Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Vitamins C, E fail to prevent cancer: study

WILL DUNHAM

Reuters

Latest comment posted at 3:02 AM EST 28/11/08

Men who took supplements were no more or less likely to develop cancer than men given a placebo, U.S. researchers said Sunday ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. little miss sunshine from BC, Canada writes: i think that the point should still be made, that although the individual vitamins do not prevent cancer, there is strong scientific evidence that the foods that contain them, do.
  2. Polar Bear from Somewhere Cool, AB, Canada writes: I think it should also be noted that these were male doctors who would both have the knowledge to eat a healthy diet, and would also have the resources to do so as well. Their average age was also 64 years, so there is a question regarding whether eating vitamin C and E supplements as children or as young adults would provide definite benefits - especially for those at the lower end of the economic scale.

    In general, these doctors would have the knowledge of the other factors required for a healthy lifestyle, the motivation from observing unhealthy patients, and the financial wherewithal to do the things necessary to stay healthy and access to quality treatment for health issues.

    Which leaves it as an open question whether this study is demonstrating a robust conclusion that won't be challenged in the future. It does need to be taken seriously though, due to the large number of participants, even if they may not be representative of the population as a whole.
  3. Tristram Shandy from strathroy ontario, Canada writes: READER ALERT!!!

    1-2 years ago, a professor from McMaster University in Hamilton stated in an interview on TVO, that a combination of vitamins C and E had been shown to prevent, or at least slow the onset, of Alzheimers disease.

    I have been taking these vitamins since then, however I can't remember who the professor was, nor can I find his email on my system. However, this is not a joke, or a satirical comment, I felt certain he was reputable.

    No doubt I am opening myself up to a lot of great, funny comments about this, but --- seriously folks -- I think it would be worthwhile to do a little more googling into this to find out if the results are still scientifically accepted.
  4. boz dobbs from toronto, Canada writes: Let,s just take note of lower heart disease among Mediterranean nations and vastly lower prostate cancer amongst Japanese men and accept those as facts,vitamins seem to be a North American solution to all our health problems.
  5. michael moore from toronto, Canada writes: Yes, I am more worried about Alzheimer's disease -- it's in my heredity -- than about cancer, and I'll go on talking vitamins C and E every day until I definitely know that there is no benefit from them in delaying the onset of senile dementia. I know the benefit is at best hypothetical, but the payoff is big if it works.
  6. Rusty Waters from Canada writes: Vitamin D seems to be the Vitamin of the day now. Its powers to cure ailments are probably overblown too. Any Scientific studies that show realationships rather than proven caustive studies are not worth the paper they are written on.
  7. paul kennedy from Canada writes: This study is critically flawed. It was based on research in the 1990's that showed large vitamin intakes do decrease risk factors. Therefore, this study was started to see if taking low doses of vitamins would have the any effect. In fact the doses used in this study are ridiculously low. The conclusion drawn by the media is, as usual, absurd: "if low doses don't work, then stop taking vitamins". 28% of subjects admitted at the end of the study they didn't take 66% of their pills but were still lumped together with those that took them all. Further the synthetic form of vitamin E used in this study is only 1/2 as active as the natural "d-" form and was only taken every other day (making the supposedly 400IU equal to only 100IU. In addition, only the least useful form of vitamin E (alpha-) was used and not the 4x more potent (gamma-) form (the study even mentioned this flaw). Vitamin C doses used are at least 4x lower than research had already shown in 1990 can reduced risk. Combine that with the fact that most subjects often forgot to take their pills (probably because doctors already thought vitamins were worthless); this study says very little. The media should be ashamed to trumpet such worthless information without providing a balanced view....but can you expect any less of the crisis driven media?
  8. Keith Duguay from writes: I agree with the above poster who notes how narrow the sample is here. Sure, the sample size is good at ~14k but they are ALL upper class or wealthy individuals who have advanced medical training. Isn't it obvious that there may very well be a benefit to takings these supplements if one were, say, nutritionally deficient as many regular North Americans are? I bet you anything that if you took a sample that was a true socio-economic cross-section, with a variety of lifestyles, diets, and genetic backgrounds that you would see, on average, at least some small benefit for "normal" people.

    I also agree with the other person that said the supplements may do nothing but foods containing those same vitamins and minerals may very well have a significant impact on health.

    I take vitamins myself every day (a good multi plus extra D, E, Omega 3, milk thistle, and green tea extract) but I believe that it is my healthy, well-balanced diet that does the most good for me.
  9. Jeff D from Canada writes: Wow... all it takes is just this one study to negate all the previous beliefs held for the past couple of decades? good job G & M for choosing to write such a bold statement about one of the thousands of studies out there. In the meanwhile, I will continue taking my good ol' vitamins.
  10. m. r. from Canada writes: in my opinion there is a silly notion that medicines taken (and sometimes in large quantities) will prevent certain or many diseases.
    best way to prevent disease is live a healthy lifestyle(diet, exercise,
    no bad habits, etc.) and to inherit quality genes. and then, there is no 100% guarantee, either. by taking medicines people who do not take care will merely delay the onset of a critical stage of the disease .
    prevention is the way to go!
  11. dave b from vancouver, Canada writes: 500 mg is a relatively small dose of vitamin C, as it goes. Proponents of vitamin C tend to indicate much larger doses (more than 2 grams per day) are needed to get the full benefit.
  12. Wayne Spitzer from Faywood, United States writes: boz dobbs from Toronto - There is a definite link between the occurrance of prostate cancer and testosterone levels. On average, men of African or European descent have higher testosterone levels then men of Asian descent. To get a clear picture you would need to compare prostate cancer levels in Japanese men living in Japan with prostate cancer levels of Japanese men living in the west.
  13. Where's the Beef from London, Canada writes: More than a bit of shortfall in understanding science here.

    There is a difference between effectiveness and efficacy. It is actually very important to include all subjects in the analysis, even the ones that didn't take their pills. It would be a meaningless study if only 10% took the pills as described and they did well but the rest didn't because we need to know what happens to the population taking a supplement.

    This is always done for drug studies. What if a very effect anti hypertensive medication tasted so foul or carried such severe side effects that almost no one took it as prescribed? Might be very efficacious but not so effective.
  14. C J from Canada writes: With the average age of test subjects well in their 60's, the survey is quite pointless. A lot of the damage would have been done by the time you're in the 60's. Gobbling supplements is just a waste of money.
    As well, the test subjects are doctors, so presumably they know better than the average Joes to take care of themselves. So supplements would make little difference, if any, to their health.
    Whoever did this survey should put more thoughts into how it should be done and be clear about what they want out of the survey.
    Bottomline is, supplements are no magic pills. It won't undo all the damages done in earlier times. They are just that: supplements.

    btw never think that you can put your health "on credit": trash/ignore it now, nurse it back later.
  15. Jimmee's Place from Canada writes: I cannot understand when the results of a research project like this are released with such authority, why or why is the source of the financing behind the project not mentioned.
    We all know, that no one bites the hand that feeds them and the supplement industry does not fund "big school"

    A healthy "dose" of skepticism is in order
  16. Ed Op from Canada writes: Oh yeah, taking supplements for 8 years from the age of 64 is really going to have a huge impact on whether you develop cancer or not. I suppose liver cancer rates would skyrocket amongst 64 year olds who suddenly started having a few glasses of wine every day for 8 years, lung cancer would explode among 64 year olds who suddenly take up smoking and a 64 year old who decides to add bacon to his diet would drop dead within 8 years.

    What a lousy excuse for medical research. Proves nothing.
  17. P Conner from Canada writes: Thanks, Paul Kennedy. This smells fishy. Who paid for the trial? This is poor journalism with little editorial merit. Food and supplements are being controlled by fewer and fewer organizations and we should all be vocal and vigilant in our defence of natural foods. Do not believe the spin created by agribusiness and big pharma in their pursuit of wealth and control.
  18. Canadian Woman from Canada writes: As Paul Kennedy has already pointed out, they used the "cheap" (i.e. artificial) Vitamin E, not the "good stuff" - which completely invalidates the study by itself. We don't know what kind of Vitamin C they used - was it natural, with bioflavonids included, for eg.? I'll bet it was the really cheap pure ascorbic acid you can get at the dollar store. Additionally, their subject group was already naturally skewed via various factors. Also, the doses were low-normal ...... not in any "therapeutic range" at all. This is exactly like the study that has just come out, trumpeting the absolute benefit for EVERYBODY to be taking anti-cholesterol drugs. If you look at that study you will find many holes, biases, invalid experimental methodology. Yet the world's most prestigious medical journal just published it as unchallenged "fact". The drug industry and the medical profession are hand-in-hand these days, so read everything they say with a large grain of salt. Don't forget that the average M.D. has had 4 - yes FOUR - HOURS of nutrition training in his entire medical training. At most.
  19. Jen A. from Vancouver, Canada writes: Just eat plenty of fruit, vegetables, and nuts, and forget about taking vitamins C and E.
  20. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: absurdly small doses of each vitamin probably aren't statistically noticable . Dr Linus Paulling used intervenous doeses of vitamin C , well above 24 grams a day to shrink tumors . When someone designs a study as pointless as this one it raises questions about the compotence and/or bias of the researcher.
  21. gerhard beck from Canada writes: Several years ago the urologist looking after my prostate cancer discovered a tumor in my right kidney and referred me to the Princess Margret Hospital. The tumor grew to 42 mm at its worst but started shrinking, much to the surprise of the of the doctors looking after me. From 3 month checkups I graduted to semiannual and eventually to annual visits. At my last one in May, the Prof heading the department wished me a happy new year. A nice way to announce my next appontment in May 2009. My tumor has been shrinking steadily without any specific treatment. I lost about 15 kg by dieting, eat lots of vegetables and fruit and take 1000mg Vitamin C and 1000 IU Vitamin D. May be it helps or maybe not. Studies may or may not indicate reasons for development or prevention of diseases. They are educated guesses at best. Every one of us is an individual and as such subject to health and sickness based on ??? You tell me.
  22. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau QC, Canada writes: Thank you Mr Kennedy for clarifying the shortcomings of this study. What bothers me is that having made such a blanket statement in the headline, many other media are going to pick up the story with no critical examination; particularly Broadcast media. This is irresponsible journalism.
  23. Raymond P from Canada writes: About 25 years ago 1 in 8 Canadians developed cancer. Now it's 1 in 2.5. Cancer research may be prolonging lives but has had zero effect at preventing cancer. My problem with research using vitamins is the pharmaceutical mentality behind it. They, and we, expect to find a magic bullet, a cure-all, that will cure us of our greatest fears. There will never be a magic bullet.

    How can vitamin C and E combat the myriad exposures we are subjected to? Read the ingredients on your cosmetics and foods. GM foods in isolation may not be harmful to people but what about in combination with food colourings, preservatives, pesticides, etc.?

    Chemicals number in the thousands. Will vitamin C and E negate these as well? That's a tall, tall order unless the real purpose of the study was to demonstrate the uselessness of non-prescription supplementation.

    There was a study done on a US college football team. Half the team took no vitamin C, the other half took 30 milligrams per day. The study was to see the effects of vitamin C on reducing inflammation. At the end of the season there was no difference between those taking or not taking the vitamin. This study was designed to fail. A 30 milligram dosage will barely combat scurvy. Beware of false studies with the results predetermined.
  24. If I had a million lobsters from Halifax, Canada writes: Think about people, jeez. As you take more vitamins, you get better and the medical businesses don't make money from you. The pill manufacturers don't get their pound of flesh, The doctors don't bill medicare, the govt can't take more of your taxes.

    Every time we increase medical funding the unions or the doctors get it. Ever wonder why??? It is a for profit system. Think about it - if is wasn't why do doctors drive jaguars???

    If everyone took vitamins, the system would collapse and these bloodsuckers wouldn't make a nickel.

    Get a grip and take your vitamins. Don't listen to this drivvle.
  25. sam johnson from Canada writes: a lot of intelligent posts on this subject. i find it rather strange that every report shows vitamin supplements are useless, though vitamin d somehow got out of the ward.
    i have "heard" too many stories from individuals such as gerhard beck that taking supplements is effective.
    if you smoke, drink excessively and have a sedentary lifestyle i don't think any supplements are going to do much good. but as a supplement (vitamins c and d) to a normal diet they do have a salubrious effect.
    i sincerely believe the pharmaceuticals industry has suppressed as much of this information as they can. a lot of them would rather you buy a tanning bed than take vitamin d.
    it's my opinion and that $8.00 will buy you a cup of coffee.
    one caveat - stay away from "health food" stores. money money money. and "cures" for everything.
  26. Kim Philby from Canada writes: I wonder about these statistical analyses. This particular study may have demonstrated no difference between the two groups in the risk of developing cancer, but, I presume some in the study got cancer and others didn't, and I don't see how the study proved that the vitamins did not prevent cancer among some test subjects.
  27. Donald Wilson from Canada writes: This report about a flawed study is poor journalism from the G & M . Searching for scary headlines isn't good journalism . where is the research for other reports / studies ? that have differing conclusions . Why didn't the writer point out that men of age 64 plus isn't representive of any population . nor did the writer look into why the low dosage of poor quality vitamins , that were not taken daily by many .
    What I do know is that since I began taking larger doses of vitamins D , E plus Zinc and folic acid , and Omega 3 , and drinking juices high in vitamin C and natural antioxidents , and eating a better diet with few trans fats , that my prostrate has shrunk and my general health is better and I have more energy . Why would I stop any of this ? I only wish that I had begun this 30 years ago .
  28. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: If you read the eminent Linus Pauling's books, such as 'How to Live Longer and Feel Better' you will understand why these doses are far too small to be significant.

    Linus Pauling is the only single scientist to win two Nobel prizes. He was no fool.
  29. D D from writes: Sorry to rain on your vitamin party but the best evidence says they are mostly useless. For vitamin C, here is a very balanced and reasoned explanation:

    http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

    Linus Pauling was a scientific giant but he abandoned all of his professionalism when he promoted the use of megadoses of vitamin C.

    DD
  30. MR. oz from Canada writes: How do we know that the research of the medical association was not influenced by the big drug makers? I trust no one any longer!
  31. Ed Long from Canada writes: My optometrist told me to keep taking Vit.s A, C and E as they were the main reason for my good eye health.

    My GP told me to keep taking Vit.s A,C and E as they were the main reason for my very infrequent visits to the doctor and almost zero use of Medicare.

    I read in Saturday's NP that the single largest reason that Medicare will increase at a greater rate than GDP and continue to do so is the pharmaceutical companies and the reliance on pharmaceuticals for good health.

    Do I need to draw anybody a map?
  32. David Griffiths from New Westminster, Canada writes: To paraphrase Michael Pollan from "In Defense of Food", this study took the nutrient out of the food, the food out of the diet, the diet out of the lifestyle and then wondered why they achieved nothing significant.

    The more fruits, vegetables and whole foods you eat, the lower your risk of getting cancer, having cardiovascular issues, etc.

    Scientists keep looking for magic bullets - ones that stop you from aging, keep you skinny, prevent cancer-alzheimers-strokes-diabetes without exercise or any sort of dietary change.

    These studies do a huge disservice to those not willing to dig deeper.

    And to Polar Bear from Somewhere Cool, who wrote,

    "In general, these doctors would have the knowledge of the other factors required for a healthy lifestyle, the motivation from observing unhealthy patients, and the financial wherewithal to do the things necessary to stay healthy and access to quality treatment for health issues."

    Doctors know nothing about nutrition. Again, if they can't cut it out, or perscribe something for it, they don't know it. Nutrition requirements for medical students 10 years ago was a single optional course. I shudder to think what doctors who are now in their mid-sixties learned in medical school (most of them probably smoked at the time).

    To quote the movie Ratatouille, "What these doctors don't know could fill a book".
  33. gerhard beck from Canada writes: sam johnson: Nowhere have I claimed that my taking vitamins C and D has any effect on my cancers. I dont know any more than the docs who examine me and dont have a clue what shrank and shrinks my tumor. As stated we all are individuals and have no ideas as to what makes us klick. I cant take oranges or grapefruit for vitamind C since they cause a reaction to heart medication I take and vitamin D to make up for sunlight. Reason enough, no other effect expected.
  34. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: DD - read the book I listed above. Decide whether the observations are sound or not based on that, not what someone else tells you about them.

    That's all I'm saying.
  35. paulina diana from vancouver, Canada writes: I am grateful for discerning readers who question the scientific validity of 'junk' research like this (not to mention irresponsible journalism that perpetuates, as "authentic," the misleading results of such research). These types of studies are fundamentally (intentionally?) flawed in their design; their"see, told you so" results 'conveniently' support the mandate of pharmaceutical companies. Your good health is certainly not in their best interests, is it? The amounts used of the two vitamins "studied" are below meaningful levels, e.g., Vit E 400 IU - every other day? Why not daily, at the very least, let alone a higher amount? Also, what form of vit E - synthetic (useless - body doesn't recognize) or natural source? Was it full spectrum (tocopherols and tocotrienols)? Vitamin C @ 500 mg/daily is also lower than what would provide any potentially cancer-preventative effect. Given that this was the premise of the study, wouldn't it make sense to use an amount that was meaningful? In addition, the amount of Vitamin C given should take into account one's weight (500 mg in someone weighing, for example 90 Kg, is not going to provide the same benefit as 500 mg in someone weighing 75 Kg). Like vitamin E, the form of vitamin C is also very important. More will be absorbed of the buffered form (e.g., sodium or calcium ascorbate) than the acidic form, i.e., ascorbic acid. Nothing replaces the benefits of a wholesome, unrefined and unprocessed diet, but supplements can certainly help fill the gaps in such, and even provide therapeutic benefit for many conditions.
  36. michael moore from toronto, Canada writes: Even if Vitamins C and E were complete quackery -- which I don't think they are -- taking them would do relatively little harm. And any harm would be at least offset by a positive placebo effect. So if you think they might work, take them.

    As long as I take my 1,000 mg of Vitamin C colds and flu are rare and last only a couple of days. If I fall off the wagon and stop taking it, I get a cold that lasts a week. Coincidence? I don't think so.

    Still waiting for further good research on the impact of C and E on Alzheimer's disease -- that's the future I worry about.
  37. sam johnson from Canada writes: gerhard beck - my apologies. i should have said "seem to have". i sincerely hope you have a complete recovery.
  38. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: An important fact left out of this report: who PAID for this study? If it was independently produced by an academic institution, then it has value. If it was paid for by one of the companies who stands to profit from the results, then the results are suspect.

    Double-blind experiments should also apply to the funding for research. The researcher should not know who funds it, and the people paying into a research fund should not know who is doing the study. Double-blind has been the standard for research for years, why won't they go the extra step to ensure truly independent research? Oh, right, profit. Nevermind then.
  39. Warren Asweater from Canada writes: Agreed - who paid for the study? ... is the single most important question to be asked.

    Why don't Globe editors demand that reporters ask at least the basic and obvious questions?

    Failing that, will the Globe provide disclosure about lines of advertising purchased by any and all sponsors of the study?

    And failing that, will the Globe please provide an update on Brad and Angelina's reproductive activity so that readers can enjoy a healthy balance of fact and relevance?
  40. Akbar M from Regina, Canada writes: So, no panacea in pill form. Dang.
  41. Little Bear from Canada writes: I can remember for years the so called research used 400 mg of Vit D and determined that there was no benefit.

    Recent studies from a number of universities have determined that unless you take at lease 1300 mg, of D you are wasting your time and money.

    L Pauling came to the same conclusion with Vit. C the dosage needs to be about 2000 mg. not 500 mg.

    Kind of like saying that eating 500 calories per day shows no
    increase in energy levels.

    I would be willing to bet that a significant amount of the funding directly or indirectly for these researchers comes from the Drug companies.
  42. Little Bear from Canada writes: DD So Pauling was brilliant until he disagreed with you then slipped in quackery.

    Ya Right.

    I can still remember the researchers saying the Niacin had no value in regards to Cholestorol and HDL and now they are saying it i one of the best for increasing HDL if taken in the correct dosage of around 3000 mg.

    The use rediculous dosages then claim they have no value. It is most of this so called research that has not value actually less then no value.

    Fortunately fewer people all the time are paying any attention to them.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top