Medical Forum / General / Alternative / September 2005
Vitamin B Pills May Not Stop Heart Attacks
|
|
Thread rating:  |
C.Health - 05 Sep 2005 18:38 GMT Do you agree with this study based on previous studies on homocysteine levels and C-Reactive Protein? Were the patients' diet uniform?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050905/ap_on_he_me/vitamin_b&printer=1 Vitamin B Pills May Not Stop Heart Attacks By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
Folic acid and vitamin B pills do not ward off heart attacks or strokes and may even be harmful when combined, new research suggests.
Studies showing that the vitamins lower levels of a substance in the blood suspected of playing a role in the development of heart disease have prompted hundreds of thousands of heart patients in the developed world to take them.
However, the first large study of the question, presented Monday at a meeting of the European Society of Cardiology, found that although the supplements dramatically lowered the levels of homocysteine, they offered no heart protection.
"The message is clear here: Don't take folate or B-6 in the hope that it will stop you having a heart attack or stroke. If there was a real major effect, they would have seen it," said Dr. Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, which was not connected with the study.
Other experts said the findings will also stir the debate over whether homocysteine has any role at all in the development of heart disease.
In the study, conducted by Dr. Kaare Harald Bonaa, a professor of cardiology at the University of Tromso in Norway, 3,749 heart attack survivors were divided into four groups. In addition to standard heart medicines, one group took high dose vitamin B pills every day for three years. Another took high dose folic acid. A third group took both pills every day and the fourth group took fake pills.
There was no difference in the groups taking fake pills, vitamin B or folic acid when it came to new heart attacks or strokes. However, there were 20 percent more heart attacks and strokes among the group that took both pills.
Those who fared worst were patients who also had kidney problems, and those who reported they also take other vitamin supplements, the study found.
"This is the latest in a series of things that when tested in a scientific way don't actually pan out the way people expected," said Dr. Ray Gibbons, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic who was not connected with the research.
Homocysteine levels in the blood are often higher in people with heart disease. Some scientists therefore believe that lowering the substance might help prevent heart trouble. However, no study has ever shown that reducing concentrations improve heart conditions or prevent heart disease. For that reason, the role of homocysteine in the development of heart disease is hotly debated.
Folates, such as folic acid and vitamin B, are known to reduce the levels of homocysteine in the blood. That's why hundreds of thousands of people take them, sometimes on the advice of their doctors.
"These things are very attractive to patients because they are perceived as natural, inexpensive and they are widely advertised," said Gibbons, president-elect of the American Heart Association. "Many people have the perception that they are equivalent" to heavily researched pharmaceuticals.
"Taking something that has no beneficial effect is a bad idea, for several reasons," Gibbons said.
It's a waste of money, he said.
Also, it's hard enough for heart patients to take the fistful of pills that are proven to help them and there's a limit to how many they can tolerate taking. Adding another one only makes it less likely that they will take their real medication properly, Gibbons said.
"I'm going to purposely educate everybody I see that the folic acid they are taking has just been tested and the single large study to test it didn't find any benefit at all," he said. "I'm going to ask them if they are taking B-6 or a multivitamin that contains B-6 - and many of them are - and I'm going to point out that this study showed that this combination is harmful."
Other vitamins found to be either useless or potentially harmful are vitamin E and beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A.
Dan - 05 Sep 2005 19:24 GMT Vitamins aren't drugs; there are so many factors causing heart attacks.
"If there was a real major effect, they would have seen it." Why do should we not use something because it doesn't have a major effect? As I've found in life it isn't the big things you do every once and a while. It's the small things you do every day, just ask you girlfriend.
The only substance I know of that can combat a heart attack short-term is Nitro-Glycerine. Folic Acid lowers heart destroying Homocysteine levels. B vitamins are essential enzyme precursors helping the body convert food into energy and 100,000s of substances essential for life.
You can't keep eating 20 Philly Cheesestakes a day just because you are taking a B vitamin supplement.
The press and some in the scientific community think vitamins can have the same effects as drugs. And when they do a study that proves a vitamin doesn't work like a drug they call the vitamin "snake oil".
I found a study saying Folate from food doen't work as well as the supplement Folic Acid. http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/_archives/2005/8/19/1152999.html
Folic Acid Protects Against Alzheimer's http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/Vitamins/_archives/2005/8/12/1131187.html
US Population Benefits from Folic Acid Fortification http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/Vitamins/_archives/2005/8/9/1122432.html
Vitamin E useless?
Vitamin E Prevents Heart Attacks http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/Vitamins/_archives/2005/8/4/1109680.html
Vitamin E and Exercise Protects Lungs http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/Vitamins/_archives/2005/7/12/1018649.html
Vitamin E Can Kill Brain Cancer Cells http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/Vitamins/_archives/2005/7/8/1008865.html
Vitamin E Prevents Kidney Stones From Forming http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/Vitamins/_archives/2005/6/26/975109.html
Caroteniods Useless? Citrus carotenoid may fight polyarthritis http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/_archives/2005/8/9/1122464.html
Peter Moran - 05 Sep 2005 21:14 GMT > Vitamins aren't drugs; there are so many factors causing heart attacks. > > "If there was a real major effect, they would have seen it." Why do > should we not use something because it doesn't have a major effect? Because you would ask yourself why you were doing it in the first place. Whence the belief that it was doing you good?
Answer: clever marketing --- exploiting our pleasure in doing simple things that we think are good for us (so long as they don't involve effort, like exercise and better dietary habits); also the misuse of observational stduies that probably merely show the effect of such lifestyle choices in health-conscious people.
The recurring theme with prospective randomised studies of vitamin supplementation is one of failure to confirm benefits and hints of unexpected risks. Medicine was correct to abstain from endorsing the claims of vitamin manufacturers and that laboratory biochemist, Linus Pauling.
As I have pointed out before, if and when vitamin supplementation is proved to be helpful in any area, the correct approach will be to add them to common foods, so that ALL, not merely the health-obsessed and rich can benefit.
Peter Moran
PeterB - 06 Sep 2005 04:05 GMT > > Vitamins aren't drugs; there are so many factors causing heart attacks. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because you would ask yourself why you were doing it in the first place. > Whence the belief that it was doing you good? You missed his point. You also just made a case for eliminating almost all pharmaceuticals, since they provide minimal effects compared to placebo. The study referenced would also eliminate the logic behind controlling cholesterol, since half of all heart attacks occur in those with "normal" values. Homocystein is a better PREDICTOR of heart disease than cholesterol, but as with cholesterol-lowering drugs, we don't know whether suppressing the marker ALSO reduces the illness. Do you ever think about these things, Moran? I know, the script won't let you...
> Answer: clever marketing --- exploiting our pleasure in doing simple things > that we think are good for us (so long as they don't involve effort, like > exercise and better dietary habits)... Better dietary habits include use of supplemental nutrients, especially those derived from food sources.
> also the misuse of observational > stduies that probably merely show the effect of such lifestyle choices in > health-conscious people. There are large population studies showing the benefits of elevated nutrient intake, such that even AMA now recommends taking a multi vitamin daily.
> The recurring theme with prospective randomised studies of vitamin > supplementation is one of failure to confirm benefits and hints of > unexpected risks. We should just take your word for that, right? The fact is, many quality nutritional studies show dramatic health benefits with no risk of side effects, except in cases of synthetic vitamins that metabolize poorly (ie., synthetic beta carotene and vitamin E.) So your comment is more fitting in a discussion about 3mo. toxicology studies on pharmaceutical drugs like Vioxx, which don't assess the propensity for serious harm *AFTER* their approval and just prior to the lawsuits.
> Medicine was correct to abstain from endorsing the > claims of vitamin manufacturers and that laboratory biochemist, Linus > Pauling. Linus Pauling is very likely the reason for dramatic reductions in CVD starting in the 1970s, when supplementation with vitamin C became so popular based on his work. If you don't mind, I'll take the word of the ONLY two-time winner of the nobel peace prize in science over yours any day.
> As I have pointed out before, if and when vitamin supplementation is proved > to be helpful in any area, the correct approach will be to add them to > common foods, so that ALL, not merely the health-obsessed and rich can > benefit. You mean like the addition of vitamin D, which eradicated rickets in western society, or iron, which reduced anaemia in all but a few susceptible demographics? You're about thirty years late as usual, Moran. BTW, the cost of supplements is a tiny fraction what people pay for pharmaceutical drugs, and the benefits of vitamin C outweigh Vioxx about a billion to one, if you're counting the mortality risk, that is.
PeterB
Robert - 05 Sep 2005 22:56 GMT > Vitamins aren't drugs; there are so many factors causing heart attacks. Vitamins are drugs by every definition you can think of.
People selling vitamins often say that as a selling point against conventional prescription drugs.
iftikhargul@gmail.com - 05 Sep 2005 23:27 GMT Vitamins are like water and oil which keep a car running smoothly but they are no replacement for a radiator leak or a broken crankshaft. That is the diffrence between the drugs and vitamins.
> > Vitamins aren't drugs; there are so many factors causing heart attacks. > > Vitamins are drugs by every definition you can think of. > > People selling vitamins often say that as a selling point against > conventional prescription drugs. Robert - 06 Sep 2005 00:16 GMT > Vitamins are like water and oil which keep a car running smoothly but > they are no replacement for a radiator leak or a broken crankshaft. > That is the diffrence between the drugs and vitamins. I never said they are replacements for drugs. I said they are made like drugs by the same manufacturers of drugs and they are prescribed like any drug in many conditions by doctors and alternative health practitioners. You can have complications and side effects with the use of vitamins alone or in combination with conventional drugs that may be deadly. There are natural health products that can poison you and kill you pretty quickly just like any other drug or they can kill you slowly.
Dan - 06 Sep 2005 04:23 GMT Vitamins are drugs by every definition you can think of. How is a vitamin a drug?
vi·ta·min (vt-mn) n.
Any of various fat-soluble or water-soluble organic substances essential in minute amounts for normal growth and activity of the body and obtained naturally from plant and animal foods. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vitamin http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=drug drug 1a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication. 1b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
Robert - 06 Sep 2005 04:40 GMT Vitamins are drugs by every definition you can think of. How is a vitamin a drug?
vi·ta·min (vt-mn) n.
Any of various fat-soluble or water-soluble organic substances essential in minute amounts for normal growth and activity of the body and obtained naturally from plant and animal foods.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vitamin http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=drug drug 1a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication. 1b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
Natural substances occuring in small amounts in food and purified concentrated manufactured in pill form is a drug and not in no way resembing the natural form of the vitamin. If it were the same then the drug digoxin derived from the digitalis plant would not be a drug because it occurs in natural form and in small concentrations.
Penicillin is not a drug because it is produced in small amounts by the fungus?
How do you define a drug again?
It is a man made substance in pill form or liquid form.
Dan - 09 Sep 2005 08:43 GMT Robert I guess you didn't read 1b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Penicillin is a drug because of 1b. definition of Drug.
Please read before you fly off the handle.
Peter Bowditch - 09 Sep 2005 10:34 GMT >Robert I guess you didn't read 1b. And what makes you think that Robert didn't read it? As your inability to use Usenet prevents you from quoting, nobody knows what you are talking about.
>Such a substance as recognized or >defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, >and Cosmetic Act. Penicillin is a drug because of 1b. definition of >Drug. > >Please read before you fly off the handle. Please quote if you want people to take you seriously. Of course, that won't be enough by itself but it will be a start.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Dan - 11 Sep 2005 03:53 GMT Peter you must be the daftest person who uses Usenet. I was refering to someone who doen't know what difference between a drug and a vitamin.
"Vitamins are drugs by every definition you can think of."
> Vitamins aren't drugs; there are so many factors causing heart attacks. Vitamins are drugs by every definition you can think of.
People selling vitamins often say that as a selling point against conventional prescription drugs.
Dan" <dgill...@cox.net> wrote:
>Robert I guess you didn't read 1b. And what makes you think that Robert didn't read it? As your inability to use Usenet prevents you from quoting, nobody knows what you are talking about. What a drug is: 1a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.
1b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
What a vitamin is:
vi·ta·min (vt-mn) n.
Any of various fat-soluble or water-soluble organic substances essential in minute amounts for normal growth and activity of the body and obtained naturally from plant and animal foods.
>Such a substance as recognized or >defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, >and Cosmetic Act. Penicillin is a drug because of 1b. definition of >Drug.
>Please read before you fly off the handle. Please quote if you want people to take you seriously. Of course, that won't be enough by itself but it will be a start.
-- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
MMu - 06 Sep 2005 15:06 GMT > "Dan" <dgillila@cox.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:1125976994.111997.147510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Vitamins are drugs by every definition you can think of. > How is a vitamin a drug? It all depends on the dosis.. you answered your own question in the end:
1a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.
GMCarter - 06 Sep 2005 10:56 GMT >> Vitamins aren't drugs; there are so many factors causing heart attacks. > >Vitamins are drugs by every definition you can think of. Better start demanding prescriptions for oranges and potatoes and--look at the uncontrolled mix of chemicals people are consuming without oversight?
And the result? Obesity! Cholesterol increases!
Food IS drugs!
George M. Carter
Peter Moran - 05 Sep 2005 20:57 GMT > Do you agree with this study based on previous studies on homocysteine > levels and C-Reactive Protein? Were the patients' diet uniform? The randomisation should have made sure that the groups were uniform in such respects.
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050905/ap_on_he_me/vitamin_b&printer=1 > Vitamin B Pills May Not Stop Heart Attacks By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > vitamin > E and beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. drlook@drlook.de - 06 Sep 2005 13:03 GMT C.Health schrieb:
> Do you agree with this study based on previous studies on homocysteine > levels and C-Reactive Protein? Were the patients' diet uniform? > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050905/ap_on_he_me/vitamin_b&printer=1 > Vitamin B Pills May Not Stop Heart Attacks By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer > 1 hour, 59 minutes ago snip Hello,
At first place the whole study, (after being published in a major journal), has to be carefully read. Three yrs, and substatial HCYs-reduction in a high risk collective and a neutral result cannot be ignored. Although being a supporter of homycsyteine reduction through B-vitamins this can be a serios drawback. I am sure, the anti-supplement media will react quite "enthusiatically"
However, I would like to remind everybody of the FACIT trial 2004, which did not show positive results either.
Lange H, Suryapranata H, De Luca G, Borner C, Dille J, Kallmayer K, Pasalary MN, Scherer E, Dambrink JH. Free Full Text Folate therapy and in-stent restenosis after coronary stenting. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jun 24;350(26):2673-81.
On the other hand the Swiss Heart Study did show positive results two yeras earlier?!
Schnyder G, Roffi M, Flammer Y, Pin R, Hess OM. Effect of homocysteine-lowering therapy with folic acid, vitamin B12, and vitamin B6 on clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention: the Swiss Heart study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002 Aug 28;288(8):973-9.
The crucial point here might be "stents". If the event rate of in-stent restenosis was responsible for cardiac "events" in the verum group, this would be in line with the hypotheses, which were drawn from FACIT, i. e. that the neointima in stents proliferates too much if luxurious folate or B-vitamins are present?!
Maybe B2 was missing? How were the results according to MTHFR , CBS or MS-Genotypes? BTW, were drug eluting stents were used? I guess not.
Many questions. Maybe somebody around in this forum has any clues.
Regs. Mark
PeterB - 19 Sep 2005 18:10 GMT > C.Health schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Regs. > Mark Unfortunately, Mark, our resident Pharma Bloggers have no desire to engage in this type of intelligent review of the facts. We can only hope that people like yourself will be more active in the newsgroups to fill the shortfall.
PeterB
Robert - 19 Sep 2005 19:07 GMT > > C.Health schrieb: > > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > PeterB It's good to have Supplemental Bloggers have their say. How many health food stores do you own?
drlook@drlook.de - 20 Sep 2005 11:13 GMT Well, it is necessary to await thi final publication comprising subgroup analysis. There is no other way. Unscientiffically spoken, studies in Norway and Finnland sometimes turn out to yield different results as compared to the rest of the world.
:-) I will certainly continue to take B-vitamin supplements myself.
It will be critical to discern between the lesions where the events took place. In-Stent, normal coronary vessel? How were S-Adensyl-Homocysteine levels? I really hope that a polymorphism analysis will come with the results. Was the study underpowered? Which similar trials are underway? etc.
However, again, if the final paper is going to be published the parole will be "duck and cover" for the pro-supplement community, since the anti-supplement press will jump out of the box. regs Mark
|
|
|