Kathi Head, N.D. is the editor-in-chief of Alternative Medicine Review, a peer-reviewed, Medline-indexed journal of natural and nutritional medicine. She reviewed the JAMA study on antioxidants and offered the following analysis. First of all, this is not a new study. It is merely a look at numerous studies that have been previously conducted – a meta-analysis. The outcome that was measured was mortality rate. But all of the studies that had no deaths in either the treated (with antioxidants) or untreated group were excluded from the meta-analysis. I suspect that including them would have diluted the results in such a way as to eliminate the statistical significance of the increased mortality allegedly caused by the antioxidants. In addition to throwing out the studies without any mortality, even studies that had been originally included were excluded in order to get the “increased mortality from antioxidants” results. The excluded studies included ones with weaker designs (the “high-bias” studies – such as smaller study numbers, inadequate follow-up, etc. But if they were such weak studies, why were they initially included?) and also the selenium studies (the most positive studies analyzed). The authors never do say why they excluded the selenium studies in the final analysis. And really, it’s the final analysis that matters because that BOTTOM LINE that is reported to the media becomes the reality. None of the other results – the fine print, as it were – matters. If you look at each study individually, very few would have shown increased mortality rate. What this shows is that results (particularly in a meta-analysis) can be manipulated in order to arrive at any predetermined or desired outcome. The authors of this JAMA study seem clearly biased. An example of a biased statement in the Comments section of the study: “We lack evidence to refute a potential negative effect of vitamin C on survival.” Huh? Their analysis found no evidence of an influence of vitamin C on mortality – so why not just say that? This “study” was convoluted and would take a statistician a year to effectively analyze and deconstruct. In addition, one would need to review the full text of all of the original studies included in order to thoroughly assess the analysis of the JAMA authors. Meta-analyses usually examine studies with similar protocols. These studies, however, were all over the map. Source: www.healthline.com, 3/07 Remember we are NOT Doctors and have NO medical training. This site is like an Encylopedia - there are many pages, many links on many topics. Support our work with any size DONATION - see left side of any page - for how to donate. You can help raise awareness of CAM.