 | Register Now! | | |
|
Want to post to the discussions? Comment on a Blog? Register Now.
|
|
|
| NPI Community Blogs | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location: Blogs Len Monheit Off The Cuff |
|
| Posted by: len |
4/18/2008 9:42 AM |
From a trickle to a flow, the latest UK-generated anaklysis, published by the Cohrane collaboration, has generated widespread headlines around the globe as the 'researchers' 'selected' several studies to examine the relationship between antioxidant supplements and prevention of mortality.
From a trickle to a flow, the latest UK-generated anaklysis, published by the Cohrane collaboration, has generated widespread headlines around the globe as the 'researchers' 'selected' several studies to examine the relationship between antioxidant supplements and prevention of mortality. Many groups have weighed in on this review including both the Natural Products Association and CRN, observing that these are the same researchers who published in JAMA several years ago, based on similarly flawed data and selection processes, obviously with an agenda driving their research practices. There are several different angles with which to take exception, but the one which most glaringly baffles me is: " How can you analyze for prevention of mortality while in your study selection automatically eliminates all studies with no mortality?" Obviously, you've just biased for mortality. As obviously, since vitamins and antioxidants are frequently not studied in the context of mortality, to focus on this association is obviously prejudiced and an extrapolation of loosely if at all connected data that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I've seen a couple 'more vocal' reponses and commentary (there's a good one at: http://www.naturalnews.com/023034.html - Thanks Dave), and for the Natural Products Assocation comments, go to: http://www.npicenter.com/anm/templates/newsATemp.aspx?articleid=21062&zoneid=28 . |
| Copyright ©2008 Len Monheit, Editor - NPIcenter |
| Permalink |
Trackback |
|
|
|