Vi kan lese i media i disse dager: "Vitaminpiller virker ikke ", "Vitamintilskudd forkorter livet", "Vitaminpiller
forlenger ikke livet", "Vitaminpiller kan gi økt dødsrisiko". Dette
budskapet har sitt utgangspunkt i en fersk rapport fra Goran
Bjelakovic og The Cochrane Collaboration. Hva skal man si om det? Det
er tredje gang på få år at Bjelacovics produserer en slik misvisende
rapport, basert på de samme data. Ønsker man å forfekte det syn at
vitaminer er uten helseverdi - og dessuten farlige, er rapporten av
topp kvalitet. Men den er fullstendig misvisende.
Her
er et knippe norske nyheter, med utgangspunkt i rapporten. Hørt det
før? Senest på våren 2007? Da kom forrige rapport, basert på samme
data, og med samme skremmende konklusjon: Vitaminer er farlige, og har
ingen effekt på helsa.
2007-rapporten er grundig tilbakevist fra mange hold, slik også den først rapporten rundt 2004 er tilbakevist.
På samme måte kan det lett demonstreres at denne siste rapporten er biased,
som det heter: Resultatet fremkommer gjennom manipulering av dataene.
Man tar ut det man ikke vil ha, og får så den konklusjon man ønsker -
uansett virkeligheten.
Den
engelske bransjeorganisasjonen HFMA Health Food Manufacturers''
Association er provosert, og sier at studien er fundamentalt og
systematisk feilaktig.
"The
analysis focused on one broad category of study, then evaluated just 67
of the 748 studies that could be included in the review. Therefore, the
paper''s conclusions are drawn on less than 9% of available evidence.
In no way can this review be considered comprehensive."
Den uavhengige ernæringsterapeuten Dr Marilyn Glenville er like hardtslående:
"This
report needs to be taken with quite a large pinch of salt," sier hun,
"First, it''s a re-analysis of an old trial that came out last February
- and there was widespread criticism of it then - and secondly it''s
selective in what it reveals. For example, it ignored the 405 studies
where no deaths were reported and when it did look at the others it
included, it did not eliminate those that were completely unconnected -
accidents, car crashes, etc - so they could not be seen as relevant."
Det
britiske mattilsynet FSA, Food Standards Agency, hadde ikke da
artikkelen ble skrevet, sett studien og kom bare med sine sedvanlige
kommentar:
Folk flest kan få i seg det de trenger ved å spise en variert og balansert diett. Hvis forbrukerne velger å ta tilskudd, er det viktig at de er informert, og det kan være ønskelig å konsultere med en lege.
Hørt det før? Alt vitrenger,
er å spise en variert og balansert diett. Konsulter med legen din (som
i Norge har maksimalt tre dager ernæringslære i studiet sitt, ifølge
hva en nyutdannet lege opplyste Fritt Helsevalg i mars 2008.)
I
dag er det neppe praktisk mulig for en norsk forbruker å få i seg
tilstrekkelig av de nødvendige vitaminer, mineraler og sporstoffer som
behøves for optimal helse gjennom maten vi kjøper i butikkene våre.
Og
hvor mye trenger vi? Forskrift om kosttilskudd forteller oss hvor mye
politikerne gir oss tillatelse til å kjøpe (maksimal dose). Det antatte
behovet slik det fremsettes av matmyndighetene, er lavere enn dette.
Men det kan ikke være tvil om at for optimal helse behøves i mange tilfeller langt høyere doser.
Og
legen? Hvor mange leger kan i praksis gi deg råd om ernæring, for ikke
å snakke om å måle næringsstoffstatus i kroppen din? Er det rimelig å
søke råd om ernæring hos en profesjon som generelt - med hederlige
unntak - sier at ernæring og helse knapt henger sammen, og at vitaminer
og mineraler er farlige?
Alliance for Natural Health
Fritt
Helsevalg er medlem av Alliance for Natural health (ANH) av god grunn.
ANH er en av de få organisasjoner som Fritt helsevalg har kontakt med,
som virkelig tar til motmæle, og gjennom sitt motto "Good Science, Good
Law" arbeider aktivt for å motvirke angrepene fra
anti-kosttilskuddshold.
Nedenfor
gjengis ANHs pressemelding i sakens anledning. Vi skulle gjerne ha
oversatt den til norsk, men må bare medgi at vi ikke har kapasitet. Så
det blir engelsk, i hvert fall i første omgang.
Er
du enig i hva Fritt helsevalg sier, og ANH sier nedenfor, så støtt vårt
arbeid. Bli medlem i Fritt Helsevalg. Og gå til ANHs hjemmesider og
donér noen hundrelapper til deres arbeid.
Er
du innstilt på naturlig helse og helsefrihet, har du innsett at våre
hjemlige helse- og matmyndigheter ikke ivaretar dine interesser. Det er
nødvendig å handle selv. FHV og ANH er to muligheter.
Ring/e-mail også din stortingsrepresentant, og fortell hva du mener.
Selve Cochrane-rapporten -
"Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy
participants and patients with various diseases" av Bjelakovic G,
Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C - kan du få fra Fritt Helsevalg i pdf. Send oss en e-post.
Today
sees the release of yet another "study" led by Serbian scientist and
"visiting researcher" at Copenhagen University Hospital, Goran
Bjelakovic. His name is now synonymous with vitamin meta-analyses
(studies of other studies) which appear to show that vitamin
supplements either don't work or end up increasing your risk of death.
Two recent bursts of negative international headlines on vitamins
supplements (1 October 2004 and 28 February 2007) followed releases of
previous research papers (see asterisked articles in Reference list
below).
What consumers need to know and are not being told is:
1. This isn't new.
This is not a new study! It is a scientific rehash of the very same
data sets (barring one) that led to the previous negative studies - and
these methodologies tell us nothing about the way in which high quality
combinations of nutrient supplements work! For a previous critique on
why the methods used are irrelevant, see a detailed analysis by Dr
Steve Hickey, a member of the ANH Scientific Expert Committee:
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHwebsiteDoc_270.pdf
2. This isn't research.
This is a re-analysis of studies that have been conducted and reported
on previously, led by a man at a computer. In this case, a group of men
and women seemingly with a known axe to grind, who have never produced
a study favourable to nutrient supplementation, which is itself
statistically unlikely unless you have a bias.
3. This isn't meaningful.
When you select or reject studies on criteria that only mean something
to statisticians, and ignore important things like duration, how long
the study ran for - which ranged from 28 days to 14 years - your
findings are immediately meaningless. Even the huge difference in dose
of supplements between different studies - Vitamin E ranging from 10 to
5000 units daily, for instance - they didn't deem important.
4. This applies only to synthetic forms of vitamins (as produced by the pharmaceutical industry).
The authors of this latest Cochrane review state: "The present review
does not assess antioxidant supplements for treatment of specific
diseases (tertiary prevention), antioxidant supplements for patients
with demonstrated specific needs of antioxidants, or the effects of
antioxidants contained in fruits or vegetables." This shows that the
study has no relevance to natural sources of vitamins and minerals or
antioxidants sourced from plants (e.g. flavanoids, anthocyanins,
sulforaphanes, salvestrols/resveratrol, etc.),
which are included in many of the leading-edge natural health
supplements claiming potent antioxidant activity.
5. Natural vitamins and minerals are lifesavers.
There is extensive scientific evidence that higher intakes of vitamins
in the forms and combinations consumed in the diet substantially reduce
risk of killer diseases such as cancer and heart disease. In fact, it
is this research (some of which is referenced in the introduction to
both the JAMA and Cochrane papers) that has stimulated pharmaceutical
companies to undertake research on pharmaceutical-grade, synthetic
forms of supplements, which they manufacture. There are good reasons
why this pharma-sponsored research has generally yielded disappointing
results. These reasons have been considered in many previous rebuttals.
See also:
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHwebsiteDoc_231.pdf
6. Over the top on synthetics!
The studies included in the latest meta-analysis rely on very high
dosages of pharmaceutical-grade, synthetic forms of supplements
manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry. The dosages used are
typically much greater than those recommended on the labels of food or
dietary supplement products. In most countries, the dosages used in the
trials would be considered ‘medicinal' by regulatory authorities and
therefore would not legally be allowed for food or dietary supplements.
7. Two bites at the cherry.
The anti-vitamin lobby has managed to benefit, yet again, from more
anti-vitamin headlines, just by republishing the same study on previous
studies - again! Bjelakovic's latest assault, published today through
the Cochrane Review system, is more or less a dead ringer for a paper
by the very same authors, published last year (28 February 2007) in the
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Extensive
international media followed the 2007 JAMA paper, including a front
page article in the Times newspaper, which told consumers that vitamin
pills could cause early death. Today's Cochrane review relies on 67
studies rather than the 68 used in the JAMA paper. In evaluating
studies for inclusion, the authors omitted a massive 405 potentially
eligible studies BECAUSE there were no deaths in the studies!! Another
69 studies were excluded because they weren't randomised controlled
trials! Most of the trials used pertain to already sick people being
given very high dose, synthetic, isolated nutrients for relatively
short periods - they therefore have no relevance to the vast majority
of vitamin consumers!
Vitamin consumers are smart
The
authors, the editorial boards of the journals that so readily
accommodate the papers, as well as the media which then spin the
findings, appear unable to bear the thought that consumers know what
they are doing.
They
forget the power of experience and observation, and that so many people
taking these products have experienced startling, positive results. If
you read a headline in a newspaper relaying some anti-vitamin hype from
an anti-supplement research group in Denmark and you, and your friends
and family around you, have all experienced positive results with
supplements, would you stop taking your supplements?
Have
they forgotten the significance of the countless findings from
observational and epidemiological studies, which demonstrate strong
correlations between high intakes of natural sources of nutrients and
substantially reduced risks of chronic disease?
Do
they not realise that their failure to duplicate these results with
synthetic vitamins might be more down to the differences between
natural and synthetic, as well as the non-applicability of their
methods, rather than the fact that their meta-analyses have now
disproven what has been observed scientifically over decades?!
They
forget, it seems, that most people are already, or are fast becoming,
disillusioned with evidence-based medicine (EBM), which is now
generally agreed, scientifically, to be the third or fourth leading
cause of death in western societies.
‘Evidence-based medicine' is becoming irrelevant
It
seems also that more and more people no longer wish to worship at the
altar of EBM, the most important component of which is the randomised
clinical trial (RCT). RCTs, the gold standard for EBM, fail, for
reasons that are becoming increasingly clear, to amply demonstrate or
help elucidate the complex responses that humans show when they choose
to engage in natural systems of healthcare.
Science
is able to answer many questions, but not when its tools are used
either by those with narrowed minds or those with an insatiable desire
to control healthcare through the use of patented drugs based on
new-to-nature molecules.
Cochrane - what are you playing at?
It
has to be asked what the Cochrane Collaboration is doing, allowing,
endorsing and indeed promoting unscientific, invalid rehashes such as
this. They did it for Bjelakovic's 2004 paper in the Lancet, and
they've done it again for his 2007 paper in JAMA. Might they now be
under the influence of the most potent force in orthodox healthcare -
the drug companies? You may recall that Cochrane were supposed to be
the only guys you really could trust....
REFERENCES
**Bjelakovic
G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Mortality in randomized
trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention:
systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2007 Feb 28; 297(8):842-57.
Review.
Bjelakovic
G, Nagorni A, Nikolova D, Simonetti RG, Bjelakovic M, Gluud C.
Meta-analysis: antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary
prevention of colorectal adenoma. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Jul
15;24(2):281-91. Review.
Bjelakovic
G, Nikolova D, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Antioxidant supplements for
preventing gastrointestinal cancers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004
Oct 18;(4):CD004183. Review.
*Bjelakovic
G, Nikolova D, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Antioxidant supplements for
prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Lancet. 2004 Oct 2-8;364(9441):1219-28. Review.
** Paper on which latest Cochrane review is based; negative findings created wide media interest
* Paper which created extensive media interest and formed basis of Cochrane review published in the same month.
Selve Cochrane-rapporten -
"Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy
participants and patients with various diseases" av Bjelakovic G,
Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C - kan du få fra Fritt Helsevalg i pdf. Send oss en e-post.
... the best single source of reliable evidence about the effects of health care
Kilde: FrittHelsevalg.org
NetworkMarketing.no sin kommentar:
Denne artikkelen bør spres mest mulig. Alle som driver med network marketing kjenner forhåpentligvis til kraften av anbefalning og "word of moth." Dette er løsningen, løsningen ligger i å informere befolkningen om fakta bak det som feilaktig uttales i media. Fordi det er skremmende nytt Her kan vi alle gjøre mye. Om du vil beholde din frie helse og kjempe for at det er befolkningen(deg selv) som skal styre hva de(du) putter i seg, ikke en grådig industri. Ja, da er du nødt til å tipse andre om artikler som dette. Dette sier vi ikke for å få flere lesere, men fordi dette emnet er ekstremt viktig for våre generasjoners helse. Mennesker der ute er forvirret, derfor går de fremdeles i sine gamle vanemønstre som uten at de aner det fører dem nærmere avgrunnen enn de vil like å vite. Du kan utgjøre en enorm forskjell ved å spre den rette fakta til massene slik at hver enkelt selv kan bestemme. Vi kan ikke bestemme for noen, men vi kan opplyse dem, og de får muligheten til å gjøre endringene selv. Om det så er kun å prate med de du møter så vil du sakte men sikkert bidra til å opplyse og endre vektskålen som desværre har vært altfor skjev altfor lenge. Vær også beredt på å promotere underskriftskampanjer for å kunne påvirke endringer i lovverket som vil bidra til at rett næring og tilskudd blir mer tilgjengelig for almennheten. VI vil ikke at mennesker skal være syke for å opprettholde omsetningen til legemiddel industrien(og andre industrier). Her må vi selv sørge for å ta vare på oss selv. VÆR BEVISST!!
Du kan tipse oss om du har utdypende informasjon eller andre helsemrelaterte emner:
MVH
NetworkMarketing.no
