FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, April 3, 2010
Doctors Say, Reader's Digest is Wrong
Physicians and Researchers Set the Record Straight about Vitamins
(OMNS, Apr 3, 2010) Yes, Reader's Digest actually said:
"Once upon a time, you believed in the tooth fairy. . . And you figured that
taking vitamins was good for you. Oh, it's painful when another myth gets
shattered." (
http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/5-v...cle175625.html )
But these doctors disagree:
"From start to finish, the Reader's Digest article, '5 Vitamin Truths and
Lies' was one of the worst bits of propaganda I ever saw. There was not one
word in it discussing the benefits of multivitamins, vitamin C, and studies
supporting the use of vitamins for preventing cancer and heart disease. Not
once was a single dose mentioned. This alone makes the entire effort a farce
aimed at a readership that is relying on the publication for accurate
information."
Allan N. Spreen, M.D. (Mesa, AZ)
"Vitamins are among the safest substances known. They have the most minimal
side effects, even in large doses, compared with the death rate due to
conventional drugs taken according to the manufacturers' advice. Vitamin C
is among the most powerful immune modulators if given in large doses. Scare
stories against the use of vitamins do the public no good."
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Vancouver, BC)
"This is not the first time Reader's Digest has written about "bad"
vitamins, and they always seem to manage to put it on the front page. But
look at their advertising: so much of it is for pharmaceutical drugs. No
wonder the article states virtually nothing of the thousands of positive
results with vitamins."
James A. Jackson, Ph.D. (Wichita, KS)
"The author of the Reader's Digest article has not understood the articles
used to support her arguments. For example, with vitamin C and the common
cold, the article appears to refer to the 2007 Cochrane report. However,
this report has been updated frequently since 2007. The last update was on
February 2nd of this year. Either the reporter did not read the up-to-date
review, or she was unable to understand its content. The review applies only
to low intakes, and contains major objections that studies of large doses
and orthomolecular intakes were not included. All the data were for intakes
far below the levels actually claimed to be effective. The summary of the
paper does indeed give a misleading impression, but people might expect an
intelligent reporter to check the rest of the report before giving advice."
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (Manchester, UK)
"The material was not well-researched, and a bias was clearly in play. 15
pages of drug advertisements in that issue of Reader's Digest is very
telling, indeed."
Thomas E. Levy, M.D. (Colorado Springs, CO)
"What a poor job! Reader's Digest needs to review the literature. Haven't
they read any articles by Dr. Bruce Ames? Do they know what quantities of
vitamin C ascorbic were used in the cold studies mentioned in their
one-sided report? Do they know of the high doses that showed benefit? Do
they know of the many studies that have reported benefit from vitamin E and
carotenes? It's easy to be ignorant but biased. Before a magazine does such
a public health disservice, first get the all the facts."
Michael J. Gonzalez, Ph.D. (San Juan, PR)
"As a family practitioner who has prescribed vitamins for many reasons, with
beneficial results over the past 25 years, I have removed Reader's Digest
from my waiting room. Unless there is a follow-up article disclaiming most
of what was written, I will discourage my patients from reading Reader's
Digest because of their biased and misleading information."
Stephen Faulkner, M.D. (Duncan, BC)
Owen Fonorow of The Vitamin C Foundation adds:
"Why did Reader's Digest deem it appropriate to publish unbalanced opinions
about the value of vitamins in the April 2010 issue? A balanced report would
have quoted experts from both sides of the argument. The negative studies of
vitamins are biased, utilizing too small amounts, especially of vitamin C,
to fairly evaluate the therapeutic use of the vitamins. There is a
70-year-long history of vitamin C research (now more than 80,000 papers)
that consistently shows therapeutic results at higher dosages of many
thousands of milligrams. Linus Pauling recommended at least 5,000 mg of
vitamin C daily for reversing heart disease. It is a serious public health
mistake for Reader's Digest to recommend against a multivitamin."
To give Reader's Digest one more chance at the truth, send your thoughts
directly to the people responsible:
To learn more about how high doses of vitamins safely and effectively fight
disease: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight
illness. For more information:
http://www.orthomolecular.org
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and
non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board:
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (Canada)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)
James A. Jackson, PhD (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D (Sweden)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email:
To Subscribe at no charge: http://www.orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html
To Unsubscribe from this list:
http://www.orthomolecular.org/unsubscribe.html