NY Times: anti-vitamin propaganda

[Guest guest]

http://snipurl.com/cibb5NY Times: anti-vitamin propaganda

Richard Moore    Feb 20, 6:05 am Here we read of scientific studies, whose funders are not revealed,   purporting to show vitamins are not helpful. Very convenient for the   pharmaceutical companies, who typically fund such research. Also   helpful in promoting Codex Alimentarius, the scheme to outlaw all   health supplements. rkm ___ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/health/17well.html February 17, 2009 WELL Vitamin Pills: A False Hope? By TARA PARKER-POPE Ever since the Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Linus Pauling first   promoted “megadoses” of essential nutrients 40 years ago, Americans   have been devoted to their vitamins. Today about half of all adults   use some form of dietary supplement, at a cost of $23 billion a year. But are vitamins worth it? In the past few years, several high-quality   studies have failed to show that extra vitamins, at least in pill   form, help prevent chronic disease or prolong life. The latest news came last week after researchers in the Women’s Health   Initiative study tracked eight years of multivitamin use among more   than 161,000 older women. Despite earlier findings suggesting that   multivitamins might lower the risk for heart disease and certain   cancers, the study, published in The Archives of Internal Medicine,   found no such benefit. Last year, a study that tracked almost 15,000 male physicians for a   decade reported no differences in cancer or heart disease rates among   those using vitamins E and C compared with those taking a placebo. And   in October, a study of 35,000 men dashed hopes that high doses of   vitamin E and selenium could lower the risk of prostate cancer. Of course, consumers are regularly subjected to conflicting reports   and claims about the benefits of vitamins, and they seem undeterred by   the news — to the dismay of some experts. “I’m puzzled why the public in general ignores the results of well- done trials,” said Dr. Eric Klein, national study coordinator for the   prostate cancer trial and chairman of the Cleveland Clinic’s Glickman   Urological and Kidney Institute. “The public’s belief in the benefits   of vitamins and nutrients is not supported by the available scientific   data.” Everyone needs vitamins, which are essential nutrients that the body   can’t produce on its own. Inadequate vitamin C leads to scurvy, for   instance, and a lack of vitamin D can cause rickets. But a balanced diet typically provides an adequate level of these   nutrients, and today many popular foods are fortified with extra   vitamins and minerals. As a result, diseases caused by nutrient   deficiency are rare in the United States. In any event, most major vitamin studies in recent years have focused   not on deficiencies but on whether high doses of vitamins can prevent   or treat a host of chronic illnesses. While people who eat lots of   nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables have long been known to have lower   rates of heart disease and cancer, it hasn’t been clear whether   ingesting high doses of those same nutrients in pill form results in a   similar benefit. In January, an editorial in The Journal of the National Cancer   Institute noted that most trials had shown no cancer benefits from   vitamins — with a few exceptions, like a finding that calcium appeared   to lower the recurrence of precancerous colon polyps by 15 percent. But some vitamin studies have also shown unexpected harm, like higher   lung cancer rates in two studies of beta carotene use. Another study   suggested a higher risk of precancerous polyps among users of folic   acid compared with those in a placebo group. In 2007, The Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed   mortality rates in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements. In 47   trials of 181,000 participants, the rate was 5 percent higher among   the antioxidant users. The main culprits were vitamin A, beta carotene   and vitamin E; vitamin C and selenium seemed to have no meaningful   effect. “We call them essential nutrients because they are,” said Marian L.   Neuhouser, an associate member in cancer prevention at the Fred   Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “But there has been a   leap into thinking that vitamins and minerals can prevent anything   from fatigue to cancer to Alzheimer’s. That’s where the science didn’t   pan out.” Everyone is struggling to make sense of the conflicting data, said   Andrew Shao, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at   the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a vitamin industry trade group.   Consumers and researchers need to “redefine our expectations for these   nutrients,” he said. “They aren’t magic bullets.” Part of the problem, he said, may stem from an inherent flaw in the   way vitamins are studied. With drugs, the gold standard for research   is a randomized clinical trial in which some patients take a drug and   others a placebo. But vitamins are essential nutrients that people   ingest in their daily diets; there is no way to withhold them   altogether from research subjects. Vitamins given in high doses may also have effects that science is   only beginning to understand. In a test tube, cancer cells gobble up   vitamin C, and studies have shown far higher levels of vitamin C in   tumor cells than are found in normal tissue. The selling point of antioxidant vitamins is that they mop up free   radicals, the damaging molecular fragments linked to aging and   disease. But some free radicals are essential to proper immune   function, and wiping them out may inadvertently cause harm. In a study at the University of North Carolina, mice with brain cancer   were given both normal and vitamin-depleted diets. The ones who were   deprived of antioxidants had smaller tumors, and 20 percent of the   tumor cells were undergoing a type of cell death called apoptosis,   which is fueled by free radicals. In the fully nourished mice, only 3   percent of tumor cells were dying. “Most antioxidants are also pro-oxidants,” said Dr. Peter H. Gann,   professor and director of research in the department of pathology at   the University of Illinois at Chicago. “In the right context and the   right dose, they may be able to cause problems rather than prevent   them.” Scientists suspect that the benefits of a healthful diet come from   eating the whole fruit or vegetable, not just the individual vitamins   found in it. “There may not be a single component of broccoli or green   leafy vegetables that is responsible for the health benefits,” Dr.   Gann said. “Why are we taking a reductionist approach and plucking out   one or two chemicals given in isolation?” Even so, some individual vitamin research is continuing. Scientists   are beginning to study whether high doses of whole-food extracts can   replicate the benefits of a vegetable-rich diet. And Harvard   researchers are planning to study whether higher doses of vitamin D in   20,000 men and women can lower risk for cancer and other chronic   diseases. “Vitamin D looks really promising,” said Dr. JoAnn E. Manson, the   chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an   investigator on several Harvard vitamin studies. “But we need to learn   the lessons from the past. We should wait for large-scale clinical   trials before jumping on the vitamin bandwagon and taking high doses.” ___________________________ newlog- (AT) googl (DOT) com  =====In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.