From: starkid@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Lance Sanders)
Subject: Re: Vitamins and the FDA (Pt. 1 of 3): Viewpoint
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:13:34 GMT
Organization: EnviraForm


On 4 Oct 92 13:44:22 GMT, geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks),
in Message-ID: <16732@pitt.UUCP> writes:

>>Gordon, did you read Pts. 2 (Vitamin Research) and 3 (Food Degredation) 
>>before responding? 
>
>I started to, but the articles were so long I just didn't have time.


   Come on, Banks. You jump the data then admit you didn't read the 
summaries I provided??? 


>After reading so stuff about Stanley Fahn that didn't square with
>what he had told me, I sort of gave up in disgust.

   ???

   From the proceedings of the international symposium sponsored by the New 
York Academy of Sciences, Oct.31-Nov.2, 1988, NYC; "Vitamin E: Biochemistry 
and Health Implications":

   "Beginning in June, 1979, I recommended to all Parkinson's disease 
patients who were not yet receiving levodopa therapy [the drug of choice 
for this disorder] that they take high dosages of vitamin E and C, at
3,200 I.U and 3,000mg per day, respectively. Of the patients I have 
followed continuously, those on antioxidants went two and a half years 
longer before needing levodopa to treat their symptoms, compared to 
patients followed elsewhere without antioxidants."

                        ---Stanley Fahn, M.D., Director of the Parkinsonism
                           and Movement Disorder Research Center, and H.
                           Houston Merit Professor of Neurology at
                           Columbia University College of Physicians and
                           Surgeons, New York


[Stewart Factor, M.D., also a symposium participant, agreed with Dr. Fahn 
 that vitamin E may slow the progression of Parkinson's disease. His study
 involved patients who had been taking between 400 and 3,200 I.U of vitamin
 E daily. When compared to matched controls, the vitamin E-supplemented 
 group had significantly less severe damage. This was especially 
 pronounced in their ability to carry out daily activities and in having
 fewer complications of therapy.]


  In Vitamins and the FDA (Pt. 2 of 3): Vitamin Research, I summarized:

>Stanley Fahn, director of Parkinsonism and movement disorder research at 
>Columbia notes that people in early stages of Parkinson's disease who take 
>vitamin E (400 I.U.) and C (3,000 mg) supplements show much slower 
>progression of the disease. 

[400 I.U. as minimum reported effective level]


   So what did Stanley Fahn personally tell you that doesn't square with 
what he said at the symposium, and where is it in print? 

   Before you "gave up in disgust", you would have had to have read the
following strong bit of data which opened the Pt.2 excerpts:


>   UCLA researcher Dr. James Enstrom, in a 10-year study of 11,348 U.S. 
>adults, reported in the May 1992 issue of Epidemiology that after taking 
>account of factors such as age, history of serious disease, cigarette and 
>alcohol use, cholesterol level, and fat intake and exercise, vitamin C 
>supplementation had an independent impact on life span. 
>
>   Three groups were compared: those getting 50 mg or more per day in food, 
>plus an average supplement of 500 mg of vitamin C; those getting 50 mg. or 
>more and no supplement, and those under 50 mg. with no supplement.
>   Men in the highest vitamin C group had a 35% lower mortality rate and a 
>42% lower death rate from heart disease and stroke, representing a gain of 
>up to five years in lifespan.
>   Women getting the highest levels of C were 25% lees likely to die of 
>heart disease or stroke, with 10% less mortality, suggesting a gain of a 
>year.
>   
>   The UCLA study concluded that: "Based on our analyses, the inverse 
>relation of total mortality to vitamin C intake is stronger and more 
>consistent in this population than the relation of total mortality to 
>serum cholesterol and dietary fat intake."


   Let us know what Dr. Enstrom has to say about all that after you talk to 
him, Gordon.

   30K of SUMMARIES isn't too much to browse in a few days. All of the 
research referenced is strong, if not definitive. There are no "weak 
puppies" in the researchers represented, for example:


   Dr. Simin N. Meydani of the Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at 
Tufts University in Boston:

   "We used to think about vitamins strictly in terms of what you needed to 
prevent short-term deficiencies. Now we're starting to think about what is 
the optimal level of vitamins for lifelong health and to prevent age-
associated diseases." 


   Dr. Ishwarial Jialal, of the U. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 
Dallas, who reported at a 01/92 meeting of the American Heart Association 
and in the Physicians Health Study that preliminary evidence in favor of 
antioxidant supplementation is building: 

   "It is still a bit early to recommend taking supplements, but a 
significant number of people have done so for years with no adverse 
effects."
 
[ In a 3/10/92 interview by the New York Times, "Vitamins Win Support as 
  Potent Agents of Health", Dr. Jialal admitted that "given his preliminary 
  results, and the relative harmlessness of effective levels of vitamin E,
  he himself planned to start a supplement of the nutrient daily." ]


   Dr. Richard Berkowitz, chairman of the Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynecology 
and Reproductive Health at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York:
   "We know of no downside to taking multivitamin supplements." 


   Dr. James Enstrom, author of the 10-year UCLA vitamin C study, and co-
authors Linda E. Kanim and Morton A. Klein:

   "The large drop in cardiovascular death rates since the late 1960's 
added validity to our findings. The decline in deaths from heart disease 
and heart attacks, a trend that has been particularly pronounced among men, 
coincided with large population-wide increases in the consumption of 
vitamin supplements containing vitamin C."


   Dr. Irwin Rosenberg, professor of medicine and nutrition, Tufts 
University:

   "I think this is going to be precedent-setting in respect to the whole 
business of health claims, supplements and fortification. Let's hope it 
comes out right."



   Dr. Kenneth J. Rothman, an epidemiologist at Boston University, in an 
editorial accompanying Dr. Enstrom's article in "Epidemiology":

   "While earlier studies were inconclusive about the value of supplements, 
the new data indicate those who take supplements containing vitamin C do 
better than those who simply have a reasonable dietary intake of the 
nutrient.
    It is unlikely that only vitamin C is protective, but rather, it is 
probably that a variety of antioxidents and other nutrients act in concert 
against a variety of different insults." 
   


   If you "gave up in disgust", Gordon, I suggest that it wasn't because of 
the data, but because of conclusions you didn't want to have to reach about 
the FDA's recent actions regarding vitamin supplements. 

---------
Lance Sanders
starkid@ddsw1.MCS.COM                       STAND.
GE Mail: L.Sanders6
Vox: (312) 667-5958