Fast-forward information

24. October 2007 William Davis (11)
The internet has accelerated the conversation in health . . . enormously.

The discussions we have in Blogs, places like the Track Your Plaque Forum, and websites have accelerated the exchange of information and ideas so much that it is making traditional "official" sources of information IRRELEVANT.

Dr. John Cannell's unfailingly interesting and insightful comments in his most recent Vitamin D Newsletter brought this issue to mind. In his discussion of the vitamin D needs of pregnant women and his frustration with the failure of the National Institute of Health to take action despite the evidence, he states:

Whenever you see a child with asthma, diabetes or autism, just think: American Medical Association, American Pediatric Association, Institute of Medicine, Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, or Food and Nutrition Board.

Dr. Cannell is upset with the misguided advice of these agencies for mothers and babies to totally avoid sun while failing to provide advice on vitamin D supplementation, a combination of unhealthy factors that will increase the incidence of both type I and II diabetes, childhood asthma, and perhaps even childhood autism.

But this got me thinking: Here we are listening to a very credible source in Dr. Cannell, who has proven a discriminating judge of the evidence, along with vitamin D experts like Tufts University's Dr. Michael Holick, who has written a book on vitamin D (The UV Advantage: The Medical Breakthrough that Shows How to Harness the Power of the Sun for Your Health) ; University of Toronto's Dr. Reinhold Vieth, whose wonderful webcast on vitamin D was certain to convince you of many aspects of this nutrient's vital importance in health (unfortunately, it must have been taken off the hosting server, since I can no longer locate it); among others.

We all have access to this information. They are providing discussions on the topic that have long ago made the comments of "official" agencies like the FDA or the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board (charged with setting RDA's for vitamins) irrelevant. While information is conveyed at lightning speed through internet media sources, discussion boards, and chats, the committees of "experts" often sit on their hands, fearful of speaking out, often themselves unfamiliar with the scientific literature or the conversations being conducted, not uncommonly having hidden agendas of their own that might interfere with their impartiality.

Information on health (and other subjects, as well) is being conveyed to the interested public faster and faster. The FDA, the USDA, the Food and Nutrition Board, the American Heart Association are increasingly being viewed as behind the times. They often also provide tainted information. Among the most glaring examples of biased information is the Heart Association's endorsement of "heart healthy" products in its Heart Check Mark program, including Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp cereal, and Berry Kix, pure unadulterated junk foods thinly veiled with the Heart Association stamp of approval. Or the American Diabetes Association failure to speak out on the increasing penetration of carbohydrate and sugary junk foods in the American diet, while maintaining relationships and funding from its number one financial contributor, Cadbury Schweppes, the number one candy, soft drink, and snack manufacturer in the world.

The collective knowledge we are gaining through our own efforts will supplant the mis-information provided by official agencies. Just as Wikipedia represents collective knowledge on a broad range of topics, such a collective wisdom will develop in health, as well.
Tags :

Comments (11) -

  • John

    10/24/2007 2:31:00 PM |

    We at www.uvtalk.com agree.

    We loved for you and others to join us for further debates and the sharing of information regarding the positives of uv expsosure.

  • Anonymous

    10/24/2007 4:35:00 PM |

    Great post! Thanks for writing your thoughts and sharing your knowledge on this blog, it is very useful.

    I have just ordered some 2000 ui gelcaps vitamin D supplements because of what I have read here.

    I used to take 1000 ui/day, but from dry tablets.

  • Anonymous

    10/24/2007 8:15:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    November's issue of Scientific Amercian has a great article on vitamin D. The article was about how important vit. D is in fighting autoimmune diseases, cancer, and other inflamatory disorders. It also stated that many people are deficent in vitamin D and they are paying the price.
    I read your blog and info on TYP so I was aware of most of what was written. What is good about the article is that more people will read it and start thinking for themselves and realize the AHA et al don't know what they are talking about. They are IRRELEVENT!

  • Dr. Davis

    10/24/2007 8:41:00 PM |

    Amen!

  • Anonymous

    10/25/2007 2:04:00 AM |

    Webcasts about MS & D3 by Reinhold Vieth:
    http://www.direct-ms.org/presentations.html

    Someone named narkia has some links saved in their del.icio.us tagged as Vieth:
    http://del.icio.us/narkia/Vieth

    S

  • Mo

    11/2/2007 11:54:00 PM |

    In England the problem I've surmised is that the JBS (an alliance of the British Cardiac Society, the British Hypertension Society, Diabetes UK, HEART UK, the Primary Care Cardiovascular Society and the Stroke Association) base their guideline proposals based on research that most likely comes from drug companies that advocate their own products. And worse still we probably just ape US evidence without examining it.

    And there clearly is need for some doctors to learn more about vit D. One endocrinologist I know (but an otherwise very good one) suggests that any value between 9-125nmol/L is fine and proposed 400IU, whereas another recognised that 50nmol/L+ is sufficiency. However both prescribe D2. I'm not even sure D3 is available via prescription here - but go to a basic health food shop and you can find 1000IU D3 and not behind the counter.

    Some people don't have families that show patterns of symptoms related to vit D deficiency, but mine overwhelmingly does. All that I've heard from the vit D council makes complete sense because it's true. It makes me angry that we're still prescribed by outdated texts.

  • Dr. Davis

    11/3/2007 1:25:00 AM |

    Thank goodness we are entering the age of rapid information dissemination and self-empowerment!

  • Anonymous

    11/5/2007 11:19:00 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis!

    Thought I would revisit this blog posting because of my positive findings.  I purchased the UV Advantage book and in it the author talks about other substances created in the body by sun light - other than vitamin D.  I personally had found this true as I not only take vitamin D but also will use a sun lamp a few times a week, and have noticed using the lamp caused a euphoric feeling, much as described by the author.  

    In the book there is a chapter dedicated to sun boxes and how they help with the winter blues.  I thought with fall weather here I would buy a box & give it a try - and I'm glad I did.  I've only been using the box for a few days but what a difference, I feel more energetic, have slept better, eat less, and in general feel warm and sunny all over.  I don't know how to describe it other than amazing.  

    Since it has been mentioned that a positive upbeat demeanor is very helpful in the TYP program thought this mentioning might help others.  

    I'm going to experiment some more.  I've talked with the boss about bringing the light box to work - will see if others get the same "high" as I've gotten.

  • Dr. Davis

    11/5/2007 12:44:00 PM |

    That's great! Let us know how it goes at work.

  • Anonymous

    11/9/2007 10:13:00 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    Thought I would ring in with what was found with the light box at work.  Basically it helped better our mood we all though.  The light was used during our morning meeting, which is easy to do since there are just 3 of us.  And we all thought that we had more energy and felt "sunny" through the day.  I plan to continue bringing the box to work.    

    I also told my 83 year old grandmother of the light box and she wanted to try as she has trouble sleeping - (and eventually wanted it for her own.  I was more than happy to buy a new one.)  She tells me that it has helped with her sleep.  God bless her soul, like many at her age, grandma is ornery, and I was/am hoping the light will help with her mood, as is advertised on the box.  It's only been a week and results might change but so far results havn't been what was hoped for.  Grandma has been grumpy and prone to believing odd conspiracies for a few years now, but she normally keeps them to her self only mentioning them in private.  She now seems to have more energy and it was noticed by several family members as she called a few members out of the blue accusing them of such and such acts against her.  So in all honesty, the box worked for her too, but not with the upbeat demeanor hoped for.  

    My personal observation is that the box works great for sleep - and it worked pretty much right away for me.  I use it again in the evening around 5:30 as I have trouble staying awake when the sun goes down, but then would wake up very early in the morning - and as a result of using the light my sleep has been wonderful.  I have been going to bed at 10:00 and wake up at 5:00 with out waking up during the night.  I find this further confirmation of the importance of sunlight on our body’s health.  I plan to continue using it, and am glad you mentioned the book.  

    As a side note - I signed up for the trial fish oil capsules.  Received them - fantastic packaging, the capsules are some of the best we have ever seen.  (Both my father and I used to work in the health food industry and have seen many soft gels before.  Also dad used to work for encapsulator RP Scherer in the early 80s as head of marketing.) I gave the fish oil to my father to use as he follows the TYP program somewhat - and i wish he would become more involved.  

    He is reporting that the fish oil capsules have a very very strong fish after taste - much more so than the regular fish oil capsules he was previously using.  We are afraid the peroxide values might be high.  Dad mentioned that he is going to have the capsules tested, but i don't know when or if he will do that.

  • G

    11/13/2007 2:33:00 AM |

    If you store the fish oil caps in the freezer and take out as you need, there is less of a 'fishy' taste and burps.  Really works according to my patients... and cheaper than the enteric coated stuff! Heard that from the cardiologists I work with...

Add comment

Loading
Heart scan gone wrong

Heart scan gone wrong

6. February 2010 William Davis (9)
Those of you reading the Heart Scan Blog, I hope, have come to appreciate the power in measuring atherosclerotic plaque, the stuff of coronary artery disease, and not relying on indirect potential "risk factors," especially the fictitious LDL cholesterol.

However, like all things, even a great thing like heart scans can be misused. Here's a story of how a heart scan should NOT be used, submitted by a reader.


Dr. Davis,

First of all, let me start out by commending you on all of the work you are doing with your website, blogs, etc. You are truly a breath of fresh air at a time when conventional medicine is no longer making any sense. In the last 3 years or so, I have spent a lot of time using the internet to try and find answers . . . and just about every time, when I find things that make "sense," it coincides which the recommendations you provide. Thank You!!

I am 56 years old, and roughly 5 years ago I bought your book, Track Your Plaque, primarily because I had asked my then Internal Medicine physician about why we weren't more "proactive" about determining the state of our cardiovascular health...since the means to do so existed (scans). He was trying to get me to go on a statin because my cholesterol #'s were a little high and at the time I smoked. Other than that, I was in perfectly good health with no side effects or issues. The following year at my annual physical, we again discussed this and he gave me a few options and I ended up having a calcium score done, which showed some blockage, but again, I never had any pains, sweats, or any other symptoms whatsoever, and I am a very active former athlete. This is when I bought your book to try and set a course of plan that wouldn't just include pharmaceuticals.

At the same time, my father was in his last months of life dealing with prostate cancer and the multiple radiation and chemo treatments, so I was making many trips from my home to be with him . . . a 4 hour drive, and very disruptive to family, as I still have 3 kids at home. At what I thought was going to be my last visit with him, I stopped at the cemetery he had planned on being buried to confirm details and such and then started home.

As I was driving, a symptom hit me which I was unfamiliar with (pretty sure it was an anxiety attack now) and I stopped at a friend's house in Chicago, as I didn't want this to be a heart attack while I was driving. This is when I began thinking about the heart scan and the blockage, and ended up driving back later that night and went right to the ER....not because I had any chest pains, but thought it best to be checked out because I did not want to go before my dad did. I ended up staying the night. In the morning the cardiologist PA [physician's assistant] came in with a copy of my calcium scoring and said it was best to have a heart cath...which I was in total agreement with since it would definitively tell me the current condition of my coronary vessels. As I was getting ready to be wheeled into the cath lab, they approached me with a form that would allow them to treat (stent). This is where I became very uncomfortable, in that I had never even met the cardiologist . . . and I didn't like this. No one ever had asked if I was experiencing pains or anything else . . . but I buckled and signed the form.

Before you knew it, I was awake watching my heart being cathed and the cardiologist angry because they did not have all the right sizes of stents, so he had to use a couple extra and I ended up w/5 total . . . and my life changed forever! In looking back, I can't necessarily argue the need for intervention, but in hindsight, it would have been nice to have tried an alternative method of reversing my plaque, especially since I had never experienced any symptoms and didn't appear to be in any imminent danger.

Upon release from the hospital I was put on a cocktail of drugs that typically follow and I then began to search and research. No one talked to me about lifestyle changes other that smoking....but nothing on diet or other means of cholesterol control, etc....in fact, when I had to pick out my meals in the hospital, they wouldn't let me have cheese....but the rice crispy treat was fine....how stupid! They originally told me the Plavix had to last 6 months....and then 12....and then 2 years....I stayed on it for 1-1/2 years and it was the only thing other than a baby aspirin. I went to another cardiologist out of town and he wanted me back on 5 or 6 medications and said that now I had the stents....I would have to be on these for life.....and he was the expert that talked at several main conferences.....my last trip to him.

Now, fast forward to about 6 months ago: I was participating in a father-son soccer scrimmage and was playing goalie. It was wet out and I couldn't catch very well. So being the competitive person I am, I resorted to using my chest on several of the saves and also took a direct blow to my eye ( I wear glasses) and the eye started swelling up pretty good. We then finished and went inside to have pizza and everyone was concerned about my eye. About 30 minutes later I excused myself as i felt some pretty significant sweats and subsequently a pretty severe pain directly in the middle of my chest....I was having a heart attack! Called 911 and went to hospital (2-1/2 years since original stents) and my local cardiologist removed the blockage that was at the anterior portion of my 1st stent causing the blockage. The huge disappointment to me is that I had taken many steps to improve my overall health. But now that I have foreign bodies in my vessels, the chance of further clotting is something that i will most likely always have to live with.

BU, Michigan



This is an example of how heart scans should NOT be used. They should NEVER be used to justify a procedure, no matter how high the score or where the plaque is located. The "need" for procedures is determined by symptoms (BU's symptoms were hardly representative of heart disease), blood findings, EKG, stress testing, and perhaps CT coronary angiography. "Need" for procedures can never be justified simply on the basis of the presence of plaque by a heart scan calcium score.

Unnecessary procedures like the one BU underwent are not entirely benign, as his experience at the soccer game demonstrated.

Heart scans are truly helpful things. But, like many good things, they are subject to misuse in the hands of the uncaring or greedy.
Tags :

Comments (9) -

  • jcj - mich

    2/6/2010 6:22:47 PM |

    My father had hardening of the arteries when he was 56 years old. My doctor put me on statins when I turned 50 because of high numbers . I am on a low-carb diet now and I have lost about 10 lbs ( I am only alitte over weight ).  My thought is, shouldn't the doctor consider taking my off the statins for a while to see if my numbers will be fine now ?  I am afraid of having the same problem as my father .

  • pmpctek

    2/6/2010 7:06:32 PM |

    This is an example of how heart scans should NOT be used. They should NEVER be used to justify a procedure, no matter how high the score or where the plaque is located. - Dr. Davis

    This is exactly the reason why my primary care physician says a heart scan is pointless, because the diagnoses of high coronary calcium leads to no accepted procedure/treatment protocol (other than a statin prescription) and may lead to nothing more than anxiety for the patient.  

    If only the AMA/AHA/ACC made Dr. Davis' book, website, and blog mandatory reading.

  • osusana

    2/7/2010 6:06:42 AM |

    Can the K2 vitamin promote clotting and lead to a thrombus?

  • Anonymous

    2/7/2010 5:17:00 PM |

    Reading this blog was eerie for me, as I suffered a similar experience.  I am 56.  2 1/2 years ago an unscrupulous cardiologist put 5 stents in my arteries after a nuclear stress test revealed some impaired blood flow. Subsequent reviews by other cardiologists showed that my arteries were not sufficiently blocked to justify placement of the stents.  I will now likely be on Plavix for the rest of my life but, even more importantly, have an increased risk of future problems because of these stents.  Although I was somewhat knowledgeable about prevention at the time, as a Trackyourplaque member, I did not suspect that there were cardiologists out there in established clinics who were so interested in making money at the risk of others' health.  Dr. Davis' program has helped me gain confidence that I will overcome this.

  • Nigel Kinbrum

    2/8/2010 12:18:45 AM |

    @osusana
    Vitamin K deficiency results in slow/no clotting. Vitamin K sufficiency results in normal clotting.
    Nige.

  • Selena

    2/8/2010 2:09:32 AM |

    I'm wondering if you're against all types of wheat. I found this:

    http://www.quakeroats.com/products/more-products-from-quaker/content/cereals/unprocessed-bran.aspx

    For 35 calories, it has 11g of carbohydrates, 8 of which is fiber...It also has very impressive mineral composition. What do you think?

  • Anonymous

    2/8/2010 2:24:20 PM |

    "No one talked to me about lifestyle changes other that smoking....but nothing on diet or other means of cholesterol control, etc."

    I find it so hard to believe that this person has absolutely no idea about basic food nutrition. With public libraries everywhere, and the internet it is easy to access food nutrition information. Please do not blame doctors for your ignorance about nutrition.

  • garval

    3/1/2010 8:07:24 PM |

    I would appreciate your help with the following: can coronary artery stenosis of between 70-80% be reduced by non invasive means for instance, by a combination of a healthy diet, exercise and medication or is it bypass surgery the only course of action?

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:04:09 PM |

    This is an example of how heart scans should NOT be used. They should NEVER be used to justify a procedure, no matter how high the score or where the plaque is located. The "need" for procedures is determined by symptoms (BU's symptoms were hardly representative of heart disease), blood findings, EKG, stress testing, and perhaps CT coronary angiography. "Need" for procedures can never be justified simply on the basis of the presence of plaque by a heart scan calcium score.

Add comment

Loading