Quote:
Originally Posted by Shobha
True, but since Vitamin C was Pauling's baby, they would be kind of biased don't you think ?
|
Well, they could be biased...but then again, they have no miracle claims for vitamin C there. And I did say they were a good
starting point, and they have reference cites to support health claims. So you can read the references to see if the evidence, IYO, is strong enough to support the claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shobha
I admit its possible although I'm not sure why they would do such a thing. Also, we don't really know that these media reports necessarily refer to those type of studies.
|
They do it because there is a profit involved. If a cheap, not patentable supplement works to correct or prevent a health disorder, then a costly drug is not needed/prescribed. That cuts into potential profits. If the benefit of a supplement becomes widely known and, therefore, more generally used, that will cut into profits significantly.
OTOH, companies can make a profit on the other side as well, they can put in a little, ineffective or inert form/amount of a proven effective supplement, make health claims for their "improved" product and sell their product at either a premium price or make it more marketable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shobha
I know about original journal studies, peer review etc etc ... but often studies which supposedly prove the efficacy of a supplement/drug are also sponsored by people who sell them - they're no less biased.
|
True. That's where self education and knowledge come in. Bogus science is bogus science, no matter who is paying for it. The same can be said of good science as well, though. That's why media reports need to be ignored and original studies, on which the media reports are based, need to be read and the "evidence/facts" analyzed to find the truth.