"Most published scientific research papers are wrong," read the opening of a "Breaking News" item at the ' New Scientist ' magazine web site.
The article gave several reasons including "poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting" as contributing factors that "make most research findings false".
It also cited that researchers "massage their conclusions after the fact".
A representative example of these points from that ' New Scientist ' article appeared only a few days later as though made to order.
Poor study design
News headlines proclaimed that B vitamins do not prevent heart attacks. They singled out folic acid and pyridoxine (commonly called 'vitamin B6').
Pyridoxine has been noted as a preventative factor against heart disease. Pyridoxine prevents the build-up of homocysteine. Homocysteine has been noted as a risk factor for heart disease. This study consisted of individuals that already had heart disease with elevated levels of homocysteine.
Furthermore, the study focused on folic acid that breaks down homocysteine after it is formed rather than focusing on pyridoxine which prevents the build up of homocysteine.
Researcher bias
The lead author of the cited study has a lengthy history of downplaying the importance of homocysteine though that was not reported in the news.
Selective reporting
The study was reported as one that demonstrated folic acid or B6 alone had no effect against further heart attacks, and that both used together resulted in more heart attacks. However, the study did not test B6 but rather "high dose vitamin B pills" that happened to contain B6.
Furthermore, the study emphasized folic acid more than vitamin B6. As already noted, folic acid breaks down homocysteine whereas vitamin B6 prevents that substance from building up in the first place.
The amino acid methionine requires vitamin B6, and insufficient levels of vitamin B6 cause homocysteine build-up. Folic acid (such as was emphasized in the current study) returns homocysteine back to methionine. Insufficient B6 insured more homocysteine build-up.
The current study used 40 milligrams of vitamin B6 for three years. Another study published exactly 10 years ago using 100 milligrams of vitamin B6 in a five-year study produced 74 per cent less heart disease events than those who did not take vitamin B6. The current study used less than half of an amount already determined to be very successful.
One news article reporting on the current study noted "Folates, such as folic acid and vitamin B" though folate is a separate substance from either folic acid or the vitamin B complex. Folate only occurs in food while folic acid does not naturally occur in food.
Furthermore, the synthesized 'nutrients' were used "In addition to standard heart medicines". Though the biased researcher boldly stated that "The homocysteine hypothesis is dead", the only truthful conclusion that can be accurately reached from this study is that synthetic nutrients in combination with standard heart medications will not prevent repeated heart attacks in those who have an already damaged heart, and may make existing conditions worse in a small minority of individuals.
Massaged conclusions
The lead researcher erroneously concluded that, "The results of the trial are important because they tell doctors that prescribing high doses of B vitamins will not prevent heart disease or stroke."
The study did not address preventing heart disease but rather further heart attacks in those already having heart disease with previous heart attacks. Furthermore it did not address actual vitamins but rather man-made varieties. Additionally, it used less than half the amount of vitamin B6 that another longer study in which excellent success had already been demonstrated.
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. Ellis has taken 200 milligrams of vitamin B6 daily since 1961 and currently is nearing 90 years of age.
After the current study hit the news I spoke with Dr. Ellis. He had not heard of the 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. It contains the information about the successful vitamin B6 study with heart disease that used 100 milligrams daily. The study was conducted by Dr. John Ellis and his co-author was Dr. Kilmer McCully who discovered the homocysteine connection to heart disease almost 40 years ago at Harvard University.
"'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.
The current study "in the news" by old scientists proclaiming B-vitamins to be of no value against heart disease is a perfect example of the science article only days earlier that proclaimed "Most published scientific research papers are wrong," by ' New Scientist '.
