Re: Antioxidant Pills Questioned, Again(was: bloated feeling)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/12/04 9:51:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, fskelton@... writes:

Actually vitamins are becoming more controversial: at worst causing harm,

at best a waste of money.

There are at least two groups with an interest in knocking down supplements: the food industry and the doctor industry.

There is a large study called WAVE on women and heart disease, that also claimed supplements were neutral or harmful. Here is a critique of that study:

http://www.willner.com/References/wave_study.htm

including this rather telling part:

'The authors of the WAVE study asserted that the results of the Heart Protection Study (HPS) provided support to their conclusions by identifying "a trend toward an increase in mortality" in the vitamin group. However, the authors of the HPS actually reported "no significant differences" in mortality. (Lancet 2002; 360:23_33.)'

The HPS study that the WAVE authors refer to is PMID: 12114037. It does, in fact, say, "There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality".

I don't quite know how to verify the statement on whether the WAVE authors do claim mortality was higher in HPS. The WAVE study is at PMID: 12435256 but I can't get the full-text.

The critique of WAVE also claims their design is flawed - and that's why they got the results they did.

--

Ken

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/12/04 11:35:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, christopher.a.dowling@... writes:

Doctor industry? How do ya figure? Doctors can sell vitamins, too,

and generally don't get paid to sell drugs, at least not directly.

Doctors control the prescription pad. They get paid to write prescriptions. They get zero dollars from the huge amount of money spent on supplements. (As you know, they also made a grab a few years ago under Kessler's FDA to require a prescription to buy vitamins.) They also get their status and even, in some cases, their god-complex from controlling the prescription pad and the scalpel.

In defense of doctors, I'd have to say they also are subject to liability and so approach these matters differently than I should for myself.

I personally wouldn't take any supplement every day of the year - not even every day of the week. And they are called "supplements', not "replacements". But I do see an anti-supplement bias from the medical establishment - just as between doctors and chiropractors years ago. Lions and hyenas. It's not a matter of good guy vs bad guy, but of different groups with their own interests heavily involved.

--

Ken

[Guest guest]

Doctor industry? How do ya figure? Doctors can sell vitamins, too,

and generally don't get paid to sell drugs, at least not directly.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:29:15 EDT, bpinfo@... <bpinfo@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 10/12/04 9:51:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> fskelton@... writes:

>

>

> Actually vitamins are becoming more controversial: at worst causing harm,

> at best a waste of money.

>

> There are at least two groups with an interest in knocking down supplements:

> the food industry and the doctor industry.

>

> There is a large study called WAVE on women and heart disease, that also

> claimed supplements were neutral or harmful. Here is a critique of that

> study:

> http://www.willner.com/References/wave_study.htm

>

> including this rather telling part:

> 'The authors of the WAVE study asserted that the results of the Heart

> Protection Study (HPS) provided support to their conclusions by identifying

> " a trend toward an increase in mortality " in the vitamin group. However, the

> authors of the HPS actually reported " no significant differences " in

> mortality. (Lancet 2002; 360:23_33.)'

>

> The HPS study that the WAVE authors refer to is PMID: 12114037. It does, in

> fact, say, " There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality " .

>

> I don't quite know how to verify the statement on whether the WAVE authors

> do claim mortality was higher in HPS. The WAVE study is at PMID: 12435256

> but I can't get the full-text.

>

> The critique of WAVE also claims their design is flawed - and that's why

> they got the results they did.

>

> --

>

> Ken

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Massive oversimplification. Doctors are not merely pill pushers. Many

doctors also take supplemnents themselves. I really don't see any

anti-supplement conspiracy. Also, some of the pharmaceutical

companies themselves sell supplements. This is not an either/or

situation.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:46:11 EDT, bpinfo@... <bpinfo@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 10/12/04 11:35:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> christopher.a.dowling@... writes:

>

>

> Doctor industry? How do ya figure? Doctors can sell vitamins, too,

> and generally don't get paid to sell drugs, at least not directly.

>

>

> Doctors control the prescription pad. They get paid to write prescriptions.

> They get zero dollars from the huge amount of money spent on supplements.

> (As you know, they also made a grab a few years ago under Kessler's FDA to

> require a prescription to buy vitamins.) They also get their status and

> even, in some cases, their god-complex from controlling the prescription pad

> and the scalpel.

>

> In defense of doctors, I'd have to say they also are subject to liability

> and so approach these matters differently than I should for myself.

>

> I personally wouldn't take any supplement every day of the year - not even

> every day of the week. And they are called " supplements', not

> " replacements " . But I do see an anti-supplement bias from the medical

> establishment - just as between doctors and chiropractors years ago. Lions

> and hyenas. It's not a matter of good guy vs bad guy, but of different

> groups with their own interests heavily involved.

>

> --

>

> Ken

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 10/12/04 11:35:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> christopher.a.dowling@g... writes:

> I personally wouldn't take any supplement every day of the year -

not even

> every day of the week. And they are called " supplements',

not " replacements " .

Hi All,

What about calcium, vitamin D and vitamin E isoforms for the

individuals not receiving adequate amounts? I take iron plus vitamin

C before preparing breakfast/lunch/dinner each day.

Cheers, Al Pater.

[Guest guest]

> > In a message dated 10/12/04 11:35:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> > christopher.a.dowling@g... writes:

>

> > I personally wouldn't take any supplement every day of the year -

> not even

> > every day of the week. And they are called " supplements',

> not " replacements " .

>

> Hi All,

>

> What about calcium, vitamin D and vitamin E isoforms for the

> individuals not receiving adequate amounts? I take iron plus

vitamin

> C before preparing breakfast/lunch/dinner each day.

>

> Cheers, Al Pater.

Al,

Why Iron everyday? Unless you are consuming vast quantities of green

tea, have iron absorption problems, or are anemic--I would think it

would be overkill on the iron. Iron is an element that you want just

enough of I would think and not surplus amounts.

[Guest guest]

This discussion brings to mind, man's incessant behavior on the one hand to search out new ideas to solve old problems (like aging) and on the other hand the opposition to that search. I'm not sure which is which here. Surely there are documents presenting both points of view, confusing to say the least.

As I see it, the solution is not to point fingers at who ain't doing what, but to look forward to what WE can do to move evolution of man into an ageless society. Supplements have been around a long time, and some we take for granted, aspirin, eg, we don't even think of as supplements anymore. Some (cod liver oil) have slipped into oblivion.

The problem is not whether to megadose, but WHAT to megadose on. I don't think we find it in the supplement pushers catalogs today. Duke's database lists a thousand things that have effect on cancer,eg. I started thru the list once but there are too many for any one person to examine. I got to the middle c's.

What will be commonplace a hundred years from now? Surely, it will be something derived from a natural product, purified and synthesized to an efficacious potency. Maybe we could start by deciding on a rating system. Like do we weight their antioxidant capability, or the anti-inflammatory? I vote for anti-inflam. Or any one of a hundred other characteristics?

Do I weight commonly used "herbs" like garlic (recognize that in the herb world, even minerals and animal horn rate the status of "herb"). Or do I weight those that are not commonly used (ergo no obvious benefit)?

One thing I do for starters is derank things that make me sick. Raw celery, raw garlic, raw onions and things that raise BP, like citric acid. I have deranked things like hawthorn, gugglelipid, CoQ10, which were touted to lower BP, but don't. Sorry, if it doesn't lower mine, it doesn't work.

Meanwhile, the best advice is to eat a variety of veggies/fruits and CRON it.

Remember, the liver takes out toxins, but sooner or later we may find a toxin that is not removed or not removed quickly enough.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Dowling

Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:55 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Antioxidant Pills Questioned, Again(was: bloated feeling)

Massive oversimplification. Doctors are not merely pill pushers. Manydoctors also take supplemnents themselves. I really don't see anyanti-supplement conspiracy. Also, some of the pharmaceuticalcompanies themselves sell supplements. This is not an either/orsituation.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

The only thing I take daily is the only thing I need to take daily in

order to get my intake up to the RDA - calcium/D.

The other things I take, I take once a week.

I once calculated (I think it was for E and folic acid) that taking

one pill a week gave me ten times as much as the average person who

never takes supplements. So I asked myself 'is ten times enough? Or

do I really need seventy times the average in order to be healthy?'.

I don't know the answer. But decided that, until proven otherwise,

ten times as much was probably enough.

Rodney.

> > In a message dated 10/12/04 11:35:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> > christopher.a.dowling@g... writes:

>

> > I personally wouldn't take any supplement every day of the year -

> not even

> > every day of the week. And they are called " supplements',

> not " replacements " .

>

> Hi All,

>

> What about calcium, vitamin D and vitamin E isoforms for the

> individuals not receiving adequate amounts? I take iron plus

vitamin

> C before preparing breakfast/lunch/dinner each day.

>

> Cheers, Al Pater.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/12/04 12:57:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, christopher.a.dowling@... writes:

>Massive oversimplification. Doctors are not merely pill pushers.

No, it is you who are oversimplifying by responding as if I'd claimed doctors are "merely" pill pushers, or that it is entirely either/or. Some aren't, some certainly are. E.g., my father at one time was on about 7 or 8 prescriptions - when he switched doctors, the new one quickly eliminated 3 of them.

> Many

>doctors also take supplemnents themselves. I really don't see any

>anti-supplement conspiracy. Also, some of the pharmaceutical

>companies themselves sell supplements. This is not an either/or

>situation.

To take the position that doctors do not see drugs and surgery as the primary means of health care, or that the doctor industry will not try to protect its own interests, is, I believe, somewhat naieve. While we generally regard studies which originate from the sugar or other industries with a skeptical eye, we should likewise not see doctors as being purely motivated by altruism or the quest for knowledge, either.

>

>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:46:11 EDT, bpinfo@... <bpinfo@...> wrote:

>> In a message dated 10/12/04 11:35:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

>> christopher.a.dowling@... writes:

>>

>>

>> Doctor industry? How do ya figure? Doctors can sell vitamins, too,

>> and generally don't get paid to sell drugs, at least not directly.

>>

--

Ken

>>

>> Doctors control the prescription pad. They get paid to write prescriptions.

>> They get zero dollars from the huge amount of money spent on supplements.

>> (As you know, they also made a grab a few years ago under Kessler's FDA to

>> require a prescription to buy vitamins.) They also get their status and

>> even, in some cases, their god-complex from controlling the prescription pad

>> and the scalpel.

>>

>> In defense of doctors, I'd have to say they also are subject to liability

>> and so approach these matters differently than I should for myself.

>>

[Guest guest]

The " doctor industry, " as you put it, doesn't get reimbursed for

selling drugs. They get paid for helping folks get better, whatever

the method or means. So, while they might, as you put it, attempt to

protect their own interests, their interests don't lie in proving X

drug works better than Y supplement. If someone comes to visit them,

they get paid for the visit, not for writing a prescription. Their

interests are best served by providing the best service, i.e. the most

effective advice or therapy, to their patients whether that be by

counseling, hands on therapy, surgery, prescription medication, OTC

medication, or supplement. Thus they have no incentive to promote one

type of therapy over the other, if it is not more effective.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:23:22 EDT, bpinfo@... <bpinfo@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 10/12/04 12:57:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> christopher.a.dowling@... writes:

>

> >Massive oversimplification. Doctors are not merely pill pushers.

>

> No, it is you who are oversimplifying by responding as if I'd claimed

> doctors are " merely " pill pushers, or that it is entirely either/or. Some

> aren't, some certainly are. E.g., my father at one time was on about 7 or 8

> prescriptions - when he switched doctors, the new one quickly eliminated 3

> of them.

>

> > Many

> >doctors also take supplemnents themselves. I really don't see any

> >anti-supplement conspiracy. Also, some of the pharmaceutical

> >companies themselves sell supplements. This is not an either/or

> >situation.

>

> To take the position that doctors do not see drugs and surgery as the

> primary means of health care, or that the doctor industry will not try to

> protect its own interests, is, I believe, somewhat naieve. While we

> generally regard studies which originate from the sugar or other industries

> with a skeptical eye, we should likewise not see doctors as being purely

> motivated by altruism or the quest for knowledge, either.

>

> >

> >On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:46:11 EDT, bpinfo@... <bpinfo@...> wrote:

> >> In a message dated 10/12/04 11:35:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> >> christopher.a.dowling@... writes:

> >>

> >>

> >> Doctor industry? How do ya figure? Doctors can sell vitamins, too,

> >> and generally don't get paid to sell drugs, at least not directly.

> >>

>

> --

>

> Ken

> >>

> >> Doctors control the prescription pad. They get paid to write

> prescriptions.

> >> They get zero dollars from the huge amount of money spent on supplements.

> >> (As you know, they also made a grab a few years ago under Kessler's FDA

> to

> >> require a prescription to buy vitamins.) They also get their status and

> >> even, in some cases, their god-complex from controlling the prescription

> pad

> >> and the scalpel.

> >>

> >> In defense of doctors, I'd have to say they also are subject to liability

> >> and so approach these matters differently than I should for myself.

> >>

>

>

>