Large new clinical study launched to study. . .niacin


Oxford University has issued a press release announcing plans for a new clinical trial to raise HDL cholesterol and reduce heart attack risk. 20,000 participants will be enrolled in this substantial effort. The agent? Niacin.

How is that new? Well, this time niacin comes with a new spin.

Dr. Jane Armitage, formerly with the Heart Protection Study that showed that simvastatin (Zocor) reduced heart attack risk regardless of starting LDL, is lead investigator. She hopes to prove that niacin raises HDL cholesterol and thereby reduces heart attack risk. But, this time, niacin will be combined with an inhibitor of prostaglandins that blocks the notorious "flushing" effect of niacin.

The majority of Track Your Plaque participants hoping to control or reverse coronary plaque take niacin. Recall that niacin (vitamin B3)is an extremely effect agent that raises HDL, dramatically reduces small LDL, shifts HDL particles into the effective large fraction, reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like IDL and VLDL. Several studies have shown that niacin dramatically reduces heart attack. The HATS Study showed that niacin combined with Zocor yielded an 85-90% reduction in heart attack risk and achieved regression of coronary plaque in many participants.

In our experience, approximately 1 in 20 people will really struggle using niacin. Flushes for these occasional people will be difficult or even intolerable. Should Dr. Armitage's study demonstrate that this new combination agent does provide advantages in minimizing the hot flush effect, that will be a boon for the occasional Track Your Plaque participant who finds conventional niacin intolerable.

But you already have access to niacin, an agent with an impressive track record even without this new study. And you have a reasonably effective prostaglandin inhibitor, as well: aspirin. Good old aspirin is very useful, particularly in the first few months of your niacin initiation to blunt the flush.

Although this study is likely to further popularize niacin and allow its broader use, it's also a method for the drug companies to profit from an agent they know works but is cheap and available.

You don't have to wait. You already have niacin and aspirin available to you.

The dark side of CT heart scans

"I just got a heart scan!" declared Eric to his doctor. He handed the report to him.

"Oh my. Your score is 154." The doctor paused, then looked at Eric with a serious look on his face. "If we're going to understand whether or not you're in danger, you'll need a heart catheterization."


I've seen this happen countless times. How can I say this diplomatically? THIS IS WRONG!! In my view, it's absolutely criminal for this to happen. Physician ignorance, profiteering, whatever--it is wrong.

There's very few reasons why someone who has no symptoms should go directly to the cath lab for a procedure. (A rare exception might be an exceptional quantity of plaque in the left mainstem artery, e.g., >100. This is highly unusual.)

Even a nuclear stress test (e.g., thallium) at this level of scoring is only 10-15% likely to be abnormal. That means 85-90% likelihood of being normal. There's rare reasons to perform a heart catheterization in a person with no symptoms and an entirely normal stress test. The vast majority of people like Eric do not need a heart catheterization to discern risk.

If Eric's doctor had been up-to-date on the published literature on the prognostic value of heart scans, he could have advised Eric what the risks were--without a catheterization. Many doctors simply don't want to be bothered. Or, they opt for the more profitable method--a hospital procedure.

Always discuss your heart scan with your doctor--but be armed with information in case your doctor is uninformed or unscrupulous. Unfortunately, that's not uncommon. The Track Your Plaque program is your advocate, a source for unbiased information.

The dirty little secret about aneurysms

Jake had an abdominal aneurysm identified--by accident.

While getting a CT scan of his abdomen for unexplained abdominal pain, a 4.4 cm aneurysm was discovered. Jake's abdominal pain eventually passed without explanation, but he was left with this aneurysm.

Jake's primary care doctor referred him to a surgeon. "It's too small to require surgery right now. Wait a few years and it'll probably get bigger. When it gets to around 5.5 cm, that'll be the time to operate. Let's schedule an abdominal ultrasound or CT scan every 6 months."

Jake then got himself a heart scan. His high score of 879 then led him to my office. Lipoprotein testing, a stress test, correction of his lipoprotein patterns, changes in lifestyle followed. One year later, Jake's heart scan score was unchanged.

How about his abdominal aneurysm? 4.2 cm--a modest quantity of regression. When Jake's surgeon learned of the change, he just shrugged. "Okay, we'll just watch it from here."

Shockingly, the conversation surrounding aneurysms is just like the one Jake received: Let's just watch it grow until you need surgery.

If you've every seen anyone have abdominal aneurysm surgery, you know it is an awful, painful, barbaric process with high risk for major complications like kidney failure and loss of the legs. Waiting for an aneurysm to grow is a lousy solution. Surgeons point out that, although surgery is imperfect, it's better than the alternative: rupture, which is catastrophic with a 50% chance of dying.

But what about stopping the growth of the aneurysm? Or even reversing, or shrinking, it?

Surgeons say it can't be done. Yet we've done it--many times. And it's not that difficult.

The steps to take are very similar to that in the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque regression, with a few different strategies. Suppression of inflammation, for instance, plays a more important role and blood pressure must be abolutely normal, even during exercise.

More to come on this important topic in the future, including an upcoming Special Report on the www.cureality.com membership website.

Heart scan scores dropping like stones!!

I saw two instances of dramatic coronary plaque regression today.

John, a 53-years old mechanical lift operator, dropped his heart scan score from 479 to 323--a 32% regression of coronary plaque volume!

Eric, a 50-year consulting engineer, dropped his heart scan score from 668 to 580--a 13% reduction.

Both men did nothing special beyond the principles advocated in the Track Your Plaque program. Recall that, without preventive efforts, your heart scan score is expected to increase by 30% per year. Both men are well on their way to freedom from risk of coronary "events".

Two less people to feed the revenue-hungry hospital procedure system! We need many more like them.

Pre-diabetes: An explanation for explosive coronary plaque growth

Art's first CT heart scan in March, 2006 yielded a concerning score of 1336. He felt fine--no chest discomfort, no breathlessness, etc.

Art agreed to take the statin cholesterol drug his primary care doctor prescribed. He also agreed to take the fish oil, niacin, and some of the nutritional supplements that we advised. But Art just couldn't bring himself to make the commitment to lose weight.

At the start of his program, Art--at 5 ft. 8 inches--was 40 lbs overweight (212 lb). This was important since his blood sugar wavered in the pre-diabetic range, going as high as 130 mg. (The American Diabetes Assn. defines diabetes as a blood glucose of 126 mg or greater.)

One year later, Art's lipid and lipoprotein values were corrected to perfection. But he still weighed in at a hefty 209 lbs--essentially no change. His blood sugar likewise hovered in the 120's.

I felt Art need to be prodded, so I asked him to undergo another heart scan. His score: 1935--a 600 point increase, or 45%!

Only now has Art begun to comprehend to power of diabetes and pre-diabetes to fan the flames of plaque growth. Recent published data, in fact, show that the majority of recently diagnosed diabetics already have well-established coronary artery disease.

Don't let this happen to you. Do not dismiss diabetic patterns as they will catch up to you. If Art can lose the 30-40 lbs in the abdominal weight that is creating the diabetic pattern, he will likely succeed in stopping plaque growth. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before his heart attack, stent, or bypass.

Who cares if you're pre-diabetic?

Marta is a smart lady. She's worked in hospital laboratories for the last 23 years and knows many of the ins and outs of lab tests and their implications.

After years of being told that her cholesterol was acceptable, she needed to undergo urgent bypass surgery after experiencing severe breathlessness that proved to be a small warning heart attack at age 57. But this made Marta skeptical of relying on cholesterol to identify heart disease risk.

I met Marta two years after her bypass surgery when she was seeking better answers. And, indeed, she proved to have several concealed sources of heart disease: small LDL particles, Lipoprotein(a), intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL--a very important abnormality that means she is unable to clear dietary fats from her blood), among others. But she was also mildly diabetic with a blood sugar of 131 mg (normal < or = 100 mg). This had not been previously recognized.

As I'm a cardiologist and our program focuses on reversal and control of coronary plaque, I asked Marta to return to her primary care doctor to continue the conversation about diabetes. She was a bit frightened but followed through.

"Well, you're not urinating excessively. And your long-term measure of blood sugar, hemoglobin A1C, is still normal. I wouldn't worry about it. We'll just watch it."

I guess I should know better. What the poor primary care doctor doesn't know is that pre-diabetes and mild diabetes are potent risks for heart disease. In fact, some of the most explosive rates of plaque growth occur when these patterns are present. It's well established that risk for heart attack in a diabetic is the same as that of someone who's already suffered a prior heart attack--very high risk, in other words.

Marta's primary care doctor's advice would be like inquiring about cancer and the doctor says "Let's just wait until it's metastatic--then we'll start to worry." Of course, this is insane.

Pre-diabetes and mild diabetes should not be ignored or just "watched". Even though the blood sugar itself may not be high enough to endanger you, the hidden patterns underlying your body's unresponsiveness to insulin creates a torrent of hidden coronary risk.

For better answers, Track Your Plaque members can read "Shutting Off Metabolic Syndrome" at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_dp001metabolic.asp on the www.cureality.com website. ("Metabolic syndrome" is the name commonly given to the constellation of abnormalities associated with pre-diabetes and diabetes.)

Don't get smug!

It may sound silly, but after someone succeeds in stopping their heart scan score from increasing or reduces their score, I warn them to not get smug. Let me explain.

I'll tell you about Jack. I met Jack a few years ago after he had a heart scan at age 39. His score: 1441! A score this high at his age obviously puts him in the 99th percentile. Also recall that a score >1000 carries a 25% annual risk for heart attack.

This captured Jack's attention. At the start, his lipoproteins were disastrous with numerous abnormal patterns. Jack committed to the program. After one year, his lipoproteins were around 80-90% corrected towards perfection. He'd lost 27 lbs, was exercising six days a week, and felt great.

Jack's repeat score one year later: 1107--over a 300 point drop! A huge success. He was ecstatic.

Unfortunately, work and life in general distracted him. Jack allowed himself to drift back to old habits, indulging in fast food 2 or 3 times a week, slacking on exercise such that it became sporadic, half-hearted efforts, and regained 15 lbs. He even failed to show up for appointments and we lost contact for two years.

One day, Jack simply decided to see where he stood, so he got himself another heart scan. The score: 2473--over a doubling from his reduced score.

The message: Long-term consistency is key, even after you've achieved control over your score. Stick with your program--and don't get smug!

Holidays are dangerous!

If you're on holiday from work today, make sure you're not on holiday from your health, too.

Too often, people come back to the office telling me that the holidays simply got out of hand--cookouts, picnics, family gatherings, etc.--and they simply couldn't avoid overeating, overdrinking, sitting around--and gaining 3-5 lbs in a weekend. (Our record is 10 lbs in a weekend!)

I don't want to harp on this issue and ruin your holiday, but I can't stress how important it is that you don't allow this to happen to you. Weight gained in a brief space of time has exceptionally destructive effects. Ever see the movie "Super Size Me"? It's an entertaining and well-done yet graphic portrayal of the damaging effects of rapid weight gain.

Enjoy your time off. Relax, enjoy your family and friends--but continue to pay attention to choosing the right foods, don't overeat, take time out to do something (or several things) physical. It'll pay off hugely in the long run.

More on carotid plaque...

Although not a perfect test, carotid ultrasound is an exceptionally easy and accessible test. Using high-frequency sound, clear images are available for most people.

I say it's not perfect because the way it's done in 2006 makes it a non-quantitative test. It is a qualitative test. In other words, you may find out that there's a 30% blockage ("stenosis"), at the far end of the common carotid artery on the right side. Unfortunately, this gives you an isolated measure of diameter of the plaque compared to the artery. What it does not tell you is what the volume of the entire plaque is. That's a far more accurate measure (and one that is incorporated into your heart scan score, by the way).

Nonetheless, carotid ultrasound is easy, very safe, and available in most hospitals and many clinics. One difficulty: most insurance companies will not allow you to go through a carotid ultrasound scan as a "screening" procedure, i.e., a test just to see if you have a carotid plaque. They will generally pay if you're having symptoms of a stroke or "mini-stroke" (transient ischemic attack, or "TIA"), have an abnormal sound in your carotid ultrasound detected by your doctor (a carotid "bruit"), or some other unusual indications. Sometimes, a resourceful physician will muster up a diagnosis based on something in your history (e.g., left arm numbness, a common and often benign complaint that can also signal stroke).

Another option are the mobile scanners or some hospital services that offer carotid screening, usually for a very modest price. Drawback: Sporadic availability, difficulty in obtaining serial scans, and imprecise reporting since it's viewed as a screening test. But it's better than nothing.

My hope is that, as screening services using safe imaging techniques like ultrasound propagate and increase in direct availability to the public, you'll be able to circumvent the obstacles imposed by your insurance company and even, sometimes, your doctor. But try your doctor first.

Carotid plaque can be shrunk

Rose, a 64-year old woman, just had a 70% carotid blockage identified by a screening ultrasound. When the result was given to her doctor, he prescribed Lipitor and told Rose that an ultrasound would be required every year. She would need carotid surgery, an "endarterectomy", if the blockage worsened.

"Can't I reduce the amount of blockage I have?" asked Rose.

"No. Once you've got it, it doesn't get any better."


Is this true? Once you've got carotid plaque, you can only expect it to get worse and it can't be reduced?

This is absolutely not true. In fact, compared to coronary plaque, carotid plaque is easier to reduce!

Of course, the Track Your Plaque program is designed to help you control or reduce coronary plaque. But, in our experience, people who have both coronary and carotid plaque will show far greater and faster reduction of carotid plaque. Dramatic reductions are sometimes seen. I've personally seen 50-70% blockages reduced to <30% on many occasions.

The requirements to achieve reduction of carotid plaque are very similar to the approach we use to reduce coronary plaque. One difference is that hypertension may play a more important role with carotid plaque and needs to be reduced confidently to the normal range before carotid plaque is controlled.

I find it shocking that the attitude like the one provided by this physician continue to prevail. Unlike coronary plaque, which has a relatively small body of scientific literature documenting how it can be reduced, carotid plaque actually enjoys a substantial clinical literature. Part of the reason is that the carotids are more easily imaged using ultrasound. (Heart structures can be seen with ultrasound, but not the coronary arteries.)

Numerous agents have been shown to contribute to reduction of carotid plaque: statin drugs, niacin, fish oil, the anti-diabetic "TZD" drugs (Actos, Avandia), several anti-hypertensive drugs, vitamin E, pomegranate juice, and several others.

It outrages me to hear stories like this. Rose is not the only one.

Don't accept the flip dismissals or the over-enthusiastic referral for carotid procedures. Insist on a conversation about plaque regression.


Note: Although I am a vigorous advocate of atherosclerotic plaque regression, this does not mean that if you have a severe (70% blockage or greater), or if there are symptoms from your carotid disease, that you should engage in a program of reversal. You must always take the advice of your doctor if your safety is in question.
Watch your fish oil labels

Watch your fish oil labels

A quick quiz:

How much omega-3 fatty acids, EPA + DHA, are in each capsule of fish oil with the composition shown on the label below:





If you said 1340 mg (894 mg + 446 mg), sorry, but you're wrong. There are 670 mg EPA + DHA per capsule.

Did you notice that the composition, or "Supplement Facts," lists the contents of two capsules? Rather than the usual one capsule contents, this product label lists two capsules.

I don't know why some manufacturers or distributors do this. However, I have seen many people tripped up by this kind of labeling, taking half the omega-3 fatty acids they thought they were taking. This can be important when you are trying to obtain a specific dose of EPA + DHA to reduce triglycerides, reduce Lp(a), control abnormal heart rhythms, reduce bipolar mood swings, or other important effects.

I liken this to pulling up to a gas station where the sign says gasoline for $1.25. Wow! Can't beat that! You then find out that it's really $1.25 for a half-gallon, or $2.50 a gallon.

In truth, the labeling is accurate; it's just very easy to not notice the two capsule composition.

Comments (36) -

  • Jenny

    12/17/2009 2:43:18 PM |

    The supplement business, completely unregulated, is a magnet for scoundrels. The label is nothing compared to the deceptions they practice in what they put into the capsule and pill. Over and over again lab testing shows the pills either don't contain what you are paying for or contain dangerous contaminants.

    This probably explains why so many studies find that taking vitamin supplements increases mortality in large populations. The toxic load of the pills is probably to blame.

  • jtkeith

    12/17/2009 4:27:25 PM |

    This is a good point, and one I've certainly seen.  

    On a side note, 670mg of EPA/DHA  per capsule is higher than pretty much anything I can find.  500 is more like the upper limit.  Can anyone provide brand guidance about where to find these super potent versions?  

    And another thing I've long wondered is if there are any significant differences between one fish oil and another?  For example, some tout that the fish oil comes from wild salmon, which is better because... ?

  • Dennis

    12/17/2009 6:26:10 PM |

    Interesting article. I have some articles that I've written on fish oil too on my website http://myherbalsupplement.com - I'd love if you checked it out.

  • sdkidsbooks

    12/17/2009 7:27:40 PM |

    Dr. D,

    A bit off this topic, but I was wondering what your thoughts are on the latest research posted yesterday on Crestor.  They are now recommending Crestor for those with normal lipids who have "other" factors for potential heart disease.  It was shown to prevent heart attacks and strokes for those participants. Is this another BIG PHARMA scam?

  • gsbuck

    12/17/2009 8:25:17 PM |

    what would be an eqivilant dose of Flax seed oil if one is currently taking fish oil (2,600IU's of EPA+DEA )

  • Kamila

    12/17/2009 11:11:37 PM |

    I've noticed this too, Dr Davis.  There is some justification with regard to splitting doses in order to make the capsule size more palatable.  But, oftentimes there does appear to be deliberate obfuscation in order to make the purchase price appear more attractive.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/17/2009 11:30:47 PM |

    Gsbuck--

    3 gallons.

    Just kidding. So little of the linolenic acid in flaxseed oil is converted to DHA that it's impossible to raise your blood level of EPA + DHA using flaxseed oil.

    The claims made by some marketers of flaxseed oil as an omega-3 fatty acid source are simply untrue.

    Nonetheless, flaxseed oil is a wonderful oil with benefits all of its own, just not EPA or DHA blood levels.

  • preserve

    12/18/2009 12:59:14 AM |

    "I don't know why some manufacturers or distributors do this."

    Profit optimization / discriminatory pricing.  Charge illiterates a higher price than literates.

  • Hans Schrauwen

    12/18/2009 10:15:14 AM |

    And what about the claims that     Omega3 from algae is just as good ? They claim fish have DHA because they get it from algae anyway, so why not go direct? If nothing else it has less environmental impact, and if cold-subtracted potentially less oxidized :
    http://www.v-pure.com/

    I take it myself and I never have those "fish burps" from it although it tastes exactly like all other fish-oils.

  • Rob

    12/18/2009 3:47:57 PM |

    I've only recently started following your blog and I dunno if this is the most appropriate place to ask, but what (generally speaking) would be a recommended daily EPA/DHA (or total Omega-3) dosage?

    I've been taking a krill oil supplement for several months, but the dosage is a fraction of that offered by the capsule you used for an example in this post.  So that makes me wonder if I'm taking enough of the supplement to even make a real difference.

  • Carolyn Thomas

    12/18/2009 5:47:20 PM |

    This helps to explain my pet peeves about the supplement industry - as Jenny says, it's a completely unregulated industry.

    In fact, there is no legal requirement for what's listed on the label to even match what's actually inside the capsule.  As long as manufacturers don't claim to 'cure disease', they can pretty well say what they like, at least until proposed industry regulation hits in the next two years - unless the industry's very powerful lobby groups are successful in squashing regulation, as they are of course trying to do.

  • Anonymous

    12/19/2009 1:25:49 AM |

    How can one enjoy raw Almonds and Hazelnuts (my fave) without overdosing on Omega 6?

    Also, any thoughts on whether monocytes reflect too much Omega 6?  I read something on this by Dr. Glen Aukerman regarding lipomas.  He claims lipomas and uterine fibroids are caused by excessive Omega 6 and recommends no nuts at all, no flaxseed, no poultry.  My monocytes tested at 10 which was not flagged as abnormal -- he claims 3.5 is ideal.  I have lipomas and fibroids. My CRP is so low it does not register and ESR was zero. I've never heard this monocyte theory before.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/19/2009 1:32:47 AM |

    The key with nutritional supplements is to be an informed consumer.

    The WRONG response is: Because I can't always trust the supplement manufacturers, I'll turn to prescription agents (like prescription fish oil).

    I'd personally only turn in the direction of prescription fish oil if I were interested in STICKING IT TO MY FELLOW HEALTHCARE CONSUMERS! I am not, so I prefer that we all educate ourselves on what preparations are reliable and safe.

  • Anonymous

    12/19/2009 2:57:36 AM |

    Dear Author heartscanblog.blogspot.com !
    Clearly, I thank for the help in this question.

  • Healthy Oil Planet.com

    12/19/2009 5:26:49 PM |

    It's really important to look closely at the labels to determine exactly how much ingredient you're getting per dose.  The same applies to food labels as these can be misleading if one doesn't analyze the label closely.

  • homertobias

    12/20/2009 7:44:57 PM |

    Dr Davis

    It is worse than that.  Alot of brands, (Costco is the worst), not only trip you up on serving size but also do the following: Total omega 3: (including DHA/EPA) 375mg.
    So how much DHA/EPA here?  Who knows!  When you look down at the ingredients you will find anchovies, Vit E, and SOY.  Which is cheaper, anchovies or ALA from soy.  And who knows how much Omega 6.

  • Anonymous

    12/20/2009 9:23:45 PM |

    Also be on the lookout for labels that don't mention the EPA/DHA ratios. I've seen some cheaper brands just list 'Omega 3s', with no breakdown.  And if interested in form used (ethyl ester vs triglyceride) you'll have to read the label closely too -- but quite often this isn't even mentioned.

    Although that leads to another point: what is the optimal EPA/DHA ratio as far as reducing heart disease risks?  I don't think this has really been studied that closely.

  • Mindscaper

    12/21/2009 6:00:22 PM |

    I read so much on nutritional interventions for CHD and atherosclerosis that I sometimes lose the source of my information. Sorry if this is the wrong attribution but I think it was Art Ayers (might have been Stephen Guyenet) who blogged about the dangers of using fish oil as a source of Omega 3s. One caveat is that  fish oil oxidizes very easily on the shelf and is likely to also do so in the warm temperatures within the body--therefore it could contribute to inflammation rather than prevent it. If this is true, it is a serious consideration for those who already have atherosclerosis and are attempting to reverse it by using anti-inflammatory foods and supplements. What do you think about this? Should we be getting our omega 3s and 6s from other sources? If so, which?

    I also wonder about disturbing the appropriate balance of omega 3s and 6s by eating either walnuts, almonds, or sunflower seeds daily to help eliminate excessive plaque. So many conflicting ideas--what is one to believe and do?

    Thanks for all the information you generously provide.

  • Judy B

    12/22/2009 2:00:31 AM |

    Is there a search function on this site?

  • Mindscaper

    12/23/2009 3:05:39 AM |

    Ted, Thanks very much for your detailed and informative post. I intend to follow-up by reading your suggested list. Your post is very helpful in clearing up some confusion I was experiencing.Just rereading Stephan's posts go a long way to solidify my understanding of inflammatory processes resulting from chronic overindulgence in excess omega 6s, refined carbs,etc. Ironically, I have been conscientiously attempting to follow the best advice and practices concerning CVD since my father died in the 1970s at the age of 48 after 2 heart attacks and a series of strokes.

    Unfortunately, it turns out that the "best advice" was almost all certainly wrong and in some cases fraudulent. I succumbed to the very disease I thought I was avoiding by my "healthy" lifestyle. The best thing I had going for me had been a  complete  avoidance of doctors until my totally unexpected heart attack last year. At that point my life was saved by Western medicine but I was literally hijacked by the medical system. Because I had insurance I was given an unnecessary $17,000 helicopter ride, two angioplasty procedures, a week's confinement in a hospital and 4 stents--(one of them to replace a botched procedure that caused a vessel dissection). Subsequently, I was placed on statins,plavix, ace inhibitors, and beta blockers for at least a year.

    My intent is to get off of these as soon as possible and to that end I'm seeing an integrative medicine D.O. at the University of Maryland in addition to my cardiologist. She is supportive of my anti-inflammatory diet, antioxidents, vitamin D3  and amino acids, Q-10, and  NO enhancers. I've made her my primary care doctor so she can help me communicate with my cardiologist who I overheard saying (while I was being wheeled in on a gurney "here's a person who should never eat another egg for the rest of her life". How can these MD's be so indoctrinated and misinformed? It is mind-boggling to me. However, once a captive within the system it is extremely difficult to extracate oneself. I was told before I left the hospital that if I missed one dose of Plavix I could cause a clot to form and could die. I was not told that there are other natural platelet anticoagulants that work very well. I was also told that it is virtually impossible to reverse atherosclerosis by nutracueticals and lifestyle changes. It has been an eye opening process to learn differently from doing my own research.
    Again. . . thanks for the information. It will keep me busy for the next little while. Cee

  • Adolfo David

    12/23/2009 6:40:02 AM |

    Dear Dr Davis, I have seen some people criticize your TC scan program because of this might increase cancer risk. So I believe you may be interested in an opposite view, since low dose radiation can be healthy and good based on the phenomenon of hormesis – "a dose response phenomenon whereby a substance that in a high dose inhibits, or is toxic to, a biological process will, in a much smaller dose, stimulate (or protect) that same process."

    CT Scans May Reduce Rather than
    Increase the Risk of Cancer
    http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/scott.pdf

  • TedHutchinson

    12/25/2009 1:47:43 PM |

    @ Judy B
    If you go to the Heartscanblog home page you will find on the left hand side of the black bar at the very top of the page, a searchbox.

    But that only searches Dr Davis blogs.
    It doesn't search the comments.
    Some of the readers here are very informed and often there are interesting points raised in the comments that add to the valuable information in the blog.
    So to search the blog and the comments I use
    Google advanced search and enter the Heartscanblog URL
    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
    in the search filter box
    Search within a site or domain:

    If you are searching for a post or comment that was recent then select an option from the
    Date, usage rights, numeric range, and more filter menu.

    To speed up searching through the results for the information you want then using you keyboard keys
    Ctrl F brings up a new searchbox, enter the word/phrase you are looking for in this box and then you can quickly skim through each of the occasions that word/phrase appears here.

  • bestrate

    1/4/2010 6:53:02 PM |

    Regarding Rob's question (way up at the top) about fish oil dosages, I too have been wondering about that.  I did find a very fascinating compilation summarizing the opinions of experts on proper dosages which I have bookmarked at (see http://www.buy-fish-oil.com/how-much-fish-oil-dosage-per-day-should-i-take/ )  It was particularly instructive to learn how fish oil has been used in extreme cases of brain failure, heart failure, kidney failure and liver failure such as the treatment and remarkable recovery of the coal miner who survived the Sago mine disaster.  Fascinating.

  • Health Test Dummy

    1/13/2010 7:41:20 PM |

    I recently bought one out of necessity. It has Caramel Coloring added!!!! CARAMEL COLORING???!!!!

    I am indeed perturbed.

  • Anonymous

    1/26/2010 1:36:39 PM |

    "The supplement business, completely unregulated, is a magnet for scoundrels. The label is nothing compared to the deceptions they practice in what they put into the capsule and pill. Over and over again lab testing shows the pills either don't contain what you are paying for or contain dangerous contaminants."

    As a recent subscriber to http://www.consumerlab.com/ I find that for the most part supplements have in them what they claim...and are free of contaminants.  You COULD generally buy supplements from certain dependable sources and be safe doing so.  I don't work in the industry.

  • Term papers

    1/26/2010 3:42:22 PM |

    I notice that the composition, or "Supplement Facts," lists the contents of two capsules Rather than the usual one capsule contents, this product label lists two capsules.

  • Marek Doyle

    2/6/2010 9:23:22 PM |

    Definitely worth buying a good quality fish oil supplement from a manufacturer you trust - and, ate least, taste the oil thats in your capsule before gobbling them down.

    Reference gsbuck's question above, it is difficult to create an exact equivalent between fish oils and flaxseed oils because of the way they are handled in the body. Flaxseed provides a lot of ALA, a plant omega-3s, which needs to be converted in the body into EPA/DHA, the 'active' omega 3s. In healthy people, around 16% of ALA is converted into EPA/DHA. So if you take 10g flaxseed oil, thats 8000mg of ALA, converts to 1280mg EPA/DHA. This is what you would find in around 4 grams of normal fish oil. But... older people, those with chronic disease, those with nutritional deficiency, etc, will never convert very effectively and require fish oils.

    I have discussed the benefits of fish oils vs flaxseed oil here.

  • Anonymous

    2/10/2010 6:04:09 AM |

    nice post. thanks.

  • Anonymous

    6/5/2010 2:57:33 PM |

    Hi im new on here, I stumbled upon this forum I find It absolutely useful & it has helped me alot. I hope to give something back and guide other users like its helped me.

    Thank You, See Ya Around.

  • Anonymous

    6/7/2010 6:28:07 AM |

    Hi-ya i am fresh on here, I hit upon this forum I have found It very accessible and it has helped me out a lot. I should be able to give something back & assist other users like it has helped me.

    Thanks, See Ya Later

  • Anonymous

    6/13/2010 7:50:15 AM |

    What's Happening i am new here. I came accross this forum I have found It positively accommodating and it's helped me out a great deal. I hope to contribute & help others like its helped me.

    Thank You, See You Around

  • Anonymous

    6/15/2010 10:56:17 AM |

    Howdy i am fresh on here, I came accross this board I find It very accessible and it's helped me out so much. I hope to give something back and help other users like its helped me.

    Thank You, Catch You Around.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 7:33:52 PM |

    I don't know why some manufacturers or distributors do this. However, I have seen many people tripped up by this kind of labeling, taking half the omega-3 fatty acids they thought they were taking. This can be important when you are trying to obtain a specific dose of EPA + DHA to reduce triglycerides, reduce Lp(a), control abnormal heart rhythms, reduce bipolar mood swings, or other important effects.

  • Serdna

    2/14/2011 10:01:50 AM |

    Well, it seems to me that this is the label of the fish oil I consume. Maybe I am a little naive, but I just interpreted this label as a strong recommendation to take 2 softgels a day at a minimum and that they would have done a twice greater softgel if it could still be swallowed.

Loading