There are serious flaws with a “major new study” on cancer risks for those who take vitamins.
- First, this is the old rehash of synthetic versus natural vitamins. They are not the same and thus risks/benefits are also not equally the same. This is from the same medical industry that sees no difference between progesterone and medroxyprogesterone acetate (provera).
- Second, the majority of the studies reviewed in this “major new study” involved individuals never tested for vitamin need prior to initiation of vitamin therapy. What was the vitamin need to begin with? Where vitamins even necessary? The majority of studies on vitamins have not tested vitamin need prior to initiation of therapy, nor have they then followed vitamin levels during/after therapy to see if the therapy is even increasing levels. Without following levels how can one conclude that the vitamin is the cause? A presumption does not make a conclusion.
- Third, since when was one person’s meta-analysis a “major new study”. I didn’t realize all the “major new studies” I have—I better get to work.
- Fourth, though the risk is likely real with synthetic vitamins, the risk is small and pales in comparison to lets say sugar, which is available and used in massively larger amounts daily when compared to synthetic vitamins i.e. 19% increase in prostate cancer with synthetic vitamin E compared to 57% increase in breast cancer with a high glycemic index diet and and 153% increase in breast cancer with a high glycemic load.
This rehash and small impact more points to an agenda in this “major new study”, rather than real new evidence of risk and hides from the real driving forces behind cancer–diet. After all, it was a 2012 “major new study” that stated: “Fraud and misconduct in clinical research is widespread“. In fact, fraud in research has increased dramatically and is the cause of 43% of study redactions. This may give the impression that I have a problem with medical research. Actually, the opposite is true. I love research and the debate of research. What I don’t like is an agenda supported by faulty research and statistics. Let’s be honest, everyone has an agenda, but is that agenda supported by solid research, solid statistics, and full truth disclosure. An agenda is simply a purpose. A purpose founded in truth is supported by solid research, solid statistics, and full disclosure. In contrast, a purpose founded in poor research, poor statistics, and half-truths is not solid and will fail. It was Benjamin Disraeli that said “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damed lies, and statistics.”
Oh, by the way, “major new study” has found that to much broccoli, brussel sprouts, and other vegetable intake will increase cancer risk (sarcasm). Remember, vegetables are packed full of those deadly vitamins. Who knew we grew these cancer sticks right in our own gardens?