Expensive urine? LOL

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/multivitamin-supplements-a-waste-of-time-1605377.html

The entire industry is fake! Watch out!

Seriously though..any comments?

Misirlou - These articles are always bad science. This one came out just yesterday that contradicts it.

Cancer Survivors Are Heavy Supplement Users
February 2009

Cancer survivors are heavy users of vitamin and mineral dietary supplements, according to a research review from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

The researchers stated: "Vitamin and mineral supplement use is thought to be common among the 10 million adults in the United States who have been diagnosed with cancer; however, well-conducted studies of this topic are sparse. We present a systematic summary of studies published between 1999 and 2006, 32 in total, addressing vitamin and mineral supplement use among U.S. adult cancer patients and survivors."

In studies combining cancer sites, between 64% and 81% of survivors reported using any supplements and 26% to 77% any multivitamins. Additionally, between 14% and 32% of survivors indicated they started using supplements after diagnosis, with usage differing by cancer site. Breast cancer survivors showed the highest use and prostate cancer survivors the lowest.

The researchers suggested more research to examine the association between cancer treatment, recurrence and survival and the use of dietary supplements.

Journal of Clinical Oncology 26(4):665-673, 2008

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 5, 2009
Pharmaceutical Advertising Biases Journals Against Vitamin Supplements

(OMNS, February 5, 2009) It may be the worst-kept secret in medicine: pharmaceutical money buys journal influence. What the public has so long suspected has now been demonstrated in a recently published peer-reviewed study. (1) Researchers from Wake Forest University School of Medicine and the University of Florida found that "in major medical journals, more pharmaceutical advertising is associated with publishing fewer articles about dietary supplements." Furthermore, they found that more pharmaceutical company advertising resulted in the journal having more articles with "negative conclusions about dietary supplement safety."

This new study, the first of its kind, specifically looked at pharmaceutical advertising as compared with journal text about dietary supplements. The authors reviewed a year's worth of issues from each of eleven of the largest medical journals: the Journal of the American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Pediatrics and Pediatric Research, and American Family Physician.

The results were statistically significant. . . and embarrassing. Medical journals carrying the most pharmaceutical ads "published significantly fewer major articles about dietary supplements per issue than journals with the fewest pharmads (P < 0.01). Journals with the most pharmads published no clinical trials or cohort studies about supplements. The percentage of major articles concluding that supplements were unsafe was 4% in journals with fewest and 67% among those with the most pharmads (P = 0.02)." The authors concluded that "the impact of advertising on publications" is real, and said that "the ultimate impact of this bias on professional guidelines, health care, and health policy is a matter of great public concern."

Indeed it is. Health care costs are rising and drug profits are enormous. Canadian psychiatrist Abram Hoffer, M.D, Ph.D., says: "We all have to work hard to educate the public about the merits of sane treatment for everyone, where the patient is primary, not Big Pharma." Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D., of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, comments that "Positive reports about the effects of high-dose vitamins have long been ignored by the medical establishment instead of being further examined scientifically."

When patients ask about nutritional treatments, many a family physician has replied, "I've never seen any studies supporting the safety or efficacy of vitamin supplements in my professional journals. The research is simply not there."

Sadly, they are right. And now we know why.

Major medical journals, their editors, and their authors appear to be on the take. Harsh words? Perhaps, but only because the truth is harsh. "One the take" refers to receiving cash in exchange for influence. It is naive to assume that money does not corrupt. Promoting vested interests masquerading as science is wrong and it must be stopped. At the very least, accepting money carries an obligation to account for the source of that money. All medical journals should be compelled to print a full disclosure in every issue itemizing exactly how much money comes from exactly which sources.

Any medical journal that won't disclose has a reason to not disclose. And that reason has nothing to do with public health. It's about private cash. The cash that induces the journals to sway the doctors to persuade the public.

If the medical journals deny this, let them prove it with full disclosure. Now.

References:

(1) Kemper KJ, Hood KL. Does pharmaceutical advertising affect journal publication about dietary supplements? BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008 Apr 9;8:11. Full text at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/11 or http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18400092

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 2, 2009
Vitamins: It's Dose that Does It

(OMNS, February 2, 2009) There is a spin to most media reporting on vitamin research. The recent anti-vitamin media blitz, led by the Associated Press and USA Today, provides yet another demonstration. (Vitamins C and E don't prevent heart disease. The Associated Press, Nov. 9, 2008. Also: USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-09-supplements-study_N.htm ) With a paternalistic pat on the head, the media once again seeks to send you off to play with the reassurance that, well, vitamin therapy HAS been tested, and it just does not work.

Nonsense. Thousands upon thousands of nutritional research studies provide evidence that vitamins do help prevent and treat serious diseases, including cancer and heart disease, when the nutrients are supplied in sufficiently high doses. High doses are required. Low doses fail. Says cardiologist Thomas Levy, M.D.: "The three most important considerations in effective vitamin C therapy are dose, dose, and dose. If you don't take enough, you won't get the desired effects."

Effective doses are high doses, often hundreds of times more than the US Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) or Daily Reference Intake (DRI). Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D., comments: "Drs. Wilfrid Shute and Evan Shute recommended doses from 400 IU to 8,000 IU of vitamin E daily. The usual dose range was 800 to 1600 IU but they report that they had given 8,000 IU without seeing any toxicity." The Shutes successfully treated over 35,000 patients with vitamin E.

All the recent, much touted JAMA study does is confirm what we already know: low doses do not work. The doses given were 400 IU of vitamin E every OTHER day and 500 milligrams of vitamin C/day. Try that same study with 2,000 to 4,000 IU of vitamin E every other day (1,000 to 2,000 IU/day) and 15,000-30,000 mg/day of vitamin C and the difference would be unmistakable. We know this because investigators using vitamins E and C in high doses have consistently reported success.

Low doses do not get clinical results. Any physician, nurse, or parent knows that a dose of antibiotics that is one tenth, or one-hundredth, of the known effective dose will not work. Indeed, it is a cornerstone of medical science that dose affects outcome. This premise is accepted with pharmaceutical drug therapy, but not with vitamin therapy. Most of the best-publicized vitamin E and C research has used inadequate, low doses, and this JAMA study falls right into line.

High doses of vitamins are deliberately not used. Writes Robert F. Cathcart III, M.D.: "I have been consulted by many researchers who proposed bold studies of the effects of massive doses of ascorbate (vitamin C). Every time the university center, the ethics committee, or the pharmacy committee deny permission for the use of massive doses of ascorbate and render the study almost useless. Seasoned researchers depending upon government grants do not even try to study adequate doses."

The most frequently proffered reason is the allegation that "high doses of vitamins are not safe." That is a myth. 25 years of national poison control statistics show that there is not even one death per year from vitamins. Check the research literature and see for yourself exactly who is being harmed by vitamins. Aside from the pharmaceutical industry, virtually nobody. Half of Americans take vitamin supplements every day. So where are the bodies?

Decades of physicians' reports and controlled research studies support the use of large doses of vitamins. Yet to hear the media (and JAMA) tell it, vitamins are a Granny's folk remedy: a buggy- and barrel-stave technology that just doesn't make it.

In the broadcast and print media, vitamin therapy is marginalized at best and derided at worst. Is this merely laughable, or is there method to it? One may start by asking, who does this serve? Could it possibly be the media's huge advertising-cash providers, the pharmaceutical industry? Pharmaceutical advertising money buys authors, ad space, influence, and complicity. Unfortunately, this is as true in the newspapers as it is in the medical journals.

Let the news media begin by disclosing exactly where their advertising revenue comes from. It may explain where the spin on their articles comes from, too.

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.

Man that's a little too much for me to read right now.

But let me ask a more simple question, because I'm curious.

What's the best way to improve the bioavailability of all these supplements we're taking?

I've got loads more, but while on this subject, a recent study on Niacinamide (flush free niacin) reverses Alzheimer's in a few months.

Animals given a high dose were cured within a few months. The highest amount of niacinamide that is useful for a human is 250 mgs at a time according to Dr. William Kaufman who did heavy research on Niacinamide in the 1930's.

A human trial is underway with 1,500 mg dose of Niacinamide twice per day. Using 250 milligrams four times to 6 times per day would be much more effective. Dr. Kaufman took it this way for several decades during his life.

Anyway, besides the enormous and inexpensive ramifications of this extremely inexpensive cure for Alzheimer's. I bet practically no one even heard of this. Where are the Alzheimer's associations?

A quick search shows no recent reporting by the media on this.

I did find this however:

http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.med.nutrition/2008-12/msg00057.pdf

sgtiger - Avoid anti-acids or acid buffers. A healthy liver will insure good optimization. Cayenne pepper and bioperine (a commercial pepper extract) improve utilization.

CausticSymmetry wrote:I've got loads more, but while on this subject, a recent study on Niacinamide (flush free niacin) reverses Alzheimer's in a few months.

Animals given a high dose were cured within a few months. The highest amount of niacinamide that is useful for a human is 250 mgs at a time according to Dr. William Kaufman who did heavy research on Niacinamide in the 1930's.

A human trial is underway with 1,500 mg dose of Niacinamide twice per day. Using 250 milligrams four times to 6 times per day would be much more effective. Dr. Kaufman took it this way for several decades during his life.

Anyway, besides the enormous and inexpensive ramifications of this extremely inexpensive cure for Alzheimer's. I bet practically no one even heard of this. Where are the Alzheimer's associations?

A quick search shows no recent reporting by the media on this.

I did find this however:

http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.med.nutrition/2008-12/msg00057.pdf

I did find this article interesting on this subject:

http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n25.shtml

With this part particularly:

But overall, at their website http://www.alz.org/index.asp the Alzheimer's Association has strikingly little to say about vitamins, and they hasten to tell people that "No one should use vitamin E to treat Alzheimer's disease except under the supervision of a physician." ( http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_10428.asp ) "They write as if these safe vitamins are dangerous drugs, not be used without a doctor's consent," comments Dr. Hoffer. "I have been using them for decades."

CausticSymmetry wrote:
Let the news media begin by disclosing exactly where their advertising revenue comes from. It may explain where the spin on their articles comes from, too.

That article nailed it. No wonder print journalism is in decline, it's full of shit.

I wake up every morning and I piss excellence.

Great counter-arguments IH!

This thread is f**king awesome. Thanks for sharing the links guys.