Re: Vitamin supplements 'do us no good and may be harmful'On Apr 16, 10:10 am, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic,net > wrote:
> "trigonometry1...@gmail,com |" wrote:
>
> > On Apr 15, 11:08 pm, valhealey <jvhea...@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
> > > http :// www .independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-n...
>
> > > Brief snip:
>
> > > Vitamin supplements 'do us no good and may be harmful'
>
> > > By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
> > > Wednesday, 16 April 2008
>
> > > We swallow them by the bucketload at great expense but there
> > > is no evidence vitamin supplements do us any good, and they
> > > may even be doing us harm, scientists have concluded. In a
> > > blow to the multimillion pound dietary supplement industry,
> > > a review of 67 randomised trials of vitamin pills has found
> > > that far from prolonging life, they may actually shorten it.
> > > <snip>
>
> > These clowns wouldn't know evidence if it bit they in the arse.
> > A review based of poorly run trials results in poor conclusions.
>
> That's why they reviewed 67 trials -- to average out
> any particular studies with poor methodology.
>
> A study isn't bad just because it reaches a conclusion
> you don't like. Science often reveals information
> that is surprising or disturbing.
>
> If you disagree about that, please explain what error
> was consistently being made in these 67 studies.
> Reaching a conclusion you disagree with is not
> an error.
This is a rehashed/republished meta-analysis that hand picks 67
out of some 7 or 8 hundred studies to reach to the
conclusion they want. It is a meaningless editoral,
the morons in the press seem think of as science.
Nor do we see any discussion of confidence intervals
and significant figures.