By: Dr. Thomas Cowan  

In this article, I lay out the case that the spectrum of heart disease that includes angina, unstable angina, and myocardial infarction (heart attack) is better understood from the perspective of events happening in the myocardium (heart) as opposed to events in the coronary arteries (the arteries that supply the heart). As we all know, the conventional view of the cause of heart disease is that the central events occur in the arteries. In this article, I will go into more detail about why the conventional theory is largely misleading, and then I will describe the precise and well documented events that do lead to heart attacks.  

   This new understanding is crucial because, as the past 50 or so years have shown, pursuing the coronary artery theory has cost this nation billions of dollars in surgical costs – most of which are unnecessary – and billions in medications that cause as much harm as any benefits, and has led many people to adopt a low-fat diet and which only worsens the problem. In contrast, by understanding the real pathophysiological events behind the evolution of MIs, we will be led to a proper “Nourishing Traditions” style diet, the use of the safe and inexpensive medicine g-strophanthin, and most important, we will be forced to look at how heart disease is a true manifestation of the cost of modern life to human health. To overcome the epidemic of heart disease, we need a new medical paradigm, a new economic system, and a new ecological consciousness; in short, a new way of life. The coronary theory misses all of this, just as it What Causes Heart Attacks by Dr. Thomas Cowan misinterprets the actual pathological events.

   In writing this article, I am indebted to the work of Dr. Knut Sroka and his website www.heartattacknew. com. For all who are interested in this important subject, it is advised to read the entire website and watch the video on the website. For health professionals and researchers, your understanding of this subject is incomplete without reading and studying two items found in the print version of the website: The Etiopathogenesis of Coronary Heart Disease: A Heretical Theory Based on Morphology, by G. Baroldi, and “On the Genesis of Myocardial Ischemia,” by Sroka.

Rebuttal of the Conventional Theory

   Until recently, it was thought that most MIs were caused by progressive blockage created by plaque buildup in the major arteries leading to the heart (there are four major coronary arteries). The plaque was thought to be cholesterol buildup in the arterial lumen (inside of the vessel), which eventually cut off blood supply to a certain area of the heart, resulting in oxygen deficiency in that area, causing first pain (angina), then progressing to ischemia (heart attack). The simple solution was to unblock the stenosis (blockage) with either an angioplasty or stent, or, if that was not possible, to bypass the area with coronary bypass grafting (CABG). Simple problem, simple solution.  

   However, problems became apparent through a number of avenues. First, a story related by a cardiologist at a Northern California heart symposium, at which I was a speaker, points to the first problem. He told us that during his residency he was part of a trial conducted in rural Alabama with black men. In this trial, angiograms (injections of dye into the coronary arteries to detect blockages) were done on all the men presenting with chest pains. For the ones who had a single artery blocked, no treatment was prescribed, and the researchers predicted in their notes which part of the heart would have a subsequent heart attack if one occurred. Of course, they all predicted that it would be in the part of the heart supplied by the blocked coronary artery. Then they waited.  

   Eventually, many of the men did return and did have MIs, but to the researchers’ surprise, less than 10% had a heart attack in the area of the heart supplied by the original blocked artery.  

Second, a large study conducted in 2003 by the Mayo Clinic on the efficacy of bypasses, stents, and angioplasty concluded that:

    a. bypass surgery relieves symptoms (chest pain);

    b. bypass surgery does not prevent further heart attacks;

    c. only high-risk patients, those whose lives are in acute danger,

        benefit from bypass surgery with regard to a better chance of

        survival.  

In other words, the gold standard for treating arterial blockages has, at best, only minimal benefits. If you watch the video on the heartattacknew.com website and go to the FAQ called “The Riddle’s Solution", it becomes clear why this is so.