Although Dr. John Cannell's most recent Vitamin D Newsletter concerns the connection between autism and vitamin D, and has nothing to do with coronary plaque reversal, this fascinating discussion between a mother of an autistic boy and Dr. Cannell is so enlightening that I thought that it was still worth passing on.

I also feel very deeply for parents with autistic children, who I see struggle with the developmental difficulties their children encounter. (I even have several patients who are parents of 2 or 3 autistic children.)

As always, Dr. Cannell is at the cutting-edge of converting hard scientific information into practical use. You will note several points or questions raised:

1) Dr. Cannell advocates a powdered capsule form of vitamin D. In my experience, most powdered or tablet forms do not work. But some do. He apparently has success with the brand he specifies.

2) Are there vitamin D-receptor (VDR) genotypes that respond differently? Should there be different 25 (OH) vitamin D blood level targets for different VDR genotypes? Nobody knows yet, but it will be an important question to explore in the future.

3) Is heavy metal toxicity, at least in its milder forms, a surrogate for vitamin D deficiency? (Are chelationists unwittingly treating vitamin D deficiency?)

4) If this is a genuine association, and vitamin D replenishment exerts profound neurologic effects in autistic children, does a similar, though less marked effect, hold in non-autistic children? Will children perform better, learn more effectively, etc. with vitamin D supplementation to normal levels?

5) Vitamin A--Is vitamin A with vitamin D good or bad? This one I do not have an answer to. Reading the literature Dr. Cannell cites didn't help much. (Dr. BG--Any comments? Dr. BG is a vitamin A advocate.)

Perhaps, should the association between autism and vitamin D hold, it raises more questions than it settles. But, true to my experience with vitamin D, every day I stumble on some unique, fascinating effect, all beneficial. We continue to learn new lessons about vitamin D and Dr. Cannell's insights as a practicing psychiatrist deeply concerned with vitamin D issues have helped enormously.

(Sorry, but I did not copy the links to the literature Dr. Cannell cites. To obtain the links, go to the original Vitamin D Newsletter.)

The Vitamin D Newsletter
June 2008

This month we feature a remarkable series of letters from a mother of an autistic son who treated her child with vitamin D. It is the first case report in the medical literature suggesting vitamin D has a treatment effect in autism.

First, a brief case report and then a more detailed exchange of emails between the mother and me.

Case Report:

John is a seven-year old boy living in the northeastern U.S. with a long-standing diagnosis of autism. Symptoms include temper tantrums, repetitive self-stimulatory behavior, impaired language, mood swings, fear of being alone, toileting problems, dysbacteriosis, and impaired muscle strength. John spends a lot of time outdoors starting in the spring and his mother noticed a distinct seasonal variation in his symptoms in that he improved in the summer and regressed in the winter. A 25-hydroxy-vitamin D in April of 2008 was 25 ng/ml and obtained after John had begun to play outside. Due to the seasonality of John's symptoms the mother consulted me. I advised the mother to stop all products containing vitamin A including cod liver oil and begin John on 5,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day for two weeks followed by 2,000 IU per day in the form of powdered vitamin D dissolved in juice. Within a week of starting the vitamin D, John's language began to return and he was no longer as fearful of being alone. At the end of two weeks his language showed further improvement, he began to toilet himself, counted to 10 and knew the spelling of his name. After three weeks language continued to improve and some improvements were noted in his dysbacteriosis. After four weeks of vitamin D treatment, the mother noted improvements in muscle strength as well as continued improvements in language. A repeat 25-hydroxy-vitamin D is pending while John continues taking 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day.

Before you read the series of emails between the mother and me, I'd like to caution that this is only a case report of sorts and does not prove a treatment effect. Spontaneous remissions, while rare in autism, have been reported, thus the supplemental vitamin D may have had nothing to do with his improvement. If the response is due to vitamin D, there is no assurance it will prove lasting. I think it unlikely that older autistic children or individuals with severe autism will show these sorts of apparent improvements. Furthermore, autism is a multifactorial disease with strong genetic roots and it is highly unlikely that treatment of vitamin D deficiency in all autistic children will result in similar improvements. Finally, I did not examine this child, and I am relying on the child's mother to report both his condition and his apparent response to vitamin D treatment. However, the mother agreed to speak with the press about her son and allow for independent confirmation of the apparent treatment response.

Below are the emails, edited for brevity, clarity, and confidentiality.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I am writing because I believe my son John is strongly affected by vitamin D and I need some advice. John is seven and autistic and weighs 50 pounds. We live in the northeastern part of the United States . He starts spending lots of time outside in May and continues until September. Every year, like clockwork, he has the same patterns of behavior and ability. After about six weeks of sun exposure, every July, he begins feeling much better, seems to be comfortable in his skin, does not have as much self-stimulatory behavior, can eat a variety of foods and has language. This past summer, he was using 14-word sentences. By the end of November, he can't even ask you for a cup of juice. He becomes more exclusive, has emotional highs and lows, has tantrums and is easily frustrated.

His 25(OH)D level on April 15th was 25 ng/ml but he had already been going out in the sun so his level must have been lower in the winter. I have had his genetics tested (Nutrigenomic) and he has mutations in his vitamin D receptors:

VDR Bsm/Taq ++
VDR Fok --
VDR Taq ++

My first question, does it sound like the changes in his behaviors and abilities could be caused by lack of vitamin D? Could you elaborate on the time it would take to get adequate amounts of vitamin D to start seeing positive results? For example, even if he starts going out in the sun in May, it's usually not until July that I see positive changes. Then would it take a month or two to go back to being deficient, thus explaining his 'regression' by the time November comes around. Secondly, I am looking at different forms of vitamin D therapy: a vitamin D lamp, vitamin D3 cream, or oral vitamin D. Can you tell me what might be the best form during the winter months?

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Jane, Boston MA

Dear Jane:

Yes, it is possible your son's autism is related to vitamin D. Such seasonality has been reported before in autism, both in an individual and in autistic children at a summer camp. Although suggestive, such seasonality does not prove a vitamin D connection. Sun exposure, unless it is full body, takes several months to get vitamin D levels up. If sunblock or clothes are worn sun exposure will not get 25(OH)D levels much above 30 ng/ml. As far as the "mutations" you list, they are actually vitamin D receptor (VDR) polymorphisms and not referred to as mutations although all such changes occurred through mutations at some time in the past. VDR polymorphisms are simply the different structures of the vitamin D receptor that different people have and they are widely distributed. A pilot study of actual VDR receptor mutations did not detect VDR mutations in 24 autistic individuals but they did not assess for VDR polymorphisms. However, a highly significant association exists between one VDR polymorphism and larger head size. Mean head circumference is larger in autism.

Yan J, et al. Vitamin D receptor variants in 192 patients with schizophrenia and other psychiatric diseases. Neurosci Lett 2005;380(1-2):37-41.

Handoko HY, et al. Polymorphisms in the vitamin D receptor and their associations with risk of schizophrenia and selected anthropometric measures. Am J Hum Biol 2006;18(3):415-7.

Lainhart JE, et al. Head circumference and height in autism: a study by the Collaborative Program of Excellence in Autism. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140(21):2257-74.

Lainhart JE, et al. Macrocephaly in children and adults with autism. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997;36(2):282-90.

I emailed the world's foremost expert on VDR polymorphisms asking him about your son's polymorphisms and his reply, quite technical, is below.

Dear John:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you regarding VDR polymorphisms. Initial studies by Eisman and coworkers many years ago suggested that several of the polymorphs identified above in the VDR gene (Bsm/Tag) correlated strongly with osteoporosis. Despite the hoopla, subsequent analyses by many different investigators did not really confirm these results, i.e. only a very modest (3%) correlation. This spawned multiple studies searching for correlations between VDR polymorph's and cancer, autoimmune disease and so forth. It is fair to say from all of these studies that the correlation is at best weak, and in most cases non-existent. Part of this may be due to the fact that the Bsm and Taq polymorphs are located in VDR gene introns and as a first approximation cannot affect the VDR protein's function. This is not an absolute statement, however, as our work is now showing that regulatory regions that control the VDR's expression are located within introns as well as upstream. Therefore the possibility exists that these polymorphs could affect expression, although we have not found these regions to contain enhancers yet. This is clearly where gene and disease studies are going. The only polymorph that could affect function is the Fok1 site, which we identified many years ago following our initial cloning and structural analysis of the human VDR gene. The presence of this site leads to the expression of a shorter VDR protein (424 aa) that is purported to have a slight increase in transcriptional activity (10%?) vs the large protein (427 aa). The above analysis suggests that this polymorph is absent, leading to production of the larger perhaps less active protein. On a single patient basis, it is really difficult to conclude anything regarding this finding. Indeed, despite large numbers of patients, the VDR polymorph have not really revealed any significant insight. Given the summer correlations, it is probably more likely that the individual is low in vitamin D3 in winter.

Sincerely,

Professor John Doe

Thus, one of your son's polymorphisms may have less functionality but that should be easily overcome by higher vitamin D levels. The first thing to do is stop all vitamin A, multivitamins containing vitamin A, or cod liver oil and start vitamin D. As you will see below, vitamin A antagonizes the action of vitamin D and he should have plenty of vitamin A if he eats colorful vegetables, colorful fruit, eggs and fortified oatmeal. As far as vitamin D, I think the easiest way to give vitamin D is powdered capsules, not a cream. You can open the capsule and put the powder in about anything, such as juice. To buy the capsules, go toBio Tech Pharmacal and buy both a bottle of the 5,000 and the 1,000 IU capsules. He should take one 5,000 IU capsule a day for two weeks then take 2,000 IU per day. After a month, go to the doctor and have another 25-hydroxy-vitamin D blood test. Do not let your doctor order a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D as it will give you and your doctor false information about your son's vitamin D status. The other option is buying a Sperti vitamin D light. Daily use of the light on both sides of his trunk will raise levels fairly quickly but he should still have a 25(OH)D blood test every month to assure his levels rise to the mid level of normal ranges, about 70 ng/ml. Vitamin D is very safe. Your son would have to take more than 10,000 IU a day for more than a year to have any risk of toxicity. If he improves and his level is 50 ng/ml, the next question is would he improve even more if his level was 70 ng/ml? Some lifeguards have levels of 80-100 ng/ml; normal ranges in the labs in the USA are 30 -100 ng/ml (ideal ranges are 50 -100 ng/ml.) If you have any more questions, let me know. I certainly want to know how he is doing.

Sincerely,

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

It has been one week on 5,000 IUs of vitamin D3 daily and already we're getting some language back! We haven't had original language since probably around the end of November. The only language we have had in the past five months has been verbal scripting. Today John has already told me "turn off the TV" and "clean up the water". This is all very exciting. Will it last? I will continue to keep you updated on progress and change in behavior. One more thing, all winter long he was afraid to be by himself anywhere. Now he is starting to be able to be in another room or outside by himself.

Thanks so much,

Jane

Dear Jane:

I can't tell you how happy I am for you. I suspect John will continue to improve. Do you have any parent rating scales or does his treating pediatrician have any objective rating scales? If you have before and after rating scales or his treating doctor does then it becomes important to track his progress on an objective measure. Jane, if you are a member of any autism discussion groups, you should post about this, including doses used. If your son's case is typical, then hundreds of thousands of autistic children may be helped with vitamin D.

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

It has been two weeks on 5,000 IU per day and I want to inform you that we are having continued success with language. Continued in the sense that it is consistent, it wasn't just a one day fluke. In addition, he is taking himself to the bathroom; this is another thing that goes away in winter months. I usually have to catch him holding it in and then suggest he go, but now he is going completely by himself. In therapy last week, he started drawing again. He drew a bee and then ran around the room buzzing. His toileting is consistent with his therapists, not just mommy. Last night, I asked him to count to 10 for me and he did - quite enthusiastically. Then I said what does J-O-H-N spell? It took him a bit but then he said "John."

Unfortunately, the last scale taken was when he was 3 when he had his first developmental evaluation. But we do track behavior and language on a weekly basis. The forms we fill out give a good indication as to how he is doing.

I belong to a parent forum. It was created by a doctor named Amy Yasko. She's a PhD, a researcher, not a medical doctor. It was through her that I got John's genetics tested. She advocates vitamin D as being very crucial. I will post something on her forum for the parents there. However, if the parents on the forum are following her recommendations, they should be taking it already - 2000 IUs in winter and 1000 IUs in summer is her recommendation. I will post something on the forum to really emphasize how important vitamin D is.

Jane

Dear Jane:

I'm glad the improvements are continuing. I see Dr. Yasko recommends 10,000 IU of vitamin A/day as well as cod liver oil. I strongly disagree. Make sure your son is taking neither vitamin A nor cod liver oil. Rather, make sure he eats colored fruits and vegetables as well as fortified oatmeal. Vitamin A interferes with vitamin D's function, especially at the doses Dr. Yasko recommends.

Vitamin A antagonizes the action of vitamin D. In humans, even the vitamin A in a single serving of liver impairs vitamin D’s rapid intestinal calcium response. Furthermore, the consumption of preformed retinols, even in amounts consumed by many Americans in both multivitamins and cod liver oil appears to be causing low-grade, but widespread, bone toxicity, perhaps through its antagonism of vitamin D. In a recent dietary intake study, Kyungwon et al found high retinol intake completely thwarted vitamin D’s otherwise protective effect on distal colorectal adenoma and they found a clear relationship between vitamin D and vitamin A intakes as the women in the highest quintile of vitamin D intake also ingested almost 10,000 IU of retinols/day. As early as 1933, Hess et al warned about vitamin A consumption, concluding, “as to a requirement of thousands of units of vitamin A daily, the unquestionable answer is that this constitutes therapeutic absurdity, which, happily, will prove to be only a passing fad.”

Rohde CM, Deluca HF. All-trans retinoic acid antagonizes the action of calciferol and its active metabolite, 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, in rats. J Nutr. 2005;135(7):1647-1652.

Johansson S, Melhus H. Vitamin A antagonizes calcium response to vitamin D in man. J Bone Miner Res. 2001;16(10):1899-1905.

Penniston KL, Tanumihardjo SA. The acute and chronic toxic effects of vitamin A. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83(2):191-201.

Oh K, Willett WC, Wu K, Fuchs CS, Giovannucci EL. Calcium and vitamin D intakes in relation to risk of distal colorectal adenoma in women. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(10):1178-1186.

Hess AF, Lewis JM, Barenberg LH. Does our dietary require vitamin A supplement? JAMA. 1933;101:657-663.

Unfortunately, Hess’s prophecy of a passing fad proved premature and many Americans continue to consume “absurd” and dangerous quantities of vitamin A. For example, multivitamins, until recently, had small amounts of vitamin D (200 to 400 IU) but high amounts of preformed retinols (5,000 to 10,000 IU). This pales in comparison to a tablespoon of modern cod liver oil, which contains sub-physiological amounts of vitamin D (400 to 1200 IU) but supra-physiological amounts of completely preformed retinols (5,000 to 15,000 IU or in some cases 30,000 IU).

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

It has been three weeks and he went from 5,000 IU of vitamin D per day to 2,000 IU per day a week ago. His language is increasing. He's now back to saying the things he wants with some prompting. He also has gut dysbiosis and I'm sure the D is helping with microbes in his gut. He has a lot of problems with his immune system and bacteria and viruses. Also, doesn't vitamin D aid in the production of glutathione? I feel that could be a big part of his increased language.

Jane

Dear Jane:

Yes, abnormal immune responses are associated with both autism and vitamin D deficiency. For example, autistic individuals have immune abnormalities that show a striking similarity to the immune functions affected by vitamin D. Animal evidence indicates some vitamin D deficiency induced brain damage may be malleable, that is, vitamin D may partially reverse the brain damage, if given early enough. These studies offer hope that sunlight or oral vitamin D, especially in young autistic children, may have a treatment effect.

Ashwood P, et al. The immune response in autism: a new frontier for autism research. J Leukoc Biol 2006;80(1):1-15.

Cantorna MT, et al. Vitamin D status, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, and the immune system. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80(6 Suppl):1717S-20S.

Burne TH, et al. Combined prenatal and chronic postnatal vitamin D deficiency in rats impairs prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle. Physiol Behav 2004;81(4):651-5.

Both the brain and the blood of autistic individuals show evidence of ongoing chronic inflammation and oxidative stress. That is, the disease process is probably increasingly destructive. Further hope for a treatment effect rests in activated vitamin D's powerful anti-inflammatory properties. Its administration reduces production of inflammatory cytokines in the brain, which have consistently been associated with cognitive impairment. Furthermore, activated vitamin D is remarkably neuroprotective by stimulating neurotropin release, reducing toxic cellular calcium levels in the brain, inhibiting the production of nitrous oxide, and by its immunomodulating properties, especially in reducing inflammatory cytokines and by increasing brain glutathione.

Moore ME, Piazza A, McCartney Y, Lynch MA. Evidence that vitamin D3 reverses age-related inflammatory changes in the rat hippocampus. Biochem Soc Trans 2005;33(Pt 4):573-7.

Cohen-Lahav M, Shany S, Tobvin D, Chaimovitz C, Douvdevani A. Vitamin D decreases NFkappaB activity by increasing IkappaBalpha levels. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21(4):889-97

Kalueff AV, Eremin KO, Tuohimaa P. Mechanisms of neuroprotective action of vitamin d(3). Biochemistry (Mosc) 2004;69(7):738-41.

This last function of vitamin D, increasing cellular levels of glutathione, may explain the purported link between heavy metals, oxidative stress, and autism. For example, activated vitamin D reduces iron-induced and zinc-induced oxidative injuries in rat brain. The primary route for the neurotoxicity of most heavy metals is through depletion of glutathione and subsequent generation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. Besides its function as a master antioxidant, glutathione acts as a chelating (binding) agent to remove heavy metals. Several studies indicate autistic individuals have difficulty excreting heavy metals, especially mercury. If vitamin D deficient brains are unable to utilize glutathione properly, and thus unable to remove heavy metals, they may be oxidatively damaged by heavy metal loads normal children easily excrete. The amount of activated vitamin D in the brain directly depends on how much vitamin D is made in the skin or put in the mouth.

Garcion E, Wion-Barbot N, Montero-Menei CN, Berger F, Wion D. New clues about vitamin D functions in the nervous system. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2002;13(3):100-5.

Chen KB, Lin AM, Chiu TH. Systemic vitamin D3 attenuated oxidative injuries in the locus coeruleus of rat brain. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003;993:313-24.

Lin AM, Chen KB, Chao PL. Antioxidative effect of vitamin D3 on zinc-induced oxidative stress in CNS. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2005;1053:319-29.

Valko M, Morris H, Cronin MT. Metals, toxicity and oxidative stress. Curr Med Chem 2005;12(10):1161-208

Kern JK, Jones AM. Evidence of toxicity, oxidative stress, and neuronal insult in autism. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2006;9(6):485-99.

Sincerely,

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

It has been a month now and John's Improvements are continuing. In the last week, he has been using his muscles more, he goes on the swing outside and lifts his legs and bends in ways that take core muscle strength. This is yet another skill or interest that left and is returning. I will report more next week.
Jane

Conclusion:

It is too early to say vitamin D has a treatment effect in autism. However, a simple risk/benefit analysis suggests that autistic children should be diagnosed and aggressively treated for vitamin D deficiency. If readers want to learn more about vitamin D and autism, they can obtain the entire paper on the link below. Unfortunately, Elsevier charges $31.50 to download it. You can read a similar document for free on the website, where we first published the theory a year ago.

Cannell JJ. Autism and vitamin D. Med Hypotheses. 2008;70(4):750-9.

http://vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2007-may.shtml

In summation, autistic children should be given enough vitamin D to get their 25(OH)D levels up to the mid to high range of normals, that is, 70 ng/ml (175 nmol/L in countries that use the metric system). In the absence of sun exposure, this usually requires long-term administration of about 1,000 IU/day per 20 pounds of body weight with a loading dose of 2,000 IU of vitamin D/day for every 20 pounds of body weight for the first two weeks. As individual variation in response is very high, they should have 25(OH)D blood tests every month until their level has stabilized around 70 ng/ml. They should stop all products containing preformed retinols (vitamin A), especially cod liver oil.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

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. As we are a 501(3)(c) non-profit corporation, dedicated to ending vitamin D deficiency and not making money, the Vitamin D Council does not copyright this newsletter. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. If this newsletter proves useful to a child you know with autism, the Vitamin D Council asks for a donation as we have not been able to secure a grant and our bank account balance is again below $5,000. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

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

Rather than the headline New Study Could Change Heart Disease Diagnosis And Treatment being run in Utah TV and newspapers, instead it should read:

Make big money fast with CT scans!

Is your bottom line shrinking? Have you fallen on hard economic times? Is competition from other hospitals and providers threatening your financial health?

Then we have a solution: Do a CT coronary angiogram on everybody! Look for disease in people with no symptoms, scare the heck out of them, and voila! Instant need for bypass surgery!

Ka-ching!! That'll be $100,000, please.

Do it again, and again, and again, and your hospital will be quickly in the black in no time!

And, for the savvy marketer, tell the newspapers that you're going to conduct a study to see if this approach works--even before the study gets started! Even if the study pans, you'll come out a winner because you did it in the name of "research"!

Apparently a group of cardiologists at the Intermountain Medical Center and LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City, with the financial assistance of Siemens, a manufacturer of CT scanners, is funding a 1000-patient study of diabetics, all without symptoms of heart disease, half of whom will undergo "screening" CT coronary angiograms (not heart scans) followed by bypass surgery, if "needed". The other half will receive conventional, "aggressive" medical therapy. "Aggressive" means cholesterol treatment, blood pressure control, and blood sugar control (no kidding).

The outcomes of the two groups will be compared after two years.

To understand the absurdity of this study, note that they are proposing what amounts to "prophylactic" bypass surgery, since the participants are without symptoms. Since there are no stress tests, a measurement of flow or functional capacity (exercise tolerance) cannot be factored in. Decisions will be made on the basis of severity of "blockages" in asymptomatic people, a hazardous notion that has never been shown to provide benefit. No doubt: Some diabetics with extensive disease may obtain benefit from screening, but many more will undergo what amounts to unnecessary bypass that provides no benefit. We already know from studies dating back over 20 years to the days of the original CASS (Coronary Artery Surgery Study) that putting asymptomatic people through bypass surgery willy-nilly does not reduce mortality.

Of course, the "aggressive" preventive treatment they propose is more like the least common denominator level of treatment. In fact, I would characterize the "aggressive" preventive treatment as ridiculous. Doing less would be malpractice. Much more could be done, but doing a lot more would pose a real challenge to the bypass arm of the trial.

But the smell of money drives such efforts: More CT angiograms, more hospitalization for bypass surgery. The payoff to the hospitals from this effort is likely to exceed $5 to $10 million, all money that they might not have otherwise seen. The ill-informed people in the local media gush with enthusiasm, the hospital acts like they are at the cutting edge of medical technology, the doctors pose as saviors.

All this time, real preventive efforts go unmentioned. No fish oil (28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in sudden death from heart attack), no genuine diet efforts (i.e., not the diabetes-promoting American Diabetes Association diet), no effort to identify sources of coronary risk beyond LDL cholesterol (low HDL,small LDL,and postprandial or after-eating abnormalities, for instance, are prominent sources of risk in diabetics), no vitamin D. In my view, the preventive arm of the study amounts to doing virtually nothing beyond prescribing statin drugs.

Don't fall for it.

The Fountain of Youth, Louis Cranach the Younger (1546)

In the Track Your Plaque program, we sometimes use the adrenal hormone, DHEA. It is a fascinating and--surprisingly--an over-the-counter hormone that can be useful and safe when used properly.

DHEA can be useful for:

--Reduction of Lp(a)--Though more effective in females, it can also be useful in males. In the women, DHEA often reduces Lp(a) 15-18%, somewhat less in males. The lower the starting DHEA, the greater the Lp(a) reduction.

--Improved libido--in both men and women. The effect is modest. It's magnified when used with other strategies. Although this is not specifically a goal in the program, it sure helps to get side-benefits like this, rather than unwanted side-effects.

--Increased energy and mood--The boost in mood is, for many, the most perceptible effect: More ambition, more stamina, greater staying power in work and exercise.

--Reduction in abdominal (visceral) fat--A modest effect, but one that, over a long period of use (>6 months) can yield improved insulin responses.

Most commonly, I will suggest DHEA supplementation when blood levels allow. Some people, however, Google "DHEA" and come back horrified that I would suggest such a dangerous supplement.

"I read that it makes women grow mustaches and makes their voices deeper!"

And it does--if you take a lot.

10-15 years ago, when the benefits of DHEA became apparent, some people wanted to believe that DHEA was the fountain of youth. People interested in the anti-aging potential for DHEA figured that, if 50 mg per day made you feel energized and vigorous, what would be the effect of 1000 mg, 2000 mg, or 3000 mg per day? A number of clinical trials were conducted using these doses and, interestingly, depression can lift, men and women increase muscle mass, there is a slight increase in bone density, even pain symptoms from rheumatoid arthritis and lupus may improve. But . . . women grow mustaches, become sexually aggressive, and develop deep voices. Men can become hyperaggressive or overly emotional.

No wonder: Any hormone taken in extraordinary, supraphysiologic doses will exert wacky effects. Imagine taking testosterone or estrogen at 50 times the usual dose.

The doses we use for the above benefits, including Lp(a) reduction, range from 25-100 mg per day; most people do fine with 50 mg. We also adjust doses to starting blood levels. In this dose range, I have never seen any of the above side-effects.

The only side-effects I see at these doses are 1) excessive assertiveness or crabbiness, and 2) insomnia if taken at bedtime.

In my experience, DHEA is a benign hormone, provided it is taken in limited doses and not abused. An occasional female younger than 55 years old will be able to tolerate only 10-20 mg per day before developing the edgy side-effects, but I've never witnessed masculinizing side-effects at these low doses, nor have I ever seen excessive increases in testosterone in men or women. (Women can raise testosterone levels slightly, but almost never enough to exert much effect beyond modestly increased libido.)

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Here is detailed comment from a reader who figured out the wheat (and dairy) issue on her own with impressive results.

Though it seems an unpardonable over-simplification of diet, this concept of eliminating wheat-based products (along with obvious unhealthy foods like candy and soda) yields unexpectedly large results, as our reader relates.

Hi Dr. Davis,

Several years ago, chronic untreated asthma infections hospitalized me. I thought it was recurring bronchitis as I'd never had asthma in my life. Killed much of the alveoli... took awhile to de-crap the lungs and regrow the alveoli. Got assigned a cardiologist sort-of by accident while in the hospital for that (couple days of constant heated steroid, stress, a pain + situation combined, elevated my heart rate to 298 for a brief time). When I went to see him, he wrote me a prescription for the Eades' PPLP [Protein Power LifePlan] book.

It's taken awhile, since it's required radical gradual changes in most aspects of my overly Type-A life, but I'm now about 140 lbs lighter, and hopefully much more in the future.

Miraculously, after 10 days on a hard meat-eggs-cheese-veggie-berry approach (which I sadly confess was mostly pepperoni & mozz nuked... I was busy! ;-)), all my medical symptoms disappeared too. Acid reflux, acne, brain-fog, rashes, 'severe asthma', allergies, etc. etc. By trial and error I realized I wrongly attributed that to lowcarbing when it was getting off gluten that actually did it for me. Which since I'm lowcarb also means all the crap my celiac boyfriend can eat, I can't. Lowcarb does many great things for me (just dropping all the bloating and increasing the energy level are awesome), but getting off wheat was critical.

I've since found that a single tablespoon of "milk" in the morning, or something with wheat (say a tortilla), will make me ravenous *specifically for milk and wheat* all day. Conversely, I can be eating lowcarb and then eat total junk--but something without gluten--and not have it bother me much at all. But one pumpernickel slice at Outback and I am DOOMED. It doesn't always happen that instant; will-power has some sway; but the odds of my making a 'poor decision that leads to cascade failure and totally abandoning my eating plan' in the next 48 hours is astronomically higher if milk or wheat were involved. Oddly, cheese does not seem to affect me this way.

When I was younger (I'm 42 now) I had to stop drinking milk. If I drank some I wanted more. If I drank more I needed more. If I drank more, that was it: I'd be stumbling to the kitchen in the dark at 3am, drinking out of the carton, falling gasping against the refrigerator after several long gulps, like a heroin addict who just got a fix. I finally realized that since I'd lived on a ton of milk my whole life, maybe this was a milk problem; so I usually stayed away from it. So then it turned out wheat/gluten were an issue too. Which made me realize how much of my life was filled with not-eating most of the time (very busy, workaholic, but very sedentary), but when I did eat, ingesting amazing amounts of wheat products. I'm astounded that my whole life I mostly ate things I am apparently intolerant to "or something." Sometimes I wonder how much different even my brain would be if it'd been different.

This might contribute to my ending up weighing 500# at one point. The only amazing thing is that I didn't get a disease. (Well I did--obesity--but I mean any others.) I'm from a family of people who are mostly fat, mostly alcoholic, and mostly dead of cancer. I'm just fat, worse than the others but otherwise seemingly ok. Now I'm starting to think that maybe my whole family may have some 'issue' with the primary foods of our culture.

I tell friends that my horrible chronic acid reflux was solved merely by getting off gluten. They nearly all say, "I could never give up bread!" (Isn't it funny, you never hear people say, "Oh man, I could never give up broccoli!") I tried to convince one young friend to try it; her doctor told her eating more protein and fat was unhealthy, and gave her a prescription (this is lifetime--it doesn't cure it, merely treats the symptom) to a drug to help with acid reflux. I said you're kidding me, you think taking a drug the rest of your life is healthier than trading your pasta for a steak?? Go figure.

I still haven't figured out the milk connection (or why I seem ok with cheese for some reason; maybe there is a dosage-difference, or the sugar combined with it has some effect), but I think it's pretty clear that dropping milk and wheat has very radically changed my life for the better. I may actually live, which being a single mom to an awesome 11 year old girl, is a good thing.

Best,
P.

Given the confusion over what constitutes the "ideal" diet, a discussion that has been hotly debated for decades, some people become very angry that we still don't agree on what is truly healthy.

"Why should I even try if the experts don't agree? They say something is bad one day, then say it's okay the next!"

But that's a short-sighted half-truth born of frustration. We have certainly zigzagged in our understanding of diet over the years. The grand national experiment in low-fat eating, for instance, clearly failed to improve our health. In fact, the opposite occurred: The largest epidemic of obesity and diabetes in world history. You could get angry from this failed experiment . . . or you could learn from it, take what lessons we can and improve on it.

Step back for a moment and consider: In what other age could we even have this discussion?

If we lived in a world where you were hungry, your children were hungry, and you didn't know where the day's food was to be found, we would have no need whatsoever for this conversation: You would take whatever you could find, kill, or steal.

Say you woke up this morning and your cabinets and refrigerator were empty. The stores were far away or non-existent. You and your family would have to improvise, to forage or hunt your day's food. It would require hours. You wouldn't fuss about glycemic index, or saturated fat, or whether or not sugar or wheat was present. You would just eat whatever you could get your hands on. When caloric deprivation threatens, we take what is available.

But we live in a world of plenty--of enormous excess--that allows us choices. It is a world that encourages eating more than is required for existence, a world tailored more to indulgence than to simple satiety or sustenance. That's when distinctions among food types and quality make a difference. But it is a dilemma born of riches.

Starvation and caloric deprivation would settle the argument for us very quickly. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to debate the finer points of diet. But don't do it with anger or frustration. Do it GRATEFULLY, recognizing that we are lucky to be able to have such a conversation in the first place.

Image courtesy Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

I frequently peruse conventional health websites to keep track of their message. One painfully conventional (read "drug company-supported") website that echoes the standard advice on heart disease and heart health is Everyday Health .

Since I subscribe to the newsletters for many conventional sites, I received an e-mail that took me to this Q & A about HDL cholesterol:

Q: I'm 36 years old and my good cholesterol is too low. What can I do?
– Nilsa, Florida

Dr. Lori Mosca of New York-Presbyterian Hospital responds:

A: A woman's HDL goal should be greater than 50 mg/dL (greater than 40 mg/dL in men). You can raise your HDL levels by eating a diet low in saturated fat and trans fat but high in monounsaturated fats. Lose weight if you need to and get at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise on a minimum of four days per week. If you smoke, quit. Despite positive lifestyle changes, though, some individuals may still be candidates for HDL-raising drug therapy because they are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Discuss your options with your health care provider.

Are you satisified with that answer? I certainly am not.

First of all, is this something you've never heard before? "Eat right, exercise, cut your unhealthy fats." Then why do people who follow this sort of conventional advice often still fail? Is the next step always medication?

Here's the part that Dr. Mosca and other conventional, drug-minded "authorities" have left out:

To raise HDL powerfully--not to 40 mg/dl for males or 50 mg/dl for females, but to 60, 70 or 80 mg/dl--think about the following strategies:

--Eliminate wheat and cornstarch products. I have droned on endlessly about this concept, but it is enormously effective. While the weight loss that inevitably follows elimination of these foods adds to the HDL-raising effect, there is also an independent effect, as well.

--Fish oil--The omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil reduce triglycerides. Triglycerides accelerate the destruction of HDL. Remove triglycerides, HDL goes up. (Though krill oil may share, even surpass this effect, we need more data than the single manufacturer-sponsored study.) Of course, this requires real doses, not the namby-pamby doses you often read about.

--Vitamin D--Achieving normal levels of 25(OH) vitamin D raises HDL with power I have never witnessed from any other strategy before, barring weight loss of 30+ lbs. Readers of the Heart Scan Blog know that just taking vitamin D is not enough. Verification with blood levels is an absolute necessity, particularly if raising HDL maximally is among your goals.

--Adding back saturated fat. I say "adding back" since most of us (including myself) went too far down the "saturated fat is bad" path over the past few years. While I do not advocate a carte blanche approach to saturated fat, I believe that adding back eggs (preferably free-range and/or omega-3 rich), lean meats, and hard cheeses is a good idea. The saturated fat in these foods raise HDL 5 or more mg/dl.

--Dark chocolate--Or other cocoa prepartions. What a cool way to raise HDL! Reach for the lowest-sugar, highest cocoa preparations.

--Alcoholic beverages--I am partial to the red wine/flavonoid-rich concept, being a wine drinker. Although all alcoholic beverages raise HDL due to the ethanol content, for benefits beyond alcohol (as well as to avoid wheat-based drinks like beer), I do believe that the bulk of data argue for flavonoid-rich red wines from southern France, Italy, and California.

--Achieve ideal weight--The toughest of all. But eliminating wheat and cornstarch makes it far easier.

Follow the conventional advice of those like Dr. Lori Mosca, and the majority of people will fail. ("It just so happens that I have a prescription drug just for that purpose!")

Buck the conventional advice, adopt strategies that won't be found in the drug ads, nor be provided by the conventionally-thinking, and you can succeed to heights you never thought possible.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Let me tell you a story, a tale of a woman who gained 30 lbs by eating one cracker.

At age 50, Claire's health was a disaster. Her initial lipoprotein patterns were a mess, including HDL 36 mg/dl, triglycerides 297 mg/dl, blood sugar 122 mg/dl (pre-diabetic range), blood pressure 155/99. Small LDL comprised over 90% of all LDL particles.

At 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 210 lbs--90 lbs over her ideal weight. Her face was flushed and red, her eyes swollen and weighted down with bags, her eyes dull. While interested in hearing about how to improve her health, I would hardly call her enthusiastic.

We talked about how removing wheat products entirely from her diet could result in weight loss--enormous weight loss--yet with reduced appetite, increased energy, less daytime sleepiness and fogginess, improved sleep quality. Removing wheat would also allow substantial correction of her lipoprotein patterns with minimal medication.

At first, she seemed confused by this advice. After all, it ran directly opposite to what she'd been told by her family doctor, not to mention the advice from TV, food ads, and food packages.

To my surprise, Claire did it. She didn't return to the office for another 5 months. But she came in, a big beaming smile on her face.

Even at 167 lbs--still overweight--Claire looked great. She glowed. She'd already dropped nearly 2 1/2 inches from her waist. She felt lighter on her feet, discovered energy she thought she'd lost 10 years earlier. Her blood results matched, with dramatic shifts in each and every pattern.

I quizzed Claire on her diet, and she had indeed made substantial changes. In addition to eliminating all foods made of wheat flour, she also eliminated foods made with cornstarch, rice flour, snacks, and other sweets. She ate her fill of vegetables, fruits, raw nuts, lean meats, and healthy oils. She was less hungry while eating less. Even her husband, skeptical at first, joined Claire after the first two months and her initial 20 lbs of weight loss. He, too, was well on his way to dropping to ideal weight.

But a dinner party invitation came. In the few that Claire and her husband had gone to over the few months, she had religiously stuck to her program, choosing cheese, pickles, olives, vegetables that she dipped, but avoided the pretzels, breads, Doritos, potato chips, and others.

This time, a tray of whole wheat crackers was laid on the buffet table, covered with some sort of sweetened cheese. She had just one. She savored the taste that she'd missed. "Maybe one more. I'll be extra good this weekend,'" she told herself.

Now Claire was hungry. The bruschetta covered with tomatoes and mozzarella looked awfully good. "It's got some good things on it, too!" she thought. She had three.

The floodgates opened. I saw Claire three months later, weighing just shy of 200 lbs. "I almost cancelled this appointment," she whispered quietly, tears at the corner of her eyes. "I don't know what happened. I just lost control. After losing all that weight and feeling so good, I blew it!"

I've seen it before: Fabulous success eliminating the foods that created the situation--the insatiable appetite, the endless cycle of hunger, brief satiety, the rolling, rumbling hunger--followed by temptation, then disaster. The weight lost comes right back.

It's experiences like Claire's that have absolutely, positively convinced me: Wheat products are addictive. It's not true for everybody, but it's true for many people, certainly most people who have weight struggles. It triggers some sort of appetite button, a signal to eat more . . . and more, and more. Keep it up long enough, and you have drops in HDL, increases in triglycerides, upward jumps in blood sugar and blood pressure, diabetes, etc. It doesn't matter if it's whole grain, 7-grain, or 12-grain. Yes, the whole grains contain more fiber and more B vitamins. But they all share one characteristic: They trigger a desire for more.

So that's the story of how one whole wheat cracker caused one woman to gain 30 lbs.

Next week's story:

California woman claims: My children are aliens!

Just kidding.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Eliminate wheat from your diet and wonderful things happen:

--Lose 15-20 lbs, sometimes in the first 1-3 months. (More or less, depending on your prior dietary habits, weight, age, etc.)
--HDL cholesterol goes up, triglycerides go down
--Blood sugar drops
--Small LDL is reduced
--C-reactive protein is reduced
--Pre-diabetics often convert to non-diabetics
--Diabetics gain far better control over blood glucose. Some even become non-diabetic (as long as they maintain the wheat-free, low-glycemic index diet and weight control).
--You feel better: Less mental fogginess, more energy, better sleep.
--Appetite shrinks dramatically.

(Many diet programs makes lots of money promising similar results. Prescription medications like the pre-diabetes drugs, Actos and Avandia, and the fibrates, Tricor and Lopid, nearly--nearly--reproduce the effects of eliminating wheat. Of course, these medications do not lead to weight loss or make you feel better. In fact, Actos and Avandia usually trigger a weight gain of 8 lbs in the first year of use.)

All of these wonderful effects develop with elimination of wheat. . . unless you confuse wheat-free with gluten-free. There's a difference.

Remove wheat from your diet, but discover the world of gluten-free products made for people with celiac disease, or gluten enteropathy, and you can regain the weight and recreate many of the phenomena associated with wheat. I've talked about this in past, but it trips up so many people that it's worth talking about again.

The concept that I am advocating is really low-glycemic index (or low glycemic load, actually). Foods that trigger a substantial rise in blood sugar, whether immediate (like whole wheat crackers) or delayed (like whole wheat pasta) are the culprits. The same effects develop with candy, cookies, fruit drinks, pizza, chips, table sugar, and other junk foods.

However, I pick on wheat specifically because it so dominates the American diet. It has grown to fill so many processed food products. It is also a food ingredient that is falsely advertised as healthy. In reality, pretzels, whole wheat crackers, whole grain bread, high-fiber cereals, etc. exert the same effect on blood sugar as candy or white table sugar. They also generate all the "downstream" phenomena listed above.

But wheat is hardly the only food that makes us fat, diabetic, and unhealthy. This is true for foods made with cornstarch (taco shells, cornbread, tortillas, chips, breakfast cereals); rice flour, puffed rice, and polished rice; and potatoes, particularly pulverized potato starch (potato chips). There are others.

These are the gluten-free products that are marketed to the gluten enteropathy (celiac disease) market. Yes, you can make muffins with cornstarch and no wheat gluten, but is it good for you?

No. It is nearly as bad as wheat. It can still skyrocket blood sugar, drop HDL, raise triglycerides, create small LDL, heighten inflammation, etc.

Ground flaxseed, oat bran, barley, quinoa, are some of the alternatives that do not create these effects. But not the majority of gluten-free products on the market.

Ingredients: Potato starch, rice flour, modified corn starch, olive oil, yeast, vegetable protein(lupine), corn syrup, sugar, salt, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, sodium bicarbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, diacetyltataric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of edible fats, natural flavor.

". . . only naturally gluten-free and wheat-free ingredients and adhere to the strictest quality processes, testing every batch for gluten using the ELISA assay."

NUTRITION FACTS
Serving Size 7 bread sticks (31g)
Servings per container 5

Calories 120 Calories from fat 25
Amount per serving
Total Fat 2.5g
Saturated Fat 0.5g
Trans Fat 0g
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 310mg
Total Carb 24g
Dietary Fiber 1g
Sugars less than 1g
Protein less than 1g

Does chelation work?

It's a question I get asked fairly frequently. Although I have never performed chelation, IV or oral, and therefore have no direct experience, my concerns for this purported therapy have included:

1) The concept of extracting calcium from atherosclerotic plaque by removing it first from the blood is absurd. Early chelationists believed that this was the means by which EDTA might reverse coronary atherosclerosis. However, removing calcium from blood would more likely lead to osteoporosis or calcium extraction from bone, since bone is a more ready repository for calcium. Blood calcium levels are also tightly and narrowly controlled; any significant reduction in calcium ("hypocalcemia") can be life-threatening. And, indeed, there have been deaths from hypocalcemia in people receiving chelation.

More recently, chelationists have argued that removal of heavy metals like lead and mercury are responsible for the purported benefits of chelation. And, indeed, blood levels of these heavy metals can be reduced by chelation. That alone may be a benefit. But to then make the leap to say that it also regresses atherosclerotic plaque by the same mechanism has no basis in science.

2) Practitioners associated with chelation tend to be shady. I have seen homeopathic therapies (among THE most ridiculous of concepts), "energy balance" therapies, desiccated organ extracts ("applied kinesiology"), and a variety of other fringe treatments offered by practitioners offering chelation. This doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that chelation is also fringe or suspect, but it tends to be offered by practitioners who engage in generally unscientific, unfounded practices.

The few people I've seen go through multiple courses of chelation (usually 30 or so infusions) have shown no impact on heart scan scores or any other measure of heart disease.

In response to the many questions I receive on chelation, I had been answering that, if we would simply wait for the publication of the NIH-sponsored trial of IV chelation therapy, perhaps we'd know once and for all.

However, in a lengthy criticism, four expert authors argue that the TACT trial to assess chelation study is doomed to failure for an entire list of reasons and should therefore be abandoned. The discussion is available on Medscape Cardiology. (Free sign-in required.)

Why the NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) Should Be Abandoned
We investigated the social and the scientific histories of chelation therapy beginning in the 1950s. We examined TACT protocols and consent forms, which, in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the NIH provided to us with curious redactions. We examined the existing RCTs and the numerous case series cited by the TACT protocols. We examined evidence for risks, including information that is not in the standard medical literature. We examined various hypotheses that advocates have offered to explain how chelation "works."

We present our findings in 4 parts. First, we provide a brief history of the use of disodium EDTA as a treatment for CAD. Next, we describe the origin and nature of the TACT. Next, we discuss the evidence for chelation as a treatment for CAD and for atherosclerosis in general, and place it in the context of other proposed treatments that have been ineffective after an initial period of enthusiasm. Finally, we discuss the risks. For each topic, we contrast our findings with relevant statements in the TACT literature, to the extent that such statements exist.

Among the highlights:

--Since the mid-1970s, court documents and newspapers have reported at least 30 deaths associated with IV disodium EDTA, most of it administered by ACAM members.

--Early chelation investigators had chosen the disodium salt of EDTA, reasoning that if it could remove calcium from atherosclerotic plaques, it might shrink them. That notion was soon demonstrated to be invalid. It has largely been replaced by a "toxic heavy metals" antioxidant hypothesis, which is based on the potential for metal ions to produce free radical damage. Chelationists now cite "removing heavy metals" as the basis for their claim that chelation is effective for approximately 70 conditions, ranging from schizophrenia and autism to cancer. This provides them with numerous reasons to ignore any trial that finds chelation ineffective for CAD.

--Biochemical literature, either not cited or misrepresented in the TACT protocols, has demonstrated that the heavy metals hypothesis is implausible. Antithetically, it also demonstrates that the chelation mixture used in the TACT has pro-oxidant effects in vitro.

--In our opinion, TACT literature -- including 2 versions of the protocol, the consent form, information posted on the NCCAM Web site, and 2 editorials co-authored by the PI -- has misrepresented chelation, its risks, and the facts of the study. It has exaggerated the value of supportive case series, not only by ignoring evidence of bias and incompetence, but by misrepresenting citations and reporting erroneous data. It has minimized the dangers, both by understatements and by omissions of specific, published complications. It has not acknowledged the deaths mentioned above. It has repeatedly conflated disodium EDTA and a different drug, calcium-sodium EDTA.

--The TACT includes nearly 100 "chelation site" co-investigators who, in our opinion, are unsuitable to care for human subjects or to report trial data. Most espouse implausible health claims while denigrating proven methods; several have been disciplined, for substandard practices, by state medical boards; several have been involved in insurance fraud; at least 3 are convicted felons. Several were members of the ACAM or GLACM IRBs mentioned above. Few appear to have real expertise, required by TACT literature, in treating patients with CAD or in conducting clinical trials. Most continue to promote chelation while the TACT is in progress, contrary to good science, to human studies ethics, and to US Federal Code.

While the criticism itself does not prove the point one way or another, as a clinical trial should, anyone contemplating chelation therapy would be well-advised to read the document first. Another reference: EDTA chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.

The authors of the exhaustive discussion are:
Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD, Anesthesiologist, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, Massachusetts; Assistant Clinical Professor, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; Associate Editor, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
Author's email: katwood@partners.org

Elizabeth Woeckner, AB, MA, President, CIRCARE (Citizens for Responsible Care and Research), Columbia, Maryland

Robert S. Baratz, MD, DDS, PhD, Medical Director, South Shore Health Center, Inc., Braintree, Massachusetts; Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; President, National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc.

Wallace I. Sampson, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine (Emeritus), Stanford University, Stanford, California; Senior Attending Physician and formerly Chief of Medical Oncology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California; Editor-in-Chief, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine

The authors provided the following disclosures:

Disclosure: Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships in addition to his employment.

Disclosure: Elizabeth Woeckner, AB, MA, has disclosed that she has received compensation for consulting in civil litigation and professional disciplinary actions.

Disclosure: Robert S. Baratz, MD, DDS, PhD, has disclosed that he has been retained by state licensing boards, the Office of the US Attorney, and plaintiff counsel as an expert in disciplinary proceedings and litigation with regard to chelation therapy and associated matters. He is compensated only for his time and has no commercial interest in the outcome of the proceedings or litigation.

Disclosure: Wallace I. Sampson, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships in addition to his employment.

These are actual quotes from the American Diabetes Association website:

Myth #2 (from list of Diabetes Myths): People with diabetes can't eat sweets or chocolate.
If eaten as part of a healthy meal plan, or combined with exercise, sweets and desserts can be eaten by people with diabetes. They are no more “off limits” to people with diabetes, than they are to people without diabetes.

Myth #5: If you have diabetes, you should only eat small amounts of starchy foods, such as bread, potatoes and pasta.
Starchy foods are part of a healthy meal plan. What is important is the portion size. Whole grain breads, cereals, pasta, rice and starchy vegetables like potatoes, yams, peas and corn can be included in your meals and snacks. The key is portions. For most people with diabetes, having 3-4 servings of carbohydrate-containing foods is about right. Whole grain starchy foods are also a good source of fiber, which helps keep your gut healthy.

How can I have sweets and still keep my blood glucose on target?
The key to keeping your blood glucose on target is to substitute small portions of sweets for other carb-containing foods in your meals and snacks. Carb-containing foods include bread, tortillas, rice, crackers, cereal, fruit, juice, milk, yogurt, potatoes, corn, and peas. For many people, having about 45 to 60 grams at meals is about right. Serving sizes make a difference. To include sweets in your meal, you can cut back on the other carb foods at the same meal.

For example, you’d like to have cookies with your lunch. Your lunch is a turkey sandwich with two slices of bread. Your first step is to identify the carb foods in your meal. Bread is a carb. You decide to swap two slices of bread for two slices of low-calorie bread and have the cookies -- it’s an even trade. Your total amount of carbohydrate remains the same for the meal.

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.

Or take a look at the recipes for breads, muffins, cakes, pies, cookies, and pizza.

My point? As I often say, while the "official" organizations like the American Diabetes Association, the American heart Association, and the USDA dominate the message provided to mainstream Americans, to those of us who know better, they have become irrelevant. You can see how obviously boneheaded their advice is. I'd go so far as to say that, if you want diabetes, follow the American Diabetes Association diet. If you have diabetes, and you'd like to accelerate complications like kidney disease, heart disease, and neuropathy, then follow the American Diabetes Association diet.

I'm going to bet that American Diabetes Association sponsors like Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Abbott ($1 million or more annual contributions) and Cadbury Schweppes (3-year, multi-million dollar support for Weight Loss Matters program) will continue to charge full-speed ahead to maintain the status quo. Cadbury Schweppes are the proud makers of Dr. Pepper, Hawaiian Punch, Snapple, Motts' Apple Juice, and Hires Root Beer--you know, the foods and drinks that you can have as long as you adjust your insulin dose or talk to your doctor about adjusting your diabetes medications. And if you gain, say, 30 or 40 lbs eating these foods. . . well, we've got a treatment for that. Merck's Januvia , for instance, can help you out for only about $200 a month!

Looking at the facts this way, and it seems like some cheap conspiracy theory: They're all out to get us. Dispense information that virtually guarantees propagation of the disease, and all your friends and cronies profit. I don't know if it is or it isn't, but it sure smells like it sometimes.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vitamin D Newsletter-Autism and Vitamin D

"Make big money fast with CT scans"

Is DHEA dangerous?

Wheat addiction: 140 lbs lost

Diet: Don't be angry, be GRATEFUL

HDL for Dummies

"I gained 30 lbs from one cracker"

Wheat-free is not gluten-free

Death to chelation?

American Diabetes Association

Dr. Cannell on vitamin D and cancer

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

Diabetes: controlled or . . . cured?

Study review: cerivastatin

Dr. William Blanchet: A voice of reason

Vitamin D2 rip-offs

Stenosis detection vs. plaque detection

Is an increase in heart scan score GOOD?

The Heart.org online debate

To learn how to eat . . . try fasting