Free checking, auto shows, low-cost hotel rooms, and bypass surgery

20. March 2008 William Davis (3)
Of the three major highways that lace the city of Milwaukee, there are at least five, and sometimes as many as ten, billboards that prominently feature one hospital heart program or another.

The passing of former First Lady, Ladybird Johnson in July, 2007, reminds us that, just 30 years ago, billboards were a far more common feature (many called them eyesores), proliferating like a dense forest of trees competing for a sliver of sunlight. Ladybird Johnson played a pivotal role in helping to dramatically reduce the number of billboards permissible on the nation’s highways. Of the relative few that remain today, a premium must be paid to post an advertisement. It costs several thousands dollars every month to maintain these highway commercials. But it’s not just an expense; it’s an investment.

The tens of thousands of eyes that view these billboards every day are potential customers, insured Milwaukeeans who carry health insurance and represent a major heart procedure just waiting to happen. They “need” to be directed to the right place. The billboards don’t feature health and wellness, heart disease prevention, or nutritional advice. They feature surgeons proudly wearing scrubs and masks, nurses, and declarations of the advantages of each hospital program. In effect, they invite you to have your heart attack, heart catheterization, bypass surgery, or other major heart procedure at their hospital. High-tech, high-ticket hospital heart care has become the subject of mainstream marketing, the stuff of flyers, brochures, and billboards.

The excesses of “big heart disease” have created a system that makes procedural heart disease “repair” far more profitable than heart disease prevention. Unfortunately, “repair” has disastrous financial, physical, and emotional consequences for everyone save the “repairman.”

While great good has been achieved by the American health care system, this gargantuan and inefficient system has also cultivated a culture of excess that has made many of its participants—physicians, hospitals, drug and device manufacturers—rich. And at our expense.

This approach was, to a degree, justifiable at a time when nothing better was available. But that's no longer true.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD
Tags :

Comments (3) -

  • Anonymous

    3/21/2008 4:01:00 AM |

    Hmmm I have never seen a billboard advertising these things in Canada, I'd find that rather like Dr Snake Oil, advertising to get you to buy their product!!!

    We need to get you a billboard Dr DSmileSmileSmile

    chick

  • Anonymous

    3/21/2008 4:29:00 PM |

    There are 450,000 billboards in America today, with 579 in Milwaukee. New digital billboards can change ads in seconds--thus flashing more (distractions) to already overburdened drivers (ie:  cell phones).  These cost between $200,000 to $500,000 to install. The digitals are used by many communities for Amber Alerts, and other law enforcement iniatives--like wanted criminals, so have some useful purposes other then advertisements.  

    Of course the answer is obvious as to why alternative and preventative health is not advertised.  No money in it.  The billboard message is only a symptom of what is wrong with our healthcare system.  The root causes are in Washington DC with all the special interest groups. ie:  pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, insurance companies.  Many people do not know who their congressmen/senators are, let alone their voting history on the Hill.

  • Gold Coast Hotels

    12/8/2009 4:23:40 PM |

    Billboards are really a great mode of advertising. Big expense but big revenue.

Add comment

Loading
When is a heart scan score of 400 better than 200?

When is a heart scan score of 400 better than 200?

13. September 2006 William Davis (0)
Imagine two people.

Tom is a 50-year old man. Tom's initial heart scan score is 500--a bad score that carries a 5% or more risk for heart attack per year.

Harry is also 50 years old. His heart scan score is 100--also a concerning score but not with the same dangers of Tom's much higher score.

Tom follows a powerful heart disease prevention program like the Track Your Plaque program. He achieves the 60:60:60 lipid targets; chooses healthy foods; takes fish oil; raises his blood vitamin D level to >50 ng/ml, etc. One year later, Tom's heart scan score is 400, a 20% reduction from his starting score.

Harry, on the other hand, doesn't understand the implications of his score. Neither does his doctor. He's casually provided a prescription for a cholesterol drug by his doctor but nothing else. One year later, Harry's heart scan score is 200, a doubling (100% increase) of the original score.

At this point, we're left with Tom having a score of 400, Harry with a score of 200. That is, Tom has twice the score, or 200 points higher, compared to Harry. Who's better off?

Tom is better off. Even though he has a significantly higher score, Tom's plaque is regressing. It is therefore quiescent with its components being extracted, inflammation subsiding, the artery is in a more relaxed state, etc.

Harry's plaque, in contrast, is active and growing: inflammatory cells are abundant and producing enzymes that degrade supportive tissue, excessive constrictive factors are constantly causing the artery to pinch partially closed, fatty materials are accumulating and triggering a cascade of abnormal responses.

This is therefore a peculiar situation in which a higher score is actually better than a lower score. It reflects the power of adhering to a preventive program. It also demonstrates how two scans are better than one because they show the rate of increase given a particular preventive approach.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
"Placebos are frequently of value"

"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
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • Roger

    5/12/2009 8:04:00 PM |

    That guy was way ahead of his time.  Doctors were posing for cigarette ads in the '50s.  And who cared if you had "middle-age spread?"  We've just update his benzedrine Rx with Red Bull and triple lattés.  I'm surprised Nitroglycerine wasn't mentioned; my dad took it for his angina.  The winter vacation in the tropics suggestion could have been all about Vitamin D, without knowing it.

    The Atlantic Monthly had an essay on the placebo effect that I have never forgotten.  You can read it below.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/10/fisher.htm

Add comment

Loading
Lipoprotein(a)--neglected and unappreciated

Lipoprotein(a)--neglected and unappreciated

16. February 2008 William Davis (2)

Lipoprotein(a), or just Lp(a) to its close friends and neighbors, is among the most underappreciated and neglected of causes of coronary plaque. It's the Rodney Dangerfield of lipoproteins.

Lp(a) rarely gets diagnosed before people come to my office. They've often been through the ringer: doctors have thrown their hands up in frustration because of poor response to "standard" treatment (AKA statin drugs); the patient doesn't understand why they might be thin and active yet have the high blood pressure of someone 70 lbs heavier; they have heart disease despite wonderful cholesterol values.

One blood test and the answer becomes clear: They have Lp(a). It explains all these phenomena.

They why don't more physicians order this simple test? Why don't we hear more about this prevalent (1 in 5 people with coronary plaque have it) genetic pattern that accelerates risk for heart disease?

There are a number of reasons. But I believe the most powerful reason is simply that there is no big revenue-generating drug to treat it. Statins reduce LDL cholesterol to the tune of $27 billion dollars a year (2007 revenue). There's no such blockbuster for Lp(a). Of course, Niaspan represents the relatively anemic attempt to commercialize a pharmaceutical treatment for Lp(a), but side-effects and the lack of FDA trials for the Lp(a)-reducing indication have stalled its commercial success. (Efforts to block the flush with various products, by the way, may re-invigorate niacin as a pharmaceutical agent. The drug companies smell money here.)

Another reason for Lp(a)'s unpopularity: Though there are mounds of data that document--without question--that Lp(a) is an important risk for coronary disease and other forms of atherosclerotic disease, we lack treatment trials. For instance, niacin vs. placebo for 5 years, then count the number of heart attacks and deaths. We have numerous, repetitive, overlapping, redundant trials with statins adhering to this design. We have none for niacin and the treatment of Lp(a).

Niacin is also a pain in the neck for your doctor. He/she rapidly tires of the calls about the crazy and disconcerting flushing with niacin. Most are unaware that proper hydration reduces or eliminates the flush for the majority of people. It takes too much time and energy to educate people. (By the way, prescription Niaspan makes no mention of purposeful hydration. They only suggest the nonsensical "Take with a low-fat snack," i.e., snacks that actually counter the therpaeutic effects of niacin. What they should be saying is "take with a high-fat snack" like raw almonds, foods that facilatate the benefits of niacin.)

Should someone concoct a successful pharmaceutical treatment for Lp(a), it will make the news, headlines in health magazines and health sections of the newspaper will blare about how important Lp(a) is. Yet it has been there all along, frustrating people and their physicians.

In the Track Your Plaque experience, Lp(a) clearly 1) correlates with heart scan scores, 2) correlates with progression of heart scan scores without treatment, and 3) poses special challenges for treatment. Interestingly, some of our biggest failures have been with Lp(a), as well as some of our biggest successes. (Our current record holder for the largest percentage reduction in heart scan score has Lp(a).)

If you have coronary plaque, or if there is family risk of heart disease, then Lp(a), in my view, is an absolutely essential factor to test for. Yes, treatment poses challenges. But once you know who your enemy is, then you can focus your efforts on it. Not knowing whether or not you have it leaves your efforts unfocused and generally flawed.

Track Your Plaque Members, be sure to read our in-depth Special Report, Unique Treatments for Lipoprotein(a) Reduction.



Copyright 2008 William Davvis, MD
Tags :

Comments (2) -

  • Anonymous

    3/9/2008 6:36:00 PM |

    Alka-Seltzer [325 ASA, aqeous] after applesauce [3 TBS].
    High-Fiber snack plus an ASA that won`t be forgotten: It`s in the water you need to wash down the niacin, and the funny taste helps remind you:
    90% compliance if adhered to.
    Not usually required chronically,.. most flushing is "tachyphylactic".
    castelli et al An Interview with the Editor, Am J Cardiol 2005

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 8:53:49 PM |

    Should someone concoct a successful pharmaceutical treatment for Lp(a), it will make the news, headlines in health magazines and health sections of the newspaper will blare about how important Lp(a) is. Yet it has been there all along, frustrating people and their physicians.

Add comment

Loading
Is flaxseed oil a substitute for fish oil?

Is flaxseed oil a substitute for fish oil?

9. September 2006 William Davis (3)

This question comes up so frequently that it's worth going over.

Flaxseed oil is a wonderful oil rich in linolenic acid, which may provide health benefits all by itself. Some authorities have speculated that the substantial reduction in heart attack seen in the Lyon Heart Study, the study that demonstrated the healthy power of the Mediterranean diet, is due to linolenic acid.

Flaxseed oil is also rich in monounsaturates and low in saturates, both desirable qualities. Of course, I'm talking here about flaxseed oil, to be distinguished from flaxseed , which are the intact seeds. The seeds themselves also contain the same oils, but contain other components, specifically lignan, a plant fiber with suspected health benefits like reduction in cancer risk.

Despite all flaxseed oil's wonderful properties, it is definitely not a substitute for fish oil. Why do we use fish oil for our coronary plaque control program (trying to reduce your heart scan score)? Several reasons. Fish oil:

--Dramatically reduces triglycerides, usually by 50% or more.
--Dramatically reduces specific lipoprotein classes like VLDL
--Dramatatically reduces, often eliminates, abnormal postprandial (after-eating) lipoprotein patterns, like IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein)
--Has been conclusively shown to reduce risk of heart attack and death from heart attack (GISSI Prevenzione Trial).
--Has been shwon to reduce risk of stroke.
--Modifies blood clotting parameters, particularly a 20% reduction in fibrinogen.

Flaxseed oil, or linolenic acid concentrate for that matter, do not accomplish any of these effects, all crucial if you are to gain control over your coronary plaque.

Flaxseed oil and flaxseed remain wonderful nutritional agents for their own reasons. But they will not substitute for fish oil in your program. Only fish oil--the real thing--does the job.
Tags :

Comments (3) -

  • Fish Oils

    6/29/2009 7:15:13 PM |

    I have been using a vitamin supplement from Top Form Nutrition that contains Borage Seed oil, Flax Seed oil and Fish oil. It seems to work very well, i can feel an increase in energy.

    Also i feel like im a little happier and in a better mood more often since taking it. Anyone else had similiar results taking a flax or fish oil supplement ?
    http://www.mytopform.com/essential-fatty-acids.html

  • Jon

    8/20/2010 3:20:10 PM |

    nice post

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 9:05:54 PM |

    Flaxseed oil, or linolenic acid concentrate for that matter, do not accomplish any of these effects, all crucial if you are to gain control over your coronary plaque.

Add comment

Loading
Treat the patient, not the test

Treat the patient, not the test

5. October 2008 William Davis (0)
"Treat the patient, not the test."

That is a common "pearl" of medical wisdom often passed on during medical training.

It refers to the fact that we should always view any laboratory or imaging test in the context of the live, human patient and not just treat any unexpected value that doesn't seem to make sense.

I raise this issue because it recently came up on a discussion on the Track Your Plaque Forum. A Member with a high heart scan score of around 1100 was advised by his doctor that it should be ignored, because he'd prefer to treat the patient, not the test. The patient is apparently slender, physically active, and entirely without symptoms, with favorable cholesterol values as well. The high heart scan score didn't seem to jive with the appearance of the patient, as viewed by this doctor.

This common phrase is meant to impart wisdom. It is a reminder that we treat real people, not just a jumble of laboratory values.

But the unspoken part of the equation is that judgment needs to be applied. A well looking person who shows an unexpected rise in white blood cell count could just have a screwy result, or could have leukemia. Liver tests (AST, ALT) that top 400 could represent a fluke, or dehydration incurred during a long workout, or hepatitis from a long ago blood transfusion.

Yes, treat the patient. But don't be an idiot and entirely dismiss the signficance of an unexpected laboratory or imaging test. A heart scan score of 1100 should be as readily dismissed as discovering a white blood cell count of 90,000 (normal is less than 12,000), or a 5 cm mass in the lung. The absence of symptoms or the failure of conventional risk factors to suggest causation is insufficient reason to dismiss the concrete findings of a test.

In this particular person, dismissing the significance of the heart scan finding by suggesting that the doctor should treat the patient, not the test, is tantamount to:

--Colossal ignorance
--Malpractice
--A certain sentencing of the hapless patient to future major heart procedures, heart attack or death (20-25% likelihood every year, or a virtual certainty over the next 5 years).

There is an ounce of wisdom in this old medical pearl. But there's also plenty of room for a knuckleheaded doctor to misconstrue and abuse its meaning for the sake of covering up his/her ignorance, laziness, or lack of caring.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Firefighters Face Added Risk of Fatal Heart Attack

Firefighters Face Added Risk of Fatal Heart Attack

22. March 2007 William Davis (1)
Firefighters are twice as likely to die from a heart attack in the line of duty than are policemen, and three times more likely than EMTs.

That's among the headlines run today because of a report in the New England Journal of Medicine documenting a dramatically higher risk for heart attack for fire fighters putting out fires. The above headline is from an excellent report run on NPR radio. You can listen to the webcast at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047656.

The story sparked comments from experts insisting that all fire fighters should have physicals, should be in better physical condition, should be covered by health insurance (the NPR report said that 1 out of 4 fire fighters lack health insurance). Judging from the indisputable risk firefighters encounter, these are all good ideas.

But if you've been following my blog or the Track Your Plaque program, you know that physicals alone are hopeless exercises for identifying hidden heart disease. Among the solutions: identify whether or not heart disease is present in the first place--do a CT heart scan.

In fact, several local fire companies in my area have done just that: insisting that all firefighters undergo a heart scan. When groups of people like firefighters arrange for heart scans, they gain the advantage of doing so en masse, thereby allowing many scan centers to offer a dramatically reduced price to the city, town, or village that is paying for them. I've even seen many firefighters scanned at no cost.

It would also help to have health insurance, be physically fit, and have a stress test (an exception to my view that stress tests are also useless to screen asymptomatic people for heart disease). But a CT heart scan would settle the question quickly, easily, undeniably, and inexpensively.
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • Rich

    11/15/2007 7:31:00 PM |

    Thanks for this article.

    I can't accept NPR's statement that 25% of firefighters have no health insurance. I think that all permanent public employees everwhere in the US have health insurance. A firefighter's union would certainly secure this benefit.

Add comment

Loading
I'll supply the tar if you supply the feathers

I'll supply the tar if you supply the feathers

30. November 2009 William Davis (13)
The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in.


DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING HAS:

Increased public awareness of medical conditions and their treatment
19 (11%)

Has had little overall effect on health and healthcare
29 (18%)

Needlessly increased healthcare costs
81 (50%)

Further empowered the revenue-obsessed pharmaceutical industry
130 (81%)


Clearly, there's a lot of negative sentiment against direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising.

It looks as if a small minority believe that good has come from DTC advertising, judging by the meager 11% who voted for increased awareness. In fact, the poll results are heavily weighed towards the negative: 50% voted for "needlessly increased healthcare costs," while an astounding 81% voted for "empowered the revenue-obsessed pharmaceutical industry."

It is, indeed, an odd situation: Pharmaceutical agents available only by prescription being hyped directly to the consumer.

Personally, I would vote for choices 1,3, and 4. While awareness has increased, it has come with a hefty price, not all of it well spent. I believe the pharmaceutical industry still adheres to the rule that, for every $1 spent on advertising, $4 is made in revenue. They are, in effect, printing money.
Tags :

Comments (13) -

  • Jim Purdy

    11/30/2009 1:06:16 PM |

    I would add this answer:

    Led to the massive over-prescribing of dangerous and powerful drugs to millions of patients, resulting in very large numbers of deaths and harmful side-effects.

  • Anonymous

    11/30/2009 4:51:34 PM |

    I have a young Cardiologist who told my husband and me on the last visit that drug companies are suffering from the downturn in the economy because of the billions that they are spending on research, and seems to believe it!!

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/30/2009 7:05:47 PM |

    Yes, among the most brainwashed of all are my colleagues.

  • Kathryn

    11/30/2009 11:59:50 PM |

    When this first began (& i was firmly ensconced in the medical system) i strongly believed the DTC ads would be helpful.  I was working for a doctor at the time & believed that folks should educate themselves & be their own advocates, to learn more of the meds they took & be more aware of side effects.  (The doc i worked for was not very impressed with my thoughts, however.)

    Sadly, that is not at all what has occurred with these ads.  

    Instead, ads give folks a false impression of what they do & then the folks insist on the meds to their docs.  No one is better educated or making a better effort at partnering with docs rather than taking their word as gospel.

    I'm long out of the conventional medical field (it has been over 5 years since i was on staff at a hospital).  But we still need to help folks learn to be their own advocates & educate themselves.  I'm so impressed with your website Dr. Davis, as it is a wonderful tool to do so.

  • Anonymous

    12/1/2009 1:24:45 AM |

    Sad that the results of your poll show only the opinion of a small more enlightened minority...

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/1/2009 3:05:45 AM |

    True, but it's a start!

    I can only hope that the "enlightened" further enlighten those around them.

  • renegadediabetic

    12/1/2009 2:19:52 PM |

    Some of that "awareness" may just be the power of suggestion making people think they have a disease and need that drug.  For example, restless leg syndrome is rare, though it is real.  Why advertize drugs to treat a rare condition???  I'm sure individual doctors can diagnose it and know what to prescibe.  Could it be that they want people to think they have restless leg syndrome when they really don't so that drug sales will increase?  Any why is it necessary to advertize antipsychotic drugs?  Do they think the entire population is crazy???  I'm sure that psychiatrists are capable of knowing what to prescibe without direct advertizing.

  • Richard A.

    12/1/2009 8:11:43 PM |

    I do not understand what advantage expensive Plavix has over dirt cheap low dose aspirin.

    From LAtimesblogs --
    Plavix advertising indirectly cost taxpayers an extra $207 million over five years

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/11/plavix-advertising-indirectly-cost-taxpayers-an-extra-207-million-over-five-years-1.html

  • Allen

    12/26/2009 7:44:49 AM |

    Hello, you have tried to your best. I agree with you and really liked it. Great effort... Keeps it up!!!!

  • Anonymous

    5/23/2010 3:36:30 AM |

    Hey I just a got a VAP blood test and my results stunned me.

    LDL 173 with 80% Type B. I was stunned, because I have been taking my fish oil, eating low carb, and no grains for 8 months now. She said your HDL is 44 so a statin is a better choice than niacin, but I insisted on niacin. My Doctor isn't happy, but it's my body, so my decision.

    Well yesterday I went brought that glucose meter and been taking my glucose reading and found them to range between 70 and 84.

    That is until today. I went out to dinner and ordered mussels and shrimp cooked in olive oil with cherry tomatoes with a side of spinach. Low carb right?

    Well an hour later I took a reading and found my blood glucose to be 137.

    What the Heck?

    I eat out a lot; maybe these places have been adding sugar to my Low Carb orders and that is the reason for my poor VAP test results? I am hoping the glucose meter helps me understand the weaknesses in my diet and with the niacin help me score better in my next VAP test.

    All I can say is thank you Dr. Davis for sharing your knowledge with us.

    Steve

  • medical products

    8/4/2010 7:38:14 AM |

    Very nice blog blog.From my view i give 10/10 ratings for you blog because in this blog very useful information i will get.I like it most.
    http://www.globalmedialshop.com

  • free download full movie

    8/4/2010 7:38:46 AM |

    free latest Dvdrip movies downloads from http://freemovietag.blogspot.com

  • Bollywood Song

    8/4/2010 7:39:12 AM |

    free Bollywood Song download from www.dreammp3.com

Add comment

Loading