Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Vitamin B Pills May Not Stop Heart Attacks

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.