Dr. Alexander Schauss details significant problems with the antioxidant studies that are saying they don't work or cause harm. Read on...
 
Michael Mooney
 

From: Alex Schauss [mailto:alex@aibmr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:26 PM

Dear Natalie:

I was asked to send you some information on the JAMA study. I’ve attached my resume.

I have been informed by a physician in Europe that the senior author, Dr. Goran Bjelakovic is working at the Copenhagen Trial Unit in Denmark and is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Nis in Serbia and Montenegro (goranb@junis.ni.ac.yu). His group published similar studies in the past, among them the highly criticized 2004 Lancet study about antioxidants and gastrointestinal cancers. See below. Here are additional negative studies the author has been associated with:

Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Jul 15;24(2):281-91
Conclusion: We found no convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements have  
significant beneficial effect on primary or secondary prevention of  
colorectal adenoma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16842454&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;(4):CD004183
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: We could not find evidence that antioxidant  
supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, they  
seem to increase overall mortality. The potential cancer preventive  
effect of selenium should be studied in adequately conducted  
randomised trials.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15495084&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

Lancet. 2004 Oct 2-8;364(9441):1219-28
INTERPRETATION: We could not find evidence that antioxidant  
supplements can prevent gastrointestinal cancers; on the contrary,  
they seem to increase overall mortality. The potential preventive  
effect of selenium should be studied in adequate randomised trials.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15464182&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum


The range of doses in the different trials they selected for the meta-analysis is dramatic. For example, vitamin A ranged from 1333 IU to 200,000 IU, and vitamin E from 10 IU to 1000 IU. The duration of the studies range from 28 days to 12 years. Nevertheless they were all lumped together.

The most serious violation of this study is the endpoint – mortality. In none of the studies they selected for the meta-analysis was mortality the endpoint.  

I have to question their blood data. The authors decided that a vitamin C level of >46 µmol/L was high and >32 µmol/L low. This doesn’t agree with data that shows blood levels above 80 µmol/L occurring in individuals eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables. Vitamin C supplementation can easily increase blood levels several fold above this amount before bowel toleration might occur. This has to raise questions about compliance.

The issue of compliance is of concern. Information is lacking in the study on subject compliance. Without information on blood levels and pill counts for each subject one can not have confidence that the subject’s consumed the supplements in question. We don’t even have data from this JAMA study on what drugs these subjects were taking during the time period they might have been consuming supplements.

Because the authors decided to mix studies of different duration, dose, and route of administration, I think it is fair to agree with several colleagues who have concluded that by mixing all various studies together, They are not comparing apples and organ
ges - but apples, eggs, and elephants.

Sincerely,

Alexander Schauss, Phd, FACN

_______________________________________________________

Dr. Schauss followed up his comments with a note to me that said, "By the way, the JAMA authors excluded two major large studies that showed antioxidants lower mortality and have health benefits. Had they included those in their meta-analysis the results would have shown they extended lifespan. I wonder why those studies were not included? Would JAMA have published those results?"
 
I have seen several of these studies that are supposed to be met a -analysis, which means it shows the results of many studies - ommit inclusion of studies that show benefits and so the sum of the data they include provides a negative conclusion. The study results are simply lies.
 
While someone who reads the published medical journal studies avidly might see this, the average person simply reads the newspaper headline. So, these bogus "studies" are passed on. In exactly this manner, lies sell more drugs. 
 
Michael  Mooney

____________________________________________________

Addendum:

Dr. Schauss followed up his comments with a note to me that said, "By the way, the JAMA authors excluded two major large studies that showed antioxidants lower mortality and have health benefits. Had they included those in their meta-analysis the results would have shown they extended lifespan. I wonder why those studies were not included? Would JAMA have published those results?" 

I have seen several of these studies that are supposed to be met a -analysis, which means it shows the results of many studies - ommit inclusion of studies that show benefits and so the sum of the data they include provides a negative conclusion. The study results are simply lies.
 
While someone who reads the published medical journal studies avidly might see this, the average person simply reads the newspaper headline. So, these poor quality "studies" are passed on. In exactly this manner, poor quality studies and lies sell more drugs. 
 
Michael  Mooney
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------