Anti-Vitamin Propaganda

by Steven Carney on December 5, 2013

This is post #98 on the site (about constant anti-vitamin research and propaganda). The site is a collection of breakthrough articles and resources at your fingertips! Feel free to browse the information here. Whether you have health, life or prosperity and business challenges, I can help you have the life you desire! I offer a unique mix of coaching, training and experience based on multiple certifications and overcoming my own significant life challenges.

I’m here to inspire you that anything is possible if you want it! Enjoy better health, more happiness or money in a few, affordable calls. That means no travel is necessary, you can live anywhere in the U.S. or Canada (if you live elsewhere, we can discuss on an individual basis).

For previous articles and posts, scroll down below this one for their titles and links (or if you are on a specific post, go to the Home page to find the other posts below current one). If you would like help with some of your health/life challenges and business issues, I offer a free, 30-minute call to discuss your concerns. As always, my services are confidential! Feel free to click on the e-mail icon below the video to ask a question.

We’re exposed to a steady stream of biased research claiming vitamins, minerals and supplements don’t improve health, prevent disease, or can even increase disease and death! I shake my head at the ignorance and fraud behind these studies and the media’s terrible reporting of them. We are literally drowning in a sea of falsehoods and propaganda from people who’s greed and corruption have no boundaries.

So let me be direct and clear: After 20 years of reading and following the constant flow of biased studies, I can say that I’ve never seen or read a single anti-vitamin, mineral or anti-supplement study which had scientific credibility. Not one!

Those studies are often created by researchers friendly to the drug and medical industries. They are often biased against supplements. Then you have the media and their willingness to demonize supplements to generate buzz and excitement. It’s a system now! The medical industry continues to falsely claim that supplements are unproven or dangerous and many doctors embrace these poorly done studies as proof that nutrients are either useless or harmful, demonstrating their ignorance of nutrition and instinctive embrace of supplement bashing.

Shocking background information (you never hear)

Consider and remember this info as critical to your knowledge:

A comprehensive report from 2011, based on a database of more than 200 pages found no deaths from vitamins, minerals or amino acids per this quote (see initial links below for details):

There was not even one death caused by a vitamin supplement in 2010, according to the most recent information collected by the U.S. National Poison Data System.

The new 203-page annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, published online, shows zero deaths from multiple vitamins; zero deaths from any of the B vitamins; zero deaths from vitamins A, C, D, or E; and zero deaths from any other vitamin.

Additionally, there were no deaths whatsoever from any amino acid or dietary mineral supplement.

The article goes on to include this important information:

Well over half of the U.S. population takes daily nutritional supplements. Even if each of those people took only one single tablet daily, that makes 165,000,000 individual doses per day, for a total of over 60 billion doses annually. Since many persons take far more than just one single vitamin or mineral tablet, actual consumption is considerably higher, and the safety of nutritional supplements is all the more remarkable.

Over 60 billion doses of vitamin and mineral supplements per year in the USA, and not a single fatality. Not one.

I included this information to provide some needed perspective, perspective that the media never includes in its stories about “dangerous vitamins.”

And this info, also from 2011, with even more shocking insights from a similar report covering almost 3 decades and again, never included or covered by the media in all their “vitamins are scary” stories:

Over the past 27 years, the complete time frame that the data has been available there have been 0 deaths as a result of vitamins and over 3 million deaths related to prescription drug use. In fact, going back 54 years there have only been 11 claims of vitamin-related death, all of which provided no substantial evidence to link vitamins to the cause of death. The news comes after a recent statistically analysis found that pharmaceutical drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the US.

And this quote from the same article on (again, see link below for full information):

The findings go against the claims of mainstream medical ‘experts’ and mainstream media outlets who often push the idea that multivitamins are detrimental to your health, and that prescription drugs are the only science-backed option to improving your health. While essential nutrients like vitamin D are continually being shown to slash your risk of disease such as diabetes and cancer, prescription pharmaceuticals are continually being linked to such conditions.

Although there are a few, insightful health and medical experts who take the time to debunk the ongoing political campaign to demonize vitamins, it takes them several days or weeks to review the study in detail, find the flaws, and put an article together. The media could care less and ignores these points of view. At least you have those initial quotes about the safety of vitamins, giving you some useful perspective on the bogus studies media hype about them below!

The media is grossly unprofessional

I will cover some recent anti-vitamin headlines and reports to show how biased, slanted and fraudulent these studies and reports are. But first, I want to focus on the modern media. This is an industry filled with people who, through a combination of gullibility and unprofessional conduct, are the true messengers of research fraud. I’ll begin with this important point:

Never trust your local TV or networks, newspapers or their online sources when it comes to health and medical news! That includes both pro-drug/procedure “miracle” cures, and the endless stream of biased, anti-vitamin/supplement studies. The modern media’s agenda is not about information, truth or perspective. Their real agenda is getting you to react and click/use social to bring you under their sphere of influence! Getting you to react is their sole mission and goal (not excellence or great journalism).

The media doesn’t care if the study is true or false and they make no attempt to investigate or question the study results (as my above quotes demonstrate). They know these studies conflict (think about coffee or eggs, bad this week, good the next). It’s all part of the excitement they crave. No matter if the study is poorly done or is irrational (I’m thinking of that ridiculous fish oil and cancer study from July, 2013), not credible on its face and debunked by many true health experts within days of the study. To this day, I’ve seen no, I mean no major media coverage of those debunking articles!

Reporters have become lazy as they often rely on a press release created by the medical journal marketing departments to write their overly-hyped health stories. Most reporters never read the actual study because most have no science background. Its’s clear that they don’t understand the language of research and can’t analyze or find bias/flaws in most studies so they don’t bother.

And the journal staff clearly knows that most reporters are scientifically illiterate; the journals take full advantage of that media ignorance. Journals and media outlets have become experts at driving hype and propaganda (remember, propaganda is focused on misinformation; it’s designed to manipulate your emotions and shape your beliefs through biased, slanted stories, ones without balance, important details or real perspective).

Recall the initial information on no deaths from vitamins but millions from drugs. Reporters ignore those statistics, even as prescription drugs and hospitals kill and injure millions annually! The media almost never covers those problems! Talk about bias!

Remember too that the media worships controversy, their euphemism for conflict. For them, conflict and controversy are what they crave daily. They love the drama and theater surrounding conflict: negativity, accusations and attacks (whether true or not, as we see in politics). That includes bashing vitamins and supplements (isn’t it thrilling?). Put another way, conflict, and keeping conflict going is what the media cares about; it’s not a search for truth, honesty or integrity.

Anchors and reporters have been quoted as saying they want to make news, not just report it, and that they believe their job is to dramatize the news (not just report it). They’ve also said being first matters more than being accurate. They love to exploit pain, suffering and conflict (along with plenty of carnage, kids and critter stories).

So I do blame the media for fueling the groundless attacks on supplements. If they had some nutrition education, they would know that the vast majority and anti-vitamins studies are pure junk. They would also cover more of the hundreds of positive vitamin studies that have been done! But again, they are biased toward negative headlines to get more of a reaction, so that’s their focus!

Common ways to create negative studies

Before we look at those recent anti-vitamin headlines, I’d like to remind readers about common tricks and methods used in “studies” to demonize vitamins as useless, dangerous or a failure (these are methods of distortion and misinformation, used for propaganda, not science):

  • Test single or a few, synthetic vitamins in isolation using too-low or high doses (they work synergistically, not in isolation)
  • Choose older subjects, often with existing chronic conditions/diseases
  • Manipulate data by inclusion, exclusion or both
  • Ignore critical confounders (diet, activity, lifestyle, stress, habits like smoking, drug use, drinking, etc.)
  • Recycle and manipulate old data from previous studies (non-prospective studies)
  • Use short-term studies for chronic, long-term diseases
  • Use biased, anti-supplement researchers and drug money for the study
  • Use Relative Risk (RR) to boost small outcomes of a few percent by up to 50% or more
  • Distribute press releases with wild claims and exaggerated headlines to maximize media coverage, excitement and buzz, the ultimate goal

Study #1: Vitamins don’t prevent heart disease or cancer (November, 2013)

This November, 2013 study is a classic in many ways! Researchers reviewed previous studies (it was not a new study designed to look at normal multi-vitamin intake to see what health or disease prevention they offered, something media people failed to recognize or clarify). The study was based on past studies that were mostly short-term with negative findings (using methods from list above), for heart disease and cancer, diseases that often take decades to progress and show symptoms.

The study wasn’t designed to give subjects specific dosages (or compare multiple dosages) and measure the outcomes proactively. From those factors alone, the results should have been treated with more skepticism!

And without thinking rationally, the set-up for this meta-analysis (an analysis of previous studies), is to show that vitamins fail to prevent heart disease or cancer (not really true as I outline in many other posts). But don’t drugs also fail to prevent or cure those same diseases?

No article I’ve seen mentioned that obvious problem (no researchers, journals, reviewers, reporters or media sources), a clear demonstration of bias. But the negative findings for vitamins are just too dramatic and exciting for the media to ignore! The journals and reporters do this often, applying a higher standard for vitamins than for drugs or procedures. This is incredibly unscientific, given the fact that drugs cause millions of deaths and injuries every year and don’t prevent these diseases either!

So even though drugs don’t prevent these diseases (and injure millions in the process), if a few vitamins don’t prevent these diseases, it’s a shocking discovery, given days of headlines and breathless coverage! Skipping the obvious double standard is yet another demonstration of pervasive research bias, politics and scientific ignorance of everyone involved.

Again, there are no drugs that consistently prevent heart disease, cancer, or cure those diseases (some might claim statins or chemo cure heart disease or cancer but they don’t). Only a well-functioning immune system can fight off and regulate inflammation, atherosclerosis, cell mutations and cancer, which a healthy person does every day!

Here are some of the ridiculous headlines for this bogus study (see links below for full details):

NBC news claimed: Vitamins don’t prevent heart disease or cancer, experts find

Comment: The story includes the claims (debunked years ago and many times), that beta-carotene (it’s what makes carrots orange) increases cancer for smokers, and that vitamin E is useless. They also rely on Dr. Offit as a key source of quotes and info, a vaccine-pushing doc (with a questionable past and financial ties to drug companies) who’s writings show obvious bias and negative views toward vitamins. His wild anti-vitamin claims have been debunked many times but again, no media coverage of those articles!

Time Health and Family said: Want to Stay Healthy? Don’t Rely on Vitamins

Comment: An even more exaggerated headline, implying vitamins won’t keep you healthy (not what the study was about). They hit on the same points about vitamin E and beta-carotene as NBC did, again showing how lazy and ignorant these reporters are. They didn’t seek balance or prospective for studies that have been debunked and discredited years ago!

Reuters wrote: Supplements may not guard against cancer, heart disease

Comment: They mentioned the same bogus points about vitamin E and beta-carotene, continuing the lazy, press-release reporting media uses daily. All of these reports (and others) had the same information and none offered any significant investigation or perspective. They don’t want to water down or weaken their dramatic and false claims!


Although the rest of the media used similar exaggerated headlines as those I listed, using overly (and false) claims, the consistency of the points made and the lack of significant rebuttals/counter points turn the coverage, like other anti-vitamin stories, into propaganda: A piece of writing or campaign designed to appeal to emotions rather than intellect. Propaganda is often biased and one-sided; it’s designed to mold your beliefs rather than educate with information and balance. It’s often based on fear and lacks important details or perspective.

In short, propaganda is misinformation which plays on negative emotions and fear. It’s used in political campaigns and to demonize “the others,” which the standard medical industry considers supplements and alternative health approaches to be!

Why the media behaves this way

As mentioned above, the media’s goal is to get a rise out of you. As they have fewer viewers and readers, they are more desperate for you to react and interact online, using social media (likes, follows, comments, polls), or click on a story and send it to a friend. The pages you visit will all have ads, either for the station, website, landing page, video, etc. And you’ll see plenty of drug and medical ads too!

And don’t forget, the drug and medical industries spend billions on advertising, including ads on TV, newspapers, magazines and online sources. Next time you’re looking up a disease or drug, notice all the ads planted all over the pages you land on! This is not an accident (several links below cover this).

A look behind the curtain reveals deeply corrupt research and media industries, happy to take drug industry money (and slow to challenge that industry). It’s an industry based on branding, marketing, ad clicks, etc. News of all kinds has become a vehicle for local and national/network branding and marketing. It’s all about them now, not to mention the endless teases and ads they run because they were, “first on the scene, first to bring you live reports, breaking news,” etc. They run those all day long!

Another way to see this process is that you might think it matters when you leave a comment or interact with media. But they always do the driving. You’re riding in the back seat alone. They call the shots, they decide where you will go! You’re a passenger on their ego trip, nothing more.

Experts who debunk this study:

Dr. Andrew Saul wrote this in his critique of the study and media coverage (see comprehensive link and info below):

NBC’s supplement-bashing headline article, “Vitamins don’t prevent heart disease or cancer, experts find” displays an ignorance of clinical nutrition that is difficult to ignore, and, thanks to its media prominence, can’t be.

Here are some quotes from Cara Welch, PhD, a Senior Vice President for the Natural Products Association, noted some limitations in the study (see link below for details):

The meta-analysis focused on studies that researched generally healthy people, avoiding any instances for targeted use of nutrients. . .the researchers only concentrated on studies with vitamins and mineral supplements as the primary source of prevention. Multivitamin supplements should not be expected, without the combination of a healthy lifestyle, to prevent chronic disease.

The results of this review should not lead to widespread concern among consumers who take vitamin and mineral supplements.

Here is a quote from Duffy MacKay, ND, from the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN):

Cancer is a complex disease, and the fact that there is even some, albeit limited, evidence that a simple multivitamin could prevent cancer demonstrates promise and should give consumers added incentive to keep taking their multivitamins.

As the researchers have indicated, there is limited evidence for multivitamins in preventing cancer or cardiovascular disease; however, we believe the paucity [small number] of clinical trial evidence should not be misinterpreted as a lack of benefit for the multivitamin.

And here is some info from a Life Extension article revealing eye-popping details of the study’s flaws and the US Preventive Services Task Force’s history of bad advice (see links below for full details):

The chances that any health-conscious American would consider a combination of only 3 vitamins and minerals a “multivitamin” are slim to none. Not so for the USPSTF.

In their analysis, the USPSTF allowed studies in which only three nutrients were administered to subjects to be considered “multivitamin” trials.

Cancer and cardiovascular disease are extremely complex conditions that involve perturbations of multiple biological processes. We at Life Extension don’t expect a few nutrients in isolation to sufficiently modulate the underlying causes of cancer or cardiovascular disease enough to render robust risk reduction in a clinical trial.

These points all highlight study bias and how it was designed to fail. But there’s more!

Some debunked studies were included this study

Several of the studies in the recent anti-vitamin study are quite old, including the Finnish Smokers study where subjects were given synthetic vitamin E (in only 1 of 8 forms) and synthetic beta carotene, and the SELECT trial (with selenium, vitamin E and cancer). Here are some comments from a debunking of the Finish Smokers study and beta-carotene from 20 years ago (links below have more details):

NCI’s [National Cancer Institute’s] study suggested that there was an 18% greater incidence of lung cancer deaths among Finnish smokers given beta-carotene as compared to those given placebo. This is statistical gibberish. The absolute difference between each group of 7,287 participants receiving beta-carotene or placebo was actually 0.00548%, or one-half of one percent, not 18%. There were 262 deaths among 7,287 non-beta-carotene users (3.596%) and 302 deaths among 7,287 beta-carotene users (4.144%). These are real numbers, not relative numbers, and they indicate that there was no more than an absolute difference of 0.00548%, or one-half of one percent, not 18%, in mortality rate.

The NCI researchers must have realized this insignificant difference. They stated in their paper:

“…there are no known or described mechanisms of toxic effects of beta-carotene, no data from studies in animals suggesting beta-carotene toxicity, and no evidence of serious toxic effects of this substance in humans. In light of all the data available, an adverse effect of beta-carotene seems unlikely, therefore, this finding may well be due to chance.”

And several paragraphs from the debunked SELECT trial from (again, see link below for complete debunking details):

Let’s start with the statistical sleight of hand these goof balls use to come up with “17% increased risk.” This requires an understanding of “relative risk” versus “absolute risk” and why they always report the former:

Out of 35,000 men randomly divided into placebo, selenium, vitamin E or selenium plus vitamin E, there were 521 cases of PCA that developed over three years. The absolute risk of developing PCA is only 0.005% per year. That’s not a very high ABSOLUTE risk to begin with!

This is the same statistical garbage [Relative Risk] used by Big Pharma to “prove” many of their worthless drugs “work” when in reality they only benefit 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, as is the case of statin drugs. Unfortunately, the ignorant, compliant and complacent Big Media reporters have no clue and dutifully quote this junk science. I already have clients calling me telling me their urologist told them to stop taking Vitamin E.

And this flawed study was then recycled for another junk study that sent the media into a frenzy in July, 2013, using the bogus claim that fish oil causes cancer (see my link below for a thorough debunk of that highly biased, pseudo-science junk).

Study #2: Vitamin D doesn’t improve bone density/prevent osteoporosis (October, 2013)

I decided to shorten these last 2 studies as the post is already long! Lets review some of the headlines for this bogus study (see links below for full articles):

Time Health and Family wrote: Vitamin D and Calcium Supplements May Not Prevent Fractures

Yahoo News said: Vitamin D supplements may not increase bone density

NY Times Health proclaimed: Vitamin D Ineffective for Preventing Osteoporosis


This was another review of past studies so it really wasn’t designed to measure a consistent vitamin D intake and its contribution to bone strength, a critical point the media ignored (again). In other words, this was not what’s called a prospective, intervention-type trial or study with consistent levels of vitamin D. If unbiased and properly done on human subjects, those are more credible than a review. But vitamin D in isolation, without calcium and other minerals, will not do much for bone density by itself (although its health benefits are well-established for heart and immune health).

Good bone health requires a minimum of 4 vitamins and minerals: calcium and magnesium (in about a 2:1 ratio), vitamin D3 and vitamin K2. Plus, other minerals are needed for good bones and mineral density, including weight-bearing exercises like brisk walking, climbing stairs, jogging, etc., to challenge bones and keep them stronger. This study included studies with both vitamin D2 and D3 but D2 is known to be far less bioavailable. So again, the study is not real science, it’s politics!

Other problems are that you need your blood levels checked for vitamin D, and most adults need to be above 40 ng/mL (not 30 as many medical people will accept). Also, dosages were variable and low in many of the studies included (800 IUs or less daily, often too low to raise vitamin D levels to optimum levels, remember all those research tricks I mentioned earlier?).

There were other problems with the study methods but no problem for biased researchers, they have an agenda, which is to attack vitamins and trumpet failure whenever possible. Every trick is available to be used to manipulate the data (see my previous posts on bone health and vitamin D) and list/comments above. And the media is ignorant and lazy; they question nothing any more!

Although this study appears to have some dramatic findings, the entire study premise is false, and the study was doomed to fail.

Perfect! Again, reporters are so nutritionally and scientifically ignorant, their reports aren’t worth $1.00! And again, it doesn’t matter to them or their bosses because having you react with comments (supportive or angry, it matters not), likes, follows and clicks is the goal. It’s about money, not information, education or truth.

Here are some quotes from Dr. Carla Welch about this study, from the nutraceuticalsworld link below:

It’s common knowledge that the beneficial effect of vitamin D in osteoporosis prevention occurs when the supplementation is vitamin D plus calcium. This meta-analysis misleads consumers by only looking at half the equation.

The beneficial effect of vitamin D and calcium is due to the fact they work in tandem, and examining the outcomes of just vitamin D caused the researchers to start with a weak premise. In fact, FDA has an approved health claim for vitamin D and calcium regarding osteoporosis.

This review does not do an adequate job of giving the public the whole story, and it draws a conclusion that should not discourage consumers from taking vitamin D. A deficiency in vitamin D is not uncommon and can be difficult to overcome with diet alone. NPA believes that dietary supplementation is both safe and effective for those who fall under this category. The Institute of Medicine’s recommended dietary allowances are 600-800 IU/day for adults over 50 years of age.

Here is a quote from doctor’s health press, item #3 (see full details in link below):

Thirdly, the researchers measured a concept which can be misleading at best. For example, vitamin D influences the blood levels of calcium by affecting its absorption from the gut and influencing its excretion from the kidney. It would have made much more sense if the researchers had studied the effects of calcium and vitamin D on fracture risks because these nutrients work in tandem and not separately to affect bone metabolism. As previously reported in the scientific literature, vitamin D and calcium supplements can positively affect the risk of fracture.

I could go on and on but you get the point. This study uses the same tricks and follows the same patterns of the political and propaganda campaigns mentioned above, designed to maximize emotional responses based on misinformation and baseless attacks on vitamin D! And again, the media coverage was breathless and extensive!

More theater and drama for them, more misinformation for you! Simply learn to find better sources and ignore all mass media sources for your health news! Never trust or believe what they say (would you give a 6-year-old the keys to your car because they told you they would go buy those last-minute groceries for you)?

Study #3: Herbs are adulterated and harmful (November, 2013)

Here are some of the headlines for this bogus study (see links below for full article details):

New Your Times/Health claimed: Herbal Supplements Are Often Not What They Seem

Yahoo Healthy Living wrote: Herbal-Supplement Scam: Tests Reveal Fake and Dangerous Ingredients

Health News One said: Herbal Supplements Are A Rip-Off, New Study Claims


As usual, the media went wild for this one! Look at the pure hype in the headlines (yes, the study was crap. Again!). And what do you know, it was released during the November rating sweeps, just like the anti-vitamin study I started with! That totally bogus fish oil and cancer study was released in July, during the July sweeps! I’m so shocked (not)! These journals know how to play the system and get lots of new subscribers, quotes and buzz. And the media is so cheap, they’ll say anything, I mean anything for $5.00!

Once again, various organizations and sites debunked this study but it took a week or two. As usual, the media ignored those responses (not looking for any on their own), not wanting to admit they blew the story and preferring the spotlight of their own hype! One credible source called for a retraction fo the study!

Here are some quotes showing a few of the bad practices behind the headlines. First are several from Kelly Reins, a VP from Alkemists Labs (see links below for full details):

Currently, the DNA methods are not robust,” said Reins. “There are no formal validation protocols for the equipment being used. I spoke at length with several equipment manufacturers and they stated the instruments cannot be validated/qualified and they are meant for R&D use only at this time.

Since there are no standards for authentication of herbal products this is interesting science at best,” she added. “Years of research and cross functional involvement are needed before this approach can be considered scientifically valid. Unfortunately this article has been spun in the industry and for those lacking a clear understanding of DNA testing weakness they now have a fear factor based on an incomplete picture.

Once again, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Mark Blumenthal, Executive Director and Founder of the American Botanical Council said this (again, see link below for full details):

DNA-based analysis is not appropriate when used in some of the ways that the authors appear to have done so, i.e., when trying to use DNA to determine the identity of commercial herb products that may contain plant extracts. It is not clear from the DNA paper whether some of the commercial herb capsules analyzed by the Canadian researchers contained dried powdered herb extracts or not. If they did, then DNA sequencing would not reveal the identity of the labeled plant extract, and might provide confusing results based on other excipient [an inert substance added for taste, consistency, etc.]and ‘filler’ ingredients, or contamination with other DNA that also may be in the capsule.

Again, I could go on and on with more quotes and scientific arguments for why these test results and wild headlines merited no such media or public response, but again, the media lives for controversy and buzz, so they went full-bore for yet another bogus study (this goes on all the time).

And there were other studies during this late October/late November month of 2013 but it all more of the same. Write hysterical headlines that attack and demonize vitamins or supplements as ineffective or dangerous, based on researchers who will to say anything to undercut the fact that people take vitamins to feel better and healthier. Hundreds of credible studies have shown exactly that (see many of my previous posts for pro-vitamin comments and studies).

So I hope this post offered you some good insights for how researchers, journals and media people exploit every aspect of this process to direct you and manipulate you for financial gain. It’s marketing! And to refresh your memory of how the process works, here is a quick overview:

  • Researchers friendly to the drug industry and research institutions often believe vitamins and supplements are unproven, useless or dangerous.
  • These same institutions or agencies will use research to support their biased views using numerous tricks to increase negative outcomes.
  • The journals want attention and new subscribers so they execute well-planned marketing campaigns, often during sweeps and ratings periods.
  • Most reporters know nothing about research, scientific methods, types or nutrition. They are gullible and ignorant and easily captivated by exaggerated press releases.
  • Media also wants attention and buzz to drive their social media campaigns and marketing and will put out overly dramatic stories to get you to react. They don’t care if studies are true or false and do nothing substantial to debunk them.

Questions or comments? Drop me a line at: And if you would like to improve your health (energy, sleep, lower stress, reverse signs of aging, move away from drugs to more natural alternatives), I offer a number of affordable programs to meet your needs.

Helpful links:

Here are links to those articles and sources showing NO vitamin or supplement deaths: 

Publication links for #1 on anti-vitamin study:

Debunking this and similar anti-vitamin studies:

Publication links for #2 study on Vitamin D:

Debunking vitamin D study:

Publication links for #3 study on Herbs:

Debunking the herb contamination study:

More studies/articles about vitamins and health (there are hundreds more I could list):

This post has numerous links for vitamin benefits

A credible, new study showing that higher doses of vitamin D are needed to help bone health (Something I have said for years):

A new anti-vitamin study was released on 12/16/13 and it uses the same vitamin E and beta-carotene junk studies I included above. The rest of the claims are also similar, showing continued bias and zero credibility. Here are links to more balanced reviewers with more debunking included: 

This is a fantastic and thorough debunking of that bogus anti-vitamin study (12/16/13) shown in the links just above. If you read all of this article, you will totally understand why you can’t trust these studies or the media’s distorted reporting of it, designed to get attention:

Two new anti-vitamin rebuttals (12/30/13) for the recent campaign to attack vitamins as useless or harmful:

Another debunk of the biased AIM study claiming vitamins are useless:

© 2013 by Steve Carney/End Sickness Now

{ 1 comment }

kelly December 13, 2013 at 9:02 AM

I found your site and was glad I was able to find useful facts concerning my interests and study.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: