Re: The Politics of Vitamin Research

"Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote

Thanks for responding to my post.

Your comments operationally illustrate how a scientist in writing a
research paper, simply by careful selection of the words he chooses to
use, can make the findings of his research paper either positive or
negative depending on his political agenda. And, thus before you can
properly interpret the results, you have to first determine the spin
the authors are trying to put on their paper.

A recent example of this would be:

Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Azen SP.
Hormone therapy and the progression of coronary-artery
atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12904518&dopt=Abstract
N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 7;349(6):535-45.
PMID: 12904518

The author of this study was clearly playing a word game because
by his selective wording he was able to conclude that the study was
negative in that HRT did not protect against heart disease. As most
women take HRT in order to relieve the symptoms of menopause,
the issue of whether or not HRT prevents heart disease is quite
irrelevant.

Your comments, of course, don't speak well for impartial research.

If anything your comments illustrate exactly what a farce Medical
Scientism really is. 🙁
--
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.

Quoted message said:

"N-H-P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is Medical Scientism a bunch of crock when it comes to Vitamin
Research, or what? Do scientists intentionally distort their findings
by any and all means possible in order to further their political
agenda?

Probably not.

Quoted message said:

scientism
http://www.webref.org/anthropology/s/scientism.htm
"scientism: the belief that there is one and only one method
of science and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the
conduct of research."

The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
expensive urine. The obvious political justification is that if
vitamins are indeed both inexpensive and effective why should
physicians prescribe statins which are both expensive and come with a
number of serious side effects; other then to extract as much money as
possible from both patients and their health insurance?

Or it could be that they are indeed creating expensive urine, at least in
the case of vitamins B and C.
For A, D and E expensive health problems are created in lue of urine.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

After taking into account the women's age, whether they smoked,
and other factors, the researchers found that the risk of heart
disease dropped as vitamin C intake increased. Women who used
vitamin C pills were 28% less likely to develop heart disease
than women who didn't.

<snip>

How many pills?
250mg supplement may be benificial.
500mg - you are gettin all you use.
500mg+, all the extra is [censored] away.

Quoted message said:

John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!

Science dosn't support your ideas?
Easy solution - shoot the messenger.

Quoted message said:

http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about
prevention.

Is that prevention of quackery you are talking about?
Good, then we agree.

N-H-P <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote

Thanks for responding to my post.

Your comments operationally illustrate how a scientist in writing a
research paper, simply by careful selection of the words he chooses to
use, can make the findings of his research paper either positive or
negative depending on his political agenda. And, thus before you can
properly interpret the results, you have to first determine the spin
the authors are trying to put on their paper.

A recent example of this would be:

Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Azen SP.
Hormone therapy and the progression of coronary-artery
atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=12904518&dopt=Abstract

Quoted message said:

N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 7;349(6):535-45.
PMID: 12904518

The author of this study was clearly playing a word game because
by his selective wording he was able to conclude that the study was
negative in that HRT did not protect against heart disease. As most
women take HRT in order to relieve the symptoms of menopause,
the issue of whether or not HRT prevents heart disease is quite
irrelevant.

Drivel. HRT was pushed to help a woman's health overall. The fact that
it causes cancer and heart disease is not irrelevant at all.

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The author of this study was clearly playing a word game because
by his selective wording he was able to conclude that the study was
negative in that HRT did not protect against heart disease. As

most

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

women take HRT in order to relieve the symptoms of menopause,
the issue of whether or not HRT prevents heart disease is quite
irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Drivel. HRT was pushed to help a woman's health overall. The fact

that

Quoted message said:

it causes cancer and heart disease is not irrelevant at all.

Perhaps if you were to concentrate?

The citation was cited by me to provide an example that shows that
when "a study" (ie, subject matter is irrelevant) does not produce the
expected negative results, scientists think absolutely nothing of
wording the abstract in such a fashion as to make the conclusion
negative anyway.

The subject of this thread is *not* about HRT. You are already wasted
every bodies time on that subject, George.

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about
prevention.

Quoted message said:

N-H-P <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote

Thanks for responding to my post.

Your comments operationally illustrate how a scientist in writing a
research paper, simply by careful selection of the words he chooses to
use, can make the findings of his research paper either positive or
negative depending on his political agenda. And, thus before you can
properly interpret the results, you have to first determine the spin
the authors are trying to put on their paper.

A recent example of this would be:

Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Azen SP.
Hormone therapy and the progression of coronary-artery
atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=12904518&dopt=Abstract

Quoted message said:

N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 7;349(6):535-45.
PMID: 12904518

The author of this study was clearly playing a word game because
by his selective wording he was able to conclude that the study was
negative in that HRT did not protect against heart disease. As most
women take HRT in order to relieve the symptoms of menopause,
the issue of whether or not HRT prevents heart disease is quite
irrelevant.

Drivel. HRT was pushed to help a woman's health overall. The fact that
it causes cancer and heart disease is not irrelevant at all.

Well, at least we know that Horse Hormone Replacement put into women
causes problems. Now what we need is a study that uses human hormones.

--

Pramesh

Pramesh Rutajit <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

N-H-P <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote

Thanks for responding to my post.

Your comments operationally illustrate how a scientist in writing a
research paper, simply by careful selection of the words he chooses to
use, can make the findings of his research paper either positive or
negative depending on his political agenda. And, thus before you can
properly interpret the results, you have to first determine the spin
the authors are trying to put on their paper.

A recent example of this would be:

Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Azen SP.
Hormone therapy and the progression of coronary-artery
atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ds=12904518&dopt=Abstract

Quoted message said:

N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 7;349(6):535-45.
PMID: 12904518

The author of this study was clearly playing a word game because
by his selective wording he was able to conclude that the study was
negative in that HRT did not protect against heart disease. As most
women take HRT in order to relieve the symptoms of menopause,
the issue of whether or not HRT prevents heart disease is quite
irrelevant.

Drivel. HRT was pushed to help a woman's health overall. The fact

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it causes cancer and heart disease is not irrelevant at all.

Well, at least we know that Horse Hormone Replacement put into women
causes problems. Now what we need is a study that uses human hormones.

More drivel.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:09:18 GMT, <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Drivel. HRT was pushed to help a woman's health overall. The fact that
it causes cancer and heart disease is not irrelevant at all.

I wonder if HRT doesn't actually "cause" the cancer, but encourages
cancers that occur normally, to grow faster. Just musing.

Quoted message said:

Pramesh Rutajit <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

N-H-P <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>"Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote
>
>Thanks for responding to my post.
>
>Your comments operationally illustrate how a scientist in writing a
>research paper, simply by careful selection of the words he chooses to
>use, can make the findings of his research paper either positive or
>negative depending on his political agenda. And, thus before you can
>properly interpret the results, you have to first determine the spin
>the authors are trying to put on their paper.
>
>A recent example of this would be:
>
>Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Azen SP.
>Hormone therapy and the progression of coronary-artery
>atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women.
>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ds=12904518&dopt=Abstract

>N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 7;349(6):535-45.
>PMID: 12904518
>
>The author of this study was clearly playing a word game because
>by his selective wording he was able to conclude that the study was
>negative in that HRT did not protect against heart disease. As most
>women take HRT in order to relieve the symptoms of menopause,
>the issue of whether or not HRT prevents heart disease is quite
>irrelevant.

Drivel. HRT was pushed to help a woman's health overall. The fact

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it causes cancer and heart disease is not irrelevant at all.

Well, at least we know that Horse Hormone Replacement put into women
causes problems. Now what we need is a study that uses human hormones.

More drivel.

Premarin, a product made from horse's urine, is being used in the
Women's Health Study that is reporting negative results. 50% of the
estrogen from this formulation is not naturally found in women. The
Women's Health Study is not studying HRT that uses ONLY estrogens found
naturally in women. They are not doing hormone "replacement" but
alternative hormone supplementation. One cannot assume from this study
that replacing natural human hormone would have the same effect as
supplementation with horse estrogens.

--

Pramesh

Mooshie peas <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:09:18 GMT, <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Drivel. HRT was pushed to help a woman's health overall. The fact

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it causes cancer and heart disease is not irrelevant at all.

I wonder if HRT doesn't actually "cause" the cancer, but encourages
cancers that occur normally, to grow faster. Just musing.

We all have cancer cells in us all the time. The body gets rid of them.
HRT probably stops that process.

David said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:34:21 -0700, Pramesh Rutajit

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a product made from horse's urine, is being used in the
Women's Health Study that is reporting negative results.

Don't tell tools, he'll get '[censored]'.

Horse pee? Bwahahahahahahaha! Animal pee is good for you while your own is
not, right, by the way, wanna buy a bridge?

Wasn't my post, was my comment on only one segment of it.

No bridge for me thanks.