Another poorly done piece of work exaggerated by the MSM and used to scare folks. This is more of the tactics used to try to usher in Codex Alimentarius which will basically outlaw all supplements.
A journalist at LA times wrote an article giving people the impression that taking calcium supplements raises their likely hood of having a heart attack by 31%
Go ahead and read it
So let’s take a look at the 31% increase and what it means:
Out of 11,921 participants,
143 had a myocardial infarction that were taking calcium
111 had a myocardial infarction that NOT were taking calcium
BUT.. the journalist at LA times wrote the article to give people the impression that taking calcium supplements raises their likelihood of having a heart attack by 31%
“in the journal BMJ that they found a 31% increase in the risk of heart attack”
MOST people reading that line get the impression that if you take calcium supplements you have a 31% chance of having a heart attack.
Yes the difference between 143 and 111 is a factor of 1.31 or 31%
lets look at the numbers from the “study”:
Heart attack with NO calcium supplement = 111 / 11,921 = 0.009311299 OR 0.93%
Heart attack with calcium supplement = 143 / 11,921 = 0.01199563 OR 1.19%
So taking “Calcium supplements (without co-administered vitamin D)” changes the risk of heart attack from 0.93% to 1.19%
They conveniently omitted any study that included vitamin D with the calcium. Why? Who funded the study? The journalist at LA times only tells the readers half of the information. Why?
The BMJ article is HERE
Why? Well a story that reads
CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTS WITHOUT VITAMIN D CHANGES HEART ATTACK RISK FROM 0.93% TO 1.19%!
Just does not sell newspapers. Wake up.