Yes or No? Do Vitamins Really Help Lung Disease?

Today's news holds some promise for the beleaguered among us who tire of the incessant drone of the anti-nutrition crowd that claim it is "ALL quackery!"? The French study that claimed beta-carotene increased lung cancer in smokers has been refuted (Guenegou A et al. "Serum carotenoids, vitamins A and E, and 8 year lung function decline in a general population." Thorax 2006;61:320-326.)? The people with higher beta-carotene levels had much better lung health after one year than those with low beta-carotene!? The best news of all...this was in smokers!? I love it!? I recently read a statistic that showed 34% of all studies are refuted within 5 years.? So, whatever is "scientific fact" today may be relegated to the scrap heap of mythology tomorrow!

?

That's why it's important to employ common sense?and understand that scientific study is valuable but not infallible.? Framing new information in a historical, spiritual and logical context helps to separate crazy beliefs that have passed the "scientific method" from solid truths that will endure after the scientific community is done wrangling.? I'm excited to see a study that points out the value of high levels of antioxidants in the prevention of degenerative disease.? A recent study at the University of Utah showed that Alzheimer's risk could be cut by 75% by simply taking 400 IU of vitamin E and 500 mg of vitamin C.? All the while the medical journals insist that taking vitamins can't be shown to benefit a population of healthy people.

?

I consider that poor science.? Just because something escapes?one method for generating a conclusion doesn't mean that thing should be dismissed as worthless.? The problem lies in the quality of the investigative tool more than it does the issue being studied.? Whether individuals have no capability of making sound decisions for themselves or not it seems that the overwhelming majority of Americans embrace the notion that nutrition and supplementation work!? The scientific community will need to catch up with the investigative ability of regular folks soon.? Otherwise the value that our current system brings to health and healing may be lost.? That would be a real tragedy (no sarcasm intended).?

?

If we started from a more true premise we would be more likely to generate scientific conclusions that would stand the test of time.? My standard for investigation is the ruler of faith.? If something deviates from Biblical truth it needs to be evaluated with the highest scrutiny.? If it is proven right again and again I feel the Biblical truth needs to be considered fully.? If both positions continue to be diametrically opposed, Bible trumps man's hypothetical methodology and time will bear out the wisdom of that conclusion.? I'll stand by that concept.? From evolution to sexual conduct the rule should be applied.? When the scientific community embraces this approach there will be a far lower rate of refuted studies!