Anders said:
Maybe vitamin supplements are not necessarily good at preventing particular diseases, but you need vitamins to remain alive and disease free. And, sometimes supplements are the only way people can get certain required amounts of vitamins (e.g., B12 injections for pernicious anemia patients, etc.).
-TT
There are well defined deficiency diseases for which vitamin supplementation is required. The issue here is whether self-prescribed mega doses, touted as prevenatives for cancer, arn't really making malignancies stronger and "healthier" along with the rest of the organism. All the validated treatments for destroying malignancies involve rather the opposite, tearing down, weakening or destroying the growth: radiation (in numerous forms and formats), anti-metabolites and now even anti-angiogenesis or disruption of the blood supply to tumourous growths. The objective is to starve the tumours, not supply them with nutritients.
In several controversial large scale studies, aspirin, which acts as an anti-coagulant, has been shown to cause colon polyps to bleed out, shrink and perhaps even slough off and "die" thus eliminating them as a precursor to colon cancer. Bolstering them with vitamins doesn't make as much sense as despatching them with aspirin.
In several controversial large scale studies, aspirin, which acts as an anti-coagulant, has been shown to cause colon polyps to bleed out, shrink and perhaps even slough off and "die" thus eliminating them as a precursor to colon cancer. Bolstering them with vitamins doesn't make as much sense as despatching them with aspirin.
Marmite. Of course to many people Pellagra would be preferableTeaBag420 said:
http://www.marmite.com/marmite/niacin.html
edited to add.
Or any of the items listed in this link http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/nutrition/factsheets/vitamin-b3.html
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
Some years ago, I got a book called "The Vitamin Pushers" from Prometheus Press.
The two physicians who wrote the thing said that Americans have the best-nourished toilets in the world.....
The two physicians who wrote the thing said that Americans have the best-nourished toilets in the world.....
Eat some chicken now and then, a glas of milk sometimes, some fish for lunch, and I think that they even puts some B3 in my breakfast cearels! Pellagra? First time I heard about that. We don't have that in Swedish food stores, also redundant for most people.TeaBag420 said:
If you eat normally, meat, fish, veggies, fruit, diary products, eggs, you just don't need vitamin supplements in most cases.
People that need vitamin supplements are few, but they exist and they should of course eat vitamin supplements.
El Greco
Summer worshipper
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 17,606
Without examining the purpose or the essence of the linked article, I think that its style is absolutely lousy. It is exactly the style of woo-woo articles that we so furiously condemn.
1. Who is the author, Patricia Reaney, and what are her credentials ?
2. Where are the references for all the claims being made ?
3. Why does she mention "vitamins" in the title when "antioxidants" are discussed in the text ? The two categories may overlap but they are not the same. Why are the two terms being used interchangeably throughout the text ?
4. What kind of idiot must someone be in order to imply that antioxidants are generally a waste of money (and even harmful) based on the fact that they don't reduce the incidence of some types of cancer ?
5. How is the following abstract consistent with the title of the article ?
"In a few trials included in the analysis published in The Lancet medical journal, selenium seemed to have a protective effect against liver cancer.
But Bjelakovic said the quality of the data was poor and more trials were needed to test the mineral's potential as a cancer preventive."
6. What does she have to say about this and this and this and this among many others ?
Medical reporters suck big time
1. Who is the author, Patricia Reaney, and what are her credentials ?
2. Where are the references for all the claims being made ?
3. Why does she mention "vitamins" in the title when "antioxidants" are discussed in the text ? The two categories may overlap but they are not the same. Why are the two terms being used interchangeably throughout the text ?
4. What kind of idiot must someone be in order to imply that antioxidants are generally a waste of money (and even harmful) based on the fact that they don't reduce the incidence of some types of cancer ?
5. How is the following abstract consistent with the title of the article ?
"In a few trials included in the analysis published in The Lancet medical journal, selenium seemed to have a protective effect against liver cancer.
But Bjelakovic said the quality of the data was poor and more trials were needed to test the mineral's potential as a cancer preventive."
6. What does she have to say about this and this and this and this among many others ?
Medical reporters suck big time
The author of the paper is Dr Goran Bjelakovic and the paper was published in the LancetEl Greco said:
Someone that has access to the lates issue of the Lancet have to answer that.
Yes they overlap, so what! The paper in the Lancet is the important text, not the article.
I'm that kind of idiot. It is a waste of money, because nothing says it protects from cancer. Or anything else really.
Well, you have to ask Dr Goran Bjelakovic about that. And I would be careful about articles in pubmed, some of them even supports homeopathy!
El Greco
Summer worshipper
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 17,606
Anders said:
The author is Patricia Reaney. Have you read what you linked to ? Goran Bjelakovic was interviewed "by telephone". What "paper" are you talking about ?
Anders said:
Since you obviously did not read what you linked to, I remind you that according to the article "the analysis published in The Lancet medical journal" showed that "selenium seemed to have a protective effect against liver cancer".
Anders said:
See above
Anders said:
Oh really ? Am I supposed to believe you instead of the thousands (literally) of studies I can cite ?
Anders said:
Do you have a better source for studies ? Or do you suggest that we should trust "Dr. Goran Belakovic" instead of Pubmed ?
Start refuting the four studies I linked to and then I'll cite 10-20 more to keep you busy. In doing so, you should better point out their procedural faults instead of quoting "telephone interviews" with unreachable doctors.
El Greco
Summer worshipper
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 17,606
Oh, not to forget that even according to that miserable article, "antioxidant supplements do not have any influence on the incidence of gastro-intestinal cancers". It talks about "gastro-intestinal cancers". Nothing else.
I assume that you have further data that corroborate your assertion that it "is a waste of money, because nothing says it protects from cancer. Or anything else really."
I assume that you have further data that corroborate your assertion that it "is a waste of money, because nothing says it protects from cancer. Or anything else really."
El Greco
Summer worshipper
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 17,606
El Greco
Summer worshipper
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 17,606
Anyway, the fact is that I'm completely pissed off with medical reporters who have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about and all they care about is to pass a "strong message". Notice how the very same story with the very same comments is replicated all around the net. What the f*ck has Patricia Reaney done ? What kind of research ? How come that the exact same comments are presented everywhere signed by a multitude of reporters ? Why do they imply that all antioxidants are useless since the alleged review only mentions 4 antioxidants and 1 type of cancer ? Why do they say that vitamins can kill ? How many recorded incidents of deaths from hyper-vitaminosis are there ? What exactly does the all-caps "MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY" headline has to do with anything ?
Oh, I've had enough of this crap during the Olympics... I've had enough of idiot journalists on TV blubbering about anabolics and how they kill athletes, while they had absolutely no f*cking idea about what an "anabolic" is. I can take no more. I'm determined to slay all idiot medical reporters from now on
Oh, I've had enough of this crap during the Olympics... I've had enough of idiot journalists on TV blubbering about anabolics and how they kill athletes, while they had absolutely no f*cking idea about what an "anabolic" is. I can take no more. I'm determined to slay all idiot medical reporters from now on
