Replies

That's a pretty good point. None of these supplement studies mean anything unless the supplements the participants use are exactly the same--and we know the made=in=china stuff varies wildly from batch to batch, some not even containing any of the stuff they purport to, and a lot of stuff they shouldn't. Maybe all this study proves is that melamine isn't confined to dog food.

This particular study reeks of agenda and seems really short on basic scientific method. First, a 4 year study of a cancer that takes decades to develop is laughable. Second, the participants all self-reported their intake and were free to use whatever supplement they wanted. No standardization. An analysis of the Vitamin E purchased at the Dollar Store might turn up actual carcinogens and no E.

And third, the 28% "increase in risk" they report is not something they actually obeserved; they extrapolated the figure over a 10 year period--2 1/2 times longer than the actual study that took place. The study does not appear to distinguish among those who took E for decades or just for the period of the study. If E were indeed a causative or exacerbating factor, those on E the longest would show clear patterns of earlier and more aggressive cancers. But no, no effort was made to track any of that. It may be that that those who took E for the longest period of time were protected, and only the newest users made it into the cancer group, skewing the results.

And let's look at this supposed 28% increase in risk among those who took vitamin E. Even if we accept the sloppy methodology because--oh let's pretend we're stupid or drunk--it sounds like a huge number...til you realize this report is worded to obfuscate the fact that their findings are actually statistically insignificant.Bottom line, only 521 people out of 77,000 were diagnosed with lung cancer at all in this study. That's seven-tenths of 1%. So we're supposed to get excited about 28% of seven-tenths of 1%? The only thing worth getting excited about is the deceptive, manipulative nature of this report and the grant or tax dollars wasted.