More on the antioxidant controversy

[Guest guest]

[hsibaltimore.com]

 

Dear Reader,

Someone at Reuters Health apparently wants you to stop taking

antioxidant supplements. Why? The reason seems clear. Just look at this

recent Reuters headline: " Antioxidants more likely to raise cancer

risk. "

There you go. You don't want cancer, do you? Then don't take

antioxidants! Simple. Just one problem: This provocative headline is

wildly misleading. It's a seedy come-on, as false as the promise of a

carnival barker in a low-rent circus.

-----------

Our annual tradition

-----------

It appears that about once each year we can expect some inflammatory

reporting about the " dangers " of antioxidant supplements. And I've got a

feeling that no matter how many years this goes on, it's going to make

me angry every single time.

The basis for this year's absurd antioxidant attack is a study that

appears in the January 2008 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Mayo

researchers conducted a meta-analysis of twelve clinical trials that

tested antioxidant supplements against placebos in the prevention of

cancer.

Let's look at a three key quotes from the study:

1) " Antioxidant supplementation did not significantly reduce total

cancer incidence…or mortality. "

2) Selenium supplementation was associated with reduced cancer incidence

in men…but not in women…and with reduced cancer mortality. "

3) " Beta carotene supplementation was associated with an increase in the

incidence of cancer among smokers…and with a trend toward increased

cancer mortality. "

So let's say you're a headline writer for Reuters Health. How do you

read those findings and come up with a blanket statement like:

" Antioxidants more likely to raise cancer risk " ?

Sure, beta-carotene supplementation is linked to higher cancer risk

among smokers – we've known that for some time now. But whenever this

link is " rediscovered, " beta-carotene is made out to be the culprit, as

if cigarette smoking were some kind of harmless hobby with no negative

effects.

Smokers need to be aware of this link, obviously. But anyone who

believes that beta-carotene is the root cause of " a trend toward

increased cancer mortality " is smoking something other than cigarettes.

-----------

Eat a peach

-----------

The Mayo Clinic web site notes that the adverse effects of beta-carotene

" do not appear to occur " in smokers who eat foods high in beta-carotene

content. Hmm. The adverse effects " do not APPEAR to occur " ? That's a

roundabout way of saying, " We have no clue. " So, to be on the safe side,

should smokers avoid dietary sources of beta-carotene?

The best sources of beta-carotene are dark orange, yellow, and green

vegetables, and yellow fruits. So…carrots, spinach, and peaches –

should these be taken off the smoker's shopping list? Or should the

cigarettes get pitched in favor of antioxidant-rich foods?

(I won't pester smokers. I used to be one of them. When it comes down to

a choice between a peach and a cigarette, they know which one will do

them good and which will increase their cancer risk.)

In addition to noting that selenium supplements were linked to a 23

percent lower risk of cancer among men, the Reuters Health article also

states (toward the bottom of the piece) that vitamin E supplementation

was linked to a slightly lower risk of prostate cancer. So a perfectly

accurate headline would have looked like this: " Antioxidant supplements

may lower risk of some cancers. "

Now how easy was THAT!?

Meanwhile, the negative and inaccurate headline was distributed by news

outlets around the world, convincing who knows how many readers that

daily supplements might cause cancer.

Absurd. As usual. And Reuters Health editors should certainly know

better.

****************************************************

Sources:

" Efficacy of Antioxidant Supplementation in Reducing Primary Cancer

Incidence and Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis " Mayo

Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 83, No. 1, January 2008,

mayoclinicproceedings.com

" Antioxidants More Likely to Raise Cancer Risk " Reuters Health, 1/30/08,

reuters.com

[Guest guest]

And the fox that could not rich the grapes sad- this grapes are no good they are sour.

Reuter- Mayo clinic or any other smart aleck, should keep that in mind

Mary

 

-

robert-blau

; SymphonicHealth ; oleander soup ; cancercure ; cancercure2 ; cancercured ; cancer_alternatives ; cancervictory ; never_do_harm_to_anyone ; cesiumtherapy

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:19 AM

More on the antioxidant "controversy"

 

 

[hsibaltimore.com]Dear Reader, Someone at Reuters Health apparently wants you to stop takingantioxidant supplements. Why? The reason seems clear. Just look at thisrecent Reuters headline: "Antioxidants more likely to raise cancerrisk." There you go. You don't want cancer, do you? Then don't takeantioxidants! Simple. Just one problem: This provocative headline iswildly misleading. It's a seedy come-on, as false as the promise of acarnival barker in a low-rent circus. ----------- Our annual tradition ----------- It appears that about once each year we can expect some inflammatoryreporting about the "dangers" of antioxidant supplements. And I've got afeeling that no matter how many years this goes on, it's going to makeme angry every single time. The basis for this year's absurd antioxidant attack is a study thatappears in the January 2008 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Mayoresearchers conducted a meta-analysis of twelve clinical trials thattested antioxidant supplements against placebos in the prevention ofcancer. Let's look at a three key quotes from the study: 1) "Antioxidant supplementation did not significantly reduce totalcancer incidence…or mortality." 2) Selenium supplementation was associated with reduced cancer incidencein men…but not in women…and with reduced cancer mortality." 3) "Beta carotene supplementation was associated with an increase in theincidence of cancer among smokers…and with a trend toward increasedcancer mortality." So let's say you're a headline writer for Reuters Health. How do youread those findings and come up with a blanket statement like:"Antioxidants more likely to raise cancer risk"? Sure, beta-carotene supplementation is linked to higher cancer riskamong smokers – we've known that for some time now. But whenever thislink is "rediscovered," beta-carotene is made out to be the culprit, asif cigarette smoking were some kind of harmless hobby with no negativeeffects. Smokers need to be aware of this link, obviously. But anyone whobelieves that beta-carotene is the root cause of "a trend towardincreased cancer mortality" is smoking something other than cigarettes. ----------- Eat a peach ----------- The Mayo Clinic web site notes that the adverse effects of beta-carotene"do not appear to occur" in smokers who eat foods high in beta-carotenecontent. Hmm. The adverse effects "do not APPEAR to occur"? That's aroundabout way of saying, "We have no clue." So, to be on the safe side,should smokers avoid dietary sources of beta-carotene? The best sources of beta-carotene are dark orange, yellow, and greenvegetables, and yellow fruits. So…carrots, spinach, and peaches –should these be taken off the smoker's shopping list? Or should thecigarettes get pitched in favor of antioxidant-rich foods? (I won't pester smokers. I used to be one of them. When it comes down toa choice between a peach and a cigarette, they know which one will dothem good and which will increase their cancer risk.) In addition to noting that selenium supplements were linked to a 23percent lower risk of cancer among men, the Reuters Health article alsostates (toward the bottom of the piece) that vitamin E supplementationwas linked to a slightly lower risk of prostate cancer. So a perfectlyaccurate headline would have looked like this: "Antioxidant supplementsmay lower risk of some cancers." Now how easy was THAT!? Meanwhile, the negative and inaccurate headline was distributed by newsoutlets around the world, convincing who knows how many readers thatdaily supplements might cause cancer. Absurd. As usual. And Reuters Health editors should certainly knowbetter. **************************************************** Sources: "Efficacy of Antioxidant Supplementation in Reducing Primary CancerIncidence and Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" MayoClinic Proceedings, Vol. 83, No. 1, January 2008,mayoclinicproceedings.com "Antioxidants More Likely to Raise Cancer Risk" Reuters Health, 1/30/08,reuters.com