Blast triglycerides

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

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

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

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

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

Cheerios: Prescription required?

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


Can you say "sugar"?

Cheerios and heart health


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

The FDA says that the Cheerios' package claims of:

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

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

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

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

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

"Placebos are frequently of value"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


From Heart Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Emanuel Goldberger, MD
1951

Iodine is not salt

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

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


Sodium = iodine


Of course, they are two entirely unrelated things.

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

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

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

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

"You can't reduce coronary plaque"

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

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

Who's right here?

The commenter is right; the cardiologist is wrong.

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

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

Welcome to the new age.

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

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

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

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

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

Lethal lipids

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

Low HDL--generally less than 50 mg/dl

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"Get regressive"

6. May 2009 William Davis (0)
This caught my eye:



Niaspan, prescription niacin, now sold by Abbott Laboratories, is now promoting its advantages in regressing coronary plaque:



In patients with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypercholesetgerolemia, Niaspan (niacin), in combination with a bile acid-binding resin, is indicated to slow progression or promote regression of atherosclerotic disease.



And the new slogan: "Get regressive."



Interestingly, the new marketing campaign is based on relatively old data. They base this new claim on 3 studies:



1) Cholesterol-Lowering Atherosclerosis Study (CLAS)--a 1987

CRP House of Cards

4. May 2009 William Davis (15)
Lew has coronary plaque with a heart scan score of 393. At age 53, that's in the 90th percentile (higher score than 90% of men in his age group).

On our search for causes of his coronary plaque, we identify low HDL of 41 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 202 mg/dl, small LDL (83% of total), calculated LDL of 133 mg/dl, and severe vitamin D deficiency with a starting blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 19 ng/ml.

His c-reactive protein: 4.1 mg/dl--above the cut-off of 2.0 mg/dl that the pharmaceutical industry is targeting as a mandate for statin therapy, particularly given the JUPITER data.

Lew instead eliminates wheat and other small LDL-provoking foods and, as a result, loses 28 lbs in 3 months; adds omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil; supplements vitamin D sufficient to increase his blood level to 70 ng/ml.

Along with dramatic correction of his starting abnormalities, his c-reactive protein: 0.4 mg/dl--no statin drug.

In my view, increased CRP is nothing more than a surrogate for the inflammatory phenomena that arise from high-carbohydrate diets, overweight, and small LDL. Correct those and CRP drops off a cliff. In fact, it is exceptionally rare for CRP to not drop to very low levels following this formula.

I believe that CRP is one more item on the list of reasons--the house of cards--the pharmaceutical industry is building to persuade us to take more and more statin drugs. LDL not low enough? Take more statin. Diabetic with low cholesterol? Take a statin. Inflammation? Take a statin.

Enough already.

At-home blood tests

2. May 2009 William Davis (6)
Our at-home blood tests are proving a hit.

So far, vitamin D is the number one most popular test, no surprise.

Second--to my surprise--is DHEA. I would have predicted it would have been thyroid testing.

Our male and female hormone panels are also proving popular.

I've personally been using the thyroid and vitamin D testing to monitor my levels. I increased my Armour thyroid based on a low free T3 value, while my vitamin D was perfect at 77 ng/ml on 8000 units vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) per day.

The process of performing the blood spots is straightforward. The finger pricks are virtually painless using the automatic spring-loaded finger stick devices:





The number of blots to make depends on how many tests you'd like. Just a vitamin D test requires 2 blots. If 6 or more tests are ordered at a time, then all 12 blots should be made. (Two spring-loaded lancets are provided in each kit.)





If you are interested in any of our at-home blood tests, go here.

Our own Heart Hawk has posted an editorial on about blood spot testing on Health Central:

Simple, affordable home blood testing is a real game-changer in the arena of informed, self-directed healthcare. For the first time broad access to home blood testing, on a scale similar to that enjoyed by persons who routinely test their blood sugar, is available to virtually everyone and it removes doctors as the gatekeepers of these tests. Even private insurance companies and Medicare are beginning to understand the potential for improving healthcare and decreasing costs and are slowly beginning to expand coverage of home blood testing much as they do for diabetics or persons taking anti-coagulants.

"Help keep your family goiter free"

1. May 2009 William Davis (10)
People ask, "If I need iodine, should I go back to iodized salt?"

First of all, how did this notion of iodized salt originate?

In 1924, J. Edgar Hoover was appointed head of the FBI, Marlon Brando and Doris Day were born, and Calvin Coolidge was elected President of the United States. Half of American households had a car, while 1 in 4 Americans were illiterate.



In the 1920s, cities were a fraction of their current size and a third of the U.S. population, or 36 million people, lived in small rural communities.

Goiters were also wildly prevalent in 1924. Up to a third of the population in some areas of the country, particularly the Midwest, suffered from goiters, thyroid glands that enlarged due to lack of iodine.

Goiters were not only unsightly, but sometimes grotesque, causing a visible bulge in the front of the neck. Occasionally, they would grow so big that it compressed adjacent structures, like the trachea, and would have to be surgically removed. Goiters were commonly associated with thyroid dysfunction, especially low thyoid or hypothyroidism, that resulted in low IQ's in schoolchildren, debilitation in adults. Women of childbearing age delivered retarded children.

So iodine deficiency in early 20th century America was a big problem. How to solve this enormous public health problem in a large nation without television, few radios, no internet, with a largely rural and often illiterate population?

Thus was iodized salt born, a simple, technologically available solution that could be implemented on a large scale nationwide at low cost. The FDA chose this route in 1924, figuring that it was the best way to ensure that most Americans could obtain sufficient iodine through liberal use of iodized salt. Public health officials urged Americans to use salt. Morton's salt label proudly bore the slogan "Help keep your family goiter free!"

It worked. Goiters largely became a thing of the past.

How about today? The American Heart Association recommends limiting salt, recently announcing that they would like to limit intake to 1500 mg per day. The American Medical Association has been lobbying the FDA to set lower salt limit guidelines. The FDA has been clamping down on food manufacturers to reduce the quantity of salt in processed foods.

Why limit salt? The concern is that there are segments of the population (not all) that are salt sensitive, particularly African Americans, people with certain genetic forms of high blood pressure, conditions that cause water retention, and any degree of heart or kidney failure. Salt in these peoplem, in fact, can be disastrous.
So adding iodine to salt was the solution to epidemic goiter. And it worked.

But salt is not a perfect solution, just one that served its purpose back in 1924. What we need is a 21st century solution.
You will find that in the various iodine supplements at your health food store. My favorite is kelp--inexpensive, available, and a form that mimics the way Japanese people obtain iodine (though by eating seaweed, rather than with tablets).


Image of kelp courtesy Wikipedia
Letter from the insurance company

Letter from the insurance company

18. March 2011 William Davis (24)
Claudia got this letter from her health insurance company:

Dear Ms. ------,

Based on a recent review of your cholesterol panel of January 12, 2011, we feel that you should strongly consider speaking to your doctor about cholesterol treatment.

Reducing cholesterol values to healthy levels has been shown to reduce heart attack risk . . .

Okay. So the health insurer wants Claudia to take a cholesterol drug in the hopes that it will reduce their exposure to the costs for her future heart catheterization, angioplasty and stent, or bypass surgery. This is understandable, given the extraordinary costs of such hospital services, typically running from $40,000 for a several hour-long outpatient catheterization procedure, to as much as $200,000 for a several day long stay for coronary bypass surgery.

So what's the problem?

Here are Claudia's most recent lipid values:

LDL cholesterol 196 mg/dl
HDL 88 mg/dl
Triglycerides 37 mg/dl
Total cholesterol 291 mg/dl

By the criteria followed by her health insurer, both total and LDL cholesterol are much too high. Note, of course, that LDL cholesterol was a calculated value, not measured.

Here are Claudia's lipoproteins, drawn simultaneously with her lipids:

LDL particle number 898 nmol/L
Small LDL particle number less than 90 nmol/L (Values less than 90 are not reported by Liposcience)

LDL particle number is, by far and away, the best measure of LDL particles, an actual count of particles, rather than a guesstimate of LDL particles gauged by measuring cholesterol in the low-density fraction of lipoproteins (i.e., LDL cholesterol). It is also measured and is highly reproducible.

To convert LDL particle number in nmol/L to an LDL cholesterol-like value in mg/dl, divide by ten (or just drop the last digit).

Claudia's measured LDL is therefore 89 mg/dl--54% lower than the crude calculated LDL suggests.

This is because virtually all of Claudia's LDL particles are large, with little or no small. This situation throws off the crude assumptions built into the LDL calculation, making it appear that she has very high LDL cholesterol.

Do you think that Big Pharma advertises this phenomenon?
Tags :

Comments (24) -

  • Anonymous

    3/18/2011 1:49:34 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I think total cholesterol should be 290, perhaps, and not 29?

    I have started using the lipoprofile in my practice.  Patients with relatively normal lipid profiles are startled with the results.  Getting them to make any changes is another thing, but I will keep trying.

    Teresa

  • Anne

    3/18/2011 7:42:37 AM |

    I live in the UK under the National Health Service but I also  have private medical insurance. I know that neither my private medical insurance company, nor the NHS itself, know my cholesterol numbers - they are known only to the lab, my doctors and me. How is it that patient information, which should be confidential, is given to insurance companies ? I find that a very worrisome aspect of this.

  • Kris @ Health Blog

    3/18/2011 8:08:05 AM |

    I find it kind of strange how obsessed american doctors are with cholesterol levels, in my country (Iceland) this is not such a big deal.

    It's almost as if the doctors in America are going out of their way to find something wrong with their patient so that they can treat it.

    For example high cholesterol, thyroid disorders. I pretty much never hear people talk about those things here.

  • Anonymous

    3/18/2011 11:55:23 AM |

    and when she refuses to do as ordered, her insurance company will find out about that, and will then terminate her coverage. Anybody want to make a bet? So much for privilege and confidentiality in the ole US of A.

  • Peter

    3/18/2011 1:29:41 PM |

    Seems very odd, I've had health insurance fornforty years, and they've never given me any advice or indication that they read my lab results.

  • Marg

    3/18/2011 2:22:16 PM |

    Some insurance companies routinely require physical examinations before they will write life insurance and are happy to find any reason not to write the insurance. Could this have been a life insurance company?

  • Galina L.

    3/18/2011 2:33:23 PM |

    What do you think is the best line of defense for the patient? My husband has similar calculated LDL - 181, the rest of numbers are excellent and he is in a very good health at 50 years old. Blood pressure is excellent(115/65), pulse is 45 at rest, fasting BS is 76. Our doctor admits it, but recommends Lipitor anyway. Our health insurance is about to be changed and it makes me worry about perspective pressure from insurance people on my husband to take that Lipitor.

  • Anonymous

    3/18/2011 2:37:48 PM |

    How does an individual give honest answers on health questionaires when applying for new or additional life or health insurance?  If they ask my PCP they would be told that I am low risk for heart attack.   If they look at my CT scan score they would see that I am in the 90th percentile - high risk.
    These are hypothetical questions at this point but my inclination would be to base my answer on my PCP's opinion rather than my calcium score, in part because medical insurance does not cover CT scans (apparently because they don't consider them to be a reliable predictor of risk) and in part because I have taken steps to significantly reduce my risk.

  • Anonymous

    3/18/2011 2:41:21 PM |

    Let's name names!  I have coverage by United Health Care through an employer.  I have gotten several letters in the past couple of years telling me I NEED this test, or that that test, to maintain my good health!  [However, never anything about the value of lipoprofile testing!]

    I consider this an abhorrent practice, an invasion of my privacy, and totally reject their "advice".  Advice should be coming from my doctor, and in fact it is.  I don't need their nurse "case manager" nor this advocacy for excessive testing.

    There's nothing like a letter from an insurance company to raise blood pressure!

    madcook

  • Barbara

    3/18/2011 4:35:25 PM |

    It is very disturbing to me that 1) her health insurance has access to her medical records and 2) that a for-profit organization is getting involved in her healthcare. Having moved from Australia about five years ago, everything about American health care disturbs me. I trust no one; they all seem to be desiring a profit and therefore paperwork is their main concern, not patient care, health, or longevity.

  • Jonathan

    3/18/2011 6:31:50 PM |

    My last test showed calculate LDL at 208, however the one from three months ago was "directly measured lipid" and showed 263 LDL direct, so might the calculated version be wrong in either direction?  I have pattern A and am FH.

  • susan

    3/18/2011 6:53:21 PM |

    I'm for naming names too!  I have Aetna health insurance through my employer. I don't get letters from them, but I get emails. Just today, I told my email program to automatically delete any further emails from the "Simple Steps to a Healthier Life" program. Plus whenever I sign into the online portal, I get nagged to have all kinds of tests, fill out questionnaires, and join health improvement programs.  I got so tired of the demand that I "fill out a health assessment questionnaire" I finally gave in, hoping it would be removed from the page. It just opened a new can of worms: now I have a half dozen new "suggestions" on my "to do list". Bah humbug!

    I'm of the "live and let live" school.  Why go looking for trouble?  As long as I'm not having symptoms, I feel no need to undergo all of these tests.

    Thank God my doctor is beginning to understand that I'm not going to be taking any of those Pharma-pushed poisons just because my lab results don't meet someone's criteria. Once again, I say Bah humbug!

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/18/2011 7:15:53 PM |

    Thanks for catching that, Teresa.

    It is indeed an eye-opener, isn't it?

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/18/2011 7:17:42 PM |

    Anne and Kris--

    Fascinating non-American perspectives.

    Insurance companies have incredible info on us. I'm always surprised more is not made of this issue.

    Remember: The more they know, the better they are at denying coverage.

  • Anonymous

    3/18/2011 8:19:22 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I didn't want to put this here (not sure if I could post it elsewhere) , but I thought you would find this interesting if you haven't seen it yet.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/p-nu/201103/cardio-may-cause-heart-disease-part-i

    RyanH

  • Anonymous

    3/18/2011 8:25:47 PM |

    Anonymous1 said:
    "I have coverage by United Health Care through an employer"
    Ah, United. I have Oxford/United. '
    Several years ago, when everyone at Oxford (and patients) worked toward a noble goal of "salary" for their CEO of 1.6 Billion a year, they sent me several letters suggesting that I have basic check up. I followed their suggestion. Then, I started to receive letters ... refusing to pay - 100% refusal. Each time, I had to call and ask nicely and politely: "Are you nuts?" They paid.

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/18/2011 10:52:16 PM |

    Though I am not in the habit of defending health insurers, I have found that they tend to provide a benign "you should speak to your doctor about . . ." kind of approach.

    I often wonder, however, if at some point they start to be more coercive. Something like: "You should strongly consider a cholesterol-reducing drug. We anticipate that your premiums may be higher if you do not."

    That would be scary.

  • Anonymous

    3/19/2011 12:50:53 AM |

    Ah, I should have continued.
    In a way, Oxford achieved their goal. What they paid was minimal, but they avoided bigger cost at that time.
    They scared me to death - if they don't pay for what they send to ( with letters firmly printed) which is basic, stated officially in some book as my right, they probably won't pay for anything else. I neglected all symptoms and asked for medical attention when I really didn't have any choice (and in a slightly new climate)
    I was diagnosed with two quite serious conditions - neither curable, but one was preventable and the other was at this time preventable to a degree. I mean the condition would be one only (the result of "bad" accumulation +genes?), less serious and correctable.

  • Contemplationist

    3/19/2011 3:16:40 AM |

    An insurance company has a tremendous incentive to reduce its costs and hence a great incentive to find out the truth. If they are not, it means that something is fishy. Why are insurers not commissioning their own studies? Are they not allowed to? Is it the regulators who are holding them back? Or are they actually stupid?

  • Anonymous

    3/19/2011 3:59:39 AM |

    I have not had any insurers say they know what a patient's lipid numbers are, but they can pretty well tell from claims data what tests have been done, and what medications are prescribed.

    We get faxes all the time recommending that meds be changed or weaned or made as needed rather than routine.  Yes, I know Mrs. Jones has been on an ulcer medicine for 6 months, and we should try to wean it.  What they don't know is that she won't change her diet and lose some weight, so maybe her symptoms would stop, and her symptoms get horribly worse without her ulcer medication.

    Teresa

  • jkim

    3/19/2011 2:57:41 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Based on Claudia's numbers, I guess I should expect a letter from my insurance company and a prescription from my doc for a statin. I won't fill the scrip.

    I'm 65, slim, eat VLC, and haven't been afraid of  saturated fat. But I just got my labs and TC was 476, HDL 146, Triglycerides 79 (I'd had wine with dinner--they're usually in the 30s), and LDL 314!!!

    How worried should I be about these numbers?

  • susan

    3/21/2011 1:57:39 AM |

    Hey Dr. Davis,

    At my last visit, my doctor mentioned my lipid numbers; but even he had to admit that my LDL (157) and TC (234) had improved (from 177 and 255), and the rest of my labs were all WNL. I generally eat low carb -- other than my recent indulgence in mini PB cups -- so I suspect that, as you indicated, the actual numbers are better than the official calculated numbers.

    My doc didn’t try to prescribe any meds this time. But at other visits he’s tried to guilt me into following the accepted guidelines by telling me his “performance score” is determined by how well he adheres to those guidelines, including prescribing all the meds and tests recommended by the so-called experts for a patient of my age with my lab results.

    I also fear that things are changing in this regard – and not for the better. Our government has now decided that we all must have insurance or pay a fine. If I refuse to follow the recommended guidelines, either my insurance company or my doctor, or both, may “fire” me. The truth is, I really don’t give a fig which entity it is (doctor, insurance company, or government panel) that tries to hector me into following guidelines promulgated by “experts” who believe in the lipid hypothesis. I simply choose to believe that I’m in charge of my body and that I get to determine whether to take a recommended med or have a recommended test.

    As for insurance companies getting lab results, I don’t know whether the doctor’s office or Quest Labs has been feeding my results to my insurance company, but when I look at my online health info on the insurance company’s web site, all my lab results are listed. And I’m sure the company is basing at least some of its many recommendations on those results.

    I must admit, having the results online makes it easy for me to keep track of them; but given the ease with which records can be hacked, I fear for my health privacy. And I resent the big brother attitude of the insurance company. I'm a well-informed, healthy adult. Treat me like one.

  • ShottleBop

    3/21/2011 4:50:53 AM |

    Just this past week, my insurance company (Aetna), which has paying for my test strips for the past year and a half, sent me a letter suggesting that I might have diabetes, and should talk to my doctor.

  • jkim

    3/21/2011 1:39:31 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    I spent the weekend reading your older posts about LDL. I guess I need to get a test done to determine my LDL particle number before my doc and I have a discussion. Thanks for posting that info in such detail on your blog.

Add comment

Loading