I'm not particularly certain as to how I might have been offensive, but if you've construed my posts as such, then I'm sorry they elicited such a response.
And while patients do have to act (and yes, not taking antioxidants is an action), taking action without making an informed decision based on evidence, not reputation, is a step backwards toward the snake oil peddling days.
There is a distinct difference between _controversial_ research and research of _insufficient quality_. Controversial research is research in which the levels of evidence for two sides of an argument are comparable to one another. The controversy arises because neither side really has the strength of evidence to win. This is not the case with the studies you presented to me. In the case of carotenoids, the studies, for the most part, are of insufficient quality to even be a part of a controversial debate. The choice between "do nothing" or "eat anti-oxidants" is presently based almost entirely on "If I do nothing, nothing will change. If I eat anti-oxidants, _something_ _MIGHT_ change". And so, rather than do nothing, susceptible (and vulnerable, I should add, PARTICULARLY if they have a disease) individuals make the choice to invest their money for a _chance_. With sufficient evidence, an individual should be able to make an informed decision about their "treatment choice" in such a way as to understand what that "chance" actually is, in some concrete, preferrably quantifiable way--not that it's a generic "chance" with no measure of magnitude.
No, science is never 100% certain. Even with a p less than 0.05, there is still uncertainty. And any scientist who is out looking for certainty is paradoxically certainly going to go mad. Clinical science is about systematically evaulating interventions so that people can make informed decisions about their care. Studies on anti-oxidants and carotenoids have yet to reach the level to which individuals can do this. Until then, people are buying into _a_ chance. And since they're just buying into _a_ chance, their decisions are mostly based on cost and how that cost will impact their finances and quality of life.
Because if we had the overwhelming evidence to suggest that Lifepak would prevent cancer, heart disease, vascular disease, renal disease and so on, we (as in the people in this forum) wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be eating our Lifepaks. But right now, we don't even have sufficient evidence as to whether or not we should decide on eating them yet.
|