Category Archives: iatrogenesis

AHS 2022 Lecture, Acute and Long Covid, Nutritional and Lifestyle Immunology

Leave a reply

I recently gave a talk at the AHS 2022 meeting held at UCLA. You can view the video here:

This first slide gives a good overview.

The presentation covers a quick review of my presentations given last year at the PAH 2021 annual meeting (virtual) with additional information on long Covid.

Multiple nutrients acting synergistically support a balanced response to viral infections, including SARS CoV-2. Here is a picture.

The take home message is that no single nutritional intervention is likely to have significant impact with an acute infection unless all but one nutritional component is optimal. Nevertheless, there is compelling evidence that Vitamin D deficiency is rampant in the developed world and if one nutritional intervention is likely to be of benefit, Vitamin D supplementation, particularly in high risk populations, presents the most likely candidate. As usual, preventive supplementation would be preferable to rescue high dose intervention.

In a study of frail elderly hospitalized patients, regular vitamin D supplementation was associated with decreased mortality as demonstrated here. Compared to no supplementation, regular supplementation was associated with a 93% reduction in risk of death.

A study from Spain with very high dose Vitamin D in the form of Calcifediol showed significant benefit in hospitalized patients, suggesting that Vitamin D deficiency was prevalent in that population and that such a treatment intervention should be widely considered.

Calcifediol Treatment and COVID-19-Related Outcomes

Click to access dgab405.pdf

The following graphic from another nutrition review article, with red additions added by myself, demonstrates the complex interaction between nutrition and the two main components of our immune system, innate immunity (immediate response) and adaptive immunity (based on immune memory). Again red highlights added by yours truely.

And here is a slide from my lecture with quotes from that article.

Yet most Americans are deficient in many of these essential nutrients as depicted here. The percentages represent the % of Americans that fall below the estimated amount required to prevent deficiency in HALF of adults (a very low standard).

The EAR is a very low bar to meet, yet many Americans fall below even that low standard.

The SARS CoV2 virus interferes with a crucial component of the the initial (innate) immune response, the production of interferon 1 and the signaling of interferon one to immune cell mediators as depicted in this graphic.

SARS CoV2 on the left is compared to Virus X on the right. On the left interferon 1 (IFN) production and signaling is blocked by the virus, interfering with an effective and controlled immune response, on the right IFN is not blocked. A cascade of events results in TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE, AND THEN TOO MUCH of an immune response, producing a cytokine storm.

Obesity, insulin and leptin resistance, also interfere with the production and signaling of interferon. The result is that people with insulin and leptin resistance (pre-diabetes, Type 2 Diabetes as well as sarcopenia) experience a double hit. First the virus itself disrupts the immune response and superimposed upon the viral effect is the effect of insulin and leptin resistance on the immune response.

SOCS: suppressor of cytokine signaling. Several recent viral studies have shown that viral genes can hijack SOCS1 to inhibit host antiviral pathways, as a strategy to evade host immunity
On the left Interferon production and signaling are normal and a successful immune response is mounted. On the right the presence of insulin and leptin resistance, associated with obesity results in an initial inadequate response and a late excessive response. TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE, THEN TOO MUCH.

Factors that can quickly impact insulin and leptin resistance include all the components of an ancestral lifestyle depicted in my website graphic. A paleolithic or ancestral diet that eliminates sugar added foods and beverages, replacing those empty calories with nutrient dense foods, exercise, adequate restorative sleep, stress reduction, avoidance of environmental toxins, social connection. All of these affect health in general, mitigate insulin and leptin resistance, and support a balanced immune response to viral infection. The circle of health depicted below is surrounded by the many deleterious aspects of modern living. Thus, a mismatch between our evolutionary biology and present day life.

Here is a slide from my lecture that lists many lifestyle factors that can impact infection with any virus, including SARS CoV-2

My lecture also included discussion of Long COVID, theories of etiology and pathophysiology which will be discussed in my next post.

For the full lecture which is about 34 minutes long, please follow the link above.

THIS WEBSITE PROVIDES INFORMATION FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONSULT YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER FOR MEDICAL ADVICE.

Eat clean, drink filtered water, love, laugh, exercise outdoors in a greenspace, get some morning sunlight, block the blue light before bed, engage in meaningful work, find a sense of purpose, spend time with those you love, AND sleep well tonight.

Doctor Bob

Statin Guidelines, one step forward, two steps backwards

10 Replies

The new statin guidelines published jointly by the AHA (American Heart Association) and ACC (American College of Cardiology) present some good news but also allot of bad news.

The good news (one step forward) is that the guidelines acknowledge the following:

1. None of the cholesterol lowering drugs (except for statins) have ever demonstrated the ability to save lives by lowering cholesterol.

2. The ability of statin drugs to save lives (after a heart attack) is independent of whether and by how much the cholesterol is lowered.

This acknowledgement is very important because it sheds light on the fact that statins work primarily by effects independent of how much cholesterol is circulating in the blood. This is a fact that is not well understood by many physicians or patients. This fact will create some confusion because the American public has been misinformed for many years by physicians, the media and professional organizations all using terms like “good cholesterol” and “bad cholesterol”. These terms are meaningless, confusing, and counter-productive.

The new guidelines are two steps backwards for a few reasons:

1. They expand the number of patients under the guidelines in the US by tens of millions of people who will not benefit from their use and implementation of the guidelines will likely harm many.

2. The guidelines continue to assume and quote unrealistically low and inaccurate complication rates.

3. The risk assessment tool that accompanies the guidelines over-estimates risk for heart attack and stroke by 75-150%. This calculation of the over-estimate is based upon application of the guidelines to a huge database of real patients. This analysis has been published in a Peer Reviewed Journal and this analysis has already been discussed by the lay-press to the embarrassment of the AHA and ACC. This particular concern was communicated to the guideline committee one year ago by a prominent research cardiologist and statistician on the faculty of Harvard Medical School, but ignored by the guideline committee.

4. The guidelines have lowered the recommended 10 year  risk threshold for use of statins from the previous 10-20% level to a 7.5% level (thereby tremendously increasing the number of people who would be placed on statins). And since the risk calculator, as discussed in #3 above, greatly inflates the risk it essentially would apply the statin guidelines in reality to individuals with only a 3.75 to 4% risk of a cardiovascular event in the next 10 years. This shifts the risk/benefit ratio to a much higher level than the already high risk/benefit ratio of the previous guidelines.

Gratefully the excessive use of statins as well as the folly of the previous and new guidelines have  been brought to the public arena and the debate has finally drawn attention. Perhaps some reasonable discussion will ensue and perhaps the medical community at large will finally think about the bias represented in policy statements and guidelines as well as the bias presented in the many review articles that have been published on this topic.

Here are links to some reading of recent articles in the lay press.

Cholesterol Guidelines Under Attack – NYTimes.com

New Cholesterol Advice Startles Even Some Doctors – NYTimes.com

Risk Calculator for Cholesterol Appears Flawed – NYTimes.com

“After the guidelines were published, two Harvard Medical School professors identified flaws in the risk calculator that apparently had been discovered a year ago but were never fixed, as Gina Kolata reported in The Times on Monday.

In a commentary to be published Tuesday in The Lancet, a leading medical journal, the professors estimate that as many as half of the 33 million do not actually have risk thresholds exceeding the 7.5 percent level. Other experts who have tested the calculator found absurd results; even patients with healthy characteristics would be deemed candidates for statins.”

Be careful out there.

Peace,

Bob Hansen MD

Don’t Give More Patients Statins

3 Replies
On November 14, the following editorial was published in the New York Times.

Don’t Give More Patients Statins

By JOHN D. ABRAMSON and RITA F. REDBERG

New guidelines published on Tuesday of last week widely expand the category of who should take statins.

Two physicians authored the article providing an excellent analysis and warning against implementation of the new guidelines which are unfortunately and again, not based on sound evidence or reasonable analysis.

” based on the same data the new guidelines rely on, 140 people in this risk group would need to be treated with statins in order to prevent a single heart attack or stroke, without any overall reduction in death or serious illness.”

“At the same time, 18 percent or more of this group would experience side effects, including muscle pain or weakness, decreased cognitive function, increased risk of diabetes  (especially for women),  cataracts or sexual dysfunction.”

“We believe that the new guidelines are not adequately supported by objective data, and that statins should not be recommended for this vastly expanded class of healthy Americans. Instead of converting millions of people into statin customers, we should be focusing on the real factors that undeniably reduce the risk of heart disease: healthy diets, exercise and avoiding smoking. Patients should be skeptical about the guidelines, and have a meaningful dialogue with their doctors about statins, including what the evidence does and does not show, before deciding what is best for them.”

History repeats itself, soon the AHA and ACA will want statins in the water. The 18% estimate of serious side effects in my opinion is understated. Every week in the pain clinic I diagnose statin myopathy and/or cognitive impairment on at least one patient. Here are some stories about patients that appeared in the comments section of the oped on-line.

Noreen stated:

I am a victim of statin “therapy.” At the age of 72, with just a moderately high LDL, Simvastatin was prescribed. I took it for approximately 2 weeks, and severe pain developed in my whole body, but, primarily in my lower legs. I read the side effects on line and stopped taking it.
The pain went away, but my legs were weak. After much investigation by neurologists at University of California, SFMC, I was diagnosed with statin-induced neuropathy. The calf muscle in both legs has totally gone — nothing left but sinew. My life has been severely damaged by an inability to walk properly. I cannot raise on my toes. It has been three years since I took this medication, and there is no further hope of recovery. Prior to taking Simvastatin I was an athlete all my life. At the time of this pharmaceutical invasion I was still, hiking, exercising regularly and downhill skiing. Shame of this hired committee of “experts.”

Here is how a physician/patient described his experience.

I agree with Abramson and Redburg that treating a numbers instead of the patient is wrong. I am in a high risk group and I would hope to prevent another heart attack (I had one in 2009), yet I cannot take statins as I repeatedly developed muscle pain and then progressive weakness and loss of balance with all the statins I tried. My cardiologists (including Mayo physicians) and internists continued to push trying different statins and other cholesterol lowering medications even though I complained of side effects. Although some of my loss of power is due to aging and not statins, I used to be able to hike 10 to 20 miles with up to 5 to 6,000 feet elevation gain in a day before my statin era and now I can barely manage 4-5 miles at a slow pace. I’ve seen this in others taking statins. Even though the percentage who develop weakness may be low compared to the majority, it is a real debilitating effect for some. Doctors are brain washed (and the lay public too by TV and other ad bombardment), by the pharmaceutical industry to treat numbers rather than individuals. The result is the standard of care is now to treat the lab test instead of the person. Statins are dangerous medications and should not be prescribed lightly. SD Markowitz, MD

George from CA describes his experience as follows.

I had been on statins for over 15 years. Slowly, I began experiencing cognitive dysfunction, balance issues, muscle weakness, etc. even though I exercised both my body and brain. I quit several months ago and have been feeling better all around every day with improvement in every area. I’d rather die feeling good in 10 or 20 years than be miserable for however long this terrible medicine might extend my life.

JR Hoffman MD from Los Angeles provided further insight.

Congratulations to Drs Abramson and Redberg for their outstanding editorial, and to the NYT for having the courage to print it. As the authors note, this new guideline’s major beneficiary will be the pharmaceutical industry, while the American people will likely be its primary victim.

The British Medical Journal has recently printed a series of papers (disclosure — I co-authored one of those papers) addressing the biases and distortions that enter far too many published clinical guidelines, because a large majority of panel members and panel chairs have a financial conflict of interest, and because panels are stacked to support viewpoints reflecting those conflicts, independent of the evidence. This is particularly true of guidelines from prominent medical specialty societies … societies which themselves receive major financial support from industry. 

How many people targeted by the new guidelines would take one of these medicines if they were told that far more than 9 out of 10 (in fact probably more than 99%) would get no possible benefit whatever? And essentially none would get an overall reduction in major morbidity or mortality? And that this would come at a substantial cost in the side effects that a good many would suffer (not even considering the cost in dollars)?

If your physician tells you that you “need” a statin, please ask her for the details of how likely you as an individual are to benefit, and at what chance of harm.

Statin drugs interfere with the human production of many important substances. One of these is Coenzyme Q 10 also called uibiquinone. Co Q 10 functions as an important anti-oxidant and as an essential component of the apparatus inside every cell that produces ATP, the fundamental unit of energy that provides energy for every cellular function. Without ATP the cells in every organ shut down and cannot do any work.

Statin side effects can include not only muscle pain and weakness but also nerve damage, dementia, amnesia.  Shortness of breath can be the only symptoms when the muscles of respiration are affected.  Diabetes can be caused by any of the statin drugs and this can be permanent.  Rarely, statins can cause death . This happens when a massive amount of muscle damage causes a flood of debris that overwhelms the body’s ability to clear the debris. Damage to muscles and nerves can be permanent without any recovery after  the statin is stopped. A former astronaut and flight surgeon suffered transient global amnesia which fortunately cleared after stopping the statin drug. He has since published a few books about the dangers and inappropriate use of statins. Kidney failure requiring dialysis or kidney transplant is also a rare but potential result of statin medication.

Cardiologists and primary care physicians often ignore complaints about muscle pain, fatigue, weakness and forgetfulness in older patients and attribute it to old age. But even when these complaints are recognized as a side effect, rarely does a physician report it  to the FDA. As a result, post marketing surveillance data underestimates tremendously the frequency of side effects.

Be careful out there. Read my first post about statin medications. it provides risk-benefit data. Remember, we do not know with certainty the frequency of side effects and permanent damage, but you can be sure it happens more often than the drug company states. It happens more often than most physicians realize.

Peace

Bob Hansen MD