Vit E bites the dust again.
I know there are those who still think Linus Pauling was right about Vit C.
I find that food supplement studies are so often just feel good observational studies, because the endpoints on a supplement study are hard to develop for reliable evidence.
You know, like what’s reliable about a poll? Why do social studies always smell of outcome bias and tunnel vision?
http://acsh.org/2014/01/another-bad-outcome-antioxidant-vitamin-e-good-ones/
(sorry for my english).
NAC or vit E study doesn’t allow to conclude on the property of “anti oxidant” as a whole.
There are litterally thousand of anti oxidant chemicals with a very wide range of biologic actions. Reacting with free radicals is a very tiny part of it.
You should considere, for exemple, some of the 2300 studies published on curcumin and cancer…
Really? A mouse study using alpha-tocopherol? Please . . . To pharma, alpha-tocopherol is vitamin E. In the real world, vitamin E is a mixture of alpha, beta, delta, gamma tococpherol, and tocotrienols.
Want to see how “real” vitamin E acts on cancer. Search on tocotrienols and cancer in pubmed, or gamma tocopherol and cancer.
I would expect more from Junk Science yet again I’m disappointed. How sad.