Health anxiety may increase risk of heart disease, research finds

A GP and patient
Rather than frequently visiting a GP, people who unnecessarily worry about their health should seek treatment for the anxiety disorder, the paper suggests. Photograph: Alamy

Fit and healthy people who worry about developing an illness may be increasing their risk of heart disease by unnecessarily fretting over their health, research suggests.

A study of more than 7,000 people over 12 years found that those with health anxiety at the start of the study were about 70% more likely to develop heart disease than those without that state of mind. Additionally, the researchers found that the higher the reported anxiety, the higher the risk of heart disease.

Anxiety is a known risk factor for heart disease but the Norwegian authors of the paper believe it is the first to look specifically at health anxiety, which is characterised by a persistent preoccupation with having or acquiring a serious illness and seeking medical help, despite the absence of any physical disease.

The findings, published in BMJ Open on Thursday, suggest that far from health anxiety protecting people from heart disease through increased monitoring and frequency of checkups, it may have the opposite effect.

The lead author, Dr Line Iden Berge, from the division of psychiatry at Sandviken University hospital in Bergen, Norway, said: “We hypothesised that people with health anxiety would have reduced risk because they would take better care of themselves.

“The results suggest it’s better, instead of worrying about what’s going on with your body and running to the doctor for any physical health problem, to seek a proper diagnosis and help for the anxiety disorder.”

The study analysed 7,052 participants in the long-term collaborative research project Norwegian Hordaland health study, all of whom were born between 1953 and 1957.

They filled in questionnaires about their health, lifestyle and educational attainment and had a physical checkup between 1997 and 1999.

Levels of health anxiety were assessed using a validated scale and the top 10% of the sample – 710 people – were considered to have health anxiety.

The heart health of all the participants was tracked up to the end of 2009. Anyone who received treatment for, or whose death was linked to, coronary artery disease occurring within a year of entering the study, was excluded on the grounds that they might already have been ill.

In all, 234 (3.3%) of the entire sample had an ischaemic event – a heart attack or bout of acute angina – during the monitoring period. But the proportion of those succumbing to heart disease was twice as high (just over 6%) among those who displayed health anxiety compared with those who did not (3%).

After taking account of other potentially influential factors, those with health anxiety at the start of the study were found to be 73% more likely to develop heart disease than those who did not have anxiety at the outset.

As it was an observational study, no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect. Limitations include the frequent co-existence of health anxiety with other mental health issues, making it hard to differentiate, and the fact that the health anxiety index relies on self-reported symptoms and does not discern between imagined illness and more legitimate reasons for concern.

Emily Reeve, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: “It’s natural for people to worry if they feel they might be unwell. But anxiety and stress can trigger unhealthy habits, such as smoking or eating badly, which put you at greater risk of heart disease.

“While we don’t know if the worried well are directly putting themselves at risk of a heart attack, it’s clear that reducing unnecessary anxiety can have health benefits. If you are experiencing health anxiety, speak to your doctor.”

Age of onset for multiple sclerosis ‘linked to distance from equator’

People living in countries further away from the equator develop symptoms of multiple sclerosis at an earlier age, research suggests.

Both genetic and environmental factors are believed to be to behind the development of multiple sclerosis (MS), with previous work revealing that prevalence of the disease is higher among those living further away from the equator – in other words, in locations with higher latitudes.

It is suggested that the link is down to variations in levels of sunlight and hence levels of vitamin D – the production of which is triggered in the skin by UVB radiation.

But the latest study suggests it is not only the prevalence of the disease which is linked to latitude.

“The main finding is that if you have higher latitude you have earlier age of onset,” said Eva Havrdova, professor of neurology at Charles University in Prague and co-author of the research.

That, she says, underscores the need for doctors to be on the lookout for symptoms. “We have to be careful with our young people to really make the diagnosis quickly [and] to be prepared that there may be more MS in society than we are diagnosing now,” she said.

Published in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry by an international team of researchers, the study draws on data from more than 22,000 adult MS patients from 52 recruiting centres across 21 countries, collected as part of a large international registry. The average age at which the disease began was 32.3 years.

When the researchers took into account factors around age, sex and type of MS, they found that for every 10 degree increase in latitude of the study centres, the onset of the symptoms among patients began almost 10 months earlier.

The researchers then looked that the impact of UVB radiation – a factor strongly linked to latitude. Average winter UVB levels varied greatly between countries, with Mexico’s nearly 18 times higher than Denmark’s.

The researchers found that patients in countries with the lowest UVB levels developed symptoms almost two years earlier than those in countries with highest levels.

While the authors say that the findings emphasise the importance of exposure to sunlight in the development of MS, they acknowledge that other environmental factors as well as genetic variation could also play a role in the link between latitude and age of onset of the disease.

The fact that the risk of developing the disease is linked to factors that can be influenced is important, says Havrdova.

Danny Altmann, professor of immunology at Imperial College London who was not involved with the study, said the research was, “A really resounding message from application of big data research concerning the importance of environment, latitude and UV exposure – and therefore vitamin D”.

Altmann added that vitamin D dietary supplements could play a role in reducing the risk of developing MS. “It is such a simple answer and it’s crazy that we don’t take it more seriously,” he said.

Dr Sorrel Bickley, head of biomedical research at the MS Society, said: “We’ve known for many years that people living in less sunny climates are more likely to develop MS, and this study indicates that a lack of sunlight could also contribute to when the first symptoms of MS appear. We welcome studies like this that help us understand more about the causes of this unpredictable and challenging condition.”

More news


cancer metabolism and nutritional ketosis

By Dr. Mercola

Each year during the anniversary week of, we recognize a Game Changer; someone whose work stands as a great service to humanity by making a significant contribution to improving people’s health.

This year, we present the Game Changer Award to Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D.,1 a professor of biology at Boston College and a leading expert and researcher in the field of cancer metabolism and nutritional ketosis.

Probiotic Accused of Killing Preemie

Probiotic Accused of Killing Preemie

The Consumer Reports story opens with a tragic and horrible description of a premature infant given probiotics (based on life-saving evidence such as that published by Cochrane Neonatal Reviews10) that was allegedly contaminated with a fungus that killed the child.

According to Solgar, the maker of the probiotic in question, the company fully cooperated with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate the contamination, and “numerous facility and equipment inspections” failed to reveal any contaminants at any point in its supply chain.

As noted by Consumer Reports, “The company said the only contaminated samples found were those delivered to the FDA by the Yale-New Haven Hospital pharmacy.” What the article fails to note is that fungal infections are commonly found in hospital settings in general. Fungal outbreaks have been traced back to contaminated linens, bandages and tongue depressors, for example, and preemies are a high-risk group for fungal infections.11,12

So it seems odd that the fungus could not be found anywhere except in the bottles stored at the hospital itself. While the absolute source may never be known, this is an extremely rare and tragic example that is now being used as a prime example of why supplements like probiotics should be regulated as drugs.

But just how does the FDA regulate drugs when it comes to contamination? They do it through a process called Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations (CGMPs).13 The FDA also has CGMP regulations for dietary supplements.14 So whether probiotics were regulated as supplements or as drugs, the end result in this case would have been the same, as the FDA cannot guarantee that drugs are free of contaminants either.

A look at the FDA’s recall list15 for 2016 is enough to suggest contamination is an issue that affects the food, drug and supplement industries alike. Of these products, supplements are by far the safest to consume.

Consumer Reports Stoops to Shocking Low

“With the help of an expert panel, Consumer Reports identified 15 supplement ingredients to avoid,16 ones that have been linked to serious medical problems including organ damage, cancer and cardiac arrest,” Consumer Reports writes. The article itself does not identify the experts on this panel. Nor does it report any conflicts of interest. A separate document17 does list the members of this panel, though.

Lo and behold, Consumer Reports could not have put together a more biased base of “experts” for this anti-supplement hit piece. In fact, they did a poor job of covering their tracks by picking some of the most outspoken supplement-loathing pro-pharma spokespeople out there. As suspected, Dr. Paul Offit was part of this panel. It seems wherever the big pharma campaign against supplements goes, Offit is there — even though his fabrications and lack of disclosure are well-documented.18

And, as usual, Offit did not disclose the extent of his professional and financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Offit has been paid millions of dollars by Merck, a company whose reputation rivals some of the worst on the planet. His research chair at the Children’s Hospital is even sponsored by Merck.

Offit has also been on the board of trustees of one of the worst front groups of all times, the American Council on Science and Health(ACSH),19 and he certainly did not raise a ruckus about the contamination issues plaguing his own rotavirus vaccine, which was suspended in 2010 when found to contain DNA from a virus lethal to pigs.20,21,22 Why Consumer Reports would give any credibility to someone so clearly conflicted is difficult to comprehend.

‘Expert’ Panel Filled With Documented Supplement-Loathers

Another panel member notorious for his staunch views against dietary supplements is Dr. Pieter Cohen. It seems Offit and Cohen are now tag-teaming on their respective life’s work to make supplements regulated as drugs, so they can be equally expensive and “safe.”

Cohen reportedly became obsessed with identifying supplements illegally laced with drugs back in 2005, when some of his patients were sickened by a Brazilian weight loss supplement containing antidepressants and thyroid hormones. As reported by Jennifer Couzin-Frankel in 2015, after 10 years of sleuthing, “he and his collaborators have identified three hidden stimulant drugs in supplements.”23

Three illegal stimulants. In 10 years. Hardly what one would call an epidemic of crime when drug makers are regularly featured on various Top Criminals lists and keep getting fined hundreds of millions of dollars for their illegal activities. For a rundown on some of the worst of the worst, see my previous articles, “The 6 Top Thugs of the Medical World,” and “Top 10 Drug Company Settlements.”

Another noteworthy irony is that it is supplements containing DRUGS that are causing problems, not vitamin and mineral supplements most commonly used for and associated with health.

Consumer Reports’ Chief Medical Adviser: an Outspoken Pro-Drug, Anti-Supplement Crusader

Consumer Reports’ own chief medical adviser Dr. Marvin Lipman was also part of this expert panel. He too has “authored articles on the dangers of dietary supplements,” according to Consumer Reports, and has a history of speaking out against the use of supplements. Indeed, entering “Marvin M. Lipman dangers of dietary supplements” into Google yields no less than 8,080 results.

To his credit, Lipman did disclose the fact that he’s a board member of U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP, a compendium of drug information), which is repeatedly promoted as “what to look for in a trusted supplement brand.” Overall, Lipman, just as Offit and Cohen, has made his stance on supplements quite clear and is by no possible means an unbiased objective panel member. One 2015 Sam’s Watch article quotes Lipman as saying:24

“The idea that dietary supplements cure the common cold, restore prostate health, sharpen your mind, or have any other health benefit is dubious at best.”

To say that supplements have no health benefits whatsoever, despite the enormous amount of scientific research done on a wide array of vitamins, minerals and other common nutritional supplements such as antioxidants, is tantamount to saying there’s no evidence that food supports or restores health, either.

I encourage everyone to contact Consumer Reports to let them know that you will not stand for them intentionally selecting such a biased group of panel members that falsely dramatize the dangers of supplements. Click on the button below to contact them now.

I think it’s really important to note that just as you have junk food with questionable and downright hazardous ingredients on the market, there are certain types of supplements that should be viewed with suspicion as they’re more prone to cause adverse effects. Top offenders as I’ve previously described are weight loss supplements, energy-boosting preparations and muscle or sexual enhancement products.25

These types of products have little to do with nutrition and health, even though they’re lumped together with nutritional supplements such as vitamins, minerals and antioxidants.

Drs. Marcus and Grollman, Raising Awareness Against Herbal Use

Then there’s Drs. Arthur Grollman and Donald Marcus, who have campaigned against the use of herbs. In a recent paper26,27,28 the pair warn against the use of traditional herbal remedies, saying long-term historical use is no guarantee of safety. They also disagree with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) endorsement of the use of traditional herbal remedies on the premise that traditional medicine is of unproven quality.

In 2012, Marcus and Grollman also published a paper in the Archives of Internal Medicine, discussing “The Consequences of Ineffective Regulation of Dietary Supplements.”29 A Google search for “Marcus Grollman Supplements” yields a whopping 48,500 results, and a quick browse through the headlines confirms initial suspicions that these two are clearly biased against nutritional supplements and traditional herbal remedies.

Some Supplements Are Best Avoided

There’s only one person left on Consumer Reports’ expert panel and that’s Philip Gregory, director of the Center for Drug Information and Evidence-Based Practice and an associate professor of pharmacy practice at Creighton University. Gregory is also an associate editor of the Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Last year, Gregory published a study showing that of the 1,560 dietary supplement-related regulatory alerts identified through Health Canada (1,287 alerts) and FDA MedWatch (273 alerts), sexual enhancement products accounted for 33 percent of all regulatory alerts.

Overall, and conforming to what I said earlier, “supplements intended for sexual enhancement, weight loss and bodybuilding or athletic performance appeared to pose the greatest risk for patient harm due to product contamination with a pharmaceutical such as a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor or sibutramine.”

Again, pharmaceutical contaminants were the most common hazard, which is ironic when you consider that supplement critics all claim supplements would be much safer if only they were regulated as drugs. Maybe Consumer Reports could trace down where these illegal pharma products are coming from rather than trying to turn all dietary supplements into drugs, seeing how drugs kill well over 100,000 people each year and are the problem ingredients in hazardous supplement products.

I agree that sexual enhancers, weight loss and performance enhancers are not product categories that most reasonably health conscious people understand, and I believe you should stay away from them as you do junk food or factory-farmed meat products.

Dangerous pharmaceutical products are likely to be found in those illegally disguised supplement products. To include ALL nutritional supplements into this class of “gas station supplements” is beyond irrational, especially when you consider the enormous dangers posed by so-called “well-regulated” drugs, which are one of the leading causes of death.