Why Do the Tabuloids Always put down Vitamins?
Its contained by the News again this week, that Vitamins are bad for you,
And their saying Antioxidents, which are clearly benificial, to the immune system, are also unpromising.
Their medication causes more damage to the body, next the vitamins, so why are they always putting vitamins down.
I agree too many vitamins can be impossible, too much of anything can be bad. But to say that adjectives vitamins are bad is a bit extreme.
Lots of people prefer the instinctive way, and supplement their diet with vitamins, thats their choice.
It only just makes me so angry, when people maintain putting down natural stuff, after all, years ago back medication ever existed, people survived on natural remedies!
Answer: It depends on a few things. usually it's bias, supporting their advertisers (there's like mad of drug ads in magazines), trying to cause an article that gets noticed (it hits on things that folks are passionate about), a report that pushes an agenda that they are working toward, or maybe simply to get people riled up (which a quantity of tabloids do all too often). but there might be some other origin that only the editor and/or publisher may know.
Ultimately, when something like this comes out, you enjoy to take it with a pellet of salt... make sure you verify their sources and read the fine print.
For example, this most recent report that the medium is blaring about is just a rehash of one and the same article that was put out in Feb/March 2007 attacking vitamins, not to mention that the report's parameter only looked at studies where mortality be an issue... most of which were the effects of vitamins on terminal patients. They even rejected a few hundred studies because there be no mortality reported.. that would be the bias to meet their agenda of trying to say vitamins are unpromising.
Now we, as educated supplement takers, know that vitamins are good and good (in the right contexts)... and that they aren't going to cure a terminal illness in most cases because they are for preventative measures.
Heck, I still remember the reports on eggs that be coming out every other week or so flipping between "they're good for you" and "they're bad for you". it freshly got old have the two sides fight like college children. Just try not to take the articles seriously and look at the "fine print details" behind it that show their bias since taking it seriously and you'll be fine ;-).
"years ago before medication ever existed, people survived on automatic remedies"
Yes, they survived. For about 50 years. Remember, the average life span be much, much shorter then.
Where was adjectives this angst about the "tabuloids" [sic] when they said cold medicines be largely ineffective for children two weeks ago?
"Antioxidents [sic], which are clearly benificial [sic]..."
Ummm. NO. Antioxidants are theoretically beneficial. They seem to be conscientious when they're part of your diet. The benefit for antioxidant supplements has never pan out, however. In fact, supplemental vitamin E was associated next to a BAD effect, which surprised everyone.
Sorry, but your interpretation of the facts is faulty and incomplete..
Actually, some newspaper reports recommend the taking of extra vitamins and other condition supplements (in addition to a healthy diet) and other rag reports condemn all health supplements.
These conflicting reports are weak hat and this is quite everyday.
Perhaps the way to deal next to these conflicting reports is to regard this situation as analogous to a good attorney who can argue equally well for both sides..
It's not really a tabloid issue: any time a medical study comes along, it's blared over all the medium -- whether the story is positive or negative. Remember the stories a few years ago about how vitamin E would extend your lifespan by decades?
And remember that "natural" doesn't other mean safe. After adjectives, poison ivy and arsenic are both completely natural..
Years ago, before medication, citizens ate food not supplements. What is becoming clearer from research is that vitamims taken as found in food are good, vitamins taken as pills may be disadvantageous.
If you eat a normal, hygienic diet you don't need vitamins in pill form..
money They will print alost anything someone is prepared to pay for.