Hi,
Peter Moran said:<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Hi,
This study was done by the very anti-supplement
epidemiology
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:team led be Dr. Charles Hennekins at Harvard University. I have
commented on their bias and exposed their methods several times.
The
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:nine studies they mention are for all practical intents and
purposes
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:only their own large, on going health professional studies which
have
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:been reported on hundreds of times for about 15 years. They have
been
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:sitting on the data for hi dose supplementation of C for about a
decade
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:and even now are holding back data on the long term useage as well
as
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:combined use of C and E. They did mention a combination of C and E
in
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:the full text, but only to say there was no effect without giving
the
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:real numbers. The 25% reduction in risk the claim for over 700 mg
daily
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:doses includes their large study on nurses which had only a small
benefit. It would seem then that the benefit for male health
professionals, healthy at base line would be a good bit better, and
for
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:those who continued to take it for over ten years better still. I
would
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:guess better than 50%. Maybe someday they will come completely
clean.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I
will give them credit for going this far. It has for a long time
been a
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:creedence of the medical establishment that epidemiological studies
show only a benefit of avoiding frank deficiencies of vitiamins.
This
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:paper taken with four large clinical intervention trials I posted
falsifies that position for vitamin C. C now joins the ranks with
the
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:B's and K to have ample evidence for sensational health benefits of
mega doses.
In a recent post I opined that I fancied I could see the
beginning of a turning of the corner on the anti-supplement
attitude of
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:the very mainstream N Y Academy of Sciences. Perhaps this is
another
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:datum that points in that direction. Surly they can not continue to
deny the obvious much longer.
"The obvious" to whom? And on what basis? Only recently have the
results
Quoted message said:of well-designed prospective controlled interventional studies
started to
Quoted message said:come through and they have mostly shown no benefit, conflicting
results,
The conflicting results are: small doses--little or no proven benefit.
Hi doses-- beneficial in men, but variable in women. Haptoglobin type
and diabetic status seem to be factors. On this basis a recommendation
of hi doses in men is justified.
Quoted message said:or nowhere near the benefits being claimed by megavitamin enthusiasts
such
Quoted message said:as Linus Pauling, or even those suggested by earlier uncontrolled
observational studies, wherein vitamin supplementation may merely
have acted
Quoted message said:as a surrogate measure of other healthier lifestyle choices. I
am not
Quoted message said:at all sure what this article adds, as it does not appear to have
been based
Quoted message said:upon controlled studies.
Altho mentioned in my post, it may not have been clear enough that this
paper extends the well known benefits shown in epidemiological studies
to hi doses (over 700 mg). Previous studies had only shown the
detriments of low doses, or frank deficiency. Below I will give a
reference that treats with gold standard, placebo controlled,
randomized, clinical trials.
Quoted message said:
Inform me further if you wish. I am open to correction, so long as
allegations of undue bias and conspiracy are not being used to
explain why
Quoted message said:the evidence from a great deal of research looks the way it does.
That
Quoted message said:assumes that the right answer is known to you via some other
mechanism than
Quoted message said:an appraisal of the evidence, and you will need to divulge what that
is.
Quoted message said:There is no question that skepticism about the early overblown claims
of
Quoted message said:vitamin promoters and their supporters has been largely justified.
This is the very thing I have questioned, and have in fact proven the
contrary using the same criteria that is used to approve drugs. Below I
give the references for my claim.
On Nov, 16 '04 I posted a piece in sci.life-extension
summarizing the placebo controlled, randomized, clinical intervention
trials that have been conducted on vit. C taken with various other
supplements such as vit. E. My findings were that whenever C and E are
taken at a ratio of about two parts C to E or higher, the results are
always positive in men, moderately positive for low doses and
sensationally positive for hi doses. The benefits seen are fewer heart
attacks and longer life span.
Of most interest are the four hi dose trials that have been
conducted in men. They show 47% less mortality and huge decreases in
the rate of progression of atherosclerosis. There are no other
randomized trials with this regimen. None have been overlooked. I've
made this claim repeatedly in a ng which includes quite a few very well
read people including doctors and published scientific researchers.
I've mailed the claim to researchers with pertnenent publications. I
failed to mention three other trials I know of with poor methodology
that hint at even better results. Hi dose vit. C has been used in
seven trials, four good ones and failed to show results in none.
If a drug had seen equivalent testing with equivalent
results it would have FDA approval by now and be subject to aggressive
marketing with wide spread acceptance. About half of the American
public is now using supplements. That's maybe 90% of those who care
about their health. Vitamins C and E are among the biggest sellers.
People are turning away from their doctors to their postmen and
neighbors for advice. The younger, more nimble minded doctors are
following the lead of their patients in this matter. There is good,
recent evidence that a sizable minority of the population will be hurt
by this regimen. (See my recent posts on this. Make the search for
vitamin C with Thomas Carter as author.) Can anyone provide an example
of a bigger failure in leadership? More important and to the point,
can anyone post evidence that casts doubt on the facts I claim.? If the
facts are not in dispute we can all form our own opinions and profit or
suffer as may be.
The article I posted can be found at:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.life-extension/browse_frm/thread/f3ddde54d44c2cc5/7e3cb7d5c53b5edc?q=A+comprehensive,+recent+mega+review+of+vitamin+E+clinical++author:Thomas+author:Carter&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fas_q%3DA+comprehensive,+recent+mega+review+of+vitamin+E+clinical+%26num%3D50%26scoring%3Dr%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_epq%3D%26as_oq%3D%26as_eq%3D%26as_ugroup%3D%26as_usubject%3D%26as_uauthors%3DThomas+Carter%26lr%3D%26as_drrb%3Dq%26as_qdr%3D%26as_mind%3D1%26as_minm%3D1%26as_miny%3D1981%26as_maxd%3D10%26as_maxm%3D2%26as_maxy%3D2005%26safe%3Doff%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#7e3cb7d5c53b5edc
If the link doesn't work go to the advanced search page and
and look for
comprehensive, recent mega review of vitamin E clinical trials
with Thomas Carter as the author.
Thomas
