Look at this
 

http://news.yahoo.com/vitamins-may-i...212402256.html


comments???

Mel

I don't know what to believe....
 

Personally....I smell a rat. We all know that a healthy diet is important but they cannot even agree on what a "healthy diet" is. Layer that with how our food is grown and processed, it's not what our grandparent ate. Genetically modified, corn/grain fed cattle and poultry, antibiotics, growth hormones, etc. Our environment has been so compromised and we are exposed to more toxins than ever before.

Only thing this study took into account was the age and weight of the person. We all know there are so many other factors involved.

I agree.

Of course, overdosing on supplements can cause problems but, IMHO, if they want to spend research dollars I believe they could find a much more responsible way to do it. :rolleyes:

This is propaganda! 2.9% ?.... at least that is less than the infamous Vit E story that came out a few years ago.

The last part of that story, reveals the intent of the article...
It is about CONTROL and government regulation. The new bill coming perhaps, is the target.

How studies are run, is very important. The drug companies know this and massage their data using mathematical tricks to make their drugs look better than they really are. They choose subjects with very poor placebo responses, (high placebo responses are common), and also pick subjects likely to respond favorably. They hide damaging data. The ADHD studies using stimulants and strong drugs in children are examples. One doctor formerly from CHADD, made public how he was censored by a drug company for telling the truth in one study. It was quite a scandal at the time. Scandals have been reported around Zyprexa (one doctor shredded his data on test subjects who DIED during early studies) and Luvox doctor was discovered after the fact to have falsified his data too. Oh and let's not forget the doctor in Calif who falsified all the data on Pfizer drug Celebrex for post operative pain....and recently the doctor employed by CDC in the Netherlands who falsified all the vaccine data (claiming no harm) to children who developed autism.
Drugs (approved by the FDA BTW) in this country are the 4th leading cause of death --errors and misuse.

So it is not surprising that "studies" don't move as many as they once did!

There are many people eating a "healthy diet" or so they think...who may have malabsorption in the intestine, or genetic errors preventing use of some vitamins due to poor conversion: called MTHFR polymorphism. There are several drugs commonly used today (most OTC now) that CAUSE malasorption of B12-- all the acid blockers! Do we ignore that? Also if people follow medical advice about sun exposure which appears EVERYWHERE now, they will have no Vit D to speak of! Supplements are the only way to get it these days!

[RANT] :ranting:
OMG, don't get me started. I can't tell if there are too many things wrong with the article, the study, or both (my guess would be the last).

The first question that springs to mind is who are these women and why are they taking supplements to begin with? Common sense suggests that people who take supplements take them because (they at least believe/feel) that there is a reason to - i.e they have some health issue, or are concerned about one. People who don't take any supplements don't because they don't believe/feel any need to - they feel fine and are perfectly healthy. Extrapolation: People who have something wrong with them have an increased risk of death vs. healthy people. :eek:

I could go on, but even the article points out the common sense of moderation & need vs. excess.

Like mrsD, the other thing that jumped out at me was tucked away at the very bottom of the article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHjbNzJ5R-8

This is their conclusion immediately after proclaiming:
So, is it safe products or the amounts taken, and how are bureaucrats more qualified to determine product safety and safe dosages than nutritionists, doctors, and scientists?

This one goes right up (or down) there with 2009's "report" claiming women in their 40s should no longer get mammograms
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-16/h...e?_s=PM:HEALTH
and this week's more recent "report" (by the same Task Force of mental giants) claiming that screening men for prostate cancer is more dangerous than not screening them.
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/2011...againstpsatest

[/RANT]

Doc (whose panel of esteemed colleagues all agree unanimously)

I love your panel of "experts" DocSmith! :ROTFLMAO:

Here Here

to Dr. Smith and Mrs. D

And in my case, I do not take any multi vitamins. Don't know why, I just don't. I take my B-12 and my Vitamin E and my Cranberry pills and my Malic Acid, and whatever else I'm doing well, I must be doing SOMETHING right because I'm alive and kicking and I just cut my blood pressure med in half (with my doc's approval).

I did not feel right on the 20 of the Lisinopril.

Well, WHAT A DIFFERENCE.

I feel like my old self again.

I really don't know why I need to be on any blood pressure meds at all. (I mean NOW)

Years ago, when I was really obese they put me on this medicine. Took 10 mg for YEARS. Went to Cornell and they have different standards. They like it when the blood pressure reading is 100 over 59. I mean I felt fine but when I said "gosh, that's low", they disagreed and said "no, that's perfect"

So after the ACCORD study was over (and they did stop the water pill part of the lisinopril), I remained on 20 of the med.

Well, for whatever reason, for about 2 months I did not feel like myself.
With my doctor's okay, I halved the pill.

My god, what a difference.

I was told by previous doctors that this medicine helps the kidneys in diabetics. After having blood work taken, my kidneys are functioning perfectly. Does that mean at my age (64 in a few weeks) I have to be taking this med for the rest of my life? To protect my kidneys?

The reason I ask is that whenever I go to the doctor I have NEVER had him say "wow, your pressure is high"

Not since I had toxemia during a pregnancy when I was 32 and they gave me every med under the sun and finally did a C section.

So I've been on this med since age 26 or so.

I wonder if a person can ever GO OFF of blood pressure med (especially if one is a diabetic?)

I will discuss this with my doctor at my next visit. 2 months or so. But I always seen him when I go with Alan for his visit. So I will have a chance to bring it up sooner.

Melody

I think I recognized my own doctor in there! :D

Lisinopril does not exactly "protect" the kidneys. It is helpful, in that lowering blood pressure, helps the kidneys.

But Lisinopril is dependent on good kidney function for clearance from the body, because it is NOT metabolized away by the liver.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/12...dney-function/

Notice the dichotomy of having increased serum creatinine on Lisinopril...? I think that these actions are not well understood and remain confusing.

What lisinopril DOES do is enter the brain easily via the blood brain barrier, and it is thought it protects against inflammation that increases risk of Alzheimer's. This too, is only a theory... but has been published. You can find it on the net.