![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 54. Go back in thread:
Posted by Squiggles on March 25, 2007, at 9:51:01
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by Klavot on March 25, 2007, at 9:08:28
Megadoses of salt - cute :-)
I have not researched the effects of nutrients
on psychiatry - i know that certain vitamin deficiences can cause mental illness. But there is a difference between a vitamin deficiency and a vitamin overdose - which in the case of lipophilic ones can be harmful and water-soluble, just something you void out without any benefit.There is a PDR on foods and of course it is a huge field. Regarding lithium, there was a time when it was banned by the FDA because in its state then and dose, caused heart attacks as many salts will do. So, the patent argument is part of the evil pharmaceutical company political armamentareum i think. Drug company profits are so huge, that one patentless drug is probably a tiny micromolecule in the bucket.
Squiggles
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 25, 2007, at 10:25:28
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by Klavot on March 25, 2007, at 8:11:36
> In 1994, Robinson and two colleagues summarized the results of four mouse studies he had carried out while working at the Pauling Institute [20]. Nearly all of the mice developed skin cancers (squamous cell carcinomas) following exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Altogether, 1,846 hairless mice received a total of 38 different diets. The researchers found that (a) the rate of onset and severity of tumors could be varied as much as 20-fold by just modifying dietary balance; (b) diets with the worst balance of nutrients had the greatest inhibitory effect on cancer growth; and (c) no cures or remissions were observed (although the researchers were not looking for this). In 1999, Robinson commented:
>
> The results of these experiments caused an argument between Linus and me, which ended our 16-year period of work together. He was not willing to accept the experimentally proved fact that vitamin C in ordinary doses accelerated the growth rate of squamous cell carcinoma in these mice.The fact is, Robinson didn't prove that. He demonstrated that various forms of malnutrition stunted cancer growth. I always find reading the original text to be illuminating. If we go back to the 1994 paper, we'll find this:
http://www.nutritionandcancer.org/view/nutritionandcancer/oism_nac.pdf
Abstract: "...These experiments suggest that dietary variation in general and intentional malnutrition in particular should be given special attention to the control of existing cancer in humans."
Text:
"At certain times, mice with some diets were afflicted with severe and wide-spread lesions, whereas those receiving other diets appeared lesion-free. Eventually, however, nearly all of the mice developed squamous cell carcinoma. For these reasons, it is likely that our results relate primarily to the rate of growth of cancer lesions rather than to the prevention or destruction of cancer.""It is possible, for example, that diets which increase systemic resistance to the production and establishment of cancer cells as growing cancer tissue may be counterproductive for the inhibition of growth of established cancer tissue....the overall results suggest that those diets that would conventionally be considered least suitable for ordinary mouse and human nutrition caused the greatest inhibition of cancer growth."
"Thus a daily intake of ordinary supplements of vitamin C, vitamin E, and multivitamins, a 'well balanced' amount of fruit, vegetables, seeds, and nuts, and minimal amounts of candy and other sweets -- a diet considered healthy for most Americans -- would appear to be harmful for a cancer victim; whereas insufficient protein and fat, high 'empty calories' from sucrose, and near lethal amounts of vitamin C would appear good for a cancer victim."
Cancer grows better when the body is fully nourished. I don't think there's any surprise there. Just how to restrict cancer growth without starving the patient to death is still an ongoing area of research. Methionine restriction seems to be one active field of study.
And I have to take issue with a glaring discrepancy between the experimental results and the conclusions reached. In Experiment 1, this is what was found: "The Black mixture (i.e. normal diet, with added glutatione, BHT, vitamins E and C) clearly suppressed cancer, 12 g/kg vitamin C was indistinguishable from control, 0.535 g/kg vitamin E and sea water were a little higher than control, and the meganutrient mix enhanced cancer growth as compared to control."
Just look at Table 1, for the dramatic effect of the "Black" diet. Yet, the authors go on to say, "Therefore, unless an unusual synergism is present, the suppressive ingredients in the Black mixture were not vitamin C or vitamin E." Not only is there no evidence upon which to support that conclusion (i.e. the experiments with variations on the Black diet were not conducted), we now know that there is a huge synergism between the antioxidants which characterize the Black diet. They simply dismiss their best evidence, due to what can only be called bias.
> At the time, Linus was promoting his claim that "75% of all cancer can be prevented and cured by vitamin C alone." This claim proved to be without experimental foundation and not true. . . .
Again, not so fast, Mr. Robinson. Mr. Pauling had some pretty strong evidence for his over-generalized hypothesis. Just a sample of what Pauling published:
Int J Vitam Nutr Res Suppl. 1982;23:53-82.
Incidence of squamous cell carcinoma in hairless mice irradiated with ultraviolet light in relation to intake of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and of D, L-alpha-tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E).
Pauling L, Willoughby R, Reynolds R, Blaisdell BE, Lawson S.We have carried out a study of large malignant skin tumours (squamous-cell carcinomas) and other lesions in "hairless" mice (in groups of 45 or 60 mice) intermittently exposed to ultraviolet light over a period of 15 weeks, beginning when the mice were about 8 weeks old. Various groups were given a standard diet (Wayne Lab-Blox) or the same food with added vitamin C or vitamin E throughout the study. Lesions, classified by histopathologic study as atypical squamous-cell proliferations varying from early actinic keratoses to invasive poorly differentiated squamous-cell carcinomas, had begun to develop by the end of the period of irradiation. They were counted twice a month for five months. The observed fraction of mice that developed lesions during successive time periods was analyzed by the statistical method recommended by a committee of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A pronounced effect of vitamin C in decreasing the incidence of the malignant lesions was observed with very high statistical significance. No significant effect of vitamin E was observed. We conclude that vitamin C should be given special attention with respect to the relation between diet and cancer.
> Vitamin C increased the rate of growth of cancer at human equivalents of 1 to 5 grams per day, but suppressed the cancer growth rate at doses on the order of 100 grams per day (near the lethal dose), as do other measures of malnutrition [21]."Increased compared to what? Again, the increase was in comparison to malnourishment. And, he confounds, once again, cancer induction and cancer growth. Pauling spoke of incidence. Robinson studied growth rate of existing lesions. I grant that Pauling did not cure cancer with vitamin C. But he had solid evidence for reduced induction of cancerous lesions.
> Sometimes I get the impression that alternative practitioners are simply unprepared to accept that their work might be wrong.
>
> KlavotThis work was done in a climate of absolute malevolence. You really ought to read this essay:
http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/hoffer.htmlBruce Ames, the originator of the Ames test for in vitro carcinogenicity/mutagenicity, has continued to explore the effects of nutrient deficiencies on health parameters. Here are some of his recent publications (full-text links):
A general treatise on mitochondrial decay with aging...
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v6/n1s/full/7400426.htmlThe effects of gamma-tocopherol on tumour growth....N.b. Most studies have been done on alpha-tocopherol, which actually blocks the effects of gamma-tocopherol, leading to mistaken conclusions about the impact of vitamin E supplementation.....
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/51/17825The DNA-damaging effects of folate deficiency, similar to high-dose gamma radiation....
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/03-0382fjev1The modulation of disease-causing genetic polymorphisms via high-dose vitamin therapy....
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/75/4/616And I wish I had the full-text for these two:
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;889:87-106.
Micronutrient deficiencies. A major cause of DNA damage.
Ames BN.
University of California, Berkeley 94720-3202, USA. bnames@uclink4.berkeley.eduDeficiencies of the vitamins B12, B6, C, E, folate, or niacin, or of iron or zinc mimic radiation in damaging DNA by causing single- and double-strand breaks, oxidative lesions, or both. The percentage of the population of the United States that has a low intake (< 50% of the RDA) for each of these eight micronutrients ranges from 2% to 20+ percent. A level of folate deficiency causing chromosome breaks occurred in approximately 10% of the population of the United States, and in a much higher percentage of the poor. Folate deficiency causes extensive incorporation of uracil into human DNA (4 million/cell), leading to chromosomal breaks. This mechanism is the likely cause of the increased colon cancer risk associated with low folate intake. Some evidence, and mechanistic considerations, suggest that vitamin B12 and B6 deficiencies also cause high uracil and chromosome breaks. Micronutrient deficiency may explain, in good part, why the quarter of the population that eats the fewest fruits and vegetables (five portions a day is advised) has about double the cancer rate for most types of cancer when compared to the quarter with the highest intake. Eighty percent of American children and adolescents and 68% of adults do not eat five portions a day. Common micronutrient deficiencies are likely to damage DNA by the same mechanism as radiation and many chemicals, appear to be orders of magnitude more important, and should be compared for perspective. Remedying micronutrient deficiencies is likely to lead to a major improvement in health and an increase in longevity at low cost.
Nat Rev Cancer. 2002 Sep;2(9):694-704.
Are vitamin and mineral deficiencies a major cancer risk?
Ames BN, Wakimoto P.
Nutrition Genomics Center, Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, 5700 Martin Luther King Jr Way, Oakland, California 94609-1673, USA. bames@chori.orgDiet is estimated to contribute to about one-third of preventable cancers -- about the same amount as smoking. Inadequate intake of essential vitamins and minerals might explain the epidemiological findings that people who eat only small amounts of fruits and vegetables have an increased risk of developing cancer. Recent experimental evidence indicates that vitamin and mineral deficiencies can lead to DNA damage. Optimizing vitamin and mineral intake by encouraging dietary change, multivitamin and mineral supplements, and fortifying foods might therefore prevent cancer and other chronic diseases.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 25, 2007, at 11:42:58
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by Squiggles on March 25, 2007, at 9:51:01
> Megadoses of salt - cute :-)
>
> I have not researched the effects of nutrients
> on psychiatry - i know that certain vitamin deficiences can cause mental illness. But there is a difference between a vitamin deficiency and a vitamin overdose - which in the case of lipophilic ones can be harmful and water-soluble, just something you void out without any benefit.Let's start with some basics, then.
Water soluble vitamins are not "just something you void out without any benefit". If that was true, they would not be vital to health at all. What you state is patently false.
For any substance to be excreted by the kidneys, in urine, it must first be found in the blood. During the time a concentration greater than zero exists for any such water soluble nutrient, all tissue compartments (including the organ, the kidney) have a similar opportunity to interact with the substance. If it's getting into urine, it has an opportunity, and presumably some success, at getting into other tissue compartments.
And why is toxicity such an issue? The RDA and its successor DRI both are defined in terms of clinical deficiency. Based on the mean intake level at which 50% of subjects demonstrate *overt* clinical symptoms of deficiency, they then go two standard deviations upwards, and hit the 95th percentile. In other words, the RDA/DRI is defined as the intake level at which 1 out of 40 *normal healthy* people shows *overt* clinical deficiency. I leave it to the reader to consider what is meant by normal or healthy.
Here is a graphical representation of those incidence curves: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/vol133/issue5/images/large/1563sf02.jpeg
The RDA is that point on Curve 2 at which the population (left scalar) is 5%.
The subject of this graphical representation, however, is what is here labelled AROI (Acceptable Range of Oral Intake). It is that region that lies between the 0th (that's zeroth) likelihood of subclinical deficiency, and the 0th likelihood of toxic effects. The RDA does not fall within this range. It lies far to the left.
What the AROI indicates is the range of *optimal* intake. Not a specific optimal intake, but the range of values it might have. For some nutrients, there is no toxicity known, so the AROI goes to infinity. Certainly, there are practical limits on that, but we're dealing with statistics here.
As an example, Squiggles, your lithium intake lies somewhere near the midpoint of curve 7. There are known toxic consequences (thyroid, kidney, etc.) to long-term exposure to lithium at those concentrations. You are well above the AROI, but that is for specific metabolic effects, which we like to call "treatment".
Compare the therapeutic index for lithium (i.e. 2), a mineral with no known normal application to human health, to the UL (Upper Limit) of dosage suggested by the same medical experts for vitamin E. The UL is theoretically the upper bound for AROI (i.e. the intersection of Curve 6 with the X-axis), yet for vitamin E, the "official" UL is 1/32 of the evidence-based upper intake level. Moreover, when toxic effects are shown, they are actually due to concommittant vitamin K deficiency!
I fail to see the rationale for treating these two substances differently, especially because vitamin E is truly essential to health. Why *are* nutrient side-effects treated differently than those caused by drugs?
> There is a PDR on foods and of course it is a huge field. Regarding lithium, there was a time when it was banned by the FDA because in its state then and dose, caused heart attacks as many salts will do.
Banned as a sodium chloride substitute. The context matters. Your generalization about salts is also questionable.
> So, the patent argument is part of the evil pharmaceutical company political armamentareum i think. Drug company profits are so huge, that one patentless drug is probably a tiny micromolecule in the bucket.
>
> SquigglesFollow the money, Squig.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 25, 2007, at 17:34:39
In reply to Re: nutrients » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on March 25, 2007, at 11:42:58
> And why is toxicity such an issue? The RDA and its successor DRI both are defined in terms of clinical deficiency. Based on the mean intake level at which 50% of subjects demonstrate *overt* clinical symptoms of deficiency, they then go two standard deviations upwards, and hit the 95th percentile.
Ooops. Should read 97.5 percentile. Two standard deviations contain 95% of the population, but 47.5% of that is on either side of the mean. The 1 out of 40 (2.5%) showing overt symptoms was correctly stated.
Lar
Posted by Squiggles on March 25, 2007, at 17:42:29
In reply to Re: correction, posted by Larry Hoover on March 25, 2007, at 17:34:39
A lot of this stuff is beyond my head.
I don't understand statistical validity,
but i have enough faith in the regulatory
bodies to distinguish between a valid clinical
trial result and an invalid one; and more importantly a safe one and unsafe one, an effective one and an ineffective one. That is why we have the FDA and similar control bodies for health products.I noticed that Professor Linus Pauling was pals
with Dr. Ewen Cameron. I'm sorry but anyone who
is pals with an egotist who has no pangs of
conscience in torturing inmates and mental patients unwittingly for the purpose of creating a "Manchurian" candidate, and on the silly grounds that LSD can erase a personality and be reconstructed for that purpose, is (yes i am a naive and unsophisticated person)-- a man who lacks compassion and intelligence.Squiggles
Posted by teejay on March 25, 2007, at 19:59:30
In reply to Re: correction, posted by Squiggles on March 25, 2007, at 17:42:29
Let me ask you two rhetorical questions squiggles.
How many people die in the US each year as a DIRECT result of the medicines they are given?
How many medicines have been based on minerals or plants in one form or another?
The defence rests its case M'lud ;-)
TJ
Posted by Squiggles on March 25, 2007, at 20:05:44
In reply to Re: correction, posted by teejay on March 25, 2007, at 19:59:30
Many I'm sure, from adverse drug reactions,
overdosages, prescription errors, interactions,
suicide, and other causes.But the rhetorical impact would be greater if the numbers were actually counted and compared to the alternatives, in proportionate manner as alternative drugs are far fewer in use.
Your humble servant :-)
Squiggles
Posted by KayeBaby on March 26, 2007, at 2:03:57
In reply to Re: correction, posted by Squiggles on March 25, 2007, at 20:05:44
> Many I'm sure, from adverse drug reactions,
> overdosages, prescription errors, interactions,
> suicide, and other causes.
>
> But the rhetorical impact would be greater if the numbers were actually counted and compared to the alternatives, in proportionate manner as alternative drugs are far fewer in use.
>
> Your humble servant :-)
I will have to do some researching but if nutrient-bases therapies were compared on a case by case basis-I suspect drug therapy would produce more fatalities. It would be ver hard to do a fair comparison though. Not many people are going to get alternative tratment for a heart attack or an amputation (I don't think it would be appropriate-but I sure there are some that would)I ahve experimeted widely with medication and nutrients and my worst side effects came fro the meds. But-nothing ventured-nothing gained in either case.
Peace,
Kaye
>
> Squiggles
Posted by Squiggles on March 26, 2007, at 8:04:59
In reply to Re: correction, posted by KayeBaby on March 26, 2007, at 2:03:57
I hope you won't consider this, my last
post on the matter, abrupt or rude. I
don't think much can come of further argument
,at least from my part.My last word on this is: prove it first and then sell it.
Squiggles
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 26, 2007, at 8:52:26
In reply to Re: correction, posted by Squiggles on March 26, 2007, at 8:04:59
> I hope you won't consider this, my last
> post on the matter, abrupt or rude. I
> don't think much can come of further argument
> ,at least from my part.I think the debate has been enlightening. If only you had provided supporting arguments for your many assertions, it may not have appeared as argumentative to you.
> My last word on this is: prove it first and then sell it.
>
> SquigglesIf that was the way it worked, there would be no medical system as we know it. There would be no pharmaceuticals at all.
I wonder at your pejorative view of alternative medicine, really I do. It harkens back to home remedies and wisdom from the elders. That's why the lawyers cannot get at it. It belongs to us all, already. You can't patent anything already in the public domain. Doctors can't prevent anyone from employing this knowledge. It is only because that is so that medical science has vilified the practises.
The very idea of "proving it first, then sell it" has only evolved within the last four to five decades, as applied to medicine. There are numerous drugs and practises which were grandfathered into the current system, having been subject to none of this scrutiny. As madhatter pointed out, your sacred lithium is one of those. I can guarantee you, that if lithium had been newly discovered, it would never get past Phase 1 clinical trials, due to its now well-known toxicity. Neither would aspirin, by the way.
With respect to your assertions vis a vis morbidities associated with the two realms, standard and alternative medicines, there is no comparison at all. I know of no deaths attributed to anything but intentional overdose associated with any alternative product, except those cases associated with contaminants arising from the greed of fast-buck operators (e.g. kava kava products with hepatic toxins, the contaminated tryptophan from the early 90's). Contrast the latter with Internet drug sellers, if you want a valid comparison. A woman just died in B.C. from Internet anxiety meds. Mainstream alternative medicine is safer than mainstream medical science, IMHO, and by a great margin. Consider the withdrawal of Serzone due to fulminant liver failure. Yet, that is still listed as a side effect, rather than a toxic effect. Semantics influence the comprehension and interpretation of the event. We allow pharmaceutical drugs to have side effects, yet we assert toxic effects to nutrients. That's bias, plain and simple.
All I hear in your intent to go silent is the sound of a closed mind.
Lar
Posted by Klavot on March 26, 2007, at 10:35:32
In reply to Re: correction » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on March 26, 2007, at 8:52:26
> All I hear in your intent to go silent is the sound of a closed mind.
Asking for evidence of safety and efficacy before pursuing a particular treatment modality is not closed minded.
Klavot
Posted by Klavot on March 26, 2007, at 10:48:10
In reply to Re: correction » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on March 26, 2007, at 8:52:26
> I wonder at your pejorative view of alternative medicine, really I do. It harkens back to home remedies and wisdom from the elders.
That doesn't mean it works!
> That's why the lawyers cannot get at it. It belongs to us all, already. You can't patent anything already in the public domain. Doctors can't prevent anyone from employing this knowledge. It is only because that is so that medical science has vilified the practises.
Medical science vilifies alternative medicine because it is unscientific. As and when alternative practitioners provide empirical evidence that their treatments work and are safe, those treatments cease being alternative and become evidence-based and orthodox.
Klavot
Posted by Klavot on March 26, 2007, at 11:06:27
In reply to Re: correction » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on March 26, 2007, at 8:52:26
> With respect to your assertions vis a vis morbidities associated with the two realms, standard and alternative medicines, there is no comparison at all. I know of no deaths attributed to anything but intentional overdose associated with any alternative product, except those cases associated with contaminants arising from the greed of fast-buck operators (e.g. kava kava products with hepatic toxins, the contaminated tryptophan from the early 90's). Contrast the latter with Internet drug sellers, if you want a valid comparison. A woman just died in B.C. from Internet anxiety meds. Mainstream alternative medicine is safer than mainstream medical science, IMHO, and by a great margin. Consider the withdrawal of Serzone due to fulminant liver failure. Yet, that is still listed as a side effect, rather than a toxic effect. Semantics influence the comprehension and interpretation of the event. We allow pharmaceutical drugs to have side effects, yet we assert toxic effects to nutrients. That's bias, plain and simple.
Perhaps there are very few sequelae and mortalities in orthomolecular medicine simply because very few people actually use true megadose quantities of micronutrients. If millions of people had to start taking intravenous Vitamin C at doses of 150 g / day, as some orthomolecular therapists advocate, I suspect things might be different.
I agree that orthodox treatments have more side-effects and carry greater risks than alternative treatments. But this argument does not factor the greater efficacy of orthodox medicine. I believe that given two populations, one of which uses exclusively orthodox medicine and the other using exclusively alternative medicine, the population using orthodox medicine would have a far superior health profile. It is misleading to suggest that alternative medicine is safer than orthodox medicine. It's like saying vitamin C has fewer side-effects than chemotherapy and then trying to demonise chemotherapy for having so many side-effects. Yet it is the cancer patient receiving chemotherapy who has the greater likelihood of survival, rather than the patient opting for Vitamin C supplementation.
Klavot
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 26, 2007, at 11:10:18
In reply to Re: correction, posted by Klavot on March 26, 2007, at 10:35:32
> > All I hear in your intent to go silent is the sound of a closed mind.
>
> Asking for evidence of safety and efficacy before pursuing a particular treatment modality is not closed minded.
>
> KlavotI agree. If there is a pursuit taking place. And if the evidence is considered.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 26, 2007, at 11:37:26
In reply to Re: correction, posted by Klavot on March 26, 2007, at 11:06:27
> > With respect to your assertions vis a vis morbidities associated with the two realms, standard and alternative medicines, there is no comparison at all. I know of no deaths attributed to anything but intentional overdose associated with any alternative product, except those cases associated with contaminants arising from the greed of fast-buck operators (e.g. kava kava products with hepatic toxins, the contaminated tryptophan from the early 90's). Contrast the latter with Internet drug sellers, if you want a valid comparison. A woman just died in B.C. from Internet anxiety meds. Mainstream alternative medicine is safer than mainstream medical science, IMHO, and by a great margin. Consider the withdrawal of Serzone due to fulminant liver failure. Yet, that is still listed as a side effect, rather than a toxic effect. Semantics influence the comprehension and interpretation of the event. We allow pharmaceutical drugs to have side effects, yet we assert toxic effects to nutrients. That's bias, plain and simple.
>
> Perhaps there are very few sequelae and mortalities in orthomolecular medicine simply because very few people actually use true megadose quantities of micronutrients.Orthomolecular is not synonymous with megadose. Quite the contrary. First coined by Pauling, it was originally defined as "the right molecule, in the right dose". He later expanded the meaning to "the treatment of disease by the provision of the optimum molecular environment, especially the optimum concentrations of substances normally present in the human body" or as "the preservation of good health and the treatment of disease by varying the concentrations in the human body of substances that are normally present in the body and are required for health."
> If millions of people had to start taking intravenous Vitamin C at doses of 150 g / day, as some orthomolecular therapists advocate, I suspect things might be different.
Considering the proper definition of orthomolecular medicine, this then becomes a straw man argument. Millions of people would not be candidates for such treatment.
> I agree that orthodox treatments have more side-effects and carry greater risks than alternative treatments. But this argument does not factor the greater efficacy of orthodox medicine. I believe that given two populations, one of which uses exclusively orthodox medicine and the other using exclusively alternative medicine, the population using orthodox medicine would have a far superior health profile.
Please permit us to reach different conclusions. Moreover, this dichotomy is really a false dilemma, as orthomolecular medicine does not exclude pharmaceuticals, and conventional medicine does not preclude the precepts of orthomolecular practise.
> It is misleading to suggest that alternative medicine is safer than orthodox medicine. It's like saying vitamin C has fewer side-effects than chemotherapy and then trying to demonise chemotherapy for having so many side-effects. Yet it is the cancer patient receiving chemotherapy who has the greater likelihood of survival, rather than the patient opting for Vitamin C supplementation.
Orthomolecular approaches are best seen as complimentary practises. It needn't be seen as an either/or proposition.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 26, 2007, at 11:50:09
In reply to Re: correction, posted by Klavot on March 26, 2007, at 10:48:10
> Medical science vilifies alternative medicine because it is unscientific. As and when alternative practitioners provide empirical evidence that their treatments work and are safe, those treatments cease being alternative and become evidence-based and orthodox.
>
> KlavotIt's not that simple or straight-forward, as I've tried to demonstrate. The graphical representation of the AROI curves was intended to demontrate that there are different rules being applied to nutrients than to other substances. Nutrient intake recommendations are based on symptoms of clinical deficiency, whereas pharmaceutical drugs are judged on symptoms of toxicity. The whole concept of orthomolecular medicine is based on getting into the AROI. Properly applied, toxicity is not relevant. That there are improper (i.e. toxic) applications does not invalidate the AROI concept.
Standard medical wisdom has it that a balanced diet will provide the RDA of all essential nutrients. As I expressed quite clearly, the RDA is itself based on clinical signs of deficiency syndromes, rather than optimal functioning. However, simply ignoring that issue, upon spending many years of effort, I have yet to find evidence that any diet (restricted to reasonable caloric intake) can even meet the nutrient RDAs. I have posted this as a challenge on newsgroups such as sci.med.nutrition, and no one has ever shown that I am wrong. There is no such thing as a balanced diet that meets all known RDAs. It cannot be done even for a single day, let alone providing for a diet with choices of menu items.
One poster developed a spreadsheet of the entire USDA nutrient database, and failed to find even one combination that met the 17 RDAs that were in the database. There are now over 30 nutrients with RDA values.
Lar
Posted by Squiggles on March 26, 2007, at 19:37:13
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by Klavot on March 25, 2007, at 9:08:28
I'll have to read up on it; it's an
extremely complex field, beyond my
scientific background to understand. In cases
of deficiency, disabilities are much
easier to understand. I am sure I am not
the only one who sees this as an experimental
enterprise, and there's the rub. Over and out,
honest; :-)Squiggles
Posted by teejay on March 26, 2007, at 20:54:16
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by Squiggles on March 26, 2007, at 19:37:13
Squiggles,
I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you first posted, but after two lengthy threads I've come to the conclusion that you came to this board purely to stir up a reaction of some kind.
Clearly nobody comes to the alternative board to question it with such weak arguments as you did, and more importantly without a solid grounding in the subject matter at hand which you clearly lack.
No offence intended and whatever it is you are looking for, I hope you find it and hope it delivers you all the pleasure you desire (apart from stiring it up on here of course).
TJ
Posted by Squiggles on March 26, 2007, at 21:09:32
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by teejay on March 26, 2007, at 20:54:16
One triple chocolate fudge sundae,
with orthomolecular smarties-
hold the whipped cream!:-)Squiggles
Posted by Klavot on March 27, 2007, at 9:03:34
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by teejay on March 26, 2007, at 20:54:16
I belive the following article is interesting in the context of the present discussion:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/842
Mortality in Randomized Trials of Antioxidant Supplements for Primary and Secondary Prevention
Systematic Review and Meta-analysisGoran Bjelakovic, MD, DrMedSci; Dimitrinka Nikolova, MA; Lise Lotte Gluud, MD, DrMedSci; Rosa G. Simonetti, MD; Christian Gluud, MD, DrMedSci
JAMA. 2007;297:842-857.Context Antioxidant supplements are used for prevention of several diseases.
Objective To assess the effect of antioxidant supplements on mortality in randomized primary and secondary prevention trials.
Data Sources and Trial Selection We searched electronic databases and bibliographies published by October 2005. All randomized trials involving adults comparing beta carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin E, and selenium either singly or combined vs placebo or vs no intervention were included in our analysis. Randomization, blinding, and follow-up were considered markers of bias in the included trials. The effect of antioxidant supplements on all-cause mortality was analyzed with random-effects meta-analyses and reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression was used to assess the effect of covariates across the trials.
Data Extraction We included 68 randomized trials with 232 606 participants (385 publications).
Data Synthesis When all low- and high-bias risk trials of antioxidant supplements were pooled together there was no significant effect on mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06). Multivariate meta-regression analyses showed that low-bias risk trials (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29) and selenium (RR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.9995) were significantly associated with mortality. In 47 low-bias trials with 180 938 participants, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). In low-bias risk trials, after exclusion of selenium trials, beta carotene (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), vitamin A (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24), and vitamin E (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07), singly or combined, significantly increased mortality. Vitamin C and selenium had no significant effect on mortality.
Conclusions Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.
Author Affiliations: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Center for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark (Drs Bjelakovic, L. L. Gluud, Simonetti, and C. Gluud and Ms Nikolova); Department of Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nis, Nis, Serbia (Dr Bjelakovic); and Divisione di Medicina, Ospedale V. Cervello, Palermo, Italy (Dr Simonetti).Klavot
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 27, 2007, at 13:40:28
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by Klavot on March 27, 2007, at 9:03:34
I've read that study was flawed in someway (see the text below I've copied and pasted). I personally have no opinion on the matter - I don't have time to check it all out etc etc.
__________________
Today's review of trials on antioxidants in the Journal of the American Medical Association fails the four key tests of 'publication bias'. For the following reasons I suspect it's an attempt to demote vitamin therapy so we keep taking the drugs.The first way to investigate whether an analysis of studies is biased is to read the summary, and see if it correlates with the actual result. The conclusion of this study says 'treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality' creating the impression these antioxidants are no good. What it fails to say, all of which are clearly shown in the results, is that 'vitamin C given singly, or in combination with other antioxidants, and selenium given singly or in combination with other antioxidant supplements may reduce mortality'. It also fails to say that 'beta-carotene or vitamin A did not show increase in mortality if given in combination with other antioxidants', or that 'vitamin E given singly or combined with 4 other antioxidants did not significantly influence mortality'. If you can have one take home message it is that antioxidants are team players and reduce mortality in combination, and that vitamin C and selenium are more beneficial than beta-carotene or vitamin A.
The next way to investigate whether an analysis is a stitch up is to see if all trials are included, how trials are excluded, and what the trials actually say. Two classic primary prevention studies, where vitamin E is given to healthy people, are those of Stampfer et al, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the first of which gave 87,200 nurses were given 67mg of vitamin E daily for more than two years. A 40 per cent drop in fatal and non-fatal heart attacks was reported compared to those not taking vitamin E supplements (1). In another study, 39,000 male health professionals were given 67mg of vitamin E for the same length of time and achieved a 39 per cent reduction in heart attacks (2). Guess what? They are not included.
Bjelakovic's analysis goes on to further degrade antioxidants by deciding which trials (usually the positive ones) are high bias, then excluding them, and which trials are low bias (usually the negative ones) and only adding these together. I don't agree with how this is done. For example, it is well known that taking statin drugs, that lower cholesterol and induce CoQ10 deficiency, make vitamin E harmful by turning it into an oxidant. This is an obvious bias but the authors don't even mention this. Once you exclude these trials vitamin E has an overall positive effect.
The next test is to see if the most negative studies were actually negative. These studies can skew results on an overall analysis. One the studies most cited to show increase risk of gastrointestinal cancer is that of Correa et al. So I read the actual paper and contacted the author, Dr Pelayo Correa from the pathology department at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Centre in New Orleans, and asked about the increased risk he had supposedly found. He was amazed, he said, because his research, far from being negative, had shown clear benefit from taking vitamins.
His study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, had involved giving people with gastric cancer either beta-carotene, vitamin C or antibiotics to kill off the stomach bacterium Helicobacter pylori. All three interventions produced highly significantly improvements, causing substantial regression of gastric cancer. Correa and his colleagues had concluded: 'dietary supplementation with antioxidant micronutrients may interfere with the precancerous process, mostly by increasing the rate of regression of cancer precursor lesions, and may be an effective strategy to prevent gastric carcinoma'. No evidence of increased mortality there.
In fact, as Correa told us, there was no way the study could show anything about mortality. 'Our study was designed for evaluation of the progress of precancerous lesions,' he said. 'It did not intend, and did not have the power, to study mortality and has no value to examine mortality of cancer.' Without this study the main conclusion, that antioxidants may increase gastrointestinal cancer, becomes completely invalid.
So, I'm afraid this 'meta-analysis' fails all four tests of publication bias. The summary at the front refers to negative results only, not the positive results. Some key positive studies have not been included. Positive studies have become negative studies by jiggling the statistics. Known dynamics that would bias some studies towards a negative effect have been ignored. In conclusion, I will keep doing what I've always been doing, because this study confirms it - and that is to supplement a combination of antioxidants, including selenium and high dose vitamin C, because, as this study says, it seems to make you live longer and reduce your risk of premature death.
Posted by Klavot on March 27, 2007, at 13:52:26
In reply to Re: neighbourhood » Klavot, posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 27, 2007, at 13:40:28
OK OK OK, I give up, you got me.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 27, 2007, at 13:57:16
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by Klavot on March 27, 2007, at 9:03:34
I just want to say some things. My other half is a respected research scientist in his particular field of study. His research area is relatively small - he knows alot of his fellow scientists and has published many papers, including several in Science. I used to work in the scientific journals publishing business too - I had to find reviewers and authors etc.
So. I have come to get to know the academic world somewhat. There are several things I want to point out.
1) One study/published paper does not prove anything - okay it might be true but in general, it takes alot of papers reaching the same conclusions to 'prove' something. Papers can be badly written, with pretty trashy science in them, particulary of the lessor known journals, which can be pretty desperate for material. The so called studies can be made up too - or sort of doctored if you know what I mean. Good journals generally vet this sort of stuff out with good reviewers, but again, reviewers work for free, and often the lessor know journals make do with third rate reviewers, which means that papers get through which shouldn't really make it.
2) Just because an academic researcher is on the faculty of a fancy university doesn't mean he's not a quack. In the field my bf works in, there is a well know prof at Harvard, who is considered a complete Quack by the rest of the scientific community - yet to the layman he isn't.
Conversely, just because a researcher doesn't belong to a uni/whatever, doesn't make him/her any less credible or whatever.
And perhaps people who are considered Quacks now, perhaps some of them just have ideas that aren't accepted by the mainstream? Don't most scientific ideas/theories etc start out as relatively Quack-like? I mean, people laughed when they heard that the Earth revolves around the Sun. People laughed at Darwin, etc etc.
And finally, you probably have to consider the background to which the paper is written - is it funded by Big Pharma? Are the researchers reputable? What other papers have they published?
And so on.Just some thoughts.
Kind regards
Meri
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 27, 2007, at 14:04:07
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by Klavot on March 27, 2007, at 9:03:34
I don't know why we can't think of these things as a spectrum - the alternative stuff and the conventional stuff are not so far removed from one another, its just our mindset (and that of the practitioners) is.
I mean, both alternative stuff and conventional stuff should be both practised and should be both intertwined - clearly the altnerative stuff for prevention and general health and the conventional stuff for 'crisis intervention' like a heart attack. But if we can stop the crisis in the first place, by say, eating garlic, being healthy and taking ginkgo, for example, I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend or preach or practise.
Plus I don't see why alternative compounds in plants should be considered so different from conventional drugs -- I think Big Pharma has a big say in this and the subsequent brain washing of Doctors.
I follow the Lar school on this.
Posted by Squiggles on March 27, 2007, at 14:06:59
In reply to Orthomolecular medicine, posted by Klavot on March 27, 2007, at 13:52:26
> OK OK OK, I give up, you got me.
LOL-- i'm sorry to interrupt, but it just
occurred to me that scientific dispute should
not be confused with arm-wrestling.And one more thing -- with one and a half million kids starving in Africa, i think a meal with water, approximating the average nutritional needs, would be scientifically acceptable to them, thank you very much -- you can go to Oxfam.org for that. The orthomolecular research is for the future benefit of mankind - very future.
Squiggles
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.