"Vitamin B6 Therapy -- The Deficiency of the Mainstream Media and Pharmaceutical pseudo-Science" by Chris Barr

Wrong again!

"B vitamins fail to cut heart risk in study," declared a headline some months back from the rotten Reuters mainstream (polluted stream) news service – 2nd largest in the world.

The story cited a study featured in the Journal of the American Murderousedical Association (JAMA) allegedly on the effect of some B vitamins against heart disease.

An accompanying JAMA editorial questioned the value of the nutritional approach as “wrong again”.

Wrong again indeed…

Well designed study?

First, the study included women in their 40s at which age there is going to be a lesser likelihood of heart problems in which to make a difference.

Second – and more importantly – the study used 50 milligrams of the vitamin called B6. That is half (or less) the amount already published more than a decade ago as making a tremendous difference in another clinical study some years before the current study was begun.

Furthermore, synthesized 'nutrients' concocted by man were used rather than 100 per cent whole food nutrients. There is a difference and your body knows the difference.

This JAMA published study was well designed for failure.

A genuine, expert source

Dr. John Ellis, M.D. wrote the book on vitamin B6 -- literally. 'Vitamin B6: The Doctor's Report' by Dr. Ellis is the classic book on the subject of this nutrient. Ellis took 200 milligrams of vitamin B6 daily from 1961 until his recent death at nearly 90 years of age.

The last time I spoke with Dr. Ellis before his death was after another study in the news using a similar amount of vitamin B6. The good doctor had not heard of that study yet but laughed vigorously when I told him of it. "Sounds like a cardiologist who doesn't want somebody getting in his field," Ellis responded.

His newest book, 'Vitamin B6 Therapy' is an update from his earlier classic work a quarter century earlier.

The newer book cites the study already noted above. That study used a minimum of 100 milligrams of vitamin B6 with individuals in their 60s, 70s and 80s already afflicted with heart disease. There were 74 per cent less heart disease events than those who did not take vitamin B6 in that five-year clinical study. The study was conducted by Dr. Ellis and Dr. Kilmer McCully who served many years as a Harvard University professor.

The currently cited “news report” is about a study using much less than an amount previously determined to be very successful.

"'Vitamin B6 Therapy' is a report full of information that I stand 100% behind and wouldn't take a word of it back," said Dr. Ellis.

“Elderly people who had taken 100 to 200 milligrams of vitamin B6 daily for long periods and died from myocardial infarction lived eight years longer than those who did not take vitamin B6,” wrote Dr. Ellis in his book ‘Vitamin B6 Therapy’.

The long-term, tried and true successful approach from the medical and nutritional giant of Dr. Ellis dwarfs the pitiful, pathetic JAMA study well designed for failure.

Christopher C. Barr writes Naturally Speaking from Arkansas: The Natural State … naturally! You may write him at P. O. Box 1147, Pocahontas, Arkansas 72455 or by e-mail at servantofYHVH@hotmail.com.

"Hearty 'heave-ho' Given Good Heart Health Research" commentary by Christopher C. Barr

“Vitamin pills don’t prevent heart disease,” prominently declared the AP (Associated Propagandaess) “news” headline representative of other “news” coverage given an annual meeting of the American Hurt, er, uh, I mean, Heart, Association.

Heart disease has primarily to do with mineral deficiencies – notably of chromium, selenium, silicon and magnesium – so well grounded nutrition researchers wouldn’t be looking in the direction of vitamin pills.

Specifically, the study noted in the report was on vitamins C and E. Very few nutrition researchers would look to vitamin C for heart help. A few more would look to vitamin E though that would be misguided.

The study much ballyhooed by the mainstream press in general is – to quote the bard – much ado about nothing, or at least not very much at all. It was funded by the National Institutes of Health – your tax dollars at work and a wasted work at that.

Barely getting any attention at all was another study presented at the same meeting disclosing that daily aspirin therapy did not provide any benefit against heart problems. The AP “news” service made not so much as a mention of it.

Aspirin studies that show heart benefit do not use plain aspirin – they use buffered aspirin. The buffering agent in buffered aspirin is a hefty dose of magnesium – one of the primary minerals of which deficiency contributes to heart problems.

The benefit of magnesium supplementation to individuals with active heart problems was first documented half a century ago before the first buffered aspirin heart studies were conducted.

Aspirin as a benefit for the heart is a very old canard indeed.

Round and round and round it goes …

The AP article linked above did in its conclusion report that another study with vitamins B-12 and folic acid showed no benefit to the heart.

The vitamins B-12 and folic acid reverse homocysteine to the amino acid methionine.

Homocysteine is a long time demonstrated heart risk indicator though it was long ignored until recent years.

Tragically, more often ignored to this day is that the key to homocysteine issues are pyridoxal compounds commonly known as vitamin B6.

Homocysteine builds up when there is insufficient vitamin B6 to properly metabolize the essential amino acid methionine.

In other words, using vitamin B-12 and folic acid to reverse homocysteine to methionine without addressing the vitamin B6 deficiency that caused the problem in the first place means that homocysteine will form again. The homocysteine problem never really goes away but rather comes and goes back and forth in a not so merry-go-round and round robin of bird-brained medical minds lacking much in nutrition knowledge even as so many are lack much in nutrition.

Drug pushers protect their turf

Having drug pushers conduct nutrition research is like having foxes guarding chickens.

A straw man argument is when one sets up an argument, assigns it to another, and then burns up that argument while claiming to have discredited another who didn’t even believe that in the first place.

Straw man arguments are the stock in trade of medical men when they argue about nutrition.

Medical men push drugs that you have to appear before them and pay tribute (office vi$it) to get permission to access. You don’t need their permission to access nutrition so they have no motivation for making use of nutrition.

Another case in point is the story this week that purports to extend statin drug usage even to those without high cholesterol levels.

Statin drugs are already the number one selling drug in America and the new push by these drug pushers would increase that almost 50 per cent. Yet the study noted numerous side effects from the statins including higher levels of diabetics occurring in those taking the statins … oh, and by the way, diabetics have three to five times as much heart disease as non-diabetics.

Yet, for considerably less than half the cost of statins the ingestion of the essential mineral chromium in a 100 per cent whole food form in hearty (pun intended) amounts results in a decrease of LDL (“bad”) cholesterol that statins provide plus an increase of HDL (“good”) cholesterol that statins do NOT provide with none of the many serious side effects that statins provide.

No permission or tribute to doctors needed for a hearty nutritional approach.

Finally, at the same time as all these other storied medical studies comes word that the AMA has come out in support of trans fats bans. No mention is made that the common place use of trans fats resulted from rigorous recommendations for many decades from the AMA for their use. Meanwhile nutrition people who have cried out against trans fats these many decades that AMA has recommended them do not even get a mention.

The AMA declared that stopping use of trans fats would prevent 100,000 deaths per year in the United States alone. If that is true then the AMA has just admitted liability for 100,000 deaths per year in the United States alone based upon their many decades recommendations of trans fats.

Read in NATURALLY Speaking about simple, plain truths years – even decades – ahead of the mainstream.

Christopher C. Barr writes Naturally Speaking from Arkansas: The Natural State … naturally! You may write him at P. O. Box 1147, Pocahontas, Arkansas 72455 or by e-mail at servantofYHVH@hotmail.com.

"Wrong again!" NATURALLY Speaking Guest Commentary By Christopher C. Barr

"B vitamins fail to cut heart risk in study," declared the headline of the rotten Reuters (polluted) mainstream news service – 2^nd largest in the world.

The story cited a study featured in the Journal of the American Murderousedical Association (JAMA) allegedly on the effect of some B vitamins against heart disease.

An accompanying JAMA editorial questioned the value of the nutritional approach as “wrong again”.

Wrong again indeed…

Well designed study?

First, the study included women in their 40s at which age there is going to be a lesser likelihood of heart problems in which to make a difference.

Second – and more importantly – the study used 50 milligrams of the vitamin called B6. That is half (or less) the amount already published more than a decade ago as making a tremendous difference in another clinical study some years before the current study was begun.

Furthermore, synthesized 'nutrients' concocted by man were used rather than 100 per cent whole food nutrients. There is a difference and your body knows the difference.

This JAMA published study was well designed for failure.

A genuine, expert source

Dr. John Ellis, M.D. wrote the book on vitamin B6 -- literally. 'Vitamin B6: The Doctor's Report' by Dr. Ellis is the classic book on the subject of this nutrient. Ellis took 200 milligrams of vitamin B6 daily from 1961 until his recent death at nearly 90 years of age.

The last time I spoke with Dr. Ellis before he died was after another study in the news using a similar amount of vitamin B6. The good doctor had not heard of that study yet but laughed vigorously when I told him of it.

"Sounds like a cardiologist who doesn't want somebody getting in his field," Ellis responded.

His newest book, 'Vitamin B6 Therapy' is an update from his earlier classic work a quarter century earlier.

The newer book cites the study from more than a decade ago noted above. That study used a minimum of 100 milligrams of vitamin B6 with individuals in their 60s, 70s and 80s already afflicted with heart disease. There were 74 per cent less heart disease events than those who did not take vitamin B6 in that five-year clinical study. The study was conducted by Dr. Ellis and Dr. Kilmer McCully who served many years as a Harvard University professor.

The currently cited “news report” is about a study using much less than an amount previously determined to be very successful.

"'Vitamin B6 Therapy' is a report full of information that I stand 100% behind and wouldn't take a word of it back," said Dr. Ellis.

“Elderly people who had taken 100 to 200 milligrams of vitamin B6 daily for long periods and died from myocardial infarction lived eight years longer than those who did not take vitamin B6,” wrote Dr. Ellis in his book ‘Vitamin B6 Therapy’.

The long-term, tried and true successful approach from the medical and nutritional giant of Dr. Ellis dwarfs the pitiful, pathetic JAMA study well designed for failure.

Christopher C. Barr writes Naturally Speaking from Arkansas: The Natural State … naturally! You may write him at P. O. Box 1147, Pocahontas, Arkansas 72455 or by e-mail at servantofYHVH@hotmail.com.