" Vernon" <stillhere@there> wrote in message
news:45e5b6d1$0$17311$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...

"BrentB" <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172675982.926968.298190@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 28, 8:47 am, "Alex" <harvey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
"the team adds that they examined only the use of synthetic vitamins"
The Times Feb 28. page 7

even though the large photo shows natural source vit E! why do they
think anyone would
be particularly interested that a study suggests the use of chemicals
not found naturally in
living organisms could be detrimental to health.?

when this has been publicised many times before.

"and the findings should not be translated to fruits and vegetables"

why not?

vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.

cos they are the same as the synthetic version?

Nice find and use of logic Alex...sounds like the thread name should
changed to "synthetic antioxidants KILL!!!!"


No, It should be bound and published for mandatory use in two college
courses, Logic and Journalism.

The message remains that a better diet trumps any usual or affordable
supplementation, as conventional medicine has maintained all along.

PM

On Feb 28, 9:54 am, JohnDoe <d...@spam.me> wrote:

PeterB wrote:

On Feb 28, 9:12 am, " Vernon" <stillhere@there> wrote:

"Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message

news:45E4EC50.798B4499@sonic.net...

Quoting from
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/842

Mortality in Randomized Trials of Antioxidant Supplements
for Primary and Secondary Prevention
Goran Bjelakovic, MD, DrMedSci; Dimitrinka Nikolova, MA;
Lise Lotte Gluud, MD, DrMedSci; Rosa G. Simonetti, MD;
Christian Gluud, MD, DrMedSci
JAMA. 2007;297:842-857.

Context: Antioxidant supplements are used for prevention
of several diseases.

Objective: To assess the effect of antioxidant supplements
on mortality in randomized primary and secondary prevention
trials.

Data Sources and Trial Selection: We searched electronic
databases and bibliographies published by October 2005.
All randomized trials involving adults comparing beta
carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin E,
and selenium either singly or combined vs placebo or vs
no intervention were included in our analysis. Randomization,
blinding, and follow-up were considered markers of bias
in the included trials. The effect of antioxidant
supplements on all-cause mortality was analyzed with
random-effects meta-analyses and reported as relative
risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Meta-regression was used to assess the effect of covariates
across the trials.

Data Extraction: We included 68 randomized trials with
232606 participants (385 publications).

Data Synthesis: When all low- and high-bias risk trials
of antioxidant supplements were pooled together there
was no significant effect on mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI,
0.98-1.06). Multivariate meta-regression analyses
showed that low-bias risk trials (RR, 1.16; 95% CI,
1.05-1.29) and selenium (RR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.9995)
were significantly associated with mortality. In 47 low-bias
trials with 180 938 participants, the antioxidant
supplements significantly increased mortality (RR, 1.05;
95% CI, 1.02-1.0. In low-bias risk trials, after exclusion
of selenium trials, beta carotene (RR, 1.07; 95% CI,
1.02-1.11), vitamin A (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24), and
vitamin E (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07), singly or combined,
significantly increased mortality. Vitamin C and selenium
had no significant effect on mortality.

Conclusions: Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and
vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of
vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.

An equal in logic.
Showing the absolute and total scientific ignorance of those who even
publish this ignorance.

A large percentage of people who take NSAIDS have been shown to have pains

from bruises and accidents; Therefore, taking NSAIDS increases the

likelihood of accidents.

What a fool.

His mission in life is exploring the perils of good nutrition. His
"analysis" of a vitamin C abstract a few years ago was embarrassing.
He couldn't even get the study doses right.

Please Petey, do tell us again what vitamin C does in the cell. And how
we can't even breathe without vitamin C.


Better yet, I invite you to perform the following experiment:

For 8 months, consume no vitamin C whatsoever.
On day 244, let us know how your breathing has progressed.

Deal?

If all this hoo-ha is just based on a meta-analysis of all the old
small-dose trials of single agents in synthetic and/or racemic forms
administered for short periods of time to people who already suffer from
serious and chronic pathologies, then *there's no point even reading about
it*...

R.

The study ignored evidence that selenium may be helpful

and left headlines screaming that antioxidants reduce
lifespan.

Can vitamins help any growth at all, including cancer growth?

If so, then the answer is in hand ( besides the synthetic
vitamin E nonsense)

Amazing , isn't it - how you can carefully craft a study to show
whatever you want? Anyone notice how the expensive
drug copaxone can be shown to be effective or useless, according to
whatever study you pick?

The real tragedy - in this drug company dominated culture - is that
dramatic cures and treatments are ignored and shelved
while drug companies create ever more expensive treatments.

The Japanese work on seaweed extracts and the studies
on selenium and cancer incidence are but two examples.

PeterB wrote:
On Feb 28, 9:54 am, JohnDoe <d...@spam.me> wrote:

PeterB wrote:

On Feb 28, 9:12 am, " Vernon" <stillhere@there> wrote:

"Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message

news:45E4EC50.798B4499@sonic.net...

Quoting from
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/842

Mortality in Randomized Trials of Antioxidant Supplements
for Primary and Secondary Prevention
Goran Bjelakovic, MD, DrMedSci; Dimitrinka Nikolova, MA;
Lise Lotte Gluud, MD, DrMedSci; Rosa G. Simonetti, MD;
Christian Gluud, MD, DrMedSci
JAMA. 2007;297:842-857.

Context: Antioxidant supplements are used for prevention
of several diseases.

Objective: To assess the effect of antioxidant supplements
on mortality in randomized primary and secondary prevention
trials.

Data Sources and Trial Selection: We searched electronic
databases and bibliographies published by October 2005.
All randomized trials involving adults comparing beta
carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin E,
and selenium either singly or combined vs placebo or vs
no intervention were included in our analysis. Randomization,
blinding, and follow-up were considered markers of bias
in the included trials. The effect of antioxidant
supplements on all-cause mortality was analyzed with
random-effects meta-analyses and reported as relative
risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Meta-regression was used to assess the effect of covariates
across the trials.

Data Extraction: We included 68 randomized trials with
232606 participants (385 publications).

Data Synthesis: When all low- and high-bias risk trials
of antioxidant supplements were pooled together there
was no significant effect on mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI,
0.98-1.06). Multivariate meta-regression analyses
showed that low-bias risk trials (RR, 1.16; 95% CI,
1.05-1.29) and selenium (RR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.9995)
were significantly associated with mortality. In 47 low-bias
trials with 180 938 participants, the antioxidant
supplements significantly increased mortality (RR, 1.05;
95% CI, 1.02-1.0. In low-bias risk trials, after exclusion
of selenium trials, beta carotene (RR, 1.07; 95% CI,
1.02-1.11), vitamin A (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24), and
vitamin E (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07), singly or combined,
significantly increased mortality. Vitamin C and selenium
had no significant effect on mortality.

Conclusions: Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and
vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of
vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.

An equal in logic.
Showing the absolute and total scientific ignorance of those who even
publish this ignorance.

A large percentage of people who take NSAIDS have been shown to have pains

from bruises and accidents; Therefore, taking NSAIDS increases the

likelihood of accidents.

What a fool.

His mission in life is exploring the perils of good nutrition. His
"analysis" of a vitamin C abstract a few years ago was embarrassing.
He couldn't even get the study doses right.

Please Petey, do tell us again what vitamin C does in the cell. And how
we can't even breathe without vitamin C.

Better yet, I invite you to perform the following experiment:

For 8 months, consume no vitamin C whatsoever.
On day 244, let us know how your breathing has progressed.

That is not what you meant when you said we can't breathe without
vitamin C, remember?

Just in case, I'll repeat what you claim was:
When discussing cell respiration, you called that 'breathing', and
claimed that was impossible without vitamin C, because vitamin C
converts hydrogen to oxygen. You literally said that we can't breathe
without vitamin C, and you were talking about cell respiration, no doubt
about that.

But after it was pointed out to you what a howler your claim
was, you didn't just admit that you made a mistake, oh no, you then
said that no vitamin C causes scurvy, and when you've died from scurvy,
you don't breathe any more.

And that, my dear readers, is called the PeteyB-twist.

Deal?

If you take a shot of HIV+ blood the same day I stop taking vitamin C,
we have a deal.

On Mar 1, 2:48 am, JohnDoe <d...@spam.me> wrote:

PeterB wrote:

On Feb 28, 9:54 am, JohnDoe <d...@spam.me> wrote:

PeterB wrote:

On Feb 28, 9:12 am, " Vernon" <stillhere@there> wrote:

"Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message

news:45E4EC50.798B4499@sonic.net...

Quoting from
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/842

Mortality in Randomized Trials of Antioxidant Supplements
for Primary and Secondary Prevention
Goran Bjelakovic, MD, DrMedSci; Dimitrinka Nikolova, MA;
Lise Lotte Gluud, MD, DrMedSci; Rosa G. Simonetti, MD;
Christian Gluud, MD, DrMedSci
JAMA. 2007;297:842-857.

Context: Antioxidant supplements are used for prevention
of several diseases.

Objective: To assess the effect of antioxidant supplements
on mortality in randomized primary and secondary prevention
trials.

Data Sources and Trial Selection: We searched electronic
databases and bibliographies published by October 2005.
All randomized trials involving adults comparing beta
carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin E,
and selenium either singly or combined vs placebo or vs
no intervention were included in our analysis. Randomization,
blinding, and follow-up were considered markers of bias
in the included trials. The effect of antioxidant
supplements on all-cause mortality was analyzed with
random-effects meta-analyses and reported as relative
risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Meta-regression was used to assess the effect of covariates
across the trials.

Data Extraction: We included 68 randomized trials with
232606 participants (385 publications).

Data Synthesis: When all low- and high-bias risk trials
of antioxidant supplements were pooled together there
was no significant effect on mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI,
0.98-1.06). Multivariate meta-regression analyses
showed that low-bias risk trials (RR, 1.16; 95% CI,
1.05-1.29) and selenium (RR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.9995)
were significantly associated with mortality. In 47 low-bias
trials with 180 938 participants, the antioxidant
supplements significantly increased mortality (RR, 1.05;
95% CI, 1.02-1.0. In low-bias risk trials, after exclusion
of selenium trials, beta carotene (RR, 1.07; 95% CI,
1.02-1.11), vitamin A (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24), and
vitamin E (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07), singly or combined,
significantly increased mortality. Vitamin C and selenium
had no significant effect on mortality.

Conclusions: Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and
vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of
vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.

An equal in logic.
Showing the absolute and total scientific ignorance of those who even
publish this ignorance.

A large percentage of people who take NSAIDS have been shown to have pains

from bruises and accidents; Therefore, taking NSAIDS increases the

likelihood of accidents.

What a fool.

His mission in life is exploring the perils of good nutrition. His
"analysis" of a vitamin C abstract a few years ago was embarrassing.
He couldn't even get the study doses right.

Please Petey, do tell us again what vitamin C does in the cell. And how
we can't even breathe without vitamin C.

Better yet, I invite you to perform the following experiment:

For 8 months, consume no vitamin C whatsoever.
On day 244, let us know how your breathing has progressed.

That is not what you meant when you said we can't breathe without
vitamin C, remember?


I remember you could not keep up with a discussion beyond your meager
intellectual grasp. It was clearly explained to you that respiration,
without qualification, is the respirating mechanism necessary for the
supply of essential oxygen upon which cellular respiration depends.
In *all* cases, the absence of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) results in
the loss of oxygen, breath, respiration, and cellular function.

Just in case, I'll repeat what you claim was:
When discussing cell respiration, you called that 'breathing', and
claimed that was impossible without vitamin C, because vitamin C
converts hydrogen to oxygen. You literally said that we can't breathe
without vitamin C, and you were talking about cell respiration, no doubt
about that.


That's your neuron-deprived brain concocting more silliness.
Breathing and cellular respiration are related, but not equivalent.
Human beings derive cellular respiration from both aerobic and
anaerobic processes. The latter, which do not rely on the oxygen
supplied by breathing, are not sufficient to fuel our metabolic
needs. Hence, vitamin C is necessary for life as we know it, because
both of those processes cease without it.


But after it was pointed out to you what a howler your claim
was, you didn't just admit that you made a mistake, oh no, you then
said that no vitamin C causes scurvy, and when you've died from scurvy,
you don't breathe any more.


Isn't that the truth?


And that, my dear readers, is called the PeteyB-twist.


Call it whatever you like, it's an accurate description of what
happens.


Deal?

If you take a shot of HIV+ blood the same day I stop taking vitamin C,
we have a deal.

You first have to complete the 240 days without vitamin C.

If you can prove that vitamin C is not necessary for life,

I will capitulate on
my HIV position, since otherwise you would have to wait 20 years to
even observe a possible correlation with disease, and what sense would
that make? I know, for you, making sense is not the issue, but there
is no need to thank me, it's what I'm here for.

PeterB

Please Petey, do tell us again what vitamin C does in the cell. And how
we can't even breathe without vitamin C.

Better yet, I invite you to perform the following experiment:

For 8 months, consume no vitamin C whatsoever.
On day 244, let us know how your breathing has progressed.

That is not what you meant when you said we can't breathe without
vitamin C, remember?

I remember you could not keep up with a discussion beyond your meager
intellectual grasp. It was clearly explained to you that respiration,
without qualification, is the respirating mechanism necessary for the
supply of essential oxygen upon which cellular respiration depends.
In *all* cases, the absence of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) results in
the loss of oxygen, breath, respiration, and cellular function.

See, that's why I think PeterB is actually a propaganda group effort.
Notice that Petey only uses big words like 'ascorbic' and 'cellular'
when he really gets in trouble (note: I mean 'big words' for him).

Clearly, we're usually dealing with some cheap, incompetent temp who
calls for help when he/she/it takes a beating.

Then some supplement
industry person comes to the rescue by throwing in some scientific
sounding words and Petey thinks everything is ok again.

Just in case, I'll repeat what you claim was:
When discussing cell respiration, you called that 'breathing', and
claimed that was impossible without vitamin C, because vitamin C
converts hydrogen to oxygen. You literally said that we can't breathe
without vitamin C, and you were talking about cell respiration, no doubt
about that.

That's your neuron-deprived brain concocting more silliness.
Breathing and cellular respiration are related, but not equivalent.
Human beings derive cellular respiration from both aerobic and
anaerobic processes. The latter, which do not rely on the oxygen
supplied by breathing, are not sufficient to fuel our metabolic
needs. Hence, vitamin C is necessary for life as we know it, because
both of those processes cease without it.

But after it was pointed out to you what a howler your claim
was, you didn't just admit that you made a mistake, oh no, you then
said that no vitamin C causes scurvy, and when you've died from scurvy,
you don't breathe any more.

Isn't that the truth?

And that, my dear readers, is called the PeteyB-twist.

Call it whatever you like, it's an accurate description of what
happens.

Deal?

If you take a shot of HIV+ blood the same day I stop taking vitamin C,
we have a deal.

You first have to complete the 240 days without vitamin C.

Why? You can prove me wrong a lot sooner then that. But of course you
know that you'll get AIDS when injected with HIV+ blood.

But what's your
worry there? Even if you get AIDS, you can easily cure it with
supplements can't you? IIRC, you're a fan of Dr. Rath, and he claims
he's curing AIDS all the time with vitamin supplements.

If you can prove that vitamin C is not necessary for life,

You can play games with Petey's posts too, like: name that logical fallacy.
This one is: the shifting goalpost.
First it's vitamin C is necessary for cellular respiration, now it's
necessary for life.

Petey, when did I claim lack of vitamin C doesn't
cause problems, specifically scurvy? And not getting scurvy has as much
to do with cellular respiration as not getting run over by a train.

I will capitulate on
my HIV position, since otherwise you would have to wait 20 years to
even observe a possible correlation with disease, and what sense would
that make? I know, for you, making sense is not the issue, but there
is no need to thank me, it's what I'm here for.

PeterB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you're talking about vitamins - Roche for instance is a huge producer
of vitaminsupplements. So are other 'drug companies'. They will not be
pleased with this study.

R. Howart wrote:

If all this hoo-ha is just based on a meta-analysis of all the old
small-dose trials of single agents in synthetic and/or racemic forms
administered for short periods of time to people who already suffer from
serious and chronic pathologies, then *there's no point even reading
about it*...

R.

Why don't you read it to find out? Afraid it will challenge your
preconceived notions?

"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:45e5f941$0$5744$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

" Vernon" <stillhere@there> wrote in message
news:45e5b6d1$0$17311$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...

"BrentB" <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172675982.926968.298190@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 28, 8:47 am, "Alex" <harvey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
"the team adds that they examined only the use of synthetic vitamins"
The Times Feb 28. page 7

even though the large photo shows natural source vit E! why do they
think anyone would
be particularly interested that a study suggests the use of chemicals
not found naturally in
living organisms could be detrimental to health.?

when this has been publicised many times before.

"and the findings should not be translated to fruits and vegetables"

why not?

vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.

cos they are the same as the synthetic version?

Nice find and use of logic Alex...sounds like the thread name should
changed to "synthetic antioxidants KILL!!!!"


No, It should be bound and published for mandatory use in two college
courses, Logic and Journalism.

The message remains that a better diet trumps any usual or affordable
supplementation, as conventional medicine has maintained all along.

PM

Only the completely uneducated in conventional medicine makes such a
statement.
Most larger hospitals ADMINISTER supplements with meals.

Get an education.

PeterB wrote:
On Feb 28, 9:54 am, JohnDoe <d...@spam.me> wrote:

PeterB wrote:

On Feb 28, 9:12 am, " Vernon" <stillhere@there> wrote:

"Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message

news:45E4EC50.798B4499@sonic.net...

Quoting from
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/842

Mortality in Randomized Trials of Antioxidant Supplements
for Primary and Secondary Prevention
Goran Bjelakovic, MD, DrMedSci; Dimitrinka Nikolova, MA;
Lise Lotte Gluud, MD, DrMedSci; Rosa G. Simonetti, MD;
Christian Gluud, MD, DrMedSci
JAMA. 2007;297:842-857.

Context: Antioxidant supplements are used for prevention
of several diseases.

Objective: To assess the effect of antioxidant supplements
on mortality in randomized primary and secondary prevention
trials.

Data Sources and Trial Selection: We searched electronic
databases and bibliographies published by October 2005.
All randomized trials involving adults comparing beta
carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin E,
and selenium either singly or combined vs placebo or vs
no intervention were included in our analysis. Randomization,
blinding, and follow-up were considered markers of bias
in the included trials. The effect of antioxidant
supplements on all-cause mortality was analyzed with
random-effects meta-analyses and reported as relative
risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Meta-regression was used to assess the effect of covariates
across the trials.

Data Extraction: We included 68 randomized trials with
232606 participants (385 publications).

Data Synthesis: When all low- and high-bias risk trials
of antioxidant supplements were pooled together there
was no significant effect on mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI,
0.98-1.06). Multivariate meta-regression analyses
showed that low-bias risk trials (RR, 1.16; 95% CI,
1.05-1.29) and selenium (RR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.9995)
were significantly associated with mortality. In 47 low-bias
trials with 180 938 participants, the antioxidant
supplements significantly increased mortality (RR, 1.05;
95% CI, 1.02-1.0. In low-bias risk trials, after exclusion
of selenium trials, beta carotene (RR, 1.07; 95% CI,
1.02-1.11), vitamin A (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24), and
vitamin E (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07), singly or combined,
significantly increased mortality. Vitamin C and selenium
had no significant effect on mortality.

Conclusions: Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and
vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of
vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.

An equal in logic.
Showing the absolute and total scientific ignorance of those who even
publish this ignorance.

A large percentage of people who take NSAIDS have been shown to have
pains

from bruises and accidents; Therefore, taking NSAIDS increases the

likelihood of accidents.

What a fool.

His mission in life is exploring the perils of good nutrition. His
"analysis" of a vitamin C abstract a few years ago was embarrassing.
He couldn't even get the study doses right.

Please Petey, do tell us again what vitamin C does in the cell. And how
we can't even breathe without vitamin C.


Better yet, I invite you to perform the following experiment:

For 8 months, consume no vitamin C whatsoever.
On day 244, let us know how your breathing has progressed.


vitamin C, vitamin C vitamin C, vitamin Cvitamin C,

Why don't *you* read it, big boy? It's far more likely to *waste my time*
than it is to 'challenge' anything I know or believe -- and if you had any
actual knowledge of the subject you'd know why: if a new study is merely a
*meta-study*, then it will only have had access to all the old
anti-supplement, anti-self-medication crap we've already seen. A meta-study
of agenda-driven garbage is still garbage.

R.