« Vitamin E: Cancer Cause or Cure? | Home | Holiday Drug Dangers, Alternatives »
Vitamins and Health: The Real Story
By Linda | November 24, 2008
A line-up of recent new studies show vitamin supplements to be worthless or even harmful and drugs to be healing. Don’t you think this is just a little suspicious? Thousands of studies before these have confirmed the OPPOSITE. The media seems to have us believe the latest study is the truth and that it doesn’t matter if studies published earlier show the opposite, nor that these studies are funded by drug companies.
So what’s really happening here? Correct vitamin and mineral use reduces disease. I’ve witnessed this repeatedly with clients, with observations of patients of my MD colleagues, and I’ve read confirmation published in scientific journals for over 25 years.
But these kind of results spell out economic loss for big pharma. If you read that vitamin E is worthless, you are more likely to fall for drug claims. Millions of dollars are spent on ads, and now public relations, to get you to take statins and other drugs. Some research articles are even ghost written by pharmaceutical companies.
Drug companies need you to buy drugs. They have huge reserves for “research” (and media advertising – which also plays a role in what gets published, especially in troubled economic times). We now know which forms of vitamins don’t work, and which do, and on which patients with which risk issues, and how much of a vitamin we need to make a difference. As a result, studies can easily be designed to convince the average layperson –i.e. you – that drugs are great and vitamins are worthless, or worse.
Nowhere is this more true than with vitamin E. Years ago researchers discovered that for vitamin E to be effective it had to be in a natural form: d alpha tocopherol, not dl alpha tocopherol (the synthetic form) or better yet, it should contain all four naturally occurring tocopherols. Studies using natural forms of vitamin E, as opposed to synthetic, show dramatic improvements in health.
The most recent vitamin E blasting came from the Physician’s Health Study II (funded in part by two pharmaceutical companies) with 14,641 men. Synthetic E was used, so as one would expect, the study reported no difference between cardiovascular events in men who took vitamin E vs. those who took no E. Should we believe this or should we believe a larger study published in 1993 with 39,910 men, which showed a 40% reduction in heart attack and heart attack death rates among men taking supplements of E. And then there was the even larger Nurses’ Health Study published in 1993, with 87,245 women, which showed a 31% reduction in risk of heart attacks among those taking vitamin E. Should we believe ANY of the 5 large observational studies, all of which show vitamin E supplements significantly reduce risk of heart attacks, including deaths, in men and women? Or what about the large studies showing natural vitamin E provides the greatest protection of all from heart attacks?
As for vitamin C having no effect in the Physicians Health Study II (above), most nutrition-oriented physicians know it takes more than 500 milligrams every other day to get results. We need a sustained blood level of vitamin C for optimum health. Otherwise you get rebound low vitamin levels on the off days. Why didn’t researchers try 1000mg or more, daily, an amount that has profound health benefits in other studies?
Did you see any mainstream articles on the recent study from U.C. Berkeley that showed vitamin C supplements reduce inflammation as effectively as drugs? Inflammation is the underlying issue in heart disease. The recent drug study that showed Crestor, a statin, reduced risk of heart disease among those with normal cholesterol levels actually produced results only in those with inflammation. Vitamin C has the same disease-blocking effect as Crestor, only instead of side effects such as muscle pain and weakness (found in 98% of Lipitor users) and fatigue, studies show vitamin C can prolong life in men by 6 years and in women by one year. Other studies show vitamin C reduces cancer risk, fatigue and vision loss. Why would you want to pay MORE and see weakness as a side effect?
Did you notice any articles in your local newspaper this past summer touting results of the massive Italian study, the GISSI study, which showed fish oil outperformed statins in preventing heart failure? Crestor did no better than a placebo in preventing chronic heart failure whereas fish oil significantly reduced risk. This study looked at one measly gram of fish oil in close to 7000 participants. Larger doses of fish oil consistently show even greater protection from heart disease. We hear medical experts statins should be added to our drinking water: Do you hear them saying we should put fish oil in the water?
One of the big pluses in using such natural substances, such as natural vitamin E and C and fish oil, over a patentable drug, is you don’t get side effects, plus there are generally multiple benefits, including longer lifespan. Side effects of statins include cognitive decline, memory loss, muscle weakness, fatigue, and digestive complaints. But no one makes big bucks from vitamin supplements.
The Economist, a respected magazine, reported in October that researchers are hired and funded according to where their studies get published. Prestigious journals are more likely to publish studies that “oversell” results than studies based on the best science. There is a bias toward studies that favor positive drug results. With this kind of special interest operating, you are unlikely to see favorable studies published on supplements and likely to see studies on the benefits of drugs.
Here are a few tips for evaluating media reports on research: Figure out where the funding came from. Remember, organizations such as the National Cancer Institute, get funding from drug companies. Second, check to see the form of supplement used. Is it natural or synthetic? Is the dose used high enough to produce results? And finally, look for the red flag “the study was halted early,” (found in the recent study on Crestor) as this allows drug-induced deaths and disease to go undetected.
Also, notice the TV ads on your favorite news station. I see a lot of drug ads. The U.S. is one if the few countries where this is legal. Don’t fall for their game.
Topics: Drugs, Vitamins, Vitamins vs. Drugs |
November 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Well, Linda, you more than explained what type of bias is going on with these type of studies and the drug companies behind them. I appreciate your wonderful clarification, quite disturbing but truly informative. I am sharing this information with my close friends and family…..thanks so much!!!!
December 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Typical drug companies and their powerful lobbyists. I for one have benefited greatly from supplements. First, I have virtually eliminated chronic headaches through herbal remedies; second I have slowed down bone loss with added calcium, and third, I have sharpened my mind (can’t you tell?!) with safe fish oil use. While I agree that supplements are not replacements for whole food nutrients, they can most certainly complement a healthy diet.
Karen Schupperts last blog post..Green Soup with Miso
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Linda: I am slowly but steadily learning more and more about supplements versus statins. Thanks for your continued support and patience. Keep up the great work.