Wednesday, March 16, 2005

AMA journal says vitamin E preventive benefit in macular degeneration outweighs possible risks...

From the Bolen Reort

Other recent headlines *
Vitamin E Supplements Produced a 90% Decrease in PSA (Prostate Cancer Marker)
Vitamin C and E Supplements Reduce Cognitive Dementia Risk 88%
Vitamin E Supplements Reduce Breast Cancer Risk 80%
Vitamin C and E Supplements Reduce Alzheimer's Risk 78%
Low Vitamin E Predicts Heart Attacks 62%
Vitamin E Supplements Reduce Bladder Cancer Risk 50%
Vitamin C and E Reduced Intensive Care Deaths 48%
Vitamin E Reduced Heart Attacks, Death in Diabetics 40%
Bottom Line: Vitamin E is a Serious Threat to the Pharmaceutical Business.
So the following should not be surprising...

That's Outrageous


Vitamin E supplements may increase heart failure risk, new study..?!?
"In conjunction with its lack of efficacy, the potential for harm suggested by our findings strongly supports the view that vitamin E supplements should not be used in patients with vascular disease or diabetes mellitus," the authors write. "Our study also has wider implications. There is a tendency to accept 'natural products' (e.g., vitamins) as being safe, even if they have not been proven to be effective. However, our findings emphasize the need to thoroughly evaluate all vitamins, other natural products, and complementary medicines in appropriately designed trials before they are widely used for presumed health benefits." (JAMA. 2005;293:1338-1347. Available post-embargo at

This totally outrageous recommendation is based on a single finding. "Although this adverse effect of vitamin E was unexpected and cannot be confirmed at this time" most conventional doctors will accept this hook, line and sinker.

Our questions: Were any subjects taking aspirin? Or prescription drugs, including statins? What form of vitamin E? How did they isolate the effect of vitamin E from other confounding factors? Why, as they admit, has this result not be seen in the thousands of other studies? Was the effect strong, or weak? What is the theory? Who benefits from this news? Who really wrote this paper? Was there another pro-vitamin E study published recently? (Hint: Today's headline.)

Do you enjoy having the world-wide 'news' manipulated by pharamaceutical interests?

See: THE VITAMIN E EVIDENCE The Tip of the Iceberg for the efficay of Vitamin E...


Christopher Wiechert, C.N.C.
Share this e-mail with anyone who may benefit.