Vitamin E Supplement May Increase Prostate Cancer Risk, National U.S. Study Finds

Vitamin E Supplement May Increase Prostate Cancer Risk, National U.S. Study Finds

www.sciencedaily.com

ScienceDaily (Oct. 11, 2011) — Cleveland: Men who take a daily vitamin E supplement -- a regimen once thought to reduce cancer risk -- face an increased risk of prostate cancer, according to results of a large national study...

.. The men were divided into four groups: vitamin E and Selenium; vitamin E alone; selenium alone; and placebo. The group taking vitamin E was the only group shown to have a statistically significant increased risk of prostate cancer.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
Study

I find myself a bit disappointed in how this research came about.

The umbrella organization which funneled our tax dollars to the Urological and Kidney Institute at Cleveland Clinic is known as SWOG.

SWOG is funded by the NIH and it's subsidiary the NCI (meaning - funded by money borrowed from the federal reserve bank by our politician leaders and subsequently "owed with interest" by the US tax-payers).

The government gave the funds to SWOG, who then funded a study about vitamin E and dietary selenium, by urological specialists.....

These specialists, determined there was a statistical indication that allows for the inherent bias in the title about which this thread was created.

I don't need to spell it out for most of you, but since the logic of the statement will read to most people "Vitamin E causes cancer" we may as well openly recognize the connection between the ever-present Codex Alimentarius, the International Big Pharma push to marginalize or eliminate dietary supplements - especially natural ones, and the willingness of our government to embark on whatever campaign is required to satisfy the globalist agenda in that regard.

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Maxmars


These "studies" are a joke. They clearly have an agenda going on here. This comes out the day after this announcement:

Study links vitamins to higher death rates in women

The study involved about 39,000 women who were between the ages of 55 and 69 when the study began and were tracked for 19 years. During that time, about 40 per cent of them died. When the researchers looked at who took vitamins, those who chose multivitamins had a slightly higher risk of death than those who took no supplements at all. The same was found for women who regularly took iron, vitamin B6, folic acid, magnesium, zinc and copper.

There are so many flaws in these two "studies" that they cannot be taken seriously. Vitamins are our new bogeyman.

Pharmaceutical companies:

"Vitamins are bad! Take our medications and vaccinations. We got a pill and or a shot for evertyhing"

Codex Alimentarius anyone?

Complete utter Codex Alimentarius LIES. If they say its bad for you, YOU REALLY REALLY NEED IT, ITS ESSENTIAL. If they say its good for you, like their non hydrogenated CHEMICAL LABORATORY SOUP margarine, ITS REALLY REALLY BAD FOR YOU. Butter, olive oil and coconut oil is needed.

They LIE.

They just had studied that vitamins are bad for older women.

And this new Sharia type crap that ties in/connects in with Georgia's Government sending school students home with pamplets promoting Polygamy and Islam dress, (AND IM NOT RACIST, A CULTURIST, YEAH, NOT A RACIST, I LIKE ALL GORGEOUS GUYS OF THE WORLD AND ALWAYS LIKE THE LATIN TYPE OF LOOK, INCLUDING MIDDLE EASTERN, THIS ISN'T RACE, BUT.......IT IS SHARIA AND THATS EVIL! NAZI STUFF. THEY DON'T LIKE SOFT LOVING CHRISTIANITY, THEY WANTED THE TOUGH DOG EAT DOG FASICST STUFF AND GAVE ISLAM FUNDAMENTALISM). Truth is Truth!

google Banna Nazi!

Now, they also just came out with a very male slanted, SHaria type study that shows oral sex man to woman (of course women doing this to men was just fine and dandy) gives more cancer of the throat and head than tobacco.

THEY'RE STUDIES ARE LIES.

I read this article recently and it was discussed in my Health Behavior Issues class earlier this week.

It discusses how prostate exams and tests actually result in impotence and other problems instead of solving prostate cancer. It is closely related to the issue of big pharma campaigning to get people tested for prostate cancer (and other ailments) just to make money.

www.nytimes.com...

The task force can also expect resistance from some drug makers and doctors. Treating men with high P.S.A. levels has become a lucrative business. Some in Congress have criticized previous decisions by the task force as akin to rationing, although the task force does not consider cost in its recommendations.

The task force can also expect resistance from some drug makers and doctors. Treating men with high P.S.A. levels has become a lucrative business. Some in Congress have criticized previous decisions by the task force as akin to rationing, although the task force does not consider cost in its recommendations.

It really brings up the question of whether or not our society is becoming more hypochondriactic.

reply to post by Maxmars

About 8 years ago I visited my doctor. He asked me what I was taking and I told him a multivitamin and some supplemental vitamin E.

He suggested I may want to do some research on the safety of the supplemental vitamin E because he had read some studies that concerned him about the safety of it. He didn't exactly tell me not to take it but he knew I'd be interested in researching it which I was.

So I looked into his claim and found out there were studies that weren't all that favorable for vitamin E. This article dates all the way back to 1996:

www.goaskalice.columbia.edu...

recent studies have shown that taking supplements of over 400 IU over the long term is associated with an increased risk of mortality (from all causes).

Long story short, I stopped taking extra vitamin E about eight years ago.

One main reason you need to be careful with vitamin E is the fact that it's fat soluble so the body stores it:

Remember, vitamin E is a fat soluble vitamin. This means that any excess of the vitamin is stored in the body rather than excreted like water-soluble vitamins. Getting too much of fat soluble vitamins (others include vitamins A, D, and K) can lead to build-up in your body.

That build-up does pose hazards that don't exist with water soluble vitamins like vitamin C, which can't build up in your body. I don't think we fully understand all the effects of a buildup of large amounts of Vitamin E yet. In any case, most nutritionists agree that a healthy diet is your best source of nutrients. So it's probably best to get the vitamin E you need through a good diet anyway.

Taking overdoses of the water soluble vitamins does no harm, the excess gets pee'd out.

But A,D,E and K are fat soluble, so if you take more than you need it gets stored in your fat, and can reach harmful levels.

GNC, Herbalife, Shaklee, etc... all advocate taking megadoses of vitamins.

If you eat even a somewhat balanced diet a single multivitamin is all you should need, anything more just makes your wallet lighter at best.

I wrote my final paper in nursing school on this very subject after finding out my mothers chiropractor had her taking 24 vitamin pills a day. Never take medical advice from someone who went to college in a strip mall.

Sorry for shouting, but when you bring up issues such as Sharia, which is tied into NWO and Fourth Reicht, you get called a racist. Its not about race, its about fasicism and abuse of human rights. How can anyone who considers all the men of the world gorgeous and hot, be racist, culture is another matter and NWO and its choices of platforms is quite another again. Also, these studies are completely faked data.

reply to post by Unity_99


You're frustration is understandable... it is difficult to believe the extent of participation in the campaign to vilify dietary supplements in general.

It is one thing to acknowledge that lipids are taxing to the liver and metabolic process, and supplements like E, A, and D, etc. must be taken with an understanding and sensitivity to the body's capabilities. It is entirely another matter to equate that to Vitamin E may cause cancer.

Perhaps it is prudent and wise to speak more frequently of the dangers of too much vitamin E..... just as we should speak more frequently to the dangers of PCBs, synthetic-petrochemical food additives, and industrial food stuffs that may not be good for us - if we take "too much."

But somehow, spending millions to tell me that vitamin E can cause problems seems patently wasteful since we already know that.... unless of course you needed a good marketing headline like:

"Vitamin E Supplement May Increase Prostate Cancer Risk, National U.S. Study Finds."

Originally posted by Maxmars
But somehow, spending millions to tell me that vitamin E can cause problems seems patently wasteful since we already know that.... unless of course you needed a good marketing headline like:

"Vitamin E Supplement May Increase Prostate Cancer Risk, National U.S. Study Finds."

Isn't that more like an anti-marketing headline? I don't see how it's a marketing headline.

Like they say, follow the money. People were advertising vitamin E as beneficial, and were selling vitamin E and making a profit. The effect of this study is effectively against that marketing effort by the vitamin E pushers.

I don't see where the people involved in the study have anything to gain. It seems there is only a potential for loss by the Vitamin E sellers, the same ones who were making claims about vitamin E that didn't hold up to scrutiny.

Very interesting that now we are getting bombarded with big pharm and government funded propaganda to scare people into the "dangers" of taking their supplements.

People if the studies done are backed by big pharma or funded in anyway and so government, please do no fall for the propaganda.

The studies are just that propaganda. The history of the pharma mafia sleeping in bed with our government FDA is well documented.

Their prescription drug cartel in the US is to powerful and too big to deny. But you don't see many documents or studies showing how many people die from their FDA approved drugs they are keep hush, hush.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Isn't that more like an anti-marketing headline? I don't see how it's a marketing headline......

It can be considered marketing if the idea you are trying to spread is that vitamin E is a bad thing. (Obviously, if the point was to promote vitamin E, this would be counter productive.)

Many people make many claims about may different kinds of supplements and naturally-occurring remedies; some are ridiculous. Does it take millions of federal dollars to be spread among numerous medical 'associations' to end up with hyperbole such as the OP title.... I don't think so.

Perhaps "National Study cannot confirm positive effect of vitamin E on prostate cancer," or even "Despite vitamin E supplements, prostate cancer instances rise: national study.".... but

"Vitamin E Supplement May Increase Prostate Cancer Risk, National U.S. Study Finds" implicitly applies a cancer-causing potential to vitamin E.... which was NOT determined scientifically... only statistically.

From another article on the same study:

Out of every 1,000 participants, 76 men from the vitamin E group developed prostate cancer, compared to 65 taking a placebo. This 17 percent increased risk wasn't due to chance, scientists say, and may point to vitamin E supplements.

news.discovery.com...

While there were 17% more (or 11 more cases) with prostate cancer in the Vitamin E group as compared to the placebo group, when you look at the larger picture then you see that out of 1000 participants, there was only a 1.1% difference between the Vitamin E & placebo groups. Now, it has been a while since I have taken a statistics course, but as I recall, 1% is not statistically significant. My suspicion is that if they were to run this study again, then the results could just as easily go the other way.

reply to post by Aggie Man


You know what angers me the most about this pay off reports and studies, is that they actually believe that Americans are all dumb and stupid and that we all failed maths and science in school.

Because obviously they either do not know how to do their maths or they think we wouldn't catch up to their deceiving statistic numbers.

But then again our society have other things to concern themselves with than dissecting science reports and statistical numbers, right?.

Originally posted by ImmortalThought
I read this article recently and it was discussed in my Health Behavior Issues class earlier this week.

It discusses how prostate exams and tests actually result in impotence and other problems instead of solving prostate cancer. It is closely related to the issue of big pharma campaigning to get people tested for prostate cancer (and other ailments) just to make money.

I'd say it's more a matter of discouraging people from accessing either public health or insurance programs in order to fund the testing. What I don't see here is a need to establish an individual's baseline PSA, and test it yearly to see if it is rising...called PSA velocity. That in itself is an invaluable tool for detection of PC. Part two is the biopsy, which determines tumour existence and density.

I went through the testing and the biopsy...my PC was detected early and cured. My brother in law...late brother in law...didn't, and died of prostate cancer at 60.

Seems a no-brainer to me.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Cancer of the prostate will affect men one way or the other regardless, now is more easily detected, my grandfather lived to 100 with prostate cancer and never got it treated, he had it for 25 years.

My father's was detected when he was 62, got treated, he thought it was cured, but now at 76 is back again, doing fine.

My father in law just got detected with prostate cancer at 77, he is been treated but so far his age is a factor as to treatments, he is doing just fine.

Some cancers are slow growing like my grandfather and my father, but my father in law is aggressive, looking at the rates of prostate cancer I say that men will be faced with it regarless.

Coming from the US this research is probaily bought and paid for by big pharma and the finding have most likely been brought and paid for too.

I dont put much weight on this claim. From what I have read there are questions hanging over the veracity of this kind of reserach in the US these days