Do you take vitamins? Then this is for you!
((Lookin' for the info on the "Mommy Spa"?? It's the previous blog posting!! You're almost there..))
Here is the study abstract which was published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association):
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/842
And as I was looking for additional background research on this I came across a study of 40,000 women and Vitamin E:
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jul2005/nhlbi-05.htm
And here is what Oregon State University Professor Balz Frei sent to me via press release. He was forthcoming with me that he does do some consulting for a Salt Lake City supplement manufacturer. This release raises some interesting points:
CORVALLIS, Ore. – A study being published today on possible health risks of antioxidant supplements is based on flawed methodology and ignores the broad totality of evidence that comes to largely opposite conclusions, experts said today from the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University.
The research, which was published in this week’s edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, concluded that antioxidant supplements such as vitamins A and E may “significantly increase mortality,” and that there was no evidence for any positive effect of vitamin C in the reduction of mortality rates.
However, Balz Frei, professor and director of one of the world’s leading institutes that studies the possible health value of vitamins, phytochemicals and micronutrients, said that the new study’s focus on a selected group of clinical trials disregards the results of other more positive trials, as well as huge amounts of laboratory, animal, and human observational and experimental data.
“This is a flawed analysis of flawed data, and it does little to help us understand the real health effects of antioxidants, whether beneficial or otherwise,” Frei said.
“Instead of causing harm, the totality of the evidence indicates that antioxidants from foods or supplements have many health benefits, including reduced risk for cardiovascular disease, some types of cancer, eye disease and neurodegenerative disease,” he said. “In addition, they are a key to an enhanced immune system and resistance to infection.”
The “meta-analysis” published in JAMA, which is a statistical analysis of previously published data, looked at 815 antioxidant trials but included only 68 of them in its analysis, Frei said. And two of the studies excluded – which were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the prominent British medical journal Lancet – found substantial benefits and reduced mortality from intake of antioxidant supplements.
“If these two large studies had been included, none of the reported effects on increased mortality would have been significant, with the exception of the effects of beta carotene,” Frei said. “And the research showing a higher incidence of lung cancer in smokers who take supplements of beta carotene or vitamin A is old news, that’s been known for many years. Very high doses of vitamin A are known to have multiple adverse health effects.”
All the new study really demonstrates, Frei said, is a bias toward identifying studies or research that show harm caused by antioxidants, and selective removal of research that shows benefits.
The mean duration of the reviewed trials was 2.7 years, so the implied conclusion is that taking antioxidant supplements can kill people in less than three years, Frei said. It is absurd to think that vitamin supplements could have such an effect, he said, and no biological mechanism has been identified that would explain it. In addition, the causes of death were not considered or were not determined in many of the studies reviewed, and may include accidents or other causes that have nothing to do with diet or oxidative stress.
Most trials cited in the study, Frei said, tested multiple antioxidants and additional interventions in the treatment of disease, including a long list of other dietary supplements and pharmaceutical drugs. The underlying health problems or multiple types of medical, drug and surgical treatments could all interfere with or mask the effects that can be attributed directly to antioxidants, he said.
“These trails don’t tell us anything about the usefulness of antioxidants in the prevention of disease, or whether the supplements had the intended effect of lowering oxidative stress in the body,” Frei said. “It’s like doing a cholesterol-lowering trial without ever measuring serum cholesterol. How can you draw any conclusions from such a poorly-designed study?”
Kathryn writes about the TRICARE story: I would like you to do a story on finding a doctor who will take Medicare. My story is similar to Sharon’s on your blog. My internist of many years doesn’t take Medicare, so I found myself looking for a doctor. I really couldn’t find an internist on the west side who would take a new Medicare patient. So, I settled for a family practice doctor who is quite a distance from my home.
Another issue for those of us who have HMO type Medicare plans is that one of the ways the insurer keeps costs down is to require referrals to specialists. This is fine except that it is really a conflict of interest for the primary care doctor. Literally, money is being taken out of their pockets when they refer you, so some want to take care of medical situations that are really out of their realm of experience. One doctor that I no longer have thought she could follow up for my plastic surgeon and oncologist instead of sending me to see them. I had only been out of chemo for 18 months and was still experiencing side effects and I’d had breast reconstruction less than a year before.
I love your reports!
Kathryn~ THANKS!!! I do think there is a story there.. one that is clearly is affecting a number of people!

