[ Home ] [ Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods ] [ Darwinian Medicine ] [ Adaptation & Darwinian Medicine ] [ TGA & the Pan Crisis ] [ Pan Crisis ] [ Health Trends ] [ Medical Rationing ] [ Do Not Resuscitate ] [ Alternative Medicine Takeover ] [ Holistic or Reductionist? ] [ Orthodox Medicine ] [ Science Today, Quackery Tomorrow ] [ Integrated Medicine ] [ Medical Bias ] [ Health Topics ] [ Hypophobia ] [ Nutrition Breakthroughs ] [ Nutrition & Megavitamins ]

Nutrition News & Dangerous Vitamins

Scientists Continue to Uncover the Amazing Potential of Nutrition as the Medical World Warns of the Dangers of Nutritional Supplements

Experts Predict Genetic Nutritional Therapies for Many Chronic Diseases in the Bold Future World of Nutrition

Nutrition Breakthroughs Continue but Vitamins are so Dangerous?

Protect the Public From Vitamins Not Pharmaceutical Drugs

Nutritional Therapies - the lucrative potential for modern medicine

Nutrigenomics and the Bold New World of Individualised Nutrition - Roger Williams' Genetotrophic Concept and his Principles of Biochemical Individuality Renamed and Vindicated

Conclusion - will governments continue to 'Pan' nutritional supplements because health promoting nutrients are too dangerous......or because they are too potentially profitable?

References

Nutrition Breakthroughs Continue but Vitamins are so Dangerous?

As I have indicated elsewhere (Nutrition is For the Birds, Pan Crisis, Medical Bias, Nutrition & Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, TGA & the Pan Crisis, Codex in Australia, Modern Medicine & the Codex, Drug Reactions & the TGA, Alternative Medicine Inquiry, Alternative Medicine, Pan, & Codex), for more than half a century the drug oriented medical establishment has been clutching at any straw they could find in an attempt to discredit the nutritional supplement industry. This is in spite of the fact that the medical world has long held the view that the safety of nutritional supplements is not an issue, their concerns being merely financial as they expressed concern about poor gullible consumers wasting their money on placebos which do no more than create expensive urine and nutritionally enrich our sewerage (Pan Crisis). However, as scientists continue to provide scientific evidence to explain the reasons why millions of people throughout the world have been experiencing health benefits from large doses of various vitamins for decades, the medical profession, just as they did with folic acid, are still clinging to their favoured drug paradigm of disease treatment. Amazingly it seems, the medical profession will be the last section of the community to realise the benefits of nutrition. As has already occurred with folic acid, millions of people will have been experiencing these benefits for decades before doctors realise the gravity of their 'mistake'.

So what is the truth according to the available evidence? Can so many doctors be so wrong?

I have outlined elsewhere (Nutrition & Megavitamins, B Vitamins, Holistic or Reductionist? , Nutrition is For the Birds) the voluminous amount of scientific evidence accumulated over the past half century which illustrates the positive health benefits of nutritional supplements. I have also considered elsewhere the available evidence of the safety of both nutritional supplements (Dietary Supplements, Holistic or Reductionist?, Health Trends ) and pharmaceutical drugs (Dietary Supplements, Holistic or Reductionist?, Health Trends, Drug Reactions & the TGA). I have discussed in detail the amazing lengths to which the medico-pharmaceutical industry has gone in an an effort to convince the public of the dangers of nutritional supplements while at the same time they have displayed very little concern regarding the extensive evidence of the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs (Dietary Supplements, Holistic or Reductionist?, Health Trends, Pan Crisis). I have also considered elsewhere trends in nutrition (Nutrition & Megavitamins, B Vitamins, Holistic or Reductionist? , Nutrition is For the Birds) and also trends in public health and the incidence of diseases (Health Trends, Holistic or Reductionist?) which have resulted from the strategies adopted by modern medicine. This evidence reveals a staggering increase in the incidence of both iatrogenic diseases and chronic diseases (Health Trends, Holistic or Reductionist?) and yet, in spite of this, many in the medical establishment express much more concern about the 'dangers' of the safest health promoting products on the market (ie nutritional supplements). The little concern they express about the thousands of patients who die from adverse drug reactions is most noteworthy (Dietary Supplements, Holistic or Reductionist?, Health Trends, Pan Crisis). Interestingly, those who display a very dismissive attitude to adverse drug reactions and the suffering of those who are so afflicted, commonly seem to also favour a consistently negative attitude towards the benefits of nutrition.

Unlike such negative attitudes, this article is about the positive aspects of nutrition and the continuing challenge faced in overcoming the anti-nutrition bias or vitaminphobia which is still so prominent in the world of mainstream medicine and nutrition. As has recently been noted by O'Dea, even the Australian government is responsible for encouraging this traditional disinterest in nutrition (1):

But O'Dea goes further, drawing attention to the fundamentally negative attitude the Australian government has traditionally encouraged regarding nutrition (1):
 

Since these traditional negative attitudes have been more than adequately publicised elsewhere, this discussion will focus predominantly upon more positive recent developments in nutrition which tend not to get adequate publicity. I will seek to examine recent trends in nutrition and the traditional anti-nutrition bias of the medical establishment (Medical Bias). Have they learned from past 'mistakes' or are they still continuing with the same old 'promote the safety of drugs' campaign and the negative 'prime time TV scare the public about vitamins' campaign? Do their public comments really reflect the scientific facts? Do they publicise breakthroughs in nutrition or are positive aspects of nutrition concealed and confined to scientific journals? And what is all this hysteria about reports of the dangers of nutritional supplements? Is there really new evidence that thousands of people are dying from ingesting dietary supplements? Or, on the other hand, is it the same negative traditional old 'nutrition is quackery' propaganda which has been peddled by those whose loyalties are more closely connected with the drug industry than with vitamins?

Protect the Public From Vitamins Not Pharmaceutical Drugs

It is indeed strange that Vitetta generalises about the "billion dollar vitamin industry" though the study of  Bjelakovic and colleagues concluded that only three nutrients "may" have a slight adverse effect upon mortality while one nutrient actually reduced mortality (2). Similarly, Cain responded to this report by suggesting there is "no need for anyone to take vitamin supplements" somehow apparently extrapolating data on these three nutrients to all vitamins (4):

Of course, given the traditional and obsessive anti-nutrition bias of modern medicine (Medical Bias, Nutrition is For the Birds), patients could not rely upon many doctors to prescribe vitamins which after all, they claim do no more than enrich our sewerage (Pan Crisis). I have indicated elsewhere the tragic story of my father who doctors disgracefully refused to give vitamins even though he was dying of starvation (Do Not Resuscitate), although this is not too surprising since hospital patients have a history of developing malnutrition whilst under the care of doctors (Nutrition is For the Birds). And doctors know elderly patients, especially those in nursing homes frequently suffer from malnutrition but still they commonly refuse to prescribe vitamins (The New Paradigm, Doctors Discover Malnutrition in the Elderly). Since, according to this evidence, it seems many doctors consider malnutrition and starvation insufficient evidence to warrant the use of vitamins, it would seem it is up to the public to obtain their nutritional guidance from other sources if they wish to avoid malnutrition. The folic acid lesson is destined to be learned over and over again in regard to other nutrients (The Folic Acid Lesson).

The end result of this anti-nutrition bias or vitaminphobia is that diet related disease was estimated to have cost Australia more than $2 billion even as far back as 1989-90 (11). Interestingly, this data was not published (11) by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) even though the AIHW regularly publishes detailed health reports regarding the advantages of modern drug oriented medicine (Health Trends). I have drawn attention previously (Nutrition is For the Birds) to the AIHW's claim in 2002 that "nutritional deficiency is uncommon among the Australian population in general" and pointed out at that time the foolishness of such a statement (Nutrition is For the Birds). In spite of this amazing statement, four years later the AIHW apparently decided that "data collection" was inadequate to properly assess the nutritional status of Australians (12):

Similarly, when the AIHW reported the nutritional status of Australian children in 2007 they commented (13): "while this report highlights the lack of recent data relating to children’s nutrition, this should be largely remedied by the planned Kids Eat, Kids Play (KEKP) survey." These admissions, which further confirm the continuing 200 year neglect of nutrition spoken of by O'Dea (1), are absolutely disgraceful given the key role of the AIHW is to advise the Australian government about health and nutrition matters.

But although there is now to some degree at least, an awakening to this traditional nutritional neglect in Australia, earlier comments by experts like Wahlqvist and Briggs expressed more concern about Australians taking too many vitamins, an assessment which of course contradicts the current functional food craze (14; see also Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods):

In America such was the concern in the 1980s about people using vitamins and dietary supplements that the newly established Nutrition Quackery Prevention Task Force initiated a media campaign in an attempt to counteract this dangerous trend (15). Amongst the scientific tactics employed by the Task Force were the use of (15) "Don't Go Quackers Over Food Supplements" bumper stickers and buttons." Perhaps today we need new updated bumper stickers such as 'Don't Become Demented Over Drugs', 'Refuse Food Supplements at Your Own Risk" or 'Don't Get Fanatical Over the Functional Food Fad'.

Medicine's long and disgraceful history of unscientific anti-nutrition bias and vitaminphobia is demonstrated by the history of folic acid (The Folic Acid Lesson, Medical Bias, Nutrition & Megavitamins, Nutrition is For the Birds). Interestingly, since Roger Williams highlighted the vital importance of folic acid half a century ago (Nutrition & Megavitamins, Nutrition is For the Birds), doctors continued arguing and expressing more concern about the 'dangers' of folic acid until the mid 1990's (16; The Folic Acid Lesson). Now of course, realising the gravity of their 'mistake', they want to add this 'dangerous' vitamin to staple foods like flour and bread (18, 19, 20; The Folic Acid Lesson) where there will be absolutely no control over individual dosage levels. In fact, Annette King, the Minister for State Services in the New Zealand government, has recently described the addition of folic acid to bread as (21) "a triumph for humanity and common sense."  Just who has been preventing or delaying this "triumph" was not explained by Ms King, but most conspicuously, there has been no apology from the medical world for all those who suffered (& are still suffering) needlessly while doctors argued about the dangers of folic acid. We are still waiting.

As far as the recent study of  Bjelakovic and colleagues (2) is concerned, it should be realised firstly that few if any would dare to dispute the vast health benefits of vitamins and antioxidants in foods, a point which is emphasised by Bjelakovic and colleagues (2):

In regard to the study of  Bjelakovic and colleagues (2) I make the following additional points.

• according to these workers this study was confined to trials that involved deaths and therefore trials with totally positive outcomes (ie no deaths) were excluded.
• this study seeks to further consolidate clinical trials as the final arbiter on the validation of nutritional knowledge when the very serious and fundamental limitations of such trials, particularly in relation to nutritional supplements, are very well known (When There is Evidence for Nutrition but Little Evidence for Evidence Based Medicine, Medical Evidence or Medical Ignorance?, Medical Bias).
• this study does not produce any new data but only reassesses data from previous studies.
• the study was very limited, being confined to only five specific nutrients.
• the study fails to distinguish between natural vitamins (ie natural forms & containing related synergistic substances) and synthetic supplements. With vitamin E for instance, it has long been known that supplements of the entire family of vitamin E compounds are superior to supplements of alpha-tocopherol alone (17; see also Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths, But Isn't Holistic Medicine Just quackery?). Strangely, in spite of all this scientific evidence, Bjelakovic and colleagues avoided making any such distinction.
• scientists apparently consider vitamin E and other antioxidants so safe they are exploring ways of increasing the level of these nutrients in foods either by adding the nutrients to foods, or by producing crops with genetically increased antioxidant levels, even though varying food consumption means dosages of nutrients in different individuals would therefore be impossible to control (Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths).

I find the conclusions of Bjelakovic and colleagues (2) especially enlightening. According to these workers:

It is most noteworthy that according to Bjelakovic and colleagues the two nutrients reported to have neutral or positive effects on mortality both need further study, not for their possible positive effects, but rather for their "potential" effects upon mortality. It seems the other nutrients deserve no further study.

To obtain a truly authoritative and scientifically valid assessment of the 'danger' of health promoting vitamins it is appropriate to seek the guidance of those who are experts in nutrition rather than those who have traditionally been supportive of drug therapies and opposed to vitamins. One such expert is Adrianne Bendich (23):

Rather than become obsessed with negative claims about nutrition, let us examine more positive developments which do not receive the same headlines.

Nutritional Therapies - the lucrative potential for modern medicine

I have previously cited a voluminous amount of scientific literature confirming the safety and effectiveness of a wide variety of nutrients for preventing or treating all manner of diseases (Nutrition & Megavitamins, B Vitamins, Nutrition is For the Birds, Dietary Supplements, Darwinian Medicine, Asthma and B Vitamins). So what is happening now? Is science uncovering more evidence of the dangers of those essential health promoting substances called vitamins? Has all this positive evidence suddenly ceased and been replaced by evidence of the dangers of these natural substances which are essential for life and health?

I must admit I was not too surprised to find that science is learning more and more about the potential of nutrition to prevent, treat, or perhaps cure, all manner of diseases. The medical world is at last learning the foolishness of the obsessive anti-nutrition bias and vitaminphobia they have clearly displayed for the past century (24; Medical Bias). Rather than prove that nutrients are not necessary for life and health modern researchers have continued to demonstrate that increased intake of vitamin A and other nutrients may reduce the incidence of gastric cancer (25, 26); increased vitamin D intake may improve immune function, reduce the number of falls in the elderly, improve muscle strength, protect against multiple sclerosis, and have an anti-cancer effect (27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32);  vitamin C  may reduce the incidence of cataracts, lower the death rates from chronic diseases and reduce the incidence and severity of pneumonia (33, 34, 35, 36, 37); increased intake of folic acid may reduce the incidence of cancer and Alzheimer's disease, and reduce the incidence of cancer and birth defects in children (38, 39, 40, 41, 42); and omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants and other nutrients may improve the function of the brain and nervous system and delay the onset of heart disease, eye diseases, and other ageing diseases (43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52).

Recently it has been reported that doctors were "astonished" at the effect of  a simple supplement of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids on the brains and intellectual ability of four children (53, 54). According to Professor Basant Puri who led the study (53), the brains of the children showed three years growth in only three months and this was also confirmed by remarkable improvements in academic performance (53):
 

Nutrition experts such as Machlin, provide a more authoritative view of the enormous potential of vitamins (55):
 

In spite of the voluminous amount of evidence confirming the positive effects of vitamins and nutritional supplements there remains much ignorance about the most accurate ways of testing for vitamin status (56) and doctors still generally prefer to prescribe drugs rather than the much safer nutritional supplements.

Not surprisingly, scientific evidence confirming the safety and health promoting benefits of vitamins is continuing to accumulate as it has for the past half century. Far from any sudden reversal of this trend, scientific and medical interest in the potential benefits of nutritional supplements is intensifying as the traditional drug oriented approach of medicine fails to arrest the alarming incidence of chronic diseases. In fact, dietary supplements or functional foods, because of their well known potential for treating or preventing many chronic diseases, are now being regarded as the possible "saviour" of our our health care system (Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods). In other words, it is rapidly being accepted that foods and micronutrients may have more potential health benefits than the vast assortment of drugs developed by scientific medicine over the past half century.

Perhaps the most exciting developments in nutritional research involve the connection between nutrition and genetics or "nutrigenomics". Although some refer to nutrigenomics as a 'new' field of research, in fact Roger Williams pioneered these principles under the term 'genetotrophic concept' half a century ago (Nutrition & Megavitamins) but unfortunately, due to the anti-nutrition bias and vitaminphobia of medical researchers, his findings have been virtually ignored by orthodox medicine (Nutrition & Megavitamins, Medical Bias).

Nutrigenomics and the Bold New World of Individualised Nutrition - Roger Williams' Genetotrophic Concept and his Principles of Biochemical Individuality Renamed and Vindicated

Nutrigenomics supports the principles of biochemical individuality taught by Roger Williams (Genetic Nutrition - catch-up practice continues, Alternative Medicine Inquiry). According to the principles of nutrigenomics and personalised nutrition many people have genetic alterations which affect their ability to metabolise nutrients thereby creating the need for greatly altered intake levels if optimum health is to be maintained (57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69; see also Genetic Nutrition - catch-up practice continues, Alternative Medicine Inquiry). All around the world organisations are becoming established to coordinate research into the connection between nutrients and genetics or nutrigenomics (74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79). The history of genetic nutrition has been outlined in a submission to the White House Commission on Alternative Medicine in 2001 (118):

As I have stated previously (Alternative Medicine Inquiry):

I have also emphasised elsewhere the the teachings of Roger Williams on this subject half a century ago (Genetic Nutrition -catch up practice continues):
 

Additionally, I have emphasised previously the shameful way the medical establishment has treated brilliant scientists like Roger Williams who pioneered the concept of biochemical individuality and genetic nutrition (Genetic Nutrition -catch up practice continues):
 

Half a century ago Roger Williams, Linus Pauling, Abram Hoffer and others drew attention to the fact that many people required increased dosages of vitamins to sustain optimum health, a suggestion which was derided as quackery by the medical establishment throughout the world. Now however it is known that many people have a genetically increased need for vitamins which increases the dietary requirement for these vitamins (57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69). These are revolutionary findings indeed for the medical world which has long been obsessed with formulating medical treatments and diets for the non-existent statistically average person. Now the extreme extent of their long held misconceptions about vitamins is slowly being realised. Doctors and scientists could not believe for instance, that nutritionally normal women could give birth to deformed babies because of a nutritional deficiency such as folic acid deficiency (76). How could this possibly be? These women were nutritionally normal. They had no signs of deficiency diseases such as scurvy, beri beri or pellagra therefore they must have perfect nutritional status.

After stating quite authoritatively previously that (see Nutrition is For the Birds) "nutritional deficiency is uncommon among the Australian population in general," the AIHW has recently pointed out that new research into the "ideal" nutritional status of Australians, including the influence of genetics, is now required (12):

Scientists are at long last beginning to learn that absence of the so called classical deficiency diseases does not constitute scientific proof of "optimum" or "ideal" nutritional status. Indeed, it seems that such beliefs, like the traditional medical view that everyone in the world of the same age and sex requires the same daily dosage of vitamins, have now been exposed as quackery according to current scientific evidence, a matter which must surely be of grave concern to those who have been most vocal about quackery. Now it is predicted, according to current scientific evidence, medical treatments will soon be formulated on an individual basis for certain diseases by increasing the consumption of specific nutrients according to genetic traits  (59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 77, 78, 79, 80,). In fact, according to Go and colleagues (78), such is the current revolution in medicine that medicine is evolving from the once popular 'evidence based medicine' (81; Evidence Based Medicine and Quackery, When There is Evidence for Nutrition but Little Evidence for Evidence Based Medicine) to 'genomic medicine' (78) "because genomic medicine has the potential to give rise to personalized nutrition recommendations and specialized medical treatment.^" Traditionally of course, the reductionist basis of medicine dictates that doctors treat the disease and not the patient but as Go and colleagues point out, current trends represent a more 'holistic' approach (79):

Revolutionary it may be for those who rejected the research of brilliant scientists like Roger Williams but there is still more to this story.

Scientists have long rejected the Lamarckian view that acquired characteristics cannot be genetically transferred, but now the very fundamentals of Darwinism have been turned upside down with the new field of 'epigenetics' (78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85 ). Not only may nutritional deficiencies during pregnancy lead to chronic diseases in later life (86), but according to epigenetics the nutritional environment during pregnancy may cause illnesses which are passed from generation to generation. ( 84, 86, 87, 88 ). Genetic deterioration in succeeding generations has previously been termed 'genetic anticipation'.

The scientific world is increasingly uncovering evidence that in the future many serious diseases may be treated by increased doses of vitamins which are individualised for each person. In view of these amazing revolutionary trends in medical science it is astonishing that this is not headline news around the world. Strange how the media gives preference to isolated, unsubstantiated or statistically fabricated reports of the dangers of vitamins (Dietary Supplements) at a time when there is such a revolution in the scientific world regarding nutritional therapies.

As I have previously predicted so accurately (Pan Crisis):

Conclusion - will governments continue to 'Pan' nutritional supplements because health promoting nutrients are too dangerous......or because they are too potentially profitable?