“Vitamin C had a number of factors working against it — sometimes the results of these studies were negative because the researchers doing the studies designed them to fail in order to protect pharmaceutical-based medicine.”  Dr. Russell Blaylock

When given two completely different conclusions both from allegedly reputable and credible sources, how do you decide who to believe?

A bribe seems to work like magic for those who give it; they succeed in all they do. (Prov. 17:8; NLT)

Yesterday’s DG addressed the Vitamin C “impostor” ascorbic acid. Impostor is a strong accusation, but let the following information from Judith DeCava’s book titled The Real Truth about Vitamins and Anti-Oxidants, adjudicate your own conclusion.

–Synthetic and fractinated ascorbic acid has been shown by modern studies to have no effect on pneumonia while whole Vitamin C, used years ago, demonstrated remarkable effects.
–Synthetic and fractinated ascorbic acid alone works like an antihistamine but does not prevent “colds” while whole Vitamin C does not have this drug-like effect.
–Synthetic and fractinated ascorbic acid alone has no effect on cancer prevention while 33 studies show a reduction in cancer risk when taking at least 60 mg of whole Vitamin C in food.
–Synthetic and fractinated ascorbic acid requires hundreds of milligrams to do what a few milligrams of whole Vitamin C in real food can do.
–Synthetic and fractinated ascorbic acid alone has numerous adverse effects while whole Vitamin C does not have any of those adverse effects.

When you begin to put this all together, and if you assume that our bodies don’t readily absorb synthetic impostors or fractions of the whole for any vitamin or mineral, it begins to suggest a very plausible explanation for the mixed results often seen from one study to the next that are all so widely publicized by the media. Consider the possibility that one study uses the real thing and the other study uses the “impostor” and yields completely different results. Then push this possibility one step further and ask yourself why anyone would waste their time and money doing a study revolving around an impostor — unless they were trying to make a point? Then ask yourself if they are really spending their money…or somebody else’s? I’ll leave it at that.

Today’s link looks at the next vital step in the chain of mis-information. On Monday, I quoted Neil Levin to say, “Poor scientific work done by physicians and scientists — plus a lack of proper filters in journalism’s coverage of science — is contributing to misleading and contradictory dietary supplement health information seen by consumers, leading to them making poor health choices.”  I believe that the quote may take on new meaning as you have read yesterday and today’s DG. So I have included Levin’s article as the Link of the Day.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at one more aspect that contributes greatly to the rampant confusion and continued stream of mis-information, i.e., quality.

Prayer Power
Father, only You can show us the truth. We humbly as You for that guidance as the “noisy conflict” increases in intensity.

Link of the Day
Land of Confusion: How Poor Science and Misleading Media Coverage Create Public Confusion About How Dietary Supplements Affect Health

Blessings on you as you ask yourself some hard questions about who to believe.

Previous in Series-/ /-Next in Series