However, you can easily and now cheaply check your blood sugar. Because blood sugar parallels small LDL, checking blood sugar can provide insight into how you respond to various foods and know whether glucose/small LDL have been triggered.

Time to report that review - and click that it wasn't helpful.   There is a remedy and we need to get on it.

On one of his/her other reviews, there is a reference that states, "For real information on healthy and balanced lifestyles including moderate physical activity go to www.mypyramid.gov."

Moderate physical activity? Is that like moderate eating activity?

Another person comparing a Paleo-style diet to a cult. You really just have to laugh at these idiots. Sure I like to shave my head and chant over a hunk of beef in the basement, whilst burning candles and wearing a robe, but that's not because of Dr Davis.

Hope this isn't a dupe; I tried posting and got an "internal server error," so I'm trying again.

Dr. Davis: Have you heard of the "Streisand Effect?" This 'reviewer' is basically drowned in positive reviews, and is best ignored. The review that you mention is feeble enough that anyone capable of sentient though would dismiss it, and I think you would have been better off not calling anybody's attention to it.

Hi, Howard--

Point taken.

What I was intending to do was not so much pick on a negative review, which I can live with quite easily, but point out that this may be the start of a bigger effort, a larger campaign of disinformation. In other words, if this was just some guy who thought Wheat Belly sucked, that's okay. But I suspect this was not the work of a lone individual; I'll bet this was posted by an ad agency being paid by the wheat lobby.

If you step back for some perspective, Sean, you are absolutely right: This is, at many levels, pretty entertaining stuff!

Funny, Donald.

I feel pretty "balanced" myself!

Raise awareness is my answer, Linda.

Raise awareness that this is not likely the work of someone who disagrees with the premise of Wheat Belly. It is likely the work of someone in an advertising agency being paid for by the wheat lobby, the start of a broader disinformation campaign---just like they said they would in their press releases.

It reminds me of the magazine ads from years ago paid for by Big Tobacco countering the arguments that smoking was bad. Did anybody take them seriously?

Well of course they are right.  Just look at some of the people online who have wrecked their health by eliminating healthy wheat:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x23grt_my-atkins-diet-success-story_webcam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WIH9TnQ1uY

Yep brothers and sisters, keep the faith, eat the wheat (and drink the Kool Aid) NOT.

Nina

Oh..... I forgot the other zombie cripple who is a victim of an unhealthy wheat free diet.

Yep Dr Richard Bernstein.  He was just an engineer, but trained as a doctor so he could spread the world.


Very very dangerous man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyOI9bk3VZc&feature=related

Keep the faith and eat a muffin (NOT).

Nina

To many people, there are many NEW revelations in the book Wheat Belly.  I have seen so much criticism of this book in various forums and it is by people who have never even held the book in their hand let alone read it.  Over time, this book will have a pretty big impact as more people actually do read it.

With just the first 5 words of that review, "The author has no credentials", I knew the reviewer was just blowing smoke out his butt.  Hello, a cardiologist is not credentialed???  The whole thing is unprofessionally written.  If the wheat lobby wants to discredit your book. they'll need better people than this joker.

You know it is kind of funny, I'm often asking the opposite question of where isn't media!

"Rsyinh Greens Alters Your Genes"

A new Chinese study showing that genes from plants survive the digestive tract and can be expressed in animal tissues. There is some limited discussion near the end of other studies regarding GMO genes and the claim that in at least one study, the GM O genes were found in animal tissues.

So, the dangers of drastic gene modification and cross-breeding of plants (such as our friend wheat) may be getting a more scientific basis.... but this is only one animal study. So, time will tell, hopefully.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128323.100-eating-your-greens-alters-your-genes.html?

So creepy....I guess with all the opposition, you must be on the right track. Thanks for all your research. I appreciate you.
Jana

You are absolutely right. The cultish comparisons are very laughable, but I think there are some similarities when someone discovers such a drastic improvement in the quality of their life in such a small change... sure, eliminating wheat and eating more bacon are a science backed and delicious notion, but I, for one, am willing to admit that I have happily proselytized a handful of curious friends.

Now they eat a more paleo/primal diet and no longer suffer from the fatigue, lethargy, and autoimmune issues they weren't even aware of. So I guess I have converted them (like a cult aims to do?), but it wasn't malicious or ill-founded. It's changed their lives in tangible ways and none of them have looked back on the glorious life of cupcakes and doughnuts as a safe harbor before their new increased energy levels, more comfortable and fit body, and depression and mood swing-less days.

So maybe we should be weary of sharing "the good news" of paleo lifestyle/wheat elimination... or maybe we shouldn't feel bad about sharing this information with people who want what we've uncovered.

Either way, Sean, are we still on for bleeding out that lamb in my garage tonight? I'd like to boil the bones, too.

You could be optimistic this is just a classic troll, but I agree given the tone and wording that this is obviously written by someone paid by someone from the wheat lobby.  Heading over to hit the button that that review is not helpful.

I left an e-mail with John Stossel, who has written about toxic partnerships involving government and ADM in his books. I like his work, and I like his ideas. I don't know if it will help, but I am on your side Dr. Davis. I am committed to ideas and not ideology, and dialogue and not dogmatism. Keep up the excellent work. I am recommending Wheat Belly for all of my obese patients who have wound problems, diabetes, and even for my carpal tunnel patients who have type II and are obese. With 47 trillion dollars expected to be spent for care of chronic illness in 2030, we need to do something. What I was so surprised about this book is how my wife took to it, and now is spreading the word to. By the way, your recipes ROCK!

I am going to amazon right now to make so waves with this ignorant post by the wheat trade organization rep.--what bogus propaganda!

Dear Doctor Davis and fellow anti- wheat bellies:::::I'll be posting this on Amazon

Attention real facts 2000 and other uninformed critics who fear the truth, that can save your own life
.....Walk down the street and see the flagrant, extreme, mutli-generational obesity. Go into a doctors waiting room and see the huge numbers of diabetic, metabolically ill patients.
Look at some old photos taken in America in the 1900's- 1970's such as those of crowds on Jones' Beach, or crowds in the streets after World War II AND OBSERVE ONE VERY SIGNIFICANT thing...there is no  OBESITY !   WHAT'S WRONG...WHAT HAPPENED???? APPARENTLY THE "SO-CALLED-RECOMMENDED FDA DIETARY EATING PROTOCAL "   HAS FAILED....IT'S NOT WORKING !!!!!!     America 's got a lot of weight to loose.....At least try getting the wheat out.    TTthere is too much MSG (wheat based) a known neurotoxin hanging around in our food sources also.
Be sure your fighting for your health....not against it !

If Washington, along with the various special interst groups, would have real interest in promoting health and economic reform they would get rid of corporate welfare like wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton subsidies instead of lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars.  The following excerpt is from http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

Six Reasons to Repeal Farm Subsidies

1. Farm Subsidies Redistribute Wealth. Farm subsidies transfer the earnings of taxpayers to a small group of fairly well-off farm businesses and landowners. USDA figures show that the average income of farm households has been consistently higher than the average of all U.S. households. In 2007, the average income of farm households was $86,223, or 28 percent higher than the $67,609 average of all U.S. households.19 When large-scale federal farm subsidies began in the 1930s, farm incomes were only half the national average.

Although policymakers love to discuss the plight of the small farmer, the bulk of federal farm subsidies goes to the largest farms.20  For example, the largest 10 percent of recipients have received 72 percent of all subsidy payments in recent years.21 Numerous large corporations and even some wealthy celebrities receive farm subsidies because they are the owners of farmland. It is landowners, not tenant farmers or farm workers, who benefit from subsidies. And one does not even have to be the owner of farmland to receive subsidies: Since 2000 the USDA has paid $1.3 billion in farm subsidies to people who own land that is no longer used for farming.22  

2. Farm Subsidies Damage the Economy. The extent of federal micromanagement of the agriculture sector is probably unique in American industry. In most industries, market prices balance supply and demand, profit levels signal investment opportunities, market downturns lead to cost cutting, and entrepreneurs innovate to provide better products at lower prices. All of those market mechanisms are blunted or nonexistent in government-controlled agriculture markets. As a result, federal agricultural policies produce substantial “deadweight losses” and reduced U.S. incomes.

Farm programs result in overproduction, overuse of marginal farmland, and land price inflation, which results from subsidies being capitalized into land values. Subsidy programs create less efficient planting, induce excess borrowing by farmers, cause insufficient attention to cost control, and result in less market innovation. And policies often work against the claimed goals of Congress. As an example, while members of Congress say that they support small farms, owners of large farms receive the largest subsidies, which has given them the financing they need to purchase smaller farms.23

In 2006 the Congressional Budget Office reviewed major studies that examined the repeal of U.S. and foreign agricultural subsidies and trade barriers.24 The CBO found that all the studies they reviewed showed that both the U.S. and global economies would gain from the repeal of subsidies and trade barriers.  

3. Farm Programs Are Prone to Scandal. Like most federal subsidy programs, farm programs are subject to bureaucratic inefficiencies, recipient fraud, and congressional pork-barrel politics. The Government Accountability Office found that as much as half a billion dollars in farm subsidies are paid improperly or fraudulently each year.25 Farmers create complex legal structures to get around legal subsidy limits.26 And many farmers decide not to pay back their USDA loans: in 2001 the GAO found that more than $2 billion in farm loans were delinquent.27

Congress and the USDA distribute payments for farm emergencies carelessly. Disaster payments often go to farmers who have no need for them, and in many cases have not even asked for them.28 To receive benefits, some farmers claim to have experienced damage even when they haven’t.

A powdered milk scandal in 2003 illustrates the USDA’s bureaucratic ineptitude. That year, the government decided to give some of its massive stockpile of powdered milk to cattle ranchers for feed after a drought. But much of the milk ended up being illegally diverted to other uses, which allowed speculators to earn large profits at taxpayers’ expense.29

Perhaps the biggest scandal with regard to farm subsidies is that congressional agriculture committees are loaded with members who are active farmers and farmland owners. Those members have a direct financial stake whenever Congress votes to increase subsidies, which is an obvious conflict of interest.

4. Farm Subsidies Damage U.S. Trade Relations. Global stability and U.S. security are enhanced when less developed countries achieve stronger economic growth. America can further that end by encouraging the reduction of trade barriers. However, U.S. and European farm subsidies and agricultural import barriers are a serious hurdle to making progress in global trade agreements. U.S. sugar protections, for example, benefit only a very small group of U.S. growers but are blocking broader free trade within the Americas.

The World Trade Organization estimates that even a one-third drop in all tariffs around the world would boost global output by $686 billion, including $164 billion for the United States.30  Trade liberalization would boost the exports of U.S. goods that are competitive on world markets, including many agricultural products, but U.S. farm subsidies and protections stand in the way of that goal.

5. Farm Programs Damage the Environment. Federal farm policies are thought to damage the natural environmental in numerous ways. Subsidy programs can cause overproduction, which draws marginal farmland into active production. Similarly, trade barriers induce agriculture production on land that is less naturally productive. As a result, marginal lands that might otherwise be used for parks or forests are locked into farm use because farm subsidy payments get capitalized into higher prices for land.

Subsidies are also thought to induce excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides. Producers in regions that have better soils and climates tend to use less fertilizers and pesticides than do producers in less favorable climates, who can only afford to farm in the poor locations because of subsidies. An excessive use of chemicals can contaminate lakes, rivers, and other water systems.

Florida sugar provides a good example. Large areas of wetlands have been converted to cane sugar production because of artificially high domestic sugar prices. Unfortunately, the phosphorous in fertilizers used by sugar farmers has caused substantial damage to the Everglades. Farming, like any industry, can cause negative environmental effects, but it is misguided for federal policies to exacerbate those problems.

Federal subsidies for irrigation have also been a cause of environmental concerns. The Bureau of Reclamation runs a vast water empire in the western United States, which sells water to farmers at a fraction of the market cost. The resulting overuse could lead to a water crisis as the West’s population continues to rise.31 The solution is to move water into the free market and allow prices to rise to efficient and environmentally sound levels.

6. Agriculture Would Thrive without Subsidies. It is normal for people to fear economic change, but many industries have been radically reformed in recent decades with positive results, including the airline, trucking, telecommunications, and energy industries. If farm subsidies were ended, and agriculture markets deregulated and open to entrepreneurs, farming would change—different crops would be planted, land usage would change, and some farms would go bankrupt. But a stronger and more innovative industry would likely emerge having greater resilience to shocks and downturns.

Interestingly, producers of most U.S. agricultural commodities do not receive regular subsidies from the federal government. In fact, commodities that are eligible for federal subsidies account for 36 percent of U.S. farm production, while commodities that generally survive without subsidies, including meats, poultry, fruits, and vegetables, account for 64 percent of production.32 And, of course, most other U.S. industries prosper without the sort of government coddling that farmers receive.

Another point to consider is that farm households are much more diversified today and better able to deal with market fluctuations. Many farm households these days earn the bulk of their income from nonfarm sources, which creates financial stability. USDA figures show that only 38 percent of farm households consider farming their primary occupation.33

Some USDA programs provide useful commercial services such as insurance. The USDA says that its insurance services are “market-based,” but if that were true, there would be no need for subsidies and the services ought to be privatized. After all, most U.S. industries pay for their own commercial services. Also, financial markets offer a wide range of tools, such as hedging and forward contracting, which can help farmers survive cycles in markets without government subsidies.

An interesting example of farmers prospering without subsidies is in New Zealand.34 That nation ended its farm subsidies in 1984, which was a bold stroke because the country is four times more dependent on farming than is the United States. The changes were initially met with fierce resistance, but New Zealand farm productivity, profitability, and output have soared since the reforms.35  New Zealand’s farmers have cut costs, diversified their land use, sought nonfarm income, and developed niche markets such as kiwifruit.

Today, data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that farm subsidies in New Zealand represent just 1 percent of the value of farm production, which compares to 11 percent in the United States.36 New Zealand’s main farm organization argues that the nation’s experience “thoroughly debunked the myth that the farming sector cannot prosper without government subsidies.”37 That myth needs to be debunked in the United States as well.

Realfacts2000 is no doubt a special interest and/or the mouth piece of the wheat lobby.  I you follow the money trail it will always lead one to the truth and what is behind the scenes.  This taken from North American Millers Association website http://www.namamillers.org/NewsArchives10/Mar10News.html .  Billions of your tax dollars go to subsidize wheat growers every year.

NAMA urges government funding of cereal crops research
NAMA and the National Oat Improvement Committee submitted a joint letter to Representative Tammy Baldwin expressing support for the National Barley Improvement Committee's appropriations request for the USDA-ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit (CCRU) at Madison, WI. CCRU was established in April 2007 with the goal of studying and identifying antioxidant chemicals in oats and barley that may play a role in protecting humans from degenerative diseases such as cancers and heart disease. "However, current funding is insufficient to meet a substantial increase in operating costs for the new building and maintain programs for seven CCRU scientists (currently only five positions are filled and two are vacant due to inadequate funding.)" Government funding is essential as oat research receives no private investment.

Industry supports Obama's pledge to double U.S. exports
A coalition of food/feed and agricultural industry organizations are in support of President Obama's pledge to double U.S. exports within five years as a way to create millions of new export-related jobs in this country. The coalition, of which NAMA is a member, sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Republican Leader John Boehner, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell urging them to take the necessary actions to support this goal—including passing the pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. These agreements would allow U.S. exports to be on par with other countries and compete effectively in the export market.

The letter also noted concern over recent legislation (H.R. 3012 and S. 2821) that would "require the Administration to demand the re-negotiation of all current pending trade agreements to modify provisions to permit inclusion of certain requirements." This legislation has the potential to drastically damage export relations and U.S. agriculture. To view the letter, please visit NAMA’s web site at http://www.namamillers.org/NewsArchives10/Ltr_FTA_Mar2010.html.

All pioneers wear Arrow shirts.

I just finished the book and posted a review on my blog for anyone who is interested in a more in depth analysis than IT ROCKED! The strong sales and largely positive reviews are a good sign, which is probably why the wheat industry hacks are posting negative reviews.

http://aminoaciddiet.com/2011/09/30/book-review-wheat-belly/

Yep, I must admit I am working to bring people to this "cult." I am probably a bit annoying or I like to call it persisitent in my FB posts. Oh well, the proof is in the pudding. The change in my body and outlook has been so dramatic, it is hard not to share. I'll take my chances.

I have watched a friend lose 94 pounds on medifast. She works out like a crazy woman. Now, she is getting burned out and starting to gain weight. She has seen me lose 37 pounds over the last year or so. Admittedly I still have about 37 to go. I got into the gf replacements for a while. Now that I am off of them the weight is going away again. At any rate, I wish she would listen to what has helped me. She claims it is only because I have celiac. It doesn't apply to those who don't. I can't get her to read the book, but maybe, just maybe she will read the blog. I hope she doesn't listen to the critics.

Don't fret, Debbie. Your friend will come around when she witnesses your profound and effortless weight loss--no extreme exercise, no colon cleanse . . . just no wheat.

Yup, you got it, Dave.

Very nicely written review, by the way. "A giant among dwarves"? That's great!

Hi, John--

No doubt. Note that, at the left on the Millers Association website and listed as a "partner," is the USDA Food Plate. How revealing! Imagine a chemical manufacturer calling the EPA a "partner."

This wheat-free message is, indeed, potentially economically disruptive. None of us, of course, are demanding legislative reform to ban wheat; we are simply trying to raise awareness to allow better-informed individual choice. This issue has come up repeatedly in my interviews on Canadian media, since they are such large wheat exporters.

Thanks, John. Fascinating reading!

We are confronting head-on with vertically-integrated agribusiness and Big Food, all of whom stand to lose big-time by elimination of government subsidies. I, too, find it incredible that this still goes on.

Thank you, Lindas!

Your clear-minded wheat-free logic shines through!

The USDA and HHS need to get off their high horse, blaming our sloth and gluttony. They are to blame.

Thanks, STG!

I'm shocked that there are PR people out there who do this just for a paycheck.

Wow, thanks, Dr. Ostric!

The John Stossel idea is terrific. He is a champion among whistleblowers; adding his voice would be priceless!

And thanks for the feedback on the recipes.

I noticed that, too, Chuck: The criticisms seem to be coming from 1) wheat trade group PR stooges, and 2) people who think they know what the book says but haven't read it.

It actually makes me laugh! Real criticisms would be one thing. But this stuff is just fluff.

Thanks, Jana!

Yeah, I have to treat this information like religion... People are THAT fanatical about their food. But, I have managed to get a few people to go lc. And thanks to the good DR. here, I got my mom started. I just said, "fine, but do me a favor. Go wheat free for a month. While you're doing that, buy full fat dairy. Then tell me what you think." I'd never thought to put it so simply.

You would think the fact that my husband has lost 80+ lbs and I've lost 45lbs in under 5 months would sound some bells. Our cholesterol has dropped 30+ points each (while raising HDL a bit.) and my Trigs are down more than 150 points. Yeah - you read that right. So of course people ask us... then get ANGRY about the answer. We stay the heck away from frankenfood. We eat full fat cheese, and leave the fat and skin on our chicken.

Put that on your "government regulated food plate" and eat it!

*Sorry for post hijacking, got carried away.

Yes, but it was a good hijacking, Jackie!

Very excellent results for you and your husband.

[...] are acting like it with some dubious claims and flat out attempts at character assassination with comments like this on the Amazon page for Dr. William Davis’ book Wheat Belly:  The author has no credentials, no credibility, just a small cult of terribly misinformed [...]

how do you treat a very low level?non prescripton D3? how much ? I was taught to gve 50000 unts for 8 weeks.

Could you please explain why gelcaps or drops only, not tablets? I could probably guess why, but for the benefit of the audience can you tell us?

Of course, gelcap or drops only, NEVER tablets.

Could you elaborate this point?  Is this a general recommendation (e.g. ease of digestion) or are there vit. D-specific reasons?

I have a large supply of D tablets and, after reading this, am trying to make a decision regarding replacing them.

What's wrong with tablets?

I have been told that some UK Doctors correcting Vitamin D status of elderly people in care homes use ANNUAL injections of about 300,000iu/D2.

The graph in Heaney's paper from Dr Davis's blog shows roughly how long 50,000iu/D2 lasts, unfortunately because the half life of Vitamin d is only around 21days, six times Heaney's amount will not last six times as long.

If daily/weekly or even monthly supplements are not practicable then surely injections every 2 months using D3 would be a be the least worst option.

Any longer interval than 2 months for an elderly person without access to sunlight surely cannot be in the patients best interests.

Anyone.
Why the emphasis on not using tablets?
Tks.

Had a friend get all excited b/c her doctor finally ordered a 25(OH) D level on her....which came back at 16 ng/mL.

She ended her email with, "yea, so I've got to pick up the RX for the D after work today."

I immediately wrote her back and said, " did he also tell you to eat more fruits and veggies? If so, don't forget to pick up a single blueberry to eat. You need your fruits and veggies!"

Taking D2 in an effort to raise you 25OH is like eating a single blueberry in an effort to get more fruits in your diet. Its not nearly enough, it doesn't work well and it's not worth the effort, as far as I am concerned.

Then I went on to tell her about D2 being the FOREIGN source of D in humans and how it's 1/3 less effective than D3 which is the natural form of D in humans.

Why would you settle for a foreign substance when you can get the natural form and it's more effective?

In our practice, we haven't experienced any negative issues with using the bio-pharm mini-capsules of D3. In our experience, they raise blood levels consistently and adequately.

I recently had my 25hyroxy D level checked (finger stick test recommended on this site)after 2 months of 5000/day tablets and the level was 80, so perhaps some tablets are better formulated/absorbed now.

While I am not a medical professional, it is my opinion from my use and study of nutritional supplements that the most bio-available form of anything is best. D3 is a hormone and the oil/softgel form is the best way to maintain the integrity of the supplement so the body can absorb it.  A tablet is processed, dried, things are added, etc.  This changes the action of the substance in the body and you can lose the benefit.

For those asking about why one shouldn't use the tablet-based Vitamin D, but rather the oil-based Vitamin D, he has answered this before a number of times in previous blog posts. Do a quick look under his Vitamin D posts. But here is one of the relevant posts: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/oil-based-vitamin-d.html

Why not tablets? Because D is fat soluble and needs to be taken with some fat for best absorption.

I keep meeting people who are put on the prescription vitamin D for 2-3 months and then they are told to stop taking it. Some of these people have told me their doctor retested and told them they now had a "normal" level. Others were told to discontinue the D after a few months with no further testing.

Two people have been off and on vitamin D 3 times. They said their doctor cannot figure out why their vitamin D test keeps dropping after they stop taking the supplement.

Not only is the wrong D being prescribed by many physicians, but it seems that many don't understand that D supplementation needs to be maintained.

It's weird how most doctors don't know how to treat vitamin D deficiencies. When I was first tested, like 2 years ago, my family doctor came out and said she had no idea what the proper treatment was. She looked it up in her little medical PDA thing, said she'd write a prescription for 50K of D2.

I declined, saying I'd use D3 instead. She didn't seem so keen on the idea, and made a point that if D3 didn't raise my levels, she wanted me to use the prescription. She also didn't seem to think they sold D3 in anything higher than RDA levels.

So... basically saying... most doctors are clueless here. But what I don't understand is, can't doctors simply look up information the same way patients can? Just because they were trained in medical school a certain way, I assume doctors would want to learn and keep up-to-date with recent treatments and such.

As for gel/drops vs tablets, it's because vitamin D is fat soluble. Take your tablets at the same time as you take your fish oil -- when you run out, get gels or drops instead.

"D3, or cholecalciferol, yields confident increases in blood levels. It is inexpensive, safe, and an exact copy of the human form of vitamin D. (Of course, gelcap or drops only, NEVER tablets.)"

I started using 5 grams of D3 because I'd read it can help syptoms of S.A.D.  I take generic D3 with dietary fat: fish oil caps and nuts mainly.  I haven't had my levels tested but having done nothing else, this has been one of the easiest winters for me to survive.  I believe D3 requires fat for absorption.  Generic D3 is cheap, dietary fat is cheap, those D3 gelcaps are not.  Plus, living in rural Wyoming I'd have to drive for three hours to the nearest place that sells them.  

kevin

here is the best video on D3. it is an hour long and will work in IE only i guess.
http://www.uvadvantage.org/portals/0/pres/

"Plus, living in rural Wyoming I'd have to drive for three hours to the nearest place that sells them. "

Well, there must be internet access in Wyoming.  Lots of reputable online shops sell vitamins, including host of D3 options at very competitive prices, (ordinary drug stores usually have the worst selection of D doses/options at the highest prices, too.  

Doesn't compute that sourcing Vit D would require that long of a drive.  No mail delivery?  The only other barrier I can think of is no c/c or debit card for non-cash purchases.

What about capsules, or is that covered under tablets too?

As I understand it Vitamin D is metabolised in the body from cholesterol derivatives. Since statins reduce cholesterol I take it they will also reduce Vit D as well as CoQ10, dolichols  selenoproteins and hormones and steroids that are also derived from cholesterol.

Since Vit D and other molecules (eg CoQ10) tend to be depleted in the elderly, the use of statins would increase the risk of defiencies. Statins also deplete the anti-oxidant capacity.
But when prescribed statins, no replacement for the depleted items is ever prescribed. The Canadian authorities do require a black box warning on the data sheet for statins but neither the FDA or the MHRA do so despite the known depletion. This was known in 1988 when Merck registered two patents for their statins incorporating CoQ10.
In short, the trivial gains in cardiac attacks are one thing but the adverse effects of statins are another. Given the infomercials  claiming minimal adverse reactions (having excluded all possible reactors as in the HPS study and JUPITER) doctors blieve that they do not happen and do not report patients complaints. A study has shown that only 1 to 10% of doctors actually report adverse reactions.

In the case of simvastatin, the MHRA has recorded 66 deaths in their Drug Analysis Print for this statin. This represents, then between 660 and 6600 deaths.

You're preaching to the choir here...

I am a weight loss surgery post-op.  I had a biliopancreatic diversion with duodenalswitch nearly 7 years ago.  I had already been diagnosed with osteoporosis at that time - and had never been directed to do *anything* to address it.

Fast forward nearly 7 years.  I've lost 210 pounds, a wheelchair, diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, sleep apnea, high cholesterol and triglycerides - to name a few.

It wasn't until I was a post-op - who malabsorbs fats significantly, meaning fat stored vites A, D, E, and K - that I found I not only *could* do something - but should.

Today I take boatloads of calcium citrate, dry forms of A, D, E, K1, and K2 - to name a few, and have a diagnosis of osteopenia - no longer osteoporosis.  And everything is trending in the right direction.

I hope you don't mind - I enducate patients now - and I've sent a bunch of people a link to your blog to read this info about Vitamin D.  It's so important for my community to know this!

THANK YOU!

My D level was 20 when my doc prescribed 50,000 iu D2 1x per week.  After 1 month, my D levels went down to 14.  She increased me to 50,000 iu D2 3x per week.  After another month, my D level is now 7.  Why is the D2 depleting my D level?  help!!

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.

Hmmn - reminds me of a book I read called "Coronary: A True Story of Medicine Gone Awry," recommended by you, Dr. Davis.  Unnecessary procedures for profits.

It's a scary world out there in medical land.

The local heart hospital has a "Heartsaver CT" http://www.heartsaverct.com/index.aspx?CORE_ElementID=HSCT_AHH_Home

Is this the same as the CT Heart Scan?

I saw another car Bill had worked on this month.  My father and I have an auto hobby shop were we'll bang away on making our own hot rod cars and from time to time a friend or friend of a friend in this case will ask to bring a car by for inspection.  The guy has been having many problems with his hot rod and for repairs had been taking it to Bill's place.  I had an idea of what to expect.  Sure enough Bill had done it again.  Bill's scam is that he will splice a weaker gage wire into a hidden unseen area.  The weak gage can not handle the power load for long and once the wire melts and the part stops working, he explains that the engine part broke, new parts need to be ordered and of course that intales hours of labor costs.  
    

After reading this blog it reminded me of scammer auto shops.  Hospitals have their scams too.    I wish I could walk into a doctor’s office and expect that only the best, least expensive, treatment will be offered me - but I now know that isn't the case.  I can't be lazy.  I need to educate myself in the basics of medical care to ensure I receive the best treatment for me.  Thanks for being a good teacher Dr. Davis.

Yes, it looks like it is the real thing, a simple heart scan, judging from their comment that "There are no needles, no dyes, no injections and no exercise." CT angiograms require needles, dye, and injections.

The CT angiogram makers are generating lots of reports on how great their machines are.

http://www.theheart.org/viewArticle.do?primaryKey=830205&nl_id=tho28nov07

They certainly are. Big bucks, big marketing.

I do believe, in all honesty, that the new devices really represent great advances in diagnostic imaging. It's their mis-use and over-use that I object to. Of course, the manufacturers keep their lips closed about it because overuse drives more sales.

Hi Dr. Davis,

I've learned from reading your blog that typically 20% of TOTAL PLAQUE is calcified or "hard". Is that a steadfast rule - or is that an average? What if someone has a calcium score of zero (or close to it)? Can it be assume that that person also has very little in the way of "soft" plaque?

Thanks!

Paul

Speaking generally, people with zero heart scan scores have heart attack rates of near zero (if asymptomatic).

The likelihood of detecting pure "soft" plaque in someone without symptoms and a zero heart scan score is <5%. It does happen, particularly when certain severe risks for heart disease are present (e.g., very high LDL/small LDL). It is exceptional, however.

Since I can't afford the current local price of a 64 slice CT scan ($1100), I've decided to get a lipoprotein breakdown to determine my risk.   I can use your "treatment" protocol of supplements to try and achieve the 60-60-60 values when I see the results.   Is this a good plan?

Hi, Noreen--

I'm afraid that you may regret not getting the scan a few years from now. After you've successfully corrected lipoproteins, you may want to know if you've also successfully controlled plaque growth, the MORE IMPORTANT parameter.

Have you thought about looking elsewhere for a scan? In Milwaukee, for instance, scans can be obtained for as little as $79. (Though the low-priced scans also come with a sales pitch for CT coronary angiography. Just say "no thanks.")

I am 72 and pretty healthy.
This year I have been seeing a cardio because of some nocturnal palpitations. He has subjected me to a series of tests-sleep-ultrasound-both negative, and a nuclear stress test which gave a hint of possible blockage. He recommended either an angiography or a CTA scan. I chose the latter, and was rated "normal".
I asked if this meant normal for my age. He said "no, normal for any age, I couldn' find any trace of hard or soft plaque". Yes he is part of a large group.

My father died of a second heart attack at 76.
I have taken vitamin D, fish oil, magnesium, pantethine, flaxseed, co-Q10, lutein, olive oil, for some years.
I am trying hard not to feel smug, but should I feel safe?
We are still working on the nocturnal palpitations which seem to be dependent on sleep position.
I have bradycardia, and no other obvious health 'problems'.

With regard to the 20% value for calcified plaque, if you look at figure 1 from Rumberger’s classic 1995 paper (Circulation. 1995;92:2157-2162.), it shows the plaque area and calcium areas for each of 13 hearts that were examined on autopsy. If you take the points in this graph and determine the areas for each heart, the data shows that the calcium area and calcium percentage increases with plaque area. Unfortunately the paper doesn’t say what the calcium scores were for each heart, only the calcium areas and total plaque areas. However, over the range of plaque areas of the 13 hearts, the percentage of calcium in plaque increased from 0% to 14% for the 9 hearts with with plaque areas less than 150 square mm to 14% to 28% for the hearts with the plaque areas greater than 230 square mm. So from that we can conclude that the 20% value is an average, and that the calcium percentage increases as more and more plaque accumulates.

Harry35

Sehr interessant!