> The Iowa Women’s Health Study

Fascinating, really.  An heroic effort, and written in plain language for the most part.

Although it can give a general idea, it cannot tell any specific individual whether the risk applies or not.

Some of the supplements seemed to harm quite a few people judging by the death rate, but we don't know why these people were taking the supplement.  Could it have been because they had a fatal condition that was actally being improved by  the pill?  

What were their genetics? Were they a susceptible sub-population?  We know that iron is one supplement that is obvious.  Only some people need iron and others actually suffer from having too much in the first place.

Were there sub-populations that were not susceptible to the harms or even helped by some supplements, but whose benefits were masked by the greater harm to others?

We cannot know, but this is a fascinating read and raises many many more questions than it answers, unless one is searching for the average over a population and takes the findings personally.
I
In most cases the effects are quite small and almost undetectable and even if they apply, the risk is only vanishingly slight.

Were there benefits?  Hard to say because a surrogate measure -- was used as the criterion. 

This happens all the time.  We want to measure something, but find we can only measure something else and hope the association is close.

Were there harms that fell short of early death?  Again, we do cannot know.

Why dwell on this?  Because the problems are the same in bee research, or in any soft subject.

And should people take supplements?

Don't ask me.  Should people skydive?

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html