Here we go again! This was the title on the cover of the November 2007 Reader’s Digest. By reading the title alone you get the impression that the article’s author had uncovered information finally proving that anyone taking vitamins should be considered the fool. So, are we really getting the wool pulled over our eyes? Are we the fools? And, if not, why would a respected magazine like Reader’s Digest find this subject so important as to put it forth as a front cover story? Did they do this because of a genuine concern that vitamins are a real danger to your health? Let me give you my opinions and insights and you decide the answers to these questions for yourself.

First, let me tell you that there are no new shocking studies proving any vitamin “hoax”, as the title suggested. Instead, Reader’s Digest used very controversial studies in an attempt to establish the basis for their argument that some supplements are dangerous. Examples include quoting a study released earlier this year suggesting that people taking antioxidants actually increased a person’s risk of dying. Read my analysis of this JAMA article to find out the facts as to why this study was fatally flawed and should never be quoted as providing any real information about antioxidants. Another quoted study was one from Johns Hopkins suggesting that vitamin E increased the risk of dying. This study was even more flawed than the antioxidant article. Read my analysis of the Johns Hopkins study.

The author quoted a medical doctor who stated that, “Taking more than the RDA/DRI (Recommended Daily Allowance/Dietary Reference Intake) of vitamins is associated with problems.” She then used ridiculous examples to support this point by mentioning that taking too much folate without B6 or B12 could be problematic. No one does this so why even use it as an example. It would be like quoting me as saying that water is dangerous if you drink 5 gallons at one sitting without taking electrolytes. Of course, but who does this? Right, NO ONE! The impression imposed by this statement was that all vitamins pose dangers if you take more than the RDA/DRI. This was misleading and simply untrue.

I can tell you that if you only look at the conclusions of these quoted studies or take the statements from the quoted “experts” at face value, you would definitely have reason for concern. And, this is the real problem. Most people, including health professionals, only look at the conclusions without evaluating the detail and content of studies or statements. This is exactly what the author of this article did and she did it in an extremely biased manner meant to skew the reader’s opinion towards the negative.

Before I give you examples to support my last claim, let me disclose very clearly that I am biased for the use of vitamins. Thus, when I see a negative vitamin/supplement article my first inclination is to prove that conclusion wrong. And, in most cases, this is easily accomplished. Again, read my articles on the antioxidant and vitamin E studies. On the other hand, a study was published suggesting that high doses of vitamin A taken over years could lead to decreased bone strength (osteoporosis). Even though I was initially skeptical about this finding, I evaluated the study and found it to be sound. I actually never used high dose vitamin A for long periods of time but I am now aware of this complication. In actuality, most people get their vitamin A as beta carotene which is not true vitamin A. Thus, they do not overdose on vitamin A on a daily basis and this warning regarding the “danger” of taking vitamin A is well overstated. The point I want you to understand is that my bias does not close my mind. The author of the “The Vitamin Hoax” article cannot claim the same.

Now, I want to support my claim that the goal of this article was to put an intentionally negative skew on how people look at vitamins. First, the title of this article was very revealing. It was not posed as a question like, “Are Vitamins A Hoax?” but as a statement of supposed fact, “The Vitamin Hoax.” The author then set forth to manipulate the readers in an interesting manner. The article started by telling the reader that when they Google vitamins they get the “wildest claims” they could imagine including “improved sex drive” and “reversing cancer.” She then set the tone by stating, “But new research not only refutes many of these claims, it also shows that some of these vitamins may in fact be harmful.” The article then proceeded to paint a picture of danger surrounding the use of vitamins by quoting the conclusions from a number of very controversial studies, as already noted.

To give the appearance of balance the author then, rightfully, tells to told the reader that vitamin experts disagree with these studies and why they disagree. But, she followed the descriptions with statements like, “Still, others wonder, why take the risk…” and “Unless your doctor says you need supplements for a specific diagnosis, there is no reason to take them and no need to spend the money.” What risks? That is like telling you not to eat because of the risk of choking! Sure there is a risk of choking, but how eminent is that risk? Not very. They give the impression that the risk outweighs the benefit, which is not supported by the whole of the research. And, when was the last time your doctor told you to take a supplement for any diagnosis instead of a drug? Right, NEVER! Give me a break!

So, this brings up some very interesting questions. Why would Reader’s Digest use this topic for a front cover story? Was it due to their genuine fear that vitamins are dangerous and that the masses need to know the truth? I think not! Here are some facts to think about so you can come to your own conclusion.

There is no doubt that a handful publications have concluded that certain vitamins may be ineffective at treating some diseases or may pose health concerns at higher doses. The VAST MAJORITY of theses studies are highly controversial and are not conclusive by any means. On the other hand, there are many thousands (yes, thousands) of journal published studies that showed benefits from taking vitamins/supplements. Why is it that these thousands of positive studies are summarily dismissed while very weak, but negative studies are embraced? Here is a great example taken from the Reader’s Digest article.

In the article they gave you ten supplements not to take. One of those was Selenium. They stated that, “One new study suggests that adding more selenium via a pill may increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.” If you go to Pub Med and type in “selenium diabetes”, the very first peer reviewed study you get is from September of 2007 (I would call that new!). Here is the reference and conclusion. Note the positive finding.

Erbayraktar Z, Yilmaz O, Artmann AT, Cehreli R, Coker C.
Effects of selenium supplementation on antioxidant defense and glucose homeostasis in experimental diabetes mellitus. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2007 Sep;118(3):217-26.
Conclusion: Selenium augmented the antioxidant defense by increasing glutathione peroxidase activity and this effect was more prominent when Selenium was supplemented as selenomethionine, which exerted positive effects also on glucose homeostasis.

The interesting thing is that you have to ignore a number of positive studies regarding selenium and diabetes to get to the study quoted by Reader’s Digest. And, the authors in the study quoted in Reader’s Digest even admit that their study had major limitations. So, who is being deceitful?

Why do we see this unfair treatment of vitamins in the press all of the time? I feel that there are three main reasons why we see such a bias against the use of supplements.

1. The medical community is strongly biased against the use of vitamins. They learn very little to nothing about supplements in their training and are then caught up in a system that forces them towards the use of drugs. Additionally, they are exposed to the negative portrayals of vitamins in the media like this Reader’s Digest article. The conclusions they infer from this negative exposure reinforces their bias against vitamins and supplements. The message they then parrot to their patients is that vitamins are worthless and potentially dangerous.
2. There are major problems in the supplement industry regarding sensationalized claims meant to separate you from your money. One of my main goals is to combat this kind of rubbish. However, these ridiculous claims are made, which causes sensible people to question the validity of natural remedies as a whole. This creates a trend of “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” We know there is a lot of junk out there and we are made to feel unsure about the rest by articles like the one in Reader’s Digest. When we become confused, the easiest thing to do is nothing. Many end up throwing the good out with the bad. Others go to their doctors for guidance and receive a less than favorable recommendation.
3. The most influential of the reasons for vitamin bias is the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in making vitamins look bad and they do anything possible to “muddy the waters” when it comes to natural medicine. This is especially true when the vitamin directly competes with their drug. Think about it. If everyone in the U.S. utilized vitamin and supplement therapies, the numbers needing pharmaceuticals would decrease significantly. The potential cost to the drug companies would be in the BILLIONS! How can I make this statement with any validity? Because I have personally counseled many patients on natural alternative options who had previously gone down the drug route only to end up taking 2, 3, 4 or more prescriptions a day. Now they take NONE and are healthier. The drug companies will not take a billion dollar chance that people will discover that supplements are indeed effective for many conditions. They will continue to through out as many monkey wrenches as possible.

THE BOTTOM LINE

When we look at this Reader’s Digest article, what is the real hoax? Keep in mind that the word hoax means to trick or deceive. Is it “The Vitamin Hoax” or “The Reader’s Digest Hoax?” Remember the selenium example I just used?

Additionally, you have to understand that a major advertiser for Reader’s Digest is the pharmaceutical industry. There were 17 pages of advertisements in this November issue for various drugs. A whopping 30 % of the advertisements were from the pharmaceutical industry. You cannot help but wonder if Reader’s Digest was stroking their number one source for advertising revenue.

Expect to continue to read and hear about the dangers of taking vitamins. What to do…what to do? First, get expert input when you want to follow a vitamin regimen that includes taking high doses.

The real “Hoax” in this article was the attempt to make readers believe that vitamins are dangerous or harmful. Do not be deceived.