Can
Vitamin E Kill You…
Or Is the Media Blowing Hot Air??
In
early January of 2005, headlines reading “Vitamin
E May Kill You” or similar phrases were broadcast
across the world, shocking and scaring people out of taking
vitamin E. What is the evidence behind these headlines?
The information
in question comes from research reported
at the American Heart Association’s
Scientific Sessions, and released on
the web site of the journal Annals
of Internal Medicine. The researchers
concluded that daily Vitamin E doses
of 400 international
units (IU) or more can increase the risk
of death and should be avoided.
This conclusion was based on a meta-analysis
of 19 Vitamin E studies that looked at
136,000 patients with heart disease,
cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. “It
was clear that as the Vitamin E dose
increased, so does the all-cause mortality,” stated
Johns Hopkins University researcher and
associate professor of medicine Edgar
R. Miller, MD, PhD. But was
this broad statement justified? Only
one of the 19 studies showed any statistical
significance with regards to Vitamin
E and mortality – the other 18
showed no increase in mortality. It appears
that the data was pooled to arrive at
a desired conclusion that is based on
a statistical artifact. The conclusion
was not based on a true scientific analysis
of the 19 studies. Rather, it is based
on an artificial statistic that was made
to look comprehensive and convincing
by referring to the 19 studies.
The one study that did show supposed
statistical significance in fact showed
only a “relative” 10% increase
in mortality. A “relative increase” is
a statistical term for a manipulation
of data that makes small differences
appear much larger. For example, if 10
of 1000 people taking no vitamin E died,
and 11 of 1000 taking vitamin E died,
that would be a 10 per cent relative
increase in mortality in those taking
Vitamin E. But the actual increase was
only 1 person in 1000 – 0.1 percent.
This kind of trick is often performed
to make drugs look good and vitamins,
herbs and food supplements look bad. Furthermore,
Miller and the other authors of the meta-analysis
did not specify what forms of vitamin
E were used in the 19 studies. Many studies
use the synthetic form of alpha-tocopherol,
which has a distinctly different chemistry
and less beneficial effect than the natural
form. And such studies typically do not
use Vitamin E containing the important
beta-, delta- and gamma-tocopherols.
These are reasonable explanations why
the studies did not show a decrease in
mortality in the subjects taking Vitamin
E.
On the
other hand, hundreds of studies spanning
several decades have shown the benefits
of Vitamin E supplements. Examples include
the following:
- Professor Morris Brown, lead researcher
of a study of 2,000 patients with heart
disease at the University of Cambridge
in England, wrote: “Now we can
confidently say that Vitamin E protects
against heart attacks. I will be recommending
that patients with angina and those who
are at risk of heart disease should be
given supplementary vitamin E at high
dose.” Dr. Jan Breslow, president
of the American Heart Association at
the time, said of the study, “Consuming
Vitamin E supplements reduced the disease
by 75 per cent.” The quotes are
from the British medical journal Lancet (1996;347:781-786).
- A United Nations study was reported
in the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Vol 53, 326S-334S). “Vitamin E
deficiency is more closely linked to
death from heart disease than such better-known
risk factors as high cholesterol and
high blood pressure…Researchers
in the UN study said they could predict
62 per cent of heart disease deaths by
looking at blood levels of Vitamin E.”
- An article in the Western
Journal of Medicine (1997 May; 166:306-312) stated
that hospital charges related to coronary
heart disease could be reduced by as
much as $5.6 billion annually for men
and women over 50 if large numbers of
Americans consumed at least 100 IU of
Vitamin E daily.
These
articles demonstrate why surveys have
shown that the vast majority of America’s
cardiologists take Vitamin E themselves,
although most do not recommend it to
their patients for fear of reprisals
from their colleagues.
The poorly
conceived and obviously apparently biased
Vitamin E meta-analysis described above
is a typical example of the use of so-called
science to discredit safe and effective
natural therapies. The scare headlines
we all saw were the media’s all
too characteristic response, a disservice
to a public that should be wary by now
of the influence the drug, medical and
food industries hold over the moguls
who control the nation’s newspapers,
magazines, radio and television. Media
giants reap billions of dollars in advertising
money from these industries. Sadly, today
more than ever, money buys influence
and colors what most people perceive
as truth. |
