Aarhus, Denmark - Cancer is set to overtake cardiovascular disease to become the leading cause of death worldwide by 2010, according to a new report [1] from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO). President of the American Heart Association (AHA), Dr Tim Gardner, told heartwire he applauds the new report and looks forward to working with cancer organizations to tackle risk factors that increase the likelihood of both cancer and cardiovascular disease.
According to the IARC report—which is a call to action asking governments to help fund cancer-prevention and research initiatives and international tobacco-control policies—the burden of cancer doubled globally between 1975 and 2000 and is set to double again by 2020 and nearly triple by 2030.
The report—which was discussed at an event in Atlanta this week called Conquering Cancer: A Global Effort—says that low- and middle-income countries will experience the impact of higher cancer incidence and death rates more sharply than industrialized countries.
The factors they have identified as predictive of an increase in cancer deaths are the very same factors that are going to result in more cardiovascular deaths, too.
This is also true of heart disease—just last week, as reported by heartwire, researchers predicted that 85% of cardiovascular deaths worldwide would occur in low- and middle-income countries by 2030. However, the authors of this article stressed that there still exists "a window of opportunity" to prevent the epidemic from reaching its full potential and magnitude.
Among the reasons stated by the IARC for the growing cancer burden is the adoption in less well-developed countries of "Western" habits, such as tobacco use and high-calorie, high-fat, and trans-fat diets.
"Obviously, this new cancer report is an important prediction," Gardner told heartwire. "The risk and demographic factors they have identified as predictive of an increase in cancer deaths are the very same factors that are going to result in more cardiovascular deaths, too, so we are on the same track."
US deaths from cancer and heart disease currently declining
The news on cancer in developing countries is in contrast with another recent report that shows cancer incidence and death rates for men and women in the US continuing to decline [2].
The number-one and number-three killers in the US currently are coronary heart disease and stroke, respectively, says the AHA [3].
And while the nation has already made progress in reducing death rates from these two conditions, Gardner says that without a concerted effort to reduce some key risk factors, such as obesity and physical inactivity, "the momentum of reducing heart disease and stroke deaths will be lost. We will see our children developing heart disease earlier. This could reverse the progress in cardiovascular death rates that we have seen over the past decade."
We are not jealous about our position in terms of heart disease being the number-one killer.
"We are not jealous about our position in terms of heart disease being the number-one killer; it's a distinction none of us want to have," he added. "The AHA has been working for decades to move out of that 'top spot' of being the number-one killer. But unless we can do better in reducing some of these risk factors in the US, it may be a long time before we can shed the title of number one."
Smoking is the easiest target
Cigarette smoking accounts for nearly 440 000 of the more than 2.4 million annual deaths in the US, and there are catastrophic predictions for the number of deaths that will occur due to smoking in developing countries. In India, for example, new research published earlier this year forecasts that by 2010 around one million deaths per year there will be attributable to smoking.
"Tobacco use is an enormous health burden across the globe and makes a significant contribution to deaths from both cancer and cardiovascular disease," Gardner adds.
"We applaud the findings of the IARC report. We're very concerned about smoking rates in the US and newly developed countries, and we are really working very hard on trying to deal with that—the one risk factor that can most easily be targeted."
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
December 17, 2008 01:45 (EST)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
We must change paradygms also in Cardiology
Editors,
if you ask Google.com, Middle Ages of today's Medicine plus my name,you will easily realize what accounts for the reason heart disease is top global killer. In fact, as far as all around the world physicians will overlook OR ignore such as concepts as CAD INherited Real Risk; ATS, Diabetic,dislipidaemic, hypertensive, a.s.o., Biophysical Semeiotic Constitutions and related Inherited Real Risks...Middle Ages of today's Medicine will go on, and on, unfortunately.
Sergio Stagnaro MD
Via Erasmo Piaggio 23/8
16039 Riva Trigoso (Genoa) Europe
Founder of Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics
Who's Who in the World (and America)
since 1996 to 2009
Ph 0039-0185-42315
Cell. 3338631439
www.semeioticabiofisica.it
dottsergio@semeioticabiofisica.it
|
|
 |
|
|
|
December 17, 2008 11:34 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding cancer...
Scientific American (Nov. '07) ran an 8-page cover story on vitamin D, pointing to numerous recent studies, and concluding that if everyone took 2000 I.U. of D3 (not D2, the near worthless type used to fortify milk) that cancer rates would plummet by at least 50% in America. Note that the current RDA for D is merely 400 I.U., and most Americans are deficient even at that level. A few quotes from that article:
o "Extensive evidence now shows that D has potent anticancer actions and also serves as an important regulator of immune system response. Moreover, many of D's newly recognized benefits are maximized when it is present in the bloodstream at levels considerably higher than found in many populations."
o "At least 1000 genes are believed to be regulated by D."
o "One gene ramped up by [D] is well known for triggering growth arrest in normal cells whose DNA is damaged, reducing the risk to become cancerous."
o "Researchers have come to appreciate that a number of D's protective actions in the body might have evolved from functions originating at the molecule's source, in the skin. The growth-arresting influence of D on cancer cells makes sense in this light because excess UVB exposure is known to damage the DNA of skin cells, which can lead to them becoming cancerous."
o "Most people obtain D through sun exposure, and circulating D levels generally diminish in populations of increased latitude...a clear association is seen between increasing latitude and increased risk of several illnesses...For example, scientists...found an inverse relationship among 79 pairs of twins between increased sun exposure during childhood and an increased risk of MS [an auto-immune disease]."
o "Population rates of cancers...increase twofold from south to north in the US, for instance."
o "Sunshine induced D toxicity has never been observed." (Note: People in sunny/tropical regions easily get 5000 I.U. to 10,000 I.U. daily, as it only takes 5 to 15 mins of exposure for the body to create these levels. Even studies that have put people on much higher dosages for months reported no toxicity, though I would recommend higher dosages unless a person has cancer that they're fighting, then I'd go as high as 30,000 I.U. for at least 3-4 months.) |
|
|
|
|
|
December 17, 2008 03:12 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos
Scott, well said. This is a topic near and dear to our hearts. mc |
|
|
|
|
|
December 17, 2008 04:35 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other supplements also have impressive results
I know that most medical practitioners simply have too little time (or desire) to follow news outside Big Pharma advancements, but if they'd pay attention there's a great deal of research they could apply to their practice.
Another vitamin that's coming on strong with numerous notable studies is K2 (not K1, for clarity). For example, in the famous Rotterdam Heart Study, it was shown that those who consumed the highest levels of K2 in their diet enjoyed a 57% reduction in death from cardiovascular diseases versus those who consumed the least amount of K2.
In animal studies, K2 reverses coronary calcium. We need a human study to show it does the same, but sufficient evidence already exists strongly suggesting it does. (Easy to search on pubmed.)
The Rotterdam study showed that at the highest K2 intake levels it alone can reduce all-cause mortality by 26%.
A lot of people in the medical profession love to say there's no evidence that vitamin and mineral supplementation does any good. I have no plausible explanation for why this is so. Clearly, our bodies need these, and our paleo diets (high in fatty organ meats) provided them in much higher quantities than we now get with our horribly unhealthy port-agricultural, insulin-spiking, grain-filled diets.
There's an exception DVD easily purchased from Amazon.com, called FoodMatters. A great starting point for those who still believe vitamins, minerals, and food solutions (to treat disease) are snake oil. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 17, 2008 06:12 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Believe it or not...........
Scott,
It's like Santa Claus.........I want so desparately to BELIEVE, but as with folic acid and other attempts at "vitamin" supplementation , we often find it doesn't lower cardiovascular event rates . Vitamin C and Vitamin E supplements DON'T lower CV event rates despite such promising theories.
So, the fact that those patients in The Rotterdam Heart study enjoyed a lowering of event rates for those who consume high K2 levels, does not necessary mean that if we Supplement K2, it will work for us.
That's the rub. What's been shown as habit is often not able to be reproduced by artificial means. As per the usual arguments, perhaps it's not what they eat, it's what makes them crave it, or how they encounter it, or what their activity levels are, etc. etc.
I'm Not trying to rain on any parades . We all need all the help we can get, it's just that "what you see" with all of these trials often NOT really "what you get".
Melissa |
|
|
|
|
|
December 17, 2008 07:34 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But, I'm truly happy for you Scott. That's great and gives us something to strive for
Mike,
My thoughts exactly. Though I'd like to give credit where credit is due because there's nothing like a reckless lifestyle to wreck a good genetic blueprint, not everyone is quite as blessed. Scott, sounds like you guys are taking care.
My family tree: Brother HTN age 43, Mother HTN/bronchiectasis, Father HTN and CABG -7 vessel disease, Uncle AAA, Uncle Mantle Cell Lymphoma, Uncle MI age 40, Grand father MI/Lymphoma/acute lymphocytic leukemia, grandmother Pulmonary fibrosis bedridden at age 30, Grandfather MI age 50, another Uncle Dead age 50, niece Cystic Fibrosis.
.........and a patridge in a Pear Tree.
Yes, I keep a nice black outfit handy.
Wish I were kidding.
Melissa |
|
|
|
|
|
December 17, 2008 07:38 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flawed studies have misled doctors
Melissa, of course I see all of these criminally flawed studies that show lack of benefit from various vitamins, but that's just it, they are flawed studies. For example, in a very recent on vit. E, the flaws make the study basically worthless (can't find the pubmed link off-hand):
o They once again used synthetic Vit E, which is far less effective that natural E.
o They once again used the wrong form (alpha tocopherol) versus the form most common in plants (gamma tocopherol). It's the gamma form that has the most health benefits. In fact, taking only the alpha version displaces some of the gamma version in the body.
o The dose they took was too low, by at least half. (And it's worse than that if you factor in that they used the 50% less effective synth version.)
o The most shocking flaw of the study is that a significant percentage of people didn't keep taking the pills -- YET, they were still counted in the final results of the study!?!? (28% of the subjects reported less that a one-third compliance, missing at least two-thirds of their pills.)
Did the press report any of these flaws? Not that I saw.
Yet, there are numerous better run studies showing potent benefit for non-drugs, such as a 10-year study from UCLA (PMID: 1591317) showing that in a population of more than 11,000 US adults aged 25-74, men who took 800 mg of vitamin C daily lived about six years longer than men who took only 60 mg of vitamin C daily (60mg = RDA).
Seriously, I can list hundreds of these studies, a great many of them done overseas and generally not seen by professionals in the States.
The system in America is strongly biased against any solution that cannot be patented and turned into a billion dollar monopoly. In other countries, like Japan, nutraceuticals are used alongside man-made xenobiotics. And they have much better results, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 17, 2008 07:55 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Melissa
Sadly, I have a very similar fhx. I was very depressed to find I had multivessel disease in light of my BMI under 24, nonsmoker, 'normal lipids', healthy lifestyle with paleo diet low transfat. etc. etc.
With regard to E studies, yes perhaps wrong E used. However the compliance rates being poor is no different than the statin studies and bp studies, etc.. which show usually at least 30% drop out compliance. Maybe we need to use Gamma and maybe we need to enroll 20-40,000 pts to show E has benefit. Sadly at this time it cannot be rec. i hope it isn't a conspiracy by our insurance industry or national health system or by 'big bad' pharma or was that leroy brown? |
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2008 11:10 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Positive vit E study
The Women’s Health Study, in which 40,000 healthy women, 45 and older, took 600 IU vit E supplements or a placebo every other day for 10 years, had positive benefits: Women taking the supplements had 24 percent fewer deaths from heart disease. Vit E's protective effect appeared even stronger in women 65 and older. Those taking the vit experienced a 26 percent reduction in cardiovascular events and a 49 percent reduction in cardiovascular deaths.
More here (5 spaces added because this forum appears to remove links):
www . sciencedaily . com /releases/2008/10/081030144718.htm
The fact is this: Our bodies NEED vitamin E (all four vitamers: alpha, beta, delta, gamma). And our bodies need all vitamins, and dozens of minerals. It's funny, we seemed to be a lot more smart about this 50 years ago, before drugs because the answer to everything. Magnesium, for example, is involved in over 400 chemical and enzymatic processes, so when it's in short supply--as is the case in the majority of Americans whom are deficient--then these reactions under-perform and lead to hard to diagnose problems. Or, problems that are now "patched" with a drug that doesn't address the actual deficiency.
Most diseases today are [1] diseases of deficiency (or deficiencies), and/or [2] caused by ingesting foods that lead to inflammation.
Because of industrial farming now, our food supply is sadly lacking in minerals and vitamins, so supplements can address problem #1. Avoiding grains, trans fats, omega-6 oils (vegetable oils), and artificial food additives can mostly correct issue #2. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2008 02:26 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vitamin D cancer-protective (and prevents kidney stones too)
The NIH will be apparently poring $200 million in RCTs for vitamin D and cancer. Hopefully they use the right dose (4000 IU/day or higher) and track blood [25OH0D] levels appropriately.
Vitamin D raised my HDLs 20-25%, resolved my asthma and prevents kidney stones for my sister (and lowered her PTH of course in her 3rd trimester).
Do the 'D'! |
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2008 03:04 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do we rely on the government...
RDA levels? When has the government ever gotten anything right? Not too often. Sure, there's no one left who thinks the USDA food pyramid is the way we should eat. Well, other than the lobbyist who put it together, of course.
Our bodies make ~10,000 IU of D in less than 30 mins of sun exposure, and then via a feedback loop stops further production. And we make this amount every day, if given a chance in the sun. Who's right? Evolution or the government?
For years I've been taking 8000 IU daily in winter months and 4000 IU daily the other nine months. Haven't been sick in seven years (my entire 40's). D3 is a big part of the reason for this, because of its immunity regulating function. I've also cured dozens of people of winter depression (who live in the northern European countries) by simply having them take D3. It's a 10 cents a day cure. No side effects -- other than positive ones.
One thing I've learned: If the government backs it, be VERY suspicious! ;) |
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2008 04:44 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
misleading claims
Most vitamins do not affect hard endpoints like cancer or cardiovascular disease (other than to increase them). The possible exceptions are vitamin B12 and vitamin D. Vitamin E increases mortality, hemorrhagic stroke; beta carotene increases cancer rates; folic acid and B6 increase cancer rates, etc.
A very large systematic review and meta-analysis of all vitamin studies was widely covered by theheart.org and published in JAMA about 2 years - it showed no benefit for any vitamin with the possible exception of selenium. In addition, we now know that vitamin E and selenium have no effect on prostate cancer.
I will stick with what works and try to get my patients off their addictions to these drugs (yes vitamins are drugs; because they are taken in pharmacological rather than physiologic doses by most people). |
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2008 05:05 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember that highly flawed JAMA meta review
The review reported on studies using synthetic version of vitamins A, E, and C. And the dosage ranges were widely variable and inconsistent. As an example of the strange decisions made by the JAMA authors as to which studies to exclude or include in their analysis, they selected a single dose study of patients using 200,000 IU of vitamin A, who were subsequently followed for 3 months. Note that this is an outrageously high amount, well known to cause negative issues. The RDA for vit A is 3000 IU. Why on Earth test for 200,000 IU!!! Even water is toxic at a high enough level.
Additionally, the authors of this review hilariously misinterpreted several of the studies they included. For example:
o The JAMA statistical review included 30 deaths from a study published in 2001, yet this study shows that there was only one death in the placebo group, one death in the drug plus antioxidant group, and no deaths in the group given only antioxidants.
o The review failed to account for pre-existing risk factors in 399 of 800 Parkinson’s disease patients given 2000 IU of vitamin E per day in the DATATOP trial -- in fact, after adjustment for pre-existing risk factors, there was no excess mortality in the group assigned to vitamin E, nor did researchers observe any evidence of increased mortality for each additional year of exposure to high-dose through 13 years of observation.
I can go on. But your mind in already made up, I'm sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2008 05:13 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is not the only review
A very high quality review in Annals of Internal Medicine found that mortality actually INCREASED (completely the opposite of what you might expect) at higher doses of vitamin E - i.e. above 400 I.U. per day.
You can say that all these meta-analyses and trials showing harm or no effect are biased; your mind is also made up!
I will stick with what works - antiplatelets, statins, inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system, calcium channel antagonists, etc. -- all have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in at risk persons. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2008 05:14 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vitamin E and mortality
REVIEW
Meta-Analysis: High-Dosage Vitamin E Supplementation May Increase All-Cause Mortality
Edgar R. Miller, III, MD, PhD; Roberto Pastor-Barriuso, PhD; Darshan Dalal, MD, MPH; Rudolph A. Riemersma, PhD, FRCPE; Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH; and Eliseo Guallar, MD, DrPH
4 January 2005 | Volume 142 Issue 1 | Pages 37-46
Background: Experimental models and observational studies suggest that vitamin E supplementation may prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. However, several trials of high-dosage vitamin E supplementation showed non–statistically significant increases in total mortality.
Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis of the dose–response relationship between vitamin E supplementation and total mortality by using data from randomized, controlled trials.
Patients: 135 967 participants in 19 clinical trials. Of these trials, 9 tested vitamin E alone and 10 tested vitamin E combined with other vitamins or minerals. The dosages of vitamin E ranged from 16.5 to 2000 IU/d (median, 400 IU/d).
Data Sources: PubMed search from 1966 through August 2004, complemented by a search of the Cochrane Clinical Trials Database and review of citations of published reviews and meta-analyses. No language restrictions were applied.
Data Extraction: 3 investigators independently abstracted study reports. The investigators of the original publications were contacted if required information was not available.
Data Synthesis: 9 of 11 trials testing high-dosage vitamin E (400 IU/d) showed increased risk (risk difference > 0) for all-cause mortality in comparisons of vitamin E versus control. The pooled all-cause mortality risk difference in high-dosage vitamin E trials was 39 per 10 000 persons (95% CI, 3 to 74 per 10 000 persons; P = 0.035). For low-dosage vitamin E trials, the risk difference was –16 per 10 000 persons (CI, –41 to 10 per 10 000 persons; P > 0.2). A dose–response analysis showed a statistically significant relationship between vitamin E dosage and all-cause mortality, with increased risk of dosages greater than 150 IU/d.
Limitations: High-dosage (400 IU/d) trials were often small and were performed in patients with chronic diseases. The generalizability of the findings to healthy adults is uncertain. Precise estimation of the threshold at which risk increases is difficult.
Conclusion: High-dosage (400 IU/d) vitamin E supplements may increase all-cause mortality and should be avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2008 06:51 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with these negative vit studies...
...is that in practically every case, they use synthetic forms (not natural forms found in nature), and they don't use the vitamin form as found in nature. For example, every negative vitamin E study I've seen uses the synthetic form and/or (usually and) the study uses the alpha tocopherol form, versus the gamma form most prevalent in the foods we eat. If I didn't know better--and maybe I don't--I'd think that these studies were set up to fail from the start. Either that, or they're designed by poorly educated researchers.
Here's a few supplement studies--properly designed--with positive results:
o A study in 3,254 people (1,260 males and 1,994 females) aged from 39 to 85 years followed from 1989 to 1995 showed that higher serum levels of carotenoids with pro-vitamin A activity significantly reduces the risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer. (Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006 Oct-Dec;7(4):533-46)
o A study in patients with aggressive, small cell lung cancer showed a clinically significant 35% decreased risk of death associated with antioxidant supplement use after adjustment for tumor stage and other risk factors. (Nutr Cancer. 2005;51(1):7-12)
o A study in 1,168 elderly men and women followed for 10 years showed that plasma carotene concentrations were associated with a 21% lower mortality risk for every 0.39 micromol/L increase in plasma carotene, a 41% lower mortality risk for cancer, and a 17% lower risk of mortality due to cardiovascular disease. (Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):879-86)
o A study in 1,214 persons age 75-84 studied for over 4 years showed that those people with the lowest vitamin C plasma levels (< 17 micromol/L) had the highest mortality, whereas those aging people with the highest vitamin C plasma levels (> 66 micromol/L) had a mortality risk nearly 50% less. (Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Nov;78(5):999-1010)
o A study that evaluated the effect of Vitamin E, beta carotene, and vitamin C on prostate cancer risk in over 29,000 men during 8 years of follow-up showed that supplemental beta-carotene intake at a dose level of at least 2000 micrograms per day was associated with a highly significant 52% decreased prostate cancer risk in men with low dietary beta-carotene intake as well as a dramatic, 71% decreased risk of advanced prostate cancer with increasing dose and duration of supplemental vitamin E. (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Feb 15;98(4):245-54)
I could go on and on.
When vit studies are done with the wrong dosages, or synthetics, it should be no surprise that results are negative. Just the same as we've now learned that all of these synthetic hormones have cancerous side effects versus the much safer, more effective bio-identical hormones.
What about CoQ10? Surely you tell you patients to take this vitamin-like nutrient when they are prescribe statins? Merck even patented a statin/CoQ10 formulation in the 70's, knowing how statins block the body's production of this vital energy-pathway molecule. All doctors prescribing statins know this, right? And that it practically eliminates the muscle aches so common with statin usage. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2008 11:02 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott, do you
Work for Life Extension Foundation? No one on this forum debates the benefits of balanced nutrition and adequate vit/min intake in one's diet.
It would be nice to see the supplement multibillion dollar industry perform some double blind placebo studies to prove the morbidity and mortality benefits they claim.
But why should they do that when over 50% of the US population currently takes over the counter vit supps? The question is, do those supps reduce morbidity and mortality? At least we know that statins do, acei's do, bb's do, asa does, ccb's do, early glucose modification does, etc. etc.
The Canadian HOPE study was just another (national conspiracy) Vit E study showing no benefit of Vit supplement.
The original point of this message forum was that cancer is set to overtake heart disease as a the global killer. There is evidence that replacing Vit D in women over age 55 for 5 years does lower the risk of cancer. All other evidence is somewhat circumspect esp with other agents. You should lobby hard to have your supplement companies do some dble blind outcome studies (rather than relying on govt or pharma). Heaven knows enough people are using VSM's and big money is made. Design and perform the study. No one denies that some natural products may complement and even be a foundation for medical care. I still have pts coming in using cinnamon to treat their diabetes because they have read the benefits in supplement articles. And the original data suggesting this was studied by a nutrition company in a dbl blind placebo fashion showing no benefit at all 2 years ago.
Happy holidays. Now we can get back to theheart.org and off thesupplement.org |
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2008 11:38 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael, no, I do not work for any...
...supplement maker, and never have. I'm an associate within the Immortality Institute, working on solutions to extend life through the SENS project, by Dr. Aubrey de Grey (recent author of Ending Aging).
My personal health belief is that diet represents 80% of a persons health, exercise 10%, and supplements 10%. I do take over 70 supps daily, and have for 8+ years. I pay commercial price for all of them. I also take bio-identical hormones. But, the primary reason I have the health of a person half my age is my paleo-like diet (high-fat, moderate-protein, low-carb, and especially no grains, practically no dairy, and very little omega-6 vegetable oils). Here's a 54-yr-old man on a nearly identical diet, who writes a health blog:
http: // tinyurl . com /43mce8 (need to remove the 5 spaces)
>>> It would be nice to see the supplement multibillion dollar industry perform some double blind placebo studies to prove the morbidity and mortality benefits they claim.<<<
Because the supplement industry is a commodity industry, and there are no patents, no single brand (of 100's) that make a particular vitamin can afford to sponsor such a study. Luckily, there are plenty of studies down outside the USA, sponsored by more enlightened governments. So, we do get a lot of good data, but most do not make headlines like vit D and resveratrol have in the past two years. It's funny, if the benefits of vit D could be captured in a unique drug, it would be the biggest drug in history. But because no one can monopolize it, most doctors seem blissfully unaware of its benefits, or have been fooled into thinking it's of no value (or even dangerous). |
|
|
|
|
|
December 19, 2008 08:00 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sleeping 8 hours, eating healthy , exercising.....all natural
Scott,
I absolutely hope your 70 supplements per day see you to to the ripe old age of 120, but I've had so many patients like you that carried their supplements in a grocery bag to their chemo treatments or for their heart failure visits. It's not that they just started all that when they were diagnosed. They had beend doing this for years.
I distinctly remember a patient who had done such who was diagnosed with metatstatic prostate cancer. He insisted the nurses bring him little pill cups to set up his supplements every day even while we were placing him on a morphine drip.
Though we see idiopathic cardiomyopathy very often, I recall a case where a a patient with known normal LVEF came into the hospital with resting sinus tachycardia, CHF and and new onset CM with Ef of 30%. I'd followed her for years and couldn't figure out what had accounted for such a drastic change at middle age. After a week in the hospital, her family drug in the two grocery bags full of supplements she had started a couple of years back and not told me about. We stopped them and after 3 months, her EF had completely normalized. I believe she had a tachycardia induced cardiomyopathy from "energizers and fat burners".
I always tell my patients that I'm more "natural" in my approach to health than any health food advocate. What I often "sell" to my patients cannot be bottled. (treadmill, mediterranean diet). If it's bottled, it's not natural and the purpose of it is to butt heads with nature. Cyanide, appendicits and death are all natural.
The reason why vitamin studies haven't worked so far is there is obviously something we cannot duplicate about that patient population. It's either what they are eating or their habits.
Unfortunately, what you are taking has never been studied in a controlled randomized trial and never in the history of the world will the combination of 70 supplements ever be studied in a controlled randomized trial. It would be impossible because of all of the variables.
I hope what you are doing will not harm you. I do think it's concerning. Good luck.
Melissa |
|
|
|
|
|
December 19, 2008 10:39 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 supplements
Melissa, I appreciate your concern. Note that I monitor over 125 variables annually, and adjust accordingly. If you saw my results you'd be impressed. I certainly do not take fat burners or those types of supplements. I think these are definitely ill-advised, and used by non-knowledgeable people looking for a quick fix. The supps I take are basically food extracts, marine lipids (for example, krill oil, green-lipped mussel oil, salmon oil), and other lipids like CLA, GLA (both anti-inflammatory). I could run through the whole list, and you'd be far less alarmed.
>>> The reason why vitamin studies haven't worked so far is there is obviously something we cannot duplicate about that patient population. It's either what they are eating or their habits. <<<
You say this, yet I've already listed about a dozen studies that show remarkable benefit. The medical professional is blinded by Big Pharma influence. Medical textbooks are absent of the hundreds of positive studies on natural chemicals, and worse, even downplay them. A recent medical textbook I reveiwed still labeled fish oil as entirely unproven. What planet are these writers from? Oh wait, the book is sponsored by Merck. Nevermind.
Your admitted lack of knowlesge of vit D toxicity is no surprise, assuming you were training in the States.
Note that there are literally 1000's of younger doctors, though, who have taken it upon themselves to self-educate about non-Pharma nutraceuticals. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 19, 2008 12:09 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pharma
Scott, I think the blanket statement that 'the medical professional is blinded by Big Pharma influence' is unfair and innacurate. The medical professional does ask for proof and at times we do go on faith. Is the average consumer blinded by the nutraceutical industry? Is there any regulation (just as the financial industry was unregulated)? Is there a 95% confidence interval that claims made are true and reproducible?
Medical textbooks are often outdated with regard to emerging technology. Fish oil (DHA/EPA) has been proven to help in ACS pops, add on to statin pops and in CHF pops (many had nonischemic chf). DHA/EPA may have benefits on platelet pathways, inflammatory pathways, et al but have not been proven in dbl blind placebo studies which are required to make any medical claim through pharma. Now of course supp companies can make many general claims about all supps without much regard to proof.
Don't disparage the technology which has advanced health care in this country and through the world. How much do your supps and tests cost/year? |
|
|
|
|
|
December 19, 2008 01:52 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting
An couple who are patients of mine started these vitamins 10 years ago. He now has severe carotid disease, aortic stenosis, and a lacune -- so much for preventing the diseases of degenerative aging! And yes they are on the very expensive stuff recommended by these nutraceuticals, with the usual toxic soup of unproven chemicals (some of which causes hemorrhagic stroke, like vitamin E, cancer like vitamin A/beta carotene and folic acid, or increased mortality like vitamin C.
I have gotten plaque to regress by 21-25% by high dose statins over the last 6 months, together with dual antiplatelet therapy, and RAAS inhibition. All proven therapies, unlike this stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 19, 2008 02:03 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
I (reread and) didn't intend for my last message to sound negative at the end.
I'm truly curious about the cost of your tests and medications.
Thanks. mc |
|
|
|
|
|
December 19, 2008 04:16 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kronos Labs
Michael, I have been using Kronos Labs in Phoenix to analyze my blood and provide detailed reports. The tests run about $1500. You can check out their site and see examples of their full color reports. Much better than Lab Corp.
Dr. Hackam, I know a lot of people who take supplements but still eat a diet filled with too many grains, too many polyunsaturated fats, too many starches, and so on (basically, a USDA recommended diet). A bad diet will completely overwhelm any good supplements can do. I've said before that diet is 80%, exercise 10%, supps 10%. So, without hearing about patients' diet, it's not fair to blame the supps.
And as far as a toxic soup, it's really no different than the mix of hundreds of thousands of chemicals/polyphenols we get from healthy foods. Our body deals with them quite well. It's xenobiotic chemicals that tax the liver, not food-based supplements.
>>> I have gotten plaque to regress by 21-25% by high dose statins over the last 6 months <<<
Have you read Dr. Davis' Heart Scan blog? He has a remarkable statin-free track-record using supplements and reversing coronary calcium, and often talks about how his colleagues don't want to hear about his methods even though his track record is at least five-fold better than the average cardiologist. Google: "Heart Scan Blog" |
|
|
|
|
|
December 20, 2008 01:43 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
supplements never been proven to reduce mortality
Please post links to well-conducted, well-executed, double or triple blind randomized controlled trials with low loss to follow-up, concealed allocation, etc, wherein a major vitamin supplement actually reduced mortality in a large high risk (or even low risk) patient population.
Do not refer to studies with a couple of hundred patients followed for a few years; we know these are highly prone to type I and II error and imprecise effects. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 24, 2008 11:33 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so where's the beef?
Show me the money - that is, the trials. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 24, 2008 05:13 (EST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't have a cow!
Note that I'm much more interested in diet than supplements. The low-fat, anti-saturated fat, pro-grain USDA recommendation (since 1976) goes completely against our evolution-shape genetics.
I've already referenced several studies that meet the gold standard. Plus, there are numerous cardiologists and other doctors using supplements with undeniable success.
Have you ever talked to Dr. William Davis?
heartscanblog . blogspot . com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blinklist
delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
ma.gnolia
Mixx
Reddit
Stumbleupon
Twitter
Y! Bookmarks
Yahoo Buzz
