http://www.royalrife.com/0805.html Nutrispec Logo




THE NUTRI-SPEC LETTER

Volume 16, Number 8




From:
Guy R. Schenker, D.C.
August, 2005

Dear Doctor,

A VOLCANO OF FUSSING AND FUMING HAS ERUPTED...

in response to the study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association purporting to show that vitamin E has no protective effect against cardiovascular disease, and may indeed increase the incidence of heart failure. My response to this JAMA article should be ...

HA HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE!

For reasons I will expand upon below, this article is a perfect example of:

     Regrettably, the garbage published in JAMA cannot be laughed off. It is taken seriously by every medical physician who reads it; it thus has serious implications for the millions of patients who trust the advice of those doctors. Furthermore, this particular study received so much publicity in the lay media, that zillions of people, including your patients, my patients, and many NUTRI-SPEC practitioners are buzzing with the news --- “Did you hear that Vitamin E can damage your heart?!” Such a premeditated, dishonest propaganda blitz is no laughing matter.

     A quick summary, in case you are not familiar with the study: The researchers took thousands of people with either advanced vascular disease or diabetes, and divided them into two groups, one receiving 400 IU of alpha tocopheryl acetate, and one receiving a placebo. After 5-7 years there was less than a 1% difference between the two groups in incidence of cancer, cancer death, and major cardiovascular events. These small differences were not statistically significant. However, in just one subcategory of cardiovascular disease, hospitalizations for heart failure, there were a few percent more hospitalizations among the vitamin E group than the control group. This difference was statistically significant.

     Eureka! The medical/pharmaceutical establishment now had its headline: “Vitamin E supplementation may increase the risk for heart failure!” That headline is all millions of Americans heard; yet they were immediately convinced that vitamin E is a potential killer, and that anyone who recommends Vitamin E supplementation is an irresponsible ignoramus. Thousands of physicians skimmed through the study and then read the accompanying editorial in the same issue of JAMA, which proclaimed definitively that, “This report effectively closes the door on the prospect of a major protective effect of long term exposure to this supplement.”

     Again, I’d like to say, “Ha Ha Ha Ha Hee Hee Hee,” in response to such yellow journalism, but since such deceit puts at risk the health of our patients, as well as our income from providing legitimate scientific-based clinical nutrition, we must take it seriously. In other words, we must be able to refute for the benefit of our patients the bogus conclusions drawn from this research. Here are the points of debate you must understand:

     What this study did show is that the average Joe with cardiovascular disease or diabetes who thinks he is going to pick up 400 IU’s of vitamin E at the health food store to protect himself from a heart attack is playing a fool’s game. While at the health food store, the same guy picks up zinc to protect his prostate, and vitamin C to prevent colds. As NUTRI-SPEC practitioners we are well aware that there are countless thousands of such individuals lost in the pursuit of ...

DISEASE-SPECIFIC NUTRITION.

     Indeed, they are the primary reason why NUTRI-SPEC exists --- to help those in pursuit of healthful nutrition achieve the benefits they seek through scientific, patient-specific nutrition.

     As a NUTRI-SPEC practitioner, are you surprised that supplementing only with 400 IU’s of vitamin E will not do a thing to protect those with diabetes and cardiovascular disease? We know quite well that single nutrient supplementation can never adequately address the causes of disease. Do those with cardiovascular disease and diabetes suffer their conditions because and only because of a vitamin E deficiency? Of course not.

     Furthermore, we NUTRI-SPEC practitioners know that single nutrient supplementation can actually exacerbate existing metabolic imbalances in a particular patient. Specifically, vitamin E taken as a single nutrient supplement can exacerbate an anaerobic metabolic imbalance. There is only one way to consistently help patients nutritionally, and that is to reverse the metabolic imbalances underlying whatever health problems they have. --- And the only way to achieve that is with an objective testing system to evaluate the patient-specific needs of that individual. So yes, this piece of medical/pharmaceutical propaganda in JAMA successfully (and properly) refutes the natural food industry propaganda that has victimized so many health food store shoppers as well as alternative health care practitioners.

     You may realize that as a NUTRI-SPEC practitioner you are constantly engaged in a war on two fronts. On one hand you are doing battle with the charlatans of the health food industry that have won over millions of people with promises of health, youth, and vitality, all the while taking their money for pills and potions that actually make them weaker and sicker. On the other battle front you are defending yourself and your patients against the equally dishonest and unscientific claims of the medical/pharmaceutical establishment doing everything in its power to suppress the good news about the amazing health benefits to be derived from nutrition supplementation. You see, the two evil propaganda machines that you are fighting are also at war with each other. This JAMA study is just one more battle in their war to control the minds and money of the public. We, and through us our patients, must understand the two opposing forces in that war, and, that we involved with NUTRI-SPEC are a separate and distinct third entity --- the seekers of truth.

     The most important point you must make in refuting this vitamin E study to your patients is that this is a perfect example of junk science. This study exemplifies the easiest and most pervasive way that scientists cheat in their research. It is also the form of scientific dishonesty most difficult for the lay person to detect, since it involves an error of omission, not an error of commission. Specifically I am talking about a research study, such as this vitamin E study, that includes ...

WOEFULLY INADEQUATE CONTROLS.

For this piece of research to be valid, the vitamin E group and the control group would need to have been meticulously matched for every conceivable variable; they were not. Let me explain.

     All the many and varied health benefits from vitamin E derive from its one primary function --- protecting against lipid peroxidation. In an epidemiological study such as this one, it is virtually impossible to match the test group and control group for all the factors that promote lipid peroxidation. The thousands of people participating in this study were from communities all over the world. Is it not conceivable that some of these communities consumed many times as much polyunsaturated oil as others? If the test and control groups were not specifically divided equally among PUFA eaters and non-PUFA eaters, then the study is invalid. If per chance the vitamin E group in this study consumed more vegetable oils than the control group, their 400 IU’s of vitamin E would have been consumed very quickly, leaving them at risk for the many consequences of vitamin E deficiency, including heart failure. That same reasoning applies to countless other factors that would affect the rate of lipid peroxidation and thus the need for vitamin E.

     One interesting aspect of this study, and one that proves that it was a premeditated anti-vitamin E propaganda piece, is that the researchers did look at proper controls for their test and control groups, and actually published a study derived from the same epidemiological experiment in a different journal. Lonn, et al, Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil, Feb, 05, published data from the same experiment in which they looked carefully at the effect of smoking on cardiovascular health among the thousands of people in both the control and vitamin E group. In other words, the researchers are well aware that there are factors such as smoking that can skew the results of their data, yet for the over-all study in JAMA, they lumped all the people together. Anyway, their work showed that after 5-7 years, smokers had 65% higher than average incidence of cardiovascular death. 65% in only 5-7 years! Compare this with the few percent barely statistically significant difference between the vitamin E group and the non-vitamin E group. Do you see that if even just a few more smokers were in the vitamin E group than in the test group the data published in JAMA is totally invalid?

     If you are beginning to see the blatant dishonesty of this study, then look a little closer --- it gets much worse! You see, this JAMA report made it appear as if this study was in its entirety a study on vitamin E --- give the test group vitamin E and the control group a placebo, watch for 5-7 years and see how both groups do with respect to cancer and cardiovascular disease. As it turns out, this study was not even primarily about vitamin E, but about Ramapril, an ACE inhibitor. The test group was not given vitamin E, but rather was given vitamin E and the ACE inhibitor. This same study lead by Lonn, et al, was written up in several medical journals in which the details of the research design were given. These journals include Diabetes Care, November 02, and Circulation, Feb 01. If you ever had any doubt about how underhanded the JAMA could be, now you know. Deliberately misrepresenting epidemiological research as a vitamin E study without even mentioning that it was primarily a study on ACE inhibitors, and accompanying that misrepresentation with an editorial officially claiming the door closed on the notion of protective effects from vitamin E, is the most despicable form of deceit. Lies told from high on the ivory tower tend to be beyond refutation by the masses.

     So, now that you know you have been lied to by the medical/pharmaceutical establishment (abetted by its loyal accomplices in the lay media) what do you do? Your course of action is simple and direct --- now that you know the truth you can indeed say, “Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Hee, Hee, Hee.” You now have the power to use this Letter to reassure your patients that you are on top of the clinical nutrition scene, and invulnerable to the propaganda of the evil empire. Your patients can feel secure in your protection. You are also prepared to defend yourself against any of the medical professionals that have been duped by the propaganda machine. [I find it amusing to contemplate how cardiologists are responding to the JAMA lies. I saw a study not long ago showing that more than half of all cardiologists take vitamin E specifically because they believe it protects the heart. Has their faith in disease-specific nutrition been shaken? Have they cleansed themselves of the vile vitamin E as they bow to the JAMA god, begging for forgiveness?]

     In the final analysis (once your patients are assured that you are aligned with the truth) the important question is ...

WHAT IS THE CONNECTION, IF ANY,
BETWEEN VITMAIN E AND
PROTECTION FROM CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE?

     The truth about vitamin E is that its antioxidant activity can be every bit as powerful a protector of the cardiovascular system as the medical/ pharmaceutical establishment feared. That is why they had to attack it so aggressively. Do even the most superficial Medline search of vitamin E, and with just a few clicks of the mouse you will find countless dozens of studies showing that even a fragmented antioxidant such as alpha tocopheryl acetate will:

     And that is just piddly little alpha tocopheryl acetate.

IF YOU WANT TO TALK SERIOUS ANTIOXIDANTS ...

then look at your NUTRI-SPEC Oxy Power. There you will find not alpha tocopheryl acetate but real alpha tocopherol, along with all the other tocopherols, along with all the tocotrienols (which are far more powerful even than the tocopherols). Yes, you as a NUTRI-SPEC practitioner are offering your patients, as part of a total, scientific, patient-specific nutrition plan, a product that is by far ...

THE MOST POWERFUL ANTIOXIDANT
AVAILABLE ANYWHERE.

     Tell every cardiologist you know to trade in his alpha tocopheryl acetate for Oxy Power. Above all, continue to protect your patients with --- THE TRUTH.

 

Sincerely,
Guy R. Schenker, D.C.

Next

Nutri-Spec Letters

Index