Are you bleeping kidding me???!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

dee5

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 8, 2009
1,565
379
Northwest Arkansas
I'm posting this because it is yet another illustration of the depths to which we have sunk as far as "science" goes in this country (perhaps the world). Pay special attention to the very last paragraph.
Vitamins May Increase Women's Risk of Dying, Research Finds By Joseph Brownstein | LiveScience.com – 4 hrs ago
  • Popping vitamins may do more harm than good, according to a new study that adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting some supplements may have health risks.

Researchers from the University of Minnesota examined data from more than 38,000 women taking part in the Iowa Women's Health Study, an ongoing study with women who were around age 62 at its start in 1986. The researchers collected data on the women's supplement use in 1986, 1997 and 2004.
Women who took supplements had, on average, a 2.4 percent increased risk of dying over the course of the 19-year study, compared with women who didn't take supplements, after the researchers adjusted for factors including the women's age and calorie intake.
"Our study, as well as other similar studies, have provided very little evidence that commonly used dietary supplements would help to prevent chronic diseases," said study author Jaakko Mursu, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.
"We would advise people to reconsider whether they need to use supplements, and put more emphasis on a healthy diet instead," Mursu said.
A toxic combination?
The new study linked a number of individual vitamins and minerals to the slight mortality risk, including multivitamins, vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc and copper.
For example, of the 12,769 women in the study who took a daily multivitamin, 40.8 percent had died by the end of 2008, whereas 39.8 percent of the 10,161 women who hadn't taken a daily multivitamin had died.
Mursu said that the design of the study did not allow the researchers to determine if there was a specific cause for the increased mortality.
"However, we do know that most compounds are toxic in high amounts, and long-term use might predispose [a person] to detrimental outcomes," he told MyHealthNewsDaily.
The increased chance of dying" could be related to generally high concentration of compounds that these supplements contain. Most supplements contain higher amounts of nutrients than would be derived from food, and it is known that several compounds can be toxic in higher amounts, especially when consumed for a long time, as some of these accumulate to body," Mursu said.
Taking calcium supplements, on the other hand, actually seemed to lower the women's death risk slightly, by 3.8 percent, although the researchers noted that there was not a relationship between consuming increasingly higher amounts of calcium and a continuing decrease in mortality rate.
Less is more
While vitamins and minerals are necessary for proper nutrition, excess intake has not shown further benefit, and recent studies have cast some doubt on the idea that vitamin supplements provide a "safety net" for people not getting enough of a given nutrient. Instead, too much may be a problem.
The study, published today (Oct. 10) in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine, is part of a series examining interventions in medicine that may be unnecessary.
"Until recently, the available data regarding the adverse effects of dietary supplements has been limited and grossly underreported. We think the paradigm "the more, the better" is wrong," wrote Dr. Goran Bjelakovic and Dr. Christian Gluud, of the Center for Clinical Intervention Research at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark in an accompanying commentary.
"We believe that for all micronutrients, risks are associated with insufficient and too-large intake. Low levels of intake increase the risk of deficiency. High levels of intake increase the risk of toxic effects and disease," they wrote.
"Therefore, we believe that politicians and regulatory authorities should wake up to their responsibility to allow only safe products on the market," they wrote.
Pass it on: A new study shows that for women, a healthy diet might be a better way to stave off diseases than supplements.
This story was provided by MyHealthNewsDaily, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow MyHealthNewsDaily on Twitter @MyHealth_MHND. Find us on Facebook.

How can we find out who funded this study?
 

dee5

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 8, 2009
1,565
379
Northwest Arkansas
Sorry if I should have posted this "outside" but I think it is on topic as it relates to similar "scientific studies" done on e-cigarettes. I take a good liqui-gel multi vitamin everyday because I know our food supply won't give me the nutrients my body needs any more. The soil is too depleted of micronutrients to start with and then with over processing and preservatives and pesticides and being stored too long, by the time I put that food in my mouth I'm not getting what I need. This kind of study is outrageous!

Pheisty- you are so right. They won't stop until we stop them. We've got to shut down the FDA.
 

dee5

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 8, 2009
1,565
379
Northwest Arkansas
For example, of the 12,769 women in the study who took a daily multivitamin, 40.8 percent had died by the end of 2008, whereas 39.8 percent of the 10,161 women who hadn't taken a daily multivitamin had died.

Wow! So, let me understand this. The women were around age 62 when the study started and it went on for 19 years. So they were around age 81 when the study concluded and by then 80.6 percent of them had died. I'm astonished! I wonder what other health/environmental / life choice factors were considered in addition to the use/non use of multivitamins? Of course there is no mention of that. But we do know:
Mursu said that the design of the study did not allow the researchers to determine if there was a specific cause for the increased mortality.
oh how convenient......
 

calico21

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 2, 2011
841
402
next to a corn field,IL
I agree completely that this is outrageous. In light of watching doctor OZ the other day where they had a consumer lab that test a lot of these suppliments, more than 1/2 of them failed for not having even close to the amount of the nutrient that the label said it was supposed to have. If the ladies in question were taking these they weren't really getting that much more, and the difference in the death rate was only 1%. Really, what was the margin for error in this test, cause very little of these test are truly scientific.
 

dee5

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 8, 2009
1,565
379
Northwest Arkansas
It's true that many multivitamins do not contain the advertised amounts of nutrients they claim to. In addition, many solid multi's don't break down fast enough in our digestive tracts to deliver said nutrients into our bloodstreams before they pass out of our bodies, that's why I take liqui gels that I can really feel are working. And I can really feel the difference when I don't take them too. But I totally get your point- there is huge margin for error in this study!
 

Pheisty

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 23, 2009
742
324
Wisconsin
For example, of the 12,769 women in the study who took a daily multivitamin, 40.8 percent had died by the end of 2008, whereas 39.8 percent of the 10,161 women who hadn't taken a daily multivitamin had died.

Wow! So, let me understand this. The women were around age 62 when the study started and it went on for 19 years. So they were around age 81 when the study concluded and by then 80.6 percent of them had died. I'm astonished! I wonder what other health/environmental / life choice factors were considered in addition to the use/non use of multivitamins? Of course there is no mention of that. But we do know:
Mursu said that the design of the study did not allow the researchers to determine if there was a specific cause for the increased mortality.
oh how convenient......

It's one of those self-fulfilling prophesies that "studies" are so well-known for. It used to be that people did "studies" to really learn something, now they're just used to fulfill corporatist goals and then get the beneficiaries of their money--politicians--to write the legislation with these studies as backup. It's criminal.
 

DragonflyVaper

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 25, 2010
329
133
USA
This is absolutely enraging. Yet they keep 'FDA-Approving' drugs that really DO kill people.

Well, they're also trying to outlaw raw milk in my home dairy state of Wisconsin, so I guess these a-holes will stop at nothing until we're all eating Soylent Green.

LOL... If that's you in the avatar, you look waaay too young to know about Soylent Green LOL.... We don't have to eat SG.... the past 30 years Greedy Food Corporations, Gov't, etc., are slowly killing the population with processed food and fructose.

If you want to be scared silly, watch this hour & half Seminar by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF on Fructose and Sugar and how it is in everything Americans consume. And guess what? Our bodies are not designed to process this stuff....thus, obesity is rampant and slowly killing us. Well worth watching. Also attached a short video in very simple terms.....

Sugar: The Bitter Truth - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M&feature=player_embedded
 

Pheisty

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 23, 2009
742
324
Wisconsin
LOL... If that's you in the avatar, you look waaay too young to know about Soylent Green LOL.... We don't have to eat SG.... the past 30 years Greedy Food Corporations, Gov't, etc., are slowly killing the population with processed food and fructose.

True dat!!!

LOL! Yes, that is me, and yes, I'm too young to know what Soylent Green is, but I'm a nerd, so that should explain everything. ;)
 

rothenbj

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2009
8,285
7,707
Green Lane, Pa
"Popping vitamins may do more harm than good, according to a new study that adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting some supplements may have health risks."

I didn't bother to read the rest of the comments or the rest of Dee's post. I just had to comment, are these expressions starting to torque anyone else. These people seem to be growing their own body of evidence to sell a propaganda campaign. JMHO
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
How can we find out who funded this study?

The original article that this one is quoting was published today in the Archives of Internal Medicine, which is a publication of the American Medical Association.

There was no "conflict of interest" declaration included in the abstract, and it costs money to view the entire article.

This information was provided:

Author Affiliations: Department of Health Sciences, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio Campus, Kuopio, Finland (Dr Mursu); Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (Drs Mursu, Robien, Harnack, and Jacobs); Department of Food and Nutrition, Yeungnam University, Gyeongbuk, Republic of Korea (Dr Park); and Department of Nutrition, School of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway (Dr Jacobs).

Looked up "Iowa Women's Health Study" to see if more information is out there:

Iowa Women's Health Study, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota

Looks like some funding came from the National Cancer Institute:
Cohort Consortium Members - EGRP

The same data is being used to conduct cardiovascular disease studies.

Kushi LH, Folsom AR, Prineas RJ, Mink PJ, Wu Y, Bostick RM. Dietary antioxidant vitamins and death from coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(18):1156-62.

So it looks as if they collected a lot of data on a pool of over 80,000 Iowa Women, and the data is being accessed by a lot of different research groups for different purposes, with different funding (perhaps) behind them.

But in view of the fact that the winners financially if supplements become heavily regulated and controlled will be big pharma, I'd be very surprised if big pharma has totally refrained from making some financial contributions.
 

nopatch

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
May 4, 2011
229
57
46
India
Actually there is Nothing ground breaking in the report.That people POp in pills without proper evaluation is NOT that is something new.


I'm posting this because it is yet another illustration of the depths to which we have sunk as far as "science" goes in this country (perhaps the world). Pay special attention to the very last paragraph.
...

Oh yes, supplements are a need and can do wonders to some people health.It is the indiscriminate use that is the problem.
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,405
ECF Towers
"Therefore, we believe that politicians and regulatory authorities should wake up to their responsibility to allow only safe products on the market," they wrote.

I think this means that only the biggest, richest pharma corporations, with the largest amounts to 'donate', should be allowed to sell vitamins.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
The American Council on Science and Health (which advocates e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco as far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes) published the following (which I agree with because it is scientifically sound and reasonable) about this and another dietary supplement article at If supplements don't help, why bother? > Facts & Fears > ACSH


October 11, 2011

If supplements don't help, why bother?

New research is questioning the benefits of taking supplemental vitamins and minerals, suggesting that, for the general population, such supplements may actually pose more risks than benefits. It's a disconcerting finding since, according to a study just published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, 85 percent of women surveyed reported use of supplements. And the news, no doubt, has implications for consumers, who currently spend $20 billion a year on something that may be doing more harm than good.

In the study, researchers assessed over 38,000 women, aged 55 to 69, from the Iowa Women's Health Study and found a slightly higher rate of death (2.4 percent) over the study period among women who were taking vitamin and mineral supplements, compared to those who did not. This risk was particularly pronounced with the mineral iron.

Another recent study on the use of supplements found that, among over 8,000 men and women, the people who were most likely to take supplements were also those who needed them the least. This study, in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, reported that those individuals who took vitamins were more likely to have a healthier diet in the first place; thus, their everday diets already supplied them with the recommended daily intake values of vitamins and minerals. ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava is not surprised by this finding. She notes, "Thanks to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, supplement makers are not required to give consumers information on the evidence supporting their products’ safety or benefits before marketing them. This has created an industry that earns billions of dollars by convincing people that they need multivitamins, when they most likely do not.”

Linking supplement use not only to a lack of benefit but to a higher level of risk is a disconcerting finding, yet ACSH's Dr. Ross is still hesitant to interpret these results as an indication that supplements are dangerous. “Since this was an observational study, it cannot be used to support a cause-and-effect determination,” he says. “Overall, the results of these studies suggest that routinely taking supplements confers no benefit on the general population.”

ACSH has written on this subject many times — most recently evaluating the lack of evidence linking supplement use in the general population to any health benefits. As ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan summarizes, "Supplements offer risks and little benefit. It's really a phenomenal conclusion, given that supplement makers have spent decades advocating greater supplement use. At ACSH, we've always been against recommending supplements for the general population — not because they're harmful, but simply because there's no evidence that they are beneficial either.”
 

DaveP

PV Master & Musician
ECF Veteran
May 22, 2010
16,733
42,646
Central GA
My doctor says that vitamins are fine, just don't pay big bucks for them ... buy the cheapest brand sold in stores and get them on a two for one deal if you find them. A and E (the oils based vitamins) are subject to overdose, but most multi-vitamins have low doses anyway. The rest, he says are disposed of along with excess water.

I wonder what kind of sample group they had where 40.8% died during the test and 39.8% in the control group. The 40.8% were in the vitamin test group. This was monitored at points during the test, but not in a controlled environment since sampling was taken over a long period ... years. I'd like to know how other factors figured into these women's lives.

I suppose that the same results could be seen in two groups who were simply monitored with no external requests for intake of anything. At the end of the test, the average age was 76 and there was a 1% spread in death between the two? I'd scrap those results if I were involved for fear of being laughed out of the profession for doing junk science.

100% of those who eat carrots will die at some point in their lives.
 

Pheisty

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 23, 2009
742
324
Wisconsin
Vitamin supplements are a waste of your money, you just pass excess vitamins out again.
All your daily requirements of vitamins and nutrients are available in guess what? Food.
Anyone telling you otherwise is selling snake oil.

That's not the point. The point is that someone (*Cough* Big Pharma/Big Cancer *Cough*) is paying someone to do a study that prompts people to buy their expensive products or keep non-profits funded instead of seeking out relatively cheap and easily-accessible means to fix themselves. It also is designed to foster a climate of fear in those who take supplements. Do you deny that? And if supplements really don't help people, why would Big Pharma go to the trouble of attempting to pay someone to do a study discrediting them? Because they love us and don't want us to get sick or die?

I have my own anecdotal evidence that supplements work, but obviously I can't prove it to you, so I'm not going to argue that point. But I do believe that illness is usually a symptom of deficiency, and we are NOT deficient in prescription drugs...as much as Big Pharma would like us to believe that is the case.
 

dee5

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 8, 2009
1,565
379
Northwest Arkansas
Bill- If I believed for one second that the food I buy at the grocery store actually contains the percentages of nutrients they claim, then I could design a diet that would fulfill my family's nutritional needs. But the soil that corporate farms grow in is deprived and depleted of micronutrients, the produce and meat we consume is covered with and/or injected with pesticides, hormones and chemical fertilizers- I don't trust our nations food supply. I grow an organic garden at home but it cannot supply me with all the food we need....so I take a multivitamin to make up the deficit. I can feel the difference in my body when I take it and when I don't, that tells me it's working. I don't need a study or my government to tell me what is good for me and what is not. I just have to listen to my body and be honest with myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread