Antioxidants -- studies vs studies: 1984 is 2006

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

The studies are meant to confuse people and divide and conquer the

uninitiated. I'd suggest you try both biases on, mentally. That is consider

this issue from the points of view that they work and that they don't work.

If you read the negative studies with a critical eye, you'll see them

consistently saying things that are dogmatic or that state a conclusion

about something that is not even close to being concluded and in fact, is

quite poor in its collection of data. This should show you something about

their potential for true credibility. They aren't trying to provide true

conclusions.

That's because the " conclusions " are created to be used as sound-bites that

will put in newspapers and influence great numbers of people, including

doctors. (One study showed that over 90 percent of doctors only read

newspaper headlines and DO NOT read the studies themselves.) When one reads

the studies carefully and tracks the background studies that have preceded

them, they consistently are in error in making any conclusion and their

conclusions are always falsely biased to make dietary supplements look bad.

There are so many examples of this it tires one to cite them.

I'd suggest you read a few articles -- see my links at the bottom. You

should definitely check out the materials Life Extension Foundation (LFE)

has accrued debunking these studies. LFE works VERY hard to substantiate

their position with details in all the studies they reference. I subscribed

to their magazine just to read their data.

An example --- I read Norm disregard homocysteine's role in cardiovascular

disease here months ago. I'm so tired of this issue, I didn't address his

issues and show where he was wrong -- including his statement that

homocysteine is not worth addressing because it is " like smoke -- not the

fire. "

LFE has a comprehensive article on this where they cite the authors of the

study Norm pointed at --- the authors said that homocysteine was causative

-- with other noted study authors repeating this. The study Norm pointed at

that came to the conclusion that homocysteine meant nothing and that using

folic acid/B6 and B12 didn't work --- was conducted incorrectly. For those

nutrients to work -- they must reduce homocysteine down to a certain point.

That study didn't get homocysteine down enough to work. LFE cited numerous

examples to support this. There article was far more comprehensive than any

I have seen by those who are trying to discredit supplements.

Anyone who voted for Kerry but saw Bush win knows that we have entered a

true Orwellian " 1984 " ish world, where very powerful people know that if they

can put words in black and white in the newspaper and have a " credible "

source say it in television they can manipulate billions of people with

trillions of dollars.

That is the problem, . Not that supplements don't work. THEY DO, as

shown in the thousands of studies previous to this new misinformation

campaign -- and if they do, trillions of dollars in drugs sales will be lost

over many years. The cost of taking vitamins is thousands of times less than

the cost of the drugs they'd take. Which one do you think the big players

are pushing for? Do you believe that anyone - especially wealthy

multinational companies could be this evil?

Think about it.

Bad information with lots of backing equals more money spent by sick people

on drugs.

SIMPLE EQUATION. 1984!

Also read: Overdosing America: The Broken Promise or American Medicine -

This book is the best documented book that shows how we are being sold

fraudulently created studies to make money selling us drugs. It is amazing

in its thoroughness.

To respond to your question about " commercially available supplements " not

having full antioxidant activity -- all the supplements sold on the market

come from the same sources -- several huge raw materials makers. The

supplements that are used in large studies aren't special products - they

just these same raw materials OR in many cases the participants in the

studies report on what they take, which they buy commercially. So, there is

no mystery about this. Unless you find one of the rare manufacturers whose

product doesn't match the legally-required label claim ---- usually not the

leading brands or the well-known brands -- they're all the same.

Be well,

Mooney

www.michaelmooney.net

www.medibolics.com

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/04/24/metaanalyses_used_to_discred

it_supplements.htm

http://michaelmooney.net/Calcium1200mgFracturesSWomen.html

http://michaelmooney.net/DrugCoStudies.html

http://www.npicenter.com/resources.aspx#VitE

http://www.asthmaworld.org/vitaminEstudy.htm

Mon Aug 7, 2006 9:37 pm (PST)

Of course, those people who sell " Leptoprim " at $150 a bottle on late-

night TV are only there for the good of mankind!

The whole anti-oxidant thing has me perplexed. I mean, they should

work, but large studies keep not finding benefits.

I wonder if the anti-oxidant activity of commercially available

supplements is not enough to do what's needed? We can only hope that

good studies do make it through.

Barrow

pozbod@... <mailto:pozbod%40earthlink.net>