Pfizer Funded Studies: Multivitamins Are Waste of Money

Studies that have recently come out claim that vitamins show no viable benefit for preventing early death, heart disease, cancer, preserve cognitive abilities and does not prevent heart attacks in large medical grade doses.

Funding for these studies was provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), BASF , Pfizer and the DSM Nutritional Products .

Several scientists came together to contribute to a paper entitled, “Enough Is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements” which outlines “that most mineral and vitamin supplements have no clear benefit, might even be harmful in well-nourished adults, and should not be used for chronic disease prevention.”

An interesting conclusion was that “doses of vitamins may be too low” for effectiveness.

Cynthia Mulrow, deputy editor of the Annals of Medicine journal, commented: “After all, most people who buy multivitamins and other supplements are generally healthy. Even junk foods often are fortified with vitamins, while the main nutrition problem in the U.S. is too much fat and calories.”

The US Preventative Services Task Force (PSTF) has a “draft recommendation statement ” that expounds on these new studies on vitamins.

Michael LeFevre, co-chair on the PSTF said: “In general, the Task Force found that there is not enough evidence to determine whether you can reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer by taking single or paired nutrients, or a multivitamin. However, there were two major exceptions: beta-carotene and vitamin E, both of which clearly do not help prevent these diseases.”

Howard Sesso, who has assisted in the multivitamin study recently published, explained that multivitamins are no better at preserving “memory or other cognitive” abilities.

Sesso said: “Diet and exercise are more protective. They also had a similarly lower risk of developing cataracts, common to aging eyes. But the vitamins had no effect the risk for heart disease or another eye condition . . . vitamins didn’t reduce the chances of another heart attack, other cardiovascular problems, or death.”

Two months ago, researchers at the University of Guelph (UoG) have released a study claiming that commercial herbal products (CHP) contain many dangerous unlisted ingredients, fillers and cheap alternatives.

Forty-four products from 12 separate corporations were tested . It was determined that 60% of CHP contain plant species not referred to on their labels.

Fillers added to 32% of products tested were:

• Rice
• Soybeans
• Wheat

This poses a problem for persons with allergies and needing gluten-free products.

The study did not point out that these fillers are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and this would explain why the human body reacts adversely to their genetic material, manifesting in disease and allergies.

Steven Newmaster, lead author of the study and professor of integrative biology at the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario (BIO) said : “There is a need to protect consumers from the economic and health risks associated with herbal product fraud. Currently there are no standards for authentication of herbal products.”

Newmaster explained: “Contamination and substitution in herbal products present considerable health risks for consumers. We found contamination in several products with plants that have known toxicity, side effects and/or negatively interact with other herbs, supplements and medications.”

An estimated 80% of people worldwide use CHPs; including vitamins, mineral and herbal remedies with US manufacturers not required to obtain oversight approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Timothy Caufield, author and professor of law and science at the University of Alberta (UoA) was not “surprised” by the study’s findings.

Caufield said the “production, sale and marketing of herbal products is a massive industry and people often forget that.”

The American Medical Association (AMA) formed a coalition of mainstream medical entities to combat natural medicine.

Members of the coalition include:

• American Dental Association
• American Cancer Society
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Psychiatric Association

In 2006, the AMA announced that they will “work through its Board of Trustees to outline a policy opposing the licensure of naturopaths to practice medicine and report this policy to the House of Delegates no later than the 2006 Interim Meeting. (Directive to Take Action) Fiscal Note: Implement accordingly at estimated staff cost of $10,836.”