We’re not lacking in anything.

We just eat an excess of lard and alcohol!:)

Firstly, the authors have re-worked their data according to Cochrane Library rules. This is a perfectly legitimate thing to do as the analysis can then be added to the library. The fact that such a study has now passed the rigorous and independent standards of Cochrane is very newsworthy. This is as good as it gets.

The authors excluded studies where deaths were not recorded as they wanted to make mortality their main outcome measurement. This is perfectly reasonable as deaths are hard to fudge. Their is no subjective experience of death in a trial. It happens to a participant or it does not. It should make any results free from lost of potential biases.

The selection criteria were ‘healthy patients’ and those ‘diagnosed with specific diseases in a stable phase’. Read the paper yourself, rather than the WDDTY propaganda.

The criteria for selection were to do with sources of bias. That is, trails that were observational were excluded or did not have sufficient blinding or randomisation. That is perfectly legitimate and does not take a PhD in statistics to understand. Some trials may have been more sensitive, due to duration or dose, but all added to the pool of data. Holford argued that the study excluded too many trails. Which way do you want it? Too many trials or too few?

The trial restricted itself to common antioxidants found in all high streets. That i quite a valid thing to do. Looking at esoteric concoctions plugged by pill manufacturers will have to be for another study. Their exclusion does not invalidate the result here.

The review may well fly in the face of many studies. But you have to remember that this is a meta analysis of many studies where poor quality trials were excluded as they would introduce bias. If there are many poor quality studies out there reporting positive results, well now we know.

Why should the media be pushing this? Are you saying there is a conspiracy? You might like to provide evidence.

Antony, yor reaction is typical of the food pill industry. It is a huge industry that flogs useless (and even dangerous) pills to people who are told it is vital for their health. It is totally dishonest industry and run by the Big Pharma companies. Holland and Barrett is one of the top 20 US pharma companies. Boots, one of the leasing supllier of food pills in the UK, is one of our biggest pharma companies. Everywhere you looked yesterday, you saw vested interests trying to rubbish this work. All with stupid, dissembling arguments, like these WDDTY idiocies that you cut and paste.

It’s a dishonest business and yesterday may start to see the downturn of it.

The ‘new’ study isn’t new at all. It was first published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in February last year. The only difference is that the ‘new’ Cochrane review includes one less study. So the anti-nutritional lobby has had strong press coverage twice from the same data.

Despite its claims to be an independent review, the Cochrane study excluded 405 studies into vitamins because there were no deaths, and another 69 because they weren’t ‘randomised’ trials. As it is, the review looked only at studies that involved sick people, taking very high-dose synthetic vitamins, and which had participants dying. This does not replicate average use, and does not give the researchers the authority to claim that supplements shouldn’t be taken by healthy people.

When you select or reject studies on criteria that only mean something to statisticians, and ignore important things like duration, how long the study ran for — which ranged from 28 days to 14 years — your findings are immediately meaningless. Even the huge difference in dose of supplements between different studies — Vitamin E ranging from 10 to 5000 units daily, for instance — they didn’t deem important.

The studies look only at synthetic vitamins, and did not include those that are sourced from plants, such as flavonoids, anthocyanins, and sulforaphanes, which are included in leading-edge supplements, usually produced by small independent companies.
The review flies in the face of many other studies that have established that high-dose vitamins are effective in reducing the risk of lethal diseases, such as cancer and heart disease.

How ironic the media are pushing this information at the same time the european commission is ready to ban many vitamin supplements and codex alimentarius is coming into sight.

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jul-Sep;8(3):390-4. Effect of homeopathic medicines on transplanted tumors in mice. Es S, Kuttan G, Kc P, Kuttan R.

As a devout non-believer, I’d like to know just what was wrong with this study.

The man is a joke and should not be on TV. Mind you the Green movement increasingly sees us humans (other than themselves of course) as the problem so are rubbing their hands with glee at the rising food prices and starvation that will result. Bastards.

I also thought this quote from Holford was interesting: “in combination with a healthy diet full of fruit and vegetables, getting plenty of exercise and not smoking, antioxidant supplements can play an important role” – if you have a healthy diet full of fruit and veg then antioxidant supplements are completely unnecessary.

It is important to look at the totality of the data. Goran’s Copenhagen group published a similar meta-analysis in JAMA last year which also showed that when high doses of fairly arbitrary combinations of a small number of micronutrients are taken in supplement form, there is an increase in mortality just over the threshold of statistical significance. This case now looks quite strong, and it is shortsighted (to put it mildly), for supplement salespeople to deny it.

However, it is unarguable that a diet rich in vitamins and phytonutients is associated with better health and life expectancy. It is also well documented that for us urbanised suckers, living at around 2,200 Kcals/day and making poor food choices to boot, dysnutrition a.k.a. Type B malnutrition is rife. (Check out the latest National Diet & Nutrition Surveys @ HMSO).

So, why do supplements not help, and even do harm? The answer is glaringly obvious, and is that today’s supplements are apallingly badly designed. Instead of making any attempt to ‘remedy the defects of the modern diet’, as the vitamin companies suggest, the content of these pills reflects merely what the hucksters think they can market, at profitable price points.

Yes, we should all be eating a well-balanced diet. But let’s be realistic; living as we do at a calorific throughput not very far above BMR, it has become impossible to obtain all the micro- and phyto-nutrients we need for good health even from a well-balanced diet.

This argument has been made in a number of publications, and will be extended in a series of three articles in an UK-based 5-star medical journal, starting in July (I think). If you’re interested, have a look and then let the real battle commence!