Is this NIH/Harvard study grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory?
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Do I smell another botched study?
I see no mention of titrating vitamin D
to actual 25 OH vitamin D3 serum levels
of this studies subjects.
Nor do I see any comment that they will
use vitamin D3. And they say they are
going to use a dose of "about 2000 IU
per day." What does this really mean?
Perhaps it will be a monthly bolus dose of the
the so-called vitamin D2 at 50,000 IU every month?
Which of course is not equal to 2000 IU per
day of vitamin D3. By the end of two weeks after
that dose of D2, the subjects will have lower serum
levels than if they didn't take a supplement!
Further, 2000 IU still too small a dose for many.
Granted IF they use 2000 IU of vitamin D3 it will be better
than the 200 and 400 IU used in earlier
studies. Nor do we get a hint if they'll use
gel-cap as opposed to tablets. That latter are
said to be inferior to the former as supplemental
sources. A rigorous study would have
a "high" dose track of about 8000 to 10000 IU per
day of vitamin D3 for a subset of subjects.
Nor is there mention of any reasonable schedule
of blood serum level checks. This is a huge issue!
Many studies have been marred by subjects failing
to take the studies specific vitamin supplement.
A rigorous study design would require such serum
testing during the run of testing.
Further, this supplement that should be paired
with a vitamin K2 supplement of a dose of
at least a half milligram. As vitamin K2
has an important role in managing where calcium
is and isn't deposited.
Nor do I see that they will be checking for
hyperparathyroidism among the prospective subjects.
I don't feel reassured that their aim is
"a rigorous study" from what I see.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
See some of my earlier comments on a somewhat similar
a study of vitamin D and its failings.
There are two comments of mine and related
abstracts.
First Comment with abstract:
(Remember this is a different vitamin D
study than the above which is still in
the future.)
What are these people thinking? Vitamin D2 is
known to be much less effective and to have a
shorter biological half life and
yet they chose to use it instead of vitamin D3.
It seems they are seeking to fail!!
Anyway this should be another nail in the coffin of the
ergocalciferol as an acceptable vitamin form.
=============================
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007 Nov 12; [Epub ahead of print]
Effect of annual intramuscular vitamin D on fracture
risk in elderly men and women a population-based,
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Smith H, Anderson F, Raphael H, Maslin P, Crozier S, Cooper C.
Department of Primary Care,
Division of Community-based Clinical Sciences,
Geriatric Medicine Group and MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre,
University of Southampton,
Southampton General Hospital,
Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.
Objectives.
Low trauma fractures in older people incur enormous
physical, social and economic costs. Previous research
indicates that an annual intramuscular injection
of vitamin D may reduce fracture rates in this group.
This strategy requires validation in a population setting.
Methods.
Randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial of 300 000 IU intramuscular (i.m.)
vitaminvD(2) (ergocalciferol) injection or matching
placebo every autumn over 3 years. 9440 people (4354 men and
5086 women) aged 75 yrs and over were recruited from
general practice registers in Wessex, England.
Primary outcome measure was all non-vertebral fracture.
Secondary outcomes were hip and wrist fractures, and all
falls.
Results.
585 subjects had incident non-spine fractures (hip 110,
wrist 116, ankle 37). Hazard ratios (HRs) for
fracture in the vitamin D group were:
1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.28, P = 0.29]
for any first fracture, 1.49 (95% CI 1.02-2.18, P = 0.04)
for hip and 1.22 (95% CI 0.85-1.76, P = 0.28)
for wrist.
There was no effect on falls: HR 0.98 (0.93-1.04).
No protective effect was observed in any subgroup
when the cohort was stratified by sex, age,
previous fracture or mobility.
Conclusions.
An annual i.m. injection of 300 000 IU vitamin D(2)
is not effective in preventing non-vertebral fractures among
elderly men and women resident in the general population.
PMID: 17998225
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two abstracts and my comments are below.
1: Scand J Rheumatol.
2008 Nov 5:1-5.
[Epub ahead of print]
The tolerability and biochemical effects of
high-dose bolus vitamin D2 and D3 supplementation
in patients with vitamin D insufficiency.
Leventis P, Kiely PD.
Department of Rheumatology, S
t George's Healthcare NHS Trust,
London, UK.
Objectives:
To investigate the practicality and
tolerability of high-dose intramuscular (i.m.) vitamin D2 or
oral vitamin D3 replacement in vitamin
D-insufficient patients, and to evaluate the
biochemical efficacy of each formulation.
Methods:
Sixty-nine patients with vitamin D insufficiency
[25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) <40 nmol/L] were recruited
from the Rheumatology Outpatient Department of St George's
Hospital, London.
In study 1,
50 patients received 300 000 IU i.m. vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol).
In study 2,
19 patients received 300 000 IU oral vitamin D3
(cholecalciferol) under observation.
Biochemical response was measured at baseline,
and at 12 and 24 weeks.
Results:
Bolus i.m. vitamin D2 or oral vitamin D3 was well tolerated.
The change from baseline in serum 25(OH)D was
significantly greater at 6 and 12 weeks in study 2
(p<0.0001 and <0.0001, respectively).
In study 1, a modest increase in mean serum
25(OH)D at 6, 12, and 24 weeks was observed
but no patients achieved a serum
25(OH)D concentration >/=50 nmol/L.
PTH remained elevated in 42% of patients with
secondary hyperparathyroidism at 12 weeks.
In study 2, 100% and 89% of patients
had serum 25(OH)D>50 nmol/L at 6 and 12 weeks,
respectively. All patients with elevated baseline PTH
were fully suppressed at 12 weeks. No cases of
hypercalcaemia were observed in either group.
Conclusion:
The 300 000-IU bolus of
vitamin D2 or D3 was practical, well tolerated,
and safe. Vitamin D3 had greater potency than
equimolar vitamin D2, with a higher, sustained
serum 25(OH)D response and efficacious PTH suppression.
To adequately treat vitamin D insufficiency we would
recommend administering 300 000 IU oral vitamin D3
approximately three times per year.
PMID: 18991184
My comments:
And as to the metabolites, one aspect of the difference
is blazingly obvious. When a subject takes ergosterol
instead of cholecalciferol, the next metabolites will be
25 hydroxylergosterol and not 25 hydroxylcholecalciferol
and then the activated forms will be 1,25 dihydroxyl
ergosterol instead of 1,25 dihydroxylcholecalciferol
(calcitriol).
Sessions (another poster in this earlier thread)
simply focuses on the aspect of vitamin D
being fat soluble; however, there are other
important issues in understanding
both the basic metabolism of the vitamin
and it context of our discussion the difference
between the cholecalciferol and ergosterol vitamin
analog. Analogues (at least some of them) don't bind as
well to either the calcitriol receptor or the vitamin
D binding protein. Note also there is
considerable species variation in these
aspects of the vitamin as I recall.
And as I've mentioned earlier high dose bolus
vitamin D2 can speed the metabolism of the
vitamin overall and after drop subjects
to below the starting baseline serum
levels after two weeks post dosing.
This (thankfully) is not true of natural
vitamin D3.
Hence various people have came to
conclusion that D3 is better
and safer than D2.
I've included a RECENT example below.
1: Rev Med Interne. 2008 Oct;29(10):815-20.
Epub 2008 Apr 11.
[Vitamin D2 or vitamin D3?]
[Article in French]
Mistretta VI, Delanaye P, Chapelle JP,
Souberbielle JC, Cavalier E.
Service de chimie médicale,
CHU de Liège,
université de Liège,
domaine du Sart-Tilman,
Liège, Belgique.
PURPOSE:
Nearly one billion people around the world are deficient
in vitamin D and need to be supplemented. Vitamin D is
available in medicines and fortified foods.
It is available in two forms: vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)
and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol).
KEY POINTS:
The pharmacopeiae consider these steroid hormones
as equivalent and interchangeable.
However, several studies have showed that
serum level of 25(OH)D is increased more
effectively with vitamin D3 than vitamin
D2. Vitamin D2 has shorter plasma half-life and
a lower affinity for the vitamin
D binding protein, the hepatic vitamin D hydroxylase
and the vitamin D receptor.
CONCLUSION:
Vitamin D2 should not be regarded anymore
as suitable for supplementation or fortification.
Currently though, it is still the most used in
some countries such as Portugal and Australia.
PMID: 18406498
..........Trig
fi...@guy.com
Do I smell another botched study?"
They specify the question being asked and as to amounts to be used.
What exact formulation is beyond the scope of such a press release.
If you want to ask other questions, then do your own study. Asking your
questions in ignorance does no one good and says little about why any
one should consider your opinion.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> "http://www.vitalstudy.org/
>
> Do I smell another botched study?"
>
> They specify the question being asked and as to amounts to be used.
> What exact formulation is beyond the scope of such a press release.
Really? Then what the point, just to to gather subjects?
The press and the public should just roll over and
take the press release without some critical thinking
and the resulting comments? Perhaps they
need to bake the cake before the press release
writer serves it?
>
> If you want to ask other questions, then do your own study.
It's taxpayers money.
>Asking your
> questions in ignorance does no one good and says little about why any
> one should consider your opinion.
Doesn't it? Better to toe tag a studies possible faults before it gets
going.
There were voices of doubt as to the SELECT study of vitamin E
and selenium and they were right! Those researchers ended up
stopping that study. 400 IU of racemic vitamin E every other day?
Sheesh. That impairs both gamma tocopherol levels evey day
and the alpha tocopherol levels every other day due to the
shorter biological half the vitamin analogs in the the racemic
form used. IF, these researchers use bolus dosing of vitamin D2,
it is a repeat of a similar flaw in dosing.
I expressed my concerns and they may prove to accurate.
I hope not. Note that I did provide references.
If someone is going to be involved in a study, it would be
nice to convinced it had a design that maximized chances
of benefits. ..............................................Trig
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
So much for basing comments on a @#$% press release.
Well it seems SOME of my concerns were mistaken.
They are claiming that they plan to use vitamin D3.
I still hold my reservation as to dose size which
is 1600 IU per day. They are apparently assuming
the multiple vitamin with 400 IUs of some sort of
vitamin D. And if one forgets up to 1/3 of pills
one can still stay in the study.
See study proposal abstract included below:
Abstract:
We propose to conduct a large, cost-effective,
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2x2 factorial
trial of vitamin D (in the form of vitamin D3 [cholecalciferol])
and marine omega-3 fatty acid (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] +
docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) supplements in the primary
prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Data from laboratory studies, epidemiologic research, small
primary prevention trials, and/or large secondary prevention
trials strongly suggest that these nutritional agents reduce
cancer or CVD risk, but large primary prevention trials with
adequate dosing in general populations (i.e., unselected for
disease risk) are lacking. Growing enthusiasm for supplemental
vitamin D and fish oil underscores the urgent need for a timely
initiation of such a trial, before their use becomes so prevalent
(through supplements and fortification of the food supply) as to
render participant recruitment and hypothesis testing impossible.
The proposed trial will be conducted among 20,000 men aged e60 and
women aged e65, to be recruited from a mailing to 1.2 million
persons, including health and other professionals, members of
AARP (formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons),
and others. The mailing will contain a letter describing the
trial, an informed consent form, and a questionnaire soliciting
information on past medical history, cancer and vascular risk
factors, diet, and medication and nutritional supplement use.
Willing and eligible respondents will be enrolled in a 3-month
run-in, during which they will receive placebos. At the end of
the run-in, those who remain willing and eligible, and who
report having taken at least two-thirds of the pills, will
be randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups for 5 years:
vitamin D3 (1600 IU/d) and fish oil (EPA+DHA, 1 g/d);
vitamin D3 and fish oil placebo; placebo vitamin D3 and fish oil;
and placebo vitamin D3 and placebo fish oil. Blood samples will
be collected and stored to allow assessment of effect modification
by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid levels,
as well as future ancillary studies of genetic/biochemical
hypotheses. At 1-year intervals, participants will receive
a new supply of pills and a follow-up questionnaire on
compliance, possible side effects, and incidence of
endpoints. Endpoints will be confirmed by medical
record review. Given our success with prior mail-based
large simple trials and cohort studies, as well as results
of a pilot study in the intended source population,
we believe the trial will be able to provide either
definitive positive or informative null results regarding
the study hypotheses.
PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE:
The purported health benefits of vitamin D and marine omega-3
fatty acids are receiving increasing attention in the medical
literature and the popular press. However, definitive data on
health benefits and risks of these agents are lacking.
Findings from this large clinical trial will clarify the
role of vitamin D and marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements
in the primary prevention of cancer and cardiovascular
disease in men and women.
fi...@guy.com
they plan to use vitamin D3. I still hold my reservation as to dose size
which is 1600 IU per day. They are apparently assuming the multiple
vitamin with 400 IUs of some sort of vitamin D. And if one forgets up
to 1/3 of pills one can still stay in the study."
No mistake, just the obvious that the comments were a platform to preach
about things not provided in the abstract. As we note again above in
the guesses made.
They provide the basis for the design of the study, your accepting it
notwithstanding.
fi...@guy.com
> What exact formulation is beyond the scope of such a press release.
"Really? Then what the point, just to to gather subjects?"
In part yes, this makes public notice of the upcoming study so subjects
can be refered.
"The press and the public should just roll over and "take the press
release without some critical thinking and the resulting comments?
Perhaps they need to bake the cake before the press release writer
serves it?"
Not on the basis of your comments for sure.
>
> If you want to ask other questions, then do your own study.
"It's taxpayers money."
Yup, and right along with the multiple millions spent for cam research
crammed down the throat of tax payers on a political basis not a
scientific one, that has to now shown cam has few merits.
>Asking your
> questions in ignorance does no one good and says little about why any
> one should consider your opinion.
"Doesn't it? Better to toe tag a studies possible faults before it gets
going."
On the basis of your opinion? Nope, if you were in the mainstream of
the research community on this question you would have a voice.
Providing opinion in a news group is irrelevant.
Additional speculation offered from ignorance of the details of the
study snipped
jw
account the n-6/n3 ratio in the subjects' diets. Adding 1 g of fish
oil to the typical american diet, hellishly overloaded with omega-6
fatty acids, will probably not budge them far from their pro-
inflammatory, pathogenic lives. If so, then they can be sold some
expensive pharmaceuticals and not bother with unproven regimes like
lowering n-6 intake, adding n3, D3, vegetables, exercise, etc.
Biomed Pharmacother. 2006 Nov;60(9):502-7. Epub 2006 Aug 28.
Evolutionary aspects of diet, the omega-6/omega-3 ratio and genetic
variation: nutritional implications for chronic diseases.
Simopoulos AP.
The Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, 2001 S Street, NW,
Suite 530, 20009 Washington, DC, USA. cg...@bellatlantic.net
Anthropological and epidemiological studies and studies at the
molecular level indicate that human beings evolved on a diet with a
ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFA) of
approximately 1 whereas in Western diets the ratio is 15/1 to 16.7/1.
A high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's Western diets,
promotes the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular
disease, cancer, osteoporosis, and inflammatory and autoimmune
diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty
acids (PUFA) (a lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio), exert suppressive
effects. Increased dietary intake of linoleic acid (LA) leads to
oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL), platelet aggregation, and
interferes with the incorporation of EFA in cell membrane
phospholipids. Both omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids influence gene
expression. Omega-3 fatty acids have anti-inflammatory effects,
suppress interleukin 1beta (IL-1beta), tumor necrosis factor-alpha
(TNFalpha) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), whereas omega-6 fatty acids do
not. Because inflammation is at the base of many chronic diseases,
dietary intake of omega-3 fatty acids plays an important role in the
manifestation of disease, particularly in persons with genetic
variation, as for example in individuals with genetic variants at the
5-lipoxygenase (5-LO). Carotid intima media thickness (IMT) taken as a
marker of the atherosclerotic burden is significantly increased, by
80%, in the variant group compared to carriers with the common allele,
suggesting increased 5-LO promoter activity associated with the
(variant) allele. Dietary arachidonic acid (AA) and LA increase the
risk for cardiovascular disease in those with the variants, whereas
dietary intake of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid
(DHA) decrease the risk. A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids
is needed for the prevention and management of chronic diseases.
Because of genetic variation, the optimal omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid
ratio would vary with the disease under consideration.
PMID: 17045449 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
I don't have to accept it. Prove me wrong with primary references.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> > They specify the question being asked and as to amounts to be used.
> =A0
> > What exact formulation is beyond the scope of such a press release.
>
> "Really? Then what the point, just to to gather subjects?"
>
> In part yes, this makes public notice of the upcoming study so subjects
> can be refered.
>
> "The press and the public should just roll over and "take the press
> release without some critical thinking and the resulting comments?
> Perhaps they need to bake the cake before the press release writer
> serves it?"
>
> Not on the basis of your comments for sure.
>
>
>
> > If you want to ask other questions, then do your own study.
>
> "It's taxpayers money."
>
> Yup, and right along with the multiple millions spent for cam research
> crammed down the throat of tax payers on a political basis not a
> scientific one, that has to now shown cam has few merits.
So you think this is CAM related research?
>
> >Asking your
> > questions in ignorance does no one good and says little about why any
> > one should consider your opinion.
>
> "Doesn't it? Better to toe tag a studies possible faults before it gets
> going."
>
> On the basis of your opinion? Nope, if you were in the mainstream of
> the research community on this question you would have a voice.
> Providing opinion in a news group is irrelevant.
So then why are you complaining? I was only commenting.
I provided references and could have provided references
for most or even all of "my" opinions. I've never seen
you provide a reference for any of your comments
and complaints posted to the Usenet. Granted, I haven't
followed you closely.
>
> Additional speculation offered from ignorance of the details of the
> study snipped
You're ignorant as well ;-)
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> This study is designed to fail, unless they measure and take into
> account the n-6/n3 ratio in the subjects' diets. Adding 1 g of fish
> oil to the typical american diet, hellishly overloaded with omega-6
> fatty acids, will probably not budge them far from their pro-
> inflammatory, pathogenic lives. If so, then they can be sold some
> expensive pharmaceuticals and not bother with unproven regimes like
> lowering n-6 intake, adding n3, D3, vegetables, exercise, etc.
>
> Biomed Pharmacother. 2006 Nov;60(9):502-7. Epub 2006 Aug 28.
> Evolutionary aspects of diet, the omega-6/omega-3 ratio and genetic
> variation: nutritional implications for chronic diseases.
> Simopoulos AP.
> The Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, 2001 S Street, NW,
I was hoping some would get to that issue. Though they aim
to supplement with a gram of EPA and DHA not just a gram
of fish oil which might only provide 300 mg of EPA and DHA.
I do agree adjusting overall fatty acid intake fatty acid types
is important.
Pramesh Rutaji
With a lab reference range for blood levels of D3 (metabolites tested)
at 32-100 ng/ml, it takes me 9000 IU of D3 per day, each and ever day,
to keep my blood levels in the 60-70 ng/ml range. In some email lists
I'm on, a lot of people test their vitamin D levels for the first time
and they find them to be in the range 10-25 ng/ml. The rule of thumb
from the experts in the vitamin D field indicate that it takes roughly
1000 IU of D3 per day to raise blood levels 10 ng/ml. That varies a lot
from individual so testing is important. To get one's blood levels
towards the optimum, which is between 50 and 80 ng/ml depending on the
expert, one would have to take between 2500 to 7000 IU/day of D3
depending on starting point and target levels. However, I do think that
1600 IU/day of D3 will have significant anti cancer benefits if they
study this for at least 5 years and will decrease heart disease,
diabetes, and other common diseases.
I have been taking 13,000 IU of D3 for several months now and when I
test next, hope to have blood levels in the 70-80 ng/ml.
--
Pramesh Rutaji
p297ton...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
fi...@guy.com
>
> Yup, and right along with the multiple millions spent for cam research
> crammed down the throat of tax payers on a political basis not a
> scientific one, that has to now shown cam has few merits.
"So you think this is CAM related research?"
No, but the comment is in reference to your whining about who supports
it and you whining that in your opinion it is not money well spent. If
you want to whine, do it about the cam stuff which exists because some
congressmen forced it to be done and not because burning scientific
questions were at issue. All at the expense of both the tax payer and
places it could have supported substantive research.
>
> On the basis of your opinion? =A0Nope, if you were in the mainstream
of
> the research community on this question you would have a voice. =A0
> Providing opinion in a news group is irrelevant.
"So then why are you complaining? I was only commenting. I provided
references and could have provided references for most or even all of
"my" opinions. I've never seen you provide a reference for any of your
comments"
Because you have set yourself up to be taken as some serious critic of
the yet to be done study. No reference need be offered, your opinion is
the topic and not the diversionary comments you offer about what you
guess might be some nutritional this and that matters.
fi...@guy.com
that
> they plan to use vitamin D3. I still hold my reservation as to dose
size
> which is 1600 IU per day. They are apparently assuming the multiple
> to 1/3 of pills one can still stay in the study."
>
> No mistake, just the obvious that the comments were a platform to
preach
> the guesses made.
>
> They provide the basis for the design of the study, your accepting it
> notwithstanding.
"I don't have to accept it. Prove me wrong with primary references."
Why should your primary guesses about the study be taken seriously
because you have an opinion? It will be the study results not your
preconcieved guesses that will count, you need "not accept" anything
because you are irrelevant to the entire process because you have no
standing in the scientific community.
fi...@guy.com
lowering n-6 intake, adding n3, D3, vegetables, exercise, etc."
Yet another pre-study guesser.
They mention collecting dietary and life style info about each
participant. It is routine in such studies to do multivariant analysis
to discover if other factors are involved as they might vary with which
arm of the study.
If they are looking for dietary benefit for the stated disorders of
interest to them, the comments about "selling" them anything is so much
hot air. Advising fish oil and vit d has found increasing acceptance in
the clinical community based on such research. They are trying to tease
out what might be a good combination for what results. Your comments
about 6/3 ratios are based on research, would you have such info not
discovered?
auvee
kudos for your measured and incisive replies (also five stars) to the
"fi...guy" blinkered bluster.
auvee
On Dec 29, 11:03 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |"
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Then I am irrelevant from your point of view, I get that. And so are
you, IMO.
Quit pounding the podium with your shoe. What have you added to
the discussion in the way of content other than heat. I doubt you
would even be aware of the study had I not mentioned it. You can
claim otherwise. You might even be a warm body with a chair
at Harvard given how exercised you are.
Don't do road rage; be mellow........................Trig
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> Because you have set yourself up to be taken as some serious critic of
> the yet to be done study. No reference need be offered, your opinion is
> the topic and not the diversionary comments you offer about what you
> guess might be some nutritional this and that matters.
It is your topic.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> > "It's taxpayers money."
>
> > Yup, and right along with the multiple millions spent for cam research
> > crammed down the throat of tax payers on a political basis not a
> > scientific one, that has to now shown cam has few merits.
>
> "So you think this is CAM related research?"
>
> No, but the comment is in reference to your whining about who supports
> it and you whining that in your opinion it is not money well spent. If
> you want to whine, do it about the cam stuff which exists because some
> congressmen forced it to be done and not because burning scientific
> questions were at issue. All at the expense of both the tax payer and
> places it could have supported substantive research.
>
The SELECT study was a huge waste of time. It was poorly designed.
Hence my concern this VITAL study could use improvement in design.
And without targeting serum 25 OH levels and titrating the dose
this study is suboptimal. Its better than nothing.
>
>
> > On the basis of your opinion? =A0Nope, if you were in the mainstream
> of
> > the research community on this question you would have a voice. =A0
> > Providing opinion in a news group is irrelevant.
>
> "So then why are you complaining? I was only commenting. I provided
> references and could have provided references for most or even all of
> "my" opinions. I've never seen you provide a reference for any of your
> comments"
>
> Because you have set yourself up to be taken as some serious critic of
> the yet to be done study. No reference need be offered, your opinion is
> the topic and not the diversionary comments you offer about what you
> guess might be some nutritional this and that matters.
Nothing you say matters either.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
^ do ur homework trig
* then start whininghttp://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/Funding/abstract.aspx?g=1U01C...
Read what is posted. The link in your posting is what I posted in my
second posting
to this thread in fully unedited form from that site. Compare the
two.
Sheesh.
If I am whining you're bitching and
faking...............................Trig
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> trigonometry1...@gmail.com | <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > # On Dec 30, 4:14 pm, me <m...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > ^ do ur homework trig
> > * then start whininghttp://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/Funding/abstract.aspx?g=1U01C...
>
> > Read what is posted. The link in your posting is what I posted in my
> > second posting
> > to this thread in fully unedited form from that site.
>
> and pontificating about how they'd likely use an inferior d2 etc
> before doing your homework
>
> only then you discover it is d3
> not a bolus dose
> and the levels are to be monitored
>
> what else you don't know?
>
> one would have to agee with fish:
> bunch of empty wonderings born out of ignorance
And my ignorance as reflected in my first posting to
this thread reflected the failings
of the press report. Perhaps the more interesting
question is what you don't know. And
I hopefully you'll acknowledge you're bitching
and have an inability to follow a thread, lol.
Anyway I still have a point about their failing to confirm
serum levels and titrating of dose to a predetermined
goal.
Actually, I am mildly hopefully about this study and Harvard.
Happy I could help you beat your chest....................Trig
MikeV
new year resolution?
U are in danger of becoming as irritating as monti. Ur user name says it
all.
Thanks for your kind, forward-looking consideration.
Mike V
"me" <m...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:6uncmn38...@nowhere.invalid...
> trigonom...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Actually, I am mildly hopefully about this study and Harvard.
>
> that is so good to know
> i wonder if harvard is mildly 'hopefully' about u 2
> go hug ur twin bro 'independent scholar' monty then stfu
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> ok mike no prob im stfuing as we speak
>
> but i'd like to touch on the issue of the "select" study and the like
>
> yall can debate ad nauseam which stereoisomers of vit e and
> in what relative proportions should've been used to optimize
> the likelihood of cancer prevention
>
> this misses the point completely
>
> the fact is, majority of vit e sold and consumed is what was used
> in the study and so the question is: is that effective?
>
> trig would say we knew the answer but that's still a guess even if
> educated
>
> medical science is incremental and you have to live with that
In that sense, one can measure the SELECT study as a success.
But it was already known that the racemic vitamin E was inferior.
Mainly though the SELECT was a successful as being a waste of time.
Much better would it have been to use a regimen that had
a higher chance of true benefit.
Even prior to the start of the SELECT others were able to make
the following comment in this review article:
1. Curr Drug Targets. 2003 Jan;4(1):45-54.
Cancer chemoprevention drug targets.
Krishnan K, Campbell S, Abdel-Rahman F,
Whaley S, Stone WL.
James H. Quillen Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
Johnson City, TN 37614, USA.
kris...@etsu.edu
Cancer chemoprevention is a new approach in the
management of cancer. Traditional cytotoxic
chemotherapeutic approaches cannot cure most advanced
solid malignancies. Chemoprevention can be defined
as the use of non-cytotoxic drugs
and natural agents to block the progression to invasive cancer.
<huge snip>
The different isoforms of
vitamin E (tocopherols) may be chemopreventive. Recent evidence
indicates that
gamma-tocopherol may be a more powerful chemopreventive than the
alpha-tocopherol. <snip>
PMID: 12528989 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
The devil is in the detail........................Trig
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
need to test gamma T. Note that the date is well prior to
the start of the SELECT study.
1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Dec 20;92(24):2018-23.
Association between alpha-tocopherol, gamma-tocopherol, selenium, and
subsequent
prostate cancer.
Helzlsouer KJ, Huang HY, Alberg AJ, Hoffman S, Burke A, Norkus EP,
Morris JS,
Comstock GW.
Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and
Public
Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Khel...@jhsph.edu
Comment in:
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Dec 20;92(24):1966-7.
<huge whopping snip>
CONCLUSIONS: The use of combined alpha- and gamma- tocopherol
supplements
should be considered in upcoming prostate cancer prevention trials,
given the
observed interaction between alpha-tocopherol, gamma-tocopherol, and
selenium.
PMID: 11121464 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Full article is available without charge by way of PUBMED provided
link
on Pubmed.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
wrote:
Thanks for you excellent comment.