- The Great Magnesium
Scare Hoax - Guess
- On August 29, 1995 the news hit. The essential mineral
magnesium, previously thought to be non-toxic, and now widely recognized
as first line therapy against heart attack, was implicated in 14 deaths
since 1968! This 'mass murderer' was exposed by researchers of the Food
and Drug Administration and reported in a publication of the American Medical
- UPDATE: As of April 15,
1998 we can contrast the 14 deaths attributed to Magnesium -- since 1968
-- with the knowledge that prescription drugs are the number 3, 4, or 5
killers of people in the USA, (Depending on whose numbers you believe)
and more than 2 million "injuries" are caused by doctors giving
drugs every year! (Not counting errors and mistakes!!) April 15, 1998 Article
about JAMA Article http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/lie/death.html
- It would be news, by the way, if magnesium were really
toxic. How and why did this story make all the network and local television
news casts and newspapers on August 29-30, 1995?
- As far back as 1972 the late Dr. Roger J. Williams reported
in his book Nutrition Against Disease that a 1957 study showed magnesium
to be beneficial to the heart:
- "The possibility that magnesium deficiency may also
be implicated in coronary heart disease arose when it was reported that
injections of magnesium sulfate brought about "dramatic clinical improvement"
in patients who had suffered from angina pectoris and coronary thrombosis,
and that the lipoprotein levels were brought to normal in many cases."[Bersohn
& Oelofse, Lancet: 1:1020, 1957]
- Today, Dr. Brian Leibovitz, PhD, reports in a recent
issue of the Journal of Optimum Nutrition that MAGNESIUM http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/jon.html#CCME
- "is now recognized as a first-line medicine for
the treatment of heart attacks. A study published in The Lancet, for example,
reported the effects of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled
study in 2,316 patients with suspected myocardial infarction. The dose
of magnesium was high (about 8.7 grams given intravenously over a 24 hour
period), but the results were remarkable: magnesium reduced cardiovascular
mortality by 25 percent. The author's conclusion: " "Intravenous
magnesium sulfate is a simple, safe, and widely applicable treatment. Its
efficacy in reducing early mortality of myocardial infarction is comparable
to, but independent of, that of thrombolytic or antiplatelet therapy."
- These findings have been confirmed and reconfirmed in
many clinics and laboratories. Teo and colleagues, for example, in an analysis
of seven clinical studies, concluded that magnesium (in doses of 5-10 grams
by intravenous injection) reduced the odds of death by an astounding 55%."
- "Studies of magnesium have revealed it to be Nature's
'calcium-channel blocker' ; unlike its drug counterparts, however, magnesium
has no toxic side-effects. Another important effect of supplemental magnesium
is its ability to mitigate the cardiotoxic effects of catecholamines. Prielipp
and associates, for example, published results of a clinical trial in which
magnesium (10 mg per kg body weight per hour, or approximately 700 mg per
hour for an average adult) attenuated the cardiotoxic effects of epinephrine
in 17 bypass patients. Interestingly, the drug captopril - an angiotensin-
converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor - has been demonstrated to work by raising
- In summary, inexpensive magnesium is now, some 38 years
after the Lancet report, widely recognized as a crucial life saver, if
and when used in the fight against heart disease. All unbiased studies
have shown it to be non-toxic, even in very large (gm) amounts.
- So what it going on here? Why "smear" magnesium?
Even more interesting, why would all the mass media be willing to print
the smear? (This question is important in light of the apparent unwillingness
of the media to report on Dr. Rath and Dr. Pauling's lipoprotein(a) discovery..
A discovery that would affect the health of more than one half million
people every year in the U.S. alone!)
- Well, magnesium is not only a direct competitor for a
wide array of expensive cardiac medications; seems to work better, but
it directly challenges medical establishment assertions that "simple
nutrients" are ineffective in and of themselves therapeutically.
- It is bad enough that a story like "the magnesium
scare" could make ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the papers in the United
States based on a single questionable study; one among hundreds that are
published each month, but why pick up a story that even the authors admit
contain numbers of incidents affecting less than 2 people per year? (By
the way, some experts we asked about this offered their opinion that it
is much more likely the large amount of aluminum consumed-- not the magnesium
-- was the root cause of the reported problems.) A more balanced report
would have mentioned the great therapeutic value that is now attributed
- It Keeps on Coming
- There may be another reason for the "great magnesium
smear." Aspirin sales. Aspirin sales have been brisk after it was
widely reported that studies show taking an aspirin a day reduces the risk
of heart attack.
- In your mind, substitute "vitamin B6" for "aspirin".
Now, what would you think of a study that divided "potential or actual"
heart attack victims into 2 groups based on whether or not they had taken
- Maybe this study is the best "they can do"?
Although hard to document, we have been told that all the aspirin studies
that "prove" an aspirin a day keeps a heart attack away -- were
with buffered aspirin, i.e., with added magnesium. Our sources point out
that it is unlikely that further studies using "plain" aspirin
will be undertaken because preliminary studies always show "plain"
aspirin does not show the same protective affect against heart attacks.
So if you still believe what you read in the mass media, make sure your
daily aspirin is buffered! (Or much better yet, take a magnesium tablet
- Why is the press so willing to print slanted stories
like this? And why are they so unwilling to pick up other factual stories
that would be of great interest to the public. (After all, journalists
get heart disease too.) Perhaps there is some obscure legal reason why
it is so easy for oranized medicine to dupe the media. If the FDA/AMA hold
a press conference and proclaim some new "fact" -- maybe the
media czars feel they are less likely to be sued and don't fear their reputation
can be harmed?
- It is up to you, my dear reader, to help change this.
Do not be afraid to challenge your local and the national editors when
they print these stories. Here's a tip. When you see an article like this,
ask yourself: "What drug benefits?" On the surface, it almost
looks as if the magnesium scare article is "drug bashing". It
is not hard to spot the vested interest behind these stories. You can make