UK STUDY: ANTIOXIDANT VITAMINS AND MORTALITY IN OLDER PERSONS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
RESULTS: Strong inverse relationship for blood ascorbate (vitamin C) concentrations with all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality, which were only marginally reduced after adjustment for confounders or supplement use. Those in the lowest fifth (< 17 micromol/L) had the highest mortality, whereas those in the highest fifth (> 66 micromol/L) had a mortality risk nearly half that (hazard ratio = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.84). Similar results were found after the exclusion of those subjects with cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline (hazard ratio = 0.51; 0.28, 0.93). In fully adjusted models, there was no evidence for an influence of alpha-tocopherol (vitamin-E), beta-carotene, or retinol (vitamin-A) on total mortality. Dietary antioxidants measured by the food-frequency questionnaire were not associated with all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality
This study found that those with high vitamin C concentrations were half as likely to die as those with (normal) low concentrations. Note vitamin C was the only factor.
Why is mortality important? Lets illustrate with two groups. In group A, the rate of side effects occured at an incidence of 75%. The other group, B, had only 1% of its population who suffered side effects. Which group would you prefer to be in?
What would your answer be after learning that the side effects in group A were "runny noses and tenderness in the abdomen." The only side effect in group B was sudden death.
The point is that compared to death, not much else matters.
It is interesting that according to statiticians, and others who study the statin cholesterol-lowering drug studies, these statin drugs do not improve overall mortality. (Yet, these studies are the basis on which medical doctors routinely tell their patients that statin drugs improve mortality)
This from Malcolm Kendrick http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm3.htm#July%2029
Malcolm Kendrick wrote:[study authors] need to make the assumption that mortality has been proven........ Why, exactly, do we need to make this assumption? No study, ever, on primary prevention of heart disease with statins has ever shown a reduction in overall mortality. None, ever. And there have been many. And assuming something so absolutely vital, based on a huge amount of contradictory evidence seems just a tad premature.
I think I shall make an observation, rather than an assumption. As no clinical trial on cholesterol lowering in primary prevention of heart disease using statins (or any other drug actually) has ever demonstrated a reduction in overall mortality, it can be stated categorically that statins have no effect on overall mortality.
Or consider this from Anthony Colpo http://www.theomnivore.com/Lancet_statin_meta_2005.html
Anthony Colpo wrote:The fact remains that individuals free of heart disease, females, and the elderly have NOT been shown to enjoy any overall mortality benefit from statins whatsoever. No so-called 'responsible' commentator should recommend these drugs to such groups, especially when far less toxic natural cardio-protective strategies (exercise, low-glycemic load and antioxidant-rich diets, omega-3 supplementation, etc) are readily available. The publication of carefully-worded, selectively-presented research does not excuse such behavior, but merely represents further damning evidence that our health care system is largely a corrupt, Big Pharma-dominated sham.
Finally statistician Eddie Vos agrees and also notes http://www.health-heart.org/cholesterol.htm
Eddie Vos wrote:Some statin fine-print warns "The effects of ... on cardio vascular morbidity [illness] or mortality [death] ... have not [!] been established." And: "Significant decreases in circulating ubiquinone [CoQ10] levels in patients treated with X or other statins have been observed [happens in all users, and this does] .. lead to impaired cardiac function [= heart failure, nerve death] ..". Also: "..in some patients the beneficial effects of lowered... cholesterol may be partially "blunted" [canceled] by a concomitant [linked] increase in Lp(a) levels."