|
|
| |
| Free Weekly Newsletter | Post a Question on this Site |
 |
Home |  |
About |
|
Daily Program | |
Lifestyle Tips | |
Why VRP? | |
Order Products | |
Checkout |
|
Account Information | |
Security | |
|
· · |
About the death of Tim Russert It's always a tragedy when someone as young as 58 dies, and I say that as someone who is about to turn 58. I have had a lot of questions about Mr. Russert's death- as I'm sure many of you have had- and thanks to the Internet, it has been possible to find some answers. The following information has been made publically available, although it has not been widely disseminated. The very first thing I wondered was whether Mr. Russert had a history of heart disease or if his heart attack occurred completely out of the blue. The answer is that he did have an estabished medical history of heart disease, and he was under treatment for it, which included medications. I do not know which medications he was taking. But from everything I know about Modern Medicine, I think there is a 99.99 percent chance that he was taking a statin drug. It's ironic because heart attack prevention is the number one reason why statin drugs are prescribed, yet this very famous person died of a heart attack anyway. The particular kind of heart attack that Mr. Russert had was one in which a piece of unstable plaque broke off, ruptured, and very suddenly, causing a large blood clot to form and a fatal coronary occlusion. Prominent cardiologists have admitted that there are no tests currently that will predict plaque rupture, and there are no treatments that will prevent it. Some have suggested that high-dose statins may be useful in that regard, but as I said, it's highly probable that Mr. Russert was taking a statin. Mr. Russert passed a stress EKG (electrocariogram) in late April, and yet he had a fatal heart attack in June. But cardiologists admit that EKGs reveal nothing about the presence of "vulnerable" plaque (the kind that ruptures), which we now know Mr. Russert had. Think of it like a pimple inside the artery that suddenly pops. One cardiologist pointed out that if Mr. Russert had significant coronary disease (which he did) then he should have been treated with statins, ACE inhibitors, aspirin, and beta blockers. But who is to say that he wasn't? Mr. Russert was afflicted not only with coronary artery disease, but also high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and Type 2 diabetes, and he was being treated by a team of ultra top-notch medical experts, headed by prominent internist, Michael Newman M.D. Dr. Newman said on the Larry King show that Mr. Russert's cholesterol and blood pressure were both under control with medications. But, an autopsy revealed that he also had an enlarged heart, which was unexpected. What about Mr. Russert's lifestyle? Obviously, that was very important. Mr. Russert was on an exercise program, and according to his cardiologist, Dr. George Bren, Mr. Russert was performing "at a very high level of exercise." I don't know what he meant by that. Regarding diet, I have read that diet was definitely a part of Tim Russert's regimen, but I have no knowledge of what exactly he ate. But, I think we can glean a lot from the fact that he was considerably overweight and for quite a long time. I don't want to sound cruel, but frankly, how healthy could his diet have been if it kept him persistently fat? I presume he was a non-smoker, but I don't know if he ever smoked in his life. And I know nothing about his alcohol consumption. However, I note that it is often reported when celebrities are teetotalers. For instance, Jay Leno and Donald Trump are both teetotalers. So, I presume that Mr. Russert was not a teetotaler. I hope it doesn't seem that I am being disrespectful to Mr. Russert. I feel sorry for him and his family. But I'm sure there are millions of Americans who are asking themselves: if this happened to him, could it happen to me? And that's why I think it's appropriate to take a close look at his life after what happened. But here is the bottom line for me: Tim Russert's death represents a gross failure of the medical system. One cardiologist had the nerve to suggest that Mr. Russert may have died 10 years sooner if not for all his superb medical care. What?? Is he serious? Talk about spin-doctoring!!!! That guy ought to be given a bloomin' honoroary degree in it. Tim Russert's death has been used to emphasize the importance of getting regular medical checkups, following medical advice about medications and other things, including diet, exercise, and lifestyle. But what of those things did Tim Russert not do? Obviously, his medications did not protect his heart and prevent this catastrophe. But the big question is: did they contribute to it in any way? I can't say because I don't know which medications he was taking. But I do know that some of the drugs used for diabetes (which he had), such as sulfonylureas, and some of the drugs used for high blood pressure (which he had), such as calcium channel blockers, have been linked to causing heart attacks. And other medical drugs, such as Cox 2 inhibitors, have also been linked to heart attacks. For that one cardiologist to glibly suggest that Mr. Russert's medical drug regimen prolonged his life, despite his untimely death, is very presumptuous, speculative, and self-serving, and to the extreme. But one thing I have learned over the years is that Medicine always grants itself the benefit of the doubt, about everything, whether you are talking about drugs, vaccines, operations, or anything else. I assume they were treating all of his maladies according to standard medical protocols, which comes to quite an arsenal of drugs, considering everything that was wrong with him. But were they giving him any health-promoting supplements at all? Coenzyme Q10? Resveratrol? Fish Oil? Turmeric? If not, why not? Finally, what is the real lesson we should learn from Tim Russert's untimely death? It is that standard medical care for coronary heart disease is woefully ineffective, and it may be outright detrimental, and possibly even deadly. I don't know that it contributed to Mr. Russert's death, but I suspect that it may have. But there is no doubt that Mr. Russert received the best medical care that money can buy (and we're talking at the level of kings, queens, shieks, and shahs), the closest and most frequent monitoring, and more specialists with long resumes and a long trail of initials after their names than your HMO is ever going to provide to you. Yet, he died unexpectedly and precipitously of a morbid, gruesome, deepseated, systemic, and advanced pathology. So, what reasonable assumptions should we make about the impact of the care he received? I wonder if his vast team of medical experts are doing any self-appraisals at this juncture. Or, are they just expressing their compassion and moving on to the next patient without changing a thing? I also think we can conclude that the standard, conventional advice about what constitutes a "prudent diet" does not suffice. I am talking about the kind of advice that says you should eat like most people do, which means pretty much everything, except substitute skim milk for whole milk, use egg whites instead of whole eggs, eat 3 percent fat turkey instead of marbled steaks, use margarine instead of butter, drink red wine moderately, and don't get too worked up about any of it since you've got a statin drug, and other drugs, guarding over you. Well, if that's what Mr. Russert did, it didn't work, and it's not going to work for you either. Low-fat milk is not going to cut it. What is needed is to drastically lower consumption of all animal foods and all refined foods. Your body does not build arterial plaque out of vegetables. A plant-based diet is numero uno. E-mail to a friend Previous Article Next Article |
