Re: VITAMIN E CAN KILL

From: William_Noyes (notarealaddress_at_fictional.org)
Date: 11/14/04 

Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:37:35 -0800

"Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com> wrote in message
news:zcqdnWAmCMGrtAvcRVn-sw@rcn.net...
> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote
> > ...
> > >Vitamin E can kill
> > >
> > >Washington (ANI) - Taking Vitamin E health supplements in
> > >excess can be a health hazard rather than a benefit,
> > >according to researchers at Johns Hopkins University use
> > >of high-dose vitamin E supplements, in excess of 400 IU
> > >(international units), is associated with a higher
> > >overall risk of dying.
> >
> > Well, this is spinning modest data that suggest a possible risk and
> > turning it into hysteria. Below is my response to another, less
> > polemical review of the meta-analysis the Hopkins group undertook.
>
>
>
> The Annals of Internal Medicine article doesn't seem to be available yet.
> All I could find was news reports of what was presented at the meeting.
How
> did they do the meta-analysis? Did they correct for possible confounding
> factors?

Yes it is available. I printed it out......all 16 pages.
I have not got to read it fully yet.
I've read some of the papers in its bib. I've
my doubts about meta-analysis in general. It
seems to me, to be away of ignoring positive
results found in some of the studies.

They don't correct for issues such as
synthetic racemic vitamin E versus
rrr-alpha tocopheryl nor do they
correct for alpha E versus mixed
tocopherols. And with the multi
vitamin studies I didn't see any
using alpha lipoic acid, inositol, cysteine,
flavonoids, or anthocyanins

>
>
> > On 10 Nov 2004 21:29:53 GMT, markd@toad-net.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I fear your view of "bad" doesn't match the principle study, a closer
> > >reading finds:
> >
> > snipped review of most relevant study--
> > > The supplement biz is a 15,000,000,000 dallor a year biz
> > >and the pharma companies are as eager to make money as the next. One
> > >wouldn't be surprised if the proffit margin greater with the supplement
> > >biz.
> >
> > This is true. Indeed, one of the biggest manufacturers is
> > Hoffmann-LaRoche. What was more interesting to me was:
> >
> > "He says there are several theories about why vitamin E increases
> > risk.
> > One theory is that it increases bleeding risk, which would increase
> > the risk of a type of stroke, while another theory suggests that at
> > high doses vitamin E stops working like an antioxidant, removing
> > harmful molecules in the body, and instead becomes a pro-oxidant,
> > actually promoting the production of harmful molecules.
> >
> > Still another scenario suggests that high doses of vitamin E tend to
> > wipe out other antioxidants, which disrupts the body's natural
> > antioxidant protection system."
> >
> > This gets more to the issue, I think. These data are not dissimilar
> > from the findings of the dangers of beta carotene.
> >
> > Well, I think that makes sense. Anyone who knows even the most general
> > science of oxidative stress will realize that these individual agents
> > work as antioxidants for a specific oxdiant. They then must be reduced
> > by another antioxidant. So they work in tight knit cycles.
> >
> > Thinking in the framework of "one drug for one condition" (let alone a
> > bug/infectious disease) in this context is really moronically stupid.
> > And it is little wonder that people who take high dose Vitamin E or
> > beta carotene fare poorly. Indeed, it's rather suprising to me that
> > the increased mortality risk is so low!
> >
> > By contrast, using an array of antioxidants makes MUCH more sense. A
> > case in point is the studies of beta carotene in HIV disease, some
> > studies for preventing mother-to-child transmission. In those studies,
> > no benefit was found. No surprise. However, recent studies of the use
> > of a MULTIVITAMIN showed much better effect. Indeed, HIV disease
> > progression was slowed by 30%.
> >
> > That's because you get a full array of the elements of the oxidative
> > stress cycles that provide a balance: vitamins A, C, E, the B
> > vitamins, selenium, zinc. A good potent multi I think is an important
> > cornerstone of therapy. One might add to that agents like NAC, alpha
> > lipoic acid and other enhancers of glutathione, catalase and the SODs.
> >
> > And don't forget that both the vitamins A and E used are a restricted
> > chemical whereas in nature, one consumes a variety of carotenoids,
> > tocopherols and tocopheryls.
> >
> > Indeed. Don't just take Vitamin E. Just take a good quality, decently
> > potent multi if you wish to supplement.
> >
> > George M. Carter
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Antioxidants lower macular degeneration risk
    ... > contain high amounts of the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin C, ... > vitamin E and zinc have a significantly lower risk of developing ... > age-related macular degeneration than people whose diets contain ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Antioxidants lower macular degeneration risk
    ... Antioxidants lower macular degeneration risk ... contain high amounts of the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin C, ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Antioxidants lower macular degeneration risk
    ... Antioxidants lower macular degeneration risk ... contain high amounts of the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin C, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Beta-carotene ? Vitamin B ? Huh ?
    ... I wonder how vitamin A palmitate would work in lieu of beta carotene? ... > increase the risk of lung cancer in smokers [Finnish Alpha-Tocopherol, ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • Re: VITAMIN E CAN KILL
    ... >>overall risk of dying. ... > "He says there are several theories about why vitamin E increases ... > high doses vitamin E stops working like an antioxidant, ... > from the findings of the dangers of beta carotene. ...
    (sci.med)