Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary and Junior go on a Little Father and Son Trip
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
If every FReeper and Lurker gave just $7 a month
No More FReepathons!
Posted on 11/03/2011 9:56:57 AM PDT by djf
Do you think that sophisticated compounds designed to combat complex diseases are analogous to vitamins?
What a bunch of nonsense. The next time you come down with a MRSA infection be sure to take large doses of vitamin C instead of Xyvox. Let me know how that works out for ya. If you are ever so unfortunate as to come down with chronic myelogenous leukemia, will you treat it with high doses of B complex vitamins or with Gleevec? Let me know how using riboflavin to treat that migraine works for you instead of that tryptamine based drug.
It is just plain dumb to point out a lack of deaths from vitamin consumption vs. pharmaceuticals.....I mean, really, really dumb.
Some interesting reading:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6653-high-doses-of-vitamin-e-may-hasten-death.html
http://www.cidpusa.org/vitamins.html
http://health.ninemsn.com.au/healthnews/8358337/vitamin-supplements-increase-death-risk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15238610
http://www.webmd.com/news/20070227/antioxidant-supplements-up-death-risk
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/health/29458525/detail.html
Are you aware that, unlike prescription and over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements do not have to be proven safe or effective before they can be marketed?
They can tell you whatever they want to tell you and don't even have to include the ingredients listed or in the quantities indicated (if indicated at all). But those supplement guys aren't like big bad pharma guys now, are they? They wouldn't lie about the efficacy of their product. And I'm certain, that with them, you're getting exactly what you pay for. Riiight.
If you had even bothered reading the article, you would see that a large part of it focuses on the side effects of Prozac.
Side effects that were known for decades, but which were basically covered up until a scientist spilled the beans.
So any statements about “proven safe and effective” are mere ramblings.
As far as claims made by supplement makers, you know VERY WELL that the FDA PROHIBITS supplement makers from making medical claims. Any claims that are made are made by researchers doing long term clinical studies, or just ad hoc research, individual testimonies are automatically dumped and called anecdotal and unreliable.
You come on these threads and attack them, and sometimes the people personally.
I - me - I - didn’t make the claims about vitamins versus prescription meds, I just posted an article.
I’ve read your posts, I know you were in R&D. No doubt something in the food industry. Based on your defense of HFCS, I suspect corn growing/ processing. Is that true, Maize?
Me, I work on computers. I don’t sell vitamins or supplements. But I do read alot about them.
And I do know one thing. That MOST of the time you hear claims about vitamins/supplements, it’s a short hop, skip, and a jump over to the PUBMED database where you can READ FOR YOURSELF the clinical studies and results that support those claims.
HA HA Thats the best laugh I've had all day !!
That's funny, because I found the study on the FRONT PAGE of the website of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women: The Iowa Women's Health Study
 LESS IS MORE Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women The Iowa Women's Health Study Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1625-1633. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.445 Background Although dietary supplements are commonly taken to prevent chronic disease, the long-term health consequences of many compounds are unknown. Methods We assessed the use of vitamin and mineral supplements in relation to total mortality in 38 772 older women in the Iowa Women's Health Study; mean age was 61.6 years at baseline in 1986. Supplement use was self-reported in 1986, 1997, and 2004. Through December 31, 2008, a total of 15 594 deaths (40.2%) were identified through the State Health Registry of Iowa and the National Death Index. Results In multivariable adjusted proportional hazards regression models, the use of multivitamins (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; absolute risk increase, 2.4%), vitamin B6 (1.10; 1.01-1.21; 4.1%), folic acid (1.15; 1.00-1.32; 5.9%), iron (1.10; 1.03-1.17; 3.9%), magnesium (1.08; 1.01-1.15; 3.6%), zinc (1.08; 1.01-1.15; 3.0%), and copper (1.45; 1.20-1.75; 18.0%) were associated with increased risk of total mortality when compared with corresponding nonuse. Use of calcium was inversely related (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94; absolute risk reduction, 3.8%). Findings for iron and calcium were replicated in separate, shorter-term analyses (10-year, 6-year, and 4-year follow-up), each with approximately 15% of the original participants having died, starting in 1986, 1997, and 2004. Conclusions In older women, several commonly used dietary vitamin and mineral supplements may be associated with increased total mortality risk; this association is strongest with supplemental iron. In contrast to the findings of many studies, calcium is associated with decreased risk.
Vitamin and Mineral Supplement Use in Relation to All-Cause Mortality in the Iowa Women's Health Study: Comment on "Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women" Vitamin Supplements: More Cost Than Value: Comment on "Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women"
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES For Vitamin and Mineral Supplementation, Less Is More Dietary Supplement Use and Mortality in Older Women Vitamin and Mineral Supplement Use in Relation to All-Cause Mortality in the Iowa Women's Health Study: Comment on "Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women" The Importance of Food
RAPID RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLE Supplement-related Mortality? Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now let me make it clear I am not denying that this particular study exists or was published.
Three times - THREE TIMES - over the span of 25+ years, these people “self reported” on supplement use.
I would say it merits further study.
But I would ALSO SAY there is no reasonable way they could come to the conclusions they did based on the methodology.
How many aspirin did you take last year? Should I conclude if you took at least one, that aspirin saved your life?
What you have is is very, very sparse and incomplete data.
I don't disagree. I'm actually not against the use of supplements or vitamins. But I think consumers need to be very very careful -- and the best data collected so far shows that daily multivitamin use has no benefit -- and may actually shorten your life.
But I would ALSO SAY there is no reasonable way they could come to the conclusions they did based on the methodology.
We disagree - and so do the folks who reviewed it before publication in a highly-respected peer reviewed journal.
How many aspirin did you take last year? Should I conclude if you took at least one, that aspirin saved your life?
You're right -- looking at one person's vitamin use isn't super helpful. The study looked at 38,772 women and controlled for all sorts of variables. Over a population that large, you most certainly can see the health effects of aspirin use, vitamin use, etc.
The supplement industry is huge -- this article says $20 billion, other sources say $50 billion. It's incredible to me how little serious research these guys support. If their products are really valuable, why wouldn't they prove it?
As I said earlier, supplement makers/vendors are PROHIBITED by the FDA from making medical claims.
The claims you hear of are made by researchers and clinicians doing studies.
I reject the findings of the study as I said asking people only three times in 25 years does NOT give you enough data to come to the conclusion they did no matter how many participants there are.
I agree people need to be careful - and one thing I will point out is that their mentioning of Iron, well, elevated Iron has been known for a LONG time to have possible negative effects. To paint the whole supplement industry in a negative tone based on that is more propaganda than science.
Yeah, great. Let's look at the title again - 27 Years - No Deaths from Vitamins, 3 Million from Prescription Drugs.
Now employ some common sense and tell me what that title means. I'll tell you: The title is communicating the belief that sophisticated compounds designed to combat complex diseases are analogous in some way to vitamins. That is stupid, stupid, stupid.
I don't care about Prozac or any alleged cover up of any side effects. That is simply a distraction from the fact that this title was meant to communicate that supplements are under siege while big bad pharmaceutical kills millions.
So any statements about “proven safe and effective” are mere ramblings.
It's apparent that you have no idea the process a NME must go through to be commercialized. That doesn't surprise me. You also don't understand the difference between a clinical trial involving thousands of subjects and a full scale product launch involving millions. Human physiology being what it is, it shouldn't come as a surprise that negative side effects occur. All medicines come with risks and benefits. Are you also an anti-vaccine crusader because one person in a million has a bad reaction to the drug?
As far as claims made by supplement makers, you know VERY WELL that the FDA PROHIBITS supplement makers from making medical claims. Any claims that are made are made by researchers doing long term clinical studies, or just ad hoc research, individual testimonies are automatically dumped and called anecdotal and unreliable.
LOL! This is what happens when your knowledge of a subject is limited to a text book or some magazine. That may sound good to you in theory, but I assure you it is very different in practice. A dietary supplement must be proven unsafe before it is removed from store shelves. Dietary supplement manufacturers can introduce new products without providing the Food and Drug Administration with any testing for safety or efficacy. They don't even have to put safety warnings on the labels even if it's a product with known serious hazards or possible drug interactions. But you think any claims must be backed up by research and long term clinical studies, right? I guess you missed the whole ephedra problem.
Maybe you also missed all those supplements laced with sibutramine and sildenafil. Not good. Then there was Boyd Haley, who was selling an industrial chelator as a dietary supplement to treat autistic children. He must have missed the FDA rule prohibiting supplement makers from making medical claims. You should look up a company called Xano and the mangosteen juice they were hawking. They claimed that studies showed their juice was “anti-tumor,” “anti-obesity,” “anti-aging,” “anti-fatigue,” “antiviral,” “antibiotic” and “antidepressant.” They wouldn't say it if it wasn't true, right? I mean, the FDA says that's prohibited.
Then there's CVS who paid millions to settle with the FTC over claims made about their AirShield 'Immune Boosting' supplement. Did you see where Airborne had to pay tens of millions because they falsely advertised their "Miracle Cold Buster." And what about that product called "Cold Away?" Who knew a combination of Chinese herbs could cure your cold? How about that Harvard professor who teamed up with Shaklee to promote their Vivix Cellular Anti-Aging Tonic that he publicly claimed offered life-extending properties? He left the company when the media called Shaklee out over this arrangement. Let's not even bother with all the claims made directly, or through surrogates, about ginko biloba (dementia and Alzheimer's) or with anti-oxidants (cancer). Now I see where hormones like DHEA and melatonin are being hawked as supplements. That's as nutty as the title of the article you posted.
Yes, the FDA says that food supplement labels cannot claim to cure or prevent disease. But that doesn't stop manufacturers from doing exactly that. Food supplement manufacturers regularly make medicinal claims that are difficult to verify.
You come on these threads and attack them, and sometimes the people personally.
You posted an article with an absurd title. I have to assume that you agree with the title since you posted it and defend your understanding of the subject. If calling that "dumb" offends you then so be it. Don't post dumb articles in the future.
I’ve read your posts, I know you were in R&D. No doubt something in the food industry. Based on your defense of HFCS
I don't defend HFCS. I don't even like the product. I'd much rather they used sucrose to sweeten my beverages. What I do defend is sound science. There is a lot of junk science promoted on this forum, and when it is promoted as something other than what it is, I point it out.
I suspect corn growing/ processing. Is that true, Maize?
Maize? Did you think that up all by yourself? I have nothing to do with corn growing or processing. Being the chemicalphobe that you are, do you also fear corn and corn processing? People fear the things they don't understand.
Me, I work on computers
Good for you. You should stay there. You'd go hungry trying to make a living in anything requiring a knowledge of food science.
But I do read alot about them.
You should add basic chemistry, biology and nutrition to your reading list.
That MOST of the time you hear claims about vitamins/supplements, it’s a short hop, skip, and a jump over to the PUBMED database where you can READ FOR YOURSELF the clinical studies and results that support those claims.
I suppose that would depend on the claims now, wouldn't it? That's the thing about research today....there is so much of it you can find research to support just about any ridiculous claim you want to make. That's where separating fact from fiction becomes a little more challenging. Don't believe everything you read....you'll end up posting silly articles that attempt to equate highly sophisticated chemical compounds with vitamin C.
I just gave you some hits from a quick Bing search. The USPTF tries to give doctors recommendations based on the most up to date research, they are hated by some, but I think they are fairly reliable. Here is there most up to date recommendations on vitamins supplementation, I link it for the references listed at the bottom. If your doctor advises you against taking supplements, it is probably based on the recommendations of this group.
www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/.../vitamins/vitaminsrr.pdf
I scanned the articles. There is some repetition but some of them referred to other older research so the weren’t identical. I was at work when responding to you. I’m now up at 0:00 dark thirty going to a wrestling match with my boy.
I am not anti supplements. I have a pile of vitamin research I collected in the 80’s somewhere in the basement. I put them together when we were preparing to publish an article about using Vitamin C before surgery to decrease post surgical blood loss for prostate procedures. The numbers were impressive, there was significant improvement in both biologic markers and medical outcomes. Unfortunately, one of the surgeons did not have his participants sign consents for the study, I recommended we start over and redesign the study to resolve a couple of flaws in the original study and have all the participants sign informed consents, the surgical group did not stay together and the whole thing fell into my to do list and thirty years later it is still not done.
In case any young urologist who needs to get published is reading: Draw a vitamin C and HGB/HCT level prior to TURP, randomly give half a gram of vitamin C twice over the 24 hours prior to surgery and give the other half a placebo then follow HGB/HCT after surgery. You can thank me later.
I’ll get back to you on this one. Winter is icumin in, we’ve had mostly dark and stormy nights lately, and tomorrow it miraculously gets dark an hour earlier. I’ll have more time to fritter away on the internet.
Bump!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
