Article Analysis: "Ranking: Best Multivitamins in 2016" (updated yearly)

This article can be found here.

CAUTION Analysis: With a little background in science and nutrition, the recommendations do make sense and this is one of the best review articles found to date. While some of the multiples listed are pretty good, such as Naturelo, many have more issues, and others are plain old school and might be detrimental for some consumers. Usually they have a lower score, but not always. Plus, this website lacks credibility from another source.

The top 4 ranked multiple vitamins on their list have links to go directly to the product companies or suppliers, Amazon and Vitacost, that all have affiliate programs meaning this website gets a monetary kick-back when someone so directed orders these products. While the article authors claim to be independent and not associated with any vitamin company, the affiliate programs somewhat calls this independence into question.   Plus, even though they talk about being Scientific, they appear to not be aware of some new vitamin research that questions certain dosages and nutrient forms in few of these "highly" recommended products.

Compromise! The nutrients in question include Folic acid ref, vitamin B6 ref, beta carotene ref, and vitamin D plus some of the formulas are low or missing family nutrients for vitamins E and C. A few also have dosage or form issues of chromium ref and or selenium ref ref ref. One mentions an obvious flaw but then goes on to include the questionable nutrient anyway, glutathione. This being said, their number one multiple pick is really quite good. And formulated by someone with better than par vitamin smarts conerning current science.

The bottom line is this: Even the best multiple supplement needs to be motified or supplemented by changing the serving size number and / or adding other nutrients to correctly complement nutrient group functions.

Article Analysis - "Top 6 Vitamins You Should Not Take"

First read the story, here is the article. 

This is really about 2 articles. You will find a link to the first article, 5 Supplements not to take, in the new article. Here is the list of 6 vitamin products this article says not to take.

1. Vitamin C
2. Vitamin A and beta carotene
3. Vitamin E
4. Vitamin B6
5. Multi-vitamins
6. Vitamin D

And now the analysis:

Regarding number 6: Vitamin D

This appears to be a well researched concept with some valid points, but there are a few significant facts not mentioned about vitamin D that have major roles influencing the study results analyzed. Almost every Nutritionist gets this wrong. The ariticle was an analysis or review of many studies that claim vitamin D levels do not influence disease, but instead, D levels are changed as an after affect of the disease state due to inflammation. ref  And that is why people measure low. While the conclusions reached may be somewhat actuate, there are points missed that need to be clarified that might change the conclusions somewhat. 

First, this review is mainly talking about disease states associated with vitamin D levels other than bone health. Using the studies mentioned in this review, one says giving vitamin D at high dosages does not positively influence disease rates and the second is that low D levels are an effect and not a cause of disease. This illustrates the lack of understanding about how vitamin D functions and the interactions between the different forms, plus a number of related elements that interact with or on vitamin D and the many pathways generated. The point in between these statements is that there is range of vitamin D levels with the most benefits which is neither too low or too high that has the greatest health benefits and lowest mortality. Plus, there are many factors, such as the 2 vitamin D forms, they do not have the same actions, the influence of VDBP and VDR, vitamin D binding protein and vitamin D receptors, that control vitamin D bio-availability and cell attactment to determine how vitamin D behaves to attain greater accuracy. There is also a rather large population that has modified D genes that fail to properly process vitamin D forms. Then there are the dietary effects such as calcium intake that modify the triggers for the hormone form of vitamin D production and activation. And what about health of thyroid and parathyroid glands? For Scientists to study vitamin D effects without considering all these elements is akin to a Baker trying to make bread with just flour and water. Very limited results and success. But, the major premise of the article does have validity. Cancer cells are able to produce an enzyme that promotes a more rapid breakdown of the hormone form of vitamin D and also limits further production. The hormone form of vitamin D functions to protect cells and is counter to the growth of cells that are cancerous as described below.

Vitamin D is found in the body in 2 major forms in blood. One is a long lasting low active storage form 25OHD and the other is the short lasting hormone action form, 1,25(OH)2D3. This hormone form is the one responsible for most if not all of the actions and benefits attritubed to vitamin D. Scientists measure the storage form because it is easier and assume the two are related. This is a huge mistake. Only at very low dosages does the storage form hinder levels and production of the hormone form. They are mostly independent. The trigger for hormone form vitamin D activation and building is the level of calcium in the blood. Diet plays a large role here.

The obvious question: Why would Scientists think increasing the storage form D would influence the hormone form if they are more or less independent?

In the past, the storage form was actually thought to be inert and not active at all. But this is not exactly true. Yes, it is about 1000 times weaker, but at just the right levels, it is able to go into at least 11 tissues and numerous other cells and be turned into the hormone D form with the help of a certain enzyme. The hormone D formed mostly remains in these tissues and cells offering direct protection against disease. This "in cell" protection aspect might not be readily discernible from a blood test. In fact, Scientists may not yet know the proper level of the measured storage form D which maximizes this tissue and cell protective effect. And it probably varies somewhat in people. Best levels for Vitamin D storage form are still a work in progress, and just may be different for different diseases or body processes, such as for bone building or cancer prevention.

Now, what about the effects of both storage form vitamin D and hormone form of vitamin D attaching to VDR, Vitamin D Receptors on cell walls, plus the attachments to VDBP in blood plasma? As the levels of each form change, there would be increased competition to gain VDR attachments. Hormone form Vitamin D acts by attaching to VDR causing the cells to produce certain proteins for a specific function. One protein called Osteocalcin functions to bind calcium into bones. But it is inactive until vitamin K activates it. Thus, a vitamin D study on bone building that does not also measure vitamin K levels is almost completely irrelevant.** The two forms of Osteocalcin, non-activated ucOC, and activated cOC, also help regulate blood sugar and prostate cell growth rates as well as bone mineralization. Another protein built or influenced by hormone vitamin D is called LL-37. It has immune functions and protects cells.

Are you beginning to see how complex the vitamin D issue has become? Just increasing vitamin D intake may not be appropriate in all situations, and may not always yield a measurable result. It also may prove counter-productive under certain conditions as well. Far too many people are playing with fire by increasing vitamin D supplements without knowing all the pertinent facts. Read these: article article for greater insight.

** Doctors for some time have been measuring the amount of "carboxylated" osteocalcin as a sign of bone building, but never told anyone what they were really testing for was the action of vitamin K. New research has now linked the carboxylated to non-carboxyated Osteocalcin ratios to prostate tissue growth plus blood sugar regulation.

The Analyst says:

1.VITAMIN C  

Here is what the US Government has to say about vitamin C functions and dosages. Evolution has a slightly different view on dosages. Why do the vast majority of mammals make their own vitamin C while just a few, humans, a couple of monkeys, and a guinea pig, do not and have to consume vitamin C in foods? These few types of mammals somewhere lost an enzyme that produces vitamin C from glucose.  ref Scientists produce vitamin C in the lab using a similar enzyme method from sugars. Yes, it is true that over time without this enzyme, these mammals have evolved to require less vitamin C  from foods compared to the amounts the other mammals naturally still produce for themselves. Under stress, these self producing vitgamin C animals increase production. Vitamin C is a very important and vital nutrient. It is involved in not only anti-oxidant activities, but also directs the production of collagen, the glue that binds many tissues together, like joints.

Vitamin C is one part of a family of related nutrients including bioflavonoids, rutin, and hesperidin that have unique functions as well as they also protect vitamin C. Capillary integrity is vital here. The proper vitamin C supplement should have a little of all of these nutrients. While Linus Pauling was a little off for the mechanism of function for C helping colds, he has now been vindicated when the actual method as to how high dose vitamin C stops cancers was recently discovered. It is not just related to it's anti-oxidant properties. ref  It appears high dose IV-C hinders production of the HIF-1 enzyme necessary for cancer cells to use energy from sugar fermentation for their growth. This is very new stuff. For this effect, large amounts of vitamin C needs to be IV directly into the body. Oral does not work for this function.

But for just nutritional amounts, maybe only 500 mg of C with complex is enough to satisfy body nutritional functions. And this amount is best if taken in 2 divided doses during day as vitamin C has a rather short half life in body of just hours, maybe 8. About 250 mg gets to tissue saturation. Some cases might need slightly more for greater cellular saturation as well, as this Stress study found. ref 

2. Vitamin A and Beta Carotene.

Again, the carotenoids are a family of related nutrients that appear to all be needed for the variety of different functions and conditions for which they are best suited. The majority of Multiple Vitamins only include Beta carotene, and 90% with only the synthetic form to boot. Synthetic beta carotene only contains one form instead of multiple forms found in nature. And it is Alpha carotene rather than Beta that shows greater ability to limit cancers and extend mortality. Article Plus see excerpt from study below:

"the researchers "found that serum alpha-carotene concentration was inversely associated with adjusted risk of death," according to their study, led by Chaoyang Li, of the Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Women tended to have slightly higher concentrations of the nutrient than men (5.31 microgram per deciliter versus 4.22).  The team found an especially strong correlation between higher alpha-carotene levels and lower risk of death from diabetes, upper respiratory tract and upper digestive tract cancers, as well as lower respiratory disease."

NOTE: Too much Beta carotene, the same as for vitamin A, may have some adverse effects. Too much vitamin A has been associated with increased bone fractures. And too much beta carotene has been associated with increased lung cancer in a study of Finnish smokers. Turns out in a smoking situation, Beta Carotene may behave as a pro-oxidant rather than an anti-oxidant influence. Anyway, Beta Carotene should only be consumed with the family of carotenoids plus the synthetic form in 90% of multiple supplements, should never be taken. Flooding the body with only synthetic Beta carotene ties up all the Carotenoid receptors and this could jeopardize health by blocking out attachment of the other valuable Carotenoid family members in food. The whole family of carotenoids should be consumed as found in a variety of vegetables and fruits. 

3. Vitamin E

Again, Vitamin E is also a victum of a separated and isolated member from a family of nutrients with limited and sometimes producing slightly adverse effects. Check out the analysis here.

The synthetic form of vitamin E during production generates 8 forms of alpha tocopherol. Only one of the 8 naturally exists in nature, but 4 have a configeration that can mimic some vitamin E functions. So at best, an equal amount of synthetic vitamin E is only half the action of the same amount of natural E. Scientists increased the amount of the synthetic E until more actions of E were at a similar action level to the lesser amount of natural E and called that amount one vitamin E unit. But, that really did not equal all the natural vitamin E functions, especially the ones that were not known at the time. DO NOT TAKE SYNTHETIC VITMAIN E, dl'alpha tocopheryl.

Watch for continued insights of other nutrients.

Vitamins - A Waste of Money Article

Here is the topic article from Dec 2013. It is based from Johns Hopkins with Dr Edgar Miller. While he has outstanding credentials, there is an issue that leads to questions about his motives. See for yourself. Another more recent work also from Johns Hopkins.

FROM THE REPORT: “We believe that the case is closed -- supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful...” 

The first question: What percent of adults are well-nourished? 

The second question: What if the wrong form of nutrient or dosage was used in many if not most research studies?

ANALYSIS:  Past studies looking at nutrients from just food sources yielded positive results. The Scientists analyzed the active nutrients in the foods they thought were responsible for these positive findings, formed a theory, and then isolated the active nutrients and conducted controlled experiments. The results from these studies were all over the board, some positive, ref, a few negative, and most no change. And overall were not as positive as the earlier food studies.

The reality is that the Scientists made some faulty assumptions about the theories they thought were involved and the form and dosages of the nutrients. The anti-oxidant theory was one that became widely assumed. Left out of this theory is that anti-oxidants need to be balanced for proper functioning and disease protection. They are balanced in foods but easily unbalanced in supplements. And in the case of vitamin E, other vital forms were left out that limited positive results. Vitamin E as alpha tocopherol needs gamma tocopherol for proper prostate health. While the midterm results of the SELECT study were correct, they missed the more important point that prostate protection needs both vitamin E forms instead of just the alpha tocopherol form as used in the vast majority of vitamin disease research. Article on SELECT study. NCI reference on SELECT here.

Some years ago, Dr Edgar Miller was involved in another meta study about Vitamin E. Dr Miller announced the results of this study at a media circus with the FDA on board. Every major newspaper in the World carried the report the next day with the headline; "Vitamin E will kill you"

In this meta review study, Dr Miller looked at over 3000 studies on Vitamin E and eliminated 2981 of them. One of the 19 left, the WAVE study, contained a warning from its Authors that the results should not be used by any other research since the results were so far separated from any past study. But this did not stop Dr MIller from using these results together with the other 18 studies. It was only by including the WAVE study results that Dr Miller was able to get a significant negative finding for higher dose Vitamin E increasing the death rate. One interesting point about this study is that there was no mention of what caused the deaths or if they were in any way connected to the functions of vitamin E. After the media circus reported that high dosage, over 400 IU, Vitamin E would "kill" you, other Scientists worked the same numbers without the WAVE results and could not arrive at the same negative statistics. Even using the WAVE results with different Scientific methods, they could not duplicate Dr Miller's adverse findings. The talk behind the scenes in the Scientific community was that Dr Miller's meta study was faulty and without proper scientific merit. The Public never saw this side of the story.

OF INTEREST: One of the 19 studies, CHAOS, found a 71% reduction in second heart attacks during the study period in the Vitamin E group. Plus, now can be added this new report on the positive overall cancer reduction of multiple-vitamins found in this study. Plus this one. How can these positive results be discounted by Dr Miller?

Back to the article above, Vitamins a Waste of Money, here is the link to the first of 3 studies used to decide this view. These were meta studies in that they just looked at other studies and attempted to compare them together. Here is the last line in the Discussion: "We identified 2 multivitamin trials that both found lower overall cancer incidence in men (19, 21). Both trials were methodologically sound, but the lack of an effect for women (albeit in 1 trial), the borderline significance in men in both trials, and the lack of any effect on CVD in either study makes it difficult to conclude that multivitamin supplementation is beneficial."

Multivitamin researchers say "case is closed" after studies find no health benefits

How can the authors of this report discount the lower overall cancer incidence in men from the two trials? To the men not coming down with cancer who took vitamins, those vitamins were surely not a WASTE of MONEY. 

Yes, there is a very serious gap in the theories Scientists use to study vitamins. Ineffective forms (missing Vitamin E members, or synthetic E and beta carotene, lack of vitamin C family, incorrect calcium to magnesium ratio), faulty dosages (too high or too low), incomplete theories (anti-oxidant balance, and lack of synergistic nutrients, like vitamin K needed with vitamin D for bone health). These are the real issues discussed on the articles in this website to explain the seemingly controversial findings from vitamin research.

TAKE AWAY: A Doctor wanted to find out which forms of vitamin E were deficient in heart patients. To his amazement, alpha tocopherol, the only form allowed to be called vitamin E and the form almost always used in cardiovascular disease studies, was NOT often deficient. It was nearly the same in both healthy and people with heart disease. It was gamma tocopherol that was lower in heart patients. Now, if vitamin E levels as alpha tocopherol are the same in heart disease patients and healthy people, why would one expect vitamin E was an issue and that taking more vitamin E as alpha tocopherol would help? Some logic! It does help in studies were vitamin E alpha tocopherol levels measured low.

The more likely scenario is that the Scientists thought heart patients must need extra vitamin E to achieve greater anti-oxidant levels. BUT, did they consider anti-oxidant load balance! The studies early on with the form of vitamin E tested showed this did not help much. So why did the Scientists keep using the same theory for future studies? Is it time to change the theory and use the protocol Mother Nature offers with all 8 vitamin E family members. This reference (conclusion* copiede below) shows anti-inflammatory properties greater from mixed E complex than just alpha tocopherol. In fact, high intake of just supplemental alpha tocopherol suppresses the levels of the other vital E factors that arrived in food.

*"Natural vitamin E consists of four different tocopherol and four different tocotrienol homologues (α, β, γ, δ) that all have antioxidant activity. However, recent data indicate that the different vitamin E homologues also have biological activity unrelated to their antioxidant activity. In this review, we discuss the anti-inflammatory properties of the two major forms of vitamin E, α-tocopherol (αT)(alpha) and γ-tocopherol (γT) (gamma), and discuss the potential molecular mechanisms involved in these effects. While both tocopherols exhibit anti-inflammatory activity in vitro and in vivo, supplementation with mixed (γT-enriched) tocopherols seems to be more potent than supplementation with αT alone. This may explain the mostly negative outcomes of the recent large-scale interventional chronic disease prevention trials with αT and thus warrants further investigation."

Update on Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:16AM by Team RightWay

Article Evaluation:   Supplements: A scorecard - Harvard Health

This is a very new review and while it has some good information, certain missing points are needed to add clarity to picture created. Return soon. 

Natural versus Synthetic Vitamins

 Analysis of an article that appeared on Natural News, a timely topic:

Top whole food multivitamin supplements

Friday, June 18, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Read article> http://www.naturalnews.com/029021_multivitamins_whole_foods.html#ixzz2xKDjOYoz

Second paragraph:

"Unfortunately, not all multivitamins are derived from natural sources like plants, fruits and vegetables. Many are synthetically-derived, laboratory simulations of real vitamins, including some common ones like vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and vitamin E (dl-tocopheryl acetate). These are the same types of "vitamins" used to enrich many processed foods, and they simply do not assimilate well into the body because they are not truly natural."

Analysis: First they tell you a truth that only some vitamins are derived from natural food sources. Then they go on to explain how synthetically derived vitamins are used to enrich foods. Funny, this is the very same process that the three whole food vitamin companies mentioned later in this article use to develop their vitamins; Garden of Life**, New Chapter, and MegaFood. The impression many vitamin consumers have that the vitamins these companies sell are created naturally by the whole foods is a result of a rather clever marketing verbiage.  This is not so! The vitamins were added to the growing yeast, not made by nature in foods. And yes, some are synthetic.

While these companies do explain they use some USP (synthetic) vitamins, it is generally well hidden in their literature. Since the fact that synthetic vitamins added to growing yeast cells often occurs at another company, the Grow Company, this allows the Brands to avoid listing the synthetic vitamin name on the product labels since they did not add it, a legal loophole. If the Brands do make the vitamins themselves, as MegaFood claims, they could very well be in jeopardy of selling falsely labeled products. In fact, it is never mentioned anywhere if the growing process added any natural, or mostly natural, or mainly synthetic vitamins. They are free to use any form. Hopefully, they use the best forms available. 

Yes, some of these enriched yeast vitamins do enjoy greater absorption over plain isolated synthetics, but there are a few synthetics that get into the body faster than the fortified yeast type. The enriched yeast vitamins are sometimes called whole food vitamins, a somewhat stretch of the true reality. 

From the Grow Company on manufacturing vitamins:

"Grow Nutrients® are manufactured by feeding a controlled amount of mineral salt (vitamin) embedded into an appropriate glycoprotein matrix to the yeast during the budding and growth process. This controlled metabolization process results in a mineral/vitamin yeast product in its most natural environment. During the budding and growth process, the mineral salt/vitamin is added to the budding yeast at an exact concentration, then after a predetermined time the yeast is harvested. The mineral/vitamin yeast is then thoroughly washed number of times with purified water. Then the product, upon enzyme treatment, is cold pasteurized, spray-dried and packed. These products provide minerals and vitamins in a form that is readily absorbed and bio-available."

 They add the vitamins and minerals to the growing yeast at just the right concentration to arrive at the dosage needed in the finished product. The company claims this process changes or bio-regenerates the added synthetic vitamins into a form similar to those observed in foods. Unfortunately, the digestive system usually breaks down any vitamin complex into free isolated vitamins.

**NOTE: Garden of Life just introduced a new vitamin line called the "Kind Organics" that is different. Click here to see.

Example of MegaFood Label Wording

Look at the MegaFood label for Vitamin E & Selenium, Let's see how much brown rice would be needed to supply 50 IUs of vitamin E if the E was all natural from brown rice. Here is the label:

 It appears that 200 mg of Organic Brown Rice supply 50 IU of Vitamin E. Since Brown Rice according to the US Government has about 1.2 mg of vitamin E per 100 grams of rice.  And 1.2 mg of vitamin E is equal to .8 IU for International Units.  That means to get 50 IU of natural vitamin E, MegaFood would need to extract the vitamin E out of 13.7 pounds of brown rice for each tablet. NOT likely!

Look at that ingredient label line again.                 Vitamin E (200 mgt; Organic Brown Rice)  50 IU 

t =Total Weight FoodState Nutrient to Deliver Daily Value ( 50 IU vitamin E)

So, the tip off is the semi-colon. This means the 200 mgt of a processed FoodState nutrient is one thing, and the organic brown rice is another. Since brown rice does have some vitamin E, it is technically correct that both the items supply vitamin E. The foodstate processed material with added vitamin E, possibly to the yeast S. cerevisiae listed under the Immune Health Blend, must supply about 99%. The implied view that all the vitamin E is naturally from the rice is simply not logical. No other natural ingredients listed separately or added together in this product contain anywhere near the total vitamin E amount of 50 IU.

"Real vitamins are the living ones derived from whole foods and that are maintained in their natural states. These contain the necessary cofactors and enzymes which help the body to process and use them, and they provide the most benefit to the body."

Yes, real vitamins are made by nature. The products these Brands produce may have some remarkable benefits, but their vitamins are not all made by nature and not even sure if they can truly be called "Whole Food" vitamins. Vitamin enriched Organic Whole Food Supplements, maybe, or Fortified Yeast Vitamins. Sure is a better fit for the actual facts.

Of Interest: It is of interest to note that there are two methods to produce "synthetic vitamins" that have existed from day one after vitamin were discovered. In fact, it was with the help of one of these methods that vitamins were even found. It was noted that bacteria used in the production of alcohol left a residual of a yellow material. It was observed that this yellow material was vital to living organisms and thus given the name vitamin, or vital to life. This was vitamin B2. Scientists soon found a way to produce this material in the lab beginning with petroleum distillates and some enzymes, some of which were from bacteria, and other chemicals. Plus, in order to also produce more from bacteria, mutant strains of bacteria were found that increased vitamin production. And yes, you might have guessed it by now, today bacteria used for this vitamin production are developed using GMO, genetic modified organisms, to further increase vitamin amounts. 

These two different production methods have always existed to add to the pool of synthetic vitamins. The bacteria method was largely used in the beginning and still today for animal feed. There was a period of time when the chemical lab method was much cheaper, but then as petroleum price went up, the bacteria method became more cost effective, especially with the development of GMO bacteria, and greater quantities of "synthetic" vitamins are now produced by this method. The grow food vitamin companies may now be using this bacteria production method only, but they never mention which source vitamins they add to yeast cells in any of their literature. New Chapter mentions they use a fermentative process during the production of their vitamins. This could aid in breaking down some of the vitamin forms into secondary co-enzyme forms, a process the body also does with vitamins once ingested, but is probalby not the original source of vitamin production.

If one is to call this bacteria vitamin production method natural, then at least 25% or more of synthetic vitamins have been natural for some time now since they are developed using this method. This changes the scenario of FoodForm Vitamins saying synthetic vitamins are not true vitamins and do not work or stay in the body.

SIDEBAR:   HOLY BASIL as a source of B vitamins

Basil herb (Ocimum basilicum), Fresh leaves, 
Nutritive value per 100 grams (28 gms = 1 oz)
(Source: USDA National Nutrient data base)

Principle	Nutrient Value	Percentage of RDA
Energy	23 Kcal	1%
Carbohydrates	2.65 g	2%
Protein	3.15 g	6%
Total Fat	0.64 g	2%
Cholesterol	0 mg	0%
Dietary Fiber	1.60 g	4%
Vitamins
Folates	68 µg	17%
Niacin	0.902 mg	6%
Pantothenic acid	0.209 mg	4%
Pyridoxine (B6)	0.155 mg	12%
Riboflavin   (B2)	0.076 mg	6%
Thiamin      (B1)	0.034 mg	2.5%
Vitamin A	5275 IU	175%
Vitamin C	18 mg	30%
Vitamin E	0.80 mg	5%
Vitamin K	414.8 µg	345%
Electrolytes
Sodium	4 mg	0%
Potassium	295 mg	6%
Minerals
Calcium	177 mg	18%
Copper	385 mg	43%
Iron	3.17 mg	40%
Magnesium	64 mg	16%
Manganese	1.15 mg	57%
Zinc	0.81 mg	7%
Phyto-nutrients
Carotene-ß	3142 µg	--
Crypto-xanthin-ß	46 µg	--
Lutein-zeaxanthin	5650 µg	--

Cholesterol: Levels or Ratios?

Here is the article talking about cholesterol with the view that total cholesterol is more important than the ratio of LDL to HDL, with the most desirable level at or below 160 total cholesterol.

This article and similar ones are the result of the scientific medical community attempting to protect the image they have built up over the last 50 years about the benefits of decreasing cholesterol. IT IS SADLY A Partially FALSE IMAGE. While they want to lower heart disease with lower and lower overall cholesterol levels, they fail to see the disastrous increase in infectious diseases and overall mortality as cholesterol levels fall to the low recommended amounts. See this chart on this page.

OF INTEREST: This fact is seldom mentioned in articles or studies talking about the health aspects between high or low cholesterol levels. In people with low levels, those who were naturally low without taking drugs are better able to fight off and recover from infections than those who forced lower cholesterol levels using drugs. This fact is revealed in hospital records. There could be an innate immune difference between the two cases. If one is naturally low in cholesterol, the body overtime may have developed other channels to fight infections that are absent in people with drug lowered cholesterol.