annabelle: Why caution is advised

We read a certain article in annabelle in the hope that we were doing ourselves some good. The result was a few untruths, to which we unfortunately have to say: More annabelle is not necessarily better – in fact, the opposite is often the case.

• Claim 1: New national studies would prove the often poor quality of food supplements. Question: Which national studies? Annabelle, name your sources! Response: If anything, this is an argument against poor quality food supplements and not against food supplements in general.
  

• Assertion 2: “The industry’s freedoms are almost endless, with food supplements you can mix and match as you like.” Response: Quite simply wrong. The maximum permitted quantities are exhaustively regulated in the FDHA Ordinance on Food Supplements (VNem, Annex 1). Anyone can read it.
  

• Claim 3: “With food supplements, any nonsense can be promised on the packaging.” Response: Wrong once again. Any nonsense can be claimed in interviews. The permissible health claims are exhaustively regulated in the FDHA Ordinance on Information Relating to Foodstuffs (LIV. Annex 14). Incidentally, it does not say that vitamin D helps against cancer. If a manufacturer makes such a claim, he will receive a visit from the food inspectorate.
  

• Allegation 4: The guidelines for vitamins issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force in October 2022 would clearly advise against vitamin D screening. Response: In June 2022, the USPSTF issued a statement on the use of vitamins, minerals and multivitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer. This paper does not mention vitamin D screening. No other guidelines can be found at https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/ > Recommendations > Published Recommendations. Perhaps we are looking in the wrong place, quite possibly. If so, please cite your source!
  

• Claim 5: The US Preventive Services Task Force is a body independent of the industry. Response: Oh dear. We don’t want to offend these people. They are all honorable representatives of reputable institutions. That’s part of the problem. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as independence in the medical-industrial complex.
  

• Assertion 6: When the Federal Office of Public Health announces that there can be a vitamin D deficiency, especially in winter, the Office is nothing more than an extension of the marketing departments of the food supplement industry. In other words, from the writer. Quite an amusing idea. But unfortunately quite absurd. The FOPH does little or nothing to promote food supplements. On the other hand, it does much or everything to prevent them. After all, a FOPH working group established in 2012 that at least 50% of the Swiss population have vitamin D levels that are too low. In other words: they have a deficiency. This also refutes claim 7: “Adults in this country do not have a vitamin D deficiency”.
  

• Assertion 8 follows immediately in the next sentence: “Nutrient deficiencies are generally unlikely in affluent societies.” Response: We may be an affluent society in terms of our diet. But this is about vitamin D. And vitamin D has nothing to do with nutrition. Because we don’t get it from our food. Instead, our skin produces it with the help of the sun. The sun’s rays, which are one of the few things we don’t have in abundance in our everyday office life. As a result, we may have a vitamin D deficiency after all, despite living in an affluent or rather overeating society. Logic for beginners. Even a professor should understand it.
  

• Claim 9: “High doses of vitamin D even weaken bones and increase the risk of fractures.” Response: That’s true. But can be easily remedied with vitamin K2. It’s written in even simpler places, such as here. But Hasler can’t say that and annabelle can’t write it. Because otherwise they would have to advise you to take a vitamin. And that wouldn’t really fit in with the rest of the story.

Interim question: Are there actually any studies that show that vitamin D is good for something? Oh yes, lots of them. For example, this one from ETH Zurich: it concludes that older women should take more vitamin D than previously recommended to maintain their bones in the winter months. ETH Zurich is not the USPSTF, of course. But it’s not just anyone, is it? And then there is the extensive research by Heike Bischoff-Ferrari, Chief Physician at the University Clinic for Geriatric Medicine (very honorable) at the University Hospital Zurich (very honorable). For example, there is this statement: “Long-term dietary cholecalciferol-calcium supplementation reduces the odds of falling in ambulatory older women by 46%, and especially in less active women by 65%.” Wow. For those who don’t know: Cholecalciferol is vitamin D3, a precursor of vitamin D, which is metabolized into vitamin D in the body.

And while we’re at it: A combination of high-dose vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids and a simple home exercise program can cumulatively reduce the risk of cancer in healthy adults over the age of 70 by 61 percent. Says a study by Heike Bischoff-Ferrari. Uiuiui, if annabelle interview professor Gregor Hasler knew this! When it is so important to him that research results reach the middle of society!

• Claim 10: The Australian D-Health study has shown that additional vitamin D does not reduce overall mortality or the risk of dying from cancer or cardiovascular disease. Response: That’s also pretty perfidious. It’s a bit like saying we’ve studied Humira, the world’s biggest-selling drug in 2018 at an outrageous 20 billion US dollars – and guess what? It doesn’t reduce the risk of tooth decay! (Which is really not what Humira was developed for.) Vitamin D has many functions in the human body. Protection against cardiovascular disease is not necessarily the top priority. Nor does it necessarily protect against incorrect medication, which is the fourth most common cause of death. And therefore has a direct influence on overall mortality. Dear vitamin bashers and researchers: you only have to ask the wrong questions to get the answers you want.

After a tiring 8968-character annabelle interview, at least this: “It’s important not to blindly demonize, but to differentiate soberly.” This is a rather late insight, but everyone should be allowed to become wiser!

• Assertion 11: Overeating makes you fat. So food supplements make you ill. It’s as clear as thick ink, isn’t it? My goodness, even we can’t find a reply at this level… (If you don’t believe it, here’s the original quote: “If you constantly take supplements regardless of your actual needs, you can actually get ill. Body fat shows us what happens to us when we overeat.”)
  

• Claim 12: Once again the USPSTF, which is said to have advised against vitamins A and E. Literally: “For the first time, the USPSTF has now also issued a clear recommendation not to take beta-carotene (editor’s note: a precursor of vitamin A) or vitamin E.” Response: Mr. Hasler, now we have to be really strict. The USPSTF has literally said: “The USPSTF recommends against the use of beta carotene or vitamin E supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer.” In German: “The USPSTF recommends against the use of beta carotene or vitamin E supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer.” In other words, it advises against taking beta-carotene (= vitamin A) or vitamin E for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. Because the evidence for this is too weak. We accept that. We have to, see permitted health claims above. But it is something completely different from generally advising against taking vitamin A or vitamin E, as they insinuate. Or insinuate. A distortion of the facts. Unfair. In football, this would result in a red card: for gross unsportsmanlike conduct.
  

• Claim 13: “We see an increase in bone fractures and kidney stones as a result of continuous intake of high doses of vitamin D.” Where is the evidence for this claim? Who is seeing this increase and where?
  

• Claim 14: “According to the logic of the industry, fish is healthy because of its omega-3 acids. But fish contains thousands of substances, so why should omega-3 of all things make it healthy?” Response: Perhaps the answer is that omega-3 fatty acids such as DHA have been thoroughly researched scientifically. And countless effects on health have been discovered: DHA is essential for the brains of infants and adults. DHA improves the ability to learn. DHA is important for eye development. DHA deficiency is associated with ADHD. The decrease of DHA in the brain is associated with cognitive decline in old age and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Epidemiologic studies have shown a strong link between fish consumption and the reduction of fatal heart attacks. And so on, and so on. It’s all in the one scientific article above. On www.pubmed.gov, the official portal of the US “National Library of Medicine” (very honorable, very venerable) there are 35,098 more. On omega-3 fatty acids alone. Which discuss the effect of omega-3 quite controversially, of course. And rightly so. However, we should not allow the result of this debate to be prejudged by the one snappy statement in a great annabelle interview.
  

• Claim 15: Depressive patients are often given omega-3. Especially if you are slightly depressed, it feels good to be able to take something as nourishing as omega-3. This should serve as proof that consumers are being misled. We think: If I am slightly depressed and something feels good – then that’s great, isn ‘t it?
  

• Claim 16: The only thing that can be held responsible for the positive effect of vitamin supplements is the sugar they contain. It provides a short-term dopamine boost, the little feeling of happiness. Caffeine is also popular and provides an acute energy boost. We would like to point out that kingnature’s natural vital substances contain neither sugar nor caffeine, without exception. If they work, it must be because of something else.

Ok, so we’ve once again got to grips with the world of micronutrients and vital substances, the fascinating little helpers in the form of vitamins, minerals, trace elements, amino acids, fatty acids, secondary plant substances and whatever other exciting substances the good Lord has created. They have defended them against the thesis of the white expert, who seems to have a mission: “Vitamins are bad. They are unnecessary, even dangerous. A deficiency is not possible.” As we have done on other occasions. And will do so again. Because we care about the truth. And we want to advance humanity. Above all, we want to help people stay healthy. Despite the forces that want to keep them from doing so. Despite all the hurdles that are put in our way. Slowly and steadily. Full of confidence that the beautiful, the true and the good will eventually prevail. Many thanks to all those who are on this journey with us and support us in this mission!

P.S: Between 2015 and 2021, Gregor Hasler received CHF 48,465 from companies such as Mepha, Recordati and Lundbeck AG. For fees, consulting and lectures. Not exactly manufacturers of dietary supplements. More like pharmaceuticals. Perhaps still good to know. It’s here: https://pharmagelder.ch/recipient/3237-Gregor-Hasler.html

P.P.S: Yes, we name our sources. You can find the annabelle interview here. Please do not read and above all do not share!