Vitamins may shorten life

news.bbc.co.uk...


I've been aware of this for a number of years, due to a conversation I had with a healer.
Why replace the real thing with a bad diet and then bulk up on vitamins as way of repairing the damage done.

Vitamins are substitutes and are not as you may believe 100% natural.

When I was in India a few years ago, I befriended a Swedish chap, who worked in a certain area of expertise (something to do with food research and medicine or something), I can't quite remember exactly what, but he also forewarned me about the dangers of the way Britain has very little homegrown food, and that too could be dangerous to a person, when they eat ONLY foreign food (I am in no way suggesting foreign food of anykind is dangerous), but what I am saying is what I was told.

Something to do with mixing foreign grown foods (i.e from different soil on another side of the world) and then drinking 'home' water, somehow affects your system over time.
Because the growth of major global food supplies in the last few hundred years has been so rapid, I imagine the research into the effects of the COMBINATION of such daily habits of fast food, health products and drugs (legal and otherwise), stress of work and the bombardment of subconscious consumer symbology, I imagine nobody has combined such research into one whole package as such.
Since the likes of TESCO have strangled most local businesses and placed high demand on farming, then I wonder if the rising growth of say, homegrown violence and bad health amongst the british is a result of a reliance upon vitamins, too much imported food, casual fast food swallowing and cheap and easy so called 'ready' meals.
Plus all the crap we were bombarded with in the eighties, when food control wasn't exactly at its finest....

Moo.

(oh and don't have sweeteners in your tea, use a bit of sugar instead, sweeteners contain asparatame which is REALLY bad for you.... and that goes for the ladies too, diet coke is WORSE for you health wise than real coke despite what the adverts say).

Anyway.

Moo.

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 limited.

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 excluded?

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]

Originally posted by esecallum
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

regarding brits...they are simply turning into a bunch of degenerates.
drunk drugged vicious thugs...very dangerous.
[edit on 16-4-2008 by esecallum]

[edit on 16-4-2008 by esecallum]

Whilst first at first admiring your reply for the amount of thought and effort you have placed into it.

I do disagree with the above statement, what you should have said is SOME brits, mainly the disinformed youth are turning into degenerates...

If i was in a bad mood i would have taken offence, but we all make sweeping generalisations occasionaly.

Interesting points about the studies though, quite interesting.



[edit on 17-4-2008 by mr-lizard]

Well...

There is statistics and then there is experience.

My life has suggested emphatically that my daily multi-vit contributes to my health, well-being, and athleticism

On a side-note: I thought I remember reading the overseeing organizations were going to increase the RDA on pretty much every vit and mineral.

We take our vitamins. We don't eat 'bad' food, but it certainly doesn't give us all of what we need. I'm sticking with the vitamins. Sorry.

I already started a thread on this a few days ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mr-lizard


Whilst first at first admiring your reply for the amount of thought and effort you have placed into it.

I do disagree with the above statement, what you should have said is SOME brits, mainly the disinformed youth are turning into degenerates...

If i was in a bad mood i would have taken offence, but we all make sweeping generalisations occasionaly.

Interesting points about the studies though, quite interesting.



[edit on 17-4-2008 by mr-lizard]

Sorry.I did not mean 100%

You are quite correct.It is just that all the surveys indicate the majority of 60% are into binge drinking and taking drugs by their own admission and subjecting others to random violence due to the effects of same and bringing up their offspring to do the same by example.