More confusion was added to the mix regarding supplements recently when the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) printed a study that claimed that antioxidants do not extend life and may even be dangerous in some cases. I am going to give you some facts about this study to help you better decide whether or not to take antioxidant supplements.

This study was done by a method called meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a technique used to make up research results by using mathematical methods to analyze the combined results from previous separate, but related studies. In other words, it is a mathematical way to compare similar studies to reach conclusions. In this case the meta-analysis conclusion reached was that antioxidants do not extend life and in some cases, may even be dangerous.

Here are the serious problems with this study. First, by definition, a meta-analysis needs to use studies that are related. This studied failed in this regard on MANY levels. For example, they used data from a one-day study with a vitamin A dose of a whopping 200,000 IU along with studies lasting years with varying, but many times lower doses of vitamin A. This is a misuse of meta-analysis as a technique to determine any valuable information. There were a number of other examples of this inappropriate use of dissimilar studies, but I will spare you listing them here. Contact me if you are interested.

Another major problem was that many of the trials used in this study attempted to determine whether a simple antioxidant could cure serious illnesses, such as cancer or heart disease. Of course, the results of these studies were negative because it is ridiculous to expect that any single nutrient could turn around a progressed disease state. These types of studies definitely skewed the results towards the negative.

You have to ask yourself, then, why a prestigious journal like JAMA would print such junk science. Do you really think they would allow such a poorly designed and flawed study to be printed if it contained negative conclusions about a pharmaceutical drug? There is no way!

O.K., here is my theory. All of the medical journals are run by medical doctors who have been completely influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. The only conclusion I can come to as to why studies like this are published is that there is a conscious effort to “muddy” the waters when it comes to natural supplements. When people are confused, they tend to not act. Thus, confusing people with worthless studies like this meta-analysis causes a certain percentage to stop taking supplements. Guess what they take instead?

There are NUMEROUS individual studies that show TREMENDOUS benefits from taking antioxidants. Why do we never hear about these? Here are two examples of positive antioxidant studies published THIS YEAR in 2007.

Antioxidants and other nutrients do not interfere with chemotherapy or radiation therapy and can increase kill and increase survival.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2007 Jan-Feb;13(1):22-8.
Conclusion: In 15 human studies, 3,738 patients who took non-prescription antioxidants and other nutrients actually had increased survival.

The effects of combined antioxidant (beta-carotene, alpha-tocopherol and ascorbic acid) supplementation on antioxidant capacity, DNA single-strand breaks and levels of insulin-like growth factor-1/IGF-binding protein 3 in the ferret model of lung cancer.
Int J Cancer. 2007 Feb 2; [Epub ahead of print]

Conclusion: Combined antioxidant supplementation provides protection against smoke-induced oxidative DNA damage.

Both of these studies completely oppose the findings of the meta-analysis published in JAMA. Again, why is it that not one newspaper or T.V. news show reported these findings? I think that if we are honest with ourselves, we know the answer to this question. My suggestion is that anytime you see or hear another negative report about supplements, consider the source and keep in mind that ALL supplements are way safer than ANY prescription.