Are Vitamins Killing Us?
Monday 2 November 2009, 6:05PM
By J. James
2367 views
Are Vitamins killing us?
On the surface of it, last Wednesday TV3 ' Inside New Zealand' - presented an informative insight into what it considered the risks of taking vitamins and supplements. On the surface that is……
On closer inspection however it turns out that perhaps Professor Jackson had his own agenda and the piece was a well orchestrated well funded propaganda piece to prime people to accept an agenda that has nothing to do with how many vitamins they are taking or if they work or even if they will kill them, but how public access can be controlled.
What most people wouldn’t know is that there is a well funded, highly concentrated move to control all health supplements and by association - alternative medicine
Its called CODEX and is part of the WTO (world trade organization) push to standardize or what they call ‘harmonize’ (note the language) the worlds health care across the board. Sadly it’s not about concern for you or I or our health and well-being – It’s intere$t i$ exclu$ively trade, nothing personal it’$ $imply the way the world doe$ busine$$ these day$.
Professor Jackson’s says “ People who take vitamins have an increased risk of death” and …..”they should be sold only by prescription" - As the only so called ‘expert’ in the piece he remained unchallenged. But there are growing opposition to this type of dogmatic ‘medical’ - ‘expert’ opinion and most of them are also Medical Doctors like himself but who have moved away from mechanistic ways of viewing health to a more natural approach that treats the whole person with whole food medicine – a point that we will come back to further on.
The two statements uttered by Professor Jackson are the very same phrases that CODEX uses to build support for its agenda.
Are vitamins killing us?
The short quick answer is NO – smoking does, pharmaceuticals do – polluted air can, cars do, guns do, and we can kill each other but naturally occurring vitamins do not and there is a long history to prove it.
Interestingly, the title of the program – “Are vitamins killing us” has appeared across the world in the guise of articles, interviews and television programs like TV3’s Inside New Zealand. From the China news to the UK telegraph and everywhere in-between the same title, the same disinformation based on the same report spread by the same main stream news.
With this in mind I am reminded of two quotes
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propagandist.
And
“A lie told often enough becomes truth” Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Russian Communist Party.”
Government agencies are lying to you and main stream media are presenting these lies as fact when they are not. (Its not in the scope of this essay/article to give you the history to these claims but I will provide links at the end for you to follow up yourselves.)
The wording of the title is well constructed to put fear into ordinary folk concerned about their health and the failings of primary health which simply manages illness. Hence their propensity to put people on excessive amounts of pills. Its not unusual for people in Primary health to be on 9 or 20 different medications which in themselves will each have an array of side affects which will - to pharaphrase the dear Doctor – “increase the risk of death”
Each of the Doctors in the TV3 program prefixed their opinions by saying – “ the latest research shows” or …”the latest research says..” the research they are referring to is never mentioned and with good reason. The research is based on the Cochran Report - which has been widely discredited around the world by a huge majority of Doctors, but the program never told you that so you wouldn’t know. This is the same report that global anti vitamins/supplements articles have been based on.
“The first thing that one needs to understand about the recent Cochrane Collaboration review is that it was not a clinical study but a meta-analysis. This distinction is an important one in that whilst a clinical study is a scientific test of how a treatment works in people, a meta-analysis is merely a statistical evaluation of the data taken from several hand-picked existing studies, pooled together and presented as a separate piece of work.”
Read more here
This is a crucial factor – Another crucial factor that is not mentioned in the program is the Recomended Daily level. Based on the cochrane report 0.2g per day of vitamin C was given – (see end notes) - Codex wants to limit the daily intake of all supplements – it sees them as toxins and will regulate accordingly, thus the low limit of the cochrane report, and the higher but still low RDA – example vitamin C to 60 or 70 mg per day – critics warn this is survival dosage to keep scurvy away – the dosage for health and to keep disease away is 300mg per day!!
“The USRDA which most nations have adopted and established as a baseline for survival thus the dosage is low
USRDA is based upon the minimum amount of a nutrient needed for survival! For example, the USRDA for Vitamin C is 75mg. This amount is actually the minimum amount needed (with a margin for error built in) to avoid scurvy. Scurvy is a disease caused by a deficiency of Vitamin C. And you know what? It's working! How many people do you know suffer from scurvy? The problem is that 75 milligrams is not the optimum amount for good health. While this amount is highly debated, it is more than likely much greater than the USRDA. In fact, there is an established "tolerable upper limit" of 2 grams (that's 2000mg) daily - far higher than the minimum amount for survival. ISSA recommends a performance daily intake (essential nutrition for maximum performance) of up to 3,000mg per day!
Read more here
There is a vital difference in levels for health and levels for disease – please take the time to read the work of double laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize Linus Pauling
"The lower your vitamin C blood and tissue levels go, the greater your chances of developing significant heart disease." Thomas Levy, MD, JD, Cardiologist "
Long ago Linus Pauling told us that preventing and even reversing heart disease was possible. For more than a decade we have observered amazing reversals which can occur in 10 to 14 days without any known risks. In case after case.
Dosage is key. Amazingly, medical "science" has ignored the Pauling Therapy. The profession has not published a single study or conducted public clinical trials. Not one. (Medicine has conducted more than 1000 trials of the statin prescription cholesterol-lowering drugs, most showing little or no heart benefit.)
Read more here
Yet another crucial factor that was not addressed in the program is the difference between a synthetic supplement/vitamin and a natural one.
“Synthetic vitamins are a made in laboratories. From all of the research, conclusively, there is a major difference in how they are metabolized by our bodies and what benefit we get from them.
First of all, the synthetic vitamins are able to be easily spotted if you look at the ingredients on the bottle. To show that they are synthetic, they have a (dl) after the primary ingredient. However, more importantly, it is critical to know the source of the synthetic substance.
For example, Vitamin E (dl) comes from a petroleum based product. Since most people take Vitamin E for its effects on our heart, skin and so on, it is unlikely that a petroleum based product could hardly be good for one's heart!
Price is another consideration. Usually the synthetics are cheaper. They can be readily chemically combined in large manufacturing facilities without the benefit of the more labor intensive extractions from natural foods or substances.
Certainly, a key element here is our bodies' absorption of the substance being taken. There have been major studies done to show the difference and the results conclusively show that the absorption rate is dramatically different in the natural vitamins as opposed to the synthetic ones."
“Nature intended for us to consume food in its WHOLE form because all the vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and enzymes are together in one package and work synergistically together to bring your body the nutrition that it needs. When you take one part away from the whole, you get “Synthetic”, “Isolated” or “Fractionated” pieces of the whole, but it is simply not the same. The other problem is that by taking isolated vitamins, sometimes we are getting “massive” doses of some vitamins, but not enough of others. “
Pay attention to the ingredient list on the bottle you are looking for whole foods i.e What you want to see listed in the ingredient list is the foods; i.e.,vegetable juice or pulp powder
Read more here
“The problem is that many vitamin and mineral supplements are manufactured synthetically with chemicals and do not come straight from their natural sources. They are made to mimic the way natural vitamins act in our bodies. Natural vitamins are derived directly from plant material containing the vitamin, not produced in a test tube.
Many synthetic vitamins lack the transporters and co-factors associated with naturally-occurring vitamins because they have been “isolated.”
Read more here
and
Allowing people to diagnose and self prescribe for themselves can be risky but it’s called free choice, and is part of the freedoms we take for granted as free people. CODEX will take that choice away.
Programs like this one are well paid, well articulated propaganda pieces that push an agenda that appears on the surface to be authentic – yet has nothing what so ever to do with your well being.
please do you own research – when it comes to your health – your well-being and your body – YOU and you alone are the only expert, every one else is merely a consultant – so take the time to do the research to get a better understanding of the rapidly shifting world of health care research that is becoming more and more available to the general public.
Please also take the time to join Health Freedom in New Zealand your health freedom could depend upon it
TEN WAYS TO SPOT ANTI-VITAMIN BIASES IN A SCIENTIFIC STUDY
by Andrew Saul "The Doctor Yourself Newsletter"
1. Where's the beef? How much of the original study is quoted in the media? Are you just getting factoids, or are data provided? Has the journalist writing about the subject actually read the original paper?
2. What exactly was studied, and how? Was it an IN VITRO (test-tube) study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was there a CLINICAL STUDY on people, or is its application to real life a matter of conjecture?
3. Follow the Money. Who paid for the study? Cash from food processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep pockets decides what gets studied, and how. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to present findings that embarrass their financial backers. Published research will often indicate sources of funding, possibly at the end of the paper in an acknowledgements paragraph. If not, correspondence addesses of principle authors are invariably provided.
Write and ask.
4. Check the dosages. Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study employing less than 400 International Units (I.U.) is a waste of time. Any study using less than 1,000 mg niacin a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies are set up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major diseases. Large doses cure diseases.
5. Check the form of supplement used. Was the vitamin used in the study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study using the synthetic form of beta-carotene only is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study using the synthetic DL-alpha form is a waste of time.
6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and interpret the data for yourself. Do not rely on the summary and/or conclusions of the study authors. As Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many researchers miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their own work. Such behavior may be human error, or it may be politically motivated. Beware of editorializing.
7. Beware of Pauling-bashers. If a media article is critical about twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has been spin-doctored.
8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements:
"You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet."
"Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them."
"Excess vitamins are wasted."
"More research is needed before supplements can be recommended."
"There is no scientific support for large vitamin doses."
9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end of the article such as:
"Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad things as well."
"You are better off not popping vitamin pills."
"Just eat a balanced diet."
"If you take vitamins, take no more than the US RDA."
10. Use the media backwards. The more headlines about a particular study, the more politically charged the subject and the less likely that the reporting, or the original study, is positive towards vitamins. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets lots of viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course. - Positive vitamin studies do not.
Is this a conspiracy? You mean with shady people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might be called Saul's Law of the Media: "Press and television coverage of a vitamin study is inversely proportionate to the study's clinical usefulness." In other words, the more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly valuable research does not scare people; it helps people get well. There are over 3,000 scientific references at Doctor Yourself.com for people who share in this goal.
END NOTES - REF
1 Professor Jackson
Professor calls for tax on 'poison' butter
There is a scientist who explained why the plaque forms and it has nothing to do with a high level of cholesterol. Dr, K. McCullick was nominated for a Nobel Prize for discovering what causes cholesterol plaque and hardening of the arties. He found that the blood becomes acidic on a diet low in produce (alkali foods), and high on intake of meat, grains, and dairy (acid foods). Under these acidic conditions the body will harden the arteries to protect itself from acidic blood that eats holes through the arteries. This same hardening state can cause cracks to appear in the arties because your arteries flex. Your body’s answer to this is to line the inside of the arteries with cholesterol (causing high blood pressure due to high cholesterol) to seal these cracks up as they form. – This is something allopathic health would not know about as its pharmaceutical driven - read more here
2 “For the uninitiated, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is a little-known commission of the United Nations. Sponsored by the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), its main functions revolve around the drafting of global standards and guidelines for all food products, including food supplements. Prior to 1994, countries’ adoption of these standards and guidelines had essentially been voluntary; after 1994, however, Codex experienced a significant increase in its global authority as a result of its standards and guidelines being given the bite of law in the global trade system through being incorporated into the World Trade Organization (WTO) regime. As such, Codex now has coercive authority and WTO member countries have very real incentives to adopt the texts that it produces into their national laws.”
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/anti_codex.html
http://www.healthfreedom.co.nz/codex-reform/105-codex-background.html
http://www.healthfreedom.co.nz/codex-reform/50-codex.html
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/formula_as_interview_20090703.html
3 HOW SAFE ARE VITAMINS?
The 2003 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposures Surveillance System (1) states that there have been only two deaths allegedly caused by vitamins. Almost half of all Americans take nutritional supplements every day, some 145,000,000 individual doses daily, for a total of over 53 billion doses annually. And from that, two alleged deaths? That is a product safety record without equal.
http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v01n13.shtml
4 Cochrane Report
This review is restricted to placebo-controlled trials testing at least 0.2 g per day of vitamin C. Thirty trials involving 11,350 participants suggest that regular ingestion of vitamin C has no effect on common cold incidence in the ordinary population. It reduced the duration and severity of common cold symptoms slightly, although the magnitude of the effect was so small its clinical usefulness is doubtful. Nevertheless, in six trials with participants exposed to short periods of extreme physical or cold stress or both (including marathon runners and skiers) vitamin C reduced the common cold risk by half.
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000980.html
Further exploring
CODEX
March 2004 – The Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements are a joint attempt by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to formulate one single standard governing the sale of food supplements that can be applied throughout the global market. Under the guise of free trade ‘harmonization’ the Guidelines are being drawn up by the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), where vitamins and minerals are defined as foods. This committee meets in Germany once every year, usually in November.
Read more here and here
A Critical Analysis of The National Academy of Sciences' Attack on Dietary Supplements
by William Faloon
Consumers of vitamin supplements have been hit with a lot of negative press lately, and The Life Extension Foundation has been on the forefront in evaluating whether these anti-supplement reports have scientific merit. - read more here
Vitamin C, RDAs and Politics
Vitamin C has long been a politically loaded subject in US medical circles, especially after the late Dr. Linus Pauling had the gall to pronounce that it was effective in decreasing the severity and duration of the common cold. Pauling’s 1971 meta-analysis of the then-published studies was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and concluded that vitamin C significantly lessened cold-related illness (P.00003). Although a P value less than 0.05 is considered significant and a P value less than 0.001 is considered outstanding, few physicians accepted Pauling’s analysis. - Read more here
The Vitamin C Conspiracy
HARVARD RESEARCHERS PUBLISH JAMA ARTICLES
RECOMMENDING VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS FOR ALL ADULTS
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 20, 2002 – Two Harvard researchers, Robert H. Fletcher, M.D., M.Sc., and Kathleen M. Fairfield, M.D., Dr.P.H., of Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health, have joined a growing list of scientific experts who recognize the benefits of vitamins by stating in the June 19 issue of JAMA that “we recommend that all adults take one multivitamin daily.”
Read more here