Probably Pfizer or Merck

My mother is 84 and her doctor examines her blood tests and tells her what supplements she needs, if any. Has anyone looked into that in these women who took the supplements? Because if their doctor recommended it then its because something was amiss in their system already. Henc the higher mortality rate. Otherwise if nothing was amiss with their blood work the doctor would have never recommended any vitamins would they? Hence also a lower mortality rate. Wasted study unless someone looks at the blood work on all these women.

I agree, a perfect example of a story intended to bring more readers but communicate little. I would expect a better course of action beyond take or not to take. As AnaBanan noted, asking for these details at yearly physicals would be good advice. Most people would find that they are high in some areas and deficient in
others.

Who told the media that this was worth a big splash headline? I don't see any indication that the 'result" is statistically meaningful? People who have health problems are more likely to take supplements. There is no causal evidence that supplements are bad for you. This is at best a shameful scare tactic to gain attention. More likely the story was fed to the media by the pharmaceutical industry.

That's a very good point about the blood work. My wife is constantly low in iron, calcium, and potassium so she has to take supplements to keep those levels within the desired range. Too much of those elements in the blood is harmful so it could be toxic for someone with a high level of iron to take a vitamin with iron. They failed to show how those people died. Cancer. heart attack, accident. etc. or what their health condition was before they took part in the survey. They could have already been sickly before the survey started so the supplements could have prolonged their live.

This study although it shows that taking vitamins every day may not make you live longer is not complete.

This is completely useless information unless they also tracked the source of the vitamins, i.e., harmful contamination from the manufacturer, as well as exactly how much is/was ingested on a daily basis, PLUS what their diets are/were. It could be that they had rotten diets and tried to make up for it with supplements and it just doesn't work that way, and it could be that they already got everything they needed from superior diets and essentially poisoned themselves by adding additional vitamins that may not simply be expelled by the body when there is an overabundance present. The combination of supplements may also make a difference. Since the article author chose not to go into such detail how about posting the actual study results so we can judge for ourselves?

The women were 62 at the start of the study and over 82 at end! how many of them just died because they were OLD or of something else like heart disease or stroke. When you start with a pool of aging people, these results could just be what? normal?

Nor do they mention the cause of death. It might very well be that the taking supplements raises your energy levels, meaning you tend to burn out rather than fade away. Phrased another way: maybe those taking the supplements have a better quality of life.

Most Americans get the vitamins and minerals they need from their diets. The drug companies flood us with commercials to take pills and drink vitamin drinks, it is insane! In Ohio, patients who are in nursing homes and on Medicaid are required to be given a multi-vitamin, along with zinc and calcium. The patient or their families can decline the drugs but rarely do.

Many patients are given these suppliments crushed in applesauce or pudding. And then they do not eat their meals and loose weight.

I was a hospice nurse. The first thing the hospice team does is evaluate and eliminate medications that are not for symptom management. The "team" included our hospice doctors. Guess what? The patients started to gain weight and was discharged from the hospice program. Then they were started back on the vitamins and minerals again.

I believe someone lined the pockets of a politicians to make this a mandatory requirement for Medicaid patients. Why do people who are in their eighties and nineties need this kind of supplements in the first place?

This example is only one of several, that nurses have noted that is wasteful, for the patient and the cost of the is past on to the tax payer.

Why do we see these stories only on MSNBC's website?

Since Fox News is the most informative source of news and information, I would expect to see this story reported accurately there without spin.

Funded by the same people who don't want anyone to publish data about death from prescriptions meds.... obviously.

AnaBanana - that is exactly what I was thinking and didn't see any reference to... I wonder if these women were treating some existing condition which is what ultimately lead to their higher mortality, rather than the supplements themselves.

There is a TON of information missing from this article, regarding the test population, dosages, total supp regimen, and about a hundred other relevant conditions. A link to the pubmeb/national institute of health publication is always a good reference... (hint hint, nudge nudge to Joseph Brownstein).

key2joy - good point on funding... that has to always be a question.

Doctors Are the Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.

Cause 250,000 Deaths Every Year

By Joseph Mercola, D.O.

The U.S. health care system may contribute to poor health or death. According to Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 250,000 deaths per year are caused by medical errors, making this the third-largest cause of death in the U.S., following heart disease and cancer.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Dr. Starfield has documented the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm in the following statistics:

Deaths Per Year

Cause

106,000
Non-error, negative effects of drugs²

80,000
Infections in hospitals¹⁰

45,000
Other errors in hospitals¹⁰

12,000
Unnecessary surgery⁸

7,000
Medication errors in hospitals⁹

250,000
Total deaths per year from iatrogenic* causes

* The term iatrogenic is defined as "induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially to pertain to a complication of treatment."

If vitamin supplements came anywhere near these statistics they'd be outlawed. I don't see any trend toward outlawing the western medical system in the near future. For me, I'll take my chances on a few supplements. Let's not forget the big pamphlets the drug companies MUST publish listing the possible side effects of their chemical soup of pills they sell folks.

Iowa Women's Health Study is a research tool began and is still run by the nursing program of University of Iowa's Nursing Program. They polled nurses, asking us to volunteer. And we did. It is a cross section of nurses that began in Iowa, and have moved throughout the nation. We have studied men for years... ergo the Aspirin a Day study... but no such info existed on women. They ask us to report what we have done, and ask for information on illness'.

they are trying to push some $hit through Congress to clamp down on the supplement industry to push people into the care of doctors (drug pushers). America the land of the formerly free

how nice of them to provide a list of the most commonly 'over used' supplements, and the problems overdosing of them can lead to.

AnaBanana- My thoughts exactly. The study apparently did NOT take into consideration the fAct that many of the women may have been taking the suppliments because of an underlying medical condition.

How is it they "followed white women in their 60's for 20 years"?

I don't know anyone who stays 60 for 20 years. Or did they study a group of women who were 60 for a year, then the next year they studied a new group of 60 year old women, and so on for 20 years?

mcgeo

I think they just needed an English lesson. Maybe they meant to say they started the research in women who were sixty, and followed them for twenty years.

Either way, I am not an advocate of supplemental drugs. I'd rather get my vitamins the old fashioned way, in ice cream!

philip munroe summed up the purpose of this vitamin supposed-study.

And Take that back., everyone would prefer to be able to get their vitamins and minerals in the old fashioned way. But modern, processed food is either completely devoid of nutrients, only contains nutrients in lesser quantities, or else the processed foods are fortified with synthetic vitamins. And soil that crops are grown on is often depleted, the fertilizer does not contain the same type of nutrients needed at the top of the food chain.

(An older source on this subjects were a series of books by Adelle Davis, like Lets Eat Right to Stay Fit. Though decades old, it raises the question that if the food was already that bad in the '60's, how much worse is it now?)

exactly. People should have the right to decide what is best for them. This is one issue the government should stay out of. We know the strong lobby pharma companies have on the politicians and the economy. I for one want pharma companies OUT of my life. I decide whether I live or die and what I do in the middle and that is without them. It is called FREEDOM....of choice including what we do with our lives and our bodies. Unless we ask for their help, they should NEVER mandate what we need to do. Not their business. Canada here we come !

Big pharma has NOT been pushing for regulation of suppliments. The FDA, on the other hand, has been charged for the past 100 years with ensuring that "snake oil salesmen" don't sell dangerous products ... so they have gotten a lot of flack whenever suppliments are found to be dangerous.

Big pharma has been pushing to classify certain nutrients such as vitamin K as drugs so they charge big money for them.

This report didn't mention what brand of supplements were used by these women. All brands of supplements are not created equal.

Lunatic: Even though "big pharm" actually owns many of the supplement companies, there absolutely has been a push to weed them out. Research the 1994 Dietary Supplemental Health and Education Act and the updated Food and Safety bill of 2010.

Lunatic, you ARE crazy and or just plain stupid. Big pharma has most definitely been pushing for decades for any kind of restrictions and prohibitions they could lie, cheat and wrangle their way to getting passed. You're either stupid as I said or you're on their payroll, which is likely the case. They pay shills to load comment pages on any story like this that they feed to the coporate media.

Ever notice how few stories there are in the media about the incredibly toxic prescription meds they push on us that kill and debilitate people everyday?

Does anyone else notice how many of the ads for their drugs spend half the ad time telling us the dire side effects and how many ways they can "cause death" and permanent side effects????? I mean, for instance, Abilify lists THREE different ways Abilify can KILL you! Prilosec, also THREE different ways it can kill you! It's astounding that these drugs-- which have far worse side effects than they are effective at treating what they are designed to treat-- are ever allowe on the market!

Jack / desertmac - here is a bit more about about my opinions of the pharma industry:

http://www.halfbakedlunatic.com/post/2010/10/25/Tackling-the-Healthcare-Issue.aspx

Expect the FDA to wrap its tentacles about this one as part of their ongoing campaign to prevent the American people from making any choices at all about our personal lives and choices.

The Lunatic-sometimes I just have to state: I do not beleive that.

The FDA is big pharma.

I remember one of my instructors lecturing on this subject back in college. Thing is, many of your body's activities are regulated by how much of certain nutrients you have in your system. Increasing these nutrients past healthy levels can lead to some unintended and unfortunate side-effects.

A harmless example: You take vitamins to increase hair growth -> Your finger and toenails also grow faster.

A harmful example: Without having your blood tested first, you take vitamins high in potassium "just in case" you might have a deficiency -> your heartbeat becomes irregular. Your heart may stop beating entirely. In other words, you die.

I worry about people that mock studies like this. I really do.

So thrilled to see the public isn't buying this....so incomplete.....Common sense tells you not to overdose on Vitamins...Read the label. I sell Shaklee plant based vitamins and I tell people if you don't feel better don't buy them.... Also go get your blood work done...if it's not getting better or normal don't take my vitamins. As far as eating healthier foods, we all want to eat healthier but thanks to corporations like Monsanto, we don't have much of a choice.... And most supplements are made in China.... so know where your vitamins are made. Are they made in America.... Are they synthetic or plant based.... Are they made with GMO food and plants or Non-GMO.... If you start reading labels these days...you will find it is harder and harder to find out where the source of your food is.... I know where my supplements come from and I feel the difference... have no health issues since 2006 when I started taking Shaklee and feel the difference when I don't.... Don't listen to the news.... self educate and listen to your body.

Dead right - lies, more lies and statistics. Sounds like a load of BS to me.

Typical for studies like this to report the statistics in a way that says what their supporting funders wanted them to say. As Aesthetic Guy brought out, that difference is so insignificant it is actually a non-finding. It's surprising how many people won't actually think about this, but just stop taking their supplements.

BTW, I notice the make adjustments for women's age and calorie intake, but you notice that they don't say they made adjustments for accidental death.

Not to mention these people were in their 60's in 1986. Seems to me like dying is normal for people aged 60-90, vitamins or no.

Robbie, dude, dying is normal. As Jim MOrrison said - no one gets out of here alive.

I'll take my vitamins and the Big Pharma folks can go eff themselves.

I would like to know why MSNBC even posted this ridiculous non-story propaganda crap! They have a team of editors who decide what gets posted and how prominent each story is on their front page. This is most disappointing to me. I refuse to go to Faux News or even CNN. I choose MSNBC because it is home to Maddow, Shultz, Radigan et al and is generally a progressive bright spot in a heavily right leaning mass media wasteland. Choosing to post this crap, and making it the biggest headline does NOT show good judgment or common sense. Shame on you, MSNBC!

I notice they conveniently forgot to include the margin of error of the study.

If you survey 100 people, then a 1% discrepancy is normal and expected. But there were 38,000 people in this study. Once you get into numbers that high, the chances of it being a coincidence are very very very low.

So there is definitely some sort of statistical correlation between vitamins and death. But then again, even though researchers can correct for caloric intake and other factors, they can't account for self-selection. Meaning the fact that those women took vitamins might have to do with some other underlying factor. For instance, women who are generally unhealthy may be more likely to take vitamins and also more likely to die. A more accurate study would have 38,000 women take pills every day with some as placebos and some as multivitamins, have neither the women or the scientists know which women have the placebo and which don't, then compare their average death rates.

There was NOTHING in this study that showed the supplement had ANYTHING to do with the deaths. It is a simple correlation. In other words, junk science.

Not only that, it says that the cause of the deaths could not be linked to supplement use. It seems that just random chance alone could cause a difference that small.

I would recheck the statistics and math. Even if they say the math is correct, who knows if they actually asked the right question mathematically to draw such a conclusion to warrant a front page headline.

I agree. 2.4% is pretty fractional, meaning other factors may well be involved. I also agree with the other posts, who is funding this? Cigarettes once were deemed healthy by doctors, after all.

Demonizing is exactly what it is. Big pharma and their handmaidens the FDA are waging all out war on supplements and the right of the American people to make our own health choices. Count on our idiot Congress to give them the ammo.

This is junk science, pure and simple. First off, there was no control of the data. It was all self-reported! Also, no causitive link was ever established between supplements and death.

Fron the ANH: "In the study, all of the relative risks were so low as to be statistically insignificant, and none was backed up by any medical investigation or biological plausibility study. No analysis was done on what combinations of vitamins and minerals were actually consumed, and no analysis of the cause of death was done beyond grouping for “cancer,” “cardiovascular disease,” or “other”—there was certainly no causative analysis done. The interactions of potential compounding risk factors is always tremendously complex—and was ignored in this so-called study

These people see humans in two categories....the leaders ( themselves ) and the followers....the rest of the population. That statement has been a thorn in my side for decades. There is another category of people...they are the individuals...who decide what they want for themselves without any interference or suggestions from these "leaders". They have NO interest in leading but sure as hell , they will follow no one. Let that be said : we are not alone...there are plenty like us who want our rights, our freedom and could not care less what the rest of the populace does....and certainly does not give any consideration to those who pretend to lead. I am not a sheep.

MDDPAZ, that advice would be very wise and true IF we had a natural, unprocessed, unadulterated food supply, but we don't! Most people cannot afford to pay four or five times the price for organic food at Whole Foods; we're barely able to afford the processed crap and GMO poison loading our store shelves as it is.

Yet one more reason I have turned against Obama (whom I campaigned for) is his appointing the lawyer for Monsanto as the "top advisor" to the FDA right when the FDA approved Monsanto's Genetically Modified corn and alfalfa WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS OR LABELING STANDARDS in the US, while Europe held fast with their BAN on GMOs. This was done in spite of most of the FDA's scientists' research that showed many problematic results on human health AND on the crops and fields being poisoned and creating "super bugs" that cannot be controlled or eliminated, etc...

90% of the soy grown in this country is already GM, and in another convenient "coincidence" back in the early 80s Reagan appointed another Monsanto exec to the FDA, and over the objections of everyone in the agency, suddenly Monsanto's rBGH (bovine growth hormone) was approved for cows without further study or any kind of restrictions or labelling requirements, and they even decreed that NO research or tracking be done by the government agencies to see how this would affect our milk and beef supply. This, then and now, was done to the US while all of Europe and most of the rest of the world maintained bans on these frankenfoods.

Monsanto sent tons of GM corn to Haiti a few months ago.............. As desperate as the Haitians are for food and needing to plant crops for the future, the people BURNED every last seed! Even these traumatized people refused to poison their fields and stomachs.

Do you know how long it takes to locate a cereal in the grocery store that has NO sugar? And...More sugar actually means the cereal is cheaper.

Dragonmaster, it takes less than five seconds in the cereal aisle to find a cheap, nutritious cereal without added sugar: store brand oatmeal. It's what I eat for breakfast most weekday mornings. Sometimes I have plain shredded wheat (generic) for a little variety. There's also puffed wheat, puffed rice, Wheetabix, Cream of Wheat, and kasha (a buckwheat cereal that's eaten hot, not Kashi).

I'd love to find a cereal with a little sugar in it. Every box I examine has corn syrup as the sweetener. Same sweetener Grandma made apple pies with...er...no!

LOL, that is hilarious!

A lot of people have heart attacks while on the cr@pper. Should we regualate bowel movements or cr@ppers?

A lot of people have heart attacks while on the cr@pper. Should we regualate bowel movements or cr@ppers?

Of course not, there's no profit in that. You prescribe laxatives for the rest of your life, along with some happy pills.

Uh BrainCandy, perscribing laxatives is regulation of bowel movements.

That's right. Where are the studies on how many people die from side affects of drugs?

They don't want you to know that...the drug companies fund these studies.

We see many people overdosing on prescribed drugs yet it is considered OK evidently since quacks are multiplying as the need increases. What is the difference between a junkie who takes drugs from the street and a fool who buys drugs through the system of physicians and prescriptions pads...none; they are both junkies. Difference ? pharma. companies get their cut and the quack gets his benefits from the drug rep. On the flip side, the pusher gets his cut but he takes a lot more risks than the other two. Interesting, is it not ? Makes me respect the pusher more than the system we are legally bound to. A sick society. The best is to take nothing...no drugs at all....aspirin maybe. We all will live longer that way....and when our time comes to die, we can do it with dignity.

yeah, you never hear about internal bleeding statistics from motrin, right? Just that kid in the suburbs who took too many vicodin.

Exactly. For example, maybe the persons who had a history of health problems are more likely to take vitamins. That's a very real possibility (many people don't care about these things until they get sick). And of course that there would be a correlation between higher mortality and history of health problems.

How does the study disprove this argument, or any thousands like it?

Russ, I agree. I got my Master's basically in statistical analysis. A correlation without a justifiable cause is worse than meaningless, but we see such nonsense all the time. This is exactly where the old adage (and the best source I heard attributed it to Will Rogers) 'white lies, damn lies .... and statistics!' ... of course if that was Will, that was at the height of the New Deal when bad use of statistics was an absolute necessity to justify it all. There are countless studies which take a correlation and try to dress it up as a cause, and it is an outrageous misuse of the tools of statistics, which require very specific controls and demand very specific assumptions be met. In fact, most statistics I see published in recent years are the result of a 'study' with a predetermined outcome .... give me whatever numbers you get, and I can bend them to say anything .... but they will still mean absolutely nothing.

No kidding, Ramone. Of course the study itself may be far better than the very simplified reporting we see here, but I would pick it a part with a fine toothed comb, to be sure. Did they check for autocorrelation? Did they strictly adhere to the BLUE assumptions? Sorry for the jargon, but these are essential questions about any statistical analysis and if they are not all met rigidly, then the statistics are insignificant (meaningless).

exactly and we are not stupid. These studies are not flying. Who are they met for ? Idiots who cannot figure out how to read ? It is an intimidation from pharma. companies who are likely tasting the waters so at some point they will try their best to ban anything we can freely buy. I can smell that "control" coming our way.

And, were tha calories from fresh, natural sources or high fructose corn syrup?

Let's face it......where ISN'T big brother these days?

Yes, they do want to take our suppliments, it is called "CODEX". Research it. It is coming for a vote soon. This study also didn't state whether or not the suppliments were synthetic or natural/organic or the quality of the suppliments. You can not buy cheap vitamins people, especially synthetic, they're made in a lab and filled with other chemicals and by-products. Do your research before deciding to mega-dose on a suppliment. And give it time to work. The instant gratification comment was spot on.

I for one will continue to use suppliments and herbs instead of man made medicine. I will guinea pig myself before I let a doctor guinea pig me with drugs/chemicals that have so many side effects.

Yeah, dlth2, I'm 51 and haven't seen a doctor in over 30 years. I have no health problems, even though I "partied" a fair amount for many years with recreational drugs and such. I discovered herbs and vitamins and reasonably healthy eating years ago and I have never taken a prescription drug besides antibiotics a couple of times long ago. I smoke med pot and live as healthy a lifestyle as I can manage in this synthetic environment we live in. I've watched family members and friends who take prescription meds get sicker and sicker and die off after telling me for years that I was "living dangerously." I laugh and enjoy life!