Group items tagged

Heart scan scores starting dropping not just 2%, or 8% . . . but 24%, 30%, 50% and more. We also began to see a larger proportion of people achieving these larger successes. Why? I attribute the surge in success to the addition of vitamin D. With vitamin D added to the mix of strategies in Track Your Plaque, HDL cholesterols went up much higher, LDL dropped further, blood sugars dropped, blood pressures dropped. People felt better, had more energy, gained more clarity in thought. And heart scan scores dropped more readily.

"Lisa is one of early success stories: a heart scan score of 447 in her early 40's, modest reduction of CT heart scan score three years ago. However, Lisa had a difficult time locating oil-based vitamin D. There has, in fact, been a national run on vitamin D and I'm told that even manufacturers are scrambling to keep up with the booming demand. So, she bought tablets instead and was taking 3000 units per day. She came in for a routine check. Lisa's 25-OH-vitamin D3: 17 ng/ml, signifying severe deficiency, the same as if she were taking nothing at all. (Recall that we aim for 50 ng/ml.) 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. "

Vitamin D related articles in "The Heart Scan Blog" by Dr. William Davis

What causes coronary heart disease or coronary atherosclerotic plaque, this thing that we track with heart scans? Well, here are a few little-publicized facts about heart disease that you are unlikely to hear from your When's-the-next-stent? cardiologist or the What is there besides statins? primary care doctor. (Since everybody knows that smoking is a modifiable risk for heart disease that can be readily identified, let's focus on the blood tests that reveal heart disease causes.)

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Subdividing Lipoproteins Two posts ago, we made the rounds of the commonly measured blood lipids (total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, triglycerides) and how they associate with cardiac risk. It's important to keep in mind that many things associate with cardiac risk, not just blood lipids. For example, men with low serum vitamin D are at a 2.4-fold greater risk of heart attack than men with higher D levels. That alone is roughly equivalent to the predictive power of the blood lipids you get measured at the doctor's office. Coronary calcium scans (a measure of blood vessel calcification) also associate with cardiac risk better than the most commonly measured blood lipids. Lipoproteins Can be Subdivided into Several Subcategories In the continual search for better measures of cardiac risk, researchers in the 1980s decided to break down lipoprotein particles into sub-categories. One of these researchers is Dr. Ronald M. Krauss. Krauss published extensively on the association between lipoprotein size and cardiac risk, eventually concluding (source): The plasma lipoprotein profile accompanying a preponderance of small, dense LDL particles (specifically LDL-III) is associated with up to a threefold increase in the susceptibility of developing [coronary artery disease]. This has been demonstrated in case-control studies of myocardial infarction and angiographically documented coronary disease. Krauss found that small, dense LDL (sdLDL) doesn't travel alone: it typically comes along with low HDL and high triglycerides*. He called this combination of factors "lipoprotein pattern B"; its opposite is "lipoprotein pattern A": large, buoyant LDL, high HDL and low triglycerides. Incidentally, low HDL and high triglycerides are hallmarks of the metabolic syndrome, the quintessential modern metabolic disorder. Krauss and his colleagues went on to hypothesize that sdLDL promotes atherosclerosis because of its ability to penetrate the artery wall more easily

The Author The author of this site is the British writer, John Davidson. Please note that the author is neither a doctor, nor a qualified health practitioner. Every cancer patient should always consult his or her medical practitioner with regard to the use of complementary remedies or treatments, and nothing on this site should be construed in any way as medical or therapeutic advice. It is simply the result of one person's search for solutions. Please read our disclaimer. About This Site Internet searches trawl up vast amounts of information about cancer, from a broad spectrum of viewpoints. The information and internet links on this site are for those seeking to augment the treatment offered by their hospital oncology (cancer) unit. Of course, a great many other internet sites concerning cancer can be found by keying the requisite search words into any of the major search engines. The content of this site was initially prepared, at the request of medical and nursing staff and others, some weeks after I had had an emergency operation for the removal of a colon cancer, and while undergoing chemotherapy in case any cancer cells had gone AWOL. There had been some escape of cancer cells into associated lymph nodes (3 out of 17, including the most distal), but no other tumours had been picked up by a CT scan. When I returned home from hospital in September 2005, with the help of friends, I started doing some research on cancer. I was amazed to discover that despite the billions of pounds/euros/dollars etc. spent on cancer research, and the many advances in understanding the numerous variants of the disease, the standard treatment for my stage of colon cancer is still a drug (fluorouracil, also called 5FU) that has been in use for more than forty years, has uncomfortable side effects, and which only increases the chances of survival after five years by 5 to 10%.

Good Information

A German group has now shown that the important inflammatory marker, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), is also reduced by vitamin D supplementation. Many studies have implicated increased TNF levels in promoting cancer. In this study, a modest vitamin D dose of 3320 units (83 micrograms) was given vs. placebo. The 25-hydroxy D level reached in the treated group was 34.2 ng/ml (85.5 nmol/L), which resulted in a 26.5% reduction in TNF compared with 18.7% reduction (?) in the placebo group.

Why would vitamin D be prescribed when vitamin D3 is available over-the-counter? Let's review the known differences between vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol): --D3 is the human form; D2 is the non-human form found in plants. --Dose for dose, D3 is more effective at raising blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D than D2. It requires roughly twice to 250% of the dose of D2 to match that of D3 (Trang H et al 1998). --D2 blood levels don't yield long-term sustained levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as does D3. When examined as a 28-day area under the curve (AUC--a superior measure of biologic exposure), D3 yields better than a 300% increased potency compared to D2. This means that it requires around 50,000 units D2 to match the effects of 15,000 units D3 (Armas LA et al 2004). --D2 has lower binding affinity for vitamin D-binding protein, compared to D3 --Mitochondrial vitamin D 25-hydroxylase converts D3 to the 25-hydroxylated form five times more rapidly than D2. --As we age, the ability to metabolize D2 is dramatically reduced, while D3 is not subject to this phenomenon

Add vitamin D to achieve our target serum level . . . HDL jumps to 50, 60, 70, even 90 mg/dl. The first few times this occurred, I thought it was an error or fluke. But now that I've witnessed this effect many dozens of time, I am convinced that it is real. Just today, I saw a 40-year old man whose starting HDL was 25 mg/dl increase to 87 mg/dl. Responses like this are supposed to be impossible. Before vitamin D, I had never witnessed increases of this magnitude.

True to form, Dr. John Cannell has published yet another wonderfully insightful Vitamin D Newsletter. One item caught my eye, a response to a question about the Marshall Protocol. I, like Dr. Cannell, was inundated with questions about this so-called protocol, which amounts to little more than the unfounded speculations of a non-physician, actually someone not even involved in health care. In all honesty, I blew the whole issue off after I read Dr. Marshall's rants. They smack of pure quackery, though from somebody who clearly has a command of scientific lingo. To Dr. Cannell's credit, he took the time and effort to construct a rational response in the latest issue of the newsletter. I reproduce his response here:

Why is it that vitamin D deficiency can manifest in so many different ways in different people? One big reason is something called vitamin D receptor (VDR) genotypes, the variation in the receptor for vitamin D. Why is it that the dose of vitamin D necessary to reach a specific level differs so widely from one person to the next? VDR genotype, again. Variation in blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D from a specific dose of vitamin D can vary three-fold, as shown by a University of Toronto study. In other words, a dose of 4000 units per day may yield a 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level of 30 ng/ml in Mary, 60 ng/ml in Paul, and 90 ng/ml in Pete--same dose, different blood levels

I stumbled on one of the growing number of local media stories on the power of vitamin D. \nIn one story, a purported "expert" was talking about the benefits of "high-dose" vitamin D, meaning up to 1000, even 2000 units per day. \nI regard this as high-dose---for an infant. \nJudging by my experiences, now numbering well over 1000 patients over three years time, I'd regard this dose range not as "high dose," nor moderate dose, perhaps not even low dose. I'd regard it as barely adequate.

A Track Your Plaque member brough the following webcast to our attention: Prospects for Vitamin D Nutrition\nwhich can be found at http://tinyurl.com/f93vl (The above link no longer seems to work, use http://wildhorse.insinc.com/directms13oct2005/ instead) Despite the painfully dull title, the webcast is the best summary of data on the health benefits on vitamin D that I've seen. The presenter is Dr. Reinhold Vieth, who is among the handful of worldwide authorities on vitamin D. In 1999, Dr. Vieth authored the first review to concisely and persuasively argue that vitamin D nutrition was woefully neglected and that its potential for health was enormous.

It seems not a single day passes that I don't learn something new about this unique hormone (mis)named "vitamin D." \nFrom its humble beginnings recognized only as the factor responsible for bone maturation (with deficiency leading to childhood rickets), vitamin D now commands a recognized role in almost every conceivable aspect of health and disease. \n