I carried a book with me to pass the time while I waited in the showroom of the once Chrysler dealer, now showcasing a 66 Dodge Charger while the used cars of their trade fill the lot.
I read my fascinating book, written in 1892, for a while then picked up a few of the magazines for perusal.
In the rack was an April 2010 issue of Reader's Digest. Featured on the cover was this article about vitamins you'll find below.
The first myth of this writer is the falsity of being able to get adequate nutrition, vitamins and minerals, from today's food, even if it is organic.
The "tooth fairy" reference is insulting and I have to wonder who is this woman's audience, really!
She further denigrates multi-vitamin-mineral caps as almost like taking poison.
This woman must not know that if people with diabetes took a daily multi of good quality it would go far to help offset the problems of the dis-ease.
Once Upon A Time real science found that vitamin E prevented and reversed heart disease.
Once Upon A Time real science found that vitamin A, not beta carotene alone, helped prevent and reverse pneumonia.
Once Upon A Time real science found that not only did vitamin C prevent colds but it prevented and cured many health problems.
Once Upon A Time real science found that vitamins have a major role in preventing and booting recovery from mainstream cancer therapy today. There is even a PhD researcher that spends all of his effort at his university studying vitamins for cancer. Plus he IS a published author!
Oh, and yes, vitamin D is really a helpful hormone and yes, too many are deficient, and 1000 units a day might not be enough to build up your reserve.
Fortunately for me I know that drugs may not always help you and the truth and lies about them are often hidden so you won't think that might not be your best choice.
Fortunately for me I know that there is real science behind the use of orthomolecular medicine for health.
And hopefully you'll now be a bit wiser that to believe in the following hype.
5 Vitamin Truths and LiesWhat a panel of doctors and others have to say about the RD nonsense...
Are you still relying on vitamins to keep you healthy? Learn the truth about which supplements help and which ones you can toss.
Once upon a time, you believed in the tooth fairy. You counted on the stability of housing prices and depended on bankers to be, well, dependable. And you figured that taking vitamins was good for you. Oh, it's painful when another myth gets shattered. Recent research suggests that a daily multi is a waste of money for most people—and there's growing evidence that some other old standbys may even hurt your health. Here's what you need to know.Myth: A multivitamin can make up for a bad diet
Last year, researchers published new findings from the Women's Health Initiative, a long-term study of more than 160,000 midlife women. The data showed that multivitamin-takers are no healthier than those who don't pop the pills, at least when it comes to the big diseases—cancer, heart disease, stroke. "Even women with poor diets weren't helped by taking a multivitamin," says study author Marian Neuhouser, PhD, in the cancer prevention program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle.That said, there is one group that probably ought to keep taking a multi-vitamin: women of reproductive age. The supplement is insurance in case of pregnancy. A woman who gets adequate amounts of the B vitamin folate is much less likely to have a baby with a birth defect affecting the spinal cord. Since the spinal cord starts to develop extremely early—before a woman may know she's pregnant—the safest course is for her to take 400 micrograms of folic acid (the synthetic form of folate) daily. And a multi is an easy way to get it.Unfortunately, none of those hopes have panned out.A number of studies have tried and failed to find a benefit, like a recent one that randomly assigned 5,442 women to take either a placebo or a B-vitamin combo. Over the course of more than seven years, all the women experienced similar rates of cancers and cancer deaths. In Neuhouser's enormous multivitamin study, that pill didn't offer any protection against cancer either. Nor did C, E, or beta-carotene in research done at Harvard Medical School.The shift started with a big study of beta-carotene pills. It was meant to test whether the antioxidant could prevent lung cancer, but researchers instead detected surprising increases in lung cancer and deaths among male smokers who took the supplement. No one knew what to make of the result at first, but further studies have shown it wasn't a fluke—there's a real possibility that in some circumstances, antioxidant pills could actually promote cancer (in women as well as in men). Other studies have raised concerns that taking high doses of folic acid could raise the risk of colon cancer. Still others suggest a connection between high doses of some vitamins and heart disease.Truth: A pill that's worth taking
"From start to finish, the Reader's Digest article, '5 Vitamin Truths and Lies' was one of the worst bits of propaganda I ever saw. There was not one word in it discussing the benefits of multivitamins, vitamin C, and studies supporting the use of vitamins for preventing cancer and heart disease. Not once was a single dose mentioned. This alone makes the entire effort a farce aimed at a readership that is relying on the publication for accurate information."the above article is with thanks to a loyal reader!
Allan N. Spreen, M.D. (Mesa, AZ)
"Vitamins are among the safest substances known. They have the most minimal side effects, even in large doses, compared with the death rate due to conventional drugs taken according to the manufacturers' advice. Vitamin C is among the most powerful immune modulators if given in large doses. Scare stories against the use of vitamins do the public no good."
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Vancouver, BC)
"This is not the first time Reader's Digest has written about "bad" vitamins, and they always seem to manage to put it on the front page. But look at their advertising: so much of it is for pharmaceutical drugs. No wonder the article states virtually nothing of the thousands of positive results with vitamins."
James A. Jackson, Ph.D. (Wichita, KS)
"The author of the Reader's Digest article has not understood the articles used to support her arguments. For example, with vitamin C and the common cold, the article appears to refer to the 2007 Cochrane report. However, this report has been updated frequently since 2007. The last update was on February 2nd of this year. Either the reporter did not read the up-to-date review, or she was unable to understand its content. The review applies only to low intakes, and contains major objections that studies of large doses and orthomolecular intakes were not included. All the data were for intakes far below the levels actually claimed to be effective. The summary of the paper does indeed give a misleading impression, but people might expect an intelligent reporter to check the rest of the report before giving advice."
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (Manchester, UK)
"The material was not well-researched, and a bias was clearly in play. 15 pages of drug advertisements in that issue of Reader's Digest is very telling, indeed."
Thomas E. Levy, M.D. (Colorado Springs, CO)
"What a poor job! Reader's Digest needs to review the literature. Haven't they read any articles by Dr. Bruce Ames? Do they know what quantities of vitamin C ascorbic were used in the cold studies mentioned in their one-sided report? Do they know of the high doses that showed benefit? Do they know of the many studies that have reported benefit from vitamin E and carotenes? It's easy to be ignorant but biased. Before a magazine does such a public health disservice, first get the all the facts."
Michael J. Gonzalez, Ph.D. (San Juan, PR)
"As a family practitioner who has prescribed vitamins for many reasons, with beneficial results over the past 25 years, I have removed Reader's Digest from my waiting room. Unless there is a follow-up article disclaiming most of what was written, I will discourage my patients from reading Reader's Digest because of their biased and misleading information."
Stephen Faulkner, M.D. (Duncan, BC)
Owen Fonorow of The Vitamin C Foundation adds:
"Why did Reader's Digest deem it appropriate to publish unbalanced opinions about the value of vitamins in the April 2010 issue? A balanced report would have quoted experts from both sides of the argument. The negative studies of vitamins are biased, utilizing too small amounts, especially of vitamin C, to fairly evaluate the therapeutic use of the vitamins. There is a 70-year-long history of vitamin C research (now more than 80,000 papers) that consistently shows therapeutic results at higher dosages of many thousands of milligrams. Linus Pauling recommended at least 5,000 mg of vitamin C daily for reversing heart disease. It is a serious public health mistake for Reader's Digest to recommend against a multivitamin."
To give Reader's Digest one more chance at the truth, send your thoughts directly to the people responsible: RDEditorial_RDW@ReadersDigest.com
To learn more about how high doses of vitamins safely and effectively fight disease: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml
Upper Respiratory Infection (URI) and Vitamin C
Naama Constantini, MD, DFM, FACSM, Dip. Sport Med. (CASM) Director-Sport Medicine Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem 4 Ha'razim St., Jerusalem, Israel
"The Effect Of Vitamin C On Upper Respiratory Infections In Adolescent Swimmers: A Randomized Trial,"
Eur J Pediatr, 2010 August 6; [Epub ahead of print]. 48142 (10/2010)
Yes, it worked!
a beneficial role for vitamin C in sepsis
Research conducted at the University of Western Ontario and Lawson Health Research Institute has uncovered a beneficial role for vitamin C in sepsis, an immune system reaction to bacterial infection that results in the formation of blood clots, impaired blood flow and potential organ failure. The condition occurs mainly in infants, individuals with impaired immune systems, and older men and women. The current study's findings were reported in the November, 2010 issue of the journal Intensive Care Medicine.
Severe sepsis carries a mortality rate of 40 percent, according to University of Western Ontario Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry professor Karel Tyml. Capillaries that have been blocked by blood clots, caused by oxidative stress and activation of the blood clotting pathway, are the cause of multiple organ failure and death in septic patients. "There are many facets to sepsis, but the one we have focused on for the past 10 years is the plugging of capillaries," he noted. Dr Tyml's laboratory was the first to discover this phenomenon via the use of intravital microscopy.
In experiments with three strains of mice, Dr Tyml's team demonstrated that vitamin C administered intravenously early in the development of sepsis prevents capillary blockage as well as reverses the condition by restoring blood flow if administered later. Reversal of blood flow blockage by vitamin C appeared to be dependent upon the production of nitric oxide, which dislodges platelets from the capillary wall.
"Our research in mice with sepsis has found that early as well as delayed injections of vitamin C improves chance of survival significantly," Dr Tyml remarked. "Furthermore, the beneficial effect of a single bolus injection of vitamin C is long lasting and prevents capillary plugging for up to 24 hours post-injection."
"Vitamin C is cheap and safe," he added. "Previous studies have shown that it can be injected intravenously into patients with no side effects. It has the potential to significantly improve the outcome of sepsis patients world-wide. This could be especially beneficial in developing countries where sepsis is more common and expensive treatments are not affordable."