Selective facts produce poor journalism (or science).

Selective facts produce poor journalism (or science). For example, the Women's Health Study had a 7% reduction in major cardiovascular events with vitamin E, a number that was not significant. But there was a significant 24% reduction in cardiovascular death in the vitamin E group. Would you characterize that as a failure for vitamin E? The media did. Yet, the authors of the study admitted that, "This was largely attributable to fewer sudden deaths in the vitamin E group (38 vs 51 among women assigned to placebo) and fewer deaths from other cardiovascular disease (ie, deaths due to cardiovascular diseases other than ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease, 20 vs 34, respectively)." The Williams College ginkgo study in JAMA allowed participants to miss up to 6 daily doses over a 2-week period (nearly 50%!) before they were eliminated for non-compliance. It also tested only one brand of ginkgo (Ginkoba) on healthy volunteers for only six weeks, with results (by convention) not applicable to other brands. This was an obvious attempt to see whether a quick, drug-like effect could be obtained from a short course of supplementation. Longer term studies are more authoritative, especially if compliance is better. The CoQ10 statement is laughably wrong: "Coenzyme Q10 has not been carefully tested to see if it is safe and effective. Because coenzyme Q10 is sold as a dietary supplement rather than a drug, it is not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration." This is a complaint that the FDA does not test individual dietary supplement products for potency or approve individual label claims. The agency does have the longstanding right to veto dietary supplement label claims and to remove any mislabeled or adulterated product from the national market. This contrasts with the FDA's explicit approval of drugs and drug claims, though the agency doesn't test individual pharmaceuticals for potency or safety, either. Of course, the FDA would take issue with their supposed inability to regulate dietary supplements. They even claim the opposite on their web page. Note the first 4 words: "FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of regulations than those covering "conventional" foods and drug products (prescription and Over-the-Counter). Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed. FDA is responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market. Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements.* Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading. FDA's post-marketing responsibilities include monitoring safety, e.g. voluntary dietary supplement adverse event reporting, and product information, such as labeling, claims, package inserts, and accompanying literature. The Federal Trade Commission regulates dietary supplement advertising." regarding the CNN report: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/09/chasing.supplements/index.html

Consumer Reports Wrong on Dietary Supplements

CR Wrong on Dietary Supplements By Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA Consumer Reports published an article on dietary supplements in January 2008, titled, “Risky Pills – Supplements to avoid”. Unfortunately, CR may have failed to live up to its reputation as an impartial arbiter of quality, apparently relying on its medical and research consultants’ opinions instead of actually testing products. How informed and impartial are these sources on this particular topic? Of course, there is no excuse for companies that blatantly break the law by illegally and knowingly adulterating dietary supplements with drugs or banned substances. The dietary supplement industry asks the FDA and FTC to throw the book at those bad apples pretending to be legitimate businesses. In fact, manufacturers overwhelmingly supported recent legislation – now the law of the land – to put teeth into FDA enforcement powers by banning steroid precursors, regulating manufacturing requirements (cGMPs, current good manufacturing practices) and instituting mandatory reporting of serious adverse events. The supposed burden on the FDA “to prove that a supplement creates “a significant or unreasonable risk” before it can demand its removal” is actually a very low bar, now that the US Supreme Court has allowed a ban on the herb Ephedra without requiring proof that the agency had followed the law, or even its own regulations, in the process. In the CR report, several dietary supplements are singled out for criticism, but with some startling omissions of fact. Androstenedione products (anabolic steroid precursors) have already been outlawed, with the explicit support of the dietary supplement industry. Only rogue manufacturers carry them because they are clearly illegal. Chaparral is mentioned as a present danger, but reputable manufacturers voluntarily withdrew the herb after an FDA warning – back in 1992. Organ and glandular tissues are singled out for risk of Mad Cow disease, but only certain ones are vulnerable and these have largely disappeared from the marketplace. Most glandular tissues are carefully obtained from range-fed animals in New Zealand or Argentina, from areas with no reported cases of this disease. The alkaloid synephrine from Bitter Orange (Citrus aurantium) often gets accused of causing “high blood pressure, heart arrhythmias, heart attack, stroke”. Yet the FDA Medwatch program’s web page does not list a single substantiated complaint of the herb causing these symptoms. Most Bitter Orange is used in formulations along with caffeine and other legal stimulants. In fact, there is evidence that Bitter Orange is not responsible for some of these products’ side effects: “Ephedra-free weight loss supplements have significant cardiovascular stimulant actions, similar to ephedra. These effects are not likely caused by C. aurantium alone, because an eightfold higher dose of synephrine … had no effect on blood pressure, but may be attributable to caffeine and other stimulants in the multi-component formulation.” (The American Journal of Medicine (2005) 118, 998-1003). In 2004, attorney Marc Ullman requested FDA records on Bitter Orange adverse events from the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act. Scrutinizing these files, he found that many so-called adverse events supposedly related to Bitter Orange were actually for unrelated products, combination formulas, pre-existing conditions etc; reporting that, “In its response to the April 14 FOIA, FDA disclosed it had conducted no research whatsoever concerning either the safety or efficacy of Citrus aurantium.” (Natural Products Insider) The American Herbal Products Association also reviewed every adverse event report on Bitter Orange disclosed under another FOIA request and, after eliminating products also containing ephedra and/or caffeine, found only one minor adverse event (weakness, leg swelling) remaining in the FDA archives, which involved a woman also being medicated for osteoarthritis, hypertension, and diabetes. (HerbalGram. 2006;69:52-55) Another study reported that, looking at formulations including Bitter Orange and caffeine with other herbs, “Laboratory testing (including vital signs, serum chemistries, CBC with differential, urinalysis, and electrocardiography) revealed no significant changes.” (Curr. Ther. Res., 60, 145 - 153.) And in another report, “Bitter orange dried-fruit extract did not significantly alter the [heart rate] or blood pressure after a single dose was administered.” (Pharmacotherapy, Dec. 2005) Yet another study reported that bitter orange had no significant effects on any of the cardiovascular variables measured. (Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2001;41:1059-63) Another small study reported small increases in these measures, but the point is that strong cautions are premature, at best. One expert has stated that synephrine works differently if synthesized or injected, rather than orally taking the natural herbal extract. (Experimental Biology and Medicine (vol. 229) and Washington Post 9/7/05). There is still reasonable doubt that Bitter Orange supplements have caused any serious adverse events. The herb kava is also the subject of a caution. I personally use this herb, and have looked at the few, unverified reports relating to liver problems and concluded that they are anecdotal and probably unrelated to use of the herb. Some toxicology experts note that the vast majority of such reports are unverified and that “kava extracts continue to demonstrate a far better risk-to-benefit ratio [than medical options].” (Toxicology Letters, Volume 150, Issue 1, 15 April 2004) My routine liver function tests remain optimal. I was surprised that CR touts the “USP Verified” mark, a certification that is not even as stringent and broad-based as the new federal cGMPs, which are mandatory. This explicit endorsement of a commercial testing program that does not yet meet the new national standard seems misplaced, and is also unfair to imply that GMP-certified manufacturers audited by competing certifying agencies have lesser quality controls. I believe that CR has missed the mark in portraying dietary supplements as dangerous and unregulated by using inconclusive, outdated and unrepresentative data. Why doesn’t the magazine to raise its coverage of these issues to the same high standard as its other reporting? Scaring consumers into using more dangerous medical treatments by such methods may sell magazines and gain media exposure, but at the cost of CR’s credibility, consumers’ wallets and real lives lost. Reactions to properly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs reportedly cause over 100,000 deaths per year and may be the fourth leading cause of death in the US; even ignoring medical errors and overdoses. (JAMA, Apr 1998; 279: 1200 - 1205.) Positioning herbs and other dietary supplements as dangerous, when they are rarely life-threatening, is irresponsible and completely disproportional to their relative safety.

The critical condition of patients admitted to the ICU is associated with worsening oxidative stress.

The critical condition of patients admitted to the ICU is associated with worsening oxidative stress, according to a medical journal article. "A major finding of the study was that administration of antioxidant vitamins at between 66% and 100% of RDA can reduce the risk for oxidative stress by 94%..." "...dietary enteral supplementation with vitamins C and E for 10 days prevented lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress in critical care patients and significantly influenced their clinical outcome at 28 days." "Greater depletion of antioxidants has been related to a greater severity of trauma, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, or sepsis." full article is available at: http://ccforum.com/content/10/5/R146

Natural Health: Ten Predictions for the Year 2008

Natural Health: Ten Predictions for the Year 2008 By Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA 12/10/2007 The New Year will bring more proof of antioxidant benefits for human health. Recent research shows that antioxidants help to maintain healthy brain functions during aging, protect brain and nerve cells, and prevent hormones and cholesterol fractions from oxidizing to become more harmful forms. Look for an expanded understanding of the benefits of these synergistic nutrients in 2008. 2008 will provide more proof of omega-3 fatty acids’ benefits. For example, DHA helps to maintain healthy balances of cholesterol fractions and protects the brain and nerves. EPA helps normalize cell membranes and cellular health. These essential fats are typically very low in the American diet, so dramatic results could occur in clinical trials providing these nutrients to participants. There will be more safety scares regarding popular prescription and Over-The-Counter drugs, creating new safety warnings and label cautions. Since the most popular medications are typically blocking or inhibiting natural body functions (calcium channel blockers, cholesterol production inhibitors, serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, stomach acid production inhibitors, etc.) rather than dealing holistically with the causes of problems that create body imbalances (lack of optimal levels of nutrients, environmental chemicals and metals, chronic stress - lack of deep sleep, low fiber - high carbohydrate diets, etc.), major side effects from such drugs are inevitable. Side effects from pain medications will become more evident, increasing the number of people looking for safer alternatives. Herbs and spices are the major natural alternatives with some scientific evidence of efficacy. The market for organic and local foods will continue to grow at amazing levels. This will put pressure on the regulatory, farm and grocery industries to manage these products and segregate them to maintain their integrity. That contrasts with the increased reliance on genetically engineered corn to produce ethanol that raises food costs and increases the use of farm chemicals. And there is much evidence that non-genetically engineered foods are both environmentally and nutritionally superior to their modified cousins, while natural farming techniques are proving superior to chemical and genetically engineered farming in terms of managing fuel and seed costs, water use, improving both crop yields and selling prices, etc. Millions of farmers around the world have already weaned themselves from the chemical-genetic “green revolution” to use appropriate local farming techniques and have actually been more successful as a direct result of truly “green” practices. America has begun to awaken to the benefits of local and organic foods in terms of freshness, reducing the use of fossil fuels for transportation and demonstrable benefits to local economies. Watch for these trends to accelerate in 2008. Blood pressure and blood sugar concerns will continue to grow, along with a medical backlash attacking natural strategies to manage these concerns. However, science will also continue to amass evidencing the positive health benefits of natural products to help people maintain already healthy blood levels, in contrast with the poor symptom management that is a characteristic of pharmaceutical or surgical interventions used to “correct” chronic biological imbalances. These issues dovetail with current obesity and cardiovascular concerns and are part of the same syndrome related to chronic stress and poor diets. Positive reports of the benefits of higher levels of vitamin D will continue to proliferate, though with some bias against the synthesized vegetarian/vegan form of vitamin D2 versus D3 from fish oil or sheep lanolin. Health authorities will be pressured to raise both the recommended Daily Value and the Upper Limit of vitamin D to five times the current levels. Research will continue to accumulate regarding the health benefits of whole grains and whole foods, as will reports of people allergic or sensitive to gluten, corn, and other grains. More mainstream processed groceries will have whole food options in 2008. This is a good trend, though with cautions for the sensitive minority. There will be continuing claims that “dietary supplements” are illegally contaminated with steroids or other pharmaceutical drugs. These claims will typically be self-serving and defensive, made primarily by athletes accused of cheating by using banned substances. Beyond the obvious fact that legitimate supplement manufacturers do not have illegal substances on hand and that GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices certification) quality manufacturing protocols would avoid inadvertent contamination, these accusations are a barometer of how “unregulated” the mainstream media and the public thinks dietary supplements are. While there are plenty of regulations written specifically to regulate supplements, and even the FDA claims that it has adequate regulatory authority, somehow certain medical authorities and journalists like to pretend otherwise; perhaps to have a handy punching bag to deflect attention from the well-documented hundreds of thousands of deaths caused annually from pharmaceuticals and medical errors. In any case, expect more of this blame game in 2008. With a presidential election campaign under full swing, no meaningful legislation regarding health care or Medicare will be passed in 2008. There will be a narrow window of opportunity for such measures in 2009 with a new Congress and Administration. Natural health advocates will continue to press for meaningful use of nutrition to combat the major causes of disease and illness in America, with probably little impact against the lobbying might of the medical and pharmaceutical interests. The wild card is if, by some miracle, the insurance industry finally notices that their costs could be contained by the use of targeted nutrition such as the use of calcium and vitamin D to prevent osteoporosis, antioxidants to prevent age-related macular degeneration and oxidative-related glaucoma that affect vision and impact seniors’ independence, omega-3 fats to prevent coronary heart disease, the use of fiber to manage healthy cholesterol levels, etc. That could swing the pendulum towards the use of natural products to control healthcare costs. But I’m not betting on it happening in 2008, though I hope that they wise up soon enough to manage the recently overactive increases in medical costs. There will be additional, unjustified health scares about essential nutrients in 2008. Especially beware of “meta-analyses” that mix unrelated studies and magnify the number of variables using often-flawed statistical models. Some probable targets: · Kava (a few unrelated, anecdotal reports of liver problems) · Folic acid (a few reports of higher cancer levels despite a lot of cellular data indicating the opposite, creating a backlash against re-fortification of refined foods) · Vitamin E (continued championing/publicity of questionable meta-analyses over more rigorous blood-level studies will continue the inexplicable controversy over the safety of this essential nutrient that most Americans are reportedly deficient in.) · Beta-Carotene (again, blood level studies and total antioxidant studies repeatedly show its safety, but studies measuring only administration of certain doses to sick populations that may be deficient in antioxidants create a conflicting picture.) · DHEA (this adrenal hormone has been vilified as a “steroid”, but is no more so than vitamin D. No less an authority than physician and US Senator Tom Coburn has sent a letter to his colleagues informing them that he has reviewed the issues and urging them to avoid a ban of this natural product, which is useful in anti-aging strategies but not for bodybuilders. Efforts by leading senators (including presidential candidates Clinton and McCain) to ban DHEA are ongoing.

My second letter to Reader's Digest about vitamins

Subject: Re: Vitamin Hoax Thank you for your reply. But your statement that "supplements are unregulated" is completely untrue, and is contradicted by the FDA itself on its own official Web page [“FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of regulations than those covering "conventional" foods and drug products (prescription and Over-the-Counter).”]. Are your experts completely unfamiliar with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act prohibiting new dietary ingredients without FDA pre-approval and regulating adulterated products and label claims, the Serious Adverse Event reporting act passed last year, the mandatory federal current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) that are now being implemented requiring quality controls and identity testing of ingredients, and currently operational GMP-audited manufacturers? That inflammatory falsehood is exactly the kind of media myth that evidences bias or abject misunderstanding. You have represented a misguided opinion as fact, when it is clearly contradicted by official records of the FDA, FTC and the Congressional Record in both law and regulations. As a watchdog for clinical studies that are misrepresented or poorly done, it is obvious to me that your writers cherry-picked negative studies that were heavily criticized, some contradicted by more robust data or not able to be replicated, and some done with very sick people where the results were admittedly not applicable to healthy populations. Many scientists simply fail to understand the topic of nutrition, thinking that nutrients should be taken just like drugs: in isolation and in high potencies to treat disease in their studies. That is pharmaceutical medicine, not basic human nutrition, which is an all-too-common mistake that creates a lot of confusion when applied to the moderate dietary supplements used by ordinary people to enhance their vitamin-starved modern diets. Using examples of potential side effects from taking amounts far above commonly available supplement potencies as the main reason to avoid taking them entirely is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, when no one was actually suggesting that everyone take those mega dose amounts in the first place. When you say that, “Food (especially locally farmed food) is the only way to get your vitamins that's absolutely proven to be safe and effective”, you are only partially right. I am a nominee to the Illinois Local and Organic Food Task Force, on a slate approved by the state Department of Agriculture, so I do understand your point and empathize. But you forget the tens of thousands of people affected annually by food poisoning. This makes vitamins orders of magnitude safer than food, especially fresh foods, and are thus more deserving of your praise for safety and efficacy. You also seem to forget that vitamins are regulated as a special, highly regulated food category by the federal government (by law), and not as drugs. If it is so 'easy' to "get what you need from food" then why does your own report admit that only 3% of us get the minimal nutrient levels from our diet? That really disproves this tired old mantra, doesn't it? It is pure institutional bias that prevents the NIH from recommending multiple vitamins, when even the mainstream medical journal JAMA has done so years ago. If you remember (I do), it took the federal government 20+ years to endorse the use of folic acid to fortify foods denatured of that essential vitamin, during which entire time the evidence was already strong that it could prevent birth defects; with a request in to the Nixon administration that it was time to take action. The March of Dimes recommended this fortification long before the government finally caved in (during the Clinton administration!), but meanwhile thousands of children were born each year with potentially preventable and predictable birth defects while waiting for the perpetually elusive 'more conclusive evidence'. But there never seems to be enough evidence when we're talking about dietary supplements. Even a multiple vitamin taken by the mothers should have been enough to spare these children, but the government still to this day won't fully act to protect people's health by recommending that the 97% of us not eating even minimally right take a simple and safe daily multivitamin, as many doctors already recommend. Are we so set on forcing people to eat right, when they clearly won't, that we should all just pretend that taking a multivitamin as nutritional 'insurance' is somehow fundamentally wrong? In good conscience, I can't do that. I know better. And so do most Americans, who have opted to take vitamins and do so without much risk. Perhaps you haven’t noticed the reports that our food supply has dramatically dropped in nutritional value over the past half century due to factors such as chemical farming, less nutritious plant varieties, changes in storage and handling, etc? The nutritional content of U.S. fruits and vegetables has declined over the past 50 years, according to a researcher at the University of Texas. Cited in an article by Scripps Howard News Service, biochemist Donald Davis said that of 13 major nutrients in fruits and vegetables tracked by the Agriculture Department from 1950 to 1999, six (protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and vitamin C) all showed noticeable declines. Declines ranged from 6% for protein, 20% for vitamin C, and 38% for riboflavin. [February 2006, official meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St. Louis, MO] Data from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) showed that, between 1940 and 1991, trace minerals in UK fruits and vegetables fell by up to 76 per cent, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures showed similar declines. [McCance and Widdowson 1940–1991, The Composition of Foods, 1st to 5th editions, published by MAFF/RSC] [Mayer AM, 1997, ‘Historical changes in the mineral content of fruits and vegetables’, in Lockeretz W (ed.), Agricultural Production and Nutrition, Tufts University School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Boston, MA, p 69–77. See also British Food Journal 99(6), p207–211] [Bergner P, 1997, The Healing Power of Minerals, Special Nutrients and Trace Elements, Prima Publishing, Rocklin, CA, p 312] Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA www.honestnutrition.com

A Tale of Two Studies: Vitamin E - Food vs Supplements

Vitamin E: Food vs Supplements Here is an illustration of the apparent contradiction between whether food sources of vitamin E are better to prevent prostate cancer than supplemental vitamin E sources: Two large studies, both published in the same technical journal at the same time, seem to reach contradictory results as to whether supplemental vitamin E is valuable in relation to prostate cancer. But are they both equal and contradictory? Actually, one is far more rigorous, and thus presumably more valid, than the other. In the first one (Serum and Dietary Vitamin E in Relation to Prostate Cancer Risk <1>), definite and large benefits were shown for supplemental alpha-tocopherol vitamin E, but not for food sources (containing mostly gamma-tocopherol). In the second one (Supplemental and Dietary Vitamin E Intakes and Risk of Prostate Cancer in a Large Prospective Study <2>), only food sources containing gamma-tocopherol were effective, but not supplemental vitamin E as alpha-tocopherol. A closer look reveals that the first study responsibly looked at serum levels and food plus supplemental vitamin E intake, then related that data to prostate cancer rates over up to 19 years afterward. This study's conclusion was that, "In summary, higher prediagnostic serum concentrations of alpha-tocopherol, but not dietary vitamin E, was associated with lower risk of developing prostate cancer, particularly advanced prostate cancer." The second study looked only at questionnaires related to subjects' intake of vitamin E from food and supplements at the start of the 5-year study, then compared the number of cancers over a 5-year period to data obtained from that questionnaire. The incubation period for cancers is estimated to be in the decades, rarely a period of 5 years or less. That, along with the lack of any data on serum antioxidant status and the use of a questionably reliable survey to determine intake of vitamin E from food or supplements, makes the second report far less meaningful than the first one. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against food sources of nutrients and routinely recommend vitamin E sources containing gamma-tocopherol, along with the full range of tocopherols and tocotrienols. But when preliminary or sketchy science is all-too-often reported as if it’s definitive when it’s really not, and when it is contradicted by better science, I am compelled to put things into a more realistic perspective. The measurement of serum levels in the body, along with careful reporting of a nutrient’s intake from various sources, is much more compelling than relying on a questionnaire that may be done by memory. It is well-known among nutritionists that daily food diaries are notoriously different than weekly food surveys done by memory recall, which almost always seem to conveniently forget the junk food, snacks and extra calories. A cancer study lasting nearly 4 times as long is also far more compelling than a shorter one because it will be more likely to encompass the cancer’s incubation period and allow for the development of symptoms that will allow detection. As the National Cancer Institute reports: “Prostate cancer often does not cause symptoms for many years.” <3> The use of supplemental alpha-tocopherol is supported by other reputable studies. For example, The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention (ATBC) Study demonstrated a 32% reduction in prostate cancer incidence in response to daily alpha-tocopherol supplementation. <4> Levels of Vitamin E above 100 IU daily are associated with decreased risk of coronary heart disease and certain types of cancer, as well as enhancement of immune function. These increased vitamin E intakes (100 I.U. and above) are considerably above levels obtainable from diet alone. <5-7> In the case of supplemental vitamin E, the results for prostate cancer in the more rigorous, better designed and better implemented study shows that it is more beneficial for prostate health than only food sources of vitamin E, which also tend to be much weaker amounts (often far below 100 IU daily, with Americans’ typical intake being only around 9.5 IU (6.4 mg) of alpha-tocopherol, below the RDA of 22.5 IU (15 mg). <8-9> This indicates our general need for supplemental vitamin E, unless by some miracle we all suddenly decide to eat wholesome natural foods containing a lot more vitamin E. But in the meantime, it would be nice if these studies were put into perspective so we could accurately assess their value to our health habits. Unfortunately, media coverage of negative reports, especially regarding vitamins, tends to drown out the positive ones, even when the good news is backed by studies with better design and implementation. In this case, supplemental vitamin E was the clear winner over the abysmal amounts in our diet, which ideally should be increased to healthy levels. REFERENCES: 1. Weinstein, SJ, et al. Serum and Dietary Vitamin E in Relation to Prostate Cancer Risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007 16: p. 1253-1259 http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/6/1253?ct 2. Wright, ME, et al. Supplemental and Dietary Vitamin E Intakes and Risk of Prostate Cancer in a Large Prospective Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007 16: p. 1128-1135 http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/6/1128?ct 3. National Cancer Institute’s Web site http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Detection/early-prostate 4. Weinstein SJ, et al. Serum alpha-tocopherol and gamma-tocopherol in relation to prostate cancer risk in a prospective study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Mar 2;97(5):396-9. PMID: 15741576 5. Bauernfeind, J. Tocopherols in Foods. In: Vitamin E: A Comprehensive Treatise. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel, pp. 99-167, 1980 6. Horwitt, M.K. The Promotion of Vitamin E. J. Nutr. 116:1371-1377, 1986 7. Weber, P., Bendich, A. and Machlin, L.J. Vitamin E and Human Health: Rationale for Determining Recommended Intake Levels. Nutrition 13:450-460, 1997 8. Ervin RB, Wright JD, Wang CY, Kennedy-Stephenson J. Dietary intake of selected vitamins for the United States Population: 1999–2000. Advance data from vital and health statistics; no 339. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2004 9. Vitamin E, Office of Dietary Supplements • NIH Clinical Center • National Institutes of Health http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamine.asp

Natural Controversies

On Thursday, November 8, 2007 I began writing the book, "Natural Controversies". The intention is a consumer-friendly referenced guide with specific examples of how to navigate sensational reports and conflicting claims about natural products and therapies. On November 15, I registered that title as a website name, temporarily pointing it to this blog (until the book is finished and the webpage can properly showcase it).