5 replies to this topic

[ajnast4r]

if i see one more news article, or post on here, claiming to absolutly debunk a supplement with a long history of efficacy based on a SINGLE study...

someone is gonna get ninja'd up [":)]

[FunkOdyssey]

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/4859984.stm

Vitamins 'may up pregnancy risk'

The condition can be fatal to mother and child

High doses of vitamin supplements may raise the risk of pre-eclampsia in
pregnant women rather than protecting against it, research suggests.

Up to 25,000 British women every year are affected by pre-eclampsia,
which causes blood pressure to rise to levels which threaten mother and
baby.

Vitamin C and E were thought to cut the risk.

But a Lancet study by the charity Tommy's found women at high-risk
should not take large doses of the vitamins.

Careful management has long been seen as the best way to deal with
pre-eclampsia

Michael Rich

Pre-eclampsia has been linked to the production of highly charged, toxic
molecules called free radicals by the placenta.

A previous small-scale study carried out by the same charity suggested
vitamin C and E could tackle this risk by blocking the damage caused by
free radicals.

However, the latest study found the reverse appeared to be true.

Some 2,400 expectant mothers with high blood pressure, kidney problems,
clotting disorders or diabetes were given either extra vitamin
supplements or a placebo.

The team discovered that pre-eclampsia appeared about a week earlier
among those who received the vitamins - and they were also 15% more
likely to deliver low birth-weight babies.

Researcher Professor Lucilla Poston said: "Our findings of an increase
in low birth weight and an increased need for treatment for
pre-eclampsia suggest that these high doses of vitamins C and E do not
work in preventing pre-eclampsia in this high-risk group."

Folic acid

Her colleague Professor Andrew Shennan stressed there was no evidence
that taking pregnancy-specific multivitamin preparations would produce
the same results.

He stressed that it was important that pregnant women, and those trying
for a baby continued to take folic acid supplements to reduce the risk
of neural tube defects, such as spina bifida.

Michael Rich, of the charity Action on Pre-eclampsia, said: "Thousands
of women throughout the UK and, indeed the world, will be massively
disappointed to hear the news that the vitamins in pre-eclampsia trial
has shown no benefit.

"We had high hopes for the use of high dose vitamins C and E in reducing
the risk of developing pre-eclampsia.

"However, a good thing that has come out of the trial is that it will
prevent the use of high dose vitamin C and E slipping into clinical
practice.

"Careful management has long been seen as the best way to deal with
pre-eclampsia - that remains the same."

Vitamin C and E HURT BABIES! lol... [tung]

[ajnast4r]

VITAMINS, OMEGA-3, GLUCOSAMINE, PRAYER: GARBAGE, DONT BOTHER...

TAMIFLU, SODA, BENZENE, AND VIOXX: NO PROBLEM...



what a world this is... where you can get better health advice from an internet forum, than you can from doctors.

[zoolander]

what do you expect.

Major corporations such as Pfizer, I would say, have a big say in what the media says and does.

Bad news is good ratings news and the media just love instilling fear into todays society. Fuckers!

News flash...........New Cancer curing drug discovered......by Pfizer or GSK. But what about compounds such as astaxathin, curcumin and trans-resveratrol...nada, zip, nozing!

Bastards!

[DukeNukem]

Two of the top three current stories on Sardi's site refute recent BS stories.

http://www.knowledgeofhealth.com/

[REGIMEN]

Thanks for that link duke...one of the stories brings issue with a Wall Street Journal article that irked me. The best part...you can decipher the culprit from the layout. Nearly 80% of the whole front page of March 20th's "Personal Health" section was a boxed section for the article, "The Case Against Vitamins?". In this box, 20% is an oversized title, 20% is the beginning of the article, and then the rest is a gigantic graphic of a question mark composed of multicolored pills with a whole lot of DEAD SPACE around it. You flip it open to see an exact 50/50 split of the page: half is the article and half is a single add concerning a healthcare merger while on the next page is a full page add for Lipitor and its ability ot cut risk of stroke by "nearly half(48%)" for patients with type 2 diabetes. The single strain that ties them together is the visual element of similarly composed dead spaces within the advert space. Easy for big pharma companies to pay for it....but who's paying for it in the article space?
You start out with a big wtf QuEsTioN MarK and then turn to have the answer in calming, consoling green then blue. I'm not going to start about healthcare, but the vitamins in the article that are put in question are set in bold letters with bold demarcations (strangely out of place for WSJ) which in most casual readers' minds imprints that these mainstays (Vit. E, C, A, Bs, D, Calcium) can be bypassed for the prevention or reduction of afflictions such as diabetes 2 and heart disease. "Just skip that -controversial- stuff...come join us, the super-legitimate, and we'll take care of you".

It was the WSJ that carried (narrow-set on the front page of the 'Health' section) a story in the last couple of months about SSRI's working not directly on serotonin but on neurogenesis. I thought that was rather scandalous... a product working much differently than advertised with little if anything mentioned about a study proving this...just a pharma-rep or two saying that "nobody knows how it works, but it's not serotonin".
I always hated hearing secondhand accounts of how their/someone-else's depression being helped by "increasing serotonin"...people still go around saying crap like that.

AARGH.