AddThis Feed Button "Frequently Copied, Never Duplicated"

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Heard it First on NHN - Gardasil for Boys

Natural Health News has been convering Gardsil and the issue surrounding Gardsil for boys and men since 2006 and early in 2008.  You can be sure to get the first reports of real health and natural health news at Natural Health News, frequently copied, never duplicated.
ask us about remedies for vaccine concerns
Jun 30, 2006
Merck says that this vaccine, at $360 a series, will not have data on vaccination of little boys until 2008. Of course adding to the already heavy overlay of harmful vaccines will do little but raise money for Merck in the meantime. The Feds are also boosting profits by ... NVIC maintains that Merck's clinical trials did not prove the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts is safe to give to young girls. ...

Some of our top stories about Gardasil -

Oct 16, 2009
Merck now targeting men with Gardasil, boys weren't enough. UPDATE: 10/17/09. The Risks and Benefits of HPV Vaccination What your doctor or other health care provider is required to tell you by law, before you get a jab, ...
Jun 29, 2008
23 December, 2010: Natural Health News first reported on boys and Gardasil in 2006 and early in 2008. ... It found that Gardasil was 78% effective in preventing anal intraepithelial neoplasia related to the HPV-16 and HPV-18 viral serotypes. ...
Mar 22, 2009
Media Issues Propaganda To Boost HPV Vaccine Sales And Renewed Confidence Following Children's Deaths. UPDATE: ... ...
Jul 06, 2008
More evidence the Merck HPV vaccine is not ready for the public and no state funds should be used to provide access for this vaccine. 25-page report: ..... Kids are using diet pop in schools, in chewing gum, especially ...

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Lulled in to Risk: Cell Phones are not as safe as you've been told

Misleading Danish Mobile Phones and Brain Tumour Study
Just about every news outlet is telling you that your cell phone is safe, yet no one is really telling you about the faults in the study. 
I have been researching the cell phone and related microwave issue for almost 15 years.  Everything I have read issues a risk.  And I have read research dating back to the early 1940s.
Of course you can make a choice to use a cell phone, a microwave, a smart meter, or have wi-fi in your home but just don't be lulled by junk science.  Get properly informed first before you wake up in 10 years with leukemia because your red blood cell production is failing because you carry your cell phone on your belt, or you can't have children, or you get thyroid disease or breat cancer, ovariam cancer or your children have behavioral problems or you get a heart attack.
"This misleading study has many flaws and serious confounders and should not give anyone reassurance that mobile phone use is not associated with an increase in brain tumours. In our opinion the paper should not have been published in this form — it should have failed peer-review. We recommend that it is disregarded as low quality science.
Denis Henshaw, Emeritus Professor of Human Radiation Effects at the University of Bristol agrees with this view: "This seriously flawed study misleads the public and decision makers about the safety of mobile phone use. I consider that their claims are worthless."" READ complete article
and  find more in this press release -
The BMJ is set to publish an 'update' to a study that finished over 4 years ago
[1](and used dataeven older) and was widely criticised at the time for its design - that it appeared to be
designed tocome out negative for tumours in that they had excluded heavy mobile phone users from the study(the business users).More recent studies - including the Interphone Study (itself somewhat flawed) - have shown asignificant increased incident of brain tumours and related cancers in long-term (10 years use for1/2 hour per day) mobile phone users.Because of these other studies etc. the World Health Organisation (WHO) in conjunction with theInternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have this year declared microwave radiation -used by mobile phones and other wireless devices - to be a class 2b carcinogen " Possibly carcinogenic  to  humans "[2]
This means that microwave radiation is a possible cause of cancer  .The re-release of the Danish study is part of an industry-orchestrated backlash to delay legislationto limit microwave exposure and place mandatory health warnings on mobile phones (in the style ofcigarette packets) and other radiation emitting devices such as WiFi routers, smart meters andcordless landlines. The 4G spectrum sell-off would be adversely affected with such a move.
This is what we said about the Danish Cohort Study back at the end of 2006:-"
Danish Mobile Phone Study : He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
You might have widely read the story in the Press that "A long-term study, carried out by the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Denmark and published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, has found no increased incidence of cancer among mobile phone users."
However, if you delve a little bit deeper you will find that all is not quite as it seems.
George Carlo, former head of the US WTR research project into Mobile Telephone health effects in the late 1990s had this to say: "John Boice and his colleagues have been on the cell phone industry payroll, and for big money, since the late 1990’s. The money laundering vehicle is the International Epidemiology Institute — the name sounds like a non-profit by design, but make no mistake, this is a big for-profit enterprise. When I ran the WTR, the International  Epidemiology Institute, with  Boice and a fellow  named Joe McLaughlin, applied for funding to do this exact epidemiology study that was released this week. After much discussion within the WTR, they were refused funding because I felt they were blatantly biased and had overtly given us the notion that they would always create findings that were favorable to the industry."
The EM Facts Consultancy had the following to add: "Here’s the latest in industry funded cell phone studies that claim to have the final answer. When you see statements like “There’s really no biological basis for you to be concerned about radio waves,” and “people can become more reassured that these devices are safe” you can be sure the cell phone industry is paying the piper."
EMFacts Article and The Times Article
"[2] - IARC possible cancer announcement
The Mast Sanity Press Office can now be contacted on 0844 443 5750.
Registered UK Charity no. 1109757 Calling for Environmentally and Biologically safe  communications networks and radiofrequency devices
Selections from Natural Health News
Jul 20, 2011
At long last, since the discoveries of Dr. Gerorge Carlo in the 1980s about the carcinogenic risk of cell phones, now perhaps there will be more progess towards the truth. San Francisco supervisors on Tuesday unanimously ...
Mar 07, 2008
There was a time not so very long ago that all of us got along very well without cell phones. This month, being Women's Health Month, I especially hope for women that they come to understand the specific risks uncovered ...
Jul 23, 2008
A 2008 University of Utah analysis looked at nine studies — including some Herberman cites — with thousands of brain tumor patients and concludes "we found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone ...
Oct 10, 2009
Hang on to your land line phones. Herb Denenberg in an article for The Bulletin says: “The great cell phone cover-up may be coming to an end. A new report may finally wake the public up to the brain cancer risks of cell ...

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Death from Rx Drugs

May 26, 2010
Recently reported in Marine Corps Times and other media venues including Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter, it has been noted that psychotropic drug-induced sudden deaths are increasing in Iraq War Veterans. ...
Dec 03, 2006
Deaths lead to end of drug trial. Just another reminder that there is NO REAL NEED for cholesterol lowering drugs. There are just too many proven natural and effective treatments for you if you believe the cholesterol ...
Apr 07, 2010
Increases in death from these categories of drugs, as seen during the 1990s, continued from 1999 through 2004. By 2004, at least 20000 unintentional drug poisoning deaths occurred annually in the United States....
Aug 21, 2006
100000 deaths in hospitals each year are attributed to properly prescribed drugs. A few posts ago I talked about The Senior Medicare Drug Scam. Here is a brief follow up on the drugs mentioned in that article. ...



Your MultiVit is NOT Dangerous

The debate continues -

Last week the media vilified vitamin E based on a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The problem is the form of vitamin E used in this negative study is not the same as what serious supplement users take.
Life Extension® was so outraged by the way this study was carried out that we predicted ahead of time in writing that it would fail.
Our forecast came true, as men who supplemented with synthetic alpha tocopherol experienced seriousdecreases in gamma tocopherol and a 17% increase in prostate cancer incidence.
We long ago warned that taking only synthetic alpha tocopherol would deplete critical gamma tocopherol in the body and increase one's disease risk.
This is just one reason why this negative study, designed by biased mainstream doctors, was doomed tofailure from the outset.
According to a report released this year by the National Institutes of Health, medical expenditures forcancer in the year 2020 are projected to reach $158 billion (in 2010 dollars) — an increase of 27 percentover 20101.
You can believe the medical establishment is salivating over this gargantuan future revenue stream. But there is one potential impediment. If Americans make the proper lifestyle choices and thereby reducecancer incidence, the establishment's rosy profit projections go out the window.
The media is serving as a puppet for conventional oncology in frightening Americans away from healthy decisions that could slash cancer risk. To read Life Extension's rebuttal to this vitamin E study that wasdesigned to failclick here.

NPA Challenges Wall Street Journal to Get It Right about Supplements

WASHINGTON, D.C. –The Natural Products Association (NPA) is the leading representative of the dietary supplement industry with over 1,900 members, including suppliers and retailers of vitamins and other dietary supplements. NPA Executive Director and CEO John Gay responds to a story about the benefits of vitamins in the Wall Street Journal:
"It is disappointing that the Wall Street Journal would devote space to such a sensationalist and inaccurate item. Trying to scare Americans away from taking dietary supplements to improve their health is just plain irresponsible. Consumers deserve to hear more about the many benefits of vitamins and other dietary supplements, and I call on the Wall Street Journal to bring fairness to its reporting.
The story makes use of two recent studies that NPA believes did a disservice to the tens of millions of American who take dietary supplements. Detailing the flaws in the studies and the conclusions reached would take too much space, but to pick one major issue: as the Wall Street Journal acknowledges, “Observational trials can only show an association, not a cause and effect.” We agree, and find it troubling that a story in the Journal would use such a study to assert that “the case for dietary supplements is collapsing.”
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. More and more studies show that vitamins have real and widely accepted health benefits. These include providing nutrients, boosting immune systems, and improving overall health. Even the authors of the vitamin E study mentioned in the article noted the benefit of vitamin E with Alzheimer’s disease and age-related macular degeneration.
The article itself notes that calcium is “important to bone health” and folic acid “reduces the likelihood of a common birth defect if taken by pregnant women.” It also states that “Researchers and nutritionists are still recommending dietary supplements for the malnourished or people with certain nutrient deficiencies or medical conditions.”
Far from collapsing, the case for vitamins is supported by experts who know best the value of good nutrition. That is why NPA has long advocated that consumers use dietary supplements as part of a healthy lifestyle. Half of all Americans take dietary supplements because they know they work.”
Jeff Wright, NPA president and owner of Wright’s Nutrients in New Port Richey, Fla., adds:
“Like so many of my fellow health food store owners, I’m dedicated to helping consumers supplement their diets with the nutrients they need. Research is the cornerstone of our industry, and it seems that every week there is a new report about the importance of vitamins to the health of millions of Americans. Stories like the one in the Wall Street Journal might scare some Americans away from taking dietary supplements to improve their health, and that is just plain irresponsible.”

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, October 12, 2011

What Kind of Medical Study Would Have Grandma Believe that Her Daily Multivitamin is Dangerous?

by Robert G. Smith, PhD

(OMNS, Oct 12, 2011) A newly released study suggests that multivitamin and nutrient supplements can increase the mortality rate in older women [1]. However, there are several concerns about the study's methods and significance.
  • The study was observational, in which participants filled out a survey about their eating habits and their use of supplements. It reports only a small increase in overall mortality (1%) from those taking multivitamins. This is a small effect, not much larger than would be expected by chance. Generalizing from such a small effect is not scientific.
  • The study actually reported that taking supplements of B-complex, vitamins C, D, E, and calcium and magnesium were associated with a lower risk of mortality. But this was not emphasized in the abstract, leading the non-specialist to think that all supplements were associated with mortality. The report did not determine the amounts of vitamin and nutrient supplements taken, nor whether they were artificial or natural. Further, most of the association with mortality came from the use of iron and copper supplements, which are known to be potentially inflammatory and toxic when taken by older people, because they tend to accumulate in the body [2,3,4]. The risk from taking iron supplements should not be generalized to imply that all vitamin and nutrient supplements are harmful.
  • The study lacks scientific plausibility for several reasons. It tabulated results from surveys of 38,000 older women, based on their recall of what they ate over an 18-year period. But they were only surveyed 3 times during that period, relying only on their memory of what foods and supplements they took. This factor alone causes the study to be unreliable.
  • Some of these women smoked (~15%) or had previously (~35%), some drank alcohol (~45%), some had high blood pressure (~40%), and many of them developed heart disease and/or cancer. Some preexisting medical conditions were taken into account by adjusting the risk factors, but this caused the study to contradict what we already know about efficacy of supplements. For example, the study reports an increase in mortality from taking vitamin D, when adjusted for several health-relevant factors. However, vitamin D has recently been clearly shown to be helpful in preventing heart disease [5] and many types of cancer [6], which are major causes of death. Furthermore, supplement users were twice as likely to be on hormone replacement therapy, which is a more plausible explanation for increased mortality than taking supplements.
  • The effect of doctor recommendations was not taken into account. By their own repeated admissions, medical doctors and hospital nutritionists are more likely to recommend a daily multivitamin, and only a multivitamin, for their sicker patients. The study did not take this into account. All it did was tabulate deaths and attempt to correct the numbers for some prior health conditions. The numbers reported do not reflect other factors such as developing disease, side effects of pharmaceutical prescriptions, or other possible causes for the mortality. The study only reports statistical correlations, and gives no plausible cause for a claimed increase in mortality from multivitamin supplements.
  • The effect of education was not taken into account. When a doctor gives advice about illnesses, well-educated people will often respond by trying to be proactive. Some will take drugs prescribed by the doctor, and some will try to eat a better diet, including supplements of vitamins and nutrients. This is suggested by the study itself: the supplement users in the survey had more education than those who did not take supplements. It seems likely, therefore, the participants who got sick were more likely to have taken supplements. Because those who got sick are also more likely to die, it stands to reason that they would also be more likely to have taken supplements. This effect is purely statistical; it does not represent an increase in risk that taking supplements of vitamins and essential nutrients will cause disease or death. This type of statistical correlation is very common in observational health studies and those who are health-conscious should not be confounded by it.
  • The known safety of vitamin and nutrient supplements when taken at appropriate doses was not taken into account. The participants most likely took a simple multivitamin tablet, which contains low doses. Much higher doses are also safe [4,7], implying that the low doses in common multivitamin tablets are very safe. Further, because each individual requires different amounts of vitamins and nutrients, some people must take much higher doses for best health [8].
Summary: In an observational study of older women in good health, it was said that those who died were more likely to have taken multivitamin and nutrient supplements than those who did not. The effect was small, and does not indicate any reason for disease or death. Instead, the study's methods suggest that people who have serious health conditions take vitamin and mineral supplements because they know that supplements can help. Indeed, the study showed a benefit from taking B-complex, C, D, and E vitamins, and calcium and magnesium. Therefore, if those wanting better health would take appropriate doses of supplements regularly, they would likely continue to achieve better health and longer life.
(Robert G. Smith is Research Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania Department of Neuroscience. He is a member of the Institute for Neurological Sciences and the author of several dozen scientific papers and reviews.)
[1] Mursu J, Robien K, Harnack LJ, Park K, Jacobs DR Jr (2011) Dietary supplements and mortality rate in older women. The Iowa Women's Health Study. Arch Intern Med. 171(18):1625-1633.
[2] Emery, T. F. Iron and your Health: Facts and Fallacies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991.
[3] Fairbanks, V. F. "Iron in Medicine and Nutrition." Chapter 10 in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, editors M. E. Shils, J. A. Olson, M. Shike, et al., 9th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1999.
[4] Hoffer, A., A. W. Saul. Orthomolecular Medicine for Everyone: Megavitamin Therapeutics for Families and Physicians. Laguna Beach, CA: Basic Health Publications, 2008.
[5] Parker J, Hashmi O, Dutton D, Mavrodaris A, Stranges S, Kandala NB, Clarke A, Franco OH. Levels of vitamin D and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2010 Mar;65(3):225-36.
[6] Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.
[7] Padayatty SJ, Sun AY, Chen Q, Espey MG, Drisko J, Levine M. Vitamin C: intravenous use by complementary and alternative medicine practitioners and adverse effects. PLoS One. 2010 Jul 7;5(7):e11414.
[8] Williams RJ, Deason G. (1967) Individuality in vitamin C needs. Proc Natl Acad SciUSA.57:16381641.

Also of Interest: Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, April 29, 2010. Multivitamins Dangerous? Latest News from the World Headquarters Of Pharmaceutical Politicians, Educators and Reporters.

JAMA Article Is No Reason Not to Take Your Multivitamins
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Statement from Natural Products Association (NPA) Vice President of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Cara Welch, Ph.D., about recent concerns regarding the alleged risks of dietary supplements in the Archives of Internal Medicine:
"The Natural Products Association advocates that consumers use dietary supplements as part of a healthy lifestyle. Most vitamin and mineral supplements are taken to address or prevent deficiencies. While we would prefer that Americans get these nutrients from their diet, studies have consistently shown that they do not take in the essential compounds they need.
I'm always pleased to see analysis on the long-term effects of supplementation. This study, however, is quite limited in scope; the data is observational and self-reported so contributing factors are not addressed. Subsequently, the authors cannot conclude any cause and effect and there is no reason why women should change what they're doing based on this report.
There are plenty of studies published that demonstrate the benefit of supplementation and fortification. This specific study should not dissuade the general public from the benefits of addressing a vitamin or mineral deficiency with dietary supplements. As always, consumers should discuss their supplement usage with their health care professional."

And from the UK -

Multivitamin study is “classic example of scientific reductionism”

By Shane Starling, 12-Oct-2011
Related topics: Minerals, Vitamins & premixes, Research

A study published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine that found multivitamins, and iron and copper supplements, may increase mortality rates in older women, has been slammed by industry groups.

“This study is a classic example of scientific reductionism being used to fulfil a particular need,”said Robert Verkerk PhD, the Alliance for Natural Health International (ANHI) executive and scientific director.
“In this case, it’s supplement bashing…Our view is that the self-reporting questionnaires, and lack of any supporting data on nutrient status of the study’s subjects, means that the majority of the trends emerging from the adjusted data on which the study’s conclusions were based are likely to be anomalous.”
Dr Verkerk pointed to the positive findings for calcium supplementation as, “findings from much more robust studies”.
Unanswered questions
The UK Health Food Manufacturers' Association (HFMA) scientific adviser, Dr Michèle Sadler questioned the causality highlighted by the researchers.
“This type of study only demonstrates an association and does not tell us whether taking supplements caused these particular effects,” said Dr Sadler.
“The study has many other limitations including the unknown, longer term health status of women taking the supplements, which is more likely to be linked to mortality than the supplements themselves.”
“It’s a case of which comes first, the chicken or the egg, and raises the question of how many women were taking the supplements because of ill health. How such a wide range of essential nutrients is supposed to have these effects is another unanswered question.”
Dr Verkerk said the research was flawed in design.
“Another very important point is that many factors were not controlled for, and these likely contributed to uncontrolled sources of variation and confounding that were simply ignored. Among these is the crucial issue of the forms of nutrients taken, none of which were recorded in questionnaires.”
“For example, there are several studies that suggest that long-term use of high doses of synthetic vitamin E, beta-carotene and folic acid may increase the risk of death, these generally having at least some plausible mechanisms. But, where the natural forms are consumed, especially where these nutrients are obtained from dietary sources, quite the reverse is found.”
He said the researchers had, “knowingly, or unknowingly, played into the hands of the pharmaceutical industry, the single biggest contributor to, and controller of, medical research.”
The University of Minnesota researchers led by Jaakko Mursu, PhD, found, “several commonly used dietary vitamin and mineral supplements, including multivitamins, vitamins B6, and folic acid, as well as minerals iron, magnesium, zinc, and copper, were associated with a higher risk of total mortality.”
See coverage of the research here.
Source: Archive of Internal Medicine
2011, Volume 171, Issue 18, Pages 1625-1633
“Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women: The Iowa Women's Health Study”
Authors: J. Mursu, K. Robien, L.J. Harnack, K. Park, D.R. Jacobs Jr
Editorial: Archive of Internal Medicine
2011, Volume 171, Issue 18, Pages 1633-1634
Vitamin and Mineral Supplement Use in Relation to All-Cause Mortality in the Iowa Women's Health Study:
Comment on "Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women"
Authors: G. Bjelakovic, C. Gluu

Vitamin E

I am once agin amazed at these studies that keep coming along telling you that if you take vitamins you will get very sick or worse.  I am not too sure this is the scientific method I learned in the years of science classes I took over many years of schooling.

I've been in health care since the early 1960s.  I statrted studying and using natural health in the mid 50s.  Over many years of education and work in this field I have yet to have come into contact with anyone harmed by vitamins.

We know people are harmed and killed every day by pharmaceuticals.  We do not hear this on the news.

My experience with these reports and the studies is that there are problems from the outset; the first being the use of SYNTHETIC vitamins (in this case dl-alpha tocopherol or synthetic vitamin E).

This is the first mistake.

Other negative vitamin E studies I have reviewed use synthetic vitamin E in the process.

Another concern I have is that generally, if you know your natural health inside and out like I do you know that the key elements for protecting the protate happen to be zinc (low dose) and selenium (selenomethionine or sea based).  If this study utilized zinc and selenium in the proper forms the results would be much different.

Zinc (I use a low dose food based form) is the mineral for glandular health.  The prostate is a gland.  Selenium (in the correct form as noted above)  is well established as protectective of the prostate and has anticancer properties.

Please make sure you fail to accept reports on specious studies such as this one.  And make sure John LaPook does more research before he tells Scott Pelley and you that you can get the best health from your diet.
Duffy MacKay of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a supplement makers' trade group, said the study shouldn't be interpreted as questioning the benefits of vitamin E as an essential nutrient, and he said there is evidence that many Americans don't get enough.
Read comments from MedPage Today Vitamin E articles here and here

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service released this commentary -

October 14, 2011
Vitamin E Attacked Again
Of Course. Because It Works.
by Andrew W. Saul
Editor, Orthomolecular Medicine News Service
(OMNS, Oct 14, 2011) The very first Orthomolecular Medicine News Service release was on the clinical benefits of vitamin E. That was seven years ago. (1) In fact, the battle over vitamin E has been going full-tilt for over 60 years. (2)
Well, you can say one thing for vitamin critics: at least they are consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent.
A recent accusation against vitamin E is that somehow it increases risk of prostate cancer. (3) That is nonsense. If you take close look at the numbers, you will see that "Compared with placebo, the absolute increase in risk of prostate cancer per 1000 person-years was 1.6 for vitamin E, 0.8 for selenium, and 0.4 for the combination." That works out to be a claimed 0.63% increase risk with vitamin E alone, 0.24% increase in risk with vitamin E and selenium, and 0.15% increase in risk for selenium alone.
Note the decimal points: these are very small figures. But more importantly, note that the combination of selenium with vitamin E resulted in a much smaller number of deaths. If vitamin E were really the problem, vitamin E with selenium would have been a worse problem. Selenium recharges vitamin E, recycling it and effectively rendering it more potent. Something is wrong here, and it isn't the vitamin E. Indeed, a higher dose of vitamin E might work as well as E with selenium, and be more protective.
And, in fact, this study did show that supplementation was beneficial. Vitamin E and selenium reduced risk of all-cause mortality by about 0.2%., and also reduced the risk of serious cardiovascular events by 0.3%. Vitamin E reduced risk of serious cardiovascular events by 0.7%. But what you were told, and just about all you were told, was "Vitamin E causes cancer!"
The oldest political trick in the book is to create doubt, then fear, and then conformity of action. The pharmaceutical industry knows this full well. One does not waste time and money attacking something that does not work. Vitamin E works, and the evidence is abundant.
Specifically in regards to prostate cancer, new research published in the International Journal of Cancer has shown that gamma-tocotrienol, a cofactor found in natural vitamin E preparations, actually kills prostate cancer stem cells. (4) As you would expect, these are the very cells from which prostate cancer develops. They are or quickly become chemotherapy-resistant. And yet natural vitamin E complex contains the very thing to kill them. Mice given gamma-tocotrienol orally had an astonishing 75% decrease in tumor formation. Gamma-tocotrienol also is effective against existing prostate tumors. (5,6)
  • Vitamin E reduces mortality by 24% in persons 71 or older. Even persons who smoke live longer if they take vitamin E. Hemila H, Kaprio J. Age Ageing, 2011. 40(2): 215-220. January 17.
  • Taking 300 IU vitamin E per day reduces lung cancer by 61%. (Mahabir S, Schendel K, Dong YQ et al. Dietary alpha-, beta-, gamma- and delta-tocopherols in lung cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 2008 Sep 1;123(5):1173-80.) For further information: Vitamin E prevents lung cancer. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Oct 29, 2008.
  • Vitamin E is an effective treatment for atherosclerosis. Drs. Wilfrid and Evan Shute knew this half a century ago. (1) In 1995, JAMA published research that confirmed it, saying: "Subjects with supplementary vitamin E intake of 100 IU per day or greater demonstrated less coronary artery lesion progression than did subjects with supplementary vitamin E intake less than 100 IU per day." (Hodis HN, Mack WJ, LaBree L et al. Serial coronary angiographic evidence that antioxidant vitamin intake reduces progression of coronary artery atherosclerosis. JAMA, 1995. 273:1849-1854.)
  • 400 to 800 IU of vitamin E daily reduces risk of heart attack by 77%. (Stephens NG et al. Randomized controlled trial of vitamin E in patients with coronary artery disease: Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study (CHAOS). Lancet, March 23, 1996; 347:781-786.)
  • Increasing vitamin E with supplements prevents COPD [Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, chronic bronchitis] (Agler AH et al. Randomized vitamin E supplementation and risk of chronic lung disease (CLD) in the Women's Health Study. American Thoracic Society 2010 International Conference, May 18, 2010.) Summary at
  • 800 IU vitamin E per day is a successful treatment for fatty liver disease. (Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Kowdley KV et al. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010 May 6;362(18):1675-85.)
  • Alzheimer's patients who take 2,000 IU of vitamin E per day live longer. (Pavlik VN, Doody RS, Rountree SD, Darby EJ. Vitamin E use is associated with improved survival in an Alzheimer's disease cohort. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2009;28(6):536-40.) Summary at
    See also: Grundman M. Vitamin E and Alzheimer disease: the basis for additional clinical trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Feb;71(2):630S-636S. Free access to full text at )
  • 400 IU of Vitamin E per day reduces epileptic seizures in children by more than 60%. (Ogunmekan AO, Hwang PA. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of D-alpha-tocopheryl acetate [vitamin E], as add-on therapy, for epilepsy in children. Epilepsia. 1989 Jan-Feb; 30(1):84-9.)
  • Vitamin E supplements help prevent amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). This important finding is the result of a 10-year-plus Harvard study of over a million persons. (Wang H, O'Reilly EJ, Weisskopf MG, et al. Vitamin E intake and risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a pooled analysis of data from 5 prospective cohort studies. Am. J. Epidemiol, 2011. 173 (6): 595-602. March 15)
  • Vitamin E is more effective than a prescription drug in treating chronic liver disease (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis). Said the authors: "The good news is that this study showed that cheap and readily available vitamin E can help many of those with this condition." Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Kowdley KV et al. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010 May 6;362(18):1675-85.

What Kind of Vitamin E?

Which work best: natural or synthetic vitamins? The general debate might not end anytime soon. However, with vitamin E, we already know. The best E is the most natural form, generally called "mixed natural tocopherols and tocotrienols." This is very different from the synthetic form, DL-alpha tocopherol. In choosing a vitamin E supplement, you should carefully read the label... the entire label. It is remarkable how many natural-looking brown bottles with natural-sounding brand names contain a synthetic vitamin. And no, we do not make brand recommendations. Furthermore, OMNS has no commercial affiliations or funding.
Unfortunately, that's not the case with some authors of the negative vitamin E paper. (3) You will not see this in the abstract at the JAMA website, of course, but if you read the entire paper, and get to the very last page (1556), you'll find the "Conflict of Interest" section. Here you will discover that a number of the study authors have received money from pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Amgen, Firmagon, and Novartis. In terms of cash, these are some of the largest corporations on the planet.
Well how about that: a "vitamins are dangerous" article, in one of the most popular medical journals, with lots of media hype . . . and the pharmaceutical industry's fingerprints all over it.

So How Much Vitamin E?

More than the RDA, and that's for certain. A common dosage range for vitamin E is between 200 and 800 IU/day. Some orthomolecular physicians advocate substantially more than that. The studies cited above will give you a ballpark idea. However, this is an individual matter for you and your practitioner to work out. Your own reading and research, before you go to your doctor, will help you determine optimal intake. If your doctor quotes a negative vitamin study, then haul out the positive ones. You may start with this article. There are more links to more information at and


And as for the old saw argument that supplement-users are supposedly dying like flies, consider this: Over 200 million Americans take vitamin supplements. So where are the bodies? Well, there aren't any. There has not been a single death from vitamins in 27 years. . Share that with your doctor as well. And with the news media.

Selections from Natural Health News about vit E

Oct 11, 2011
16 hours ago
The most commonly used supplements were calcium, multivitamins, vitamin C, and vitamin E. Through 2008, 40.2% of the women died. After adjustment for demographics, dietary and lifestyle factors, comorbidities, and use of ...

Aug 16, 2010
I think it would be a great service to patients with pain, FMS, and neuropathy if SIM started a study to show you just how effective natural vitamin E can be to prevent and reverse neuropathy. ...
Jan 23, 2008
Over the past several years there have been numerous reports trying to convince you that vitamin E is bad for health. One public television station even aired a program with panelist from a local Spokane WA area hospital ...
Jun 08, 2010
Participants were randomly assigned to receive vitamin E supplementation (alpha-tocopherol 400 mg/day) or placebo. Treatment was started orally before chemotherapy and continued for 3 months after the suspension of ...

Selenium -

May 11, 2011
Most of the selenium in the body comes from the diet. The amount of selenium in food depends on where it is grown or raised. Crab, liver, fish, poultry, and wheat are generally good selenium sources. ...

Dec 05, 2008
All they would have to do is to read the reports on E, C, Selenium and the Jupiter Study on Natural Health News. It's a simple thing to use our search function, and real data. You can even link to our reading site with ...
Dec 01, 2008
KHA reported some years ago about manganese and selenium, thymus support to raise cell counts and other more natural things that have helped many people. They also encourage a whole food and organic food plan. ...
Jun 19, 2009
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lost its bid to overturn a health claim for selenium-containing dietary supplements last Thursday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. District Court Judge Ellen ...