Comments on: Alternative Nutrition bingo: we predict industry responses to the JAMA trial of vitamin C and E

By: jdc325

jdc325 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:33:41 +0000

Re "Not high enough doses"; "too high doses" - I think that Pamela Mason of HSIS may have used these in her response to a similar paper in JAMA (on antioxidants and cancer).

By: jonhw

jonhw — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:18:55 +0000

A bit late to the table, but step forward Jonny Bowden:

Number one, we have no idea what kind of vitamin E was given. From past experience, doctors- who know absolutely nothing about this stuff- tend to give alpha-tocopherol, the least effective of the 8 components of vitamin E. Number two, look at the dose. Four hundred IUs taken every other day. And if previous experience is any guide, they probably used an synthetic source, which is about half as effective as a natural source. On what planet do you dismiss any possible benefit from vitamin E based on a low dose of an ineffective form of the vitamin given to a population that wasn't at risk in the first place? And while vitamin C at 500mg is a nice basic dose, no one seriously thinks that's enough to make a therapeutic difference... Never mind that just last year multivitamin and vitamin E use was found to be associated with lower mortality from cerebrovascular disease (CVD)

By: jonhw

jonhw — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:28:33 +0000

Courtesy of the American Chronicle, we learn that

A number of landmark epidemiological studies have, in fact, established that vitamin E supplementation reduces cardiovascular disease progression and reduces mortality.

Then again, we also learn about a Prophet Yahweh prediction re UFOs. You don't get that from CNN.

By: Wulfstan

Wulfstan — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:54:25 +0000

It seems that they give a very personal interpretation of Michael Pollan, one that the man Pollan would not recognise. New York Times has this:

Be as vitamin-conscious as the person who takes supplements, but don't actually take them. And in the soon to be exhaustively quoted words on the book's cover: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

I don't take supplements so I lack the micro-nutrients that would give me the ninja reading comprehension to turn that into the ANH version:

As Michael Pollan asserted in his book “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto” (Penguin, 2008), be a supplement user, as they do most things better, including eating healthier diets, taking more exercise and generally living healthier lifestyles.

By: dvnutrix

dvnutrix — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:44:22 +0000

It’s uncanny. Actually, we’re just advertising our abilities in such matters should they decide to offer us a retainer.

Ticks for: synthetic; low-dose; synergy; diet; not enough pills; Big Pharma shills; paranoia.

The placebo that is not truly inert is a good one. But, how could we have omitted, “The research was conducted by the wrong sort of scientist” – you know, ones that rely on more than a “fluid concept of evidence”.

We will learn.

By: jonhw

jonhw — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:41:35 +0000

Interesting, in a way – there are infinite ways in which one can get these things wrong, but ANH focuses on a relatively predictable subset of these…

By: jdc325

jdc325 — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:39:23 +0000

Oh, that is glorious. Exactly what I’d expect from the ANH, but it’s good to have my prejudices confirmed.

By: jonhw

jonhw — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:38:41 +0000

Oh, and press release too, of course.

By: jonhw

jonhw — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:31:59 +0000

And now the Alliance for Natural Health have put out their response [PDF]. We got most of them - though the complaints that the placebo might have been a beneficial nutritional supplement caught me by surprise...

By: jonhw

jonhw — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:11:43 +0000

This article was on AP yesterday, and has now been picked up by lots of media - I wonder if there will be a response soon, or if Big CAM will take the lalalala approach ;)