Part I: The Politics of Vitamin Research

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

This is a clarification of my original post on 'The Politics of Vitamin Research.'

Part I: The Politics of Vitamin Research
--------------------------------------------------
Having gotten a few replies worth replying to, I am now in a position to restate my original whining
with 'greater specificity' and 'precision' in several separate short posts. :)

I run a Yahoo Mailing List. Over the last year and a half I have covered some 700 health new
stories that are mostly from 'MEDLINEplus' and 'Reuters Health.' I didn't cover all of their news
stories, only the ones that are remotely related to 'Prevention & Healthy Lifestyles,' ie,
Preventive Health Services.

Each of my posts have further been classified into 8 different categories: Diet, Supplements,
Exercise, Attitude, Resilience, Lifestyle, Medicine, and Alternative Medicine. So, of these 700 news
stories over 100 posts were dedicated to the subject of 'Vitamins and other Nutritional
Supplements.'

And, from my coverage of 'Vitamins and other Nutritional Supplements' in the news coverage of
'MEDLINEplus' and 'Reuters Health' over the last year and a half I have noticed an alarming trend
(ie, the 'troubling studies') which I will expand upon later in my other posts.

But, before continuing I must to present some other background information.

I think that most informed persons would agree that you could support virtually any position on
the use of 'Vitamins and other Nutritional Supplements' from the abstracts and/or Full Texts of
health research published since 1966 that is accessible on the internet, in general, and
particularly in Medline.

I certainly was able to find citations to specific research studies that supported all of my
positions on the use of 'Vitamins and other Nutritional Supplements' that have been published on my
web site since 1999.

Furthermore, most of the new stories from 'MEDLINEplus' and 'Reuters Health' during the last year
and a half have tended to support the use of 'Vitamins and other Nutritional Supplements.'

The problem is that there are a handful of studies on antioxidant supplement usage that 'appear'
troubling to me (ie, the 'troubling studies'). In short, while most of the news coverage was
favorable on the usage of 'Vitamins and other Nutritional Supplements' these 'troubling studies'
inexplicitly presented a very negative picture. :(

Furthermore, I must confess that for a while the negative news coverage of these 'troubling studies'
had me going for a while. I was actually starting to buy into their negative propaganda. :(

At any rate, I was somehow convinced that many recent research studies had shown antioxidants to be
effective for some men, but not for women in general. And, that the men who have been most protected
are those who smoke and otherwise engage in other unhealthy lifestyles. And, this was in regards to
protection from 'a large group of diseases that the general public associates with heart disease,
atherosclerosis, CAD, and CVD.' :(

And, I was pretty well convinced from these 'troubling studies' that taking antioxidant supplements
only created expensive urine, since their effectiveness for preventing 'a large group of diseases
that the general public associates with heart disease, atherosclerosis, CAD, and CVD' was seriously
put into question by these five (5) specific 'troubling' research studies. :(

Then amazingly another recent research studied published in the 'J Am Coll Cardiol.' found that
after taking into account the women's age, whether they smoked, and other factors, that the risk
of heart disease dropped as vitamin C supplement intake increased. Women who used vitamin C pills
were actually 28% less likely to develop heart disease than women who didn't according to this
favorable study. :(

Thus, I was awaken from my stupor. :)

Of the troubling research, two were published in The Lancet, and one in JAMA, Ann Intern Med., and
in Circulation. These four health research journals carry a lot of prestige and many people
incorrectly assume that these journals are speaking directly for the medical establishment. :(

Further, I found that the study in JAMA was particularly troubling because it didn't bother to point
out that another study published in JAMA in the year 1997 appears to directly contradict the
findings of this recent study. :(
----------
My message will be continued in a couple of other posts. I will post one of these posts a day, as
time permits. :)
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/ Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will
change your life.

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
news:16a9b594.0308191903.d194838@posting.google.com:

> This is a clarification of my original post on 'The Politics of Vitamin Research.'
>
> Part I: The Politics of Vitamin Research
> --------------------------------------------------
> Having gotten a few replies worth replying to, I am now in a position to restate my original
> whining with 'greater specificity' and 'precision' in several separate short posts. :)
>
> I run a Yahoo Mailing List. Over the last year and a half I have covered some 700 health new
> stories that are mostly from 'MEDLINEplus' and 'Reuters Health.'

want? A medal?

r

Rich Andrews <n0-spam@yah0o.com> wrote

> johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
> news:16a9b594.0308191903.d194838@posting.google.com:
>
> > This is a clarification of my original post on 'The Politics of Vitamin Research.'
> >
> > Part I: The Politics of Vitamin Research
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Having gotten a few replies worth replying to, I am now in a position to restate my original
> > whining with 'greater specificity' and 'precision' in several separate short posts. :)
> >
> > I run a Yahoo Mailing List. Over the last year and a half I have covered some 700 health new
> > stories that are mostly from 'MEDLINEplus' and 'Reuters Health.'

> want? A medal?

I take that as an open admission of defeat and that everything that I stated is perfectly correct in
every way. :)

Just thought that you might want to know. :)

>From: Rich Andrews n0-spam@yah0o.com

>>> What do you want? A medal?

>> I take that as an open admission of defeat and that everything that I stated is perfectly correct
>> in every way. :)

>> Just thought that you might want to know. :)

>Feel free to take it any way you want, but that bit of ill logic illustrates exactly what is wrong
>with you.

The only ill logic possible in a newsgroup is continuing a conversation with a Troll / Fraud who
freely admits to living in the gutter. :)

I was correct in my first THREAD, and I was even more right on in my second THREAD.

Bye Shit-Head!

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

--

"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.0308200627.41490d2e@posting.google.com...

>
> I was correct in my first THREAD, and I was even more right on in my second THREAD.

Right on about WHAT in your second thread. All you have said is that you "covered" a lot of vitamin
studies, and that you find those that disagree with your ideas to be "troubling." You then label
these "negative propaganda." You find a JAMA study "particularly troubling" because it contradicts
another JAMA study. Well, welcome to the way science is done. You have indicated in your first
thread a mistrust of the way scientists report their results ["distort" and "word games"]. And you
also voiced frustration with the long slow process of scientific advancement. Sorry, but that's how
it works. Competent, honest researchers, doing solid work, sometimes produce contradictory results.
It's right and proper for JAMA and other journals to publish these contradictory results. And the
fact that some of the results "trouble" you is irrelevant and does not constitute evidence that they
are "negative propaganda." Science is seeking the TRUTH. You seem to think you already have the
truth, and that anyone who contradicts that must be acting through evil intent.

--Rich

"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote

> Sorry, but that's how it works. Competent, honest researchers, doing solid work,

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Yeah, ... Sure, Right!

"... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.

> You seem to think you already have the truth, and that anyone who contradicts that must be acting
> through evil intent.

If it is good enough for the authors of meta-analyses, then it is good enough for me.

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!

Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people trying to follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in
news:16a9b594.0308201508.42cb798c@posting.google.com:

> "Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote
>
>> Sorry, but that's how it works. Competent, honest researchers, doing solid work,
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> Yeah, ... Sure, Right!
>
> "... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.
>
>> You seem to think you already have the truth, and that anyone who contradicts that must be acting
>> through evil intent.
>
> If it is good enough for the authors of meta-analyses, then it is good enough for me.
>
> Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

Yes, and you are a legend in your own mind.

r

--
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - ), "Technology and the Future"