Re: Are you taking your vitamins?

What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation and all
those bad diseases caused by it.
Jump on the anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course.
Let's see them back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of
course. That must be the answer.

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dr_Dickie said:

Ignoramus24806 said:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Daily vitamin E supplements do not prevent cancer,
strokes or heart attacks in older people with vascular disease or
diabetes, and may increase their risk of heart failure, a study said
on Tuesday. [...]

Haven't seen this study yet, so take this with a grain of salt--I'll
try to get to it this weekend. Most every study I have seen
involved the application of alpha tocopherol (actually d-L alpha
what is commonly called vitamin E). Real vitamin E is a mixture of
alpha, beta, and gamma tocopherols (actually 8 different isomers in
all). When given 10X the recommended dose of a single isomer it
displaces the others and can lead to some problems.

The study IS about d-alpha. That's the point of the study. Most people
do take d-alpha, not mixed tocopherols and it makes perfect sense to
examine its long term effects since lots of data is available. This is
all acknowledged in their JAMA article.

"Other potential mechanisms of harm associated with vitamin E
supplements in doses much higher than those provided by balanced diets
may relate to displacement of other fat-soluble antioxidants, such as
lambda-tocopherol, disrupting the natural balance of antioxidant
systems and a reduction in high-density lipoprotein
(HDL2)cholesterol."

DZ

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dr_Dickie said:

Ignoramus24806 said:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Daily vitamin E supplements do not prevent cancer,
strokes or heart attacks in older people with vascular disease or
diabetes, and may increase their risk of heart failure, a study said
on Tuesday. [...]

Haven't seen this study yet, so take this with a grain of salt--I'll
try to get to it this weekend. Most every study I have seen
involved the application of alpha tocopherol (actually d-L alpha
what is commonly called vitamin E). Real vitamin E is a mixture of
alpha, beta, and gamma tocopherols (actually 8 different isomers in
all). When given 10X the recommended dose of a single isomer it
displaces the others and can lead to some problems.

The study IS about d-alpha. That's the point of the study. Most people
do take d-alpha, not mixed tocopherols and it makes perfect sense to
examine its long term effects since lots of data is available. This is
all acknowledged in their JAMA article.

"Other potential mechanisms of harm associated with vitamin E
supplements in doses much higher than those provided by balanced diets
may relate to displacement of other fat-soluble antioxidants, such as
lambda-tocopherol, disrupting the natural balance of antioxidant
systems and a reduction in high-density lipoprotein
(HDL2)cholesterol."

DZ

Okay, like I said I haven't read the study yet. Didn't mean to imply
otherwise (like I said, this is being picked up by researchers). Funny
thing is, of course, the press acts like this all NEW. Hell, I first heard
about this about 10 years ago, this latest study is simply more proof. The
vitamin industry is starting to take notice as well, more and more mixed
tocopherols are being added to supplements.
Not always fast, but in the end some semblance of knowledge is achieved by
persistence. Like Einstein said, "If we knew what it was we were doing, it
would not be called research, would it?"

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

"Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation and

all

Quoted message said:

those bad diseases caused by it.
Jump on the anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course.
Let's see them back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of
course. That must be the answer.

Quoted message said:

That's funny. Scientists I know, and certainly no biological scientists I
know, ever blame one cause or one cure. The point is, taking mega doses of
one isomer is not the cure and may be a problem (in this case natural is
better). Remember our genes were developed without the introduction of
processed food (or vitamins).
I suspect that taking the right mix may help. A panacea, no, only the
hucksters say so. In certain circumstances can it be very beneficial, hell
yes. Again, the "cure-all" stance is hinted at by the media, not the
scientists. It is their ignorance and desire for ratings that drives them,
not science (as for hucksters, just greed).
Or do you think that oxidation and its association with disease is simply a
conspiracy?
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

"Dr_Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1111067115.0e20dfa20e1f8b76d37a300c5a83fc97@teranews...

Quoted message said:

"Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation and

all

Quoted message said:

those bad diseases caused by it.
Jump on the anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course.
Let's see them back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of
course. That must be the answer.

Quoted message said:

That's funny. Scientists I know, and certainly no biological scientists I
know, ever blame one cause or one cure. The point is, taking mega doses

of

Quoted message said:

one isomer is not the cure and may be a problem (in this case natural is
better). Remember our genes were developed without the introduction of
processed food (or vitamins).
I suspect that taking the right mix may help. A panacea, no, only the
hucksters say so. In certain circumstances can it be very beneficial,

hell

Quoted message said:

yes. Again, the "cure-all" stance is hinted at by the media, not the
scientists.

The scientist are skepical in private but certainly become promotional when
seeking money for their research. I do not know any scientist that does not
hype the worth of his own research.
Another problem is that if you take the DNA double helix fame in which Dr
Rosalyn (???) did most of the work involving X ray defraction specs. She
did not recognize the significance of the pattern and here comes Watson and
Crick and right away came up the the double helix interpretation and figured
out the DNA connection. They got the glory and the lady got nothing.
What this tells scientists is that it is not good enough to do the bench
work but you must come up with the proper interpretation of your own work.
This makes scientist speculate into outer-space involving their work so they
can get credit for any future work performed by anybody else.

It is their ignorance and desire for ratings that drives them,

Quoted message said:

not science (as for hucksters, just greed).
Or do you think that oxidation and its association with disease is simply

a

Quoted message said:

conspiracy?

It is both. There is solid evidense and a conspiracy in seeking funding for
future research and greed by manufacturers and hucksters.

Quoted message said:

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert said:

"Dr_Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote
> What happened to all those people who discovered the word
> oxidation and all those bad diseases caused by it. Jump on the
> anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course. Let's see them
> back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of
> course. That must be the answer.

That's funny. Scientists I know, and certainly no biological
scientists I know, ever blame one cause or one cure. The point is,
taking mega doses of one isomer is not the cure and may be a
problem (in this case natural is better). Remember our genes were
developed without the introduction of processed food (or vitamins).
I suspect that taking the right mix may help. A panacea, no, only
the hucksters say so. In certain circumstances can it be very
beneficial, hell yes. Again, the "cure-all" stance is hinted at by
the media, not the scientists.

The scientist are skepical in private but certainly become
promotional when seeking money for their research. I do not know any
scientist that does not hype the worth of his own research.

Most scientists I know do not hype the worth of their own research.

Quoted message said:

Another problem is that if you take the DNA double helix fame in which

Dr

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rosalyn (???) did most of the work involving X ray defraction specs.

She

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

did not recognize the significance of the pattern and here comes Watson

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Crick and right away came up the the double helix interpretation and

figured

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

out the DNA connection. They got the glory and the lady got nothing.
What this tells scientists is that it is not good enough to do the bench
work but you must come up with the proper interpretation of your own

work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This makes scientist speculate into outer-space involving their work so

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can get credit for any future work performed by anybody else.

Doesn't tell anything of the kind to me.

DZ

I think that a closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life behind
you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-).
I suspect that Robert is not a scientist (perhaps he plays one on TV).

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

"Dr_Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > I think that a
closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life behind

Quoted message said:

you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-).
I suspect that Robert is not a scientist (perhaps he plays one on TV).

I am state licensed as a Clinical Laboratory Scientist and that is real life
and not TV.
I am involved in applied science in the medical field.
I think you guys need a to live in the real world and not one in which all
scientist are humble and don't hype the research they do and the next thing
you will say is that they don't profit from their research. I am not saying
they are nasty people or unnecessary, quite the contrary. Major advances are
made that profit everyone and not just the scientist who invented or came up
with something useful. Most of the stuff they come up with is useless with
dead ends but necessary in order to find the right path.
Those that are good at it profit immensely in terms of money, positions and
prestige. Those that aren't very good at it are humbled by their own lack of
success.
Who discovered the HIV virus? Two humble scientists? The one from the US or
the one from France?

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert said:

"Dr_Dickie" wrote

Quoted message said:

I think that a closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life
behind you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-). I suspect that
Robert is not a scientist (perhaps he plays one on TV).

I am state licensed as a Clinical Laboratory Scientist and that is
real life and not TV. I am involved in applied science in the
medical field. I think you guys need a to live in the real world
and not one in which all scientist are humble and don't hype the
research they do and the next thing you will say is that they don't
profit from their research. I am not saying they are nasty people
or unnecessary, quite the contrary. Major advances are made that
profit everyone and not just the scientist who invented or came up
with something useful. Most of the stuff they come up with is
useless with dead ends but necessary in order to find the right
path. Those that are good at it profit immensely in terms of money,
positions and prestige. Those that aren't very good at it are
humbled by their own lack of success. Who discovered the HIV virus?
Two humble scientists? The one from the US or the one from France?

Seems to me the problem is elsewhere. As long as you have
qualifications (bureaucratic piece of paper) and your free will, you
can lead your own independent research program. No "hype" needed.

Money is needed to do any research along with access to equipment and or
research material or in survey studies computer access and data access. In
order to get money you need to make proposels for your research. You have to
sell yourself and your proposal. There is no way around that. Once you
obtain grants you must produce papers or work products.

Quoted message said:

Publications is what makes a name recognized and the resume
impressive. Scientists that hype their research don't look too good
among their colleagues and manuscripts doing so have low chances to
survive through the review process.

The mere conclusions of papers or findings based on substance and not on
writing style can "hype" the findings.

I've spent several years in pharma

Quoted message said:

industry before moving out to do more theoretical stuff which I like
more. Even there I had no problems publishing independent research. I
would not list my supervisors or anyone else as co-authors unless they
contributed to actiual results AND writing.

DZ

The names on papers is pretty much situational as institutions have teams
with senior leaders signing off on all the research.
The work product you did was under the institution you worked for so any
revenue generated would fall on the institution.
Associates and fellows have no say on who signs off on papers.
They may be given the green light to do independent work but that is still
in the hands for seniors to have such permission.
They control the money unless you have outside sources or grants gained on
your own. Institutional affiliation helps on gaining money and prestige. Two
way street.

Ok, good luck