Recent JAMA Article re: AntiOxidants and thier effectiveness

[Guest guest]

The JAMA article you refer too was widely circulated because there is a

powerful force in conventional medicine that looks at alternative medicines as

competition to standert drug theraphy. This study has multiple flaws as shown in

the link you provide. Studies usally show what those that pay for the study

wants them to show. This is accepted in the medical community. JAMA no longer

enforces transparentcy. So there is no way to tell what is behind this study .

Advertising is the life blood of most commercial outlets for news. A look at

this might be informative as to why this recieved such wide publication. Cites

like this are inportant conterbalances to that. On health matters do your owe

research it is your health.

 

reschulz <info-support wrote: As many of you

have read, the Journal of the American medical

Association recently published an article describing a meta-study which

ostensibly shows that supplementing with antioxidants is a bad thing.

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CNR) has posted an informative

rebuttal here:

http://www.crnusa.org/PR07_JAMA_antioxidant_metaanalysis_022707.html

 

Suffice to say JAMA sould know better than publish such tendentious

articles. Why is bad science so widely reported and good science so

underreported? Randy

[Guest guest]

The JAMA article you refer too was widely circulated because there is a powerful force in conventional medicine that looks at alternative medicines as competition to standert drug theraphy. This study has multiple flaws as shown in the link you provide. Studies usally show what those that pay for the study wants them to show. This is accepted in the medical community. JAMA no longer enforces transparentcy. So there is no way to tell what is behind this study . Advertising is the life blood of most commercial outlets for news. A look at this might be informative as to why this recieved such wide publication. Cites like this are inportant conterbalances to that. On health matters do your owe research it is your health.

 

As many of you have read, the Journal of the American medical

Association recently published an article describing a meta-study which

ostensibly shows that supplementing with antioxidants is a bad thing.

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CNR) has posted an informative

rebuttal here:

http://www.crnusa.org/PR07_JAMA_antioxidant_metaanalysis_022707.html

 

Suffice to say JAMA sould know better than publish such tendentious

articles. Why is bad science so widely reported and good science so

underreported? Randy