wallace FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 27, 2007
23 YEARS OF DOCUMENTED VITAMIN SAFETY (OMNS, Feb 27, 2007) Over a twenty-three year period, vitamins have been connected with the deaths of a total of ten people in the United States. Poison control statistics confirm that more Americans die each year from eating soap than from taking vitamins.
Where are the bodies? A 23-year review of US poison control center annual reports (1) tells a remarkable and largely ignored story: vitamins are extraordinarily safe.
Annual deaths alleged from vitamins:
2005: zero 2004: two 2003: two 2002: one 2001: zero 2000: zero 1999: zero 1998: zero 1997: zero 1996: zero 1995: zero 1994: zero 1993: one 1992: zero 1991: two 1990: one 1989: zero 1988: zero 1987: one 1986: zero 1985: zero 1984: zero 1983: zero
The zeros are not due to a lack of reporting. The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), which maintains the USA's national database of information from 61 poison control centers, has noted that vitamins are among the 16 most reported substances. Even including intentional and accidental misuse, the number of alleged vitamin fatalities is strikingly low, averaging less than one death per year for more than two decades. In 16 of those 23 years, AAPCC reports that there was not one single death due to vitamins.
These statistics specifically include vitamin A, niacin (B-3), pyridoxine (B-6), other B-complex, C, D, E, "other" vitamin(s), such as vitamin K, and multiple vitamins without iron. Minerals, which are chemically and nutritionally different from vitamins, have an excellent safety record as well, but not quite as good as vitamins. On the average, one or two fatalities per year are typically attributed to iron poisoning from gross overdosing on supplemental iron. Deaths attributed to other supplemental minerals are very rare. Even iron, although not as safe as vitamins, accounts for fewer deaths than do laundry and dishwashing detergents.
References:
1. Annual Reports of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poisoning and Exposure Database (formerly known as the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System). AAPCC, 3201 New Mexico Avenue, Ste. 330, Washington, DC 20016. Download any report from1983-2005 at http://www.aapcc.org/annual.htm free of charge. The "Vitamin" category is usually near the end of the report.
Nutritional Medicine is also known as Orthomolecular Medicine
Linus Pauling defined orthomolecular medicine as "the treatment of disease by the provision of the optimum molecular environment, especially the optimum concentrations of substances normally present in the human body." Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board:
Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D. Harold D. Foster, Ph.D. Bradford Weeks, M.D. Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. Erik Paterson, M.D. Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. Steve Hickey, Ph.D.
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Editor and contact person. Email: [email protected]
posted
Can you believe the latest "research" that showed that men who took "too many vitamins" were at greater risk for prostate cancer??!!
They are trying SO HARD to make us be afraid of VITAMINS!!!!!
now, I agree that our vitamins should come in the form of natural foods or drinks....but come on!!
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96239 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
JimBoB
Unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lymetoo: Can you believe the latest "research" that showed that men who took "too many vitamins" were at greater risk for prostate cancer??!!
They are trying SO HARD to make us be afraid of VITAMINS!!!!!
now, I agree that our vitamins should come in the form of natural foods or drinks....but come on!!
Or at least should be "natural" vitamins, not the artificial ones.
Boomerang
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7979
posted
Well, I'm not going to join this argument. I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment. I do know that when the home health nurse came, and looked at the supplements my hubby was taking.....she was very impressed. She said they were all very necessary.
She said if he hadn't been taking them, he would probably be much sicker. She's been a nurse for 30 years.
She knew a lot about Lyme, because one of her nurses had it.
She was a big believer in supplements and helping the body heal.
Just what I've heard lately.
Posts: 1366 | From Southeast | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have just taken 100,000iu of vitamin D and 300,000iu vit A via cod liver oil capsules. Am I dead hardly!
People need to realise its the pharma who are spreading these stories about toxicity! Just listen to your body and do your own research!
I agree natural vitamins are best.
Doctoryourself.com is not trying to sell you anything!
From the D article quoted above:
DEFICIENCY AND DIVERSITY: A SUMMARY
Vitamin D deficiency is cause or contributor to a wide variety of diseases, many of which appear unrelated to bone problems. So important is this vitamin for the entire population that it is necessary for milk to be enriched with it. Most persons do not get adequate vitamin D from sunlight, and the problem compounded for the obese and for the elderly. For those individuals, and for any person on any of a number of commonly prescribed medications, vitamin D supplementation is mandatory.
Government recommended dietary intakes of 200 to 600 IU/day are too low, according to the weight of clinical evidence. Government "tolerable" or "safe upper intake levels" (UL) of 1,000 to 2,000 IU/day are likewise too low, and largely unsupported by toxicological evidence. An optimum health recommendation of 1,000 to 4,000 IU/day, in total from all sources, is not unreasonable for the vast majority of healthy adults. Effective therapeutic levels for illness may be far higher. When high doses are used, appropriate testing and monitoring is recommended. It would be unreasonable to deny a therapeutic trial of vitamin D in cases of multiple sclerosis, scleroderma, psoriasis, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and various forms of cancer.
Excessive avoidance of sunlight, and sensational but unscientific dread of relatively high-dose vitamin D side effects does more than merely set the stage for a population of rickety children and fracture-ridden elderly. Overestimates and outright misstatements of vitamin D's "potential toxicity" open new marketing avenues for the development of vitamin D-like drugs, a commercial opportunity that the pharmaceutical industry has not overlooked.
ON DANGERS AND DOSAGE: A CONCLUDING COMMENT
Hypervitaminosis articles are popular with the media, sometimes even making it into the pages of the Wall Street Journal. On April 30, 1992, David Stipp reported that between 1990 and 1992, "a series of patients with vitamin D overdoses began turning up at Boston hospitals." One of these patients subsequently died from drug complications, and the case went to court. (82) "Essentially, this was a product liability action against the producer of dairy products, specifically milk which contained excessive amounts of Vitamin D. The plaintiff's decedent purportedly suffered from elevated levels of Vitamin D in her bloodstream which required medication which in turn allegedly compromised her immune system, leading to her death." (83) This is the one and only vitamin D-related death I could find confirmation of anywhere, and even this one was not directly due to the vitamin, but rather to side effects of medication.
A physiology textbook later stated that "At least 19 cases of vitamin D toxicity were reported in the Boston area during 1992. Symptoms included fatigue, weight loss, and potentially severe damage to the kidneys and cardiovascular system. The problems resulted from drinking milk fortified with vitamin D. Due to problems at one dairy, some of the milk sold had over 230,000 units of vitamin D per quart instead of the usual 400 units per quart. The incident highlighted the need for quality control in the production, and care in the consumption, of vitamin supplements." (84)
Such a conclusion is inaccurate. The incident might just as well be taken to be an unintentional proof of vitamin safety, even in ridiculously high overdosage situations. It is certainly noteworthy that 580 times the normal amount of vitamin D produced, at most, one alleged fatality over a two-year period. Furthermore, there was a total of fewer than two dozen toxicity reports, for the entire Boston metropolitan area, after large numbers of people had been ingesting close to a quarter of a million units of vitamin D per liter of milk day after day, month after month, for up to two years. This borders on the extraordinary. Events such as this demonstrate that the margin for error with vitamin D is very large indeed. Though the news reported about the vitamin's toxicity, the real story was the vitamin's safety. The scientific literature confirms the vitamin's value.
References cited:
1. Freinkel S. The healing vitamin. Reader's Digest. June, 2003.
posted
The bigger your deficiency the more of the vitamin you need to take.
Wallace
From doctoryourself.com
Home
TESTIMONY by Andrew W. Saul before the Government of Canada, House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, regarding natural health product safety (Ottawa, May 12, 2005).
VITAMINS AND FOOD SUPPLEMENTS: SAFE AND EFFECTIVE
by Andrew W. Saul
(Andrew W. Saul has taught clinical nutrition for New York Chiropractic College, and taught health science and biology for the State University of New York for nine years. The author of three nutrition books, Saul is also Contributing Editor for the Toronto-based Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.)
OVERVIEW
Natural health products, such as amino acids, herbs, vitamins and other nutritional supplements, have an extraordinarily safe usage history. In the USA, close to half of the population takes herbal or nutritional supplements every day. That is over 145,000,000 individual doses daily, for a total of over 53 billion doses annually.
The most elementary of forensic arguments is, where are the bodies?
To try to answer this question, we may turn to the 2003 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposures Surveillance System, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 5, September 2004. (http://www.aapcc.org/Annual%20Reports/03report/Annual%20Report%202003.pdf)
This report states that there have been four deaths attributed to vitamin/mineral supplements in the year 2003. Two of those deaths were due to iron poisoning. That means there have been two deaths allegedly caused by vitamins, out of over 53 billion doses. That is a product safety record without equal.
Pharmaceutical drugs, on the other hand, caused over 2,000 poison control-reported deaths, including
Antibiotics: 13 deaths
Antidepressants: 274 deaths
Antihistamines: 64 deaths
Cardiovascular drugs: 162 deaths
It would be incorrect to state that only prescription drugs kill people. In 2003, there were 59 deaths from aspirin alone. That is a death rate nearly thirty times higher than that of iron supplements. Furthermore, there were still more deaths from aspirin in combination with other products.
Fatalities are by no means limited to drug products. In the USA in the year 2003, there was a death from "Cream/lotion/makeup," a death from "Granular laundry detergent," one death from "Gun bluing," one death from plain soap, one death from baking soda, and one death from table salt.
Other deaths reported by the American Association of Poison Control Centers included:
aerosol air fresheners: 2 deaths
nailpolish remover: 2 deaths
perfume/cologne/aftershave: 2 deaths
charcoal: 3 deaths
dishwashing detergent: 3 deaths
(and interestingly, weapons of mass destruction: 0 deaths)
In America in 2003, there were 28 deaths from heroin, and yet acetaminophen ("Tylenol") alone killed 147. Though acetaminophen killed over five times as many, few would say that we should make this generally-regarded-as-safe, over-the-counter pain reliever require prescription. Even caffeine killed two people in 2003, a number equal to the two fatalities attributed to non-iron vitamin/mineral supplements. Tea, coffee and cola soft drinks are not sold with restriction, prescription, or in childproof bottles, and rather few would maintain that they need to be.
A CLOSER LOOK AT ALLEGATIONS OF VITAMIN FATALITIES
Nutritional supplements are exceptionally safe. In 2003, there were no deaths from multiple vitamins without iron. There were no deaths from amino acids. There were no deaths from B-complex vitamin supplements. There were no deaths from niacin. There were no deaths from vitamin A. There were no deaths from vitamin D. There were no deaths from vitamin E.
There was, supposedly, one alleged death from C and one alleged death from B-6.
The accuracy of such attribution is questionable, as water-soluble vitamins such as B-6 (pyridoxine) and vitamin C (ascorbate) have excellent safety records stretching back for many decades. "Vitamin problem" allegations are routinely overstated and unconfirmed. The latest (2003) Toxic Exposures Surveillance System report indicates that reported deaths are "probably or undoubtedly related to the exposure," a clear admission of uncertainty in the reporting. (p 340)
Even if true, such events are aberrations. For example, In 1998, the American Association of Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System reported no fatalities from either vitamin C or from B-6. In fact, that year there were no vitamin fatalities whatsoever. For decades I have asked my readers, colleagues, and students to provide me with any and all scientific evidence of a confirmed death from either of these two vitamins, or from any other vitamin. I have seen none to date.
Even the mistakenly-believed "side effects" of vitamin C have been found to be completely mythical. According to a National Institutes of Health report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (April 21, 1999), none of the following problems are caused by taking "too much vitamin C":
Allegations of Hypoglycemia
Allegations of Rebound scurvy
Allegations of Infertility
Allegations of Destruction of vitamin B-12
Rather than focus on infinitesimally minimal supplement risk, it is vitamin deficiency that is the vastly more serious public health issue. For example, B-6 (pyridoxine) supplementation should be actively encouraged, as larger-than-food quantities of this vitamin has been demonstrated to prevent both cardiovascular disease and depression, diseases that are enormous public health problems. Women who use the birth control pill experience vitamin B-6 deficiency, and need to be encouraged to supplement with it. (Wynn, V. Lancet, March 8, 1975.)
SAFETY OF VITAMIN A AND CAROTENE
Vitamin A, as carotene or fish oil, gives you healthy mucus membranes, a strong immune system, and helps prevent cancer.
In one review of 50 years of vitamin research, researchers noted that "approximately 10 to 15 cases of vitamin A toxic reactions are reported per year in the United States, usually at doses greater than 100,000 IU. No adverse effects have been reported for beta-carotene (a vitamin A precursor)."
After first taking note that this review confirms safety, some explanation is necessary. First, a "toxic reaction" is very different from a "fatality." Had their been any fatalities, the authors would have said as much. Unfortunately, "toxic" may erroneously imply "deadly." That is not the meaning of toxic as it properly applies here: toxic means "makes you sick." American poison control statistics repeatedly fail to show even one single death from vitamin A in a given year.
Pregnancy is a special case where prolonged intake of too much preformed oil-form vitamin A might be harmful to the fetus, even at relatively low levels (under 25,000 IU/day). Interestingly enough, you can get over 100,000 IU of vitamin A from eating only six ounces of beef liver. I have yet to see a pregnancy overdose warning on a package of liver.
It is vitamin A deficiency during pregnancy, and in infancy, that poses the far greater risk. Deficiency of vitamin A in developing babies is known to cause birth defects, poor tooth enamel, a weakened immune system, and over 100,000 cases of blindness annually. Megadoses of vitamin A are considered sufficiently safe to be given to newborns to prevent infant deaths and disease. (Basu S, Sengupta B, Paladhi PK.Single megadose vitamin A supplementation of Indian mothers and morbidity in breastfed young infants. Postgrad Med J. 2003 Jul;79(933):397-402. And: Rahmathullah L, Tielsch JM, Thulasiraj RD, Katz J, Coles C, Devi S, John R, Prakash K, Sadanand AV, Edwin N, Kamaraj C. Impact of supplementing newborn infants with vitamin A on early infant mortality: community based randomized trial in southern India. BMJ. 2003 Aug 2;327(7409):254.)
SAFETY OF THE B-COMPLEX VITAMINS
The safety record of the B-complex vitamins is extraordinarily good. Since their discovery, beginning with thiamin (B-1) in 1911, many thousands of studies have verified an unequaled therapeutic value of these essential substances. Side effects have been rare, and toxicity is nearly nonexistent, even at the highest doses.
B-1, B-2, B-12, Biotin, Folate, Pantothenic Acid
Regulating blood sugar, nourishing your nerves, improving mood, and preventing cardiovascular disease are just a few reasons people take the B-complex vitamins. They are cheap and safe. Both the 1998 and 2003 American Association of Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System report shows no deaths whatsoever from Thiamin (B-1), Riboflavin (B-2), Cobalamin (B-12), Biotin, Folate or Pantothenic Acid. Furthermore, there are no toxicity reports published for these vitamins in the Merck Manual, generally regarded as a particularly authoritative medical reference.
For over 50 years, nutritional (orthomolecular) psychiatrists have used niacin (vitamin B-3) in doses as high as tens of thousands of milligrams per day. It is an effective treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, psychotic behavior, and schizophrenia. Niacin has also gained popularity as one of the cheapest and safest ways to lower cholesterol.
The discoverer of niacin therapy for lowering cholesterol, Canadian psychiatrist Abram Hoffer, M.D., says that niacin is very safe. "There have been no deaths from niacin supplements," Dr. Hoffer says. "The LD 50 (the dosage that would kill half of those taking it) for dogs is 5,000-6,000 milligrams per kilogram body weight. That is equivalent to almost a pound of niacin per day for a human. No human takes 375,000 milligrams of niacin a day. They would be nauseous long before reaching a harmful dose. The top niacin dose ever was a 16-year-old schizophrenic girl who took 120 tablets (500 mg each) in one day. All that happened was that the 'voices' she was hearing stopped."
Physicians frequently give patients 2,000-5,000 mg of niacin daily to lower cholesterol. The safety margin is very large. The 2003 American Association of Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System report indicates no deaths whatsoever from niacin.
Vitamin B-6
Vitamin B-6 (pyridoxine) improves mood, reduces risk of cardiovascular disease, and has been shown to be clinically effective against carpal tunnel syndrome. It also has been occasionally reported to cause temporary neurological symptoms such as heaviness, tingling, or numbness of the limbs in persons taking very large doses. It is very important to realize that such cases are not common, and when they do occur almost always result from huge doses of pyridoxine taken alone. B-6 by itself in doses of 2,000 to 6,000 mg daily (that is 1,200 to 3,600 times the standard U.S. dietary recommendation) can produce side effects. Very few persons report symptoms on 1,000 mg daily (600 times the US RDA), and only the rarest reports go any lower. When taken with, or as part of, a complete B-complex supplement, B-6 side effects are virtually unknown.
Premenstrual tension symptoms often improve dramatically with only a few hundred mg/day of extra B-6 taken in divided doses throughout the day. At least 50 to 100 mg of supplemental B-6 daily is a virtual necessity for women taking oral contraceptives. The "pill" causes some abnormal physiological changes that create a deficiency of B-6, as well as lower serum levels of thiamine (B-1), riboflavin (B-2), niacin (B-3), folic acid, B-12, and vitamin C.
VITAMIN C
The importance of vitamin C cannot be overemphasized. Vitamin C has been shown to be helpful in fighting over thirty major diseases, including pneumonia, herpes zoster (shingles), pancreatitis, hepatitis, arthritis, some forms of cancer, leukemia, atherosclerosis, high cholesterol, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and chronic fatigue. (Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins: Curing the Incurable, by Thomas E. Levy, M.D. Philadelphia: Xlibris Corporation, 2002.)
Many well designed studies show that large doses of vitamin C improve both quality and length of life for cancer patients. (Murata, A., Morishige, F. and Yamaguchi, H. Prolongation of survival times of terminal cancer patients by administration of large doses of ascorbate. International Journal of Vitamin and Nutrition Research Suppl., 23, 1982, p. 103-113. And: Null, G., Robins, H., Tanenbaum, M., and Jennings, P. Vitamin C and the treatment of cancer: abstracts and commentary from the scientific literature. The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. April/May, 1997. And: Riordan, N. H., et al. Intravenous ascorbate as a tumor cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agent. Medical Hypotheses, 44(3). p 207-213, March 1995.)
"Vitamin C," wrote board-certified chest physician Frederick R. Klenner, M.D., "is one of the safest substances you can put in the human body." Vitamin C is remarkably safe even in enormously high doses. Compared to commonly used prescription drugs, side effects are virtually nonexistent. It does not cause kidney stones. In fact, vitamin C increases urine flow, favorably lowers urine pH, and prevents calcium from binding with urinary oxalate. All these features help keep stones from forming. (Gerster H. No contribution of ascorbic acid to renal calcium oxalate stones. Ann Nutr Metab. 1997;41(5):269-82. "In the large-scale Harvard Prospective Health Professional Follow-Up Study, those groups in the highest quintile of vitamin C intake (> 1,500 mg/day) had a lower risk of kidney stones than the groups in the lowest quintiles.")
It was Canadian physician William J. McCormick, M.D., who first advocated vitamin C to prevent and cure the formation of kidney stones 50 years ago (McCormick, WJ. Lithogenesis and hypovitaminosis. Medical Record. 159:7, July, p 410-413). In 1946 he wrote:
"I have observed that a cloudy urine, heavy with phosphates and epithelium, is generally associated with a low vitamin C status. . . and that as soon as corrective administration of the vitamin effects a normal ascorbic acid (vitamin C) level the crystalline and organic sediment disappears like magic from the urine. I have found that this change can usually be brought about in a matter of hours by large doses of the vitamin, 500 to 2,000 mg, oral or parenteral." (p. 411) [Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2003, p 93-96.]
Even a modest quantity of supplemental vitamin C prevents disease and saves lives. Just 500 mg daily results in a 42 percent lower risk of death from heart disease and a 35 percent lower risk of death from any cause. (Enstrom J.E., Kanim L.E., and Klein M.A. Vitamin C intake and mortality among a sample of the United States population. Epidemiology 3 (1992):194-202.) Since at least two-thirds of the population is not eating sufficient fruits and vegetables, the only way to close the gap is with vitamin supplements.
VITAMIN D
Canadian researcher Reinhold Vieth, Ph.D., writes, "Published cases of vitamin D toxicity with hypercalcemia, for which the 25(OH)D concentration and vitamin D dose are known, all involve intake of greater than or equal to 1,000 micrograms (40,000 IU)/day. (T)he weight of evidence shows that the currently accepted, no observed adverse effect limit of 50 microg (2,000 IU)/d is too low by at least 5-fold." (Vieth R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr. May; 69(5):842-56. 1999.)
The Nutrition Desk Reference, Second Edition states that, for vitamin D, "The threshold for toxicity is 500 to 600 micrograms per kilogram body weight per day." (p 40) The US Environmental Protection Agency's published oral LD50 for female rats of 619 mg/kg (Cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3) Chemical Profile 12/84. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Chemical Fact Sheet Number 42. December 1, 1984.)
500 to 600 mcg is the equivalent of 20,000 to 24,000 IU, per kilogram body weight per day. By comparison, this would mean that for an average (70 kg) adult human, toxicity would occur at an astounding 1,400,000 to 1,680,000 IU/day.
Yet misconceptions and misinformation about vitamins persist. Vitamin-scare articles are unduly popular with the media, sometimes even making it into the pages of the Wall Street Journal. On April 30, 1992, David Stipp reported that between 1990 and 1992, "a series of patients with vitamin D overdoses began turning up at Boston hospitals." Due to problems at one large dairy, some of the milk sold in Boston contained over 230,000 units of vitamin D per quart instead of the usual 400 units per quart.
One person subsequently died from drug complications, and the case went to court. (Tarpey v. Crescent Ridge Dairy, Inc., 47 Mass. App. Ct. 380.) "Essentially, this was a product liability action against the producer of dairy products, specifically milk which contained excessive amounts of Vitamin D. The plaintiff's decedent purportedly suffered from elevated levels of Vitamin D in her bloodstream which required medication which in turn allegedly compromised her immune system, leading to her death." (http://www.dwpm.com/content/main/litigation00_news.php3)
This is the one and the only vitamin D-related death I could find confirmation of, ever, anywhere. And even this one was not directly due to the vitamin, but rather to side effects of medication.
The incident might well be taken as an unintentional proof of vitamin safety, even in ridiculously high overdosage situations. It is certainly noteworthy that 580 times the normal amount of vitamin D produced, at most, one alleged fatality. This borders on the extraordinary. Events such as this demonstrate that the margin for error with vitamins is very large indeed.
As a former university nutrition instructor, the classroom textbooks I taught with considered vitamin D to be perhaps the most potentially dangerous vitamin to chronically overdose on. If that is true, and there has been not even one confirmed vitamin-D fatality in the USA in over forty years, then all other vitamins are safer still. (Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 2003; Vol. 18, Numbers 3 and 4, p. 194-204.)
VITAMIN E
Poison control statistics report no deaths from vitamin E. Vitamin E is a safe and remarkably non-toxic substance. Canadian cardiologists Drs. Wilfrid and Evan Shute observed no evidence of harm with doses as high as 8,000 IU/day. In fact, "toxicity symptoms have not been reported even at intakes of 800 IU per kilogram of body weight daily for 5 months," according to the US Food and Nutrition Board. This demonstrated safe level would work out to be around 60,000 IU daily for an average adult, some 2,700 times the US RDA.
A Columbia University study reported progression of Alzheimer's disease was significantly slowed in patients taking high daily doses (2,000 IU) of vitamin E for two years. The vitamin worked better than the drug selegiline did. The patients in the Alzheimer's study tolerated their vitamin E doses well. Perhaps the real story is that 2,000 IU per day for two years is safe for the elderly.
Overexposure to oxygen has been a major cause of retrolental fibroplasia (retinopathy of prematurity) and subsequent blindness in premature infants. Incubator oxygen retina damage is now prevented by giving preemies 100 mg E per kilogram body weight. That dose is equivalent to an adult dose of about 7,000 IU for an average-weight adult. "There have been no detrimental side effects" from such treatment, said the New England Journal of Medicine. (Hittner HM, Godio LB, Rudolph AJ, Adams JM, Garcia-Prats JA, Friedman Z, Kautz JA, Monaco WA. Retrolental fibroplasia: efficacy of vitamin E in a double-blind clinical study of preterm infants. N Engl J Med. 1981 Dec 3; 305(23):1365-71.)
Regular supplementation with vitamin E is likely to save literally millions of lives. The New England Journal of Medicine published two papers in the May 20, 1993 issue showing that persons taking vitamin E supplements had an approximately 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease. Nearly 40,000 men and 87,000 women took part in the studies. The more vitamin E they took, and the longer they took it, the less cardiovascular disease they experienced.
A 1996 double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 2,002 patients with clogged arteries demonstrated a 77% decreased risk of heart attack in those taking 400 to 800 IU of vitamin E. (Stephens, NG et al. Randomized controlled trial of vitamin E in patients with coronary artery disease: Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study (CHAOS)," Lancet, March 23, 1996; 347:781-786.)
Such effective quantities of vitamin E positively cannot be obtained from diet alone. 800 IU is 2,667% of the US DRI for vitamin E. (Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Volume 17, Number 3, Third Quarter, 2002 (p 179-181) And: Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 2003; Vol. 18, Numbers 3 and 4, p. 205-212.)
HERBAL SUPPLEMENTS
The 2003 Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposures Surveillance System (http://www.aapcc.org/Annual%20Reports/03report/Annual%20Report%202003.pdf)
indicates a total of 13 deaths attributed to herbal preparations. Three of these are from ephedra, two from yohimbe, and two from ma-huang. I have worked extensively in the alternative health field for nearly 30 years, and I have known of virtually no one who has taken ephedra, yohimbe, or ma-huang, and certainly not in the deliberately abusive high quantities that it takes to kill someone. Nevertheless, accepting all seven deaths attributed to these products, we still find that there were 30 times as many deaths from aspirin and acetaminophen.
Only three deaths are attributable to other "single ingredient botanicals," and oddly enough, their identity remains unnamed in the Toxic Exposures report.
Millions of persons take herbal remedies, and have done so for generations. Indigenous and Westernized peoples alike have found them to be safe and effective, and the 2003 Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposures Surveillance System confirms this (p 388-389). There have been no deaths at all from "cultural medicines," including ayurvedic, Asian, Hispanic, and in fact, from all others.
Additionally, we find:
Blue cohosh: 0 deaths
Ginko biloba: 0 deaths
Echinacea: 0 deaths
Ginseng: 0 deaths
Kava kava: 0 deaths
St John's wort: 0 deaths
Valerian: 0 deaths
Furthermore, there have been no deaths from phytoestrogens, glandulars, blue-green algae, or homeopathic remedies.
MINERAL SUPPLEMENTS
Of the eight deaths in the category, five of them are from non-supplement sources rightly termed "electrolytes": two from sodium and three from potassium (p 389). Two deaths were allegedly due to iron overdose. Since 1986, there has been an average of two deaths per year "associated with" iron supplements. The sole remaining death was from calcium, a mineral that is employed medically for its antidote properties. In fact, in 2003, calcium was used as a lifesaving antidote in 5,228 cases (p 344). There is no evidence that the single listed calcium death was from a supplement, and the odds are overwhelming that it was not.
AMINO ACID SUPPLEMENTS
In 2003, poison control centers reported no deaths whatsoever from amino acids. This is in itself a strong safety statement.
IN PERSPECTIVE
Supplementation's harshest critics have traditionally railed against vitamins (especially in large doses) as being outright "dangerous" and at the very least "a waste of money." Yet nutritional supplements are very safe, and for much of the population, very necessary. The Journal of the American Medical Association has recently published the recommendation that every person take a multivitamin daily (Fletcher RH and Fairfield KM. Vitamins for Chronic Disease Prevention in Adults: Clinical Applications JAMA. 2002; 287:3127-3129. And: Fairfield KM and Fletcher RH. Vitamins for Chronic Disease Prevention in Adults: Scientific Review. JAMA. 2002; 287:3116-3126.) saying that "(S)uboptimal intake of some vitamins, above levels causing classic vitamin deficiency, is a risk factor for chronic diseases and common in the general population, especially the elderly." Therefore, JAMA's intent goes beyond routine nutritional insurance for widespread bad-to-borderline diets. The goal is stated in the article's title: "Vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults." It is a sensible idea whose time should have come generations ago.
To illustrate how extraordinarily important supplements are to persons with a questionable diet, consider this: Children who eat hot dogs once a week double their risk of a brain tumor. Kids eating more than twelve hot dogs a month (that's barely three hot dogs a week) have nearly ten times the risk of leukemia as children who ate none. (Peters JM, Preston-Martin S, London SJ, Bowman JD, Buckley JD, Thomas DC. Processed meats and risk of childhood leukemia. Cancer Causes Control. 1994 Mar; 5(2):195-202.)
However, hot-dog eating children taking supplemental vitamins were shown to have a reduced risk of cancer. (Sarasua S, Savitz DA. Cured and broiled meat consumption in relation to childhood cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 1994 Mar; 5(2):141-8.)
It is curious that, while theorizing many "potential" dangers of vitamins, the media often choose to ignore the very real cancer-prevention benefits of supplementation.
Critics also fail to point out how economical supplements are. For low-income households, taking a two-cent vitamin C tablet and a five-cent multivitamin, readily obtainable from any discount store, is vastly cheaper than getting those vitamins by eating right. The uncomfortable truth is that it is often less expensive to supplement than to buy nutritious food, especially out-of-season fresh produce.
According to David DeRose, M.D., M.P.H., "300,000 Americans die annually from poor nutrition choices." Supplements make any dietary lifestyle, whether good or bad, significantly better. Supplements are an easy, practical entry-level better-nutrition solution for the public. A television-educated populace is more likely to take some tablets than to willingly eat organ meats, wheat germ, bean sprouts and ample vegetables. Media supplement-scare-stories notwithstanding, taking supplements is not the problem; it is a solution. Malnutrition is the problem. (Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 2003; Vol. 18, Numbers 3 and 4, p. 213-216.)
PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR FREE ACCESS TO NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS
A recent (March 26, 2003) and unsuccessful American attempt to restrict free public access to vitamin supplements was U.S. Senate Bill S. 722, the so-called "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003." The proposed law attempted to give the Secretary of the US Food and Drug Administration sole power decide if and when "the continued marketing of the dietary supplement is disapproved" (2-B: ii) based on adverse event reporting so vague that the proposed bill specified that decision was "without regard to whether the event is known to be causally related to the dietary supplement." (SEC. 416 (a)(1)
The intent of S. 722 was to overturn the main provisions of the U.S. Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). The US Congress enacted DSHEA specifically to define vitamins, amino acids, herbs, and other nutritional supplements as foods, not drugs. DSHEA enjoyed tremendous popular support. More citizen letters were sent to Congress in 1992-1994 in favor of DSHEA than over any other issue in American history. Some 2.5 million individual voters' letters were received by US Senators and Representatives. On the other hand, citizen opposition to S. 722 was strong. It gathered only four cosponsors, and failed in committee.
The U.S. Congress has clearly seen that there is overwhelming public support for ensuring free access to dietary supplements. I believe Canadians have the same keen interest, and that an affirmative vote on Canada's proposed legislation, C-420, to rightly consider supplements as foods and not drugs, will be well-received by the citizens of Canada.
CONCLUSION:
As it has been for thousands of years of human history, so the malnutrition problem remains with us today. Only in the last century have supplements even been available. Their continued use represents a true public health breakthrough on a par with clean drinking water and sanitary sewers, and can be expected to save as many lives.
The number one side effect of vitamins is failure to take enough of them. Vitamins are extraordinarily safe substances. Drugs are not. There are over 106,000 deaths from pharmaceutical drugs each year in the USA, even when prescribed correctly and taken as prescribed. (Lucian Leape, Error in medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1994, 272:23, p 1851. Also: Leape LL. Institute of Medicine medical error figures are not exaggerated. JAMA. 2000 Jul 5;284(1):95-7.)
Public supplementation should be encouraged, not discouraged. Supplements are a cost-effective means of preventing and ameliorating illness. Supplement safety is outstandingly high. Natural health products should be classified as foods, not drugs.
(end of testimony)
"A lot of people go through life trying to prove that the things that are good for them are wrong." (Ward Cleaver, on "Leave it to Beaver")
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation without investigation." (Herbert Spencer)
Copyright C 2005 and prior years Andrew W. Saul, 23 Greenridge Crescent, Hamlin, New York 14464 USA.
AN IMPORTANT NOTE: This page is not in any way offered as prescription, diagnosis nor treatment for any disease, illness, infirmity or physical condition. Any form of self-treatment or alternative health program necessarily must involve an individual's acceptance of some risk, and no one should assume otherwise. Persons needing medical care should obtain it from a physician. Consult your doctor before making any health decision.
Neither the author nor the webmaster has authorized the use of their names or the use of any material contained within in connection with the sale, promotion or advertising of any product or apparatus. Single-copy reproduction for individual, non-commercial use is permitted providing no alterations of content are made, and credit is given.
posted
LAW: The quantity of a nutritional supplement that cures an illness indicates that patient's degree of deficiency. It is therefore not a megadose of the vitamin, but rather the megadeficiency of the nutrient, that we are dealing with.
I agree with this hence the problem of finding the right dose. We are all different.
So a small dose of Vit D might be effective for someone else but I require a mega dose.
posted
New Evidence That Sun Exposure Prevents Cancer POSTED BY Dr. Mercola View Dr. Mercola's Profile
Add Dr. Mercola to Friends Receive Updates from Dr. Mercola By News Feed
April 30, 2007
An American study scheduled for a June release compared the health of some 1,200 female patients, some of whom took a vitamin D supplement while others didn't.
The number of patients who reduced their risk of cancer by taking a vitamin D supplement -- 60 percent -- was so unexpectedly high that some initially believed it to be a typographical error.
This study, and many similar ones, may force conventional medicine to re-evaluate its vitamin D recommendations. A deficiency in vitamin D figures into many diseases in addition to cancer. One researcher pointed out, "We don't really know what the status of chronic disease is in the North American population, until we normalize vitamin D status."
Globe and Mail.com April 28, 2007
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
I just love when I do a major controversial video -- like the one I did on how sunlight can reduce your risk for cancer by 50 percent -- that many said was not true, and a few weeks later a MAJOR study is published confirming precisely what I was saying.
This has been a regular pattern now for many years. The truth is obvious and as plain as day, and most of the time it does not line up with conventional thinking on the topic. But given time, science seems to catch up to the obvious as they have in this case.
So, after many clashes over countless years, conventional medicine may finally be on the verge of acknowledging the true value of vitamin D and how it can help you reduce your cancer risks.
As I pointed out in a video posted last month, there is a relationship between latitude, sun exposure and mortality rates associated with cancer, of particular importance to folks living in Canada and the Northern United States (hence all the interest paid to this critical health issue in a Toronto-based newspaper).
The best and safest way to get the right amount of vitamin D is through exposing your body to the right and safe amount of sunshine. Should you need to take a supplement or cod liver oil to get the vitamin D you need, however, please have the vitamin D levels in your blood checked often to avoid overdosing.
At least 21,000 Americans die each year from cancer associated with inadequate vitamin D levels, and that number is probably an underestimate. The real number very likely exceeds 50,000. And those numbers refer solely to cancer; they do not even take into account the many other illnesses associated with a vitamin D deficiency.
The economic cost for treating these illnesses has been estimated as being as high as $56 billion in the United States each year, compared to just $6 billion for treating illnesses caused by overexposure to sunlight.
You might want to think about that the next time someone tells you that sunlight causes cancer -- while there are some cancer risks associated with getting enough sun, they are far outweighed by the incredible cancer-prevention benefits.
Related Articles:
Sunlight Actually Prevents Cancer
Learn Why the Myth of the Sun Causing Skin Cancer Can Hurt Your Health
Discovering the Truth Behind the Sunshine/Skin Cancer Myth
Posts: 654 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Hypocrates said "Let Food Be Your Medicine and Medicine Be Your Food"
Wallace,
Thank you so much for bringing this very well documented literature for vitamin supplementation to our attention.
My doctor absolutely believes most chronic illness is brought about by environmental exposure to toxins and bad diet.
It is very difficult for us to eat and get the right balance of nutrients today. Supplementation is an excellent way to eliminate deficiencies.
Having a doctor test you for your particular deficiencies is necessary to supplement correctly.
My Doctor has brought my lyme induced Rheum. Arthritis from a high moderate to a weak positive in the last 12 mths solely by building up my body.
A recent tick bite has me back on doxy for a time as a precaution but I also continue my supplements to keep my gut and immune system healthy.
Thanks again!!!
Luvs
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glad to hear of your progress. I have R.A as well.
Testing is good but people differ over what the normal level of say vitamin d should be so there is a problem there. As I maintain natural vitamins in particular are very safe(even safer than Mercola asserts below in my opinion.)
Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency
Before considering supplementation with vitamin D, it would be wise to have your vitamin D level tested. This is best done from a nutritionally oriented physician. It is very important that they order the correct test. The advantage of having your medical doctor perform the test is that it will usually be covered by your medical insurance.
Don't Be Fooled -- Order the Correct Test
There are two vitamin D tests -- 1,25(OH)D and 25(OH)D.
25(OH)D is the better marker of overall D status. It is this marker that is most strongly associated with overall health.
The correct test is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D
Please note the difference between normal and optimal. We don't want to be average here; we want to be optimally healthy.
Primitive man likely developed in tropical and sub-tropical conditions with large exposure to UV-B and its secondary consequence to skin exposure, vitamin D.
Primitive environmental availability of a nutrient does not necessarily establish the higher requirements, but these exposures would have influenced the evolution of the relevant physiology, and such concentrations should at least be considered presumptively acceptable.
Some experts may disagree with the following healthy ranges, but they are taken from healthy people from the tropical or subtropical parts of the world where they are receiving healthy sun exposures. It seems more than reasonable to assume that these values are in fact reflective of an optimal human requirement.
Dr. Michael Hollick is one of the top vitamin D researchers in the world and he has been advocating higher reference ranges, though not as high as the ones suggested here.
(Holick MF. Calcium and Vitamin D. Diagnostics and Therapeutics. Clin Lab Med. 2000 Sep;20(3):569-90)
Optimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D values are:
45-50 ng/ml or 115-128 nmol/l Normal 25-hydroxyvitamin D lab values are:
20-56 ng/ml 50-140 nmol/l
Your vitamin D level should NEVER be below 32 ng/ml. Any levels below 20 ng/ml are considered serious defiency states and will increase your risk of breast and prostate cancer and autoimmune diseases like MS and rheumatoid arthritis.
If you have the above test performed, please recognize that many commercial labs are using the older dated reference ranges. The above values are the newest ones from the clinical research.
Make Sure Your Lab Uses the Correct Assay
There are a number of different companies that have FDA approval to perform vitamin D testing. The gold standard company though is DiaSorin. Quest labs is the largest commercial lab in the US and they use this company to measure 25 hydroxy D levels. However, many other commercial labs don't. So if you do not have your test done at Quest labs please contact the lab directly to find out which assay is being used. Your test results will not be accurate and you can not use the values in the table above unless the D is measured with a DiaSorin assay. The extra hassle is definitely worth it, believe me. You will only need to do this once though, as the labs do not switch assays. However, if your lab is not using the DiaSorin assay you could ask them to switch to the gold standard.
How To Dose Your Vitamin D Once You Know Your Levels
Vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin and can be quite toxic. Once you have vitamin D toxicity you can't easily turn it around.
So don't even think of starting this program unless you have your blood levels checked. Many of you may choose to ignore this warning, but I am telling you in plain simple English, that while vitamin D has enormous potential for improving your health, it has nearly equal potential to worsen it, if you use it improperly.
For safety purposes it is advisable to optimize your vitamin D levels only with the help of a trained health care professional. The exact protocol to optimize your vitamin D levels will be in Krispin Sullivan's upcoming book Naked at Noon. The book will have far more information than is in this brief review and will further highlight the importance of testing. The provocative headline is actually quite accurate though as many people, especially with dark skin, would best benefit from exposing as much skin as possible to the sun (naked) as long as they did not get burnt. This is in stark contrast to the approach most people take.
If you need to know this information before her book is published a preliminary copy of her vitamin D research is available on her Web site. While she has an e-mail listed on her site, please understand that she doesn't have time to respond to personal e-mails or her book will never be finished.
Krispin Sullivan and I share the same passion--seeking to help large numbers of people regain their health with inexpensive nutritional therapies. She has researched this subject for a number of years and, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the most experienced clinicians in this area. She has provided me with much of the foundational background for this review, and I am very grateful for her willingness to bring me up to speed in, not only this area, but also omega-3 nutrition and vitamin K.
Sunlight Is Your Ideal Source of Vitamin D
Ideally, the best place to get vitamin D is from your skin being exposed to the UV-B that is in normal sunlight. Vitamin D from sunlight acts as a pro-hormone, rapidly converting into 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Many experts believe that there is no harm in the vitamin D concentrations associated with sun exposure and that such levels are probably optimal for human health.
Unfortunately, the amount of sun reaching most of the U.S. is only sufficient to generate a vitamin D response for about three months of the year.
Most people don't live far enough south or high enough in the mountains, to allow more Ultraviolet (UV) -B to reach their skins. So, for those times of the year when access to the proper amount of sun is not possible, you will want to consider an oral form of vitamin D. A high quality cod liver oil is probably your best choice, as it also supplies vitamin A that helps limit vitamin D toxicity and also beneficial omega-3 fats.
Ultraviolet-B Is What Generates Vitamin D in Your Skin
UV light is divided into 3 bands, or wavelength ranges, which are referred to as UV-A, UV-B and UV-C.
UV-B is sometimes called the "burning ray." It's the primary cause of sunburn caused by overexposure to sunlight. However, UV-B sunlight produces vitamin D on the skin. The amount produced depends on exposure time, latitude and altitude of location, amount of skin surface exposed, skin pigmentation and season.
UV-B also stimulates the production of MSH, an important hormone in weight loss, energy production, and in giving you that wonderful tanned appearance.
However, UV-B does not penetrate very deeply into your skin. The darker the pigmentation or more tanned your skin, the less UV-B penetrates. Window glass allows only 5 percent of the UV-B light range that produces D to get into your home or auto.
The timing of your sun exposure is also a major factor. Sun exposure must take place when UV-B is present. The actual dosing of your sun exposure is quite complex, since it involves knowing the amount of UV-B and one's skin color.
This doesn't sound very complex, but the amount of UV-B is not a constant. It is a major variable and is influenced by a number of factors:
Latitude -- the further north you are the less there is Time of Year -- virtually none available in winter in continental U.S. Clouds -- can block UV-B Pollution -- smog and ozone can block UV-B Altitude -- the higher up you are the more UV-B reaches you It is important to know the level of UV-B exposure. Unlike the typical American strategy, more is better, that is not the case for UV-B exposure. Longer exposure will not increase vitamin D production, but will increase the danger of skin damage and possible skin cancer.
Posts: 654 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Greatcod
Unregistered
posted
On this Vitamin D thing, does any know what the levels of D are for people who normally get a lot of exposure, as for instance, people in Central America. As for the multivitamin study, even the authors admit it is flawed; they did not control for some important factors. Good medical research on people is very very hard to do.
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[shake]](graemlins/shake.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic