by Mike Adams
the Health Range
Recent Attack on Vitamins a Fabricated Scare
October 16, 2011
TIME, USA Today, MSNBC, NPR, CTV, the LA
Times and numerous other mainstream media outlets have all been
running a juvenile hoax over the last week. Through various
misleading headlines, they're all claiming that vitamins might kill
Here are some of the headlines:
Study links vitamins to higher
death rates in women - CTV
Study: Vitamins may increase
death risk in older women - USA Today
We've Been Wasting a Ton of
Money on Vitamins and Dietary Supplements - TIME
Some common vitamin supplements
could increase death risk - MSNBC
Dietary supplements risky for
older women, study finds - LA Times
Supplements Look Risky In Study
Of Older Women - NPR
Vitamins do more harm than good,
new suggest says - News.com.au
Women Who Take Vitamin
Supplements May Have Increased Death Risk - Huffington Post
There are literally hundreds of
headlines from mainstream news sources that essentially say the same
There's only one problem with all this: The whole thing is a HOAX!
And NaturalNews is stepping forward to expose this hoax using data
from the published study itself.
Exposed - A
total mainstream media hoax
Caught yet again, the mainstream media has been exposed pulling off
a juvenile, simplistic hoax that attempts to scare people away from
To accomplish this hoax, they took a
poorly-constructed "scientific" study published in the Archives of
Internal Medicine which was itself based on erroneous conclusions
(see below) and then blatantly misreported what the study data
This journal is owned, not surprisingly, by the American Medical
which has a long and sordid history of openly attacking vitamins and
nutrition, even to the point of committing crimes that violate
AMA has been found guilty of conspiracy in
All this is yet another case of quack journalism on the part of the
mainstream media, which is largely funded by pharmaceutical
interests, of course. They never miss an opportunity to try to
attack vitamins and dietary supplements, even if it means revealing
they are total Big Pharma "presstitutes" who pretend to be real
But don't take my word for it: Let's do something the
mainstream media presstitutes never
do and actually look at the study data for a change!
What the study
The study is entitled "Dietary
Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women" - Arch
Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1625-1633
The study claims to have reviewed the vitamin and mineral supplement
use in 38,772 older women by mailing them 3 surveys over 18 years,
asking them to recall what vitamins and minerals they were taking.
So hold the presses. This is a "survey study" - or what's commonly
called an "observational study" - which are notoriously inaccurate
to begin with.
As Dr. David Brownstein told me
in a groundbreaking InfoWars Nightly News interview,
"This study says absolutely nothing
about vitamins," Dr. Brownstein said. "If this study was done in
reverse, where vitamins were shown to be effective, no journal
would have printed this study because it was so poorly done."
Watch the interview yourself:
The part with Dr. Brownstein begins at
One of the most glaring total fabrications in this particular study
is the alteration of the raw data using statistical voodoo.
go to Table 2 (below) of the study (page 4 of
the study PDF), it shows a "Hazard
Ratio" number associated with each of the nutrients covered in the
study, such as vitamin D, vitamin D, calcium, copper, iron, and so
There's also a number associated with
With these numbers, a 1.0 means "neutral" or "no increase in
mortality." A number below 1.0 - such as 0.92 - means a reduction in
mortality. For example, 0.92 would mean an 8% reduction in mortality
associated with that particular vitamin.
A number higher than 1.0 means an "increase" in mortality. So
something like 1.15 would mean a 15% increase in total mortality.
So what do these numbers really say?
Vitamin B complex was associated
with a 7% reduction in mortality
Vitamin C was associated with a
4% reduction in mortality
Vitamin D was associated with an
8% reduction in mortality
Magnesium was associated with a
3% reduction in mortality
Selenium was associated with a
3% reduction in mortality
Zinc was associated with a 3%
reduction in mortality
I bet you didn't read that in the
mainstream media, huh? That's because they never reported these
numbers! Once again, they just cherry picked whatever scary data
they wanted to show you while ignoring the rest.
On the negative side of the findings:
"Multivitamins," which the mainstream
media viciously attacked with their lying whore headlines, were
associated with - guess what? - only a two percent increase in
statistics used to alter the outcome
But wait! In this study, they didn't use the actual survey results
as their concluding data. Nope, they began to massage the data using
a voodoo formula that they came up with after the fact in an effort
to make the data "fit the curve" they wanted.
By their own admission, they first adjusted all the numbers for
"age, educational level, place of residence, diabetes mellitus, high
blood pressure, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms
divided by height in meters squared), waist to hip ratio, hormone
replacement therapy, physical activity, smoking status, and intake
But hold on a second: They're saying that a person with diabetes has
a higher risk of death, so if that person died, they wouldn't "count
it" as much as a healthy person dying, right? But they utterly
failed to take into account the fact that nutrients can reverse
diabetes and make diabetes symptoms completely disappear.
Those would be nutrients like vitamin D,
magnesium and vitamin C, all of which were covered in the study.
So if a woman in the study started out
as diabetic, and then she took nutrients that helped her reverse
diabetes, and then she later died as a non-diabetic but still
earlier than a person who had been healthy her whole life, then this
would count as a more strongly weighted "penalty" against vitamins
in the data!
The same is true with high blood pressure. You see, the statistical
voodoo that took place in this study was based on the completely
false belief by western research quacks that vitamins do not
prevent, cure or reverse disease. So they failed to account for that
action in their own data.
Thus, just on that point alone, this study is a complete, juvenile
joke! It wouldn't even earn a "C" on a high school science project,
and yet it seems like it was good enough for the Archives of
Internal Medicine, which receives millions of dollars in advertising
from drug companies.
But wait... there's more!
The data were
altered a second time!
Not content to massage the data just once, these study authors went
even further and actually changed all the results a second time!
This was done through yet another
"multivariable adjustment" in which the authors:
"...adjusted for age; educational
level; place of residence; diabetes mellitus; high blood
pressure; body mass index; waist to hip ratio; hormone
replacement therapy; physical activity; smoking status; and
intake of energy, alcohol, saturated fatty acids, whole grain
products, fruits, and vegetables."
Okay, wow, so they adjusted for intake
of fruits and vegetables, too?
This means a person who ate more fruits
and vegetables was assumed to be more healthy, and therefore
whatever age they died at was weighed toward (blamed on) other
factors such as the vitamins they were taking!
The fact is, the weight factors in all these voodoo adjustments were
totally made up by the study authors. I have no doubt they sat there
with a large Excel spreadsheet and just ran thousands of different
combinations of assumptions and weighs - fudging their data - until
they managed to produce the results they wanted.
And what results were that? Oh my goodness, can you believe it?
Vitamins might kill you!
Yep, by massaging the data, factoring in their own made-up
assumptions, fudging the weights and ignoring correlations between
nutrition and disease prevention, these researchers managed to
eliminate all the reduction of mortality risk that was demonstrated
by nutrients like vitamin D, while simultaneously making nutrients
like copper look like they were the next worst thing to poison (a
45% increased risk in mortality).
All this really amounts to little more than mental masturbation by a
circle jerk of scientists who set out to "prove" vitamins were bad
from the get-go. They actually had to alter the data TWICE to get
the results they wanted.
And then, just to throw some icing on the cake, they wrap all this
scientific fraud in their language of statistical significance,
"multivariable adjusted models" and other technical jargon that they
hope will sufficiently shroud the reality that this study is
complete scientific fraud.
Andrew Wakefield had used this massaging of the data
to show that vaccines caused autism, he would have been laughed off
the stage, stripped of his medical license, persecuted by the media
and declared a quack by the rest of the medical community.
But of course, when a bunch of doctors
writing for the AMA use this obvious scientific fraud to conclude
that "vitamins might kill you," suddenly it's perfectly okay with
the entire scientific community, the whore media, the corrupt
medical journals and of course all the idiotic doctors who still
ridiculously believe that supplemental nutrition has no role to play
in human health.
conflicts of interest - but they're never disclosed or reported
As Dr. Brownstein explained earlier, if this study had shown
vitamins to be effective at reducing mortality, doctors and critics
would have bashed it as being total "quack science."
But because they could use the study to
try to discredit vitamins,
mainstream media presstitutes have
decided it's good enough to quote in their newspapers, magazines and
The second huge point in all this that nobody bothered to mention is
that the Archives of Internal Medicine is funded by drug company
advertising, creating an immediate and obvious conflict of interest
which was never disclosed in the publication of the study.
Gee, do you think a drug company rag that
makes its money from pharmaceutical advertisements might have a
financial incentive to destroy the reputation of the vitamins that
often compete with pharmaceuticals? Really? You think so?
TIME didn't bother to mention this to their readers. Neither did USA
Today, or MSNBC, or anyone in the mainstream who reported on this.
Of course, if a study touting the
benefits of vitamins had appeared in a journal funded by vitamin
companies, they would have attacked the whole thing as an outrageous
conflict of interest! (You got to love the selective logic of these
presstitutes who only cherry pick the selected tidbits they want you
differentiation between synthetic versus natural vitamins
Further discrediting the conclusions of this study, it did not
differentiate between synthetic vitamins and natural vitamins.
So for all we know, these older women in
the study could be taking bottom-of-the-barrel vitamins found at
common retailers like Wal-Mart and grocery stores. These are cheap
multivitamin brands made with synthetic chemicals that claim to be
vitamins but really aren't. Most of those vitamins are made by
And I would have to agree that taking
synthetic vitamin E is very, very bad for your health, just like
taking synthetic medications is bad, too.
By avoiding any distinction between synthetic versus natural
vitamins, the study authors knew that any negative results would
immediately be used to discredit ALL vitamins. This, of course, was
done by design. Virtually all the conventional medical studies that
look at vitamins use this same tactic, refusing to make any
distinction between natural nutrition versus synthetic vitamins,
which are really just DRUGS given vitamin "names."
In other words, if you believe this study found something negative
about vitamins, the reality of the situation is that most of these
women were probably taking drugs given the names of vitamins and
then packaged into "one-a-day" multivitamin formats that, are toxic
to the human body in the first place.
You see, in western quack science, there is no distinction between a
nutrient created in the lab versus a nutrient that comes from
But in nature, nutrients are different!
Vitamin C, for example, doesn't exist in isolation in nature; it's
always found with other supporting antioxidants and phytonutrients.
So taking vitamin C from a plant-based source (camu camu, for
example) is qualitatively different from taking vitamin C created in
a lab (ascorbic acid). Today's conventional quack scientists and
doctors are too ignorant about nutrition to know the difference
(that's a fact), so they make no distinction in their research
Heck, today's quack medical researchers and doctors don't even
recognize any difference between living foods and dead foods! To
them, it's all the same: A dead food has the same minerals and
calories and vitamins as a living food, they claim.
They're dead wrong about that, of course
- which is why so many doctors are just plain DEAD in the first
place - as living foods have a quality that goes beyond the
detection of their crude laboratory tests.
Check out the rebuttal against the
vitamin scare hoax as
published by the Life Extension Foundation.
Vitamins Are Deadly?
October 17, 2011
Yesterday (above report), we published a groundbreaking
article exposing the total media hoax that has been running in the
mainstream media over the past week or so.
The hoax involved a fraudulent study
using altered data which claimed to show that "vitamins are
But the actual data from the study
didn't reach that conclusion at all, and the mainstream media
reporting on this was little more than a collection of outright lies
and willfully engineered disinformation.
Today we continue with part two of exposing this malicious media
hoax, which was designed (of course) to scare people away from
taking vitamins while at the same time feeding them propaganda
stories that encourage everyone to
According to the mainstream media, you
see, poisons are good for you, but nutrition is deadly.
Minerals, they claim, might kill you. But being injected with a
vaccine using aluminum
adjuvants and mercury preservatives is
actually GOOD for you, they insist!
Vitamins won't kill you, but pharmaceuticals kill
100,000 Americans a year (or more)
Of course, the biggest hoax in all this is that there has never been
a single confirmed case of a vitamin killing anyone, and yet
pharmaceuticals kill at least 100,000
Americans every year!
Does the mainstream media report on all the dead Americans killed by
deadly medications? Of course not.
Never mind that the number of
Americans killed by medications
dwarfs the total body count from all acts of alleged
terrorism in the history of our nation.
Never mind that twice as many Americans
die each year from FDA-approved pharmaceuticals as died in the
entire Vietnam War.
Never mind that even the FDA's own top scientist
- Dr. David Graham - blew the whistle on the total corruption of
science within the FDA, revealing how just
one drug (Vioxx) was proven to cause
over 60,000 heart attacks, many of which killed
Does the mainstream media report on the hundreds of Americans who
die every day in America from pharmaceuticals? Not a chance.
Instead, they try to focus people on the
false idea that "vitamins will kill you," even though there isn't a
shred of reliable evidence to support the idea that a single death
has ever been caused by a vitamin (even a synthetic vitamin).
The media hoax, you see, is found not only in the lies they tell
you, but also in the truths they refuse to tell you.
This whole story about vitamins being dangerous is a
sleight-of-press distraction to take your focus away from the things
that are really killing people (vaccines, medications, chemotherapy)
and try to make you focus on the things that aren't (vitamins and
It's classic CIA-style social
engineering, brought to you by
the mainstream media which has become,
"the least trusted news source on the planet."
scientists just invent whatever data they want
...and it routinely gets published in
"scientific" medical journals
There's something rather hilarious and pathetic about the
drug-pushing, vaccine-pimping "scientists" that dominate (quack)
medicine today: They don't care how sloppy or fraudulent the science
really is as long as it's in their favor.
Heck, when they don't get the data they want from conducting real
science, they just invent whatever data they want!
This is what Dr. Scott Reuben did
- a key researcher for Pfizer and Merck. He literally just dreamed
up whatever data he wanted and authored over twenty studies which
were published in mainstream medical journals - even though
they were all complete fraud!
These were then cited by literally thousands of other research
papers, many of which were also fraudulent themselves.
This is how
Big Pharma's medical system works:
One round of fraudulent studies
cites another round of fraudulent studies until they've built up
something that appears to be a well-referenced body of research
but which is actually based entirely on fabricated junk science.
Ah, but who cares? Who cares that the
research is complete fraud?
As long as the media can scare people
away from vitamins, that's what really counts, you see. They don't
care that it's all a complete hoax because they know that 99% of
their readers will never check the facts for themselves.
Most people will just swallow whatever
media lies are shoved at them, without even a hint of skepticism.
After all, who cares about facts anymore?
Facts are inconvenient
when you're trying to convince the world population to stay sick and
diseased all the time so you can sell them more of your patented,
monopoly-priced prescription poisons.
They can't just come right out and tell the truth, you see - that
would destroy the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, they have to
fabricate a whole system of lies which are then backed up by the
criminal, repugnant FDA and then parroted in the mindless mainstream
Here's another inconvenient fact that nobody in the mainstream whore
media bothered to tell you:
FACT: The sample size of the women
taking copper in this study was a grand total of: 24 people by
the end of the study.
Twenty-four people? Yeah, that's
reported in table 4 on page six of
There were 30 women taking copper in
1986 when the study began.
This increased to 57 women in 1997,
then decreased to 24 women in 2004 - 2008, when the study ended.
So from 24 women, and through the voodoo manipulation of the
data, this study concludes that copper has a 50% increase in
Wow, that's some pretty stunning science
fraud. Sort of idiotic, actually.
It would earn you an "F" in high school
science class if you tried to pull this off. Yet the mainstream
media reports this as if it were rock-solid science. In doing so,
all they do is just embarrass themselves and show what science
morons their own reporters still are.
Most of these newspapers and newsstand magazines you see claiming to
cover the news should actually be filed in the "fiction" category at
scientific ignorance of mainstream journalists
Sometimes I wonder what it takes to be a corporate-controlled
journalist these days.
First, it requires that you be a
complete moron on topics such as biochemistry, food, agriculture,
nutrition, basic science, the environment, economics, the money
supply and of course world history. It's almost as if mainstream
media journalists are comprised of people who have been voluntarily
lobotomized so that they now "qualify" to write for the dumbed-down
More importantly, being a mainstream media "whore" journalist
requires that you get really, really comfortable telling lies for
your corporate masters.
Whatever you're told to write, you just
write it, even if you know it's a total lie. And if you're directed
to destroy somebody in an interview - like Anderson Cooper tried to
do with Dr.
Wakefield - you just do it on command like a good little
That's why, with very few exceptions,
...today are really just social
engineers who are being used as pawns in a system of total corporate
disinformation designed to keep you sick, diseased and enslaved to a
medical monopoly which actually goes out of its way to destroy
nutritional knowledge and therefore promote nutritional illiteracy.
There's no other word for it:
Mainstream media journalists are
So are nearly all mainstream doctors. So
are most conventional scientists. So are most people!
The nutritional knowledge which could
have been used to prevent probably 80% of all chronic, degenerative
disease in America has been censored, suppressed, shuttered or
destroyed by the medical establishment working in cahoots with the
FDA and the mainstream media.
They have actually gone out of their way
to make sure everybody "stays stupid" when it comes to vitamins,
minerals and phytochemicals.
IS your multivitamin, yo!
The whole point of this is to keep people enslaved in a system of
medical domination where they think of "nutrients" as being things
they are found in prescription medications.
Some people think blood-thinning drugs
are "nutrients," and they pop their medications as if they were
candy, sometimes taking a dozen or more dangerous prescription
medications every single day. This is what the conventional medical
industry wants you to think of as "nutrition."
Vaccines are nutrition, too, didn't you know? You are incomplete
If you want to be whole, you must allow yourself to be
repeatedly injected with
all kinds of vaccines. At least that's what
the medical establishment wants you to believe. It's all, of course,
a complete pack of lies.
Nutrition doesn't come from your doctor. Your doctor is most likely
a complete and total moron when it comes to nutrition. That's why
he's more likely to die before you do, because when he gets sick, he
won't take vitamin D and eat natural sources of vitamin C and zinc
to boost immune function.
No, he's more likely to swallow his own
antibiotics, then develop a superbug infection in his lungs or gut,
and then die from pneumonia or cancer while being pumped full of
poisons by his own colleagues who have also been totally brainwashed
into thinking prescription drugs are nutrients.
Dead doctors don't lie. And they're dying in record numbers these
days because they keep taking their own deadly medicines while
avoiding anything that smacks of "holistic" nutrition or the healing
NaturalNews readers get all that. They really get it. That's why
they drink superfood smoothies, take natural dietary supplements and
don't watch mainstream television news on the idiot box.
And that's why NaturalNews readers will
outlive all the dumbed-down consumers of mainstream television -
people who, like a character from the movie
"Vitamins will kill me? OW my
kill you, but vaccines are good nutrition!
As you ponder all this, keep in mind that the mainstream media is
the same wretched group of retreads who tell you that vaccines are
good for you!
Oh yeah, here's the scoop: Vitamins just might kill you, so don't
take those. But vaccines could save your life! So get injected with
those as much as possible! (Seriously...)
And GMOs are good for you too, uh-huh. And chemotherapy is good,
too. You should get
both your breasts cut off even if
you don't have breast cancer, the LA Times reported.
That's how you "prevent" breast cancer, apparently.
Perhaps all these journalists should take their own advice and
prevent brain cancer by cutting off their own heads? It would not
materially affect the quality of their reporting, it seems. Even a
machine can hit copy and paste on a pharma-funded press release.
Who needs humans to do it if there's no
media thinks all their readers are stupid
It's true: The MSM (mainstream media) thinks their readers are stupid.
And to some extent, they are correct
because most of the intelligent people in the world have stopped
reading or watching the mainstream media as a source of information.
They've realized they are constantly being lied to by media
institutions which are, themselves, funded in large part by
pharmaceutical advertising and the financial interests of the
corporate global elite.
Did you ever wonder why the media's coverage of Fukushima was such a
downplay of the actual events that took place there?
One reason is because General Electric
built the Fukushima nuclear power plants while also owning key
mainstream media disinfo outlets
such as NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.
Do you really think these media giants which receive hundreds of
millions of dollars a year in advertising revenue from drug
companies will ever tell the truth about how nutrition can eliminate
your need for pharmaceuticals?
Of course not!
How the drug
companies bought off the media
Look at this below charts of the rise in direct-to-consumer drug
The Congressional Budget Office has even
done research on the astonishing financial ties between the drug
companies and the mainstream media.
Here's what they concluded (Promotional
Spending for Prescription Drugs):
"Pharmaceutical manufacturers spent
at least $20.5 billion on promotional activities in 2008.3
Detailing to physicians, nurse practitioners, and physicians’
assistants cost $12 billion, accounting for more than half of
that promotional spending (see Figure 1). Drug companies spent
another $3.4 billion sponsoring professional meetings and events
and about $0.4 billion placing advertisements in professional
Pharmaceutical manufacturers spent
the rest of their promotional budgets, $4.7 billion in 2008, on
To place those figures in context,
the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
estimated that, among its members, domestic sales of
pharmaceuticals and medicines totaled $189 billion in 2008 and
domestic spending on research and development totaled $38
Did you catch that? $4.7 billion in
advertising through the mainstream media... and that was in 2008
(it's much larger now).
This also reveals that
drug companies spent,
$12 billion bribing doctors
$3.4 billion running doctor "education
camps" that promote more drugs
$400 million corrupting medical
So we're supposed to believe that none of this money has any
influence on the Archives of Internal Medicine nor the mainstream
media outlets which ran this media hoax that "vitamin will kill
fails to disclose its own financial ties to drug interests
How could any mainstream media journalist miss all this? Have they
forgotten how to read? Or even how to think?
Reporting on this vitamin study while
failing to mention all the financial ties between the drug industry
and the mainstream media itself is sort of like reporting on the
Titanic's maiden voyage across the Atlantic but failing to mention
The media cover-up IS the story here! The financial corruption of
the medical journals IS the story!
The hoaxing of the population
with a completely fabricated story based on quack science is
actually one of the biggest stories of the year. And yet, obviously
no one in the mainstream media will report a story based on an
investigation of the total financial corruption of the mainstream
That's why people read alternative news
sources like NaturalNews. Because they know we haven't been bought
off by some big corporate interests. You will never see Pfizer being
a sponsor of NaturalNews, for example. Nor some GMO company or
anyone else pushing poison. (If you do see a Google ad on our site
from a pharma company, let us know and we'll ban them. We've already
Plus, we're not corporate whores, thank goodness.
That sounds like a tiring job, just
churning out total disinformation for the elite corporate interests
during the day, and then going home at night, looking in the mirror
and hating your life.
But that's what thousands of mainstream media
journalists do every single day:
They LIE to their readers to collect
a paycheck, and then they go home and wonder why they even
bothered to get a degree in journalism in the first place, since
virtually nobody in the whore media bothers to practice real
It's kind of a cushy job, actually:
Take press releases from the
White House, drug companies or medical journals, rewrite a
sentence or two, slap your name on it, and you've "written" your
story for the day! No research (or thinking) is even necessary.
No need to make a single phone call, and there's no need to
check facts since they've already been provided to you by the
corporate media relations whores who also push lies for a
"Reporting the news" in the mainstream
media is little more than taking corporate globalist press releases
and repackaging them as "news" without engaging in any fact checking
or independent research whatsoever.
It's an embarrassment to the whole field
of journalism, actually.
journalism? Get it from alternative news sources
Reporting the real news takes far more effort than just copying and
pasting press releases or White House propaganda. For starters, we
have to think for ourselves.
And when we report the news, we don't
use teleprompters and we don't read scripts. Watch
News sometime and you'll notice that none of
us are reading from teleprompters. We don't have scripts. We analyze
current events in real time, in a LIVE video studio, with no
scripts, no makeup, no special wardrobe and no big corporate
That's real journalism, folks.
Here's a video of me hosting it
recently (and yeah, I mess up sometimes, because I'm not reading a
Alex Jones, Aaron Dykes and others also host InfoWars Nightly News,
where you'll learn the hard-hitting truth about all kinds of
subjects, from health freedom and vaccines to government corruption
and the push for war.
We don't have the super slick graphics, the big corporate sponsors,
nor the wink and the nod from government "authorities." Instead, we
have independent, intelligent analysis of events that really matter.
That's something you just can't get anymore from USA Today, TIME,
the LA Times, the NY Times or any other mainstream media outlet.
They simply can't afford to report the truth - it would get their ad
revenues and put them out of business.
Think about that for a second, and realize that every major player
in the entire mainstream media only exists because they continue to
serve a strategic role in pushing propaganda for powerful
corporations or political interests. There is no more "news" in the
news. It's all just a tapestry of lies and half-truths woven from
the never-ending stream of disinformation that keeps the drug
companies raking in profits from preventable degenerative disease.
The mainstream media, ultimately, doesn't want you to be informed.
They want you to be obedient.