so if the hospitals do use the same types of supplements identified as
dangerous in the studies, it
may be an important study if it's interpreted by them correctly.
I believe conventional medicine does advocate some supplements, folic
acid to prevent birth defects, calcium +vit D to prevent osteoporosis,
and some food (flour, skimmed milk) is fortified according to
conventional medical advice.

not sure what you meant about the unhealthy behaviour.

my question was if a synthetic vitamin includes a xenobiotic substance
(eg. a chiral molecule in a
racemic fraction) and/or includes only one of the natural set of
isomers (even most "natural" vit E),
shouldn't we expect problems?  Yet according to the team, there has
not been a single RCT up to 2005 using non-synthetic vitamins.  It
seems almost like arguing food is harmful because synthetic food can
be harmful.   The notion that synthetic vitamins are harmful is hardly
new, my first random hit from Google,

http://www.naturalrearing.com/J_In_Learning/NutritionSupplements/VitaminsNatural
vsSynthetic.html,

raises issues of birth defects with vit A, sterility with Vit B, and
kidney disease with vit D, and
mentions studies where natural vitamins were compared ( I don't know
if RCTs).
If natural vit A was that toxic (16% higher mortality) there should be
some worries about liver, and
maybe cautions on fruit and veg that is high in antioxidants,
according to the team's suggestion
that antixodants in themselves may be harmful?

more from

http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/vitamins-raise-death-risk-study/2007/02/27/117
2338624454.html

"There's a billion dollar vitamin industry based on this idea that
people can prevent disease when
they're actually just putting themselves at extra risk," said Prof
Vitetta, from the University of
Queensland.
Supplement manufacturers claim these products have an antioxidant
effect, essentially eliminating
free radical "messenger molecules" that are responsible for the so-
called oxidative stress which has been linked to disease.
But critics doubt whether oxidative stress even exists, with this
research saying that killing off
free radicals only interferes with some essential defensive mechanisms
which affect survival.
Professor Vitetta said smaller studies had shown that those who "mega-
dosed" on vitamins had the most heightened risk, and called for "very,
very prudent" consumption.
<

1. "selenium... (was) significantly associated with mortality."
2. "In 47 low-bias trials with 180 938 participants, the antioxidant
supplements significantly
increased mortality"
3. "In low-bias risk trials ...Vitamin C and selenium had no
significant effect on mortality."

if 1. and 3. are consistent, then at least Vit C might be if anything
protective against selenium, if
I understood it correctly..  Notwithstanding concerns such as in the
first link aboout synthetic vit
C, AIUI synthetic ascorbic acid itself is the same as the natural
version.  If it was harmful to the
degree claimed (6% higher mortality), I wonder why most mammals
synthesize it naturally in large
amounts.

"Contrary to evidence"???  NO EVIDENCE

The ignorant cannot see through the "studies" or at least the reports of the
"studies".

Just in case it is WAY over your head, people in a hospital are compromised
and simple diet is insufficient.

I've hear tell that they actually give patients medicine and sometimes cut
them.

DUUUUHHHHH