The C.A.M. Report
Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Fair, Balanced, and to the Point
  • About this web log

    This blog is intended as an objective and dispassionate source of information on the latest CAM research. Since my background is in pharmacy and allopathic medicine, I view all CAM as advancing through the development pipeline to eventually become integrated into mainstream medical practice. Some will succeed while others fail. But all are treated fairly here.

  • About the author

    John Russo, Jr., PharmD, is president of The MedCom Resource, Inc. Previously, he was senior vice president of medical communications at www.Vicus.com, a complementary and alternative medicine website.

  • Common sense considerations

    The material on this weblog is for informational purposes. It is not medical advice or counsel. Be smart, consult your health professional before using CAM.

  • Support this site

    If you found the information here helpful, please consider supporting this site.If you found the information here helpful, please consider supporting this site.

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Some benefit from antioxidant vitamins on the risk of cardiovascular disease

    About 23% or 62 million Americans have some form of cardiovascular disease (CVD; eg, heart disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, angina, coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, or heart failure).

    The Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study concluded, “There were no overall effects of ascorbic acid [vitamin C], vitamin E, or beta carotene on cardiovascular events among women at high risk for CVD.”

    But read on to see those who did benefit.

    First, the details.

    • 8171 female health professionals at increased risk for CVD were studied.
    • They were at least 40 years old with a history of CVD or 3 or more CVD risk factors.
    • They were monitored for 9.4 years.

    And, the results.

    • Ascorbic acid 500 mg/day, vitamin E (600 mg every other day), or beta-carotene (50 mg every other day) had no effect on CVD or on the individual outcomes of heart attack, stroke, coronary revascularization (the process of restoring the flow of oxygen and nutrients to the heart), or death due to CVD.
    • There was a significant reduction CVD in the women with a prior diagnosis of CVD who took vitamin E.
    • Those randomly assigned to both ascorbic acid and vitamin E experienced significantly fewer strokes.

    The bottom line?
    There’s 2 ways you can go in reporting the results: positive or negative.

    The researchers opted for a negative spin. “While additional research into combinations of agents, particularly for stroke, may be of interest, widespread use of these individual agents for cardiovascular protection does not appear warranted.”

    They could have concluded that there were benefits in certain women (ie, vitamin E in the women who had a prior diagnosis of CVD, and women taking both active ascorbic acid and vitamin E). And this deserves to be evaluated in a more targeted study.

    Why do researchers who spent more than a decade on a research project go negative when there is an option to be positive?

    8/13/07 18:28 JR

    Leave a Comment

    XHTML: Line-breaks are automatic. Available tags are <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>