reply to post by mr-lizard
When examining the study, a number of key points come to light. The study itself is a meta-analysis, which means that the results of several studies
in related fields are combined using statistics to draw an overall conclusion. By their very nature, meta-analyses require a selection process to
decide which studies to include in their review.
This meta-analysis only evaluated what are called randomised controlled trials, where patients are put in 2 monitored groups and given either a tablet
or a dummy-pill. The study failed to include any of the vast body of long term observational studies that also exist, so the evidence base is very
In addition, the researchers identified 748 studies that met their criteria but they excluded 681 of them, so their results are based on less than
nine per cent of the available evidence. What’s more, they specifically excluded any trials in which no deaths were reported (405 articles). This
raises the question, how one can properly evaluate whether a substance can prevent mortality when studies that demonstrate no harm are automatically
The authors also chose not to eliminate deaths due to other circumstances such as accidents, medical conditions and suicides. They chose instead to
assume that all the deaths that occurred in any of the studies were attributable to the antioxidant supplements. This is particularly ironic since
many of the studies involved groups of people with a variety of health issues, not just those who were healthy. In fact, if a true mortality risk were
to have become apparent in any of the original studies, they would have been halted. Interestingly, none were.
In addition, the studies they did select covered a vast range of different nutrients, doses, populations, and durations. This makes it very difficult
to effectively combine the evidence and draw proper conclusions. As the saying goes, it’s like comparing apples to oranges.
Some of the studies also included extremely high doses of supplements, far in excess of the Tolerable Upper Limit specified by the Institute of
Medicine and many used synthetic forms of nutrients. This may have significantly skewed the overall results.
Overall, it would seem that the negative results found by this review occurred because ALL the positive studies using safe levels of supplements were
excluded. Consequently, the basis for exclusion has been heavily criticized. Dr Balz Frei, Director of the Linus Pauling Institute, one of the
world’s leading institutes that studies the possible health value of vitamins and micronutrients, has said: “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.”
The authors appear to be using their study as a campaign for greater regulation of supplements, yet their study makes no references to any of the
regulatory procedures already in place.
I think they should be investigated for fraud.
regarding brits...they are simply turning into a bunch of degenerates.
drunk drugged vicious thugs...very dangerous.
lets us follow the money trail...
who funded the study?
who are these people and how much did they get?
what big pharma companies are they consultants for?
how much stock do they hold they hold in big pharma.
what does a 16 % increased risk in dying means?
why are they not researching hundreds of thousands of people killed by the side effects of big pharma's drugs?
why are they not publicizing and researching hundreds of thousands of people killed by the side effects of big pharma's drugs?
why are they NOT publicizing hundreds why are they not researching of thousands of people killed by the side effects of big pharma's drugs?
[edit on 16-4-2008 by esecallum]
[edit on 16-4-2008 by esecallum]