A Prediction About Resveratrol
eighthman
continues, an event will happen.
Suddenly, a "double blind study" will appear and be widely released
to the press "proving"
that resveratrol "is ineffective and possibly toxic". The study will (
of course) hide the
financial connections of the researchers to the pharmaceutical
industry. It will be widely
quoted by "quackbusters" and individuals who discreetly belong to the
"let's all die on
schedule" fundamentalists and others who secretly wish that life
extension progress goes away.
They did it to fish oil
They did it to DHEA
It's just a matter of time. By the way, NPR recently ran a story
critical of studies and research
that are swayed by subtle drug company influence.
Wait and see
Howell Heflin www.ytepower.com
<chri...@clearchannel.com> wrote:
Drug companies are of course hostile to any natural supplement,
particularly those which actually improve health. Their whole
business model demands millions of sick and dying people, all of whom
need powerful, expensive prescription drugs to stay alive....
Alan Pollock
> If the good news about resveratrol and its anti-aging effects
> continues, an event will happen.
> Suddenly, a "double blind study" will appear and be widely released
> to the press "proving"
> that resveratrol "is ineffective and possibly toxic". The study will (
And quite possibly lower the price. Nex
David
favorite supplement that when *any* negative information comes to light
about it, they feel the need to attribute it to a vast pharmaceutical
conspiracy instead of considering that there just may be an
imperfection in their loved one? No supplement (or drug, for that
matter) is "all good" or "all bad".
rj...@my-deja.com
David
> It has already started:
> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061130-114522-9504r
Can you refute anything from that news story? Has resveratrol been
shown to do the same thing in humans as it does in mice?
I choose to take resveratrol, but I acknowledge that I'm taking a risk
because there a lot of unknowns at this point. I empathize completely
with those who recommend waiting for more studies.
rj...@my-deja.com
Every eukarytoic form of life that it's been tried on, it's worked
without negative effects. People have taken as much as 21 grams at a
time, without ill effect. Wait for the studies and you'll be dead. At
this point, the chances of it not working are pretty slim. I'd say
non-existent.
You can kill a mouse with it, if you bury one in the powder so that he
suffocates.
David
about any potential for long-term toxicity in humans or if it has any
beneficial effects in humans whatsoever.
People who advocate being more on the conservative side and waiting for
more research are not automatically part of a pharmaceutical
conspiracy--they're just more cautious. You can disagree with their
perspective without being paranoid about it.
D J.@hoyme.com Mark D J.
news:1164987046.6...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> Why is it that some persons are just so much in love with their
> favorite supplement that when *any* negative information comes to light
> about it, they feel the need to attribute it to a vast pharmaceutical
> conspiracy instead of considering that there just may be an
> imperfection in their loved one?
Because of what we keep seeing, cupcake. Curious about the effectiveness of
a supplement like 'Vitamin E'? Then be prepared to see nothing but
short-term, single agent studies which see tiny amounts of the
least-beneficial form given to groups of people who already suffer from
chronic health problems. The results: 'Vitamin E supplementation doesn't do
any good'. Big fucking surprise.
M.
zetav
well said, completely agree.
TheAnomlee
speaking of vitamin E, kind of scary that the once sacred anti-oxidant
is now widely known to have potentially lethal effects. Some
interesting new studies on pubmed (the one universally accepted source
of sources) recommend against using vitamin E as a daily supplement.
I'm too tired (it's 2:10am) to cut and paste lots of articles, but
here's just one:
an easy search for "vitamin e" and "Mortality" will conjure up many
more.
Scary - one day the best supplement ever, the next day the best thing
to stay away from.
-<[JD]>-
"I would never do crack... I would never do a drug named
after a part of my own ass, okay?" - Denis Leary.
D J.@hoyme.com Mark D J.
news:1165054441....@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.
>
> speaking of vitamin E, kind of scary that the once sacred anti-oxidant
> is now widely known to have potentially lethal effects. Some
> interesting new studies on pubmed (the one universally accepted source
> of sources) recommend against using vitamin E as a daily supplement.
> I'm too tired (it's 2:10am) to cut and paste lots of articles, but
> here's just one:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16841333&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> an easy search for "vitamin e" and "Mortality" will conjure up many
> more.
>
> Scary - one day the best supplement ever, the next day the best thing
> to stay away from.
>
See what I mean, people? In the end, a single-agent study: USELESS. We don't
see what form of Vitamin E they used: USELESS. The subjects are patients who
have developed cancer and are undergoing radiation therapy: USELESS.
M.
eighthman
I am not "in love" with resveratrol or any other supplement. Nor am I
unaware that all
such substances always have some side effect or downside. However, I
accept
Yossarian's wisdom ( in Catch 22) that just because you're paranoid
doesn't mean
that they aren't trying to kill you!
Here's the critical point:
YOU DON'T HAVE A FAIR, LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IN THE FIELD OF SUPPLEMENTS
VS. DRUGS!
The big money is on the side of the drug companies, with all that
entails. Political
events in the past few years should not leave anyone naive about the
effects of lies,
spin, half truths and propaganda in the clash of nations. Should we
expect that humans
are somehow different simply because they happen to wear lab coats and
bear the title
"Doctor"? As opposed to "President", "Senator", or "Esquire"?
I regret saying that, in the end, it may be common people themselves
who validate
the use of various supplements by simply feeling better or living
longer - and that's
why supplements need a LACK of regulation. I wish it were otherwise -
but "any port
in a storm".
David
eighthman wrote:
> The big money is on the side of the drug companies, with all that
> entails. Political events in the past few years should not leave anyone naive about the
> effects of lies, spin, half truths and propaganda in the clash of nations.
>From my experience, by far the worst offenders in the realm of "lies,
half-truths and propaganda" are nutritional supplement retailers, many
of whom have no problem inflating or twisting scientific research to
support their health claims as well as doing their best to discredit
any studies which contradict their beloved supplement.
Such persons *want* you to believe that there is a pharmaceutical
conspiracy to smear nutritional supplements because once accepting such
a viewpoint, you will immediately dismiss contradictory evidence, no
matter how strong, because naturally it's just "part of the
conspiracy." They've succeeded in getting you to completely bypass any
critical thought process because in your mind, any such negative
research is inherently untrustworthy.
It's amazing how so many otherwise-intelligent persons have fallen for
this common ploy.
njnava...@yahoo.com
turns up over 1600 hits, many or most of which imply some kind of
health benefits, I suppose I would take issue with the statement that
resveratrol's popularity as a dietary supplement is "largely baseless".
xvart
not cause cancer along with all the industry funded studies that
proclaimed
this truth.
Entities lie because they gain from the lie, peer review minimises that
but only
when actively applied.
Will resveratrol cause side effects, possibly if you as said previously
you follow the
"bury yourself in it" rule, and maybe it does, but what doesn't, you
can die from
too much water. Get over it.
eighthman
Drug people can tell lies. Supplement people can tell lies. Who has
more money and
power to support those lies?
Your sweeping statements about "completely bypassing" evidence are
nonsense.
You're creating a straw man - and surprize! You can knock him down!
David
eighthman wrote:
> Drug people can tell lies. Supplement people can tell lies. Who has
> more money and power to support those lies?
Yes, it really is a shame that nutritional supplement retailers don't
have more money and power so that they can then support an equivalent
number of lies to that of the pharmaceutical industry. Maybe with
people like you to champion their cause, one day that will happen!
> Your sweeping statements about "completely bypassing" evidence are
> nonsense.
Are they? I've seen person after person, year after year, who ignore
contradictory evidence about their favorite supplement because of an
alleged government/pharmaceutical conspiracy to "suppress" all of the
wonderful research showing that the particular supplement slows aging
and has all kinds of amazing effects against various diseases. It's a
common marketing ploy, very effective against the weak-minded and
gullible.
Thomas Carter
Hi JD,
An interesting small study on E supplementation in a particular group
of patients. I would guess that the alpha tocopherol used reduced
levels of other forms of E causing the effect, but there could be any
number of other reasons. Here, for the first time anywhere is the full
picture.
The small, possible, detrimental relationship between Vitamin E and
mortality was only "widely known" between Jan. '05 and July,
'05 which were the dates of the publication of PMID: 15537682 and
PMID 16027469. The former, by Miller et al, reported a 4% increase of
mortality in randomized studies (nineteen reports dealing with 136.000
subjects) for the use of alpha tocopherol, many of which concurrently
gave other substances. This finding was widely reported in the popular
press of the USA, however in July '05 about 8 critical comments on
this paper were published in the same Journal, "The Annals of
Internal Medicine". The latter PMID mentioned above was one of these
and exposed an error in the conclusion of the meta study. The error was
namely the failure to adjust for those papers reporting on the
concurrent use of vit E and beta carotene without exclusion of smokers.
Adjustment for this still widely known mortality risk eliminated the 4%
increase in mortality. This fact was later repeated by Jialal and
Devaraj, two well known vit E epidemiologists, and has been
subsequently mentioned at least twice in the popular press, mostly
notably in New Scientist. (Aug. 5, '06 page 42) This
anti-antioxidant article made a point to mention that the work by
Miller et al has been reanalyzed and found to be "flawed". This is
a quote of their critique: "'It's flawed' asserts Azzi. 'We
re-analyzed the data and there is no change in mortality.' 'Most
people agree that there is no good evidence that large doses are
harmful.' Adds Stocker."
As is the custom Miller et al responded one by one to the criticizing
commentaries, rebutting much of the criticism, but ignoring the key
claim that beta-carotene, not vitamin E was the true cause of the 4%
increase in mortality risk. (PMID: 16027457) For those well conversant
with the current literature the prevailing conclusion is now that alpha
tocopherol supplementation is not harmful in the general population.
Another observation was made in the commentary mentioned above.
(16027469) This article noted that the very data provided by Miller et
al showed a significant mortality benefit with a dose response in
studies giving vitamin E concurrently with sufficient vitamin C.
Here's the quote:
"Analysis of the relationship between mortality and the ratio of
vitamin C to vitamin E given in the studies shows a strong significant
trend toward less mortality, with no effect or a small detrimental
effect possible at a ratio of less than unity. This analysis culminates
in
the significant 47% reduction of mortality seen at the dosages of 440
IU/d for vitamin E and 1 g/d for vitamin C in the Polyp Prevention
Study. This relationship is consistent with in vitro and epidemiologic
literature and the very corroborative HDL Atherosclerosis Treatment
Study (HATS), which showed a near-complete stop to progression of
plaque in coronary arteries with supplementation of vitamin C and
vitamin E at a ratio of more than 2"
This observation was also ignored in the rebuttal by Miller et al.
(Except that they replied to the HATS claim, but failed to rebut
it.)The Miller et al meta analysis is the largest and most recent work
done on the results of vitamin E given in randomized trials. While the
authors failed to properly analyze their work, the data itself has not
been disputed and stands as the definitive summary of the randomized
trials of alpha tocopherol. The Miller et al report taken along with
the later commentaries as a whole is the definitive summary of vitamin
E trial literature, and clearly shows no harm from vit E as well as a
strong benefit to vitamin E supplementation when taken with sufficient
vit C.
The randomized trial literature for the consumption of at least 400 IU
of E taken with a gram of C is unanimous in showing benefits in the
trial endpoints or important secondary endpoints such as mortality.
(the polyp study for instance showed no benefit for colon cancer, but
did show a significant 47% benefit in the secondary endpoint of overall
mortality.)
There is promising evidence that vitamin E succinate, as well as full
spectrum vitamin E which better reflects natural E from foods is even
more beneficial, and some hope that higher doses of C also benefit the
picture.
I have also noted that there is a dose response evident in the Miller
et al data which shows a smaller benefit at lower doses of C and E with
a greater one at the higher doses. This dose response is independent of
the one noted in which the response is greater with a higher ratio of C
to E.
The table giving the vitamin E trials is free on line in the full text
of the Miller el al paper and should be intensely studied by anyone not
taking the beneficial doses of C and E. Other supplements given in some
of the trials along with E and C were fish oil, zinc and selenium. All
papers giving these showed a mortality benefit. Inclusion of these in a
regimen with C and E will give the user the benefit of the totality of
human trials reported in the peer reviewed literature of Vitamin E.
There is no credible scientific evidence published anywhere that
contradicts that of this post, and little that extends it. Furthermore,
the evidence is large enough on the issue of harm that it is conclusive
and is virtually certain not to change with time. In contrast, the
mortality BENEFIT of the indicated regimen is very persuasive, but not
yet conclusive due to a smaller number of trials which gave E with
sufficient amounts of other supplements.
Since the misreporting of the vitamin E literature is sure to continue,
and the existence of a proven, good risk benefit ratio will likely not
be reported with the quality of evidence I've presented here, I will
repeat my summary.
HUMAN RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS OF VITAMIN E SUPPLEMENTATION PROVE IT
HARMLESS, AND STRONGLY SUGGEST A HUGE BENEFIT WHEN TAKEN WITH ENOUGH C,
FISH OIL, ZINC, AND SELENIUM. In this context C is key adjuvant factor,
fish oil, and selenium were given in only one study each, and zinc in
two. Studies with C given at a ratio of much less than two to one with
E showed no mortality benefit.
I'll close with a repeat of my admonition that C may be harmful to
female diabetics and those with the HAP2-2 genetic morphology.
Thomas
eighthman
"an equivalent number of lies to that of the pharmaceutical industry.
"
Thank you for confirming the central point about drugs vs supplements.
David
eighthman wrote:
> "an equivalent number of lies to that of the pharmaceutical industry.
> "
>
> Thank you for confirming the central point about drugs vs supplements.
Sounds like somebody needs a lesson in sarcasm recognition. (:^>