Vitamin Supplementation is Safe, Proven and Can Save Billions in Health Care Costs

Feb. 16, 2008 - PRLog -- Depending on where you get on your health information, your very health could be at risk. Be suspicious of commercially shaped health stories presented by mainstream media that are supported by ads from corporations which benefit from slamming the competition. I've been in big city news rooms in which a negative story on a drug was canceled out of fear of offending the drug manufacturer whose advertisement played later in the broadcast.


In Marshall McLuhan's age, we learned that the media was the message. Today, the media sponsor shapes the message. In the past 12 months Vitamin D, glucosamine, Vitamin E and echinacea have each been slammed in the press with glaring headlines, only to have those studies later clarified and negated--but without the catchy headlines. Clarifications are generally ignored by the public.


A flawed meta-analysis was reported last year in JAMA reporting that antioxidant vitamins increase death rates.  The conclusion was reached by front-loading a number of negatively-slanted published vitamin trials into a bag, tallying the results, and finding, lo and behold, chronically ill people die a little earlier, and their megadose vitamins didn't pull them out of the throes of terminal illness.


Does this mean that a normal dose multivitamin is not a good idea for everybody?  Certainly not.  
Does it mean that mega-dosing is never appropriate?  No, again. Does it mean that there was a cause-and-effect link between the antioxidants and the deaths?  Not in the least, according to the researchers themselves, since they couldn't find any dose-dependent or causal relationship.


So what does  it mean?  For one thing, this supposed meta-analysis eliminated the preponderance of positive studies, and lumped together too many disparate unrelated studies (widely different combination, different populations, different doses, etc.).


According to Neil Levin, CCN, DANLA, a board certified clinical nutritionist with diplomate in advanced nutritional laboratory assessment:


"The researchers pooled 68 previously published trials but arbitrarily excluded all published studies that had no deaths reported from any cause. Indeed, 405 otherwise eligible studies were excluded solely for this reason, which if included would likely have dramatically changed the results and conclusion. The researchers did not disclose why they decided to exclude these. This is equivalent to playing a card game after removing all but 7 cards from the deck. (That wouldn't be a fair game, would it?) They largely ignored the original outcome measures of the studies, many of which had shown positive results for antioxidants, to look only for deaths from any cause in a tiny segment of all published research."


This is not the first time a peer-reviewed conventional medicine journal decided to run a sensational and critical report on antioxidants. When the Annals of Internal Medicine ran a similar scare study about Vitamin E a few years ago, people once again threw out their vitamin bottles without just cause. A subsequent rigorous analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition dismissed the earlier conclusions as faulty.


But the mainstream media failed to pick up that story, just as they tend to overlook the critical review of this supposed meta-analysis story.


Why is that?  Well, scary headlines sell better.  Editors don't get excited about the 532nd report that optimal amounts of vitamins and minerals will dramatically reduce risk of chronic disorders for the population.  


It's hard to retain your memory of previously published benefits of antioxidants when a sensational headline is flashed before your eyes.  We tend to forget about the 90,000 nurses that lowered their risk of heart disease by 40% through high Vitamin E intake, or the patients with Alzheimer disease who benefited from supplementation, or those with age-related macular degeneration, colorectal cancer, asthma or other diseases.  Or that current recommendations for Vitamin D intake are considered too low to help prevent certain cancers, and researchers are recommending that 800-1000 IU be taken by adults.


So instead of trying to amass all these statistical reports in your head, just hang on to one piece of solid evidence:  vitamins, minerals and antioxidants exist in every cell of your being. Without them, there is no possibility that the millions of biochemical processes required for life would be ongoing.


Also, hang onto this:  when asked, many of the researchers who do these negative slams on vitamins never stop taking their own daily multivitamin.


Most nutritional experts agree that when it comes to vitamins and minerals, look for quality brands produced by reputable manufacturers that strictly adhere to the highest industry standards. Be consistent with your daily multivitamins, follow a healthful diet of fresh fruits and vegetables, lean proteins and whole grains, exercise every day, find an enjoyable outlet for stress, and avoid scary health headlines.

# # #

Dr Meg Jordan, PhD, RN, is a clinical medical anthropologist on faculty at San Francisco State University and the California Institute of Integral Studies. She is also editor in chief of American Fitness Magazines, and host of "Healthy Living" on Global TV in Canada. Reach her at mail@megjordan.com

Website: www.megjordan.com