3 of 3
3
Scientific American - Good article on Antioxidants
Posted: 18 February 2013 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
tjohnson_nb - 18 February 2013 04:20 PM

One thing the this study DOES support is confusion. The fact that they don’t discriminate between different forms of Vit E simply means;

a. They don’t know what they are doing
b. They are deliberately misleading the public

Its one thing to limit what can be said on the labels of vitamins and supplements - which I agree with. It’s quite another to instigate media campaigns against them based on misinformation.

Lets start with the fact that you didnt answer my question. Where are the PCT’s supporting your position?

SELECT was a PCT study of over 35,000 individuals coordinated over a 10 year period. It was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and involved over 4,000 researchers at 500 institutions. I don’t know what was I thinking asking you to do 2 minutes of research to back up your claim? You clearly have more credentials and data to support your opinion than these folks did.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2013 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2013-02-07
macgyver - 18 February 2013 05:57 PM

Lets start with the fact that you didnt answer my question. Where are the PCT’s supporting your position?

SELECT was a PCT study of over 35,000 individuals coordinated over a 10 year period. It was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and involved over 4,000 researchers at 500 institutions. I don’t know what was I thinking asking you to do 2 minutes of research to back up your claim? You clearly have more credentials and data to support your opinion than these folks did.

hmm.. sounds like an appeal to authority. It makes no difference if a zillion researchers were involved at 100,000 institutions. I’m not making a claim, except for the claim that this study is flawed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2013 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
tjohnson_nb - 18 February 2013 07:55 PM

hmm.. sounds like an appeal to authority. It makes no difference if a zillion researchers were involved at 100,000 institutions. I’m not making a claim, except for the claim that this study is flawed.

Its not an appeal to authority its a statement of fact. You claim the authors of this study don’t know what they are talking about. I am simply pointing out that this is a very esteemed and educated group of men and women who participated in this study and you are who? This very same group of people carried out a meticulously designed study to discover whether Vitamin E might indeed help reduce Prostate cancer death and when the results didnt show any benefit they did what all good scientist do. They accepted the facts.

On the flip side we have you. A person of no known expertise on this subject who has done no personal research and when asked to at least come up with studies that others may have done to support your claim ( and yes you did make a claim) you have been unable to even do that. You claimed that these researchers used the wrong form of Vitamin E and that the correct form of vitamin E would have resulted in a reduction in both Prostate cancer and cardiovascular disease. Again, you make these claims with no PCT’s to back them up. in fact you’ve sited no studies at all PCT or otherwise.

In case you are unfamiliar with the concept of a rational debate, you’re supposed to actually present evidence and data to support your point of view.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2013 10:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Mriana - 17 February 2013 10:53 AM

BTW, I was tested by an allergist in the late 70s or early 80s and they found me to be allergic to almost everything except animal dander.  The tester dragged his fellow co-workers over to gawk at my skin reactions, esp the animal dander.  I felt like a lab rat.  Come to find out years later, those born with animals in the home, esp into a farm family, weren’t allergic to other animals, just what the animals got on their fur.  About the only thing I’m not allergic to, is other animals.

I too, have a very long list of allergies which cause me to have either acute asthma attacks or anaphylaxis…documented by medical testing. I was allergic to eggs in my youth, but fortunately, I outgrew that one. I also had the misfortune of developing an allergy to a medication which almost destroyed my career. My other allergies include tetracyline, cat, cow, horse, rabbit, bird and some dog danders. I am also allergic to the dander of one of my brothers. I am allergic to lamb, melons( my favorite fruits), eggplant, cashews, barley(try to find bread without it these days), hops, marijuana (they test you for hemp allergy), dust mites, roaches and some grasses. Most of these allergies I knew, and testing confirmed them. Those are only the ones I recall off the top of my head. I keep a list to give to new doctors.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 06:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2013-02-07
macgyver - 18 February 2013 08:34 PM

Its not an appeal to authority its a statement of fact. You claim the authors of this study don’t know what they are talking about. I am simply pointing out that this is a very esteemed and educated group of men and women who participated in this study and you are who? This very same group of people carried out a meticulously designed study to discover whether Vitamin E might indeed help reduce Prostate cancer death and when the results didnt show any benefit they did what all good scientist do. They accepted the facts.

On the flip side we have you. A person of no known expertise on this subject who has done no personal research and when asked to at least come up with studies that others may have done to support your claim ( and yes you did make a claim) you have been unable to even do that. You claimed that these researchers used the wrong form of Vitamin E and that the correct form of vitamin E would have resulted in a reduction in both Prostate cancer and cardiovascular disease. Again, you make these claims with no PCT’s to back them up. in fact you’ve sited no studies at all PCT or otherwise.

In case you are unfamiliar with the concept of a rational debate, you’re supposed to actually present evidence and data to support your point of view.

This group is “esteemed” by whom? Certainly not me LOL. If that isn’t an appeal to authority I don’t know what is.

It appears that ‘Vit E’ is in fact a misnomer, since what it refers to is actually a group of compounds. This study is flawed in the sense that it fails to take this into account right from the outset. A short search of the internet reveals several sources that indicate an important difference between forms of aspects of Vit E. and there is research that indicates that;

1. Taking only the alpha tocopherol form of vitamin E displaces gamma tocopherol in the body
2. High gamma tocopherol blood levels show a significant reduction in prostate cancer risk see here

So if we reduce gamma tocopherol by taking alpha tocopherol then it seems the SELECT study has actually corroborated the above.  Yet you maintain “Now that we have good prospective double blind studies it is clear that Vit E actually increases the risk of prostate cancer.” This is clearly ambiguous at best and false at worst.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26

Its not an appeal to authority at all, its a matter of training and expertise ( or in your case the lack of it) and its what I have had to resort to since you refuse to have an argument based on data and evidence. All you present here is your opinion so what I am pointing out is that your opinion means little when you are going up against thousands of professionals who have far more training than you do. Whether they are esteemed by you or not is really irrelevant. These people have done their homework. You have done nothing from what I can see except shoot your mouth off.

You need to stop making claims that you don’t back up with citations of any sort. In addition, if the best you can come up with is studies that only reference basic science and metabolic pathways then we are going to get nowhere. The medical literature is littered with ideas that looked logical based on an understanding of isolated metabolic pathways but those pathways are never isolated in the body. Basic science is just that “basic”. Its meant as a starting point not a place from which to draw conclusions or make recommendations. Every theory that is based on that approach must always be taken with a large grain of salt. The gold standard for evidence based medicine and advice should always be the PCT. Without PCT’s any claims of benefit or safety are just wishful thinking and in some cases they are downright dangerous. You continue to claim that the researchers tested the wrong form of Vit E and fail to provide any evidence that there would be a different outcome if they had used something else.

One last point. Putting aside the paranoia of the supplement industry and its supporters for a moment, the fact is that the SELECT study was run by people who were hoping they WOULD find a benefit. A great deal of time, effort, and money was spent on this study. We all know the supplement industry thinks that conventional medicine has it in for them but the plain fact is that we all want the same thing.. that is to help people get better. The difference is that conventional practitioners require evidence and are not willing to role the dice with half baked ideas. No one in their right mind is going to spend the time and money just to disprove something because they have an ax to grind. There are too many important things that require those resources. They spent the time and effort here hoping they would find something useful but unfortunately they didn’t. You can write to the authors of the study and ask them why they chose this particular form of Vit E but until you do you are speaking from ignorance and making assumptions based on prejudice and preconceptions and wasting our time.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 02:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2013-02-07
macgyver - 19 February 2013 09:35 AM

You continue to claim that the researchers tested the wrong form of Vit E and fail to provide any evidence that there would be a different outcome if they had used something else.

Did you not see the link in my post? I can see I’m wasting my time here anyway, Center for Inquiry - what a joke!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
tjohnson_nb - 19 February 2013 02:06 PM

Did you not see the link in my post? I can see I’m wasting my time here anyway, Center for Inquiry - what a joke!

I hadn’t seen your link previously. The study you site is a retrospective analysis. Its helpful and explains the reason for your question, but your approach is incorrect. Rather than assuming the authors of the SELECT study didn’t know what they were doing a better approach would have been to correspond with them and ask why that particular preparation was chosen. It is possible and even likely that there is other literature you are unaware of that convinced the researchers to use this particular version of Vit E.

Instead you jump to the conclusion that these people who spend their lives doing research just aren’t as smart as you. Of course that’s easier but at the same time not very productive if you’re really looking for answers, but then you’re not are you? Center for Inquiry isn’t the joke. The joke is you pretending to actually be interested in inquiry.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  46
Joined  2012-02-01

I know plenty of fairly skeptical people who have fallen for the antioxidant marketing ploy.

I have to explain it a little more carefully than the usual myth-busting.

Just an excuse to charge $5 for a bottle of fruit juice.

 Signature 

My heavy metal Doctor Who theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_9g2nXpYl0

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 06:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5176
Joined  2010-06-16

It seems there’s a simple remedy for the anti-oxidant dilemma.  Since we apparently need to protect our bodies from oxidation, all we have to do is prevent oxygen from getting into us - that is, stop breathing.  LOL

OK, so it’s reductio ad absurdum, but we do have to recognize that oxidation is an essential part of our metabolism.  Rather than arguing about which and how much anti-oxidant, we’d do much better to identify the specific problems and what techniques and materials can be used to minimize them without damaging the normal parts of our metabolism. 

BTW, I think the real problem that’s the basis here is damage from free radicals.  Rather than worrying about them as “antioxidants” we’d probably be much more accurate to identify which compounds can soak up (react with and neutralize) free radicals.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 04:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2782
Joined  2011-11-04

Yeah, neutralize those superoxides, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radicals.  Get those damn free radicals out of me.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3