Update to Multi-Vitamin study and Cancer…

Here’s an email that I received regarding the study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine regarding “Multi-Vitamins and Cancer.” This is an update to the previous post on multivitamins and cancer. I still find it amusing how the media can really influence the decisions of the general population.  But I have seen many more people take things into their own hands by doing their own research on headlines like these.  Bravo to you! 

From:

Joan E. Baumann

Database Administrator

www.Nutrisearch.ca

At the bottom of the abstract there was a clinical trials Identifier Number: Trial Registration Number NCT0000611.

The identifying number gave a clearer picture of the criteria.  Here is what the Government Trials website stated as to eligibility:

Eligibility

Ages Eligible for Study:         50 Years to 79 Years

Genders Eligible for Study:    Female

Accepts Healthy Volunteers:  No

Criteria

Postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79.

The Trial Criteria allowed for Postmenopausal Women Ages 50 – 79 BUT excluded healthy volunteers! http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00000611/

The women were asked if they took multivitamins, and a detailed record of their vitamin of choice was kept.  The Data regarding their vitamin use was accepted even if they took their multivitamin as infrequently as once a week!

Some BIG IFS became apparent:  if they took one of the heavier advertised  brands, with their minimal amounts of basic nutrients, if their vitamin contained nutrients that were not optimal in quality, such as synthetic vitamin E instead of the natural form, if it contained very low levels of vitamin C, if it did not include nutrients such as inositol, choline, alpha lipoic acid, quercetin, flavonoids, n-acetyl L-cysteine, coenzymeQ10, beta-carotene instead of vitamin A, optimal levels of Folic Acid ……..then one would expect the outcome the study announced.  Too many IFS! There was no apparent baseline for either levels or quality of nutrients.

Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Natural Products Association, a non-profit organization, had a few interesting comments on the study.

Fabricant said it is “unprincipled” that the authors arbitrarily lumped supplement types into generalized categories that do not represent nutrient intake accurately. And when coupled with the fact that nutrient intake through the diet was not accounted for, Fabricant explained, the study has no means of establishing a baseline for which to draw any comparisons or eliminate bias.

He further stated: “ Taken as whole, the research on dietary supplements in the prevention of chronic diseases, is strong and consistent.  To suggest that taking vitamins and minerals with a demonstrated health benefit is unnecessary sends the wrong public health message.”

http://www.naturalproductsassoc.org/site/News2?abbr=pc_&page=NewsArticle&id=10409

There are literally thousands of research studies which have shown the benefits of many nutrients, from food and/or supplements.  To ignore such a large body of research and depend solely upon our food supply to provide the level of nutrition that can keep us healthy makes absolutely no sense.