Negative Vitamin article

[BimLanders]

I don't have time at the moment to read through this whole thing, as personal obligations abound. But I figured I'd post the link to the forum which had posted it.

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthrea ... t+vitamins

I began reading it, and it seemed like BS. 'Vitamin E increases heart attack risk?' I'll be sure to read through the whole thing later. I figured that it may be useful to post this link to another forum with different opinions as to present a cross-reference of ideas, opinions, and presentations of facts.

[ofonorow]

Re: Health Journal: The case against vitamins

This is difficult to read because I am aware that every sentence, for least the first twenty, contains an error. Which begs the question, who is Tara Parker-Pope, and why is she lying? Does she really work for the Wall Street Journal, and if so, what has happened to their "fact checkers?" (A cursory search would have found the initial false new reports regarding these studies, e.g. beta carotene and lung cancer, but not the later FACT that the news reports were found to be invalid.)

So again, we see the Big Lie in action - to the detriment of the public health, but coincidentally, to the economic benefit of those that profit from ill health. Now, who could that be?

Here is an assignment for our clever forum members. See if someone can find a single sentence that is either not a lie or completely factual!

[Ralph Lotz]

This is nothing but bunk!

[BimLanders]

I note that one paragraph warns that too many vitamins may destroy free radicals, which "may" be necessary to trigger an immune system response to fight off an infection. Then the following paragraph warns that too many vitamins may oxidize and thus CAUSE free radicals! Just to humor the writer: wouldn't these two factors sort of balance eachother out? I mean, vitamins both cause and destroy free radicals? Which is it?

[ofonorow]

So you are saying that you may have found a "true" statement? Either one or the other is probably correct? (I think they are both wrong, by the way..)

[Bobber]

This article by Tara Parker-Pope was analyzed by Bill Sardi back when it came out.
KOH analysis link...

[BimLanders]

So you are saying that you may have found a "true" statement? Either one or the other is probably correct? (I think they are both wrong, by the way..)

Well, since evidence is not provided for either statement, I would tend to not agree about either statement being "true." I just found the obvious incompatibility of the two statements to be amusing.

[dutchboy]

If you want assurance, read Hickey and Roberts. Biochemical explanations will tell you more than observational studies.

[godsilove]

If you want assurance, read Hickey and Roberts. Biochemical explanations will tell you more than observational studies.

They do? So should the FDA approve new treatments based solely on pre-clinical studies?