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.

A prime example of one of the oldest forms of intellectual and
cognitive laziness. Blame any disagreeable information on a
conspiracy, and then you don't even have to concern yourself with
pesky little things such as evidence and science.

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.


A prime example of one of the oldest forms of intellectual and
cognitive laziness. Blame any disagreeable information on a
conspiracy, and then you don't even have to concern yourself with
pesky little things such as evidence and science.

If you yourself had read the study, you would know that it failed to
adjust for many crucial confounding variables, including the use of
prescribed medications in a broad range of patients, potential drug
side effects (ADEs are very common in the elderly), health status,
age, lifestyle habits, and the form of antioxidants used. As if that
weren't enough, the research used death as endpoint data in people who
were already diseased or beyond the limits of their expected
lifespans.

Use of meta-analyses in the study of such complex health
issues is not only inappropriate, it smacks of efforts by industry to
impugn the use of supplements prior to implementation of CODEX [ref.http://www.alliance-natural-health.org].

"David" <david.spro...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1172820586.483361.277880@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...



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.

A prime example of one of the oldest forms of intellectual and
cognitive laziness. Blame any disagreeable information on a
conspiracy, and then you don't even have to concern yourself with
pesky little things such as evidence and science.

So you don't have a problem with all the low-dose, short-term, single agent
'investigations' I mentioned, or with the other slanted studies which I have
read and you haven't?

You know, time was when know-nothings like you would just lurk. Thanks to
you and your kind learning to type, newsgroups are becoming mere spittoons.

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.

" Vernon" <stillhere@there> wrote in message

news:45e603f3$0$17284$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...

"Peter Moran" <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
Only the completely uneducated in conventional medicine makes such a
statement.
Most larger hospitals ADMINISTER supplements with meals.

If they are giving patients on a good diet supplements, then they are
acting contrary to the evidence -- possibly also encouraging unhealthy
behaviour if what these studies show is accurate. .

"There's a billion dollar vitamin industry based on this idea that

From the abstract,

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2007/Feb07/vitaminstudy.html

Study Citing Antioxidant Vitamin Risks Based on Flawed Methodology

CORVALLIS, Ore. - A study being published today on possible health
risks of antioxidant supplements is based on flawed methodology and
ignores the broad totality of evidence that comes to largely opposite
conclusions, experts said today from the Linus Pauling Institute at
Oregon State University.

The research, which was published in this week's edition of the
Journal of the American Medical Association, concluded that
antioxidant supplements such as vitamins A and E may "significantly
increase mortality," and that there was no evidence for any positive
effect of vitamin C in the reduction of mortality rates.

However, Balz Frei, professor and director of one of the world's
leading institutes that studies the possible health value of vitamins,
phytochemicals and micronutrients, said that the new study's focus on
a selected group of clinical trials disregards the results of other
more positive trials, as well as huge amounts of laboratory, animal,
and human observational and experimental data.

"This is a flawed analysis of flawed data, and it does little to help
us understand the real health effects of antioxidants, whether
beneficial or otherwise," Frei said.

"Instead of causing harm, the totality of the evidence indicates that
antioxidants from foods or supplements have many health benefits,
including reduced risk for cardiovascular disease, some types of
cancer, eye disease and neurodegenerative disease," he said. "In
addition, they are a key to an enhanced immune system and resistance
to infection."

The "meta-analysis" published in JAMA, which is a statistical analysis
of previously published data, looked at 815 antioxidant trials but
included only 68 of them in its analysis, Frei said. And two of the
studies excluded - which were published in the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute and the prominent British medical journal Lancet -
found substantial benefits and reduced mortality from intake of
antioxidant supplements.

"If these two large studies had been included, none of the reported
effects on increased mortality would have been significant, with the
exception of the effects of beta carotene," Frei said. "And the
research showing a higher incidence of lung cancer in smokers who take
supplements of beta carotene or vitamin A is old news, that's been
known for many years. Very high doses of vitamin A are known to have
multiple adverse health effects."

All the new study really demonstrates, Frei said, is a bias toward
identifying studies or research that show harm caused by antioxidants,
and selective removal of research that shows benefits.

The mean duration of the reviewed trials was 2.7 years, so the implied
conclusion is that taking antioxidant supplements can kill people in
less than three years, Frei said. It is absurd to think that vitamin
supplements could have such an effect, he said, and no biological
mechanism has been identified that would explain it. In addition, the
causes of death were not considered or were not determined in many of
the studies reviewed, and may include accidents or other causes that
have nothing to do with diet or oxidative stress.

Most trials cited in the study, Frei said, tested multiple
antioxidants and additional interventions in the treatment of disease,
including a long list of other dietary supplements and pharmaceutical
drugs. The underlying health problems or multiple types of medical,
drug and surgical treatments could all interfere with or mask the
effects that can be attributed directly to antioxidants, he said.

"These trials don't tell us anything about the usefulness of
antioxidants in the prevention of disease, or whether the supplements
had the intended effect of lowering oxidative stress in the body,"
Frei said. "It's like doing a cholesterol-lowering trial without ever
measuring serum cholesterol. How can you draw any conclusions from
such a poorly-designed study?"

" Vernon" <stillhere@there> wrote in message
news:45e603f3$0$17284$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...

"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.

If they are giving patients on a good diet supplements, then they are
acting contrary to the evidence -- possibly also encouraging unhealthy
behaviour if what these studies show is accurate. .

Get an education.

Can't resist, can you?

PM