The experts weigh in on the latest Vitamin Bashing report

This one is from Michael T. Murray, ND. Definitely a reliable rebuttal piece.

December 23, 2013

WOW – Editorial in Medical Journal Promotes Propaganda Against Multiple Vitamin Formulas
Introduction

The latest issue (December 17, 2013) of the Annals of Internal Medicine featured a damning editorial titled: Enough Is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements. Wow, are they serious? Why are they ignoring all of the positive studies and instead focusing on studies fraught with issues? Obviously, the headline is designed to give the entire natural product industry a black eye instead of helping consumers make informed choices. It definitely accomplished its goal.

Garbage In Equals Garbage Out
The Editorial is largely based upon findings from three new studies, as well as examining review articles known as a meta-analysis. Let’s talk about the meta-analysis studies first. These sorts of analyses review the medical literature and then select published studies to include in their analysis based upon the studies meeting certain criteria. One of the biggest problems with these sorts of reviews is that they are often the collection of poorly designed studies. That is certainly the case in the studies cited by medical experts proclaiming vitamin supplements don’t work. It is the old adage “garbage in equals garbage out.

The Editorial is based once again primarily on rehashing previous studies fraught with BIG problems while ignoring all of the positive studies. It is obscene to cite only one side of the argument and ignore compelling data supporting nutritional supplementation. I have addressed the problems with some of the big studies using synthetic beta-carotene and vitamin E on numerous occasions in the past.
Continue [doctormurray.com]

Toward the end of the first page, he says:

Here was a BIG omission in the Editorial. Why did they not mention the results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study? This large study on 23,943 subjects who took antioxidant vitamin supplements over an average of 11 years showed that individuals who used antioxidant multivitamins were 48% less likely to die from cancer and 42% less likely to die due to any cause compared to those who did not take antioxidant vitamins. Could it be that these results were contrary to their bias and agenda?

Thanks Jackie,

And Dr Murray's article is only one of many cogently written rebuttals to the obvious coordinated scam of the last month or two in particular all coinciding, conveniently enough, with the publication of Paul Offits 'anti-anything at all but drugs and surgery' Big Pharma propaganda book.

I've read both his book and each of these three studies referenced above carefully looking closely at their own referenced studies and the structure of the three hatchet job studies they got published in the national press. The blatant flaws in both the common design of these three distorted studies and basic logic are so obvious and rampant throughout that you can only come to one of two conclusions. Either the key authors and drivers behind this work are seriously lacking in grey matter, or they know perfectly well what they are doing and yet realize the vast majority of the public reading these superficial public press summaries of those studies will never bother to read the original studies themselves and see how sloppy and poorly conceived these highly selective and pre-screened papers really were. Instead, they rightly conclude that they could achieve their aim to sew a big seed of doubt within the majority of readers who will naturally take the 'sound bite' journalism at face value and assume it is valid.

And all in order to insure they could interpret these few studies to support only their own utterly biased views on the issue and then paint an entire industry and every nutritional supplement with the same broad negative brush in their effort to scare the public away from any form of proactive self-health care and relaying solely on the drugs and surgery for all you health needs.

And yet, we know these folks are not dummy's... they know just what they are doing and have the support, platform and veneer of clout to try to pull it off. If they could only show a smidgen of honest willingness to include any of the huge mountain of well designed positive studies on certain natural supplements too, at least to give an appearance of genuine objectivity, the public would be better served. But these folks have one agenda only and are dedicated to winning their declared war on all nutritional supplements, the truth and honest evaluation be damned.

Shannon



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 11:44AM by Shannon.

One of my long-time favorite health reporters, Bill Sardi, has been offering factual and provocative reports for at least 20 years or more.

On the topic of Multi-vitamins… Bill offer an excellent examination of the facts that refute what was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and then picked up and beaten to death by the uninformed media.

Shall We Slam the Door on Multivitamins Once and For All?
Posted January 6, 2013 by Bill Sardi

“ That’s what an editorial in the Annals of Internal Medicine said. After citing flawed study after flawed study where multivitamins were found to be ineffective at reducing death rates or mental decline with advancing age, and even citing published studies to say multivitamins are harmful and even kill people, these experts from the most prestigious medical centers in the world said “we believe the case is closed – supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful. These vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention. Enough is enough.”

Case closed?

Hardly.

The catch: “well nourished.”

All present studies are flawed
Representatives of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University responded to these efforts to throw multivitamins into the closet and throw away the key by saying most published vitamin studies are flawed. They explained, until controlled studies obtain blood levels of nutrients before and at the completion of the study, it cannot be said vitamin pills are ineffective. Because of problems with vitamin absorption and transport, which are rampant among older adults, the most frequent users of these pills, it cannot be said they are ineffective. “

Continue here… and enjoy the many great selection of topics Bill examines expertly at his website.

[knowledgeofhealth.com]



Also worth reading is this post from the other thread in case you missed it…

More on the bad press about vitamins...

Here’s a refreshing report assessing anti-vitamin scare tactics… published in Orthomolecular News October 20, 2011 and again last year in Townsend Letter Feb March 2012 and on the website of the author Andrew W. Saul, PhD, Editor of Orthomolecular Medicine News Service … titled

How to Make People Believe Any Anti-Vitamin Scare……It Just Takes Lots of Pharmaceutical Industry Cash

Informative and referenced.

Interesting points
• Cash to study authors
• Advertising revenue
• Rigged Trials
• Bias in what is published or rejected for publications
• Censorship of what is intended and available to doctors and the public

Emphasis on these facts…
• 27% reduction in AIDS deaths among patients given vitamin supplements
• No deaths from vitamins in 27 years
• Antibiotics cause 700,000 emergency room visits per year just in the US
And more….

Note especially the reference to increased risk of pancreatic cancer with daily aspirin intake.

Continue [orthomolecular.org]

Then check out Andrew Saul’s website.. [www.doctoryourself.com] for a wealth of highly informative and useful information.

Jackie