39 replies to this topic

[ortcloud]

I am sure you have seen the news about vitamin d and protecting against breast cancer.


I did some digging and found two things

The Problem - 400iu's of vitamin D is not enough to raise blood levels to be therapeutic.


The Solution- Give up and dont take any at all because 400 isnt enough.

Seriously, how does this spin happen in the media. Who exactly is responsible for this bs ?
The person writing the press release, the media that picks it up ?

[niner]

Seriously, how does this spin happen in the media. Who exactly is responsible for this bs ?
The person writing the press release, the media that picks it up ?

Well, it's certainly idiotic, no question about that. Where exactly did you read it? If you can link to the article, we could track back to the source of the idiocy.

[ferdo]

It was published on last tuesday on the frontpage website of the 'Journal of the National Cancer Institute'

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/

URL:
http://jnci.oxfordjo...abstract/djn360

Media simply picked it up there. And when only reading the abstract and failing to read the editoral:

http://jnci.oxfordjo...ent/full/djn390

they missed the following:

Is 400 IU of supplemented vitamin D too low of a dose to prevent breast and colon cancer?

[mediumspiny]

Is 400 IU of supplemented vitamin D too low of a dose to prevent breast and colon cancer?

Where did you get this quote from?

It does not appear in the article.

I looked because the English you use is wrong. OK, I am pretty sure that you are Dutch, so it is not a surprise, but it made me think you made the quote up.

[Michael]

The Problem - 400iu's of vitamin D is not enough to raise blood levels to be therapeutic.

The Solution- Give up and dont take any at all because 400 isnt enough.

Seriously, how does this spin happen in the media. Who exactly is responsible for this bs ?
The person writing the press release, the media that picks it up ?

To be fair, that's the simple, headline version of the findings: the women took vitamin D supplements, at what's still considered the standard dose, and nothing happened. While superficial and unhelpful, it's a much more reasonable way to report the data than a lot of other health studies on supplements, like when someone doses a rat with some hideous chemical, gives it a supplement at the same time that blocks the terrible effects of the chemical, lowers the resulting cancer rates, and then pretends that this means something about cancer prevention.

But, yes: it's bad reporting. The Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial, as ferdo mentions, is much more responsible (though I too couldn't find the specific quote s/he provides):

Should these negative results discourage the use of calcium and vitamin D in future breast cancer prevention studies? Not necessarily. Although Chlebowski et al. did not find a statistically significant association between calcium and vitamin D supplementation and reduced incidence of breast cancer, there could be several important confounders at play. The first confounder is that of variable baseline vitamin D levels. The authors measured the baseline level of plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D and compared this level with self-reported vitamin D intake. There was a large overlap of baseline self-reported vitamin D intake across the plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D quintiles, suggesting that factors besides intake (such as sunlight exposure, body mass index, metabolism, physical activity, and genetic factors) have a stronger influence on plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D than just intake quantity alone.

A second potential confounder is the high level of calcium and vitamin D self-supplementation (up to 1000 mg of calcium and 1000 IU of vitamin D) that was allowed during the study. This "outside of study" supplementation led to 15% of placebo patients "dropping in" to the active treatment component of the study. Such "outside of study" supplementation, sometimes at levels more than twice the trial dose, may have diminished the observed difference in breast cancer incidence between the placebo and CaD arms.

Another very important issue is the dose of vitamin D given in this trial. Recent reports suggest that higher doses of vitamin D (1000–2000 IU/day) may be required to prevent cancer (19). It is possible that doses sufficient to prevent osteoporosis are not sufficient to prevent cancer. The results of this trial suggest that a dose of 400 IU of vitamin D could be insufficient to prevent breast cancer or colon cancer

Their reference (19):

Gorham ED, Garland CF, Garland FC, Grant WB, Mohr SB, Lipkin M, Newmark HL, Giovannucci E, Wei M, Holick MF.
Optimal vitamin D status for colorectal cancer prevention: a quantitative meta analysis.
Am J Prev Med. 2007 Mar;32(3):210-6.
PMID: 17296473 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-Michael

[lucid]

Particularly good reporting:

Ligibel added, "I think this is an important study. It tells us there is absolutely more work that needs to be done on vitamin D. I do think the study should put a little bit of brakes on people telling people to take huge doses of vitamin D to prevent cancer."

Logic:
1. Give a small dose to many patients. Allowing the poor external supplementation controls Michael mentioned.
2. Show that the small reduction is statistically insignificant.
3. Conclude that using a large dose is ineffective.
Seems about right to me.

[stephen_b]

Again, we bump into the fact that good research in the public interest needs funding in cases where drug companies have no foreseeable return on investment.

Perhaps the idea that all forum members contact their representatives (in whatever country they come from) is a good one?

StephenB

[lucid]

Again, we bump into the fact that good research in the public interest needs funding in cases where drug companies have no foreseeable return on investment.

Perhaps the idea that all forum members contact their representatives (in whatever country they come from) is a good one?

StephenB

Not to digress, but I can't help myself. It always seems absurd to compel people via law to be charitable in a democratic republic. Just work a little more or spend a little less and donate money to charities/research orgs which you find valuable. If the majority of a population would vote to send funding to an institution then the same majority could just give money charitably on their own. You then get the added benefit of feeling good about yourself as well. (I don't know many people who get a 'pick me up' feeling after paying taxes.)

But we are in agreement that this research needs funding

[niner]

Again, we bump into the fact that good research in the public interest needs funding in cases where drug companies have no foreseeable return on investment.

Perhaps the idea that all forum members contact their representatives (in whatever country they come from) is a good one?

StephenB

Not to digress, but I can't help myself. It always seems absurd to compel people via law to be charitable in a democratic republic. Just work a little more or spend a little less and donate money to charities/research orgs which you find valuable. If the majority of a population would vote to send funding to an institution then the same majority could just give money charitably on their own. You then get the added benefit of feeling good about yourself as well. (I don't know many people who get a 'pick me up' feeling after paying taxes.)

But we are in agreement that this research needs funding

Lucid, I don't think stephen_b is arguing for a tax increase, he is saying that we should let our voices be heard regarding how the existing money is being spent. Most if not all of us live in representative democracies, so we should all have the right to speak up if we're so inclined. e.g.: "Please move a few million dollars away from the subsidy of monoculture production of cheap candy ingredients and into medical research." I do agree with you that it is absurd to compel people via law to charitably donate money to the military so some crazed president can get his war on.

To be a little more on topic, I can't believe that after going to all the trouble to set up a study with 36,000 subjects, they would let them dose themselves with higher doses of the study drugs regardless of which arm of the study they were in, and then not take that information into account in the analysis.

[ferdo]

Is 400 IU of supplemented vitamin D too low of a dose to prevent breast and colon cancer?

Where did you get this quote from?

It does not appear in the article.

I looked because the English you use is wrong. OK, I am pretty sure that you are Dutch, so it is not a surprise, but it made me think you made the quote up.

Sorry for the bad english.

The quote comes from the last sentence in the third last paragraph from this editorial:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/djn390

What's worse? Reading bad or writing bad?

Even google has a perfect hit:
http://www.google.co...%...on cancer?"

[luv2increase]

Simply put, the medical establishment doesn't want anyone getting better or diseases to be prevented because that hurts their profits. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The medical establishment is one large piece of our economy. It is composed of MANY businesses that need people to get and/or be sick to survive and keep making money.


Think about how big of a blow it would be to the economy if someone found a cure for AIDS or a cure for all cancer!!!! Cancer hospitals would be shutting down across the world. Trillions of dollars of revenue would be gone! It would literally be a big fat disaster for the survival of the pharmaceutal industry and medical community in general.

[stephen_b]

But we are in agreement that this research needs funding

That's all I meant. Supplement trials need higher priority.

StephenB

[niner]

Simply put, the medical establishment doesn't want anyone getting better or diseases to be prevented because that hurts their profits. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The medical establishment is one large piece of our economy. It is composed of MANY businesses that need people to get and/or be sick to survive and keep making money.

Think about how big of a blow it would be to the economy if someone found a cure for AIDS or a cure for all cancer!!!! Cancer hospitals would be shutting down across the world. Trillions of dollars of revenue would be gone! It would literally be a big fat disaster for the survival of the pharmaceutal industry and medical community in general.

That's the tinfoil hat view, anyway. If this were true, which it isn't, then the whole concept of the Longevity Dividend would be out the window.

[ortcloud]

I am all for democracy and capitalism. The pharmaceutical companies cross the line when they influence legislation and suppress competition. The purpose of legislation should be to protect competition and ensure everyone plays fair. So a true capitalist competition can occur. Thus show which approaches are superior. The goal should be which approach is superior and whichever one is should be rewarded financially. But suppression, manipulation and subsequent compromise in public health should not be the one rewarded. In other words profit has taken priority over health.

I started this thread with the intent to show how crazy this story is being
reported and ending with the question of how this occurs.

Are the pharma companies manipulating the spin on how the results of this study are reported ?

With the intent of people not taking vitamin d so they get cancer and then
the pharma machine can protect its cancer profits ?

Edited by ortcloud, 16 November 2008 - 01:25 AM.

[niner]

Are the pharma companies manipulating the spin on how the results of this study are reported ?

With the intent of people not taking vitamin d so they get cancer and then
the pharma machine can protect its cancer profits ?

I find that extremely hard to believe.

It was a stupid study with a somewhat misleading conclusion. The more nuanced view was hidden in an editorial. You never did say where you found the claim that people shouldn't take vitamin D. Whoever wrote and approved that statement is most at fault, IMO. I don't think you need to blame the problem on malice; it was probably just incompetence.

[luv2increase]

Simply put, the medical establishment doesn't want anyone getting better or diseases to be prevented because that hurts their profits. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The medical establishment is one large piece of our economy. It is composed of MANY businesses that need people to get and/or be sick to survive and keep making money.

Think about how big of a blow it would be to the economy if someone found a cure for AIDS or a cure for all cancer!!!! Cancer hospitals would be shutting down across the world. Trillions of dollars of revenue would be gone! It would literally be a big fat disaster for the survival of the pharmaceutal industry and medical community in general.

That's the tinfoil hat view, anyway. If this were true, which it isn't, then the whole concept of the Longevity Dividend would be out the window.

What is not true? There are a lot of things said in there.


Are you saying that if a cure for all cancer or AIDS was found that it would not have a devastating blow on the world's economy?

[luv2increase]

I find that extremely hard to believe.

It is sad that you think this way. It is right in front of your face, yet you choose to disgard it as a "tinfoil hat view"... You, sadly, are attempting to view everything as hunky dory, and all is for the betterment of society. Ask yourself one question; how come over the last half century hasn't medicine been investigating therapies and research in preventing diseases from occuring. Why hasn't preventative measures taken the forefront? I'll tell you why; it is because there isn't nearly as much money in it. When you come to realize just how much money is involved in medicine, you should realize that you are wrong.


We've explained our reasoning so let's hear yours.

[mustardseed41]

I find that extremely hard to believe.

It is sad that you think this way. It is right in front of your face, yet you choose to disgard it as a "tinfoil hat view"... You, sadly, are attempting to view everything as hunky dory, and all is for the betterment of society. Ask yourself one question; how come over the last half century hasn't medicine been investigating therapies and research in preventing diseases from occuring. Why hasn't preventative measures taken the forefront? I'll tell you why; it is because there isn't nearly as much money in it. When you come to realize just how much money is involved in medicine, you should realize that you are wrong.


We've explained our reasoning so let's hear yours.

Hard to argue with that logic. Well said.

[meursault]

It's difficult to believe that these conclusions could be made based on experimentation with so many different uncontrolled variables.
Conclusion: Study is USELESS

Edited by czukles, 17 November 2008 - 07:25 AM.

[david ellis]

It's difficult to believe that these conclusions could be made based on experimentation with so many different uncontrolled variables.
Conclusion: Study is USELESS

I believe the vitamin D study was useless also. The main problem with the study is that the supplement dosage was probably too low to raise Vitamin D to a normal level. The study was funded by NIH a few years ago. When the study parameters were approved everybody believed that the 400 IU recommendation was adequate. Now there is huge doubt about 400 IU's adequacy coupled with a study that proved inadequate to prove its objectives.

A lot of money down the tubes, but why? I doubt that Pharma intentionally lobbied for test parameters that would have invalidated this study. This study seems to be well covered by good intentions. I don't have rosy glasses on. I have seen some vitamin studies that do seem designed to prove vitamins ineffective, but not in this case. And even in those cases it is a huge error to jump to the conclusion that bad Pharma has struck. A case must be made with facts, names, and dates.

I am going to be ambivalent here because I too have a "tin foil" hat. The prime motive for Pharma is max profit. And to assume that max profit and good healthcare is not a contradiction is too much. Challenging the contradiction is not an attack on all of the good people working for pharma. It is an attack on a few in upper management. The great majority of people who work for Pharma are people of high standards who do excellent, accurate, ethical work and deserve their good reputations.

But health care costs are going up, and health care rankings are going down. Something is wrong. Good intentions don't count. Good plans with clear objectives and good management seem necessary.

[kismet]

I find that extremely hard to believe.

It is sad that you think this way. It is right in front of your face, yet you choose to disgard it as a "tinfoil hat view"... You, sadly, are attempting to view everything as hunky dory, and all is for the betterment of society. Ask yourself one question; how come over the last half century hasn't medicine been investigating therapies and research in preventing diseases from occuring. Why hasn't preventative measures taken the forefront? I'll tell you why; it is because there isn't nearly as much money in it. When you come to realize just how much money is involved in medicine, you should realize that you are wrong.


We've explained our reasoning so let's hear yours.

So we're talking about cures and not prevention:
Ok, curing AIDS, no problem.
A drug needs to be developed - good for the economy. The drug then will be sold - good for the economy. It may be expensive because of shortages and price gouging - even better for the economy.
HIV is a virus and it's extremely difficult to eradicate and would take quite some time even if it was possible (untreated people, other reservoirs, contaminted blood, etc). So there's quite some time to sell the miracle drug. Most probably people would get infected with HIV even long after the miracle drug has been developed.

Curing "cancer", even easier.
People will get cancer as long as they are mere humans, then they will need the drug. Sell them the drug. Other people will develop cancer, again the drug will be sold. Even those cured once may get cancer again. So this drug will be a best-seller as long as we cannot alter human metabolism to completely prevent cancer.

"how come over the last half century hasn't medicine been investigating therapies and research in preventing diseases from occuring"
Vaccines have never been developed it's all a big conspiracy, vaccines don't exist, now do they? Abeta vaccines have not been - more or less successfully - tested as a treatment/prevention for AD? 
What about cancer and HIV prevention to get back to our example. We are able to prevent cancer,  just do CRON. Preventing HIV, change the customs and traditions in third wirld countries, safer sex. It's really easy, I don't know if investing in other preventative measures is really worth the trouble, we should  definitely look for a certain cure when very good preventative measures already exist.

Do you think it's easy to prevent all cancers 100% of the time? Then feel free to teach Aubrey and the others a lesson about WILT and preventing cancer.

What I find most interesting is that transhumanism and healthy life extension (curing all the major killer diseases cancer, dementias, infectious disease, CVD, diabetes, etc) should be the worst of all, going by your faulty logic.
But did you consider that healthy people can spend money on other items and go on working instead of dying or paying for drugs? This provides taxes and boosts the economy. The longer they live the more they can contribute to science, arts, sports, etc too.

I am absolutely sure the "medical establishment" wants to cure and prevent all disease, as long as they can do it with patentable drugs. They would make a killing on each and every disease even long before its eradication. As I have explained, it's not even sure if it ever could be eradicated even after a cure has been found. The flu for example can be both cured and prevented (vaccines, tamiflu, etc.), but is it gone? The "medical establishment" is still making billions on those "cures".
Bacteria, virus and parasites evolve, "cure" one, have fun with another one.

BTW you are underestimating man's greed, as soon as one source of income (e.g. symptomatic treatments) runs dry people will find another one (big pharma could still sell vaccines, nootropics, desinger steroids, recreational designer drugs and other "transhumanist enhancements").

Edit:
So I guess some of my wordy explanations can be summarised under the concept of "Longevity Dividend"?

Edited by kismet, 17 November 2008 - 11:10 PM.

[niner]

Are you saying that if a cure for all cancer or AIDS was found that it would not have a devastating blow on the world's economy?

Yes. Are you saying that it would? I find it hard to understand how a bunch of people dying in the prime of life is good for anyone's economy. (AIDS, and in some cases cancer) I also find it hard to understand how spending a ton of money on healthcare instead of investing it productively is going to be beneficial for the economy. (both)

[niner]

I find that extremely hard to believe.

It is sad that you think this way. It is right in front of your face, yet you choose to disgard it as a "tinfoil hat view"... You, sadly, are attempting to view everything as hunky dory, and all is for the betterment of society. Ask yourself one question; how come over the last half century hasn't medicine been investigating therapies and research in preventing diseases from occuring. Why hasn't preventative measures taken the forefront? I'll tell you why; it is because there isn't nearly as much money in it. When you come to realize just how much money is involved in medicine, you should realize that you are wrong.

We've explained our reasoning so let's hear yours.

This is the statement I found hard to believe:

Are the pharma companies manipulating the spin on how the results of this study are reported ?

With the intent of people not taking vitamin d so they get cancer and then
the pharma machine can protect its cancer profits ?

Now come on. Do you really think the "pharma machine" is trying to get more people to contract cancer? The pharma industry are not saints, but this is just pure conspiracy theorizing.

[ortcloud]

I find that extremely hard to believe.

We've explained our reasoning so let's hear yours.

This is the statement I found hard to believe:

Are the pharma companies manipulating the spin on how the results of this study are reported ?

With the intent of people not taking vitamin d so they get cancer and then
the pharma machine can protect its cancer profits ?

Now come on. Do you really think the "pharma machine" is trying to get more people to contract cancer? The pharma industry are not saints, but this is just pure conspiracy theorizing.

I was posing a question. Not a statement. I am trying to figure out how
and who exactly is spinning these study outcomes.

[niner]

I find that extremely hard to believe.

We've explained our reasoning so let's hear yours.

This is the statement I found hard to believe:

Are the pharma companies manipulating the spin on how the results of this study are reported ?

With the intent of people not taking vitamin d so they get cancer and then
the pharma machine can protect its cancer profits ?

Now come on. Do you really think the "pharma machine" is trying to get more people to contract cancer? The pharma industry are not saints, but this is just pure conspiracy theorizing.

I was posing a question. Not a statement. I am trying to figure out how
and who exactly is spinning these study outcomes.

Ok. It was conspiracy theorizing with a question mark at the end. I should have called it "text" instead of "statement", and said "I find it hard to believe that is the case."

[ortcloud]

It's difficult to believe that these conclusions could be made based on experimentation with so many different uncontrolled variables.
Conclusion: Study is USELESS

I believe the vitamin D study was useless also. The main problem with the study is that the supplement dosage was probably too low to raise Vitamin D to a normal level. The study was funded by NIH a few years ago. When the study parameters were approved everybody believed that the 400 IU recommendation was adequate. Now there is huge doubt about 400 IU's adequacy coupled with a study that proved inadequate to prove its objectives.

A lot of money down the tubes, but why? I doubt that Pharma intentionally lobbied for test parameters that would have invalidated this study. This study seems to be well covered by good intentions. I don't have rosy glasses on. I have seen some vitamin studies that do seem designed to prove vitamins ineffective, but not in this case. And even in those cases it is a huge error to jump to the conclusion that bad Pharma has struck. A case must be made with facts, names, and dates.

I am going to be ambivalent here because I too have a "tin foil" hat. The prime motive for Pharma is max profit. And to assume that max profit and good healthcare is not a contradiction is too much. Challenging the contradiction is not an attack on all of the good people working for pharma. It is an attack on a few in upper management. The great majority of people who work for Pharma are people of high standards who do excellent, accurate, ethical work and deserve their good reputations.

But health care costs are going up, and health care rankings are going down. Something is wrong. Good intentions don't count. Good plans with clear objectives and good management seem necessary.

Yeah, I dont think the study was designed to fail. The outcome showed no change in risk of cancer when taking 400iu's
The study also checked blood levels and it showed that 400iu's did not change blood levels.

ok, so instead of the media reporting. "400ius is insufficient to raise blood levels and that 400iu's is insufficient to change cancer risk"

They instead claimed "Vitamin D ineffective for preventing cancer" Then they went on to further suggest that this study proves
that vitamin d doesnt work for cancer and this study proves that previous studies that showed otherwise were wrong because
this study was big and must be more accurate and thus previous studies should be ignored.

Bottom line, the public walks away thinking "vitamin d doesnt work, so no sense in taking it"

I disagree the study was useless, I think something useful could have come from this. Like the fact that 400ius was not
enough to change blood levels and not enough to change risk. This is important. Alot of people probably have heard that vitamin
d was worth taking and they went out and just bought 400iu's and started taking it thinking that was sufficient. I think that
further education is necessary in people understanding that blood levels are the important number, not the amount you
take. The publics mindset towards vitamins is that there is a certain amount you should take of each one. That is not the
case with vitamin d as you know. Heck for all we know the supplement used in this case might not have contained 400iu's
or was not absorbed because it was combined in a tablet of calcium which probably didnt even get broken down. This
was the perfect study to use to educate the public of these issues and give that final push to bring that understanding
into the public, but no it was completely twisted and did serious damage to the publics understanding and confidence.

Now why and who is responsible for doing this and destroying the message this study showed ?

Was it completely the medias fault with no intervention from big pharma ?
or was it big pharma ? If it was, why ? ok and here is the point I was trying
to make before. If big pharma did this, did they actually do it to try to protect
breast cancer profit ? Could they be that diabolical ? I am not saying either
way, it could be true.

So Niner, I am just asking here if this is the case for their motive.
I am not stating that this is the reason. Do you understand now ?

Is it that the media is so used to thinking vitamins dont work, that they just came to that
conclusion on their own to make this story fit with their core beliefs about vitamins ?

Maybe they have been trained by big pharma just like doctors are trained to believe
vitamins dont work. Ask any doctor, they are taught this in school and will gladly
tell it to your face if asked.

You see if you influence someones core beliefs about something then they carry
out your agenda for you on their own. So big pharma doesnt even have to have its
hand in the spin of this story directly, they just train people what to believe and then
they do it on their own.

Perhaps I just answered my own question.

[frederickson]

Was it completely the medias fault with no intervention from big pharma ?
or was it big pharma ? If it was, why ? ok and here is the point I was trying
to make before. If big pharma did this, did they actually do it to try to protect
breast cancer profit ? Could they be that diabolical ? I am not saying either
way, it could be true.

So Niner, I am just asking here if this is the case for their motive.
I am not stating that this is the reason. Do you understand now ?

Is it that the media is so used to thinking vitamins dont work, that they just came to that
conclusion on their own to make this story fit with their core beliefs about vitamins ?

Maybe they have been trained by big pharma just like doctors are trained to believe
vitamins dont work. Ask any doctor, they are taught this in school and will gladly
tell it to your face if asked.

You see if you influence someones core beliefs about something then they carry
out your agenda for you on their own. So big pharma doesnt even have to have its
hand in the spin of this story directly, they just train people what to believe and then
they do it on their own.

excellent post... never underestimate the greed and pervasiveness of the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. i don't think i am overstating the problem when i say if you had to choose a single entity responsible for the poor health in the us (and most of the rest of the world), it would be the dominance of big pharma in western healthcare systems.

from one who is writing a doctoral dissertation on vitamin e, and is as familiar with this impressive literature as is possible, i know that there is a strong bias against all vitamins and non-drug approaches to preventing disease in the medical community. the number of times i have heard "duh... but vitamin e increases mortality!" (referring to a poorly designed meta-analysis). this despite the fact that my references cited list has over 100 studies with positive results, they harp on a single, politically motivated study that could still find only a tiny increaese in mortality with hand-picked studies. this is the overwhelming attitude in academic research. why?

1.) the vast majority of physicians are nutrition illiterate. this is a direct product of pharma-dominated allopathic medical training. with less than 25% of us medical schools requiring a very basic course in nutrition and when less than 6% of medical students taking a nutrition elective, it should come as no surprise that most physicians know nothing about the role of nutrition in preventing disease. most posters on this board will be more knowledgable than your typical physician. as such, expect them to prescribe the pharmacological interventions on which they were trained to their patients over a nutrient-dense diet about which they are clueless. this "wait until it's too late" symptom-dominated approach is at the heart of the obesity epidemic, and consequently, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, i.e. the chronic diseases plaguing industrialized countries.

2.) a second major reason is the influence of big pharma on medical journals. even if you do have a saavy physician, he will generally rely upon medical journals for his knowledge (as he should). however, when big pharma advertising is such a big component of the income (check the journals for the latest crestor, etc. adds!), that creates a bias in terms of what is considered publishable.

3.) speaking of bias, the conflict of interest at the fda trumps all in my opinion. the fact that the fda accepts such huge financial contributions from the industry it is supposed to regulate is a conflict of interest like no other! is anyone surprised the fda has it out for nutritional supplements, given the fact that economic interests of it's financial lifeline (big pharma) are threatened! as a result, we have the constant barrage of poorly designed studies of vitamins that are destined to fail. anyone in the field like i am realizes this studies have fatal design flaws that seem to deliberately create a situation where positive results are impossible.

i should establish clearly that i was not always anti-pharmaceutical industry. in fact, i entered my phd program with an interest in pharmacoepidemiology and i could still make a TON of money in such a field if i chose to enter it after i graduate. the problem is, i have morals and see the situation clearly. the pharmaceutical industry has way too much influence at a variety of levels - medical training, lavish gifts to decision makers, the largest lobbying force in congress. and until this influence is decreased, expect the world to become more disease-ridden and dependent upon their drugs.

[balance]

On vitamin d3 dose topic:

http://www.nutraingr...itamin-D-levels

[ortcloud]

Was it completely the medias fault with no intervention from big pharma ?
.

from one who is writing a doctoral dissertation on vitamin e, and is as familiar with this impressive literature as is possible, i know that there is a strong bias against all vitamins and non-drug approaches to preventing disease in the medical community. the number of times i have heard "duh... but vitamin e increases mortality!" (referring to a poorly designed meta-analysis). this despite the fact that my references cited list has over 100 studies with positive results, they harp on a single, politically motivated study that could still find only a tiny increaese in mortality with hand-picked studies. this is the overwhelming attitude in academic research. why?

A dissertation on vitamin E would be interesting. From what I understand the issue with vitamin E stems from most E supplements being alpha E. It has been found that alpha E competes and inhibits uptake of gamma E tocopherol in the liver. Only Gamma E suppresses peroxynitrite free radical and alpha doesnt. So the more alpha you supplement, the lower the gamma levels will be and more peroxynitrite damage and subsequent rise in disease and deaths.

It seems that the reason supplements are alpha E tocopherol is that the FDA only considers alpha as "vitamin E" So companies
actually convert all other fractions like gamma E etc. over to alpha E because that is what the FDA will recognize. So once again, you can thank you government for this vitamin E debacle.

Lef has some great articles on this. Turns out sesame lignans will boost both
fractions and solve all the issues with vitamin E

http://www.lef.org/m...p_sesame_01.htm


http://www.lef.org/m...rt_gamma_01.htm

Edited by ortcloud, 18 November 2008 - 09:52 PM.

[balance]

Ortcloud,

I agree with what you're saying in your last post here, but I don't think that sesame lignans fix "all" issues regarding vitamin E. I personally feel that their super booster formula was better when it still contained the more expensive tocotrienols fraction. Ok so sesame lignans are better for a highly specific purpose, but what does this have to do with leaving out the tocotrienols (anti-cancer/cardiovascular benefits). Also, if one uses logic, one will for example take the booster (if it had tocotrienols) SIMULTANEOUSLY with fish oil, or mega GLA, which both contain sesame lignans. Also, the life extension mix contains sesame lignans. So what I do is supplement with gamma E tocotrienols and make sure I take it along with sufficient amounts of sesame lignans. On top of that though, even though LEF claims the lignans do the trick, I think it would probably be wise to have a 2:1 or at least 1:1 ratio of gamma E to alpha E. So rather 100IU or 200IU of alpha E with at least 200mg of gamma E, rather than what we still see in the lef mix (400IU of alpha E) tied to 200mg of gamma E. Notice lef often times uses the phrase "at least 200mg". Also the gamma E tocotrienols product says to take one softgel once or twice daily. So I think ideally we should lower the alpha E dose to 100-200 and take 2 gamma E tocotrienols softgels.

Notice the article ends with "For optimal supplementation, it would appear logical to consume at least 200 mg of gamma tocopherol each day, in addition to around 400 IU of alpha tocopherol.". Hmmm... lef used to advise much higher levels of alpha E, more like 800-3200IU. So they're doing the right thing by cutting back, but still not enough in my opinion. I'm sure many agree with me on this, as many here are fanatics of the AOR multi approach, which generally has very low amounts of all the vitamin E isomers.

What do you think ortcloud?

Edited by piet3r, 19 November 2008 - 01:48 AM.