I find it rather disappointing sometimes how most atheists dispel statements/beliefs/arguments simply because the scientific research has not proven it. It's one thing for research to conclusively prove something but if the research is not there, it does not mean that it's not true. I've come across this a number of times in medicine and I'd like to share one of those examples.
When my oldest daughter was younger, she was in and out of hospitals. This placed a great deal of stress on myself and my wife. One day I started to see dark areas in my eyesight and went to the doctor. My doctor was a little shocked (don't you hate it when they don't hide their feelings too well and you of course think the worst). Anyway, he sent me to an eye specialist who told me that due to the stress I was under, a protective film in the back of my eye had deteriorated and was in the process of breaking down. This is an irreversible process that I could do nothing about.
Great, thanks for the diagnosis, doc. I immediately went to my naturopath who quite matter-of-factly told me she would fix it in 3 months. Sure enough, 3 months later, after taking all my anti-oxidant tablets, my eyesight cleared up. So much for irreversible.
This is a small example, that I have seen repeated many times with others around me. Clearly it is not in the interests of the multibillion dollar drug companies to conduct clinical trials of cheap off-the-shelf vitamin tablets that are capable of curing our diseases. Science is profits-driven. Today, great advances in science occur when large amounts of money are involved (or large amounts of people need to be killed). Sometimes, money is spent on science that has little or no monetary return (space program, CERN LHC, etc. Some of these things are driven by fear, some a dick-measuring exercises (ie Europe can say it now has a bigger collider than the USA). But basically, it comes down to scientific endeavour being undertaken by flawed individuals and driven by possible financial returns.
Then of course there are the scientific "studies" which are designed to show a desired outcome funded by big $$$. I'm old enough to remember the debate on the detrimental effects of cigarette smoking. Did anyone believe the scientific studied funded by the cigarette companies? You would be surprised!!! Today we have a similar debate on the detrimental effects of mobile phone usage. Finally some studies are coming out now that show the relationship between mobile phone usage and brain tumours on the side of the brain that the phone is used. Duh!
Just as there are lies, damn lies and statistics, the same applies to science. It is a tool that can be misused for nefarious purposes and when there is human nature and money involved, it usually is misused.
So, don't believe it just because a scientific study has shown it to be so and don't not believe something just because there are no scientific studies.
No, Susan, I never discussed that in relation to vitamins. One can OD on pretty much most things from food, alcohol, drugs, sex, causing problems from behavioural, mental disorder and even death. I'm not sure what ODing has to do wtih this discussion though.
Well, then you might want to re-read what i wrote because your previous response had nothing to do with what i said.
I just re-read it. What did I miss?
Who says that studies haven't been done? There is no proof that getting more of a vitamin or mineral then what is needed helps anything
Clearly what you say is not true. There have been many studies that have shown the favourable effects of vitamin supplements.
The first part is my post and the second part is the relevant part of yours. Now where did I say that the studies that have been done did not find vitamins effective?
Vitamin C is water-soluble, so you cannot overdose on it. However, many other vitamins are not, and can be dangerous, if not lethal, in excess doses. Nonetheless, most studies show that C does not actually have a noticeable difference in treating colds, as many people believe.
As the condition is irreversible it would seem a study could be done on those with the condition and treated with antioxidants. If there is asignificant improvement among some patients then the treatment could be recommendend. OTOH, if no change is seen then the treatment has no value. The patients have nothing to lose.
Jim, that's true, however, the big drug companies are not interested in spending the millions of dollars on the studies because they can't patent vitamins so they can't profit from them. This is the whole point. And this is where modern western medicine suffers because it completely ignores remedies that are available which have far fewer side effects and are less expensive but are not clinically tested. Thankfully things are changing and more and more medical professionals and scientists are willing to apply for funding to perform these clinical studies.