Monday, December 13, 2004

Michael Fumento: Vitamin E Witch Hunt

The Washington Times
13 December 2004

Less than two months ago, I debunked a report in the Lancet medical journal claiming antioxidants slightly increase one's chance of dying, rather than reducing it as most researchers believe. Now I'm writing about a report that says the same thing about a specific antioxidant, vitamin E.
Why are these pills being persecuted? Among the similarities of the earlier report and this one, authored by researchers at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, is that the mainstream media accepted both without question. Both times the researchers smugly declared their work the final word on the subject, though both reports were, as the vitamin E report admitted, "a qualitative departure from previous findings."

Since a good scientist knows no single report ever proves anything, we know these weren't good scientists. In fact, they have less in common with Johns Hopkins than Matthew Hopkins — England's infamous "Witch-finder General." Consider the vitamin E paper, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It analyzed 19 clinical trials between 1993 and 2004, involving 136,000 people. These were combined into what's called a "meta-analysis," which showed no overall increase in deaths. But at high levels, defined as above 400 international units (IUs) per day, the researchers insisted "vitamin E supplements may increase [deaths] and should be avoided."

A glaring problem is there have been far more than 19 vitamin E trials since 1993, and one way the pack was whittled down was exclusion of all studies reporting fewer than 10 deaths. The witch-hunters weren't about to interrogate witnesses who might keep the accused from a visit to the gallows. Also, if "more is worse," why did the two studies using the highest dose, 2,000 IUs daily, indicate fewer deaths among vitamin E users?

Another problem with this report is that, though clinical trials are important, epidemiological studies cannot be ignored. Yet ignored they were. Thus there was no reference to the 1996 study from the National Institute of Aging that followed 11,000 elderly people for seven years and found the death rate for vitamin E users was a third that of nonusers. Adding another antioxidant, vitamin C, cut fatalities even more. A 1993 Harvard study of 40,000 male health professionals found those who took at least 100 IUs daily for two years had a third fewer cases of heart disease than those receiving no vitamin E supplements. A Harvard study of 87,000 nurses that year found an even greater reduction in heart disease when comparing women who took the highest amount of vitamin E vs. those taking the lowest amount.

Does this have you running in terror at the sight of a vitamin E capsule? But what's with the supplement witch-hunt? Why the reports of vitamin E flying on broomsticks, and beta carotene casting hexes? "Unfortunately, there are some doctors who are biased against dietary supplements," says John Hathcock, vice president of Scientific & International Affairs at the D.C.-based Council for Responsible Nutrition. To an extent, this is understandable. First, some supplements are worthless and a few have proved harmful. But you just can't lump "eye of newt" in together with vitamin E or other antioxidants.

Mainstream medicine is also biased toward that which has formal FDA approval. You know, like Vioxx. And never mind the many supplements such as iron and iodine that have tacit FDA support but no formal approval. Some doctors also fret that people will try to substitute supplements for good eating habits. "We don't think that people need to take vitamin E supplements, that they get enough from the diet," said the lead vitamin E prosecutor, associate professor Edgar Miller. Yet the average American gets only about 10 IU daily. With some studies show 2,000 IUs to be beneficial, dietary intake leaves us a bit shy of the mark. Anyway, those taking vitamins and other supplements also have the best diets. The final explanation for vitamin-pill persecution is that medical journals are becoming increasingly sensationalist. Publishing articles contrary to popular wisdom is a cheap and easy way to get headlines. But there's no excuse for throwing a noose around the neck of good science and healthful products.

Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and author of "BioEvolution: How Biotechnology is Changing our World."

No comments: