Track Your Plaque and non-commercialism

If you're a Track Your Plaque Member or viewer, you may know that we have resisted outside commercial involvement. We do not run advertising on the site, we do not allow drug companies to post ads, we do not covertly sponsor supplements. We do this to main the unbiased content of the site.

We've seen too many sites be tempted by the money offered by a drug company only to see content gradually drift towards providing nothing more than cleverly concealed drug advertising. I personally find this deceptive and disgusting. Ads are ads and everyone knows it. But when you subvert content, secretly driven by a commercial agenda, that I find abhorrent.

That said, however, I do wonder if we need the participation of some outside commercial interests to help our members. In other words, many (over half) of the questions and conversations we have with people is about what supplement to take, or what medication to take. While we cannot offer direct medical advice online (nor should we) because of legal and ethical restrictions, I wonder if could facilitate access to products.

Many people struggle, for instance, with trusted sources for l-arginine, vitamin D, fish oil. Other people struggle with finding a heart scan center because of the changing landscape of the CT scanning industry. Could we somehow provide a clear-cut segment of the website that clearly demarcates what is commercial and non-Track Your Plaque-originated, yet at least provides a starting place for more info?

Ideally, we would have personally tried and investigated everything there is out there applicable to the program. But that's simply impossible at this stage.

I feel strongly that we will never run conventional ads on the site. Nor will we ever permit any outside commercial interest to dictate what and how we say something. The internet world is full of places like that. Look at WebMD. I find the site embarassing in the degree of commercial bias there. We will NEVER sell out like that, regardless of the temptation. People with heart disease are all conducting a war with the commercial forces working to profit from them--hospitals, cardiologists, drug companies, medical device companies (yes, even they advertise to the public, e.g., implantable defibrillators--no kidding). Genuine, honest, unbiased information is sorely needed and not from some kook who either knows nothing about real people with real disease, or has a hidden agenda like selling you chelation.

I'd welcome any feedback either through this Blog or through the contact@cureality.com.

Comments (6) -

  • Warren

    4/29/2007 6:02:00 PM |

    I agree with the need for some sort of unbiased but brand/manufacturer-oriented guidance.  I guess my question would be, if this content is not based on your specific experience, what criteria would you apply to determine how to assure some level of credibility?  With advertising, the criteria is generally willingness to pay the price of the advertising.  If you want to maintain higher standards than that, won't it require someone with either understanding or technical expertise or direct experience to assess whether the producer is credible and trustworthy?

    As it stands, I am looking for someone whose opinion I can trust regarding which supplement suppliers to turn to.  I have been impressed and surprised by the degree of your willingness to tell it the way you see it, including naming names of product manufacturers that you have found to supply products that seem to work for your patient population.  I hope you'll keep that up no matter what.  And I'm interested in how this idea develops.

  • Dr. Davis

    4/29/2007 8:31:00 PM |

    Thanks for the helpful thoughts.

    I wonder if a user comment method would work. In other words, say a product manufacturer makes a claim and sells their product to you (Track Your Plaque would not sell it), there will be comments from people who have tried the product and their supplier before.

    Such a system would not be as certain as providing our own stamp of endorsement (which we could still do, of course), but it would encourage an open conversation. Hopefully, any undesirable products would be rapidly identified as such.

    My concern is that, with hundreds or thousands of products out there, we end up saying "We've never tried it" all too often.

  • Eugene

    5/1/2007 3:38:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis for as much time and effort that is put in the TYP program, why not i'am sure the snake oil salesman would not want his product under the gun like people on this progran would do, frank discussions on supplements is not a bad thing as a example i'am the person who asked you about PGX fiber, its called WellBeX and is marketed by Natural Factors, one more example would be i use a insulin mimetic R-alpha lipoic acid with biotin (also a very good antioxidant) i can buy the brand name Insulow or i can use a different brand (Glucophase),for less money that does the same thing, being a type 2 i test all of the time and sometimes go days eating the same thing at the same time i know that i can get between 10 and 12 points with either one.  i know their are a lot of supplements but we only talk about a few, and like i said before why not, my biggest concern on buying supplements are they selling what they say they are selling or is it different item that will not work, or is made up with a different material than is is advertized. why not get some add revenue, their are good products out their, Upsher-Smith Slo Niacin, Endurance's Endur-acin SR both are good nicotinic Acid products, Insulow makes a good product, one more example would be the Vitamin Shoppe sells a  good Vitamin D softgel under their store brand this is a good product, but they also sell under their store brand a no flush Niacin in their heart supplement area , this product is worthless for the TYP program, I would say start with the products, that we know, and expand a little at a time, also how about Direct access testing for blood work, i use Lab Corp to get my NMR lipoprofile i'am sure that their are others full speed ahead, I think increased revenue could have some good outcomes
    Eugene

  • Dr. Davis

    5/1/2007 11:54:00 AM |

    Great thoughts.

    I think, if and when we proceed with such a process, that we:

    1) Have some sort of checklist for approval of quality, price, availability, purity, etc. and provide our stamp of approval.

    2) Convey our comments in addition to info provided by the manufacturer or distributor.

    3) Permit all the Track Your Plaque participants to leave their own comments, much like Amazon does with books.

  • Anonymous

    5/4/2007 3:42:00 AM |

    A record holder in plaque reduction has now been acheived.  What brand of supplements was the member using? What brand of fish oil? This is when a recommendation would be welcomed!!

  • Dr. Davis

    5/4/2007 11:36:00 PM |

    Nothing magical: He used Sam's Club fish oil.

Loading
Lipoprotein(a)--neglected and unappreciated

Lipoprotein(a)--neglected and unappreciated


Lipoprotein(a), or just Lp(a) to its close friends and neighbors, is among the most underappreciated and neglected of causes of coronary plaque. It's the Rodney Dangerfield of lipoproteins.

Lp(a) rarely gets diagnosed before people come to my office. They've often been through the ringer: doctors have thrown their hands up in frustration because of poor response to "standard" treatment (AKA statin drugs); the patient doesn't understand why they might be thin and active yet have the high blood pressure of someone 70 lbs heavier; they have heart disease despite wonderful cholesterol values.

One blood test and the answer becomes clear: They have Lp(a). It explains all these phenomena.

They why don't more physicians order this simple test? Why don't we hear more about this prevalent (1 in 5 people with coronary plaque have it) genetic pattern that accelerates risk for heart disease?

There are a number of reasons. But I believe the most powerful reason is simply that there is no big revenue-generating drug to treat it. Statins reduce LDL cholesterol to the tune of $27 billion dollars a year (2007 revenue). There's no such blockbuster for Lp(a). Of course, Niaspan represents the relatively anemic attempt to commercialize a pharmaceutical treatment for Lp(a), but side-effects and the lack of FDA trials for the Lp(a)-reducing indication have stalled its commercial success. (Efforts to block the flush with various products, by the way, may re-invigorate niacin as a pharmaceutical agent. The drug companies smell money here.)

Another reason for Lp(a)'s unpopularity: Though there are mounds of data that document--without question--that Lp(a) is an important risk for coronary disease and other forms of atherosclerotic disease, we lack treatment trials. For instance, niacin vs. placebo for 5 years, then count the number of heart attacks and deaths. We have numerous, repetitive, overlapping, redundant trials with statins adhering to this design. We have none for niacin and the treatment of Lp(a).

Niacin is also a pain in the neck for your doctor. He/she rapidly tires of the calls about the crazy and disconcerting flushing with niacin. Most are unaware that proper hydration reduces or eliminates the flush for the majority of people. It takes too much time and energy to educate people. (By the way, prescription Niaspan makes no mention of purposeful hydration. They only suggest the nonsensical "Take with a low-fat snack," i.e., snacks that actually counter the therpaeutic effects of niacin. What they should be saying is "take with a high-fat snack" like raw almonds, foods that facilatate the benefits of niacin.)

Should someone concoct a successful pharmaceutical treatment for Lp(a), it will make the news, headlines in health magazines and health sections of the newspaper will blare about how important Lp(a) is. Yet it has been there all along, frustrating people and their physicians.

In the Track Your Plaque experience, Lp(a) clearly 1) correlates with heart scan scores, 2) correlates with progression of heart scan scores without treatment, and 3) poses special challenges for treatment. Interestingly, some of our biggest failures have been with Lp(a), as well as some of our biggest successes. (Our current record holder for the largest percentage reduction in heart scan score has Lp(a).)

If you have coronary plaque, or if there is family risk of heart disease, then Lp(a), in my view, is an absolutely essential factor to test for. Yes, treatment poses challenges. But once you know who your enemy is, then you can focus your efforts on it. Not knowing whether or not you have it leaves your efforts unfocused and generally flawed.

Track Your Plaque Members, be sure to read our in-depth Special Report, Unique Treatments for Lipoprotein(a) Reduction.



Copyright 2008 William Davvis, MD

Comments (2) -

  • Anonymous

    3/9/2008 6:36:00 PM |

    Alka-Seltzer [325 ASA, aqeous] after applesauce [3 TBS].
    High-Fiber snack plus an ASA that won`t be forgotten: It`s in the water you need to wash down the niacin, and the funny taste helps remind you:
    90% compliance if adhered to.
    Not usually required chronically,.. most flushing is "tachyphylactic".
    castelli et al An Interview with the Editor, Am J Cardiol 2005

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 8:53:49 PM |

    Should someone concoct a successful pharmaceutical treatment for Lp(a), it will make the news, headlines in health magazines and health sections of the newspaper will blare about how important Lp(a) is. Yet it has been there all along, frustrating people and their physicians.

Loading
Newsweek, Time, and other fronts for the drug industry

Newsweek, Time, and other fronts for the drug industry

I used to believe that conventional print media--newspapers, magazines--were unbiased, untouchable flames of truth. Perhaps there was a time when this was true, when the young reporter, eager to change the world, uncovered the story that righted some huge wrong.

Those days are drawing to a close.

Today, the once powerful print media are collapsing due to the competition of the cheaper, broader reach of the internet.
Loading