JAMA Meta-Analysis Attack on AntiOxidants

You may have heard about a recent Feb. 28th, 2007 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on the apparent dangers of antioxidant supplementation. It's no surprise these kinds articles and news reports surface spectacularly from time to time given the nature of the media and the economic imperatives of those whose interests it serves to publicize any article or comment that even so much as hints at problems associated with nutritional products as a whole. The media clearly served as an ally of those interests in this case.

We need to remind ourselves that these kinds of products are blamed for one or two deaths every year. Of course, these same products are often in direct competition with doctor-prescribed drugs, which also happen to be the 4th leading cause of mortality in the U.S. Actually, they are the 3rd leading cause of death when you include misuse of drugs with those deaths. There's a rich irony there somewhere on the old 'negative publicity' spectrum.

What shouldn't be too big of a surprise is that the shot was fired by JAMA - a publication and organization that not long ago took the bold step of renouncing its long-standing opposition to supplementation - actually recommending supplementation to its readership. You had the feeling it did so only because it wanted to maintain a minimum of credibility. But remember, JAMAs main source of revenues is from paid pharmaceutical advertisements, and he who pays the piper plays the tune. And so there it is: one more specious report and one more feeble attack on the idea that there are alternatives to their drugs in the fight against degenerative disease.

Here's a great editorial response to the article by Bill Sardi of Knowledge of Health Inc.
http://www.knowledgeofhealth.com/report.asp?story=What%20Was%20the%20Message%20from%20the%20Antioxidant%20Meta%20Analysis&catagory=Health%20Agencies

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) also responded to new meta-analysis examining the effect of anti-oxidant supplements on all-cause mortality. Here's their response:
http://www.crnusa.org/PR07_JAMA_antioxidant_metaanalysis_022707.html

Bad science will always be used to argue a point. Sadly, JAMA, by publishing this egregious article, has allowed itself be used as a vehicle for pharmaceutical industry propaganda. Advertisers, it seems, must be tended to, and JAMA has shown that it's not above entering the fray from time to time to score some 'customer points'. The timing is always good when you can supplement - sorry for the pun - pharmaceutical industry 'direct-to-customer' ad campaigns with news stories supporting the false notion that antioxidants will help you die sooner. After all, that's where the big money is, isn't it?