4 ms·

I agree entirely. Also, instead of giving proper references to papers, the author takes the scumbag approach of being vague "in 2004, a review of 14 randomized

by lake99 13y ago

I agree entirely. Also, instead of giving proper references to papers, the author takes the scumbag approach of being vague "in 2004, a review of 14 randomized trials for the Cochrane Database found that the supplemental vitamins A, C, E and beta carotene, and a mineral, selenium, taken to prevent intestinal cancers, actually increased mortality." That, alone, should qualify this article as tripe.

jstsch 13y ago
This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. Providing all those direct references would not make for good reading. The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up.
- lake99 13y ago
  > This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. This is the attitude that I'm trying to address. > This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. Look at this discussion on HN. How many of them give references. Is their writing any less clear for it? > The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up. Refer to my earlier comment about accuracy and context.
DanBC 13y ago
The Cochrane Review is a widely respected organisation who publish careful, reviewed, systematic meta-studies. Here's a link to a metastudy about gastro-intestinal cancer and anti-oxidant supplements. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004183/antioxidant-supplements-cannot-be-recommended-for-gastrointestinal-cancer-prevention http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004183/antioxidant-supplemen...) That introduction is very clear. it is unambiguous. "Trial quality was exceptionally good". "Based on properly designed and conducted randomised clinical trials, convincing evidence that beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E or their combinations may prevent gastrointestinal cancers is not found [...] These antioxidant supplements even seem to increase mortality." Here's the study for lung cancer. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002141/antioxidant-drugs-for-preventing-lung-cancer-in-healthy-people http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002141/antioxidant-drugs-for...) Note that these people would really want to find effective cheap treatments for cancer, so it is in their interest to find that vitamin supplements work.
- relix 13y ago
  The trials show vitamins don't help cancer patients. They also show that OD-level supplementation of vitamins that are hard on the liver (vitamin A) increase mortality in cancer patients. That last part shouldn't surprise anyone. I'm sure if you give weakened people who already take chemo and whatnot, high levels of anything, mortality will increase. They say nothing about the effects of healthy people, or the effects of lower (common) doses. I don't understand how the author jumps from that, to the concusion that multivitamin pills are bad for everyone.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Your answer is posted 9 minutes after my response. Did you read the Cochrane meta study in that time? Did you read any of the original studies in that time?
- lake99 13y ago
  I'm not looking for cheap ways to cure or prevent cancer. With that out of the way, I can talk about why I find references important. > That introduction is very clear. it is unambiguous. No it wasn't, on both counts. Vitamins A, D and E are widely known to cause hypervitaminosis. Of course I wouldn't want to over-eat those. What about C, that they mentioned? Cohchrane Review might be widely respected. That does not mean that everyone who cites them does it accurately, with full context. If he had given links at the end of his rag, I could have verified the details for myself.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    I agree that it is important to provide references. You've already called him a scumbag. Thus, you won't trust whatever he provides. If he had provided a list of references you would have accused him of cherry picking. The fact that you quibble with Cochrane reviews tells me all I need to know. (That this discussion is unlikely to be of any use or interest to me.) > Of course I wouldn't want to over-eat those. Did you read the meta-study? Did you read any of the original studies?

by lake99 13y ago

jstsch 13y ago

This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. Providing all those direct references would not make for good reading. The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up.

lake99 13y ago
> This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. This is the attitude that I'm trying to address. > This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. Look at this discussion on HN. How many of them give references. Is their writing any less clear for it? > The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up. Refer to my earlier comment about accuracy and context.

DanBC 13y ago

The Cochrane Review is a widely respected organisation who publish careful, reviewed, systematic meta-studies. Here's a link to a metastudy about gastro-intestinal cancer and anti-oxidant supplements. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004183/antioxidant-supplements-cannot-be-recommended-for-gastrointestinal-cancer-prevention http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004183/antioxidant-supplemen...) That introduction is very clear. it is unambiguous. "Trial quality was exceptionally good". "Based on properly designed and conducted randomised clinical trials, convincing evidence that beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E or their combinations may prevent gastrointestinal cancers is not found [...] These antioxidant supplements even seem to increase mortality." Here's the study for lung cancer. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002141/antioxidant-drugs-for-preventing-lung-cancer-in-healthy-people http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002141/antioxidant-drugs-for...) Note that these people would really want to find effective cheap treatments for cancer, so it is in their interest to find that vitamin supplements work.

relix 13y ago
The trials show vitamins don't help cancer patients. They also show that OD-level supplementation of vitamins that are hard on the liver (vitamin A) increase mortality in cancer patients. That last part shouldn't surprise anyone. I'm sure if you give weakened people who already take chemo and whatnot, high levels of anything, mortality will increase. They say nothing about the effects of healthy people, or the effects of lower (common) doses. I don't understand how the author jumps from that, to the concusion that multivitamin pills are bad for everyone.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Your answer is posted 9 minutes after my response. Did you read the Cochrane meta study in that time? Did you read any of the original studies in that time?
lake99 13y ago
I'm not looking for cheap ways to cure or prevent cancer. With that out of the way, I can talk about why I find references important. > That introduction is very clear. it is unambiguous. No it wasn't, on both counts. Vitamins A, D and E are widely known to cause hypervitaminosis. Of course I wouldn't want to over-eat those. What about C, that they mentioned? Cohchrane Review might be widely respected. That does not mean that everyone who cites them does it accurately, with full context. If he had given links at the end of his rag, I could have verified the details for myself.
- DanBC 13y ago
  I agree that it is important to provide references. You've already called him a scumbag. Thus, you won't trust whatever he provides. If he had provided a list of references you would have accused him of cherry picking. The fact that you quibble with Cochrane reviews tells me all I need to know. (That this discussion is unlikely to be of any use or interest to me.) > Of course I wouldn't want to over-eat those. Did you read the meta-study? Did you read any of the original studies?