6 replies to this topic

[aldebaran]

I would appreciate intelligent commentary on the following piece:

 

http://www.bbc.com/f...obal_future_rss.

 

Just another contribution to the anti-oxidant backlash of recent years, or more substantive? 

[pamojja]

In my view just a repeat of countless heard counterarguments against supplements.

 

But then I'm heavily biased, since was diagnosed a PAD 8 years ago, where conventional pharmaceutical treatments (statin and aspirin) wouldn't mean a cure, but merely 'risk reduction' from further events (only 1 out of 83 taking statin and 1 out of 333 taken aspirin wouldn't die prematurely due CVD with precondition), and further health deterioration for sure.

 

Instead I followed Linus Pauling's program and after 6 years and gradual improvement the worst debilitating symptoms of intermitttent claudication (a pain-free walking distance of merely 3-400 meter) simply is no more.

 

Synthetic folic acid (which with in a large part of the population doesn't get metabolized in active folate, but even blocks receptors), or synthetic vitamin E (without all the 8 natural isomers of vitamin, which partly get displaced thereby), or high dose synthetic beta-carotene - beside really unhealthy synthetic forms in each of these trials and without proper balance with all other necessary co-dependent nutrients - all risk increases are stated in 'relative' risk instead of the more accurate absolute risks. Just one example for beta-carotene:
 

http://annonc.oxford...2/185/MDH051TB2

 

Treatment: 14 560 patients
Placebo: 14 573 patients

No. of lung cancers:

Treatment: 474
Placebo: 402

 

 

Relative risk increase in this case is 18%, the absolute but less than 1%. Despite using a high dose synthetic form, which I personally never would.

 

The whole picture - even including the use of low quality synthetic forms not recommendable - is quite a bit different:

 

 

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 27, 2007
23 YEARS OF DOCUMENTED VITAMIN SAFETY

(OMNS, Feb 27, 2007) Over a twenty-three year period, vitamins have been connected with the deaths of a total of ten people in the United States. Poison control statistics confirm that more Americans die each year from eating soap than from taking vitamins.

Where are the bodies?
A 23-year review of US poison control center annual reports (1) tells a remarkable and largely ignored story: vitamins are extraordinarily safe.

Annual deaths alleged from vitamins:

2005: zero
2004: two
2003: two
2002: one
2001: zero
2000: zero
1999: zero
1998: zero
1997: zero
1996: zero
1995: zero
1994: zero
1993: one
1992: zero
1991: two
1990: one
1989: zero
1988: zero
1987: one
1986: zero
1985: zero
1984: zero
1983: zero

The zeros are not due to a lack of reporting. The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), which maintains the USA’s national database of information from 61 poison control centers, has noted that vitamins are among the 16 most reported substances. Even including intentional and accidental misuse, the number of alleged vitamin fatalities is strikingly low, averaging less than one death per year for more than two decades. In 16 of those 23 years, AAPCC reports that there was not one single death due to vitamins.

These statistics specifically include vitamin A, niacin (B-3), pyridoxine (B-6), other B-complex, C, D, E, "other" vitamin(s), such as vitamin K, and multiple vitamins without iron. Minerals, which are chemically and nutritionally different from vitamins, have an excellent safety record as well, but not quite as good as vitamins. On the average, one or two fatalities per year are typically attributed to iron poisoning from gross overdosing on supplemental iron. Deaths attributed to other supplemental minerals are very rare. Even iron, although not as safe as vitamins, accounts for fewer deaths than do laundry and dishwashing detergents.

http://orthomolecula...mns/index.shtml

 

Compared to the most deathly poisoning of that same year from the 2007 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers in comparison:

Number    -    % of all exposures in category    -    Substance
377    -    0.250    -    Sedative/hypnotics/antipsychotics
331    -    0.990    -    Opioids
220    -    0.250    -    Antidepressants
208    -    0.270    -    Acetaminophen in combination
203    -    0.240    -    Cardiovascular drugs
188    -    0.410    -    Stimulants and street drugs
170    -    0.230    -    Alcohols
140    -    0.190    -    Acetaminophen only
99    -    0.230    -    Anticonvulsants
80    -    0.200    -    Fumes/gases/vapors
80    -    0.740    -    Cyclic antidepressants
70    -    0.270    -    Muscle relaxants
69    -    0.090    -    Antihistamines
63    -    0.350    -    Aspirin alone
45    -    0.120    -    Chemicals
44    -    0.230    -    Unknown drug
44    -    0.040    -    Other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
36    -    0.280    -    Oral hypoglycemics
28    -    0.200    -    Automotive/aircraft/boat products
21    -    0.080    -    Miscellaneous drugs
21    -    0.040    -    Antihistamine/decongestant, without phenylpropanolamine
20    -    0.050    -    Hormones and hormone antagonists
20    -    0.300    -    Anticoagulants
16    -    0.150    -    Diuretics
...
ZERO    -    0.000    -    Vitamins and Minerals

Acute deathly poisonings: 203 from cardiovascular drugs and 63 from aspirin alone in that 1 year (which I would have been prescribed without any hope for cure) compared to Zero from Vitamins and Minerals (which for all practical purposes cured in my case).

 

The risk/benefits profile is just no comparison, natural supplements not patentable with the huge profits as pharmaceuticals, therefore such slanted articles against the alleged unsafely of supplement will never cease, along with insecurity in the public. Which really should be the case with all synthetic pharmaceutical prescribed for the rest of live with no promise on cure whatsoever.

 

Other example of real-live risks:

 

 

Decide wisely.

Edited by pamojja, 11 December 2016 - 04:32 PM.

[aldebaran]

Thanks very much for your thoughts, with which I certainly agree. 

 

My first post should read "anti-anti-oxidant", by the way.

[Oakman]

Typical, but sad, that this author, and for the BBS no less, starts with the catchy title, "Why Vitamin Pills Don't Work", then...(among other things)

 

- immediately redefines the story to (paraphrasing) "antioxidants may just send you to an early grave."

- infers the death of a 93 yr old Pauling could be his own fault

- sums up suggesting that  "eat your 5 a day" is the best advice (on radicals and antioxidants) science has given us in the 21st century

 

A very jumbled mess of truth, half truth, and wild conjecture to make up a story to earn his daily wage. His credits don't instill much confidence in anything he writes, but I digress.

 

"I’ve made programmes and series about all manner of subjects including housing, transport, caravans, classic cars and 20th century antique dealing but I’m probably best known for the eleven one hour documentaries I’ve done for the BBC including the series’ ‘Britain’s Really Disgusting Foods’ and ‘Secrets of the Superbrands’. I love comedy and really enjoyed hosting the Comedy Club on BBC Radio 7 (now 4extra) interviewing top comedians and introducing some of the BBC’s brilliant archive. I really enjoy interacting with people, and usually find the best way of getting to the bottom of a story is by using charm, humour and being a bit cheeky. I’m not afraid to ask difficult questions or hold people to account.

 

I’d always dreamed of working in television and spent years in the Crucible Youth Theatre (they finally asked me to leave at 26); doing ‘am-dram’ and generally making people laugh at work while wondering how I was ever going to make it. Then one night watching Top Gear (in the days when it was a half hour programme about cars), they made an appeal for researchers, so I sent in some ideas and a CV and got the job. And it was there I finally began my presenting career. My first item saw me mounting the stage as Elvis to sing Blue Suede Shoes to an audience dressed as Indian Chiefs, motorcycle cops and cowboys at an American Lifestyle Festival near Newark. I didn’t realise it at the time but this would be excellent preparation for working on the One Show."

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...Qnny/alex-riley

 

Edited by Oakman, 11 December 2016 - 09:37 PM.

[Nate-2004]

Supplement takedowns like these and the ones by Adam Conover (Adam Ruins Everything) always come from a very ill-informed place of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't get me wrong, I love Adam Conover, and I don't throw all his episodes out with the bathwater, but here is why they're so ill informed:

 

The focus is usually on C, D, A and E vitamins and only their most popular use claims. They're usually right about those. The minimal amount needed to prevent scurvy or rickets is good, but anything beyond that does little. They rarely if ever mention seasonal depression with D and other interesting things such as a lowered risk of falls for the elderly or decreases in bone fracture risk. They also don't mention the possible boosts in collagen production from C. They don't really even mention the possibility that with aging, our own internal production of required materials begins to break down. They probably didn't really look into it that deeply. They're looking for entertainment value, and more so, confirmation bias.

 

The second thing they focus on, and this is incredibly irritating to me, is their unbreakable faith in government regulation, specifically the FDA. They mention that there's no guaranteed way to know that what you're getting in the bottle is what's on the label, and that it may contain harmful substances or allergens. In other words, there may be fraudsters out there, and government is going to help somehow... probably by controlling what you can and can't have access to.  Meanwhile large, established pharmaceuticals are profiting off their protection and partnership, dealing drugs that don't fair much better in most cases, doing more harm than good. Where they're ill informed here: They don't mention labdoor.com. This is a company that has figured out how to profit from testing supplements and grading them on label accuracy, safety and other profile information. Consumer labs is yet another company who has their own model. Can these companies be trusted more than the FDA? Of course they can. They're not a monopoly of force with no incentives for quality control or building trust. The FDA, along with the DEA have long records of preventing access to more helpful drugs at the expense of countless lives and suffering. Who can possibly trust an organization so slow to change with the times that they stand in the way of progress by not only approving only substances for use in treatment only of specific diseases? That's a ridiculous, limiting policy. Not only that, but they still refuse to classify aging as a disease, which as we know, prevents a lot of investment in age related drug research.  It is both Protestant in mindset and criminal in action. Assuming that because some companies sell a fake product, all companies are doing this, and therefore you should buy supplements, is a logical fallacy at best.

 

The primary principle being we have the right and ownership over our own bodies and can choose to put what ever antidote or poison in it we please. If people are too stupid and ill informed to make these choices for themselves, then they're also too stupid and ill informed to make and impose these choices on others.  The media is certainly ill informed if not stupid sometimes, hence these articles.  Not all is lost though, states are finally legalizing marijuana despite the DEA's (and FDA's) fight against it. So little, so late.

 

Also, I should add that there's nothing wrong with taking supplements in lieu of the "recommended diet". Some people just can't stand vegetables, or meat, or specific swaths of foods that contain the essential vitamins and minerals needed. I hate green vegetables personally, and I find them insufferable to eat. I could cook and spice them, but that defeats the purpose to some degree, I still don't really like them even then. I could hide them in cheese, but caseins are said to bond with the flavonoids rendering them inert. I could eat fish all week, but who would want to do that? I can barely do it twice a week without getting absolutely sick of it after a month. The problem with humans is that we're prone to get tired of things easily. Taking supplements when we are sick of eating greens is a valid choice.

 

The last thing I'll say in this rant is that most of these substances being criticized are not supplements at all, but rather what I (and others) like to call "augmentives", but more accurately, drugs.  Ginseng and L-Theanine are not supplements. Your body does not fail from a lack of Ginseng.  Pterostilbene, honokiol, quercetin, bacopa, creatine, carnosine, carnitine.. even whey protein. These are all augmentives, not supplements.  Throwing these out without thorough examination and research simply because some supplements turned out to be duds, or turned out to be not needed in excess, is both irresponsible and ill informed as a scientist or journalist, or just a person who wants what's best for themselves and the world.

 

There are plenty of FDA approved prescription drugs that are just as useless if not debilitating with side effects in many ways.

 

My hope is that more companies like labdoor.com pop up into existance. These and other companies like the USP is just one of those organizations that can serve as an alternative, voluntary market solution to the problem of fraud. 

 

I love that sites like Examine.com exist to help inform people of the utility of specific supplements and augmentives, measuring the strength of supporting evidence to various claims and not being so irresponsible as to decide that if a few substances are bad, then they all must be useless.

 

Afterthought: That the so called "supplement" industry is a $31 billion dollar industry is irrelevant. It's not like the pharmaceutical industry doesn't match that. They're just profiting off the state's protectionist patent system.

 

That's my rant about these articles. I was waiting for the opportunity to write about this and so here it is.

Edited by Nate-2004, 18 December 2016 - 04:38 PM.

[pamojja]

Afterthought: That the so called "supplement" industry is a $31 billion dollar industry is irrelevant. It's not like the pharmaceutical industry doesn't match that. They're just profiting off the state's protectionist patent system.

 

That's a rather gross underestimation of the pharmaceutical industry, their money and therefore means to influence public opinion. From wikipedia:

 

 

Global sales

In 2011, global spending on prescription drugs topped $954 billion, even as growth slowed somewhat in Europe and North America. The United States accounts for more than a third of the global pharmaceutical market, with $340 billion in annual sales followed by the EU and Japan.,^[90] Emerging markets such as China, Russia, South Korea and Mexico outpaced that market, growing a huge 81 percent.^[91][92]

 

[Nate-2004]

 

Afterthought: That the so called "supplement" industry is a $31 billion dollar industry is irrelevant. It's not like the pharmaceutical industry doesn't match that. They're just profiting off the state's protectionist patent system.

 

That's a rather gross underestimation of the pharmaceutical industry, their money and therefore means to influence public opinion. From wikipedia:

 

 

Global sales

In 2011, global spending on prescription drugs topped $954 billion, even as growth slowed somewhat in Europe and North America. The United States accounts for more than a third of the global pharmaceutical market, with $340 billion in annual sales followed by the EU and Japan.,^[90] Emerging markets such as China, Russia, South Korea and Mexico outpaced that market, growing a huge 81 percent.^[91][92]

 

 

Haha, even worse.