buffdoc said:... let's look for a moment at antioxidant research (with which I am quite familiar; I just have a problem with a lot of what I call "cut and paste" posting, in which the data often is tangential to the discussion at hand; I prefer that the individual do his or her own research).
Antioxidants work in concert. Each one in turn accepts electrons from another in a type of chain reaction. Therefore, most mainstream research done w/ antioxidants is full of holes. One cannot simply test, say, beta carotene by itself, as was done in the Finnish cancer studies, and which is the typical placebo-controlled study model. To not include the other antioxidant substances creates an artificial environment, and the results will be skewed.
The same goes for liver protectants. Perhaps one increases intracellular glutathione levels, another inhibits the migration of glutathione out of the cell, yet another facilitates its entry, etc. If you just use one supplement in a study, or as the basis of an anecdote, what might your results be? Probably less than stellar.
This is the reason many mainstream medical "authorities" will claim lack of evidence that ascorbate, or E, or other vitamins/minerals, or "alternative" treatments, have effects that are popularly associated with them. The testing process itself is artificial and bears little resemblance to real life in the cells or in the organism.
Anyone who takes just one or two antioxidants is kidding themselves; the same goes for liver protectants. We must hit it from different angles and with different modes of action! It's simply foolish and dangerous not to, especially with the high safety profile of the supplements in question!
EXACTLY !