• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

medical research

D

DeacHoops

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
6,067
Reaction score
288
ok pit,
i have some acquaintances who are distributors for juice plus. i don't know if any of y'all know anything about it, and it's really not important whether or not you do. regardless, i find the whole thing to be a ridiculous scam (and ponzi scheme), and multiple scientific studies back me up on that, showing little to no improvement in anything health-related as a result of the stuff. however, there are a few studies, all funded by juice plus itself, that were not double-blind, that say that there are benefits.

so anyway, i felt like picking a fight the other day, and therefore did so. now i've found myself in the middle of emails from one of them, challenging me on my assertions. i quoted the NIH as saying that over 15% of their researchers admit to doctoring results or intentionally skewing testing so that it favored the organization funding the research. she shot back saying that not a single one of their studies was funded by the NIH. when i pointed out that there is one that is, she just changed the topic.

so anyway, i know this is all useless information. the point of this post is that i wondered if somebody could tell me what the norm is regarding funding for supplements. they claim that it is completely normal for supplements to fund their own research, but i've always thought that for something to be taken seriously in the medical or scientific world, the research had to be independent. can somebody who knows something about medical research enlighten me here? am i completely wrong?
 
supplements make me wary anyway. since they don't really have to verify their claims at all, i see no real reason to buy into them.

that being said, i can't really answer your question. always fun to find out some study verifying a result was funded by the corporation most invested in the success of the product though.
 
I dunno about the supplement part but I work in medical research and I've definitely presented data or analyzed it such a way that it supports a hypothesis better per my supervisor's instructions.
 
When it comes to dietary supplements (e.g. vitamins, minerals, etc) manufacturers are responsible for making sure their products are safe before they go to market. Dietary supplement products are not reviewed by the FDA before they are marketed, but the FDA has the responsibility to take action against any unsafe dietary supplement product that reaches the market.

Due to the number of supplements on the market, the FDA doesn't have the resources available to determine if they are efficacious or not.

When it comes to determining whether or not to believe in the results of the study, I would look at a few factors:
- what was the study design, including the primary endpoint?
- what was the p value?
- where or what publication were the results published?

For dietary supplement studies, these don't fall under the same rigorous guidelines as drug studies. So therefore, they will likely be non-IND (Investigational New Drug) studies. However, there is the possibility that a company will want to file it as an IND study. It's been my experience that these are few and far between for supplements.
 
Last edited:
Unless the research is peer reviewed, which often means others are working in a similar area or doing the exact same things, as a medical professional I would be weary of any self interest studies. The research from the Tobacco Institute and their white papers comes to mind. Supplements and weight loss "drugs" are well aware of this and that's why they explicitly say " no proven medical benefit" or they would fall under FDA and other federal regulatory studies.
 
several of these studies HAVE been peer reviewed. at least one of them was unable to replicate results, however. i haven't looked closely enough to find if the others were able to replicate positive results.
 
And of course I didn't answer your question with my earlier post, but often times a research study is funded by someone other than an independent organization.

For instance, most drug studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies. However, as mentioned in the earlier post, drug studies have strict FDA guidelines as opposed to dietary supplements.

While billions go into the NIH, the majority goes to funding research for consortiums (e.g. Children's Oncology Group, Gynecologic Oncology Group, etc), academic institutions, and diseases with small disease incidence rates. A portion is spent on supplements, but that is small compared to drug studies.
 
Last edited:
Dietary supplements do not require FDA approval to enter the market, so I can't imagine any research conducted by them (supposedly to have as a selling point to customers?) is the least bit thorough.

It sounds like this isn't even really worth debating, from a scientific standpoint. I reached that conclusion as soon as I read "there are a few studies, all funded by juice plus itself, that were not double-blind..."

ETA: ddeacs98 has it covered pretty well.
 
Yeah if they are peered reviewed and the results don't repeat then they probably are doctored to fit a specific goal. Things repeating is kind of pivotal in science. The other problem is when you do research that involves people or trials, which I assume they are doing, then there are 1000's of variables that can simply be left out to skew your data. I read medical journals every day so if you want I can look at their study, if you want to post or PM the papers title, or authors.
 
I guess my best opinion would be to look at the study design (best being a double-blinded, placebo controlled) and the inclusion/exclusion criteria, so that it's targeting the right patient population and minimalizing the amount of variability that can be reflective in the results.
 
it does sound like i am wrong i my assumption that these things should be independently verified. so i'll back down on that argument. i mean, i still think the thing is a scam. but i'll stick with legitimate arguments.

and thanks, thinkingwithmydeac, for the offer to look at some of the studies. i'll post details of them when i've got more energy. i've got an early morning and really need to head to bed, but i'll definitely be taking you up on it.
 
I did some quick research of my own, Here you go, here is an excerpt from one of their "studies" to show juice plus helps with common colds. This is despite real medical research showing for the most part vitamin C etc... isn't that great for colds to begin with.

The mean age of the participants was 39·9 (sd 10·3) years, and 80 % of the participants were female. The mean number of days with moderate or severe common cold symptoms was 7·6 (95 % CI 6·5, 8·8) in the Juice Plus+® group and 9·5 (8·4, 10·6) in the placebo group (P = 0·023). The mean number of total days with any common cold symptoms was similar in the Juice Plus+® and in the placebo groups (29·4 (25·8, 33·0) v. 30·7 (27·1, 34·3), P = 0·616). Intake of a dietary supplement from fruits and vegetables was associated with a 20 % reduction of moderate or severe common cold symptom days in healthcare professionals particularly exposed to patient contact.

So essential the above excerpt is saying that using arbitrary conditions to define moderate and severe cold days, you get less of them with juice plus, but at the same time you still have the exact same number of days with a cold. So in essence Juice plus doesn't do shit.

I also found this nice study you can ask your friends about.
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2809%2900712-8/fulltext
Its about a patient that has her Juice+ supplement leads to hepatotoxicity.

What a lovely Friday evening I am having stuck at home babysitting a puppy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top