone replacement that works wonderfully well.

You will notice that virtually all of the examples of non-human hormones substituted for human hormones share one common motivation: profit. Synthetic or modified versions are more readily patent-protectable, unlike their natural counterparts which are not.

Vitamin D2 is an anemic facsimile of the real human hormone, vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Stay away from it.
All posts by william-davis

Dr. Cannell on vitamin D and cancer

2. December 2007 William Davis (0)
Here is Dr. John Cannell's Vitamin D Council Newsletter reprinted in its entirety. It answers some of the questions that came up on The Heart Scan Blog about the recent release of a study of vitamin D and cancer



The Vitamin D Newsletter

December, 2007

Does vitamin D prevent cancer? If it does, will doctors who ignore the research end up with blood on their hands? The press makes it easy for doctors to believe what they want to believe. Below are six stories about the same scientific study; read the six different headlines. According to your a priori beliefs, you can choose the story you want to believe and read that one. Don't feel bad, we all do it. As Walter Lippman once said, "We do not see and then believe, we believe and then we see."


Vitamin D cuts colon cancer death risk



Study Finds No Connection Between Vitamin D And Overall Cancer Deaths



Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer



Vitamin D May Not Cut Cancer Deaths



Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer



Scientists advise a vitamin D downgrade as there is no real proof ...




Another option is to read the study yourself.


Freedman DM, et al. Prospective Study of Serum Vitamin D and Cancer Mortality in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 30; [Epub ahead of print]




What Dr. Freedman actually discovered is that when you take a very large group of people (16,818), some as young as seventeen, measure their vitamin D levels, and then wait about ten years to see who dies from cancer, you find 536 die and that a vitamin D level from ten years earlier is not a good predictor of who will die from cancer. However, even a level drawn ten years earlier predicted that those with the lowest level were four times more likely to die from colon cancer, suggesting, as Ed Giovannucci has, that colon cancer may be exquisitely sensitive to vitamin D. Furthermore, 28 women got breast cancer, 20 in the group with the lowest vitamin D level but only 8 in the highest. The breast cancer findings were not statistically significant - even during a very long breast cancer awareness month - but can you imagine what critics at the American Cancer Society would be telling women if the numbers were reversed, if the 20 women who got breast cancer were in the high vitamin D group?



Another large epidemiological study appeared about breast cancer the very next day. This time, the press passed on the story and the American Cancer Society was mum, no editorials by Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, in spite of breast cancer awareness month.



Abbas S, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer - results of a large case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2007 Oct 31; [Epub ahead of print]



In the above study, 1,394 women with breast cancer were case-controlled with a similar number of women without breast cancer. The women with breast cancer were three times more likely to have low vitamin D levels. That is a lot of women who may be dying during next year's breast cancer awareness month.



Both of the above studies were epidemiological, not randomized controlled trials. Of course a randomized controlled trial has already shown a 60% reduction in internal cancers in women taking even a modest 1,100 IU per day of vitamin D.



Lappe JM, et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.



What is interesting is the difference in the response of the Canadian Cancer Society and the American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society has advised all Canadians to take 1,000 IU per day - not enough but a good first step - and for immediate additional large scale clinical trials. The Canadians simply performed a risk/benefit analysis. What is the risk of treating vitamin D deficiency versus what are the potential benefits? They quote the American Food and Nutrition Board, which says 2,000 IU/day is safe for anyone over the age on one to take, on their own, without being under the care of a physician. If there is little or no risk, then the next question is what are the potential benefits of treating vitamin D deficiency? This is not quantum mechanics.



Cancer society calls for major vitamin D trial



The Canadians acted because the Canadian government knows it could save billions of dollars by treating vitamin D deficiency.



Vitamin D Deficiency Drains $9 billion From Canadian Health Care ...



If wide spread treatment of vitamin D deficiency became the rule, ask yourself, "Who would be helped and who would be hurt." First ask yourself that question about Canada and then about the USA. Remember, in Canada, the government directly pays for its citizen's health insurance; in the USA, private insurance is the norm. In Canada, the government is realizing they could save billions if vitamin D deficiencies were treated. In the USA, a large segment of the medical industry would be hurt, some anti-cancer drug manufacturers would have to close their doors, thousands of patents would become worthless, lucrative consulting contracts between industry and cancer researchers would dry up.

Both Canadians and Americans are shocked to think their doctors care about money, are in the illness business. In some ways people think of their doctors like they do their local public schools. They know medicine is a business and know doctors do things for money but they don't think their own doctors do. Likewise they think public schools are in bad shape but think their local schools are above average. They think their doctor is above average, like their "Lake Woebegone" kids.

Lake Woebegone Effect

The fact is that doctors, hospitals, regional cancer centers, and the cancer drug manufacturers are all in business to make money and all of these businesses make money off the sick, not off the well. Just a fact, but, as Aldous Huxley once observed, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."



Vitamin D will save the Canadian government enormous amounts of money but will cause widespread economic disruption in the USA. Do the physicians leading the American Cancer Society have strong economic ties to the cancer industry in the form of patents, stock options, and consulting fees? If so, what do you expect them to do? What would you do? It's simple. You would believe what you have to believe, what you need to believe, that is, anything with the word "vitamin" in it is simply the latest Laetrile. Look to Canada, not the USA, to lead the way.



Vitamin D may fight cancer


What about American physicians? They are apparently waiting for the American trial lawyers to smell a tort. After all, the case is quite simple. Doctor, did you advise Mrs. Jones to avoid the sun? Doctor, did you tell her the sun is the source of 90% of circulating stores of vitamin D? Doctor, did you prescribe vitamin D to make up for what the sun would not be making? Doctor, did you measure her vitamin D levels? So you had no way of knowing if your sun-avoidance advice resulted in vitamin D deficiency? Doctor, do you know our expert tested her vitamin D level and it was less than 20? Doctor, did you tell her about any of the studies indicating vitamin D deficiency causes cancer? Doctor, did you know Mrs. Jones has terminal breast cancer and will be leaving behind a loving husband and two young children?

And what about the American Cancer Society? Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, quickly gave his opinion; from what I can tell the first time he ever commented on a vitamin D study. That is, he has ignored the hundreds of positive epidemiological studies, ignored the incredible randomized controlled trial, but he jumped on this one:

Maybe Vitamin D Isn't The Answer After All

Dr. Lichtenfeld, implied the Canadian Cancer Society has acted precipitously in recommending that all Canadians take 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily. He implied that Americans should placidly wait until more randomized controlled trials, such as Lappe JM, et al (above), accumulate before they address their vitamin D deficiency. That is, nothing should be done until more randomized controlled trials prove vitamin D prevents cancer, one randomized controlled trial is not enough; epidemiological studies are not enough, animal studies are not enough, multiple anti-cancer mechanisms of action are not enough? If that is his position, I challenge him to point to one human randomized controlled trial that proves smoking is dangerous?

If he cannot, then he must admit that the American Cancer Society's position on smoking is entirely derived from epidemiological studies, animal studies, and a demonstrable mechanism of action, not on human randomized controlled trials? Vitamin D not only has hundreds of epidemiological studies, thousand of animal studies, and at least four anti-cancer mechanisms of action, vitamin D deficiency has something smoking does not have, it has a high quality randomized controlled trial. If future randomized controlled trials fail to show vitamin D prevents cancer - and Dr. Lichtenfeld better hope they do - he can have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so." If future randomized controlled trials confirm vitamin D prevents cancer, then he needs to look at his hands, the red he sees is the blood of needless cancer deaths.

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422



This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know.

Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

"Yes, Johnnie, there really is an Easter bunny"

30. November 2007 William Davis (13)
A Heart Scan Blog reader recently posted this comment:

You wouldn't believe the trouble I'm having trying to get someone to give me a CT Heart Scan without trying to talk me into a Coronary CTA [CT angiogram]. Every facility I've talked to keeps harping on the issue that calcium scoring only shows "hard" plaque...and not soft.

I also had a nurse today tell me that 30% of the people that end up needing a coronary catheterization had calcium scores of ZERO. That doesn't sound right to me. What determines whether or not someone needs a coronary catheterization anyway?


There was a time not long ago when I saw heart scan centers as the emerging champions of heart disease detection and prevention. Heart scans, after all, provided the only rational means to directly uncover hidden coronary plaque. They also offered a method of tracking progression--or regression--of coronary plaque. No other tool can do that. Carotid ultrasound (IMT)? Indirectly and imperfectly, since it measures thickening of the carotid artery lining, partially removed from the influences that create coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Cholesterol? A miserable failure for a whole host of reasons.

Then something happened. General Electric bought the developer and manufacturer of the electron-beam tomography CT scanner, Imatron. (Initial press releases were glowing: The Future of Electron Beam Tomography Looks Better than Ever.The new eSpeed C300 electron beam tomographic scanner features the industry’s fastest temporal resolution, and is now backed by the strength of GE Medical Systems. Imatron and GE have joined forces to provide comprehensive solutions for entrepreneurs and innovative medical practitioners.)

Within short order, GE scrapped the entire company and program, despite the development of an extraordinary device, the C-300, introduced in 2001, and the eSpeed, introduced in 2003, both yanked by GE. The C-300 and eSpeed were technological marvels, providing heart scans at incredible speed with minimal radiation.

Why would GE do such a thing, buy Imatron and its patent rights, along with the fabulous new eSpeed device, then dissolve the company that developed the technology and scrap the entire package?

Well, first of all they can afford to, whether or not the device represented a technological advancement. Second (and this is my reading-between-the-lines interpretation of the events), it was in their best financial interest. Not in the interest of the public's health, nor the technology of heart scanning, but they believed that focusing on the multi-detector technology to be more financially rewarding to GE.

GE, along with Toshiba, Siemens, and Philips, saw the dollar signs of big money with the innovations in multi-detector technology (MDCT). They began to envision a broader acceptance of these devices into mainstream practice with the technological improvements in CT angiography, a device (or several) in every hospital and major clinic.

Anyway, this represents a long and winding return to the original issue: How I once believed that heart scan centers would be champions of heart disease detection and reversal. This has, unfortunately, not proven to be true.

Yes, there are heart scan centers where you can obtain a heart scan and also connect with people and physicians who believe in prevention of this disease. I believe that Milwaukee Heart Scan is that way, as is Dr. Bill Blanchet's Front Range Preventive Imaging, Dr. Roger White's Holistica Hawaii, and Dr. John Rumberger's Princeton Longevity Center.

But the truth is that most heart scan centers have evolved into places that offer heart scans, but more as grudging lip service to the concept of early detection earned with sweat and tears by the early efforts of the heart scan centers. But the more financially rewarding offering of CT coronary angiograms, while a useful service when used properly, has corrupted the prevention and reversal equation. "Entry level" CT heart scans have been subverted in the quest for profit.

CT angiograms pay better: $1800-4000, compared to $100-500 for a heart scan (usually about $250). More importantly, who can resist the detection of a "suspicious" 50% blockage that might benefit from the "real" test, a heart catheterization? Can anyone honestly allow a 50% blockage to be without a stent?

CT angiograms not only yield more revenue, they also serve as an effective prelude to "downstream" revenue. By this equation, a CT angiogram easily becomes a $40,000 hospital procedure with a stent or two, or three, or occasionally a $100,000 bypass. Keep in mind that the majority of people who are persuaded that a simple heart scans are not good enough and would be better off with the "superior" test of CT angiography are asymptomatic--without symptoms of chest pain, breathelessness, etc. Thus, the argument is that people without symptoms, usually with normal stress tests, benefit from prophylactic revascularization procedures like stents and bypass.

There are no data whatsoever to support this practice. People who have no symptoms attributable to heart disease and have normal stress tests do NOT benefit from heart procedures like heart catheterization. They do, of course, benefit from asking why they have atherosclerotic plaque in the first place, followed by a preventive program to correct the causes.

So, beware: It is the heart scan I believe in, a technique involving low radiation and low revenue potential. CT angiograms are useful tests, but often offered for the wrong reasons. If we all keep in mind that the economics of testing more often than not determine what is being told to us, then it all makes sense. If you want a simple heart scan, just say so. No--insist on it.

Take trust out of the equation. Don't trust people in health care anymore than you'd trust the used car salesman with "a great deal."

Finally, in answer to the reader's last comment about 30% of people needing heart catheterizations having zero calcium scores, this is absolute unadulterated nonsense. I'm hoping that the nurse who said this was taken out of context. Her comments are, at best, misleading. That's why I conduct this Heart Scan Blog and our website, www.cureality.com. They are your unbiased sources of information on what is true, honest, and not tainted by the smell of lots of procedural revenue.

Diabetes: controlled or . . . cured?

28. November 2007 William Davis (37)
Russ had a beer belly, a big protuberant, hanging-over-the belt-on-top-of-skinny-legs sort of beer belly. Except he didn't get it from beer (only). Yes, he did drink beer, up to 3 or 4 per day on weekends, rarely during the week.

Russ got his "beer belly" from snack foods, processed foods, and yes, wheat products.

He came to my office for consultation for unexplained breathlessness. His primary care physician was stumped and asked for an opinion.

So, part of Russ' evaluation included laboratory work. Russ proved to have a blood sugar (glucose) of 136 mg/dl, well into the diabetic range. His insulin level was 102 microunits/ml, way above the desirable range of <10. I interpreted this to mean that Russ had early diabetes but still maintained vigorous pancreatic function, since the pancreas is the abdominal organ responsible for insulin production. In pre-diabetes and early diabetes, insulin levels can be high, reflecting the revved up output of the pancreas. However, the pancreas eventually "burns out," unable to keep up with the demand to product enormous quantities of insulin. That's when blood sugar skyrockets.

Along with the blood sugar and insulin, Russ showed all the expected markers of this syndrome (the "metabolic syndrome"): low HDL of 34 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 257 mg/dl, severe small LDL (80% of total LDL), high c-reactive protein, and high blood pressure.

A heart scan showed a surprisingly small amount of coronary plaque with a score of only 4. Thus, Russ' symptoms were unlikely to represent a coronary issue ("ischemia"). Breathlessness was far more likely to be from 1) his obesity and protuberant abdomen, large enough to encroach on his chest and lung volume, and 2) high blood pressure (which can, in turn, lead to high heart pressure and breathlessness, often called "left ventricular diastolic dysfunction").

I persuaded Russ to eliminate his previously flagrant and abundant over-reliance on wheat products and snack foods. Two months later, 15 lbs lighter, and a modestly less protuberant beer belly, Russ' laboratory evealuation showed:

--Blood sugar 90 mg/dl--normal.

--Insulin 12 microunit/ml--darn near normal.

Blood pressure was down 20 points. Russ' breathlessness was now entirely gone. He has another 30-40 lbs to go, but he's off to a great start. He is now clearly, solidly, and confidently NON-diabetic.

I see experiences like this every day, as do committed diabetes fighters like Jenny at Diabetes Update.

Why isn't this common practice? If pre-diabetes and diabetes can be cured by such a simple approach, why isn't it more widely embraced? After all, what other devastating diseases can claim to have such a simple, straightforward way to achieve cure?

And why does the American Diabetes Association (ADA) actually condone the inclusion of abundant carbohydrates in diabetics? Their modified food pyramid shows the widest part of the pyramid filled with "breads, grains, and other starches."



How about this question taken from a Q&A on the ADA website:

Can I eat foods with sugar in them?

For almost every person with diabetes, the answer is yes! Eating a piece of cake made with sugar will raise your blood glucose level. So will eating corn on the cob, a tomato sandwich, or lima beans. The truth is that sugar has gotten a bad reputation. People with diabetes can and do eat sugar. In your body, it becomes glucose, but so do the other foods mentioned above. With sugary foods, the rule is moderation. Eat too much, and 1) you'll send your blood glucose level up higher than you expected; 2) you'll fill up but without the nutrients that come with vegetables and grains; and 3) you'll gain weight. So, don't pass up a slice of birthday cake. Instead, eat a little less bread or potato, and replace it with the cake. Taking a brisk walk to burn some calories is also always helpful.


The answer is simple. Just as the American Heart Association focuses on ways to deliver the message of palliation, so does the ADA. So ADA diet advice is designed to help diabetics maintain a stable blood sugar on their medication. It is definitely not intended to reverse or eliminate diabetes. My patient Russ would be deep into diabetes on the ADA diet, enjoying his rolls, whole wheat bread, breakfast cereals, and birthday cake.

Once again, another example of the growing irrelevance of the "official" arbiters of health information for those of us looking for reversal of disease.

Study review: cerivastatin

27. November 2007 William Davis (10)
I'd like to start an occasional series of blog posts on The Heart Scan Blog in which I review studies relevant to the whole heart scan score reversal experience.

In a previous post, Don't be satisfied with "deceleration,"I discussed the BELLES Trial (Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering with EBT Scanning (BELLES)), in which either atorvastatin (Lipitor), 80 mg, or pravastatin (Pravachol),40 mg, was given to 615 women. Both groups showed an average of 15% annual plaque growth, regardless of which agent was taken and regardless of the amount of LDL cholesterol reduction.

I cited another study in which 471 participants received either Lipitor, 80 mg, or Lipitor, 10 mg. The rate of annual score increase was 25-27%, regardless of drug dose or LDL lowering.

Here's yet another study, a small German experience in 66 patients, with a curious design and using the now-defunct statin drug, cerivastatin (Bayccol, pulled in 2001, nearly simultaneous with the publication of this study, due to greater risk of muscle damage, particularly when used in combination with gemfibrozil). Achenbach et al in Influence of lipid-lowering therapy on the progression of coronary artery calcification: A prospective evaluation reported on this trial in which all participants underwent heart scanning to obtain a heart scan score; no treatment was initiated based on the score. A second scan was obtained after the no treatment period, followed by treatment with cerivastatin, 0.3 mg per day. A third scan was finally obtained.

In year one without treatment, the average increase in heart scan scores was 25%. In year two with cerivastatin, the average increase in heart scan score was 8.8%. In 32 participants who achieved LDL<100 mg/dl on the drug, there was an average modest reduction in heart scan scores of 3.7% (i.e., -3.7%).

Now, that was eye-opening. Why did this small study achieve such startlingly different results from the other two studies that showed relentless progression despite even high doses of Lipitor? That remains unanswered. Was cerivastatin unique among statins? Did the unique two-phase trial design somehow change the outcome by triggering participants to change lifestyle habits after their first scan (since most exhibited an increase in score; they were not "blinded" to their scores). Those questions will remain unanswered, since the drug has been made unavailable. This smal l study had actually been intended to be larger, but was prematurely terminated because of cerivastatin's withdrawal.

This experience is unique, as you can see, compared to the two other studies. But it was also smaller. The results are also different than what I have seen in day-to-day practice when I've seen people treated with statin drugs alone (not cerivastatin, of course): rarely do heart scan scores stop increasing. While slowing does usually occur (18-24% per year rates of annual score increase are very common in people who do nothing but take a statin drug and make modest lifestyle changes), I have personally seen only two people stop their score with this strategy alone. Nobody has ever dropped their score taking a statin alone, in my experience.

You can also see the nature of clinical studies: single or limited interventions instituted in order to control for unexpected or complex effects. If three different treatments are used, then what desirable or undesirable effects, or lack of an effect, is due to which treatment agent?

My experience is that no single treatment stops or reduces heart scan scores. It requires a more rational effort that includes 1) identification of all causes of coronary plaque (e.g., low HDL, high triglycerides, Lp(a), small LDL, deficiency of vitamin D, etc, none of which are substantially affected by statin drugs), and 2) correction of all causes. That simple concept has served us well.

Dr. William Blanchet: A voice of reason

24. November 2007 William Davis (21)
I don't mean to beat this discussion to a pulp, but looking back over the comments posted on www.theHeart.org forum, I am so deeply impressed with Dr. William Blanchet's grasp of the issues, that I posted his articulate and knowledgeable comments again.

Here is one post in which Dr. Blanchet, in response to accusations of trying to profit from heart scans, provides a wonderful summary of the logic and evidence behind the use of heart scans as the basis for heart disease prevention.


Yes, I have seen a dramatic reduction in coronary events.

Of 6,000 active patients, 48% being Medicare age and over, I have seen 4 heart attacks over the last 3+ years. 2 in 85 year old diabetics undergoing cancer surgery, one in a 90 year old with known disease and one in a 69 year old with no risk factors, who was healthy, and had never benefited from a heart scan.

The problem with coronary disease is that we rely on risk factors. Khot et al in JAMA 2003 showed that of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factor prior to their MI. According to ATP-III, almost everyone with 0-1 risk factors is low risk and most do not qualify for preventive treatment. EBT calcium imaging could identify 98% of these individuals as being at risk before their heart attack and treatment could be initiated to prevent their MI.

Treating to NCEP cholesterol goals prevents 30-40% of heart attacks. Treating to a goal of coronary calcium stability prevents 90% of heart attacks. Where I went to school, a 40% was an F. Why are we defending this result instead of striving to improve upon it? I am not making this up, look at Raggi's study in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2004;24:1272, or Budoff Am J Card.[I believe it's the study Dr. Blanchet was referring to.]

I strongly disagree with the assertion that the stress test is a great risk stratifier. Laukkanen et al JACC 2001 studied 1,769 asymptomatic men with stress tests. Although failing the stress test resulted in an increased risk of future heart attack, 83% of the total heart attacks over the next 10 years occurred in those men who passed the stress test. Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V Circulation 1995;92:657-671 demonstrated that 86% of heart attacks occur in vessels with less than 70% as the maximum obstruction. A vast majority of
patients with less than 70% vessel obstruction will pass their stress test.

Regarding [the] question of owning or referring for EBT imaging, I would be amused if it were not insulting. The mistake that is often made is that EBT imaging is a wildly profitable technology. It is not nearly as profitable as nuclear stress imaging. Indeed there are few EBT centers in the country that are as profitable as any random cardiologist's stress lab.

How can we justify not screening asymptomatic patients? Most heart attacks occur in patients with no prior symptoms and according to Steve Nissen, 150,000 Americans die each year from their first symptom of heart disease. My daughter is at this moment visiting with a friend who lost her father a few years ago to his first symptom of heart disease when she was 8 years old. That is not OK! We screen asymptomatic women for breast cancer risk. Women are 8 times more likely to die from heart disease than breast cancer. We do mass screening for colon cancer and we are over 10 times more likely to die from heart attacks than colon cancer. An EBT heart scan costs 1/8th the cost of a colonoscopy.

So what say we drop the sarcasm and look at this technology objectively. Read the literature, not just the editorial comments. This really does provide incredibly valuable information that saves lives.

Yes, a 90% reduction in heart attacks in my patients compared to the care I could provide 5 years ago when I was doing a lot of stress testing and referring for revascularization. Much better statistics than expected national or regional norms. I welcome your scrutiny.


That's probably the best, most concise summary of why heart scanning makes sense that I've ever heard. And it comes from a primary care physician in the trenches. With just a few paragraphs, Dr. Blanchet, in my view, handily trumps the arguments of my colleagues arguing to maintain the status quo of cholesterol testing, stress tests, and hospital procedures.


Note:
Dr. Blanchett talks openly about his affiliation with an imaging center in Boulder, Colorado, Front Range Preventive Imaging. I'm no stranger to the accusations Dr. Blanchet receives about trying to profit from the heart scan phenomenon. Ironically, heart scanning loses money. It is a preventive test, not a therapeutic, hospital-based procedure. Free-standing heart scan centers that do little else (perhaps virtual colonoscopies) usually manage to pay their bills but make little profit. Hospitals that offer heart scans usually do so as a "loss-leader," i.e., an inexpensive test that brings you in the door in the hopes that you will require more testing.

Accusations of profiteering off heart scans are, to those in the know, ridiculous and baseless. On the contrary, heart scans are both cost-saving and life-saving.

Vitamin D2 rip-offs

23. November 2007 William Davis (21)
Here's a sampling of prescription vitamin D2/ergocalciferol products available:






Prescription ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) (Drisdol brand), 50 caps for $130.84.










Alfcip brand of erogocalciferol (vitamin D), 30 capsules for $28.20.









Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as Drisdol oral solution, 1 bottle $146.26.










How about vitamin D3/cholecalciferol?



Carlson's brand cholecalciferol (vitamin D3), 120 capsules $5.09.









Cholecalciferol, vitamin D3, is far less expensive than ergocalciferol, vitamin D2. Cholecalciferol is available as a supplement without prescription. Ergocalciferol is available only by prescription.

The price difference must mean that the plant-based form, ergocalciferol, must be far superior to the naturally-occurring human form, vitamin D3.

Of course, that's not true. Dr. Robert Heaney's study is just one of several documenting the inferiority of D2/ergocalciferol, Vitamin D2 Is Much Less Effective than Vitamin D3 in Humans. D2 exerted less than a third of the effect of D3.

In my experience, D2/ergocalciferol often exerts no effect whatsoever. One woman I consulted on came into the office having been prescribed Drisdol capsules, 50,000 units every day for the past 18 months (by mistake by her physician). Blood level of active 25-OH-vitamin D3: Zero.

But the pharmacy and drug manufacturer collected $1413 for her 18-month course. Cost for a 4000 unit per day dose of D3/cholecalciferol: $45--and it would have actually worked.

In my view, prescription vitamin D2 is yet another example of drug manufacturer scams, a product that provides no advantages, costs more, but yields bigger profits.

Yet this wonderful supplement called cholecalciferol, among which Carlson's is an excellent choice, is available to you inexpensively, without prescription, and actually provides the benefits you desire.

Stenosis detection vs. plaque detection

22. November 2007 William Davis (5)
One of the most common misunderstandings encountered by both physicians and the public is that, to create an effective heart disease prevention program, we need tools for atherosclerotic plaque detection. What we do not need is a tool for stenosis detection. (Stenosis means percent blockage. A 50% stenosis means 50% of the diameter of an artery is reduced by atherosclerosis.)

This issue came to mind recently with the ongoing conversation at Heart.org forum, in which the conversation predictably degenerated into a "what good are heart scans when there are better tests to detect blockage" sort of mentality.
They are right: There are better tests to detect stenoses or blockages, such as stress tests, heart catheterization, and CT coronary angiography. If someone is having chest pain or breathlessness, these tests are useful to help understand why. These tests are preludes to stents, bypass surgery, and the like. They are the popular tools in hospitals, the ones that provide entry into the revenue-yielding world of heart disease procedures.

Plaque detection, on the other hand, is principally a tool for the person without symptoms. In this regard, it is more like cholesterol testing. I doubt my colleagues would bash cholesterol because it doesn't reveal blockages. Plaque detection identifies the person who has already started developing atherosclerosis.

Dr. William Blanchett of Colorado articulates this idea well:

EBT calcium imaging not only identifies the vast majority of individuals at risk, it also identifies individuals with minimal risk. In other words, it distinguishes those who are likely to benefit from treatment . . .and it identifies those unlikely to benefit from treatment. Furthermore, the greatest value of EBT calcium imaging is that with serial imaging you can determine who is and who is not responding to treatment.

Those patients not responding to the initial treatment are identified by progression of their calcified plaque on a subsequent scan are then placed on additional therapies. The net result is a remarkable reduction in heart attack rates.

Ahh, the voice of reason. Plaque detection empowers you in your prevention program. If you know how much plaque your begin with, you can track that value to know whether you have having a full effect or not. Stenosis detection, on the other hand, empowers your doctor and provides the irresistible impulse to stent.

Another common objection raised to plaque detection is "why bother if you're going to give everybody a statin anyway?" We know the origins of that argument, don't we? If the only strategy known to your doctor is cholesterol reduction with statin drugs, then perhaps that's right. But, with awareness of all the things that go beyond statin drugs, often make them unnecessary, then knowledge of who should engage in an intensive program of prevention or not is enabled by plaque detection.

Is an increase in heart scan score GOOD?

20. November 2007 William Davis (30)
In response to an earlier Heart Scan Blog post, I don't care about hard plaque!, reader Dave responded:

Hello Dr Davis,

Interesting post about hard and soft plaque. I recently had a discussion with my GP regarding my serious increase in scan score (Jan 2006 = 235, Nov 2007 = 419).

After the first scan we started aggressively going after my LDL, HDL and Trig...196,59,221

And have them down to 103, 65, 92 - we still have a way to go to 60/60/60 [The Track Your Plaque target values]-

So the increase is a surprise, but my doctor said that the increase could in part be cause some of the soft plaque had been converted to hard plaque and the scan would show that conversion.


Dave's doctor then responded to him with this comment:

"Remember that although your coronary calcium score has gone up, this does not mean that you are at greater risk than you were a year ago. Remember that the most dangerous plaque is the not-yet calcified soft plaque, which will not show up on an EBT [i.e., calcium score]. It is only the safe, calcified plaque that can be measured with the EBT. [Emphasis mine.] For your score to go up like it did, while your lipids came down so much, what had to happen was that lots of dangerous unstable plaque was converted to stable, calcified plaque. There are no accepted guidelines for interpreting changes in calcium scores over time, because the scores tend to go up as treatment converts dangerous plaque to safer plaque. We do know that aggressively lowering LDL reduces both unstable and stable plaque, and we know that risk can be further lowered by adjuvant therapy such as I listed above."


Huh?

This bit of conventional "wisdom" is something I've heard repeated many times. Is it true?

It is absolutely NOT true. In fact, the opposite is true: Dave's substantial increase in heart scan score from 235 to 419 over 22 months, representing a 78% increase, or an annualized rate of increase of 37%. This suggests a large increase in his risk for heart attack, not a decrease. Big difference!

Dr. Paulo Raggi's 2004 study, Progression of coronary artery calcium and risk of first myocardial infarction in patients receiving cholesterol-lowering therapy in 495 participants addresses this question especially well. Two heart scans were performed three years apart, with a statin drug initiated after the first scan, regardless of score.

During the period of study, heart attacks occurred in 41 participants. When these participants were analyzed, it was found that the average annual increase in score over the three year period was 42%. The average annual rate of increase in those free of heart attack was 17%. The group with the 42% annual rate of increase--all on statin drugs--the risk of heart attack was 17.2-fold greater, or 1720%.

The report made several other important observations:

--20% of the heart attack-free participants showed reduction of heart scan scores, i.e., reversal. None of the participants experiencing heart attack had a score reduction.
--Only 2 of the 41 heart attacks occurred in participants with <15% per year annual growth, while the rest (39) showed larger increases.
--The intensity of LDL reduction made no difference in whether heart attacks occurred or not. Those with LDL<100 mg/dl fared no better than those with LDL>100 mg/dl.

Dr. Raggi et al concluded:

"The risk of hard events [heart attack] was significantly higher in the presence of CVS [calcium volume score] progression despite low LDL serum levels, although the interaction of CVS change and LDL level on treatment was highly significant. The latter observation strongly suggests that a combination of serum markers and vascular markers [emphasis mine] may constitute a better way to gauge therapeutic effectiveness than isolated measurement of lipid levels."

This study demonstrates an important principle: Rising heart scan scores signal potential danger, regardless of LDL cholesterol treatment. Yes, LDL reduction does achieve a modest reduction in heart attack, but it does not eliminate them--not even close.

These are among the reasons that, in the Track Your Plaque program, we aim to correct more than LDL cholesterol. We aim to correct ALL causes of coronary plaque, factors that can be responsible for continuing increase in heart scan score despite favorable LDL cholesterol values.

So, Dave, please forgive your doctor his misunderstanding of the increase in your heart scan score. He is not alone in his ignorance of the data and parroting of the mainstream mis-information popular among the statin-is-the-answer-to-everything set.

Just don't let your doctor's ignorance permit the heart attack that is clearly in the stars. Take preventive action now.

The Heart.org online debate

20. November 2007 William Davis (9)
There's a fascinating and vigorous debate going on at the Heart.org website among Dr. Melissa Shirley-Walton, the recently publicized proponent of "a cath lab on every corner": Dr. William Blanchet, a physician in northern Colorado; and a Track Your Plaque Member who calls himself John Q. Public.

John Q. has been trying to educate the docs about the Track Your Plaque program. Unfortunately, Dr. Shirley-Walton essentially pooh-poohs his comments, preferring to lament her heavy work load. In her last post, when she discovered that John Q. was not a physician, she threatened to block his posts and delete all prior posts.

However, Dr. Blanchet has emerged as a champion of heart scanning, intensive lipid management, and lipoproteins, much similar to our program. In fact, many of Dr. Blanchet's comments were so similar to mine that John Q. asked me if it was really me! (It is definitely not.)


Here's a sampling of some of the discussion going on now:


Dr. Blanchett started out the discussion by saying:

Stent Insanity
I have no trouble agreeing with the argument that we have initiated the widespread use of DES without adequate study regarding outcomes. Shame on us.

That said, we are ingoring the DATA that shows that most heart attacks occur as a result of non-obstructing plaque and all the talk about which stent to use ignors the majority of individuals at risk. In addition, for a decade we have known that stenting does not improve net outcomes anyway.

What ever happened to effective primary prevention? We discarded EBT calcium imaging like moldy cabbage without even looking at the outcomes DATA. With direction provided by EBT calcium imaging and effective primary prevention, I have been able to reduce myocardial infarction by 90% in my very large Internal Medicine practice. Through effectively identifying patients at risk and measuring success or failure of treatment with serial EBT, I have made the argument as to which stent to use moot. No symptomatic angina and rare infracts equals little need for any stent.

Is anybody listening? Certainly not the cardiologists whose wealth and fortunes are based on nuclaer imaging, angiography and stenting.


Dr. Shirley-Walton, skeptical of Dr. Blanchet's claim of >90% reduction of heart attacks using a prevention program starting with a heart scan:

To rely soley upon a calcium score will deprive you of a lot of information that could be otherwise helpful in the management of your patients.

Without seeming sarcastic, I must refute : "of 6,000 patients I've seen 4 heart attacks in 3 years". Although I certainly hope your statistics are accurate, I will suggest the following:

You've not seen all of the heart attacks since up to 30% of all heart attacks are clinically silent. So unless you are echo'ing or nuclear testing all of these patients in close followup, you aren't certain of your stats.

Secondly, in order to attribute this success to your therapy, you would have to have nearly 100% compliance. In the general population, compliance is often less than 50% with any regimen in any given year of treatment. If you can tell us how you've achieved this level of compliance, we could all take a lesson.



Dr. Blanchett, commenting on his use of heart scanning as a primary care physician:

CAC [coronary artery calcium] is an inexpensive and low radiation exam to identify who is at increased risk for heart attacks.

A study of 222 non-diabetic patients admitted with their first MI found 75% of them did not qualify for cholesterol modifying therapy prior to their initial MI (JACC 2003:41 1475-9). In another study of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factors (Khot, et al. JAMA. 2003). Almost all individuals with 0 or 1 risk factor are Framingham "Low risk" and therefore will not qualify for cholesterol lowering therapies. (JAMA. 2001;285:2486-2497)

Risk factors alone are not sufficient. In my practice, of the last 4 patients who have died from heart attacks, none qualified for preventive therapies by NCEP guidelines.

Studies have shown that CAC by EBT provides an independent and incremental predictor of heart attack risk. (1. Kondos et al, Circulation 2003;107:2571-2176, 2. Am Heart J 141. 378-382, 2001, 3. St Francis Heart Study Journal of the American College of Cardiology July, 2005) The old saw that CAC simply reflects risk factors and age is just wrong.

Although CT angiography shows great promise to reduce unnecessary conventional angiography and is helpful in emergency room chest pain evaluation, I do not see CT angiography as a screening study in asymptomatic individuals. 10 times more radiation than EBT calcium imaging plus the risk of IV dye exposure makes CT angiography inconsistent with the principles of a screening test. Taken in the context of a primary care physician's evaluation of heart attack risk, EBT calcium imaging has great value.

Coronary calcium changes management by: 1. Identifying those at risk who do not show up with standard risk stratification (St Francis Heart Study: Journal of the American College of Cardiology July, 2005). 2. Motivating patients to be compliant with therapies (Atherosclerosis 2006; 185:394-399). 3. By measuring serial calcium, we can see who is and who is not responding to our initial treatment so that we can further refine our therapeutic goals (Atherosclerosis, 2004;24:1272).

When used in the primary care preventive setting, CAC imaging is indeed of great incremental value. In my practice, in improves my outcomes so greatly that it compels Melissa Walton-Shirley to question my veracity.


Dr. Melissa Walton-Shirley:

Ahhhhhh.......the aroma of profit making, I thought I smelled it. [Accusing Dr. Blanchett of referring patients for heart scans for personal profit.]

I will tell you that I was a little hurt when I was called "a typical cardiologist with a butcher block mentality" after my primary pci piece for med-gen Med was reviewed by the track your placque [sic] folks.

Though, it's clear that they misunderstood and thought I was cathing for dollars, instead my intention was to "push" for primary PCI for AMI, it left me seething until the blessing of a busy schedule and a forgetful post menopausal brain took its toll.
None the less, an honest open discussion is always welcome here but I would appreciate it if everyone would just divulge their affiliations up front so that the context of their opinions could be better understood.

I also insist that the compliance described by you William B. is rather astounding and a bit unbelieveable, however if it's accurate, you are to be congratulated.



Dr. Blanchett, in response to Dr. Shirley-Walton's statement that she relies on stress testing:

I think that the threshold of comfort you get from stress test stratification is different than what I consider acceptable. It is hard for me to tell a bereaved spouse that the departed did everything I suggested and still died from a MI. Coronary calcium imaging provides me the tool that I need.

Are you aware that there are a number of studies that show a dramatic increase in risk of MI in individuals with an annualized increase in calcified plaque burden of >14%? I consider this to be a valuable measure of inadequacy of medical management. A stress test does not become positive until we have catastrophically failed in medical management. Consequently, even in the patient with “high risk” stratification, one can justify a calcium score to establish a baseline to measure adequacy of primary prevention. Calcium scores by EBT cost about 1/5th the cost of a nuclear stress test and subject the patient to 1/10th the radiation of nuclear imaging and provides more precise information.

Regarding John Q, I do not think that non-medical prospective should be excluded from this blog. I think we as physicians benefit from hearing how the non-physician public views medicine. I have become much better at what I do by listening to my patients and learning from them.


Dr. Blanchett continues:

Yes, I have seen a dramatic reduction in coronary events. Of 6,000 active patients, 48% being Medicare age and over, I have seen 4 heart attacks over the last 3+ years. 2 in 85 year old diabetics undergoing cancer surgery, one in a 90 year old with known disease and one in a 69 year old with no risk factors, who was healthy, and had never benefited from a heart scan.

The problem with coronary disease is that we rely on risk factors. Khot et al in JAMA 2003 showed that of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factor prior to their MI. According to ATP-III, almost everyone with 0-1 risk facto is low risk and most are do not qualify for preventive treatment. EBT calcium imaging could have identify 98% of these individuals as being at risk before their heart attack and treatment could be initiated to prevent their MI.

Treating to NCEP cholesterol goals prevents 30-40% of heart attacks. Treating to a goal of coronary calcium stability prevents 90% of heart attacks. Where I went to school a 40% was an F. Why are we defending this result instead of striving to improve upon it? I am not making this up, look at Raggi's study in Ateriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2004;24:1272, or Budoff Am J Card

Melissa, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the stress test is a great risk stratifier. Laukkanen et al JACC 2001 studied 1,769 asymptomatic men with stress tests. Although failing the stress test resulted in an increased risk of future heart attack, 83% of the total heart attacks over the next 10 years occurred in those men who passed the stress test.
Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V Circulation 1995;92:657-671 demonstrated that 86% of heart attacks occur in vessels with less than 70% as the maximum obstruction. A vast majority of patients with less than 70% vessel obstruction will pass thier stress test.

William, regarding your question of owning or referring for EBT imaging, I would be amused if it were not insulting. The mistake that is often made is that EBT imaging is a wildly profitable technology. It is not nearly as profitable as nuclear stress imaging. Indeed there are few EBT centers in the country that are as profitable as any random cardiologists stress lab.

How can we justify not screening asymptomatic patients? Most heart attacks occur in patients with no prior symptoms and according to Steve Nissen, 150,000 Americans die each year from their first symptom of heart disease. My daughter is at this moment visiting with a friend who lost her father a few years ago to his first symptom of heart disease when she was 8 years old. That is not OK! We screen asymptomatic women for breast cancer risk. Women are 8 times more likely to die from heart disease than breast cancer. We do mass screening for colon cancer and we are over 10 times more likely to die from heart attacks than colon cancer. An EBT heart scan costs 1/8th the cost of a colonoscopy.

So what say we drop the sarcasm and look at this technology objectively. Read the literature, not just the editorial comments. This really does provide incredibly valuable information that saves lives.

Yes, a 90% reduction in heart attacks in my patients compared to the care I could provide 5 years ago when I was doing a lot of stress testing and referring for revascularization. Much better statistics than expected national or regional norms. I welcome your scrutiny.


John Q. Public jumps into the fray with:

Fascinating, isn't it, that there appear to be two doctors, William Blanchet in this forum and Dr. William Davis, FACC, of cureality.com that both claim to have dramatically reduced risk of heart attack among their patients and/or actual calcium plaque score regression and BOTH are ardent proponents of CT Calcium Scoring?


Despite Dr. Blanchet's persuasive arguments backed up with numerous scientific citations and John Q.'s support, I sense they had no effect whatsoever on Shirley-Walton's way of thinking.

Such are the deeply-entrenched habits of the cardiology community. It will be many years and impassioned pleas to see things in a different light before the wave of change seizes hold.

To learn how to eat . . . try fasting

18. November 2007 William Davis (13)
Curious thing about fasting: It teaches you how to eat.

In previous posts, I've discussed the potential benefits of fasting: reduction of blood pressure, reduction of inflammatory responses, drop in blood sugar, weight loss, and reduced heart attack risk. In my recent Heart Scan Blog post, Fasting and Heart Disease, I discussed the just-released results of a study in people who fast for religious reasons and experience less heart disease.

Fasting can mean going entirely without food and just making do with (plenty of) water, or it can mean variations on "fasting" such as vegetable juice fasts, soy milk fasts, etc.

How can fasting teach you any lessons about food and eating?

People who fast will tell you that the experience:

--Helps you appreciate food tastes when you resume eating. After a fast, flavors are stronger; sensations like sweet, sweet, or salty are sharper; you become reacquainted with the variety of wonderful food textures.

--Makes you realize how you ate too much before your fast. After a fast, you are satisfied with less. You will eat more for taste and enjoyment, less for satiety and mindless indulgence.

--Makes you more mindful of the act of eating. For many of us, eating is an automatic activity that provides fleeting satisfaction. After a fast, each bite of food brings its own special enjoyment.

--Reveals to you how awful you felt when many foods were eaten. For example, many people are physically slightly ill after eating pancakes, pizza, or other highly processed foods but cease to recognize it. Remove the offensive foods entirely and you might realize just how bad you felt.

--Takes away fear of hunger. Many people have a gut-wrenching fear of hunger. It's probably partly instinctive, that animal-like fear of not knowing when your next meal is coming, partly the abnormal, artificial drive to eat ignited by processed foods like wheat and corn syrup.

--Makes you realize just how much of your day is spent in some activity associated with food. Shopping, eating, cleaning up afterwards, thinking and talking about food all occupy an extraordinary portion of everyone's life. A fast can open your eyes to just how much time is spent in these pursuits. Sometimes, gaining an awareness of a mindless, repetitive behavior can provide the first step towards changing direction.


Most people consider a fast for rapid weight loss. But fasting is far more than that. Perhaps fasting has become an integral part of many religious practices because of its capacity for enlightenment, reawakening, revelation, but not of only the spiritual, but also of how far many of us have strayed in diet.

Fasting is what Omnivore's Dilemma author Michael Pollen might describe as looking the pig you're about to eat in the eye, an opportunity to open your eyes to what it is you 've been doing all these years.