Vitamin E Controversy - You Decide, I Know I Have :o)

[Guest guest]

At 08:01 AM 11/13/2004, you wrote:

>Dear Friend,

>

>As you've probably heard, researchers at s Hopkins University

>released a study this week which claims that 400 IU or more of

>vitamin E can increase the risk of death and should be avoided. As a

>complementary physician, I was angry and disappointed that such a

>study was released to the public-causing unnecessary fear and concern

>among the millions of people using this safe, incredibly useful

>supplement to improve their health.

>

>My Analysis of the Study

>

>I'm skeptical of any meta-analysis using only 19 studies to make

>sweeping claims that vitamin E is unsafe and shouldn't be used,

>especially when thousands of research studies done over more than

>three generations have attested to its great health benefits and

>safety. Historically, vitamin E is one of the longest used

>supplements, with research studies dating back to the 1930s. In fact,

>there have been more than 6,000 studies alone that show

>cardiovascular benefit from vitamin E supplementation. There are many

>more research studies touting vitamin E's benefits and safety in

>treating many other health concerns-dermatological problems, hot

>flashes, osteoarthritis, and much more.

>

>In the case of this particular study, there's just no logic to

>justify the conclusion. First of all, the high dosage trials were

>often small and were performed in patients with chronic diseases, who

>were at greater risk for mortality anyway. Not to mention, half the

>people in this study were using other vitamins and minerals in

>addition to vitamin E. I have significant doubts about the

>researchers' ability to accurately extrapolate that vitamin E was the

>culprit, when patients were using vitamin E combined with other

>vitamins and minerals. Imagine-if researchers made such sweeping

>generalizations about prescription drugs, there wouldn't be any left

>on the market! And in reality, patients have had countless more

>problems caused by prescription drugs than with vitamin E-myself

>included.

>

>This study (which, by the way, was funded in part by a pharmaceutical

>company) is just another example of the traditional medical

>establishment and the mainstream media trying to discredit the

>benefits and safety of nutritional supplements-a pattern that I have

>now seen for 30 years. I agree with the Council for Responsible

>Medicine's recently published response to this study, which you can

>read here.

>

>Personally Speaking

>

>Vitamin E is the first nutrient I used on myself back in 1974 with

>great benefits-and it's had a long history of safety and

>effectiveness. I continue to use it with confidence. Of the thousands

>of patients I've seen while in practice, I've recommended vitamin E

>to nearly all of them, and have very rarely seen even the slightest

>side effect.

>

>In general, I recommend that healthy women take 600-1,600 IU of

>natural vitamin E per day.

>

>Wishing you the best of health,

>

> M. Lark, M.D.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>>I'm skeptical of any meta-analysis using only 19 studies to make sweeping

claims that vitamin E is unsafe and shouldn't be used,

>In general, I recommend that healthy women take 600-1,600 IU of

>natural vitamin E per day.

If she doesnt recommend " sweeping " claims about Vit E being unsafe, why would

she make " sweeping " claims endorsing its safety?

>>especially when thousands of research studies done over more than three

generations have attested to its great health benefits and safety.

While there have been many observational studies over time purporting the

benefits of Vit E for heart disease and cancer, double blind studies have all

found vitamin E ineffective for preventing heart disease or any common form of

cancer (other than possible prostate cancer).

Oh well, back to eating right!!

Jeff