Hospitals: Then and Now

It's 1920. The hospital in your city is a facility run by nuns or the church. It's a place for the very ill, often without hope of meaningful treatment, but nonetheless a place where surgeries take place, babies are born, the injured and chronically ill can find care. No one has health insurance and there's no Medicare. Everyone pays what they can. The hospital is accustomed to doling out plenty of care without compensation. For that reason, they welcome donations and sometimes will build new additions or other facilities in honor of a major donor.

Volunteeers are common, since the wards are understaffed and generally suffering from a shortage of trained nurses and personnel associated with the church. Drugs, such as they are, are often prepared from basic ingredients in the hospital pharmacy. Product representatives hawking medicines and devices are virtually unheard of.

Though their therapeutic tools are limited, the physicians are a proud group, dedicating their careers to healing. The majority of the medical staff volunteer large portions of their time to care for the poor who come to the hospital with very advanced stages of disease: metastatic tumors, advanced heart failure, debilitating strokes, overwhelming septicemia, etc.

Hospitals are usually governed by a board of clergy and physicians who make decisions on how to apply their limited resources and continually seek charitable donations.


Fast forward to present day: Hospitals are high-tech, professional facilities with lots of skilled people, complicated equipment,and capable of complex procedures. While they still house people with advanced illnesses, the floors are also filled with people with much earlier phases of disease. In general, they do a good job, with quality issues scrutinized by a number of official agencies to police practices, incidence of hospital-related infections, medication errors, care protocols, etc.

The hospital of 2006 is a more more effective place than the hospital of 1920. But its aims and operations are different, also. Though some churches are still involved in hospitals, more and more are owned by publicly-traded companies that answer to shareholders--shareholders who want share value to increase. Though donations are still sought, much of the revenues are obtained by concentrating on profitable, large-ticket procedures. More procedures are often generated by advertising.

Because they operate to generate profits, several hospitals in a single city or region compete with one another. The 21st century has therefore witnessed the phenomenon of hospital-owned physicians: more and more practicing physicians are employees of their hospital. That way, the physician brings all his patients and procedures to his hospital, not to a competitor. The top of the funnel is the primary care physician, who tends to see all disease when it first occurs. The primary care physician then sends the patient to the specialist, who is obliged (by contract) to perform his/her procedure in the hsopital paying their salary.




Representatives from companies manufacturing and selling expensive hospital equipment and drugs are everywhere, falling over themselves to gain attention of the physicians using their equipment and the hospital buyers who make purchasing decisions. Millions of dollars can be transacted with just one sale.

The number of volunteers has dwindled. The poor and uninsured are commonly diverted elsewhere, often to a government-funded, and often second-rate, institution. Hospitals measure success by comparing annual revenues and numbers of major procedures.

The hospital of 2006 is a vastly different place than 1920. If you're expecting charitable treatment, compassion, and selfless care, you're in the wrong century. In 2006, the hospital is a business. You don't expect charitable treatment at Wal-Mart or from your car dealer. Don't expect it from your hospital. They are businesses and you are a customer. Recognize this fact, lose the nostalgia for the hospitals of yesterday, and a lot more will become clear to you.
Loading
"You can't reduce coronary plaque"

"You can't reduce coronary plaque"

"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.

Comments (9) -

  • Angela

    5/10/2009 3:17:00 PM |

    "They didn't teach that to me in medical school (back in 1980)!"

    Unfortunately vitamin d is not mentioned in med school nowadays except for osteoporosis prevention...

    Dr. Davis -- thank you for your blog. I am a med student interested in REAL evidence based medicine (which makes me a bit unpopular between my teachers).

    I researched vitamin D after reading your blog, and decided to mega-dose on it. It's been 4 weeks now and my "inespecified mood disorder" (never met criteria for depression, but have never been really "well" since I was 16) is GONE. Like a "veil" has fallen or something. PMS is gone as well.Now I have discovered that the periods of my life in which I felt truly well were when I spent outside most of the day (I live in the mediterranean coast).

    I also had a single attack of MS some years ago, so vitamin D will help to prevent full blown multiple sclerosis.

    My comment is in no way related with atherosclerosis, but I just wanted to thank you, and congratulate you for having found a way to help people outside conventional medicine. I feel greatly inspired by your work.

    Regards,

    Angela Nicolas

  • antidrugrep

    5/10/2009 7:59:00 PM |

    "primary care physicians are completely in the dark"

    For the record, we aren't ALL in the dark. In fact, I stumbled across your website a few years ago as I was looking for supportive testimony from other practitioners who saw things clearly. In fact, I watched as you "caught up" with the idea of adding Vitamin K2 to your regimen - presumably based on the results of the 2004 Rotterdam Study.

    I hate to sound defensive, but such a sweeping generalization is uncharacteristically irrational of your posts up to now. Perhaps you haven't known any primary care "grunts" without a cranial suppository.

    Now you know at least one.

  • Kismet

    5/10/2009 9:43:00 PM |

    I guess it's just a matter of time until someone breaks the record again?

    I know you have talked highly of vitamin K2, I'm wondering if you've made it a staple of the TYP program already? I think there's all reason to do so.
    Below two studies using high doses of K1, but it should work via conversion to K2 (the epidemiology of K2 hints at the same phenomenon).

    Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Apr 22. [Epub ahead of print]
    Vitamin K supplementation and progression of coronary artery calcium in older men and women.
    Shea MK, O'Donnell CJ, Hoffmann U, Dallal GE, Dawson-Hughes B, Ordovas JM, Price PA, Williamson MK, Booth SL.

    One of THE most impressive studies I've ever read:
    Thromb Haemost. 2004 Feb;91(2):373-80.
    Beneficial effects of vitamins D and K on the elastic properties of the vessel wall in postmenopausal women: a follow-up study.
    Braam LA, Hoeks AP, Brouns F, Hamulyák K, Gerichhausen MJ, Vermeer C.

  • pmpctek

    5/11/2009 4:10:00 AM |

    Over the last year, I have seen about a dozen physicians (for a reason other than heart disease).

    Be they a GP, cardiologist, pulmonologist, oncologist, or hematologist, they all tell me the same thing; we all "naturally" develop coronary plague as we age and that it can only be minimally "managed" by lowering our cholesterol with -insert your statin drug here.

    Every time I reply with; there is nothing natural about having calcified plaque build up in our coronary arteries at any age and that it can be very effectively managed by following Dr. Davis' "Track Your Plaque" protocol. (As I pull out your book to show them.)

    The physician then usually looks at me like I have two heads and dismisses me by standing up to signal that the visit is over.  Except for one physician, honestly, who responded by reaching for his script pad and saying that he would like to start me on an antidepressant medication right away... lmao.

    I have now given up looking for any local physician who would be willing to help me in any way with the heart scan/track-your-plaque program.

  • Dr. William Davis

    5/12/2009 1:06:00 AM |

    Antidrugrep--

    Actually, that generalization was intended principally for the sorts of primary care docs who wouldn't read a blog like this. You are clearly the exception.

    If you had responded that most cardiologists are knuckleheads out for a buck, I would have agreed, too.

  • Dr. William Davis

    5/12/2009 1:08:00 AM |

    Kismet--

    Thanks for the references. I hadn't seen the Shea study; the findings are interesting.

    We haven't had enough people have pre-K2 and post-K2 heart scans, so it's hard to know what effect it ADDS to the existing battery of strategies. Nonetheless, K2 is definitely on the list of most promising. Given its benign nature, I do encourage people to add it, though dosing remains entirely uncertain.

  • Anonymous

    6/2/2009 1:25:26 PM |

    I seem to be developing atherosclerosis at age 26 and I've been doing a lot of research. B12 and Vitamin D are related, but you should also be aware of magnesium. See the study at Comparison of Mechanism and Functional Effects of Magnesium and Statin Pharmaceuticals. In this study they basically explain how magnesium works as a natural statin and calcium channel blocker. If you do further research online you may become convinced, as I am, that magnesium deficiency is just as widespread as Vitamin D deficiency.

    You need to take a chelated form of magnesium, such as glycinate, because other forms (like magnesium oxide) are poorly absorbed by the body and not worth the money.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:34:52 PM |

    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.

  • Anonymous

    12/15/2010 7:58:47 PM |

    Worst thing you can do is use the tobacco drug, either by smoking or through spit tobacco.

    Also, being exposed to toxic tobacco smoke (sometimes called second-hand or environmental tobacco smoke) is EXTREMELY Dangerous! Make sure you work to BAN SMOKING EVERYWHERE, INDOORS OR OUT!

    Better yet, BAN THE TOBACCO DRUG, NOW!

Loading