So vitamins are dangerous? Based on whose biased information gathering?

by ken winston caine

You may have seen the headlines.

JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, is promoting its publication of a meta analysis that concludes that use of antioxidant vitamins A, beta carotene and E, may send you to the grave sooner than otherwise..

It was a big analysis — comparing studies involving more than 232,000 people — and it makes big, troubling assumptions that should be challenged. But the media isn’t challenging it. Rather it’s gobbling up the suggestion that “Vitamins can kill you” just as enthusiastically as Linus Pauling gobbled Vitamin C. (He kept a handful in his jacket pocket and popped a couple every few minutes.)

A “meta analysis” is a study that mathematically cross-compares the results of multiple studies conducted by various researchers on various populations and under varying conditions. By its very nature, its conclusions can be suspect.

This one is no exception.

Some questions to ask in this case:

- Were the populations in the various studies all reasonably healthy? No.

- Were those who were taking vitamin supplements asked how they rated their own health? No. Is it possible that people who have less than robust health to start with are more inclined to take vitamin supplements than those who have better health? Yes. Was the study “controlled” for that? No.

- Were those who were taking vitamin supplements in these 68 studies taking natural vitamins derived from food sources or were they given chemical synthetics and was there any consistency in quality? No evidence that this was tracked. But in general, conventional medical researchers tend to prefer chemical synthetic vitamins to naturally derived ones. Those trained in nutrition consider synthetic vitamins to be inferior and problematic.

- Do the conventional medical doctors conducting these studies have extensive training in natural health and an understanding of nutritional supplements? No.

- Were dosages and periods of use consistent throughout the 68 studies analyzed? No.

- Does the Journal of the American Medical Association have a potential conflict of interest because it accepts funding from and promotes the interests of big pharmaceutical companies? You decide.

I’m sure other critics will dig into the article much deeper and come up with more concerns. I’m certainly not prepared to embrace this study.

-