I recently came across an article called ‘Heart Attack in Dogs’ from a website called petplace.com. This site is founded and run by veterinarians for pet owners. The article makes some assertions like, “It is very unusual to identify a myocardial infarction(heart attack) in a dog.” And, “When sudden death occurs in a pet, there are many different causes. A heart attack is actually a very unlikely cause.”

This article came in particularly useful in an ongoing debate I have been having with a British professor, David Briggs about whether or not animals have heart attacks.  I have been engaging in this discussion at a group we have in facebook called ‘eradicating heart disease.’  The discourse between us began when he wrote on the discussion board within the group that Dr. Rath was a quack and a charlatan and had caused all kinds of problems in South Africa with unsubstantiated claims regarding AIDS and cancer.  I pointed out that none of that had anything to do with animals and heart attacks and so the discussion began.

In our debate, Mr Briggs defended his claim that animals have heart attacks by doing a google search on heart attacks and animals and presenting to me some studies with animals and heart attacks in the title.  One such study read, “Intravenous infusion of mesenchymal stem cells enhances regional perfusion and improves ventricular function in a porcine model of myocardial infarction.” He was then studious and gracious enough to point out to me that,  “Porcine model of myocardial infarction”, means pigs with heart attacks.  I am of course, being a little facetious here, his comment really kind of annoyed me in presuming that I did not know what that phrase meant but anyway… I digress, suffice it to say that professors(and humans in general) can sometimes be a little condescending and presumptuous.

At first glance, this would seem rather disconcerting for me since this is definitely a science article discussing the treatment of  heart attack damage in pigs using stem cells. But when you read just a few sentences further into the initial study description you find something else.  It reads, “In a closed-chest pig model, the LAD coronary artery was occluded for 75 min by angioplasty balloon inflation .”  I will repeat for posterity, ” was occluded for 75 min. by angioplasty balloon inflation.” This means they modeled heart attack damage by intentionally blocking the artery for 75 minutes using an angioplasty balloon.  So this didnt really count as a true ‘heart attack’ since it was manmade.  I told the professor about this. He seemed unimpressed and offered some more links for me to scrutinize.

Mr. Briggs  only counter argument was that his father was an esteemed and decorated British veterinarian and his professional opinion was that animals do have heart attacks, “but not like in humans”.  I have asked Mr. Briggs what his father meant exactly by this qualification, “but not  like in humans” and  I am waiting for an explanation from the professor.  I think “but not like in humans”, means ” not to the same degree or as often as humans”.  If this is what the professor’s father means then it appears that the title Animals Don’t Have Heart Attacks should be changed to Animals Very Rarely Have Heart Attacks, While Humans Commonly Do. In spite of this, the best, feasible explanation for this huge difference in heart attacks between animals and humans is still the vitamin c, collagen, cholesterol connection.

So the professor’s arguments are wearing thin and I hope he is close to converting to the truth about heart disease. The technicality mongering and outright mistakes by the professor allude far more to his myopic and desperate adherence to false disease pathologies than they dismantle the Vitamin C, collagen, cholesterol connection.