I'm not looking for cheap ways to cure or prevent cancer. With that out of the way, I can talk about why I find references important.
> That introduction is very clear. it is unambiguous.
No it wasn't, on both counts. Vitamins A, D and E are widely known to cause hypervitaminosis. Of course I wouldn't want to over-eat those. What about C, that they mentioned?
Cohchrane Review might be widely respected. That does not mean that everyone who cites them does it accurately, with full context. If he had given links at the end of his rag, I could have verified the details for myself.
I agree that it is important to provide references.
You've already called him a scumbag. Thus, you won't trust whatever he provides. If he had provided a list of references you would have accused him of cherry picking.
The fact that you quibble with Cochrane reviews tells me all I need to know. (That this discussion is unlikely to be of any use or interest to me.)
> Of course I wouldn't want to over-eat those.
Did you read the meta-study? Did you read any of the original studies?
> You've already called him a scumbag. Thus, you won't trust whatever he provides. If he had provided a list of references you would have accused him of cherry picking.
Good job having a conversation with me all by yourself.
> That this discussion is unlikely to be of any use or interest to me.
Mutual. (The fact that you see pointing out of a logical gap as quibbling.)
> Did you read the meta-study? Did you read any of the original studies?
My point was about the missing reference in the NYT article. Given references, I draw my own conclusions.
"Vitamins A, D and E are widely known to cause hypervitaminosis."
I don't think so.
Might someone please provide me with documented cases of vitamin E hypervitaminosis (including the dosage level of course) in humans. I've never found one.
I've known persons who took 20,000 to 40,000 UI of vitamin E per day for six months and to all appearances benefited from it. Yes, you read that right, 20K-40K IU - about 100X the common 400 IU daily dose, which some consider high.
Chickens, on the other hand, seem to produce fewer eggs when given larger amounts of vitamin E.
My personal belief is that testing doesn't occur at levels high enough to show the true efficacy of vitamin E.
I would like a clear documented case of vitamin E hypervitaminosis. That article, "Meta-Analysis: High-Dosage Vitamin E Supplementation May Increase All-Cause Mortality", hardly answers my request.
What I have found are obfuscated cases: cases where Vitamins D or A are taken simultaneously with vitamin E, or cases where the patient is in a disease state and/or is taking (often multiple) drugs, especially anti-clotting drugs.
I increasingly tend to believe that the only way a normal person can overdose on Vitamin E is to choke on it or slip on it.
> That introduction is very clear. it is unambiguous.
No it wasn't, on both counts. Vitamins A, D and E are widely known to cause hypervitaminosis. Of course I wouldn't want to over-eat those. What about C, that they mentioned?
Cohchrane Review might be widely respected. That does not mean that everyone who cites them does it accurately, with full context. If he had given links at the end of his rag, I could have verified the details for myself.