Killer Vitamins: Doctors of Spin are at it Again

In their ongoing effort to discredit and finally outlaw nutritional supplements and natural medicine, conventional medicine, funded by Big Pharma, has "proven" that nutritional supplements are dangerous. This report was published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). Let's see --- conventional medicine, the same folks who promote dangerous drugs as "safe" and kill, by conservative estimate, 100,000 people per year. (Other credible evidence places this number as high as 700,000 per year).

Have you ever read a copy of JAMA? (Perhaps not, unless you are an inquisitive doctor or you suffer from extreme insomnia). JAMA is funded by millions of dollars worth of drug company advertising. The articles are on thin paper printed in black and white. The drug ads --- most averaging 8-12 pages long --- are on heavy paper with bright colors, cutouts, glitter, holograms, pop-ups and other eye-catching artwork. Because the drug ads are on heavier weight paper and are cut slightly smaller that article pages, every time you open a copy of JAMA, you open to a drug ad. EVERY time. (I've done my own research on this)! These ads are truly amazing, far more spectacular than anything seen in lay magazines. About the only thing I haven't yet seen in a drug ad is scratch-and-sniff, but I'll bet it's coming. OK, so we know who funds JAMA. It's Big Pharma. Now let's talk about the American Medical Association.

For years, The American Medical Association has worked hard to discredit natural medicine. As evidence, they were found guilty in US federal court of engaging in a conspiracy to destroy chiropractic medicine. The AMA would do anything in its power to bring down natural medicine while at the same time strengthening ties to the source of their funding and their entire existence: Big Pharma.

So, the vitamin story is supposed to be "big news"? For all their conflicts of interest, JAMA published a dubious retrospective study stating that vitamins are at best worthless and at worst, lethal. Can we really rely on the Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Industry --- I'm sorry, I mean JAMA --- for honest, scientific reporting where alternative and natural medicine is concerned? Consider the source of this spurious reporting.

It's not difficult to fake a medical study, or set up a study guaranteed to "prove" the results you want to prove. Heck, Big Pharma has been doing this for years, "proving" that many lethal drugs are "safe and effective"! They've simply done it again, this time in reverse and this time with vitamins. Here's how easy it is to "prove" that vitamin supplements are dangerous or at least worthless, and how this current "pseudo research" was accomplished. You, too, can be a medical researcher if you follow these simple guidelines.

First, set up a study using synthetic forms of vitamins instead of naturally-occurring forms. This guarantees that the substances used in the studies are not the same as those found in nature, and hence, unlikely to work like those found in nature. In the last two decades, for example, studies that "prove" vitamin E is harmful all used synthetic forms of the vitamin. Remember the older study which "proved" that beta carotene increased lung cancer risk in smokers? You guessed it --- synthetic beta carotene. The only thing these studies are proving is that synthetic vitamins, which do not have the same chemical makeup as their natural counter-parts, do not function the same in the body and can be harmful. But these studies do NOT prove that natural vitamins are dangerous. Of course, the public isn't given benefit of this important piece of information.

Why don't any of these conventional medical researchers use the natural forms of vitamins for their studies? I'll give you three guesses, the first two don't count. Because studies using natural vitamins would show what thousands of other studies have shown: vitamins (the same as found in nature) are not only safe, they prevent a multitude of diseases and delay aging.

Third, be sure to report results using statistical obfuscation. Since most laymen don't know the difference between relative risk and absolute risk, use whichever method of reporting provides the results you are after.

In the case of vitamins, if 1 person in 1,000 dies without taking vitamins and 1.16 people (0.16 of a person?) in 1,000 dies who did take vitamins, report that the risk was increased by 16% when in fact not a single additional person died from taking synthetic vitamins. On the other hand, if 2 people in 1,000 die of high cholesterol without taking drugs and 1 person in 1,000 dies while all 1,000 are on a Big Pharma offering, report that your drug "slashes the death rate by 100%." Heck, few people understand statistical significance anyway, and these two methods of reporting --- relative and absolute --- will give you a lot of "flexibility" when trying to prove a point.

Are you catching on? Here's a summary in case you want to undertake a study yourself:

Every cloud has a silver lining. These studies should remind savvy consumers of one important point: synthetic vitamins are NOT the same as natural vitamins if the molecular structure isn't identical. Synthetic vitamins not identical to the naturally-occurring vitamins. They do NOT have the same health benefits of natural vitamins. Studies have shown this for years, and that's really all this "new" look at old information has "proven." Cheap supplements sold by the pharmaceutical companies and marketed in grocery stores, discount warehouses and your local pharmacy aren't worth their weight in dirt. It is the synthetic offerings of the Big Drug Companies that these studies have shown to be worthless or worse. Taking this kind of junk is worse than not taking anything at all, which is why I recommend only the highest quality natural-source supplements.

Here's a way to conduct your own study of vitamins. Survey your friends and find 10 people who are taking Big Pharma's junk vitamins --- you know, the "one little bitty, shellacked, once-per-day" stuff. Take a good look at them. How healthy are they? Not. Studies show that the miniscule doses in these once-per-day supplements are too small to do anything. Besides, most people's digestive systems don't even make it through the shellacked coating! Next, find 10 of your friends who are taking one or more prescription drugs. How healthy are these folks? Leaping tall buildings with a single bound? In the ranks of the super-healthy? Hahaha. Finally, find 10 people who are taking quality supplements regularly and see how they compare to the other two groups. I'm confident you'll discover they are healthier and require a lot less doctoring than their drug and "one-per-day" taking counterparts. Most of them probably CAN leap over tall buildings, or at least large puddles, without breaking a hip, pulling a muscle or losing their balance and being knocked into a coma.

One other thing to consider. How many people do you personally know that have died while being treated for disease with conventional medicine? How many people do you know who have died from taking vitamin supplements?

As long as conventional medicine is funded by Big Pharma, and conflicts of interest run rampant, don't expect to get honest medical and scientific reporting from JAMA, the American Medical Association, the FDA or any other multi-alphabetical group that depends on pharmaceutical company money for their very existence.

Hi Cindi: Good question! This should be on the minds of any woman over age 40. If it isn't, it only means that some women accept the conventional recommendation for yearly mammograms "wholesale" without questioning their safely and value.

Here's the "catch" in my ability to answer. Did you know that doctors cannot give an opinion that differs from the accepted "standard of care" without risking their medical license? That's right --- I have to tell you the "going line," which may or may not be the truth as I see it, or I may end up digging ditches instead of treating patients. (On some days, that doesn't sound too bad!). This is a fine commentary on our current medical system and American freedom in general, don't you agree?

So, I can't tell you what YOU or any woman should do concerning mammograms. Instead, I'll tell you what I DO and plan to continue to do regarding mammograms and breast cancer prevention. Remember, this isn't advice to you, it's just what I have decided to do based on my constant and in-depth research on this subject. ;-)

First, let's remember that mammograms are NOT breast cancer prevention --- they are early detection. I am writing an in-depth report on true breast cancer prevention, which I personally follow, but which is too involved to go into in a newsletter. I'll touch on this a bit in just a minute and I will make a formal announcement in HealthBeat News when this white paper is ready. I hope every female subscriber and every male who loves a female will get a copy of this document and read it carefully when it is available. There is a huge amount of evidence that 70-90% of all cancers including breast cancer are actually preventable, and I don't mean "early detection," I mean true prevention.

Here are some interesting facts concerning mammograms. Make of them what you will.

1.) Mammorgrams have never been proven useful for saving lives in women under 50. You read that right. Most countries in the world do NOT recommend screening for women under 50 based on the evidence. X-rays to the breasts of women under 50 appear to be especially dangerous. We waffle about our recommendation to women under 50 in the US, but most of the rest of the world is clear. Mammograms are of no value and in fact may be dangerous to women under 50. Under 50, the breasts are much more susceptible to mutations caused by mammograms. Further, mammograms miss a full 25% of all cancers in this age group. Last but not least, screening in this age group, followed for nearly two decades, has not been shown to decrease mortality from breast cancer. Women under age 50 who get regular mammograms are at higher risk from breast cancer than those who don't get mammograms. It looks like screening for women age 40-49 has more to do with US financial interests than the health interests of women.

2.) Mammograms may not even save lives in women 50-69 years of age. Again, there is a great deal of controversy in the medical literature about ANY benefit from mammograms, although conventional medicine sticks to the story that "mammograms save lives." Here's the part they aren't telling: mammograms find many small DCIS tumors (ductal carcinoma in situ), very few of which would ever become life-threatening at any age. Further, a number of important statistics have been removed from the "mammograms save lives" reports. (See my above article on "How to Prove [anything] with statistics..."). As you'll learn in the upcoming white paper, one of the "stats" removed from the total of cancer deaths is the number of women who die within the first month of breast cancer surgery. This is counted as a "surgical" death, but the death would not have occurred if the woman didn't have surgery for cancer in the first place. There are other statistical sleights-of-hand like this that help "massage" the numbers and make them look favorable. My behind the scenes look shows a very different story.

3.) Mammograms may not save lives in women over 69 years old. Again, controversy abounds. But there is ample evidence to show that mammograms do not decrease the mortality rate from breast cancer in women over age 69. I can't tell anyone what to do on this score, but I can tell you that my own mother is age 84, my mom-in-law is 78 and I DO NOT recommend mammograms for either of them.

Dr. Myatt's Note: If the increase of breast cancer was due solely to "early detection," the death rate from breast cancer should have dropped dramatically. It hasn't.

6.) Rough handling of the breast can spread an already-existent tumor by rupturing the tumor's blood supply. Any woman who has had a mammogram knows just how tightly the breasts are compressed during the exam. Medical students are taught to examine breasts carefully so as not to damage (spread) a tumor if present, but we annually smash and severely compress the breasts during a mammogram. Go figure.

7.) Mammograms often miss the diagnosis. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 25% of cancers are missed by mammograms in women in their 40's; 10% are missed in women in their 50's. This "negative mammogram" can give a false sense of security to a large number of women. Also note that the US has double the number of "recall procedures" and biopsies as the UK but our detection rates are the same. Wassup with that? Sounds like the US technique for taking and reading mammograms is not-so-hot-so.

From a recent patient file, Ms. S., age 43, has been having annual mammograms since age 40. When she complained of breast pain, they did an additional mammogram which was negative. Later, another mammogram showed "something," which was followed by a negative biopsy. In other words, everything was clear. Ten months later, a walnut-sized mass appeared. It is cancerous, and has already spread to the lymph nodes. So much for mammography's "early detection" abilities in women under 50.

Bottom Line: I can't make any recommendations that goes against the "standard of medicine." All I can tell you is that I had one mammogram at age 40 and I doubt I will ever have another if I live to be 120 based on my extensive research of this subject. Instead, I practice true breast cancer prevention and utilize alternate methods of early detection.

Watch for my upcoming white paper, "The Medical Insider's Guide to Breast Health: What You Should Know About Breast Cancer Prevention and Early Detection but Will NEVER be Told by Your Conventional Doctor." All fully explained and scientifically referenced, of course. This should allow you sufficient information to make up your own mind and see through the enormous deception of conventional medicine's "sale" of a dangerous procedure of dubious value. But, I can't tell you not to get a mammogram...

Cindi: one final note. You and I are the same age. You have high blood pressure for which you take drugs? You are quite young to have high blood pressure (any age is too high in my book). More importantly, "normal" blood pressure patients who are only normal because they are medicated are still at a much higher risk of blood pressure-related diseases, another "factoid" that Big Pharma and Big Medicine fail to mention. If I were you, I'd have a "health optimization" consultation with me and get your health in top-notch shape before you have any other medical problems! Prevention is always safer and surer than trying to cure a disease. :-)
_________________________________________________________________________________________