Family lessons

17. January 2010 William Davis (4)
Lou was recovering from his 3rd bypass operation. This third go-round left him weaker, slower, less quick on the rebound. In fact, he was lucky to have survived.

At 71 years old, Lou went a good 15 years since his second bypass, another 10 years prior to his first bypass at age 46.

In the days immediately following Lou's bypass, I had a chance to talk to his son, who stayed at his Dad's bedside while Lou struggled through post-op recovery.

"Did your Dad tell you about why this has happened, what caused his heart disease?" I asked.

"Sort of. He just said I should get checked," Lou's son, Aaron, replied.

"Did he mention the lipoprotein(a) pattern he has?"

"No. He never mentioned anything like that. He just said to get checked."

That's how it gets played out more often than not: Mom or Dad has a heart attack, stents, or (3rd) bypass, the children are told to get checked. Getting "checked" assumes that the doctor knows what to check for.

In Lou's case, the reason why he was in the hospital getting his 3rd (and final) bypass was lipoprotein(a), along with genetically-determined small LDL particles, low HDL, a postprandial (after-eating) disorder, hypertension, and borderline diabetes, not to mention vitamin D deficiency, omega-3 fatty acid deficiency, and marginal thyroid function. (Lou, a retired city employee, had showed only marginal interest in correcting these patterns. While he accepted medications, he proved unwilling to engage in the diet and nutritional supplement strategies required to correct his patterns.)

So Lou's 3rd bypass operation provided a moment of reflection for Aaron to ask: "Could I share the fate of my Dad?" With Lou's combination of genetic patterns, there was at least a 75% likelihood that he did. Sadly, going to his doctor would likely yield little more than a cholesterol panel, a question about smoking, and a prescription for Lipitor.

Just getting "checked" would be, more than likely, a recipe for disaster for Aaron: heart disease in his 40s or 50s. That's why you need to take control over this sad state of affairs and ask--no, insist--that an effort be made to determine whether you might share your parents' fate.
Tags :

Comments (4) -

  • Gretchen

    1/17/2010 9:08:20 PM |

    I've had 2 GPs, 1 endocrinologist, and 1 cardiologist refuse to prescribe a cholesterol particle size test or show any interest in Lp(a). I finally paid for it myself.

    It's not always easy to get all the tests the experts say we need.

  • Anonymous

    1/18/2010 5:42:01 AM |

    nice article. I would love to follow you on twitter. By the way, did any one learn that some chinese hacker had busted twitter yesterday again.
    [url=http://amazon.reviewazone.com/]Julia[/url]

  • Anonymous

    1/18/2010 9:23:50 AM |

    I know. Get checked for what? Vitamin D, Omega 3? Genetic Predisposition? Even if I could afford the tests, I would be on my own interpreting them. Then what? It's unlikely that I would change any outlook my doc has in the 9 min I spend with him for a check up.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/19/2010 1:17:23 AM |

    Hi, Gretchen--

    Sadly, mainstream healthcare is better described as either catastrophic care (breaking a bone, heart attack) or least common denominator healthcare (do the little that most others do when it falls out of the catastrophic category).

Add comment

Loading
Sudden death in athletes

Sudden death in athletes

6. October 2006 William Davis (0)
A recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association details how a group in the Veneto region of Italy cut back on the incidence of sudden cardiac death in athletes by a simple screening program.



You can read the abstract of the article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/13/1593.

Although sudden death in athletes is still a rare event, it is especially tragic when it happens. In this population, the incidence was 3.6 deaths per 100,000 athletes aged 12 to 35 years. By implementing a simple screening program that involved only a physical examination and an EKG, an astounding 89% reduction in sudden death was documented.

What lessons does this hold for those of us interested in coronary plaque reversal? Beyond the obvious lesson of pointing out the great benefit of simple screening of athletes, I believe that it tells us the value of simple screening tools for heart disease in general. It is my strong belief that, if we were to implement CT heart scans among the broad population of men 40 years and over, women 50 years and over--without regard to cholesterol or other relatively lame risk identifiers--we could slash the risk for heart attack and death 90% or more. Putting CT heart scans into the hands of the public makes your coronary risk obvious. It takes the guesswork out of risk predictors like cholesterol and high blood pressure.

But heart scans are already available, you say! Yes, of course they are. But the lack of insurance reimbursement continues to be a restricting factor for many people, despite the number of lives that could be potentially saved and the money that would be saved in the long run by reducing need for major heart procedures. The continuing resistance to prevention by my cardiology colleagues and the persistent ignorance of primary care physicians also remain major impediments.

But it's getting better. You don't have to be chained by ignorance. Put your CT heart scan to good use.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Vitamin D must be oil-based

Vitamin D must be oil-based

18. October 2006 William Davis (10)
As part of the Track Your Plaque coronary plaque reversal program, we advocate vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D has been shown to reduce blood sugar and reduce pre-diabetic tendencies, reduce blood pressure (it's a renin antagonist, a blood pressure hormone), it's far more important for bone health than calcium, and it may help prevent colon cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple sclerosis.

And, oh yes, it may facilitate coronary plaque regression.

One lesson I've learned is that vitamin D MUST be taken as a oil-based capsule or gelcap. You'll recognize it as a transparent or translucent, sometimes opaque, capsule. The list of ingredients may say something like "cholecalciferol [vitamin D] in a base of soybean oil", indicating that the active ingredient is oil-based. Oil-based vitamin D3 skyrockets blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3 in to the normal range reliably and easily.


Tablets are a different story. These are generally white powdery tablets. The rise in blood levels of vitamin D3 are minimal, sometimes none. Women will often say "I get vitamin D with my calcium tablets."


People taking this form almost always have blood levels of vitamin D that are low, as if they were taking nothing.
If you're going to take vitamin D, the oil-based tablets are the way to go. They're not necessarily any more expensive. We've had good experiences with the Nature's Life 2000 unit capsule, as well as preparations from Life Extension. We have had negative experiences with the preparations from GNC, Sam's Club, and Walgreen's, all tablets and non-oil-based.
Tags :

Comments (10) -

  • Anonymous

    3/16/2007 4:46:00 PM |

    NOW you tell me.....I just bought a big bottle of Vitamin D3 TABLETS.

    (sigh)

  • Warren

    3/17/2007 4:58:00 AM |

    I agree that taking gel caps is most convenient and will create the most likelihood of consistent proper uptake.  But will taking the pills with a meal containing fat, or with my fish oil caps, likely make the pills work just as well as the gel caps?

  • Dr. Davis

    3/17/2007 12:14:00 PM |

    Not an formal analysis, but my experience is that the great majority of tablet preparations, regardless of how they're taken, yield trivial levels of absorption. It's oil-containing gelcaps or no, I'm afraid.

  • Anonymous

    3/9/2008 4:44:00 AM |

    What about the LEF capsules which are a fine powder.  They the same deal?

  • Anonymous

    3/24/2008 1:05:00 PM |

    I haven't seen the Vitamin Shoppe version yet, but the Carlson's Vitamin D souce is Cod Liver oil.

    Are there problems with cod liver oil as the source of "D" -- i.e. the increased vitamin A, and possible mercury/pcb contamination?  My understanding re taking omega 3's, for example, is that cod liver oil is not the healthiest source, because of the above.

    What is the story w/the Vitamin Shoppe, et.al. oil based versions?  Am particularly concerned because I need to find a version safe for a 6 year old -- and the increased A/mercury, et.al. issue is even more important in a small child.

  • Bev

    5/16/2008 2:53:00 PM |

    I have a fish allergy so taking a cod-liver formulation of vitamin D is out. Are there any preparations you know of that are oil-based but not fish-based? I haven't found any so far.

  • Indrani

    5/22/2009 7:45:40 PM |

    Vitamin D gels are available at Whole Foods.

  • Dan

    9/21/2009 2:12:34 AM |

    Hey man,
    my fiancee wrote an article on Vitamin D summarizing a ton of research, and one of her citations that she has is of a study that directly contradicts your statement that it's important to have an oil-based form.

    Basically, they measured the serum measurements after supplementation with either tablets and cod liver oil and simply found the results to be statistically insignificant.

    See for yourself:
    ↑ Vieth, R (1999-05). "Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69 (5): 842-856. ISSN 0002-9165.

    By the way, I linked her article on my name. Hope you don't reject it for that reason.

    If you have any input to give me, I'd love to hear it (including any research that contradicts the study I just pasted -- we're aiming for accuracy here)... dan@mdpatrick.com

  • lainy

    12/6/2009 11:06:44 PM |

    I found some capsules from Sundown Naturals, 2000 IU.  Do you think those are just as good as the Carlson's or Vitamin Shoppe?  They are a lot smaller than any I've seen before...

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 9:16:00 PM |

    In other words, vitamin D tablets do not work. It is shameful. I see numerous women taking calcium tablets with D--the vitamin D does not work. I've actually seen blood levels of zero on these preparations.

Add comment

Loading
Does fish oil raise LDL cholesterol?

Does fish oil raise LDL cholesterol?

17. January 2007 William Davis (1)
Katie had an LDL (conventionally calculated) of 87 mg/dl, HDL of 48 mg/dl.

She added fish oil, 6000 mg per day. Three months later her LDL was 118 mg/dl, HDL 54 mg/dl. In other words, LDL increased by 31 mg. What gives?

Several studies have, indeed, shown that fish oil raises LDL cholesterol, usually by 5-10 mg/dl. Occasionally, it may be as much as 20-30.

Unfortunately, many physicians often assume that it's the (minor) cholesterol content of fish oil capsules, or some vague, undesirable effect of fish oil. It's nothing of the kind.

Since we based Katie's program on (NMR) lipoprotein analysis, not conventional lipids (HDL, calculated LDL, triglycerides, total cholesterol), I knew that Katie also had a severe excess of intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, and very-low density lipoproteins, VLDL. This signifies that after a meal, dietary fats persist for 12, 24,or more hours. Fish oil is a very effective method to clear IDL and VLDL, though sometimes it also causes a shift of some IDL and VLDL into the LDL class. Thus, the apparent increase in LDL.

Another contributor: Conventional LDL is a calculated value, not measured. The calculation for LDL is thrown off by any reduction in HDL or rise in triglycerides. In Katie's case, the rise in HDL from 48 to 54 means that calculated LDL is becoming more accurate and rising towards the true measured value. At the start, Katie's true measured LDL was 122 mg/dl, 35 mg higher than the calculated value. Calculated LDL is therefore approximating measured LDL more accurately as HDL rises.

The most important lesson to learn is that, if LDL rises significantly on fish oil and you haven't had lipoproteins formally measured, there may have been a substantial postprandial abnormality like IDL that was unrecognized.
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 9:05:23 PM |

    Another contributor: Conventional LDL is a calculated value, not measured. The calculation for LDL is thrown off by any reduction in HDL or rise in triglycerides. In Katie's case, the rise in HDL from 48 to 54 means that calculated LDL is becoming more accurate and rising towards the true measured value. At the start, Katie's true measured LDL was 122 mg/dl, 35 mg higher than the calculated value. Calculated LDL is therefore approximating measured LDL more accurately as HDL rises.

Add comment

Loading
Who cares about triglycerides?

Who cares about triglycerides?

19. June 2006 William Davis (0)
Walter's triglycerides were 231 mg. His LDL cholesterol was "favorable" at 111 mg, HDL likewise at 49 mg.

"Everything looks good," his doctor declared.

"Do you think the triglycerides are okay, too?" Walter asked.

"Well, the guidelines do say that triglycerides should be less than 150, but I believe you're close enough. Anyway, triglycerides don't really cause heart disease."


When I met Walter, I made several comments. First of all, in light of his heart scan score of 713, none of his numbers--HDL, LDL, or triglycerides-- were acceptable. But the triglycerides were glaringly and terribly too high.

Why? What exactly are triglycerides?

Triglycerides are a basic fat particle that, though they do not cause heart disease directly, trigger the formation of an array of abnormal lipoprotein particles in the blood that are among the most potent causes of heart disease known.

These abnormal lipoprotein particles include small LDL, VLDL, and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein--a really bad pattern). Excess triglycerides also cause HDL to drop. They also cause a distortion of HDL structure, causing the particles to become abnormally small. Small HDL is also useless HDL, unable to provide the protection that HDL is designed to do.

So Walter's elevated triglycerides are, in reality, a substantial red flag for an entire panel of abnormal particles that contribute to the growth of his coronary plaque.

So, if you get this kind of commentary on your triglycerides, ask for another opinion. (Track Your Plaque Members: Also see Triglycerides: Mother of meddlesome particles at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_dp002triglycerides.asp.)
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Another Ornish casualty

Another Ornish casualty

23. April 2006 William Davis (0)
Barry's lipoproteins were nearly all corrected to perfection: LDL 64 mg, HDL 57 mg, triglycerides 45 mg. He was approaching the Track Your Plaque goal of 60/60/60, the levels we find tip the scales heavily in your favor for achieving plaque reversal.

But one problem still prominently persisted: small LDL. Of Barry's 64 mg of total LSL, 90% of his LDL were small.

Barry was already on niacin (Slo-Niacin; Upsher Smith)1000 mg per day and fish oil, 4000 mg per day, both of which contribute to correction of this pattern. He had added occasional raw almonds and oat bran to his daily habits, both of which also help suppress small LDL. "I thought you told me that small LDL should go away if I did all this!" he lamented in frustration.

We probed Barry's diet choices more closely. "I eat really healthy foods, just like an Ornish program." Uh oh.

"What do you mean?" I asked.

"For breakfast, I have two slices of whole wheat toast--no butter or margarine, of course! I'll have Shredded Wheat with skim milk. That's it. My typical lunch is low-fat turkey--no mayonnaise!--on whole wheat. I'll add some low-fat whole wheat crackers or pretzels. That's pretty much my habit."

"How about dinner?"

"Dinner varies a lot. I'll usually have a low-fat meat like chicken or turkey, never beef, a vegetable, and a potato. I love rolls but I try to make them whole wheat. I don't use gravy. I love ice cream, so I've been having low-fat frozen yogurt instead. I guess that's about it."

Barry had indeed been counseled on how we approach nutrition. We, of course, do not endorse the low-fat approach of the Ornish program. Low saturated and hydrogenated fat, yes, but not the super-strict low-fat, "all fat is bad" approach of Dr. Dean Ornish.

Barry's diet is typical of someone on a low-fat restriction. When I asked him why he was eating this way, he admitted that he'd seen Dr. Ornish on a TV program in which he persuasively proclaimed that he reversed heart disease in his patients over the past nearly 20 years using this low-fat approach.

That explained it. Barry's nearly pure carbohydrate diet was triggering high blood sugar responses after meals, causing his insulin to skyrocket and magnifying the small LDL pattern.

I advised Barry to dramatically reduce his carbohydates like breads, pretzels, low-fat yogurt, crackers, etc. Instead, he could increase his lean proteins like eggs, egg whites, Egg Beaters, raw nuts and seeds, low-fat (yes, low-fat!) dairy products like yogurt and cottage cheese (both high protein), and healthy oils.

I've seen this happen with many people over the years: A severe low-fat restriction becomes a high-carbohydate diet. It's not uncommon for many people to have more than 70% of calories from carbohydrates on these programs.

The low-fat approach worked in the era of high-fat diets in the 1980s. In 2006, where convenience foods made with carbohydrates, especially wheat, predominate and pack 80% of supermarket shelves, low-fat is now a distorted nutritional mistake that leads to problems like Barry's uncontrolled small LDL, and often pre-diabetic or overt diabetes.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged

Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged

14. February 2009 William Davis (20)
Most Heart Scan Blog readers already know:

Your doctor has been brainwashed by the pharmaceutical industry.

Your doctor more than likely has spent the better part of his or her career in the Guantanamo Bay of healthcare, water-boarded by seductive sales representatives, enticed with promises of fame and riches, threatened with ostracism from the clubby internal halls of healthcare if--gasp!--he or she didn't subscribe to the "rule" that only drugs are good, anything else is bad.

The same FDA-approval-is-necessary-to-be-good brand of nonsense is gaining popularity among my colleagues who, having caught some mention (on the Today Show, Oprah, or similar source of medical information), hope to join the vitamin D hoopla.

People will proudly declare that they are taking a high dose of vitamin D: 50,000 units once per week.

No. They are taking a barely useful form: D2, ergocalciferol.

Studies examining the reliability of the D2 form differ:

There's the Heaney study suggesting that D2 is less effective than D3:
Vitamin D2 is much less effective than vitamin D3 in humans

Then there's the Holick study showing they are equivalent:
Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

My experience is more in line with the Heaney study: Little or no real effect with D2.

One particularly illustrative case I witnessed was a woman who was mistakenly prescribed D2 at 50,000 units per day. She told me that she'd been taking it for a year. I fully expected to see clear-cut signs of toxicity (e.g., high blood calcium levels). Curiously, she showed no signs of toxicity. Nor did she show any vitamin D at all in her blood: 25-hydroxy D level of zero--literally zero.

I've witnessed similar phenomena several times: plenty of vitamin D2 . . . very little vitamin D in the blood.

All in all, I suppose that D2 is better than No-D at all. But you are far better off joining the ranks of the pharmaceutically challenged and go with the stuff that really works: D3.

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.)

There is absolute NO reason to take vitamin D2, the form that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, the facsimile plant form issued by the drug industry.
Tags :

Comments (20) -

  • perots

    2/14/2009 11:40:00 PM |

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

  • Anonymous

    2/15/2009 1:23:00 AM |

    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? Smile

  • Tom

    2/15/2009 5:29:00 AM |

    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.

  • Rick

    2/15/2009 5:46:00 AM |

    What's wrong with tablets?

  • TedHutchinson

    2/15/2009 9:31:00 AM |

    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.

  • Anonymous

    2/15/2009 1:07:00 PM |

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

  • Jessica

    2/15/2009 2:23:00 PM |

    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.

  • Anonymous

    2/15/2009 2:55:00 PM |

    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.

  • dogscapes

    2/15/2009 3:28:00 PM |

    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.

  • Anonymous

    2/15/2009 4:34:00 PM |

    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

  • Anne

    2/15/2009 5:52:00 PM |

    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.

  • Nameless

    2/15/2009 6:32:00 PM |

    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.

  • Anonymous

    2/15/2009 11:22:00 PM |

    "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

  • kris

    2/16/2009 12:37:00 AM |

    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/

  • Anonymous

    2/16/2009 5:08:00 AM |

    "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.

  • moblogs

    2/16/2009 10:58:00 AM |

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

  • mike_cawdery@btinternet.com

    2/18/2009 4:24:00 PM |

    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.

  • dina

    2/23/2009 6:51:00 PM |

    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!

  • Anonymous

    3/17/2009 4:44:00 PM |

    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!!

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 2:25:21 PM |

    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.

Add comment

Loading