Sugar is a Poor Choice

G. Sarravanan ND, CH, D.Nutr, D.MLD, Ad.HRM, Reiki Master, MATMS
Naturopathic Physician, Nutritionist & Hypnotherapist

Centre Of
 Integrated Medicine
www.cimed.com.sg, House Calls Only (24hrs Local & Overseas). Tel +65 9675 9420

Vitakids East West Naturopathic Centre (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday)
www.vitakids.biz, Paragon, 290 Orchard Rd, #05-47/48, Singapore 238859

Yahoo Group: groups.yahoo.com/group/Naturopaths/

by Jordan Rubin, NMD, CNC

Extra virgin coconut oil is a miracle oil that, along with its delicious taste and aroma, also aids in fat loss, has premier infection fighting properties and helps support healthy thyroid and cardiovascular function.

Misguided Advice from the Experts
Extra virgin coconut oil is known to be one of the healthiest fats. As a savvy health consumer you have probably heard from the so-called experts of the health community as they consistently warn us to avoid saturated fats, especially tropical oils such as coconut and palm oils.

Consumers have been told that saturated fat consumption is responsible for heart disorders, obesity and many degenerative diseases. These are the health “experts” who for years told us to load up on pasta and refined grains and whose poor advice must now bear some responsibility for our nation’s high rate of obesity and heart disease. These are also the same experts who in the early ’60s warned us not to breast-feed our infants.

Butter, coconut oil and animal fats have nourished human beings for several thousands of years. Yet nowadays these healthy foods have been relegated to the sidelines of culinary custom, replaced by concoctions of very questionable nutritional value. Nearly all commercial foods today avoid saturated fats and instead rely on polyunsaturated or partially hydrogenated vegetable fats. These may be “vegetarian,” “no-cholesterol” foods but they’re not necessarily better for our health.

For the last five decades Americans have increased their consumption of unsaturated and hydrogenated fats and have decreased their consumption of other types of saturated fatty acids including butter. In direct correlation, the rate of heart disease has increased, as has obesity, cancer and many other immune system disorders. There appears to be a clearcut link between our rising consumption of these fats and rising rates of some diseases. It is time to return to healthy fats from coconut oil, as well as flax, salmon and whole butter.

Fortunately, Mary Enig, Ph.D., FACN, CNS, and other independent thinkers and scientists have written very persuasively that the studies done in the 1950s that formed the basis of the “bad” fat hypothesis were flawed. “The original research failed to distinguish between different kinds of fat,” notes Dr. Enig. “This was a fundamental flaw that is now obvious to us today, however, in earlier times, differentiating between types of fats apparently was not thought to be as important. The early research on which our dietary myths are now based, concluded all fat to be bad—saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated.

“We now know that not all fats are equal and that some fats are indeed health promoting, while others truly are damaging to our health. Consumers have been misguided about fats for a long time, especially that soy, corn, canola, safflower, sunflower and cottonseed oils should be their preferred oils. And of course, margarine has been crowned the king of spreads, taking the place of healthy, wholesome organic butter.”

Good Fat vs. Bad Fat
“The tropical oils were very popular in the [United States] food industry prior to World War II,” Dr. Enig notes. “With the war and the shortages of imported tropical oils, an effort was made to promote local oils, like soybean and corn oil.” (Not surprisingly, the U.S. is the world’s largest exporter of soybeans). “Studies were done to show that coconut oil and all saturated fats, were bad for one’s health because they raised serum cholesterol levels. However, these studies were done on hydrogenated coconut oil and all hydrogenated oils produce higher serum cholesterol levels, and contribute to greater oxidation and free radicals in the body, whether they are saturated or not. Recent research has revealed that it is the presence of trans fatty acids that actually cause health problems. These are fatty acid chains that have been altered from their original form in nature by the oil refining process.”

The real culprits in heart disease are more likely to be elevated intakes of human made trans fatty acids from hydrogenated oils, (such as those in corn and soy oil, baked and prepared foods), in addition to the over consumption of carbohydrates, (found in breads, pastas, cereals, pastries and other processed foods). Excess amounts of trans fatty acids (man-made molecules created from hydrogenated vegetable oils) increase the risk of degenerative diseases and other age-related maladies.

Health Benefits of Extra Virgin Coconut Oil
Extra virgin coconut oil is the healthiest, most versatile, unprocessed dietary oil in the world. It contains medium chain triglycerides (MCTS) that the body metabolizes quickly, converting the fats to energy rather than storing them as fat. Extra virgin coconut oil is a stable, healthy saturated fat that does NOT elevate undesirable (LDL) cholesterol.

Coconut oil has been shown to reduce the symptoms of digestive disorders, support overall immune functions and help prevent bacterial, viral and fungal infections.

Rich Source of Antioxidants
Coconut oil is abundant in the full spectrum of antioxidants and helps to reduce the body’s need for vitamin E.

Naturally Occurring Antimicrobial Compounds
Extra virgin coconut oil, rich in lauric acid (50 to 55 percent), capric and caprylic acids, has tremendous antiviral and antifungal properties. In the body, lauric acid converts into monolaurin, a compound that is adept at fighting viral pathogens and is also present in large quantities in breast milk, where it protects infants from viral, bacterial and parasitic infections.

The medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) in coconut oil also have notable antifungal properties important for those with Candida and other fungal related infections. Caprylic acid, a MCFA found in coconut oil, is one of the most potent, natural yeast fighting agents. Capric acid, another MCFA in coconut oil, has a similar beneficial function when it is formed into monocaprin in the human body. Monocaprin has been shown to have significant antiviral effects against microorganisms that cause sexually transmitted diseases.

Protects Against Heart Disease
Bruce Fife, N.D., CNC, in his book The Healing Miracles of Coconut Oil (Piccadilly Books, 2001) is quoted as saying, “one of the biggest criticisms about coconut oil is that it’s a saturated fat and causes or contributes in some way to heart disease. However, when you go to the coconut growing regions of the world, you find that those people who eat the most coconut and coconut oil have the lowest rate of heart disease in the world.

“In Sri Lanka, people there eat the equivalent of about 120 coconuts a year. They use coconut oil in all of their cooking and yet their death rate from heart disease is about one out of every thousand. This compares to the United States, where nearly half the population suffers from heart disease and we basically eat no coconut oil at all.

“Another interesting piece of research occurred with the island studies of Pukapuka and Tokelau, located in the South Pacific. Researchers studied the entire population of these islands—they studied the food they ate and their health. They found that up to 60 percent of the islanders’ total calories came from fat and 50 percent from saturated fat, primarily from coconuts. The researchers stated that there was no evidence in these people of heart disease.”

Promotes Healthy Thyroid Function
Coconut oil is shown to enhance thyroid function. This in turn, stimulates the conversion of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol into the antiaging hormones pregnenolone, progesterone and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). These valuable agents aid in preventing heart disease, senility, obesity and other degenerative diseases.

Unsaturated fats damage the mitochondria by suppressing the reparatory enzyme and by causing generalized oxidative damage. The more unsaturated the oils are the more specifi- cally they suppress tissue response and transport of the thyroid hormone. Coconut oil assists in “activating” the metabolism, helping to prevent the inhibiting effects of unsaturated oils.

Aids in Weight Loss
Another benefit from coconut oil’s unique ability to support thyroid function is healthy weight management. In the 1940s farmers tried coconut oil to fatten their animals but instead discovered that it made them lean and active.

A study conducted in Yucatan, where coconut oil is a staple, showed that metabolic rates of people living there were 25 percent higher than in comparable test subjects living in the United States. Increased metabolic rate is a key to healthy weight management and could account for the leanness of people living in areas where coconut oil is consumed on a daily basis.

People who consistently use coconut oil report changes in their ability to go without eating for several hours without experiencing the affects of hypoglycemia.

Simply explained, most oils from animal and vegetable sources contain long chain fatty acids (LCFAS), whereas extra virgin coconut oil contains medium chain fatty acids (MCFAS). This means that the fatty acids in coconut oil are not packaged into lipoproteins and do not circulate in the bloodstream like other fats. Instead they are sent directly to the liver where they are immediately converted into energy and burned off in the form of calories. In fact, numerous studies have shown that replacing LCFA with MCFA, in both animals and humans, results in a marked decrease in weight gain and a reduction in fat deposition.

Coconut oil yields fewer calories than any other oil and its MCFAS, unlike the LCFAS in vegetable oils, actually speed up the metabolism so one can more efficiently utilize those calories. When you consume coconut oil, not only are MCFAS burned off as calories but some LCFAS are burned off as well. This means you don’t necessarily have to reduce healthy fat intake in order to control body fat.

Improves Symptoms of Digestive Disorders
The cause is still unknown but many doctors believe that chronic digestive disorders are the result of bacterial, fungal, or viral infections. While there is no definitive cure, numerous studies have shown that the medium chain fatty acids in coconut oil offer positive health benefits for patients with irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn’s disease and other digestive disorders.

Extra virgin coconut oil provides energy for healing in these cases, in addition to soothing inflammation in the intestinal tract and helping to combat unhealthy microorganisms that can cause chronic inflammation.

Promotes Smooth and Supple Skin
Studies have also shown that the amount of unsaturated oil in the diet strongly affects the rate at which wrinkled skin develops. Taken internally and used topically, the healthful saturated fat in extra virgin coconut oil is effective at slowing down that process.

Extra virgin coconut oil is also quite adept at protecting your skin from the harmful effects of the sun. In Polynesia, where people are out in the hot tropical sun constantly, especially when traveling on the open water, they put coconut oil on their skin every single day. The oil protects them from the sun’s radiation and they never suffer from skin diseases. This is why coconut oil is a common ingredient in commercial sunscreens.

Aroma and Taste Says It All
Apart from its healthful benefits, the aroma and taste alone is enough to convince anyone to use extra virgin coconut oil. Most coconut oils today are produced using a refining, bleaching and deodorizing process. Extra virgin coconut oil is made from fresh coconut milk in a traditional fermentation process that retains all of the vital nutrients for optimal health.

Unsaturated oils go rancid in a fairly short time, imparting a stale odor and taste. When tested, extra virgin coconut oil, stored at room temperature for a year, showed no signs of rancidity. In fact, extra virgin coconut oil has a longer shelf life than any other plant oil. Of greatest interest is its ability to withstand wide temperature ranges during cooking, without the oxidizing effects that occur with other plant-based oils. Extra virgin coconut oil truly does taste and smell like fresh coconut.

JORDAN RUBIN, NMD, CNC, is the founder and formulator of Garden of Life products and author of Patient Heal Thyself (Freedom Press, 2003). For more information on certified organic, extra virgin coconut oil, consult your health food store, call 800- 622-8986 or visit www.gardenoflifeusa.com

G. Sarravanan ND, CH, D.Nutr, D.MLD, Ad.HRM, Reiki Master, MATMS
Naturopathic Physician, Nutritionist & Hypnotherapist

Centre Of Integrated Medicine
www.cimed.com.sg, House Calls Only (24hrs Local & Overseas). Tel +65 9675 9420

Vitakids East West Naturopathic Centre (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday)
www.vitakids.biz, Paragon, 290 Orchard Rd, #05-47/48, Singapore 238859

Yahoo Group: groups.yahoo.com/group/Naturopaths/

I am sure many of you must have read the article that appeared in Mind Your Body, Nov 27, entitled, “Vitamins draw more flak.”

The effect of the article is to cast doubts among hundreds of thousands of faithful consumers of vitamin supplements as to the value of what they have been consuming.  It will undoubtedly also adversely affect the business of supplement distributors and retailers.

As usual, the NY Times-based article is heavily biased and intended to help drug companies sell more drugs for cardiovascular diseases and cancer.   There was no effort made to investigate the weaknesses of these studies and cite the many studies that have shown the benefits of these same supplements, when consumed in their natural form and in sufficiently high doses.

Please find below our rebuttal of your article.  Note that the first 2 studies cited both relate to the Physicians’ Health Study II conducted at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the same research center that was involved in the publication of a highly controversial paper that distorted the results of their research.

In the interest of providing Mind Your Body readers with fair, truthful and unbiased information, we have strongly urged the editor of MYB to publish the other side of the story.  Let’s wait and see if they will do this.

Most of the material below is extracted from the responses of the American Association for Health Freedom/Alliance for Natural Health and the Council for Responsible Nutrition to the Physicians’ Health Study II.

Use of Inferior/Synthetic Forms of Vitamins

Vitamin E is not a single substance, but a range of at least eight substances (tocopherols and tocotrienols).3 The different forms of “vitamin E” have distinct biological properties.4,5 The form of vitamin E used in the Sesso et al. study was synthetic dl-alpha-tocopherol. This is less effective than the natural forms, and is quite different in biological function and antioxidant activity than the predominant form in the diet6 (as found particularly in vegetable oils); using synthetic vitamin E thus minimises the possibility of finding benefit. Indeed, its use may interfere with the beneficial effects of natural vitamin E by competitively inhibiting or blocking receptor sites for the natural forms.7 The study also ignored the impacts of the all-important four tocotrienol isomers8 found in natural vitamin E.

The other vitamin evaluated in the Physicians’ Health Study II was vitamin C. This form was also synthetic and lacked the common synergists normally associated with good quality vitamin C supplements, namely citrus derived bioflavonoids, which have been associated with a reduction of heart disease risk factors such as blood triglycerides.9

The Beta Carotene used in the study was also synthetic - Lurotin.

Here is a link to the supplements used for the study - all cheap, synthetic supplements supplied by drug companies:

http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/jama-synthetic-low-dose-vitamins%E2%80%94of-course-they-dont-work

Low Dosage

The vitamin E dose in the study (400 IU every other day) is insufficient to act as an antioxidant in humans. This study has no relevance to people taking natural tocopherols or tocotrienol supplements at appropriate doses. In other words, the study does not apply to people who supplement with vitamin E.

A dose of up to 500mg vitamin C would have minimal or no effect in preventing heart disease. The daily dose of vitamin C used by Sesso et al. (500mg) is only half a typical one-gram tablet, of the type popular with supplement users.  Dynamic flow levels of vitamin C, which may prevent heart disease, begin at daily intakes above about 3g per day, taken in divided doses (this is a minimum level - higher doses may be needed, depending on individual physiological requirements). A dose of 500mg will only marginally raise median blood plasma levels above the baseline level of 70 microM/L and thus be ineffective. For those in the study with pre-existing heart disease (754 men in a total population of 14641), the appropriate vitamin C intake is higher still.

Placebo Problems

A fundamental problem of applying randomised controlled trials to the field of nutrition; you cannot apply a true control given that all subjects are exposed to food, if not supplements, and any balanced diet contains substantial amounts of nutrients, many of which interact synergistically. In scientific terms, the occurrence of uncontrolled elements of the diet in both the control and treatment groups introduces confounding that is likely to interfere with any meaningful biological effects, particularly if the dosages are low, as they indeed were in the Physicians’ Health Study II. In addition to this, given that the study involves physicians, it is likely that the subjects, with their greater knowledge of health issues, would have consumed diets that are healthier than those of average Americans.

Fallacy of the Magic Bullet

Perhaps we need to revise our expectations that one single healthy habit [or pill] will serve as a ‘magic bullet’ and allow us to live disease-free-after all, one piece does not complete the whole puzzle, but we certainly don’t discard the piece just because it doesn’t fit in a particular spot. Within the research community and academia, we encourage scientists to engage in additional studies that are designed to answer questions about the effects of nutrients on chronic disease and explore the apparent inconsistencies created by the existing research. Scientists, policymakers, healthcare professionals and consumers alike should continue to question commonly accepted research models, such as: whether the current approach used in RCTs (randomised controlled trials) of studying nutrients in isolation is appropriate; whether observational data are adequate to make policy decisions as is the case with food; and whether we’re studying the appropriate populations or subgroups, with the appropriate dosage and combination of nutrients for the correct length of time are other questions. There are still many more questions to be answered. Science is constantly evolving and by shifting the current paradigm of disease research to a paradigm of nutrition and prevention, we can better aid consumers in living healthier lives.”

The Importance of Synergy and Biochemical Individuality

One explanation is that the effects of nutrients in the human body are complex and influenced by many variables. Understanding the causality of chronic disease is equally complex. RCTs may be inherently limited in their capacity to address the unique challenges presented by nutrients and dietary interventions. Nutrients appear to work best in combination with other nutrients, yet RCTs tend to examine effects of unique chemical molecules in isolation-which is how pharmaceuticals work. Further, in using RCTs to study nutrition questions, there is the challenge of being able to create a true control or placebo group. For example, in contrast to pharmaceuticals, it is both impossible and unethical to ensure participants in the control group are not exposed at any level to vitamins and minerals.

This leads us to the question, ‘what should consumers do?’ The best advice for consumers is to engage in a lifetime of healthy habits-like not smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, eating a well-balanced diet and appropriately supplementing with vitamins, regular exercise, and regular visits to a physician. These appear to be best practices. Vitamins play a vital role in promoting overall general health and fulfilling specific nutrition gaps. Despite the results from recent studies, there is additional research that suggests antioxidant vitamins may play a role in helping to lower the risk of chronic diseases. However, vitamin supplements are just one piece of the puzzle, which may be why we didn’t see the results we anticipated from the recent clinical trials.

Vested Interests

With three drug companies supplying the vitamins for the trial, namely BASF Corporation, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and DSM Nutritional Products (formerly Roche Vitamins), maybe this was a surer way of protecting the drug companies’ core competence, which is clearly in the field of patented pharmaceuticals, rather than in unpatented synthetic vitamin products?   Even the researchers are known to have financial links with the pharmaceutical companies (see annexure).

Conclusion

Sesso and colleagues conclude that the results of their trial “provide no support for the use of these supplements in the prevention of cardiovascular disease in middle-aged and older men.” A more accurate conclusion might have been: the trial provides no evidence that supplementation of low doses of synthetic vitamin C and E, when taken by over 50-year-old physicians over a relatively short period of 10 years, has the capacity to prevent cardiovascular disease. However, as the study authors themselves concede, the initiation of supplementation may have been too late to significantly affect the aetiology of heart disease.

We have argued also that the low doses, inappropriate synthetic forms and absence of other natural nutrients and synergists in combination, would-quite predictably-not have the ability to prevent heart disease. Sesso et al’s trial was therefore a trial doomed to fail!

Nutrients do not “cure” disease in the traditional drug model of suppressing a symptom using a medication or an isolated synthetic active ingredient. Each individual has a unique need for nutrients, and they work synergistically, not by using a single nutrient as a magic bullet. Additionally, lifestyle is always the key factor in the prevention of chronic disease. Diet, exercise, and stress reduction must be included along with dietary supplements. The choice of just vitamin C and vitamin E, ignoring the omega-3 essential fatty acids or other nutrients that have profound heart-function benefits-like potassium, magnesium, coenzyme Q10, d-ribose, l-carnitine, nattokinase, vitamin D, vitamin K2, and aged garlic-seems simplistic and destined to produce a negative outcome. If the doctors continued to eat the processed American diet, remained inactive, continued to be stressed, and perhaps drank too much or ate too much bad fat or too many sweets, why would 500 mg. of vitamin C and 400 IU of vitamin E prevent heart disease or even cancer?

The form of the nutrient in the supplement is now known to be a key factor. As the Wall Street Journal noted in 1996, we may be taking the wrong form of vitamin E. Natural vitamin E, which contains many members of the tocopherol and tocotrienol family, has proven heart benefits. There is much published research, including that done at the Kenneth Jordan Heart Institute, which demonstrates that tocotrienol supplementation reverses plaque within six months. Why would the Harvard researchers use synthetic vitamin E and not a mixed tocopherol vitamin E with tocotrienols?

A presentation on PHSII at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting on November 16 offered similar findings: the daily use of 500 mg. of vitamin C and 400 IU of a synthetic isolate form of vitamin E had no impact on the risk of any type of cancer. However, nutrients like vitamin D, d-indole methane, the glucans from mushrooms, the mixed carotenoids, resveratrol from red grapes and wine, and phytochemcials from pomegranates (just to name a few) have considerable research to back up their use as cancer-fighters-as do other lifestyle changes like exercise.

Millions of Americans lose their lives to heart disease and cancer [the situation is no different in Singapore]; millions (if not billions) of dollars are spent in research with failed methodology. PHSII is a prime example of research money that has been badly wasted. The empowering news is that genes can be turned off and turned on preventing even heart disease and cancer. We need to keep hammering home the message of biochemical individuality using the proper forms of nutrients, the message that nutrients are adjuncts to wise lifestyle choices that include diet, exercise, and stress management.

The official response of the Natural Products Association, USA, may be found here:

http://www.naturalproductsassoc.org/site/News2?abbr=pc_&page=NewsArticle&id=10215

The MYB article also mentioned that a trial on the use of Vitamin E and Selenium for the prevention of prostate cancer (the SELECT trial) was recently halted due to concerns that these supplements may be doing more harm than good.  What the article failed to highlight is that the National Cancer Institute themselves stated that there was no conclusive evidence that these supplements caused or aggravated prostate cancer and the results were probably due to chance.  Further, the article failed to investigate the form of selenium that was used - selenomethionine which had already been shown to be inferior to high-selenium yeast in its effect on prostate health.

And when will these researchers ever come to the realization that antioxidants like beta carotene, Vitamin C, E, selenium, zinc and CoQ10 work best as a team?  Without all the team players at adequate levels, they just don’t work effectively.

Annexure

ABOUT BETA CAROTENE [From  Healthnotes.]

Natural beta-carotene, found in food, is made of two molecules-all trans beta-carotene and 9-cis beta-carotene.

Researchers originally saw no meaningful difference between natural and synthetic beta-carotene. This view was questioned when the link between beta-carotene-containing foods (all natural) and lung cancer prevention² was not duplicated in studies using synthetic pills.³ In smokers, synthetic beta-carotene has apparently caused an increased risk of lung cancer^{4 5 6} and disease of the blood vessels⁷ in double-blind research. Animal research has begun to identify the ways in which synthetic beta-carotene might cause damage to lungs, particularly when animals are exposed to cigarette smoke.⁸

Much of natural beta-carotene is in the all trans molecule form-the same as synthetic beta-carotene. Moreover, much of the 9-cis molecule found only in natural beta-carotene is converted to the synthetic molecule before it reaches the bloodstream.⁹ Also, absorption of 9-cis beta-carotene appears to be poor,¹⁰ though some researchers question this finding.¹¹

Despite the overlap between natural and synthetic forms, natural beta-carotene may possibly have activity that is distinct from the synthetic form. For example, studies in both animals¹² and humans¹³ have shown that the natural form has antioxidant activity that the synthetic form lacks. Also, in one trial, pre-cancerous changes in people reverted to normal tissue with natural beta-carotene supplements, but not with synthetic supplements.¹⁴

Increasingly, doctors are recommending that people supplement only with natural beta-carotene.

NATURAL VITAMIN E DRAMATICALLY REDUCES HEART DISEASE

By Byron J. Richards, CCN
August 17, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

A new randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cardiovascular study evaluating natural vitamin E, synthetic vitamin C, and synthetic beta-carotene shows that natural vitamin E significantly reduced heart disease and is a wonderful dietary supplement for any person concerned about their heart and cardiovascular health. The primary end point of the study was to determine the prevention of either cardiovascular death or serious cardiovascular disease. Natural vitamin E showed an impressive and statistically significant 13% reduction. Natural vitamin E also showed improvement in secondary end points of the study, including a 22% reduction in heart attacks, a 27% reduction in strokes (31% when combined with vitamin C), and a 9% reduction in cardiovascular death. These results for natural vitamin E are nothing short of astounding as they used the gold standard of human testing!

In an absolutely unbelievable reporting of their own study information the authors erroneously concluded “There were no overall effects of ascorbic acid, vitamin E, or beta carotene on cardiovascular events among women at high risk for cardiovascular disease.” This is a flat out lie based on their own study data that they report in the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine. They concocted this false and misleading conclusion by including the people who said they were supposed to be taking vitamin E but really didn’t take the vitamin E in the final statistical analysis. The study participants who actually took the natural vitamin E had the dramatic benefits listed in the first paragraph, which the authors failed to report in the study abstract. Instead, the authors fed a false and negatively slanted view of the study to the media, none of whom bothered to check the actual study. The media then proceeded to spread a false negative view of truly remarkable findings on vitamin E and heart health.

Taking a Closer Look at the Study Results

The following two paragraphs are what the study actually says about vitamin E. The first paragraph says that vitamin E did not do much of anything, which is what the authors reported. The second paragraph says that when they re-evaluated the Vitamin E data by removing people from the vitamin E group who failed to actually take the vitamin E, the results were extremely good. This is the important information about what natural vitamin E actually did. The authors didn’t tell the media about this and the media didn’t bother looking into the study.

Vitamin E

No differences were seen in the primary end point by randomized vitamin E assignment (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.04 [P=.23]) (Table 2 and Figure 2), with no significant variation in the relative risk over time. We found a nonsignificant 16% reduction in total stroke, with a 21% reduction in ischemic stroke (P=.06) and an increase in hemorrhagic stroke based on small numbers. There was an overall 10% reduction in the combination of MI, stroke, and CVD death, with a nonsignificant decrease (P=.08) in benefit over time. No difference in total mortality by vitamin E group was found.

Censoring participants on noncompliance led to a significant 13% reduction in the primary end point (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99 [P=.04]). Reductions in secondary study end points were also stronger, with a 22% reduction in MI (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06 [P=.11]), a 27% reduction in stroke (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98 [P=.04]), and a 9% reduction in CVD mortality (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.66-1.25 [P=.55]). There was a 23% reduction in the combination of MI, stroke, or CVD death (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92 [P=.005]). Among those with prior CVD, the active vitamin E group experienced fewer major CVD events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79-1.00 [P=.04]; P value for interaction, .07) (Table 3).

In order for a result to be statistically significant the P value must be less than .05. In this case the primary end point of the study, the 27% reduction in stroke, the 23% reduction in the combination of MI (heart attack), stroke, or CVD death, and the fewer major CVD events in those with a history of CVD were all statistically significant. These are the impressive results of the people who actually took the natural vitamin E.

Vitamin E has Been Wrongly Attacked Before

As I have pointed out in my previous writing, Vitamin E has been viciously and fraudulently attacked by powerful vested interests, especially researchers funded primarily by Big Pharma. This has nothing to do with real science, and everything to do with a media-backed Big Pharma PR machine trying to convince Americans to take toxic and health-deteriorating drugs instead of safe and effective vitamins. It is likely the study authors, researchers of the heavily Big Pharma-backed Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), an affiliate of Harvard Medical School, were pressured into writing findings that negated vitamin E. Or else the study authors were totally biased and could not believe the spectacular vitamin E results.

In the current study the natural form of vitamin E used was d alpha tocopherol acetate at the dose of 600 IU every other day. Even this form of vitamin E could have been improved upon by using a full mixture of tocopherols or the truly superior tocotrienols. However, at least it was a high quality form of natural vitamin E that was used, unlike studies that used synthetic vitamin E and produced questionable outcomes. Consumers should always avoid synthetic vitamin E, which has an “l” after the “d”, so it looks like “dl alpha” on the label instead of “d alpha.”

Synthetic Beta Carotene did not Help the Heart - No Surprise

I would also like to point out that the synthetic beta carotene used in the study (Lurotin from the BASF, 50 mg every other day) is the same worthless compound found to increase lung cancer in smokers. This pathetic “vitamin” is produced by a German drug company that is actively participating to have vitamins regulated worldwide as well as to promote synthetic vitamins as no different than natural. Since the end of the 1930s BASF has been pouring millions of tons of coal tar-derived food coloring into our food supply, poisoning our citizens - with the blessings of the Big Pharma-owned FDA. The Germans like to synthesize vitamins from chemical sources, as their own country is so poor in natural resources that they can’t make anything from a real food source and thus can’t make a profit selling vitamins unless they are concocted from chemicals. Synthetic beta carotene is made by extracting benzene rings from acetylene gas, and then attaching the benzene rings together to form 100% all-trans-beta-carotene. There is no food source that contains 100% all-trans-beta-carotene.

One example of high quality natural beta carotene is the sea algae Dunaliella salinas, which contains a mixture of 9-cis-beta carotene as well as trans-beta-carotene along with related nutrients such as alpha-carotene, cryptoxanthin, and zeaxanthin. Natural source beta carotene contains a powerful complex of nutrients not present in synthetic beta carotene. Research shows that 9-cis-beta carotene transports much more efficiently in the body. My advice is to avoid synthetic beta carotene which can always be identified because the natural source of the beta carotene is not listed on the label.

Consumer Action is Needed

I have been working with Mike Adams over at NewsTarget.com to help get the word out about the false impression the media has given the world about this study. It is a shame that health-related politics, financial pressures, or researcher bias prevent the publishing of the true meaning of an important study, especially when the findings would cause millions of consumers to abandon dangerous drugs in favor of natural vitamin E. It is a shame that the media has been conditioned like Pavlovian dogs to spread Big Pharma sponsored anti-vitamin bad news as if it is the truth. It is also a shame that important studies fail to use the high quality forms of nutrients, proving only that synthetic garbage does not work. A combination of antioxidants from natural sources is primary dietary support for the reduction of heart disease and cancer, as well as naturally boosting the immune system - the science in this regard is overwhelmingly positive.

You can help. Click on this link to see all the media that falsely reported on this study and demand they make the proper correction. The various places to contact and a sample letter can be found at this link. Your voice matters. We cannot allow Big Pharma and the mainstream media to act with complete irresponsibility to promote dangerous drugs while negating safe and effective natural options.

© 2007 Truth in Wellness, LLC - All Rights Reserved

Unraveling the lies about the antioxidant study on vitamins E and C

by Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor

A new study published in the August 13, 2007 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine found that vitamins E and C, when taken together, result in a significant reduction in the risk of strokes (31 percent) and heart attacks (22 percent). The study followed 8,171 women who were instructed to take relatively small amounts of these vitamins for more than nine years (600 IU of vitamin E, 500mg of vitamin C and 50mg of beta carotene were taken every other day — a very small dose according to most modern nutritionists).

Despite these encouraging findings about the positive impact of antioxidants on health, nearly all the headlines in the mainstream media today are proclaiming vitamins E and C to be useless. In classic doublespeak, one press release blares, “Vitamin C and Other Antioxidant Vitamins Provide No Protection from Cardiovascular Events.” This particular distortion comes from the drug-touting Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), an affiliate of Harvard Medical School. BWH goes on to state, “researchers… have found that there is no evidence of benefit or risk from vitamins C, E or beta-carotene on cardiovascular events for women at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).”

Other medical associations and pharmaceutical-affiliated groups are making similar pronouncements. Vitamins C and E, according to them, are nutritionally worthless. And they’re basing that conclusion on a study that actually showed the vitamins to be far better at preventing cardiovascular disease than any prescription drug!

How to lie with statistics

So how can anyone claim these vitamins are worthless when the study clearly shows a strong, significant health benefit in those who take the vitamins? It’s simple: the results of the study can be made to look poor by counting the results of all the people who didn’t take the vitamins!

Let me explain this again to make sure I’m communicating this properly: Overall, if you look at the entire group of women followed in this study, you find that cardiovascular protective benefits were only marginal: An 11 percent reduction in the risk of combined cardiovascular disease. But that benefit is diluted by the fact that it includes all the women who neglected to actually take the vitamins! If you include only the women who complied with taking the vitamins on a regular basis, the results increase substantially and become quite significant with a 31 percent reduction in the risk of stroke and 22 percent reduction of risk in heart attacks. In other words, those women who actually took vitamins E and C experienced substantial benefits from doing so. Those who neglected to take the vitamins, not surprisingly, had little or no benefit.

Pushers of pharmaceuticals, of course, want to make vitamins look bad. So they quote the results that include people who never even took the vitamins. “See?” they say. “The benefits aren’t there.” Of course they aren’t! It’s like taking a room full of a hundred hungry children, handing fifty of them a large sandwich, then declaring that sandwiches don’t work as food because half the room is still hungry.

That these figures would even be quoted as something resembling “scientific medicine” is laughable. The defenders of pharmaceuticals have become so desperate to discredit antioxidants and nutrition in general that they have now resorted to quoting study results from people who didn’t even take the vitamins! I’m not sure if this strategy is brilliant or idiotic: It’s brilliant because the mainstream media swallows the story hook, line and sinker (journalists aren’t very skeptical anymore…). It’s idiotic because it’s based on a logic gap so large you could drive a circus convoy through it. If you’re going to test the effectiveness of something, it only makes sense that you have to exclude the results of those people who didn’t take it.

Notice that with drug studies, researchers routinely exclude those who did not comply with taking the drug. They don’t test a drug on 1000 people, but count the results on 2000 people, half of which never took the drug. They only track results based on those who actually took the drugs. It’s common sense.

Desperate to discredit vitamins

But when profits are at stake, and there’s an industry-wide propaganda campaign to push onto the public, common sense gets thrown out the window. Scientific scrutiny turns to wishy washy statistical foolery disguised as authoritative proclamations about nutrition. This, in turn, quickly devolves into nutritional nonsense. The message from industry is very clear: Don’t take vitamins! And if they have to lie with statistics by making a positive study look negative, they’re more than willing to step up to the plate and state the indefensible, almost as if they lived in some alternate universe where the laws of logic have all been reversed.

In fact, the message from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital is quite clear. As JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of Preventive Medicine at BWH and principal investigator of WACS said (with my translation in brackets), “This research underscores the importance of focusing on proven methods for preventing cardiovascular disease, including physical activity, healthy diet, controlling high blood pressure and high cholesterol [i.e. using pharmaceuticals], maintaining healthy weight, and avoiding tobacco.”

In other words, she’s saying:

• Antioxidants are “unproven.”
• Cardiovascular disease can only be prevented, in part, by using pharmaceuticals.
• We should stop spending time on nutritional supplements.

(In modern medical lingo, any statement about “controlling high blood pressure” or “controlling high cholesterol” or even “controlling blood sugar” actually means taking pharmaceuticals to control those numbers. So when researchers say that people need to “control their high blood pressure” what they’re really saying is that people should take high blood pressure drugs.)

It’s a message that might as well have been announced from the Big Pharma Glee Club, or the FDA cheerleading squad.

Pushing the pro-Pharma propaganda

Sadly, the mainstream media will buy this distortion, reprint it, and thereby spread disinformation to the public which is already half scared of vitamins thanks to all the other fear tactics being pushed by today’s oppressive medical system. But let’s get down to reality here for a moment, shall we? Drugs have no natural place in the human body, period. There is no disease caused by a deficiency of pharmaceuticals, and most of the drugs being marketed today are pushed under the most ridiculous advertising claims and distorted medical “science.” Properly-prescribed, FDA-approved drugs are right now the 3rd leading cause of death in America, and even those individuals who aren’t killed by the drugs suffer rapidly declining health when taking them. (Have you ever seen anyone take prescription drugs for a few months and get so healthy that they stopped needing the drugs? Of course not.)

Nutrition, on the other hand, is 100% biocompatible with the human body, and nutrition produces exceptional results in restoring and supporting human health. Nobody has ever been killed by antioxidants, or superfoods, or vitamins E and C. Not a single person. Billions of people have been helped by these substances, and nutrition, in fact, is the answer to our health care problems. If we taught people the truth about nutrition, they wouldn’t need prescription drugs! That’s precisely why nutrition must be attacked, by the way: Vitamins threaten the profits of drug companies because vitamins and dietary supplements actually work to prevent disease and keep people healthy!

Anyone who thinks drugs are the answer — and that antioxidants are useless — is probably suffering from the cognitive impairment side effects of drugs they’re on right now. You’d have to be truly out of your mind to think that plant-based nutrition has no role in human health and that only pharmaceuticals can prevent disease.

Yet this remains the dominant mindset in conventional medicine today. It is a mindset based on deliberate falsehoods, scientific distortion and outright lies. And right now, you’re witnessing yet another attempt to disinform the public about the promise of antioxidants.

Personally, I take antioxidants every day. I also eat raw foods, drink superfood smoothies and avoid all prescription drugs. And I have yet to meet any person on pharmaceuticals who even compares to the level of health that I (and many others like me) experience on a daily basis. You show me somebody taking twelve prescription drugs, and I’ll show you someone with a toxic liver, impaired brain function, stressed kidneys and unhealthy blood. Drugs don’t make people healthy. And most drugs, by the way, actually deplete the body of essential nutrients.

Remember: The first thing that goes when you take pharmaceuticals is your mind, and with that you lose your ability to think clearly. That’s when the drug companies, hospitals, FDA and everybody else depending on the current drug marketing racket steps in and tries to convince you to stop taking nutritional supplements and surrender to a (short) life of pharmaceuticals.

Pushing drugs and abandoning the people

For the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, I think this action we’re seeing today is yet another example of how organizations that once accomplished meaningful work have apparently sold their souls to Big Pharma and now operate as little more than drug company front groups. Gee, I wonder where their funding comes from?

To show you just one tiny example of how closely tied Brigham and Women’s Hospital is to the financial influence of drug companies, consider the bio of one senior investigator working at the hospital: Christopher P. Cannon, M.D., F.A.C.C. According to this author disclosure, Christopher has received all the following research grants (all of which are greater than $10,000 each, with the actual amounts not disclosed):

Merck/Schering Plough Partnership, Significant (>= $10,000)
AstraZeneca , Significant (>= $10,000)
Glaxo Smith Kline, Significant (>= $10,000)
Sanofi-aventis/Bristol-Myers Squibb Partnership, Significant (>= $10,000)
Schering Plough, Significant (>= $10,000)
Merck, Significant (>= $10,000)

… and all that is from just one person. Do you really think a hospital staffed by doctors receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from drug companies is going to acknowledge that cardiovascular disease can be prevented without drugs by simply taking low-cost antioxidant vitamins?

G. Sarravanan ND, CH, D.Nutr, D.MLD, Ad.HRM, Reiki Master, MATMS
Naturopathic Physician, Nutritionist & Hypnotherapist

Centre Of Integrated Medicine
www.cimed.com.sg, House Calls Only (24hrs Local & Overseas). Tel +65 9675 9420

Vitakids East West Naturopathic Centre (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday)
www.vitakids.biz, Paragon, 290 Orchard Rd, #05-47/48, Singapore 238859

Yahoo Group: groups.yahoo.com/group/Naturopaths/

Unraveling the lies about the antioxidant study on vitamins E and C

by Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor

A new study published in the August 13, 2007 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine found that vitamins E and C, when taken together, result in a significant reduction in the risk of strokes (31 percent) and heart attacks (22 percent). The study followed 8,171 women who were instructed to take relatively small amounts of these vitamins for more than nine years (600 IU of vitamin E, 500mg of vitamin C and 50mg of beta carotene were taken every other day — a very small dose according to most modern nutritionists).

Despite these encouraging findings about the positive impact of antioxidants on health, nearly all the headlines in the mainstream media today are proclaiming vitamins E and C to be useless. In classic doublespeak, one press release blares, “Vitamin C and Other Antioxidant Vitamins Provide No Protection from Cardiovascular Events.” This particular distortion comes from the drug-touting Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), an affiliate of Harvard Medical School. BWH goes on to state, “researchers… have found that there is no evidence of benefit or risk from vitamins C, E or beta-carotene on cardiovascular events for women at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).”

Other medical associations and pharmaceutical-affiliated groups are making similar pronouncements. Vitamins C and E, according to them, are nutritionally worthless. And they’re basing that conclusion on a study that actually showed the vitamins to be far better at preventing cardiovascular disease than any prescription drug!

How to lie with statistics

So how can anyone claim these vitamins are worthless when the study clearly shows a strong, significant health benefit in those who take the vitamins? It’s simple: the results of the study can be made to look poor by counting the results of all the people who didn’t take the vitamins!

Let me explain this again to make sure I’m communicating this properly: Overall, if you look at the entire group of women followed in this study, you find that cardiovascular protective benefits were only marginal: An 11 percent reduction in the risk of combined cardiovascular disease. But that benefit is diluted by the fact that it includes all the women who neglected to actually take the vitamins! If you include only the women who complied with taking the vitamins on a regular basis, the results increase substantially and become quite significant with a 31 percent reduction in the risk of stroke and 22 percent reduction of risk in heart attacks. In other words, those women who actually took vitamins E and C experienced substantial benefits from doing so. Those who neglected to take the vitamins, not surprisingly, had little or no benefit.

Pushers of pharmaceuticals, of course, want to make vitamins look bad. So they quote the results that include people who never even took the vitamins. “See?” they say. “The benefits aren’t there.” Of course they aren’t! It’s like taking a room full of a hundred hungry children, handing fifty of them a large sandwich, then declaring that sandwiches don’t work as food because half the room is still hungry.

That these figures would even be quoted as something resembling “scientific medicine” is laughable. The defenders of pharmaceuticals have become so desperate to discredit antioxidants and nutrition in general that they have now resorted to quoting study results from people who didn’t even take the vitamins! I’m not sure if this strategy is brilliant or idiotic: It’s brilliant because the mainstream media swallows the story hook, line and sinker (journalists aren’t very skeptical anymore…). It’s idiotic because it’s based on a logic gap so large you could drive a circus convoy through it. If you’re going to test the effectiveness of something, it only makes sense that you have to exclude the results of those people who didn’t take it.

Notice that with drug studies, researchers routinely exclude those who did not comply with taking the drug. They don’t test a drug on 1000 people, but count the results on 2000 people, half of which never took the drug. They only track results based on those who actually took the drugs. It’s common sense.

Desperate to discredit vitamins

But when profits are at stake, and there’s an industry-wide propaganda campaign to push onto the public, common sense gets thrown out the window. Scientific scrutiny turns to wishy washy statistical foolery disguised as authoritative proclamations about nutrition. This, in turn, quickly devolves into nutritional nonsense. The message from industry is very clear: Don’t take vitamins! And if they have to lie with statistics by making a positive study look negative, they’re more than willing to step up to the plate and state the indefensible, almost as if they lived in some alternate universe where the laws of logic have all been reversed.

In fact, the message from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital is quite clear. As JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of Preventive Medicine at BWH and principal investigator of WACS said (with my translation in brackets), “This research underscores the importance of focusing on proven methods for preventing cardiovascular disease, including physical activity, healthy diet, controlling high blood pressure and high cholesterol [i.e. using pharmaceuticals], maintaining healthy weight, and avoiding tobacco.”

In other words, she’s saying:

• Antioxidants are “unproven.”
• Cardiovascular disease can only be prevented, in part, by using pharmaceuticals.
• We should stop spending time on nutritional supplements.

(In modern medical lingo, any statement about “controlling high blood pressure” or “controlling high cholesterol” or even “controlling blood sugar” actually means taking pharmaceuticals to control those numbers. So when researchers say that people need to “control their high blood pressure” what they’re really saying is that people should take high blood pressure drugs.)

It’s a message that might as well have been announced from the Big Pharma Glee Club, or the FDA cheerleading squad.

Pushing the pro-Pharma propaganda

Sadly, the mainstream media will buy this distortion, reprint it, and thereby spread disinformation to the public which is already half scared of vitamins thanks to all the other fear tactics being pushed by today’s oppressive medical system. But let’s get down to reality here for a moment, shall we? Drugs have no natural place in the human body, period. There is no disease caused by a deficiency of pharmaceuticals, and most of the drugs being marketed today are pushed under the most ridiculous advertising claims and distorted medical “science.” Properly-prescribed, FDA-approved drugs are right now the 3rd leading cause of death in America, and even those individuals who aren’t killed by the drugs suffer rapidly declining health when taking them. (Have you ever seen anyone take prescription drugs for a few months and get so healthy that they stopped needing the drugs? Of course not.)

Nutrition, on the other hand, is 100% biocompatible with the human body, and nutrition produces exceptional results in restoring and supporting human health. Nobody has ever been killed by antioxidants, or superfoods, or vitamins E and C. Not a single person. Billions of people have been helped by these substances, and nutrition, in fact, is the answer to our health care problems. If we taught people the truth about nutrition, they wouldn’t need prescription drugs! That’s precisely why nutrition must be attacked, by the way: Vitamins threaten the profits of drug companies because vitamins and dietary supplements actually work to prevent disease and keep people healthy!

Anyone who thinks drugs are the answer — and that antioxidants are useless — is probably suffering from the cognitive impairment side effects of drugs they’re on right now. You’d have to be truly out of your mind to think that plant-based nutrition has no role in human health and that only pharmaceuticals can prevent disease.

Yet this remains the dominant mindset in conventional medicine today. It is a mindset based on deliberate falsehoods, scientific distortion and outright lies. And right now, you’re witnessing yet another attempt to disinform the public about the promise of antioxidants.

Personally, I take antioxidants every day. I also eat raw foods, drink superfood smoothies and avoid all prescription drugs. And I have yet to meet any person on pharmaceuticals who even compares to the level of health that I (and many others like me) experience on a daily basis. You show me somebody taking twelve prescription drugs, and I’ll show you someone with a toxic liver, impaired brain function, stressed kidneys and unhealthy blood. Drugs don’t make people healthy. And most drugs, by the way, actually deplete the body of essential nutrients.

Remember: The first thing that goes when you take pharmaceuticals is your mind, and with that you lose your ability to think clearly. That’s when the drug companies, hospitals, FDA and everybody else depending on the current drug marketing racket steps in and tries to convince you to stop taking nutritional supplements and surrender to a (short) life of pharmaceuticals.

Pushing drugs and abandoning the people

For the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, I think this action we’re seeing today is yet another example of how organizations that once accomplished meaningful work have apparently sold their souls to Big Pharma and now operate as little more than drug company front groups. Gee, I wonder where their funding comes from?

To show you just one tiny example of how closely tied Brigham and Women’s Hospital is to the financial influence of drug companies, consider the bio of one senior investigator working at the hospital: Christopher P. Cannon, M.D., F.A.C.C. According to this author disclosure, Christopher has received all the following research grants (all of which are greater than $10,000 each, with the actual amounts not disclosed):

Merck/Schering Plough Partnership, Significant (>= $10,000)
AstraZeneca , Significant (>= $10,000)
Glaxo Smith Kline, Significant (>= $10,000)
Sanofi-aventis/Bristol-Myers Squibb Partnership, Significant (>= $10,000)
Schering Plough, Significant (>= $10,000)
Merck, Significant (>= $10,000)

… and all that is from just one person. Do you really think a hospital staffed by doctors receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from drug companies is going to acknowledge that cardiovascular disease can be prevented without drugs by simply taking low-cost antioxidant vitamins?

G. Sarravanan ND, CH, D.Nutr, D.MLD, Ad.HRM, Reiki Master, MATMS
Naturopathic Physician, Nutritionist & Hypnotherapist

Centre Of Integrated Medicine
www.cimed.com.sg, House Calls Only (24hrs Local & Overseas). Tel +65 9675 9420

Vitakids East West Naturopathic Centre (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday)
www.vitakids.biz, Paragon, 290 Orchard Rd, #05-47/48, Singapore 238859

Yahoo Group: groups.yahoo.com/group/Naturopaths/

For years, I have recommended cod liver oil as a dietary supplement to support healthy vitamin D levels. However, based on more recent findings, I am updating my recommendations regarding cod liver oil, as it may not serve you as well as previously believed.

My previous recommendation was based on the fact that cod liver oil contains vitamins D and A in addition to healthy omega-3 fats. These vitamins are essential for most everyone who cannot get regular sun exposure year-round.

But more recent research has discovered that the ratios of these two vitamins may be of paramount importance in order to extract optimal health benefits, and unfortunately, modern cod liver oil does not supply these vitamins in healthy ratios to each other.

What You Need to Know About Vitamins A and D in Cod Liver Oil

At least 2,000 genes, or nearly 10% of your genes, have been identified that are directly influenced by vitamin D, which in turn impact a wide variety of health issues, from preventing the common cold and flu to inhibiting at least 16 different types of cancer. There’s even evidence linking vitamin D to the process of brain detoxification of heavy metals such as mercury.

Widespread vitamin D deficiency has also been strongly linked to the childhood epidemics of autism, asthma, and diabetes, both type 1 and 2.

Vitamin A, which is essential for your immune system just like vitamin D, is also a precursor to active hormones that regulate the expression of your genes, and they work in tandem.

For example, there is evidence that without vitamin D, vitamin A can be ineffective or even toxic. But if you’re deficient in vitamin A, vitamin D cannot function properly either.

There are many problems with modern cod liver oil but one of the primary ones is that there is no standard definition of what constitutes cod liver oil. Manufacturers are free to add or subtract as much vitamin A or D as they see fit. In fact cod liver oil was discovered in the sewers of England several hundred years ago by starving children who drank it and scientists noticed they did not get rickets. Cod liver oil is in fact a highly processed food that was never consumed by humans prior to this.

Primary Justification Why You Should AVOID Cod Liver Oil

There have been two recent meta-analyses done. The first one showed that people who took vitamin A supplements in cod liver oil, or in supplements, had an 18 percent increase in death rates. The other study showed that unlike third world countries where vitamin A supplementation appears to decrease infections, vitamin A supplementation in developed countries like the U.S. actually increases infections.

The researchers believe this is due to massive nutritional deficiencies in the third world because most of their calories are from grains and they simply don’t have an opportunity to consume as many fresh fruits, vegetables, butter, eggs and other vitamin A containing foods that those in the developed world do.

In fact current research could not find any vitamin A deficiency at all, but approximately 5% had vitamin A toxicity. The converse is true in the third world where vitamin A toxicity is virtually unheard of, yet vitamin A deficiency is pervasive.

Additionally new research has shown that vitamin D protects against cancer. But a paradox was found as those with higher vitamin D levels did not seem to have this benefit. A bright Harvard researcher carefully analyzed the data in the study that showed this and found that when he removed the people with high vitamin A and vitamin D levels, those with normal vitamin A levels and high vitamin D levels continued to have reduced risk of colon cancer. So those that did not take vitamin A had the protective effect from higher levels of vitamin D.

Other research is now showing a connection between high levels of vitamin A and osteoporosis. In fact many Scandinavian countries that regularly supplement with cod liver oil have rampant osteoporosis even though they are getting adequate amounts of oral vitamin D.

Dr. John Cannell, head of the Vitamin D Council, along with 15 other researchers, recently released an article “Cod Liver Oil, Vitamin A Toxicity, Frequent Respiratory Infections, and the Vitamin D Deficiency Epidemic" in the November issue of Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. In this paper Dr. Cannell raised questions about the efficacy of cod liver oil due to its highly variable and frequently excessive amount of vitamin A. Typically modern cod liver oil contains far less vitamin D than it used to, due to the deodorization process used today which removes much of this essential nutrient.

Dr. Cannell and other prominent researchers believe the vitamin A contained in most cod liver oil is excessive, and can reduce the effectiveness of vitamin D by inhibiting the binding of its active form to your DNA, effectively preventing its ability to regulate the expression of your vitamin D-responsive genes.

The Weston Price Foundation, of which I am an advisory member, holds a contradictory view. They believe vitamin D can only effectively target genes when its “partner receptor” is activated by vitamin A. If vitamin A is absent, certain molecules called co-repressors bind to the receptors and prevent vitamin D from functioning. It is their position that cod liver oil is still a highly recommended supplement.

After reviewing the evidence, I am personally convinced that there is sufficient vitamin A in the current American diet to facilitate sufficient vitamin D activation. This does not appear to be the case in third world countries, where cod liver oil, or some other preformed retinol supplement, would still be useful.

Most Cod Liver Oils Have Excessive Vitamin A (Preformed Retinol)

However, even the Weston Price Foundation acknowledges that there are dangerous versions of cod liver oil out there, even from some highly reputable companies like Nordic Naturals, which produces a  cod liver oil that is clearly excessive in vitamin A as it only has 3 to 60 units of vitamin D per tablespoon but between 150 and 12,000 times as much vitamin A.

It’s a delicate balance.

Both vitamins are essential to obtain optimal health benefits, however, the ratios can become dangerously unbalanced -- much like the omega-3/omega-6 balance, which has become inversed in our modern diet.

Nearly all brands of cod liver oil provide a token amount of vitamin D, typically a mere 400 to 1,200 IU of vitamin D per tablespoon but anywhere between 4,000 to 30,000 IU of vitamin A. This is clearly inappropriate. About the lowest ratio I have seen is ten times as much vitamin A as vitamin D but, as I stated above, it can be as high as 12,000 times as much vitamin A.

First of all, this is clearly an insufficient amount of vitamin D for even the smallest child. This is in part due to the government recommendations, which are FAR too low to offer any health benefits; the recommended daily dosage being no more than 200 to 600 IU, depending on age. Meanwhile, researchers have since established that the therapeutic dosage is anywhere between 2,000 to 10,000 IU per day, depending on your weight and other factors, such as skin color and level of regular sun exposure. (Some people may require, and can safely take, as much as 20,000 IU daily.)

Consuming such high amounts of vitamin A as contained in cod liver oil and most multi-vitamins, while not getting nearly enough vitamin D, combined with the fact that most people are deficient in vitamin D to begin with, could potentially cause vitamin A to become toxic.

The concern Dr. Cannell and the other researchers have is that vitamin A in cod liver oil is excessive and actually antagonizes vitamin D by inhibiting the binding of its active form to DNA and thus preventing its ability to regulate the expression of vitamin D-responsive genes.

The Weston Price Foundation’s strong belief is that vitamin A is not at all toxic but is necessary for optimal vitamin D function. However they believe there is sufficient vitamin A in the diet of most Americans, especially if they are taking a multivitamin. In the third world this is not the case and they would likely benefit from vitamin A supplementation.

The Weston Price Foundation does not agree with Dr. Cannell’s conclusion that cod liver oil itself may cause vitamin A toxicity, however they also do not recommend taking any cod liver oil that is low in vitamin D. Yet even their recommendations, in my opinion have far too low amounts of vitamin D to be clinically useful. But more importantly it appears that the high amounts of vitamin A may limit the effectiveness of vitamin D even if more is taken in addition to that received in the cod liver oil.

Although it’s still unclear exactly what the balance should be, Dr. Cannell and most of the prominent expert researchers in this area believe that the ratios of these two essential nutrients likely should be reversed from those typically seen in cod liver oil, as you need far greater amounts of vitamin D as opposed to vitamin A.

After carefully reviewing the arguments on both sides of the issue I am convinced that Dr. Cannell’s approach is far more likely to be consistent with producing high levels of health and decreased illness.

My Revised Cod Liver Oil Recommendations

As the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency (which would benefit from cod liver oil) in the U. S. is much lower than the prevalence of subclinical vitamin A toxicity, while most everyone suffers from vitamin D deficiency, I no longer recommend taking cod liver oil for either adults or children.

You’re likely getting the vitamin A you need if you regularly consume fresh vegetables high in this nutrient, such as sweet potatoes, carrots, cantaloupe, and other colorful fruits and vegetables, and butter especially, if obtained from grass fed cows.

Although you can obtain Vitamin D from your diet, it is very difficult, and I believe it is very unnatural. It is my strong belief that we were designed to obtain virtually all of our vitamin D from exposing appropriate areas of our skin to sunshine. If this is not possible, the next best choice would be exposure to UVB rays from safe tanning beds, and if that is not possible then one should resort to a high quality vitamin D3 supplement.

As it stands, it is my strong belief that you’re simply not getting the appropriate balance of vitamin A to vitamin D from cod liver oil, which is why I believe it is best to avoid it.

Please note that this new recommendation does NOT apply to either fish oil or krill oil, as neither of them contain the vitamins A or D, but rather are excellent sources of essential omega-3 fats. EVERYONE still needs a regular high quality source of these absolutely essential and vital nutrients.

Another potential point of confusion is that beta carotene is not a concern, as that is PRE vitamin A. Your body will simply not over convert beta carotene to excessive levels of vitamin A. So taking beta carotene supplements is not going to interfere with vitamin D.

G. Sarravanan ND, CH, D.Nutr, D.MLD, Ad.HRM, Reiki Master, MATMS
Naturopathic Physician, Nutritionist & Hypnotherapist

Centre Of Integrated Medicine
www.cimed.com.sg, House Calls Only (24hrs Local & Overseas). Tel +65 9675 9420

Vitakids East West Naturopathic Centre (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday)
www.vitakids.biz, Paragon, 290 Orchard Rd, #05-47/48, Singapore 238859

Yahoo Group: groups.yahoo.com/group/Naturopaths/

G. Sarravanan ND, CH, D.Nutr, D.MLD, Ad.HRM, Reiki Master, MATMS
Naturopathic Physician, Nutritionist & Hypnotherapist

Centre Of Integrated Medicine
www.cimed.com.sg, House Calls Only (24hrs Local & Overseas). Tel +65 9675 9420

Vitakids East West Naturopathic Centre (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday)
www.vitakids.biz, Paragon, 290 Orchard Rd, #05-47/48, Singapore 238859

Yahoo Group: groups.yahoo.com/group/Naturopaths/

The dangers of microwaving food

G. Sarravanan ND, CH, D.Nutr, D.MLD, Ad.HRM, Reiki Master, MATMS
Naturopathic Physician, Nutritionist & Hypnotherapist

Centre Of Integrated Medicine
www.cimed.com.sg, House Calls Only (24hrs Local & Overseas). Tel +65 9675 9420

Vitakids East West Naturopathic Centre (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday)
www.vitakids.biz, Paragon, 290 Orchard Rd, #05-47/48, Singapore 238859

Yahoo Group: groups.yahoo.com/group/Naturopaths/

From: Velu <velu8@...>
Subject: [Naturopaths] Liver Cleanse & Gall Bladder Detox
To: "Naturopaths" <naturopaths@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 9:04 AM

Hi We are introducing a new program for a Liver and Gall Bladder Detox. Experience enhanced health and well being. Simple and safe methods and totally guided by a Naturopath. Call 9675 9420 and speak to Velu for more information. Thank you G. Sarravanan ND, CH, D.Nutr, D.MLD, Ad.HRM, Reiki Master, MATMS Naturopathic Physician, Nutritionist & Hypnotherapist Centre Of Integrated Medicine www.cimed.com. sg, House Calls Only (24hrs Local & Overseas). Tel +65 9675 9420 Vitakids East West Naturopathic Centre (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday) www.vitakids. biz, Paragon, 290 Orchard Rd, #05-47/48, Singapore 238859 Yahoo Group: groups.yahoo. com/group/ Naturopaths/

---

Yahoo! Toolbar is now powered with Search Assist. Download it now!

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

It is clear that feeding your baby artificial formula instead of breastfeeding triples their relative risk of death. A number of studies point to this fact. But now you have yet another brand new reason to be wary of feeding your baby manufactured, processed formula. In its usual pro-industry fashion, the FDA has taken the stance that trace amounts of melamine, an industrial chemical, WILL be allowed in infant formulas sold in the U.S., despite the fact that they have no idea whatsoever as to what the “safe” level might be (i.e. how much of this dangerous chemical a baby can consume without it causing terminal kidney damage from the formation of insoluble plastic “stones”). My guess is, it will require far less than they imagine. And I surely would not take the fact that the U.S. contamination was due to the manufacturing process rather than intentional dilution as reassurance that the contamination levels are safe. I’ve previously reported on the issue of melamine-tainted food products from China, and the potential health hazards of consuming this chemical. But there are still more questions than answers on this issue. I received much of the information below in an email from a reader in the U.K. There’s no telling where it originated (if the creator notifies me, I will gladly credit him or her for it), but I believe the information is valuable enough to share with everyone as it offers some practical guidance, and answers many common questions about this new health threat. Question: What is Melamine? Answer: It is an industrial chemical used in the production of melawares – a nearly indestructible, hard plastic. It’s also used in other household items like laminates and fertilizers. Question: Why is Melamine added to milk powder? Answer: The most important nutrient in milk is protein. Melamine mimics this protein, so adding inexpensive melamine into the milk reduces the actual milk content required while still making the product appear to have the correct level of nutrients. In a nutshell: it saves manufacturers lots of money. Below is a picture of melamine. Looks a lot like milk powder, doesn’t it? It does not have any taste or smell, so cannot be detected without proper testing for the chemical. Question: When was it discovered that it had been added to milk products? Answer: In 2007, melamine contaminated material labeled as wheat gluten and rice protein was shipped from Chinese manufacturers to pet food companies in the U.S. and elsewhere. Thousands of pets died from renal failure as a result. Early in 2008, Chinese hospitals reported an abnormal increase in infant cases of kidney stones. In August 2008, China Sanlu Milk Powder was tested and found to contain melamine. In September 2008, the New Zealand government asked China to investigate the problem, and by September 21, it was discovered that many food products in Taiwan also tested positive for melamine. Question: What happens when melamine is ingested? Answer: The melamine can form into insoluble melamine cyanurate crystals in your renal tubules, kidneys, ureter, urethra or urinary bladder. The following symptoms have been observed in infants affected by infant formula laced with high amounts of melamine: Unexplained fever arising from urinary tract infections Unexplained crying in infants, especially when urinating, possible vomiting Small amounts of blood in the urine Acute obstructive renal failure Pain on urinating, and passage of stones while urinating High blood pressure Edema Pain over the kidneys Although surgery can remove the stones, it can still cause irreversible kidney damage. The melamine stones can lead to the loss of kidney function, which may require kidney dialysis. It can also lead to death due to kidney failure. Question: Why is melamine much more dangerous for infants? Answer: A child’s kidneys are much smaller than those of an adult, and they consume much larger quantities of milk powder (if fed infant formula). Question: What foods should be avoided? Answer: Foods originating from China that contain dairy products should be avoided. Question: Which companies are affected? Answer: The companies listed beneath may carry certain products affected. So, What are the Safest Food Sources for Your Baby? The recurring problem of melamine-contaminated infant formula in various countries around the world is just one more powerful reason why you’ll want to avoid using commercial infant formulas. Without question, the single best food for a newborn is breast milk. However, if you're unable to breastfeed your baby, then I urge you to review my series on healthy alternatives to conventional formulas. Gerber -- which in many people's minds still go hand in hand with the image of "healthy baby” -- never was, and never will be, a real contender against breast milk or homemade baby food. And please, avoid the mistake of switching to a soy-based formula, as they are even worse, and should be avoided at all costs. It is my strong belief that these dangerous products should be immediately removed from the market and never be consumed by any child, for any reason.

G. Sarravanan ND, CH, D.Nutr, D.MLD, Ad.HRM, Reiki Master, MATMS
Naturopathic Physician, Nutritionist & Hypnotherapist

Centre Of Integrated Medicine
www.cimed.com.sg, House Calls Only (24hrs Local & Overseas). Tel +65 9675 9420

Vitakids East West Naturopathic Centre (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday)
www.vitakids.biz, Paragon, 290 Orchard Rd, #05-47/48, Singapore 238859

Yahoo Group: groups.yahoo.com/group/Naturopaths/

Earlier, members of various farmers groups drew the attention of the Minister to the various concerns related to GM crops and foods and the farmers presented him with a memorandum. The Minister, in his speech said, "When there are so many indigenous varieties of brinjal in each region of India, where is there a need to borrow this Bt Brinjal from other countries?".

The Health Minister's statement in this meeting is unsurprising given that PMK, his party, was the first political party to take a clear stand against GM crops in India. Further, Dr Anbumani Ramadoss is known for his progressive political stand on issues like tobacco and alcohol.

On December 4^th, a group of doctors from different streams of medicinal systems, including Dr R N Dutta the President of the Orissa Homeopathic Druggists Association, sought to meet with the Health Minister to express their serious concerns with regard to GM foods. They submitted a memorandum to the Minister pointing out that Genetic Engineering in our food and farming is inherently risky and irreversible and that decision-making in India is currently happening based on the crop developer's data without any independent research for assessing long term effects.

The Minister has also been receiving thousands of faxes from all over the country as part of the "I Am No Lab Rat" campaign launched by the Coalition for a GM-Free India and Hamara Beej Abhiyan. So far, more than 70000 Indians, including thousands from Orissa,  have endorsed a petition to the Health Minister saying that they refuse to become guinea pigs in this experimentation with GE foods.

Living Farms, Bhubaneswar, along with consumer, environmental, women's and organic farming groups from all over the country reacted by thanking the Minister for the progressive view he took on this matter, with his scientific background and for putting the interests and health of ordinary consumers of India at the centre of his policy with regard to GM crops and foods.

Living Farms, an organisation campaigning the introduction of GM crops including Bt Cotton into Orissa and the threat from the introduction of Bt Brinjal into the State since the last many years has welcomed the stance taken by the Union Health Minister and has thanked the people of Orissa for having actively participated in the "I AM NO LAB RAT" campaign. The organisation emphasised that the campaign will continue in order to create awareness about the various hazards of GM food..

"The fight is not yet over as Orissa is in the grip of large scale illegal cultivation of Bt Cotton and there has not been any declaration that the proposed field trials of Bt Brinjal in Orissa will be stopped. The threat therefore still remains as it is uncertain whether seed multinationals will stop their ongoing efforts to force Bt Brinjal and other genetically modified food crops into Orissa." "Just as Bt Cotton has entered Orissa illegally and with the full knowledge of the state administration what is the guarantee that other GM crops too will not enter into the state in the same fashion?"

Debjeet Sarangi, Jagannath Chatterjee

9938582616, 9337102146

Living Farms. 
--

G. Sarravanan ND, CH, D.Nutr, D.MLD, Ad.HRM, Reiki Master, MATMS
Naturopathic Physician, Nutritionist & Hypnotherapist

Centre Of Integrated Medicine
www.cimed.com.sg, House Calls Only (24hrs Local & Overseas). Tel +65 9675 9420

Vitakids East West Naturopathic Centre (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday)
www.vitakids.biz, Paragon, 290 Orchard Rd, #05-47/48, Singapore
 238859

Yahoo Group: groups.yahoo.com/group/Naturopaths/