Vitamins - good or bad?
Health authorities around the world, despite their intimate knowledge of the benefits of vitamins as demonstrated in a variety of scientific publications, are reluctant to recommend these vital substances. Some have even gone so far - as the UK Medicines Control Agency, to issue high profile warnings against "taking too much" although actual statistics show that vitamins and minerals are by far the safest things you could ever swallow, safer than food and safer by a huge margin than pharmaceutical drugs.
To illustrate the deep contradiction, I would almost say the schizofrenic way of thinking which pervades those august halls in which sit our "health guardians",
I want to share with you some comments received from a friend today:
So, yesterday we learn (yet again) that 'vitamins might be bad for your health', and this morning we hear that taking folic acid during pregnancy may reduce the risk of having a baby with cleft lip and palate and that giving cancer patients a form of vitamin D could help radiotherapy work more effectively.
Note however that the 'vitamin D' used here was actually a 'derivative' of vitamin D called EB 1089, and that EB 1089 is apparently modified so it has "fewer calcium-related side-effects". Hmmm, can't have cancer patients taking that nasty natural unpatented stuff, now can we? And never mind all of the studies that have shown that ergocalciferol (one of the dietary forms of vitamin D) can inhibit tumour growth, as the researchers obviously forgot to mention that it is bad for your health.
Is this the future of medicine? Small wonder that many consumers must be confused.....
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Saturday June 14 2003
updated on Tuesday December 4 2007URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/06/14/vitamins_good_or_bad.htm