Yet another piece of mass media misinformation hit the airwaves today. This time it's not from the New York Times or the LA Times, both of which have previously mangled the issues surrounding heart scans. This time it's from the Boston Globe.

In an article titled What is a calcium scan for heart disease, and who should undergo the test?, the report states:

". . . calcium scans may not be a good idea, or prove terribly useful, for most people. For one thing, the scans expose a patient to significant radiation - equivalent to roughly 50 chest X-rays" said Dr. Warren Manning, chief of noninvasive cardiac imaging at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center."

As many before him, Dr. Manning is confusing two tests: CT coronary angiography and CT heart scanning. Perhaps we can't blame him: This technology has had its weakest following in the northeast, for reasons not entirely clear to me. (In fact, Track Your Plaque followers have had the greatest struggle obtaining heart scans in that part of the country.) Nonetheless, you'd think he'd have his simple facts straight before talking to the press. Unfortunately, hospital public relations departments will usually just grab whoever they can willing to talk to the press--regardless of their expertise or lack of.

The story goes on to say:

. . ." it's not clear what to do with the results from a calcium scan. If you have diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or a family history of heart disease, you already know - or should know - that you are at increased risk of heart problems and should lower these risk factors. So, a calcium scan provides little additional information," Manning said.

"Moreover, even a high score doesn't necessarily mean that the calcified plaque in your arteries is obstructing blood flow, said Dr. Adolph Hutter, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital."

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death," said Manning.

And if you get a low calcium score, a sign of little or no calcification of plaques, that's not very useful, either, because it could be wrong, or it could be right but lull you into believing you do not have to exercise and watch your diet, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels. "You can still be at risk even if your calcium test is negative," Hutter said.

It is truly shocking how little many (not all, thank goodness) of my colleagues really know about 1) heart scans, 2) coronary disease prevention, and 3) prevention in general. These same "experts" likely advocate high-dose statin drugs and low-fat diets for people at risk. They likely refer patients to the American Heart Association for diet advice and themselves obtain a lot of information from the pharmaceutical industry. The notion of identification, tracking, and purposeful reversal of coronary plaque is entirely foreign to this bunch.

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death." Well, take a look at a graph from a database of 25,000 people undergoing heart scans then observed for several years afterwards:

You can see quite clearly from the curves that heart scan scores very clearly predict your future (if no preventive action is taken). The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of heart attack and death. How much clearer can it get?

The most recent addition to this literature is the PREDICT study which concluded:

Hazard ratios relative to CACS [coronary artery calcium scores] in the range 0-10 Agatston units (AU) were: CACS 11-100 AU, 5.4 (P = 0.02); 101-400 AU 10.5 (P = 0.001); 401-1000 AU, 11.9 (P = 0.001), and >1000 AU, 19.8 (P < 0.001).

In other words, a heart scan score of >1000 is associated with a 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events (without preventive efforts). That kind of predictive power and quantitative confidence simply cannot be squeezed out of blood pressure and cholesterol values.

How about the 2008 University of California-Irvine study from the New England Journal of Medicine (do the northeast docs even pay attention to something that is published in their own neighborhood?) that reported:

There were 162 coronary events, of which 89 were major events (myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease). In comparison with participants with no coronary calcium, the adjusted risk of a coronary event was increased by a factor of 7.73 among participants with coronary calcium scores between 101 and 300 and by a factor of 9.67 among participants with scores above 300 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among the four racial and ethnic groups, a doubling of the calcium score increased the risk of a major coronary event by 15 to 35% and the risk of any coronary event by 18 to 39%.

How about the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project (men average age 43 years):

"In these men, coronary calcium was associated with an 11.8-fold increased risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (p = 0.002) in a Cox model controlling for the Framingham risk score. Among those with coronary artery calcification, the risk of coronary events increased incrementally across tertiles of coronary calcium severity (hazard ratio 4.3 per tertile)."

Calcium score provided additional information even after factoring in the Framingham risk score.

That's just a sample of the studies. There are a number more.

Add to these conversations the fact that, unlike reducing blood pressure or LDL cholesterol, the heart scan score is a quantification of the disease itself. It can also be tracked over time to gauge the success or failure of prevention efforts. To believe that blood pressure reduction or LDL cholesterol reduction is sufficient to eliminate risk is something only a fool would believe.

Contary to the above statements, the data are clear:

--The higher the heart scan score, the greater the risk. This has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt in at least a dozen published studies. In fact, heart scan scores outshine lipid/cholesterol values several-fold.

--A person with a zero score has a nearly zero risk for cardiovascular events over a 5-year timeline.

--Heart scans are the only quantitative test available of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. This means that they can be repeated to gauge progression or regression. Cholesterol does not do that. Stress tests do not do that.

--Heart scans are not the same as CT coronary angiography.

--The lack of "need" for a procedure does not equate to the absence of disease.

The power of heart scans is that they can uncover evidence for coronary atherosclerotic plaque 10 years before a cardiac disaster strikes. Witness Tim Russert's heart scan score of 210 in 1998 at age 48. 10 years later, you know what happened.

Beware the camipaign of misinformation and ignorance that continues that is hell-bent on maintaining the procedural status quo or locking us into a "drugs for all" mentality.

There are a number of ways to view the blood sugar-raising or insulin-provoking effect of foods.

One way is glycemic index (GI), simply a measure of how high blood sugar is raised by a standard quantity of a food compared to table sugar. Another is glycemic load (GL), a combination (multiplied) of glycemic index and carbohydrate content per serving.

Table sugar has a GI of 65, a GL of 65.

Obviously, table sugar is not good for you. The content of white table sugar in the American diet has exploded over the last 100 years, totaling over 150 lb per year for the average person. (Humans are not meant to consume any.)

What is the GI of Rice Krispies cereal, organic or not? GI = 82-- higher than table sugar. GL is 72, also higher than table sugar.

How about Corn Flakes? GI 81, GL 70--also both higher than sugar.

How about those rice cakes that many dieters will use to quell hunger? GI 78, GL 64.

How about Shredded Wheat cereal? GI 75, GL 62.

All of the above foods with GI's and GL's that match or exceed that of table sugar are made of wheat and cornstarch. Some, like Shredded Wheat cereal and rice cakes, don't even have any added sugar.

Stay clear of these foods if you have low HDL, high triglycerides, high blood sugar, or small LDL. Or, for that matter, if you are human.

Keep the eloquent words of New York University nutritionist, Marion Nestle, author of the book, Food Politics, in mind:

“Food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.” ??

By now, I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the hydrogenated, trans fat issue.

Hydrogenation of polyunsaturated oils was a popular practice (and still is) since the 1960s, as food manufacturers sought a substitute for saturated fat. Bubbling high-pressure hydrogen through oils like cottonseed, soybean, and corn generates trans fatty acids. These man-made fatty acids, while safe in initial safety testing, proved to be among the biggest nutritional mistakes of the 20th century.

Trans fatty acids have been associated with increased LDL cholesterol, reduction in HDL, oxidative reactions, abnormal rigidity when incorporated into cell membranes, and cancer. Trans fats still dominate many processed foods like chips, cookies, non-dairy creamers, food mixes, and thousands of others. They're also found prominently in fast foods.

Fast forward to today, and most Americans have become aware of the dangers of trans fats and many try to avoid them.

But I worry there is yet another substance that has worked its way into the American processed food cornucopia that has some potential for repeating the trans fat debacle: sterol esters.

Sterols are naturally-occurring oils found in vegetables, nuts, and numerous other foods in small quantities. Most of us take in 200-400 milligrams per day just by eating plant-sourced foods.

Curiously, the chemical structure of sterols are very similar to human cholesterol (differing at one carbon atom). Sterols, by not fully understood means, block the intestinal absorption of cholesterol. Thus, sterol esters, as well as the similar stanol esters, have been used to reduce blood levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

So far, so good.

The initial commercial products, released in the late 1990s, were Take Control (sterol) and Benecol (stanol), both of which were marketed to reduce cholesterol when 2-3 tbsp are used daily, providing 3400 – 5100 mg of sterol or stanol esters, about 10- to 20-fold more than we normally obtain from foods. Several clinical trials have conclusively confirmed that these products reduce cholesterol levels.

They do indeed perform as advertised. Add either product to your daily diet and LDL cholesterol is reduced by about 10-15%. In fact, in the original Track Your Plaque book, these products were advocated as a supplemental means of reducing LDL when other methods fell short.

In 2008, there are now hundreds of products that have additional quantities of sterol esters in them, such as orange juice, mayonnaise, yogurt, breakfast cereals, even nutritional supplements. Most of these products proudly bear claims like "heart healthy." Stanol esters have not enjoyed the same widespread application. (I believe there may be patent issues or other considerations. However, it's the sterols that are the principal topic here, not stanols.)

Now, here's where it gets a bit tricky. There is a rare (1 per million) disease called sitosterolemia, a genetic disorder that permits the afflicted to absorb more than the usual quantity of sterols from the intestine. While you and I obtain some amount of sterols from plant-based foods, absorption is poor, and we absorb <10% of sterols ingested. However, people with sitosterolemia absorb sterols far more efficiently, resulting in high blood levels of sterols that result in coronary disease and aortic valve disease, with heart attacks occurring as young as late teens or 20s. Treatment to block sterol absorption are used to treat these people.

There are also a larger number, though still uncommon (1/500) of people who have only one of the two genes that young people with sitosterolemia have. These people may have an intermediate capacity for sterol absorption.

Okay, so what does this have to do with you? Well, if you and I now take in 10-20 times greater amounts of sterol esters, do our blood levels of sterols increase?

Several studies now suggest that, yes, sterol blood levels increase with sterol ingestion. One study from Finland, the STRIP Study, showed that children who had double usual sterol intake increased blood levels by around 50%.

Similarly, a Johns Hopkins study in adults with only one of the genes ("heterozygotes") for sitosterolemia increased sterol blood levels by between 54-116% by ingesting 2200 mg of sterols added per day, despite reduction of LDL cholesterol levels.

Even people with neither gene for sitosterol hyperabsorption can increase their blood levels of sterols. But the crucial question: Do the blood levels of sterols that occur in unaffected people or in heterozygotes increase the risk of coronary heart disease? The answer is not known.

Despite the several clinical trials performed with sterol esters, all of them have examined LDL and total cholesterol reduction as endpoints, not cardiovascular events. It is conceivable that, while sterol esters reduce cholesterol, risk for heart disease is increased due to higher blood levels of sterols.

The question is not settled. For now, it is just a suspicion. But that's enough for me to steer clear of processed foods supplemented with these uncertain sterol esters. My previous recommendations for sterol ester products will be removed with the next edition of Track Your Plaque. Until we have solid evidence that there are no adverse cardiovascular effects of sterol esters, in my view they should not be part of anyone's heart-disease prevention program.

(The same argument does not seem to apply to stanol esters, such as that contained in butter-substitute Benecol, since stanol esters are not absorbed at all and remain confined to the intestine.)

Lou came into the office. Clearly, his program had gone sour.

Lou had initially obtained wonderful control over his heart scan score of 1114, having reversed modestly in his first three years of effort through correction of his multiple causes (including low HDL, severe small LDL, Lp(a), and a diabetic tendency).

But Lou now came into the office red-faced and sporting a big bulging abdomen. Blood sugar? Now in the overtly diabetic range. Lou said that his primary care doctor had suggested that he start on three new medications (glucophage, injectable Byetta, and Actos) to control his blood sugar. His doctor also told him to increase his intake of fibers by eating more "healthy" breakfast cereals like Cheerios.

Lou had apparently done just that (added "healthy" fiber-rich foods) even before his doctor had suggested it. (Lou failed to remember the several conversations we'd had about healthy eating.) Unfortunately, Lou also failed to connect his increased intake of "healthy fiber-rich foods" and his growing abdominal girth (his "wheat belly").

Here's the dirty little secret: Much of the world wants you to be diabetic. It is the health gold rush of this century. "Go West, young man!"

To find out what I mean, you need only ask: Who profits when people become diabetic? That's easy:

The pharmaceutical industry--Diabetes is a booming growth industry, a source of tens of billions of dollars of revenue, poised for enormous growth as the population ages and gets fatter. It is common for a newly-diagnosed diabetic to be given new prescriptions for two or three drugs with a monthly cost of $300. Of course, the chronic nature of the disease make this far more profitable than, say, a two week course of antibiotics. Presently, 70 new drugs are under development.

Diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk reported a 25% increase in revenues in 2007 from diabetic agents in the North American market, along with near $2 billion increase in profit for the year. Merck's recently-released DPP-4 inhibitor, Januvia, has already sold $668 million in 2007 and is growing rapidly.

The medical device and supply industry. Take a look at the Medtronic quarterly earnings report, detailing the breakdown of their record-setting quarterly revenue of $3.7 billion:

Diabetes revenue of $269 million grew 12 percent driven by sales
of consumables, the accessories required by insulin pump users, and
continuous glucose monitoring products. Revenue from international
sales grew 31 percent over the same quarter last year.

That's what I call a growth industry.

The processed food industry. The food industry is as big or bigger than the drug industry. ADM, Kraft, General Mills all have annual revenues in the $12-50 billion range. There are plenty of others.

When we're told, for instance, that Cheerios reduces cholesterol, we're not told that it skyrockets blood sugar or triggers small LDL. When we're sold whole wheat crackers, Cocoa Puffs (which the American Heart Asscociation says is heart-healthy), or granola bars, hunger is stimulated, impulse to eat more grows, blood sugar escalates, we get fat, we get diabetic. It's a simple formula.

So be aware that there is little incentive among corporate giants in the food, medical device, or drug industries to encourage behaviors that decrease the incidence of diabetes. In fact, there is enormous financial incentive to make sure that diabetes continues to grow at the startling rate it has over the last decade.

To be sure, the drug and medical device industry will also develop better tools to deal with diabetes and its complications. But the very best way to deal with diabetes is to not develop it in the first place.

This question comes up frequently:

Aren't there any alternatives to heart scans performed on a CT or EBT device?

Yes, there are.

First of all, heart scans are performed best on an electron-beam CT device (EBT) or a 64-slice multi-detector CT (MDCT) device. (While they are also obtainable through less-than-64 slice CT devices (e.g., 16 slices and less), I would advise against it because of the excessive radiation exposure and poor accuracy.) CT heart scans are not to be confused with now more popular CT coronary angiograms, which are performed on the same devices but require intravenous x-ray dye and many times more radiation.(See CT scans and radiation exposure and Heart scan frustration.) Heart scans currently form the basis for the Track Your Plaque program, a program of tracking plaque in the hopes of stopping or reversing the otherwise inevitable 30% per year increase.

Let's confine our discussion to people without symptoms, meaning people like you and me sitting at home, not in an emergency room having chest pain or other similar acute symptomatic presentation.

Among the other ways to uncover hidden coronary plaque:

--Heart catheterization--to yield a coronary angiogram. Yes, this does tell us whether coronary plaque is present. However, it is invasive, expensive, and crude. (I've performed 5000 over my career; they are crude, though useful, tools in acute settings like unstable symptoms or heart attack, a different situation.) Coronary angiography is also non-quantitative. While they provide a value like "40% blockage mid-way in right coronary" or "90% blockage in left anterior descending" they do not provide a trackable lengthwise index of total plaque volume. Identifying severe blockages in people with symptoms leads to stents, bypass surgery and the like, but it is not practical nor of long-term usefulness in apparently, healthy people without symptoms.

--Carotid ultrasound--Here's is where a lot of confusion comes from. Standard carotid ultrasound (U/S) performed in virtually every hospital and many clinics will yield crude qualitative results, e.g., "16-49% stenosis (blockage) in right internal carotid artery". The crude value range is because much of carotid U/S is based on flow velocities, not just direct visualization of the plaque itself ("2-D imaging). However, if carotid stenosis of any degree is identified, the likelihood of silent coronary plaque is much greater.

Limitations: The qualitative, non-quantitative nature of carotid U/S make it difficult to follow long-term in a precise way. Also, this is carotid plaque, not coronary plaque. It makes it very difficult to follow carotid plaque as an indirect means of tracking coronary plaque. The two arterial territories, carotid and coronary, do not track together: there are divergences in many people, with carotid plaque absent in some people with advanced coronary plaque, carotid plaque more susceptible to different risk factors than coronary. So carotid U/S is helpful for its own purposes, but not terribly helpful for coronary tracking.

How about carotid intimal-medial thickness (CIMT) obtained also with carotid U/S? CIMT is a useful index of bodywide atherosclerosis. CIMT is simply a measure not of plaque (and is measured in regions of the carotid artery away from plaque), but of the thickness of the lining of the carotid arteries. Everybody has a measurable CIMT, but it thickens as atherosclerosis grows. CIMT is a radiation-free test that takes several minutes.

Limitations: Hardly anybody does it outside of research protocols. I know of no hospital or clinic in my area that performs CIMT, though it is slowly being adopted in some centers. It is also difficult to rely on repeated tests, because there is substantial variation when one technologist or another performs it. CIMT is also a flawed index of coronary plaque. When CIMT is compared to heart scan scores, CT coronary angiography, or conventional coronary angiography, CIMT correlates about 60-70% with the degree of coronary atherosclerosis.

CIMT is therefore a useful test for research, but a distant 2nd choice--if you can obtain it.

--Ankle-brachial index (ABI)--ABI is a crude measure, simply a comparison of the blood pressure (obtained with a blood pressure cuff) in the legs divided by blood pressure in the arms. The ratio is called ABI. Any ABI <1.0, meaning less pressure in the legs compared to the arms, is indirectly indicative of advanced coronary disease. ABI is, in fact, a very powerful predictor of cardiovascular events. If ABI is <1.0, your future risk for heart attack is very high, even in the absence of symptoms.

Limitations: The vast majority of people with heart disease, even those having undergone stents or bypass surgery, have normal ABI's. Virtually all people with high heart scan scores have normal ABI's. In other words, ABI is a measure of very advanced atherosclerosis only.

--Stress tests--I lump all stress tests together in their various forms, e.g., stress thallium, stress Cardiolite, stress Myoview, persantine/adenosine Cardiolite, dobutamine echocardiography, etc. Stress tests are tests of coronary blood flow, not of plaque. Stress tests are useful in people with symptoms, like chest pain or breathlessness, since stress tests are provocative tests that can help determine whether reduced coronary blood flow is the cause behind a symptom, or whether hiatal hernia, esophagitis, gallstones, pleurisy, musculoskeletal causes, or some other process is behind symptoms.

Limitations: Stress test are virtually useless in people without symptoms. This is why people like Tim Russert and Bill Clinton, both without symptoms, underwent several (Russert 3, Clinton 5) nuclear stress tests---all normal. You know what happened to them. Stress tests do not reliably uncover hidden coronary plaque in people without symptoms. Stress tests are, like coronary angiograms, non-quantitative. They are normal or abnormal.

Outside of experimental settings, that's it.

You can probably see why I advocate CT heart scans for tracking plaque. I do not advocate heart scans because I sell them (I don't), because scan centers pay me to say these things (they don't, and in fact my relationship with my usual heart scan centers has become deeply contentious, though I still endorse the technology). I say that heart scans are superior because they are, in 2008, the only way to 1) identify and 2) track coronary plaque that is easy, safe, low-radiation, and reasonably priced (<$200 in Milwaukee at 5 centers).

The need for a technology that allows tracking of plaque, not just initial identification, is also an important distinction. People who've had some measure of atherosclerosis all catch on to this eventually. "Can I reverse it?" is an inevitable question once the disease is identified in some way. So a tool for tracking over time to gauge the success or failure of a program of prevention can be assessed.

Perhaps in 10 years, another technology will emerge as the preferred means to do the same, but better. If that proves true, we will convert to that technology. But today heart scans performed on CT heart scans are the only rational way to both detect, then track, coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let's play a game.

I'm going to list some lipid patterns and you tell me whether or not the person with these values has heart disease.

Patient 1

Total cholesterol 150 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 75 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
Triglycerides 125 mg/dl

Patient 2

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 200 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 35 mg/dl
Triglycerides 325

Patient 3

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 100 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 25 mg/dl
Triglycerides 875 mg/dl

Let's say that any one of these profiles is yours. Should you be getting your affairs in order, preparing for your cardiac catastrophe? Should you demand a stress test from your doctor, hoping that it will shed some light on your dilemma? Should you go ahead and go to the all-you-can-eat rib restaurant, content that you will be attending your granddaughger's wedding in 2020 in full health?

If you can tell, you're a lot better at this than I am.

I provide consultation to other physicians and patients on complex hyperlipidemias in my area. In other words, if someone has a difficulty to manage lipid disorder, the doctor sends the patient to me.

Managing these wildly variable values is the easy part. Deciding whether or not heart disease is concealed within the patient . . . well, that's the hard part.

Let's take it a step further: Suppose all three profiles also have 50% of all LDL particles as the abnormal small particles. And they all have a lipoprotein(a) level of 50 mg/dl, an abnormally high level.

How about now: Can you tell whether any or all of these people have hidden heart disease?

What if they are 20 years old? Does that make a difference?

What if they are all females over 65 years--how about now?

If the only tool you have to divine the presence of hidden heart disease is a lipid panel, or even a lipoprotein panel, then the best you can manage is to hazard a guess based on statistical probability. You also assume that this "snapshot" represents the sorts of values someone has had for their entire lives. You cannot factor in the fact that the first person gained 60 lbs in the last three years since completing menopause. You can't factor in that patient 2 smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years, but quit 10 years ago.

It's also foolhardy to believe that every known cause of heart disease is currently identifiable and revealed by modern-day blood testing.

A heart scan is simply a means to quantify the sum-total of risk factors--causes--that have exerted an effect up until the moment of your scan. It will reveal the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present, regardless of whether you stopped smoking 20 years ago or lost 30 lbs last year.

For these reasons, nothing can replace the value of quantifying plaque: not cholesterol, not the Framingham risk calculation, not measures of small LDL or lipoprotein(a), not the presence or absence of symptoms. In 2008, the method of choice for measuring plaque remains a CT heart scan. Perhaps in 10 years it will be some other method.

As always, let me remind Heart Scan Blog viewers that I make this point NOT to sell heart scans, which I have no reason whatsoever to do. I say this because we require a tool to track this potentially fatal disease. We require a yardstick for tracking progression or regression. The only tool that suits these purposes in 2008 is a CT heart scan.

You know that cynical old saying:

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

In other words, knowing the right person provides you strategic advantage in business, social advancement, etc.

In health, it was often true. Knowing who the better doctors were, for instance, in your city might provide you with access to better care.

Enter the Information Age. You now have access to medical information equal to that of your doctor. You now have access to patient discussions about doctors, their practices, their performance records. There is now a depth and breadth of information on health that was never available before.

I’d therefore turn the old saying into the new Health 2.0 version:

It’s not who you know, it’s what you know.

In health, information now reigns supreme, not knowing somebody else who has the right connections.

Positive: Everybody now theoretically has access to an equal amount of information, since you can access information on any topic just as easily as I can.

Negative: It puts more of the burden on you. If you screw up in health, perhaps you didn’t try to get the best information hard enough.

I love this new development, this emergence of empowerment in health. I call it self-directed health, the individual capacity to exert enormous influence over the quality of your healthcare.

This is obviously a work in progress. All the answers and tools for self-directed care, self-empowerment are not yet available, some haven’t even yet been imagined.

But they are coming.

“Do you really think I need a heart scan?” asked Terry.

“My doctor said that heart scans show too many false positives. He says that many people end up getting unnecessary heart catheterizations because of them.”

At age 56, Terry was becoming increasingly frightened. His father had suffered his first heart attack at age 53, Terry’s paternal uncle had a heart attack at age 56, his paternal grandfather a heart attack at age 50.

Is this true? Do heart scans yield too many false positives, meaning abnormal results when there really is no abnormality?

No, it is not. What Terry’s doctor is referring to is the fact that, in the decades-long process that leads to heart attack, heart scans have the ability to detect early phases of developing coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let’s take Terry’s case, for example. Given his family history, it is quite likely that he does indeed have coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Will it be detectable by performing a stress test? Probably not. In fact, Terry jogs and feels well while doing so. While a stress test abnormality that fails to reach conscious perception is possible, it’s fairly unlikely given his exercise routine.

Will Terry’s coronary atherosclerotic plaque be detectable by heart catheterization? Very likely. But why perform an invasive hospital procedure just as a screening test? Should a woman wishing to undergo a screening test for breast cancer undergo breast removal? Of course not.

Is waiting for symptoms a rational way to approach diagnosis of heart disease? Well, when symptoms appear, it means that coronary blood flow is reduced. Stents and bypass surgery may be indicated. The risk of heart attack and death skyrocket. Sudden death becomes a real possibility.

In the 30 or so years required to establish sufficient coronary plaque to permit the appearance of symptoms or the development of an abnormality detectable by stress testing, there were many years when the disease was early--too early to generate symptoms, too early to be detectable by stress testing.

That’s when heart scans uncover evidence for silent coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Should we call this a “false positive” just because it doesn’t also correlate with “need” for a catheterization, stent, bypass operation or result in heart attack within the next few weeks?

The detection of early plaque is just that: early disease detection.

Imagine, for instance, that the breast cancer that will grow into a palpable nodule or mass detectable by mammogram is detectable by a special breast scan 15 years before it becomes a full-blown tumor, metastasizing to other organs. What if effective means to halt that earliest evidence of cancer could put a stop to this devastating disease decades ahead of danger? Is this a “false positive” too?

In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

So, no, heart scans do not uncover “false positives.” They uncover early disease--true positives--years before it is detectable by standard tests or by the appearance of catastrophe. But that is the whole point: Early detection means getting a head start on prevention.

Do heart scans lead to unnecessary heart catheterizations? Yes, sadly they do. But not because heart scans are false positive. It happens because of unscrupulous or ignorant cardiologists who use the information wrongly. In my view, heart scans should NEVER lead directly to heart catheterization in an asymptomatic patient. Heart scans, as helpful as they are, do not modify the standard reasons for performing heart procedures.

If a car mechanic is dishonest and fixes a carburetor that didn't need fixing, should we condemn all car mechanics? No, of course not. We only need to develop the means to weed out the bad apples. The same applies to heart scans.

Here's a bit of lipid tedium that might nonetheless help you one day decipher the meaning of shifts in your cholesterol panel.

Recall from prior discussions that conventional LDL cholesterol is a calculated value. Contrary to popular opinion, LDL is usually not measured, but calculated from the Friedewald equation:

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

For the sake of simplicity, let's call total cholesterol TC; HDL cholesterol HDL, and triglycerides TG.

We've also talked in past how a low HDL makes calculated LDL inaccurate, sometimes wildly so. (See Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar.)

Here's yet another source of inaccuracy of the Friedewald-calculated LDL: any increase in triglycerides.

Let's say, for instance, that starting lipid panel shows:

TC 170 mg/dl
LDL 100 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 100 mg/dl

You're advised to follow a standard low-fat, whole grain-rich diet advocated by "official" agencies (the diet I bash as knuckleheaded). Another panel a few months later shows:

TC 230 mg/dl
LDL 140 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 200 mg/dl

(Obviously, I've oversimplified the response for the sake of argument. HDL would likely go down, LDL would change more depending on body weight, small LDL tendencies, and other factors. You'd also likely get fat.)

Now your doctor declares that your LDL has gone up and you "need" a statin agent.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

What has really happened is that the increased dietary intake of wheat and other "healthy whole-grain foods" has caused triglycerides to skyrocket. LDL increases, in turn, by a factor of TG/5, or 40 mg/dl. Thus, LDL has been inflated by the triglyceride-raising effect of whole grains.

This is yet another reason why the standard lipid panel, full of hazards and landmines, needs to be abandoned. But calculated LDL in particular is an exercise in frustration.

Though the example used is hypothetical, I've witnessed this effect thousands of times. I've also seen many people placed on statin drugs unnecessarily, due to the appearance of a high LDL cholesterol that really represented increased TG/5, usually induced by an excessive carbohydrate intake, including those commonly misrepresented as healthy such as whole grains.

In the Heart Scan Blog, I am often guilty of speaking out loud of my varied thoughts on this crazy thing that we've created called the cardiovascular healthcare machine. But I discuss it in the context of asking "How could this be done better--better outcomes, more patient-friendly, more accessible . . . more do-it-yourself?

The last part is the part that throws most people. Do-it-yourself? My colleagues would claim I'm nuts, suggesting that coronary heart disease is something manageable by yourself. In the conventional pathway, after all, coronary disease is that unpredictable, poorly detected by standard tests, condition that then leads to heart catheterization, stents, bypass , and the like.

Several factors distinguish the readers of The Heart Scan Blog that surprised me:

--Nearly 60% are women
--There are a disproportionate number of Asian people. (Can someone explain this to me?)
--A great number have graduate degrees

I believe this tells me that The Heart Scan Blog appeals to a somewhat more sophisticated audience. This, to some degree, warms my heart, since it means that I've captured the attention of some people who may be more discriminating and thoughtful in their Internet surfing.

However, I also lament the fact that these conversations are not achieving the mainstream. After all,

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's an interesting project a Track Your Plaque Member brought to my attention: Grassroots Health.

Carole Baggerly, Director of GrassrootsHealth, is a breast cancer survivor who has engineered an impressive project to collect and tabulate vitamin D blood levels in thousands, perhaps millions of people, over the next 5 years. Anyone can participate at a cost of $30 twice a year to get a vitamin D home test kit. (A fingerprick is required. I've tried the test kit--it's easy and painless to use.) They simply ask you to provide some basic health information that will be accumulated and analyzed.

Here's a graph they feature on their website showing the vitamin D blood levels distributed among the first 300 participants:

(Click to enlarge.)

Ms. Baggerly is apparently working with vitamin D pioneer, Dr. Reinhold Vieth, of the University of Toronto.

This sounds like a really great idea. Should you enroll, please come back here and let us know about your experience.

Anne
3/3/2009 2:32:00 PM |

The price is reasonable. I enrolled. The kit came in a few days. The instructions were easy to follow. The lancet easy to use and they give you 4 tries to fill the spots with a drop of blood. My results came bact in less than 2 weeks. It was 54ng/ml - the best ever result. I am taking 4000 IU of D3 each day. Before, my level was dropping on 2000 IU.

I am more than happy to be a part of this project.

homertobias
3/3/2009 3:37:00 PM |

What is so wonderful about grassroots health is that potentially the health data generated by the participants will further Vitamin D research. All the sponsoring MD's are the "heavy hitters" in Vitamin D academia, from the Garland brothers in San Diego, to Dr. Donald Trump in Roswell Park to Dr. Hollis in Boston. This is a fantastic way to further preventive medicine research instead of just making a lab or supplement maker richer.

Anna
3/3/2009 5:05:00 PM |

Even though we can get our level tested through our doctor/HMO network at no cost (perhaps a visit co-pay), I decided to enroll our whole family in the Grassroots Health D*Action program.  The fingerprick blood drop collection at home also easier on our son, instead of a needle/syringe blood draw at the lab.  I really feel it is important to collect enough data about Vitamin D for more research, even if there is some out of pocket expense for us.   We seem to have developed quite a bit of resistance to all the illnesses that are spreading fast around our communities, now that our D levels are up above 60 ng/mL.

One of the issues I do have with the current state of Vit D research is that is is primarily epidemiological.  We really need to support more well-designed intervention studies so we can tease out more conclusive evidence about Vit D.

Of course, we had a laugh completing the D*Action questionnaire for my son, aged 10.  The answer option about number of falls in the past 6 months would only allow for up to 99!  Between skateboarding, soccer, and mad-man bike riding with his friends, we estimated he might have fallen as much as 250 times in 6 months!  No broken bones, though, unlike my 81 yo MIL in the UK, who got out of bed, slipped on a magazine on the floor, and suffered a hairline fracture of the tibia, requiring a full leg cast last winter, with a long recovery.  Of course, she assures me the packet of calcium powder she takes nightly in some water (supplied to the elderly by NHS) also has Vitamin D in it, so she's covered....sigh.

Nearly everyone I know from teens to seniors, discovers their level is low if they get the test - usually at the bottom of the reference range or even severely deficient.   This is true of my friends and neighbors in the San Diego area as well as my extended family in the Northeast (incl 2 teenage sisters both with levels >20 ng/mL! - one has scoliosis, a vertebra stress fracture, and spondylolithesis!).

Other than my husband and son, who now have good D3 levels (65-80 ng/mL) due to taking 3,000 and 8,000 iU daily this winter, only my 74 yo dad also tested with good levels this winter (52 ng/mL), despite his Northeastern location, because he's now taking the amount of Vit D3 I suggested (I sent him a 6 mos supply for his birthday in September).  My dad listens to me  .  The others might, now that their results are in  .

Anonymous
3/3/2009 5:21:00 PM |

Thank you for posting this. I just enrolled and will report back when I receive my results. I'm currently taking 6000 IU of D3 daily, and am very curious as to what my levels will be.

TedHutchinson
3/3/2009 5:39:00 PM |

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O3L77kgU24
In this video Carol Baggerly talks about Vitamin D basics.

This link
http://tinyurl.com/dfazes
takes you to the series of 45minutes vitamin d presentations by leading Vitamin d scientists that Grassrootshealth have sponsored.

They are all excellent but of particular relevance here is
Vitamin D and Cardiovascular Disease Prevention

but I think most people will be really shocked when then watch this one
Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma

jumpow
3/3/2009 5:43:00 PM |

Hi doc

I blogged about the kit the other day - http://dadrewrite.blogspot.com/2009/03/daction-vitamin-d-testing-kit.html

All in all, I have been impressed with the experience.

Jenny
3/3/2009 10:19:00 PM |

I just sent my first sample off today. I was a little reluctant to use the lancet on myself, but I collected my courage, and did a much better job than the technician at my physician's office usually does (also, I am not nearly as grumpy). I feel fortunate to have the chance to participate, and I hope at least some of the friends and family I've told about the project will join in too. The information to be gained by this study should be very valuable, and moreover the opportunity for individuals to take advantage of this to monitor and supplement Vitamin D on their own is a chance to take charge of a key parameter of health. I would like to see much more of this type of grassroots health initiative. How I wish I could find more ways to remove the government, the insurance companies, and big pharma
from between me and my pursuit of good health.

Suzanne
3/18/2009 8:25:00 PM |

How very interesting! I've been taking 8000 IUs since I was diagnosed with early breast cancer last year, but my level is still only 35.1, so I'm going with 10,000for a while. Will also join this project, as I don't believe we can afford to leave our health completely in the hands of our health"care" system.

JD
3/19/2009 8:58:00 AM |

I sent for my kit. It took about 2 1/2 weeks between the time I ordered the kit and when I got my results. My level was 44. I had been taking 2,000 to 4,000 IU per day when I did the test. The one thing I believe they could improve on is how to get the blood drops. I had ordered a home cholesterol test and their method seemed a bit superior. Same lancets but they instructed you to warm your hands by rubbing and also to force the blood by pressing on your hand by applying pressure starting with your palm using the opposite hand and working your way down. Also to do this while standing up.

Anna
3/19/2009 2:55:00 PM |

I've use lancets a lot for BG tests. Before my hypothyroidism was treated, getting good blood drops for my BG monitoring was a challenge because of my chronically low temperature. The Vit D test needs a much bigger blood drop than a BG test does, so it's crucial to prepare the hand for the test to ensure a big enough blood drop.

People with cold hands definitely need to pre-warm a hand by any means necessary before using the lancet - hot water, rubbing, heating pad, etc. Swinging the arm in a wide 180Â° arc a few times forces blood into the hand by centrifugal force, then "milking" the hand, then the finger usually helps, too.

Valda Redfern
3/20/2009 12:43:00 AM |

I enrolled and have just got my results - 67 ng/ml after about three months of taking 5000 iu per day, plus eating quite a lot of seafood, butter, liver and eggs (seafood once a week, about 8 oz of liver and 6 oz of butter per week in the convenient form of liver pate, and about eight eggs per week). I had been following a moderately low carb diet for about a year; but at the same time I started taking the D supplements I also eliminated gluten from my diet and went _really_ low carb. I guess my vitamin D levels weren't too dusty even before I started supplementing, since I haven't had a cold since January 2008, but I have certainly noticed an improvement in my feeling of well being since then. Sunlight probably hasn't contributed much to my vitamin D levels: I'm 51, live in England, work inside all day, and haven't seen any real sunshine since I visited New York for a few days last August.

I think the GrassRoots Vitamin D project is fantastic - and for anyone in the UK, it's by far the cheapest and easiest way of getting one's vitamin D levels tested. I plan to stick with the program.

baldsue
3/25/2009 9:33:00 AM |

It took a day of psyching myself into lancing my own finger. But I did it. That wasn't the worst part of the test. The worst part was squeezing my finger hard enough to get large drops of blood out.

I've been taking between 2000 and 4000 IU's per day and my test came back with my level being 44 ng/mL. Between now and my next test I'll be taking 4000 IU every day. It'll be easier 'cause I got capsules filled with 4000 IU so I only have to take it once a day, one capsule. I'm hoping my level will go up a bit. But I'm happy that my level is up from 16 ng/mL which it was 18 months ago. And I feel better.

Anna
3/25/2009 2:55:00 PM |

baldsue,

Thanks for the report that your level was 44 ng/mL after a taking a dose of 2000-4000 for some time, and especially your earlier test of 16 ng/mL.

My first D3 test was also 44, after about 8 mos of a 2000-3000iU dose of D3, which had me wondering how low my Vit D status was prior to supplementing.  I'm guessing it could have been similar to yours, in the teens or low 20s.  Despite moving to So Cal 13 years ago, I avoided the sun for a long time after a basal cell carcinoma was removed from my nose 10 years ago.  Some aspects of my health got worse then, too.

Lots of little things have improved much since my Vit D level has risen to 70-80 ng/mL, though I can't say for certain that D3 is the only reason.  But I do think it's a significant factor.  I take 5000iU daily now.

David
3/26/2009 12:07:00 AM |

I've been taking 2000 IU for the last 6 months. My test came today and my level was 29... still too low. I am currently a heart disease patient with 6 stents. My HDL before stents was a lousey 33. It is now 42. I will begin today taking 5000 IU for the next six months to see if I can get my levels closer to 60, both HDL and Vit D3.

jellybeanbonanza
9/23/2009 3:26:14 AM |

Late to the party, but I've watched a couple of these by Dr Heaney and Dr Holik. Really great, current information on Vitamin D. I'm glad to see all of the D-related information posted on this blog, I'm finding it very helpful. Thanks!

baldsue
10/2/2009 8:52:49 AM |

Second test results:  75!!!

I've been taking 5000IU of D3.  I think I'll keep at that level of supplementation or alternate days of 4000/5000.  Or maybe I'll go 6 months at 4000 and see what my results are next March.  Not sure of the strategy to take.  Might just keep status quo.

In the last 2 years I've gone from 16 (no supplements) to 44 (3000IU supplement) to 75 (5000IU supplement)!

And I can't remember the last time I had a cold.  It was definitely more than a year ago.  I think it was Jan '07.

Anonymous
3/7/2010 3:00:53 AM |

Order your own D test from Directlabs.com. They will email you the test requisition and then you go to any Labcorp for the blood draw. The results can be viewed on your online directlabs account. $69 for the test.

Flower
3/12/2010 3:16:47 AM |

http://healthy-vitamin.blogspot.com/2010/03/vitamins.html

buy jeans
11/3/2010 7:34:30 PM |

People with cold hands definitely need to pre-warm a hand by any means necessary before using the lancet - hot water, rubbing, heating pad, etc. Swinging the arm in a wide 180Â° arc a few times forces blood into the hand by centrifugal force, then "milking" the hand, then the finger usually helps, too.

Anonymous
1/10/2011 4:31:27 PM |

This is helpful to hear from others. After reading this blog I asked my doctor to add a Vitamin D test to my quarterly lab for hypothyroid. It was 29 and my 88-year-old Dad was 32 (we live in the Northeast).

I started bumping up by graduating up to 10,000 IU. After 4 mos, my serum level D is 54. For the first time ever my HDL is over 50 too. All other numbers (except H1AC) were perfect.

My Dad taking only 4,000 IU per day has yet to be retested.

My husband recently tested at only 20. He has same diet and his multiple has 2,000 IU in it. I asked him to add 5,000 IU per day until our next test in 3 mos.

Zoi
4/18/2011 9:38:14 PM |

This is a very exciting project! My mum, aged 62, just enrolled and is very happy to be part of this. Hopefully this way more information can be gathered about this epidemic and awareness can be raised even a little bit!

Ally
7/10/2011 3:45:21 AM |

To think, I was cnofused a minute ago.

Carlye
7/10/2011 5:32:12 PM |

Haha. I woke up down today. YouÂ’ve cheeerd me up!

Darence
7/11/2011 3:32:14 PM |

Hahahaha. IÂ’m not too brhigt today. Great post!

Related posts

Comments (24) -

Anne

homertobias

Anna

Anonymous

TedHutchinson

jumpow

Jenny

Suzanne

JD

Anna

Valda Redfern

baldsue

Anna

David

jellybeanbonanza

baldsue

Anonymous

Flower

buy jeans

Anonymous

Zoi

Add comment