Derek Miketinas Debunked

by Steven Carney on February 17, 2017

This is post #133, about Derek Miketinas, grad student at LSU. He has the terrible qualities of an Internet troll: manipulative, argumentative and unprofessional.

A few weeks ago, I had some unfortunate encounters with Derek Miketinas, a grad student at LSU (Louisiana State University). He’s also a member of several committees of the ASN (American Society for Nutrition), showing their questionable judgment, see details below.

On Linkedin, Derek made many biased comments about anti-oxidants in large nutrition group with over 58,000 members. The discussion title was, Antioxidants are substances such as vitamins, that may prevent damage to your cells or even repair damage that has been done. The article was from Kaila Umecker, RN, BSN. She also posted the article in the group.

I’m writing this article about Derek’s comments because they are a textbook example of how bias and indoctrination can cause people to spread false information about nutritional research, human health, disease prevention and aging. This article will also expose how common fallacies in Western medicine get established in students’ minds, and how biased studies get casually tossed around by medical practitioners and media, often leading to misinformation and public harm.

If you’ve heard the expression, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing” then this article will take you inside that realm, a place filled with serious bias, manipulation and misinformation, using science, not as an opportunity for learning new ideas, but to attack another professional with.

This debunking article about Derek Miketinas will demonstrate that his knowledge of science and research is shallow and superficial at best; his arguments, trolling and bullying are apparently driven by a mix of ignorance and a hunger for attention. What I get from his comments and attitude is that he likes to troll other professionals and misrepresent their work.

The original article

The original article about anti-oxidants and cellular damage was only about ½ a page long, and I thought it could use some additional support. I added the following comment and link to a more detailed article I wrote a few years ago:

No doubt, anti-oxidants are an important part of nourishment and health, whether from foods or supplements. I wrote a detailed article you might like (this is an overview article I wrote on anti-oxidants, both taken through food or supplements like vitamins or minerals, and those we generate internally): 

Kaila responded with this supportive comment:

Thank you! looking forward to reading this.

I added this short comment:

I always include source links too, if you want to explore more detail. Those are at the end.

She responded that her info was from the American Diabetes Association.

I added this short follow-up comment to reinforce the issue of common deficiencies in the Standard American Diet, or SAD, including a few research links:

Given the SAD and over consumption of junk/fast/processed foods, where vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants are stripped out in processing and cooking, most people are way below what they need:

And this one:

I’m curious if you have some good studies showing too many anti-oxidants (I’m hoping I don’t see those poorly-done studies on smokers [ATBC] or the SELECT trial)?

These first comments and exchanges show how actual professionals interact on Linkedin or in person: respectful, appreciative and willing to share knowledge and new ideas in a civil way.

And the studies I included with that SAD comment show that many people eating a typical diet don’t get all of the vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants they need (more below), and that not eating well can have effects on health including depression. Note: I added that comment about too-many anti-oxidants because I haven’t seen credible studies that show that Americans are eating too many fruits and veggies, common sources of anti-oxidants.

Derek’s first comment

This is when Derek chimed in out of the blue (I’ve never seen him comment in any Linkedin nutrition groups before). Based on his opening comment, I should say he came crashing in to the discussion:

Steven, those are interesting articles you shared. In response to your article “Aging and Antioxidants,” Iron, Copper, and Zinc are pro-oxidants under certain conditions and have serious health consequences when consumed above the Tolerable Upper Limit (Gaetke & Chow, 2003). Additionally, other antioxidants like vitamins E & C can act as pro-oxidants under certain in vivo conditions. ROS and other free radicals are not all bad; in fact, they’re necessary for proper immune function and cellular signalling (Maemura, et al. 2004; Ristow, 2014). Although there are hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of action, the findings from studies on antioxidants role in aging are equivocal. A significant problem with studying oxidative stress is that it cannot be directly measured. Rather, indirect measures of downstream oxidation products are used to estimate oxidative stress.

Right off the bat, Miketinas ignored our comments about the SAD and widespread, well-documented nutrient deficiencies, deciding to fear monger about excessive supplement intakes! Where did this come from? He apparently decided to grandstand and talk down to us. In my case, I know about the issues of reasonable nutrient intakes and balance. I’ve written about those issues in my posts, including the article link I put up, the one he claimed he read! His comments also demonstrated someone who likes to manipulate and distort the work of other professionals, raising issues of excessive intakes that none of us were discussing or recommending!

Not only did he ignore our previous comments about common nutrient deficiencies from the SAD (Standard American Diet), he also skipped all the key points I made in my overview article. He left the impression that I suggested high doses for supplements in my article but I didn’t include any food intake or dosages for any of the anti-oxidants, vitamins or minerals in my article!

And his claim that studies are “equivocal” for how ROS affect aging is not really accurate. Only a few, badly-done or irrelevant studies challenge the well-established ROS and oxidative stress theories of aging and disease (see lots of detailed, debunking content and many links below).

My article was for general adult consumption, describing what free radicals and ROS are, what anti-oxidants do, which are ones are fat or water soluble, etc. I also outlined anti-oxidants we take in through nutrition and which ones we make internally, often synthesized from and supported by nutritional sources (including some of the same vitamins and minerals I included in the article).

In spite of the early context about deficiencies for a range of vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants in the SAD, an issue well-known to most credible health practitioners, Miketinas decided to fear-monger about excessive intakes that none of us ever suggested!

I included extensive details about the types and balance of micro-nutrients in my 30-plus source links at the end of the article link I posted. I’ve written about deficiencies and the need for micro-nutrient balance in many posts. I don’t recommend dosages over those safe limits. I even reference balance and co-factors in the article. This is all in his mind, along with his need for attention.

Some quotes from my article

In fact, here are some closing paragraphs I included in that Aging and Antioxidants article on where I also included multiple food-based sources for anti-oxidants:

Your body needs both fat and water-soluble antioxidants so that all your tissues can be protected from premature aging and free-radical damage. And indeed, antioxidants do come in both forms! Many occur in veggies, fruits, nuts/seeds, herbs, spices, teas, etc. We can also make some of our own, if our diet and lifestyle is healthy enough. I’ll cover those later in this post.

Later in the article, I have these accurate and truthful paragraphs, supported by established nutritional science:

Notice how antioxidants work together in groups to help each other, recycle and boost effectiveness! This is a common theme in nutrition, lifestyle and anti-aging vitality.

Vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and food work together to create the most effective nourishment! And it’s another reason why treating individual vitamins, minerals or antioxidants as drugs, testing them against a placebo, will usually fail. Micronutrients and antioxidants do not work individually like drugs, they work together as a team! You need them in groups and in a good balance for your individual needs!

Here is the article link again: 

So how does he claim he read my article and miss those key sections, plus all of the links (more than 30) at the end, including credible articles by MDs and research links? I predict he didn’t read the article in detail, nor did he open and read all my source links either! Notice too, my comment about treating individual nutrients like drugs will usually fail. This will be soon be a very critical issue later in this article, as I debunk the studies he included in his comments that did exactly that!

I responded with this comment, knowing he was being alarmist about excessive mineral intakes for no reason (vitamin and mineral overdoses and deaths are extremely rare), far less than those from prescription drugs, which kill 125,000-150,000 annually and injure millions more:

Some thoughts: Did you happen to review the source material I used in the anti-oxidant article? I included over 30 source links. I discuss the balance of vitamins and minerals in some detail in those source links where I include food sources and deficiencies for each. I never tell anyone to consume supplements in any unsafe manner. Have you seen articles on all the vitamin and mineral deficiencies the American public has? There are many and as you surely know, many vitamins and minerals also serve as anti-oxidants, meaning health, organs and systems are compromised in multiple ways. Oxidative stress is associated with many chronic diseases: 

And this one focuses on heart disease:

Much of my work has evolved over decades of study but I’m not a big fan of reductionism:

Notice how I again raised the issue of nutrient deficiencies and how those compromise health in multiple ways. Of course, my accurate comment and links weren’t nearly good enough for Derek Miketinas, the grandstander and peacock, so he came back with the comment below, again ignoring all of the substance I provided about widespread nutrient deficiencies and that testing nutrients individually like drugs will often fail. Plus, he added new claims about oxidative stress, chronic disease and continued to undermine my article. He then finished with a completely false claim about my article.

Derek’s terrible studies

Steven, Yes I have read through the articles you provided. While there are studies that show a correlation between oxidative stress and chrodic disease, keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation. Studies have failed to demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship between oxidative stress and chronic disease (Lin, et al., 2009; Song et al. 2009; Katsiki & Manes, 2009). There is enough literature to describe the mechanism by which oxidative stress promotes longevity (Ristow, Zarse 2010). Figure 1 in the Ristow paper diagrams this pathway. Antioxidants are important in maintaining the integrity of cellular systems and consequently supporting health; however, the interplay of oxidation and reduction in vivo is more complex than your article and comments have suggested. There was also no mention of studies that provide counter evidence to your position which suggests that you are reducing the problem of chronic disease to a single etiology: oxidative stress.

His last claim that I have reduced the problem of chronic disease to a single cause is false and dishonest! I never said, or implied that chronic disease is due only to oxidative stress anywhere in that article (I include the actual quote below), nor have I ever said that in 130-plus articles and more than 5 years of writing! But when ego, arrogance and grandstanding drive your keyboard strokes, someone like Miketinas apparently feels confident in making an outrageously dishonest claim about the work of another professional!

In his above comment he also makes a reference to this study: There is enough literature to describe the mechanism by which oxidative stress promotes longevity (Ristow, Zarse 2010). Figure 1 in the Ristow paper diagrams this pathway.

He duplicates that same reference below using the paper’s actual title. I’ll debunk that study and its relevance below, but his overconfidence about the theory that oxidative stress promotes longevity for most adults is demonstrably false (see comments and numerous links below), especially based on studies like the Ristow and Zarse research.

I’ll give you this early hint about that study: What he claims the study shows is highly inaccurate! The study looked at artificial conditions like calorie restriction and glucose restriction, largely taken from studies on yeast and small lab animals. You’ll see below why that study doesn’t support his bold claims that oxidative stress promotes human lifespan in any credible way! His sweeping claim is misinformation!

My article on anti-oxidants was written for a general adult audience (it’s not a study), backed up with good source material, and further supported by the additional links I add below here. I use far more source materials and links than most other writers!

In fact, every article I write is well researched and sourced (they often take weeks to finish, working between other projects); they have held up very well over the last 5 years. His claim that I need counter evidence like his is unfounded. I wasn’t doing a research study, and as you soon see, the claims that ROS don’t contribute to cellular and DNA damage, aging or chronic disease development is not supported by good research. Just the opposite!

Here is my exact quote from my Aging and Antioxidants early in the article (after which I added a list conditions and diseases which have been shown by numerous studies to be negatively affected by free radicals and Reactive Oxygen Species/ROS), and numerous links support that below:

Because ROS and free radicals can damage cells and DNA, they contribute to aging (more wrinkles, gray hair), degeneration, and a host of chronic health conditions and diseases:

Notice, I used the word “can” as a conditional term. I also specifically said they “contribute” to aging, chronic health conditions and disease. That’s an accurate statement, put in proper context, based on many previous and ongoing research studies (many below).

No matter! Miketinas manipulated and distorted my words; he is being dishonest to everyone in the discussion and group (remember, this group has over 58,000 members who can see this discussion) by claiming something my article never said. Derek’s misinformation about my article exemplifies how manipulative trolls and bullies operate: they have little sense of fairness or accuracy. They need to feel like they “won” at any cost. And Miketinas continued to defend his outrageous falsehood later on.

Notice that he again talks down to me in his comment, lecturing me about the well-known concept of “correlation is not causation.” I’ve used that phrase in comments and articles dozens of times! That’s because many anti-supplement studies, like the ones he threw into he discussion, are notorious for their associative, non-causative findings, the exact same approach. Doctors and RDs quote those studies all the time. See how manipulative and hypocritical Miketinas is?

In truth, lots of nutrition studies use associations (or correlations), especially epidemiological studies. That includes the early studies (now debunked) that claim saturated fat and cholesterol are the cause of heart disease and heart attacks! Funny how that false, oft-repeated medical dogma is widely accepted and still in practice today!

After his next comments (including studies from many of the same, biased authors), I’ll provide 40-plus studies and information links that support my position and debunk his studies and position, but also notice how Derek criticizes my perfectly reasonable, general information article from 2013 that explains what free radicals and anti-oxidants are, and how free radicals can damage cells and DNA, contributing to aging and chronic disease (again, numerous studies that confirm those damaging effects are listed below).

More bad studies from Miketinas

Miketinas wasn’t finished tossing in comments and studies that all seem to counter my article. But do they? No, they don’t! He added 2 more comments with more studies below his above comment. He added this additional comment which criticized my article again (it turns out that it wasn’t his last comment in this batch either), again showing a kind of sloppy, unprofessional approach, plus his repeated reference to that study by Ristow I touched on earlier:

Lastly, the 30+ source links are from secondary sources like,, to name a few. These are not credible sources; the articles you provided in your rebuttal comment from pubmed are considered credible. References: Ristow, Michael, and Kim Zarse. “How increased oxidative stress promotes longevity and metabolic health: The concept of mitochondrial hormesis (mitohormesis).” Experimental gerontology 45.6 (2010): 410-418.
Lin, Jennifer, et al. “Vitamins C and E and beta carotene supplementation and cancer risk: a randomized controlled trial.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101.1 (2009): 14-23.

He starts off making more false and dishonest claims about my source material! I included many credible articles and studies in those 30-plus source links (notice he only includes 3)! Miketinas clearly likes to fly high, as he continues to manipulate my work to distort it, then tossing in a mash-up of poorly done, myopic, reductionist studies to grandstand and blow smoke (see numerous debunking links and content below) that are largely irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

I use credible articles because I’ve reviewed so many studies over the years so I have a background in a broad range of nutritional, health and aging studies. Because most lay people are not scientists, I often include some basic articles that are easy to read, then I add more studies later on. I was writing a general information article for adults.

His sweeping attack on what he calls “secondary sources” is uncalled for! I’m here to help educate readers and clients who tend to have little nutrition education. I often I also include study abstracts or full studies when available but many want to charge significant money for them.

Notice too how he relies on the same study authors in his source material. I see many of the same researchers listed: Ristow, Zarse, Chow, Katzinski and Song, including his additional comment below. He’s showing a strong bias and a narrow focus in his source material, selecting those few who appear to support his biased, counter position to my article while claiming I’m biased because I didn’t include junk studies like his! That’s unprofessional, hypocritical and ridiculous!

Notice this study he referenced again is the one I mentioned earlier: How increased oxidative stress promotes longevity and metabolic health: The concept of mitochondrial hormesis (mitohormesis). It might sound like an impressive, well-done human study. It’s not!

That review study (a review of other studies) has a very misleading title. It’s not a prospective study at all, but a mash up of other studies based on the metabolic effects of calorie restriction (CR), glucose restriction (GR) and exercise on lifespan in laboratory critters, studies that don’t reflect most adults or their lifestyles. In fact, most studies cited were done on yeast, fruit flies, tiny worms (nematodes) and mice, not humans. Free radicals were not mentioned in the study and ROS were only a focus near the end (and I had to dig for days to find a PDF file of his study).

Much of the source material is decades old, largely based on those lab animals and including a few references to old, debunked human studies with life-long smokers (like the ATBC study I mentioned early on in the discussion thread that misrepresents the science). And the researchers acknowledge that much of the research on CR, GR and exercise on lifespan is assumptive, hypothetical and inconclusive. In spite of the impressive title and sweeping abstract claims, this is not a definitive or relevant study for most aging, overweight, nutrient-deficient, unhealthy adults. At one point they say this:

It should be emphasized, however, that unequivocal evidence for the effectiveness of CR in primates and especially humans is missing.

Yet, Miketinas presents that study information twice in his early comments, apparently believing that the study is relevant to all adults. He exaggerates the value of those limited, metabolic critter experiments, apparently thinking they are definitive proof that ROS and oxidative stress increase lifespan for everyone, including those not involved in CR or GR! That premise is clearly false. Oxidative stress is caused by a serious imbalance of anti-oxidants and known to be especially destructive to health and longevity (see numerous links below).

His use of that study demonstrates his limited, amateurish science understanding. Studies like those are irrelevant for most normal, aging adults and their health status (FYI, calorie restriction is significant, cutting total calories by around 25-30%, and can result in more health problems, muscle and bone loss and nutrient deficiencies)! And it’s not a study I would ever include in my work because it’s not applicable to most aging adults, and didn’t use a large number of human subjects (there are similar ones by those same authors who seem to do the same work with many of the same sources).

So the claim that free radicals and ROS are necessary for normal functions like immune response or exercise fails to put those short-term, low-level ROS events in proper context (see links below), where ROS at lower levels is assumed to carry over into more common adult lifestyles with nutrient deficiencies, aging and chronic health problems. He is exaggerating the findings well beyond the methods, details, relevance or source material used.

In short, the study did not investigate oxidative stress and human lifespan in average adults, it’s largely conceptual in nature. They didn’t investigate or measure anti-oxidant levels in average adults compared to intakes of dietary or supplemental forms of vitamins, minerals or anti-oxidants, nor did they investigate those we generate internally in those studies. Nor did they demonstrate any credible interference from dietary anti-oxidants on low-level, short-term ROS involved in cell-signaling (often handled by endogenous anti-oxidants) in large, replicated human studies. 

Unfortunately, this is how biased, misguided amateur scientists like Derek Miketinas operate, and I encounter these irrelevant, non-human and unreplicated studies too often (real science means that studies need to be replicated several times before any findings can be more broadly applied). But again, amateurs like Miketinas get taken in by individual studies with big journal claims and media coverage!

Free radical generation and neutralization occurs on a molecular level in a second or less. As much larger organisms than worms or mice, we need to neutralize free radicals tens of thousands of times per day! And again, many people already have nutrient deficiencies and lack healthy diets and lifestyles (see links below), meaning they probably lack enough anti-oxidant support to naturalize those free radicals, even as they add to ROS all day!

In short, his studies and citations are not grounded in strong science at all, lacking relevance or proper context for this Linkedin discussion thread; they are weak, biased and poorly done (but obviously impressive to the biased, amateur Miketinas). It’s ridiculous!

As you will soon see, Miketinas never included or referenced any of the 40-plus studies and articles I include below (I guess he missed them all), studies and credible articles which support my position and the position of most informed health practitioners. They show consistent harm and accumulated damage from ROS and oxidative stress for a whole range of cells, molecules and tissues from a range of free-radical sources. Remember that free radicals and ROS can come from both inside and outside sources (like chemicals or radiation), something he never mentions.

In truth, that review study above using mostly lab and critter studies done with particular strains of yeast and small animals, often bred with genetic defects or artificially induced metabolic states is both useless and irrelevant for the discussion we were having. Yet he referenced it twice!

That’s why most lab studies almost never work in human subjects (see links below). It also shows the continuing naivete̷ and scientific ignorance of Miketinas. BTW, simply looking at lifespan in lab animals can be highly misleading. There was no indication about quality of life in that study (or healthspan), the time the organism remains healthy and disease free into older age.

That’s a critical variable and focus for human health because chronic disease costs 75% of all healthcare dollars (trillions annually), and about 80% of chronic illness is caused by lifestyle choice, not age or genetics. Again, the lack of perspective and scientific understanding from him is breathtaking!

Here are some studies and articles that demonstrate why small lab animal studies often fail to translate to human subjects (I have more in other articles):

Is Animal Research Sufficiently Evidence Based to be a Cornerstone of Biomedical Research

He also forgets that humans have a more complex epigenome than most animals, especially worms, mice and rats (thousands of genes are activated or silenced all during the day in humans). Our response to the environment and our lifestyle choices are far more complex than most animals. And don’t forget that we make billions of new cells every day through cell division, increasing the chances of DNA damage and mutations from unhealthy living over time.

Think about all of our many lifestyle practices, ethnic diversity, cultural practices and beliefs, which all add levels of complexity to accurate quantitative analysis in research. That’s also why those small critter studies in labs fail in humans about 90% of the time (but amateur scientists like Derek seem easily impressed with those nonsensical, reductionist studies like the ones he tossed into his comments).

His biased, reductionist and poorly-designed studies ignore numerous critical variables and complexities needed for health and healthy aging, including age (those damaging effects of ROS are often cumulative with time), declining health and diseases, which can easily change the balance of ROS into chronic, oxidative stress.

There’s also gender, health status, nutritional intake (many people eating the SAD have significant vitamin, mineral and anti-oxidant deficiencies, as stated multiple times in the discussion thread), excess weight/obesity, fitness levels, stress levels, chronic disease status, race and ethnicity, unhealthy lifestyle practices, education, systemic inflammation, infection, prescription drug use (drugs often disrupt normal protein and enzyme function), and on and on!

This article debunks some of these new studies and claims that ROS are good for health and do little to damage health or lifespan:

More of his junk studies

But Miketinas wasn’t done yet (even though he said “lastly” at the beginning of that last comment)! He added another comment with even more poorly-designed, unimpressive studies in subjects with poor health and pre-existing, serious illness:

Song, Yiqing, et al. “Effects of vitamins C and E and β-carotene on the risk of type 2 diabetes in women at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a randomized controlled trial.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 90.2 (2009): 429-437.
Katsiki, Niki, and Christos Manes. “Is there a role for supplemented antioxidants in the prevention of atherosclerosis?.” Clinical nutrition 28.1 (2009): 3-9.

After doing my best to review his non-live links (it’s customary to post live links on Linkedin but Miketinas is apparently not concerned about how much harder it makes the process), I attempted to track down his references (some were just author names, sometimes involved in multiple studies or articles). His last reference was just a mash up of previous studies on CVD, like the poorly-designed one he already mentioned (WACS), which I debunk below.

Bad studies permeate medical research now, especially anti-supplement studies. Journals love to publish them and they’re often given dramatic, attention-getting headlines and abstracts (ones that often exaggerate what the study details, limitations and drop-outs actually show).

This material is very popular with media because it creates lots of buzz and coverage. Overblown study headlines and articles draw new subscribers, article reprints and exposure for researchers and media because they feed pre-existing medical biases (yes, researchers and journals are after media attention all the time).

I try to clean up his mess

Again, Miketinas has no real perspective on these broader political agendas and media realities, so I added this terse but accurate comment:

@ Derek: Thanks for the absurd series of comments! You seem enamored by myopic, reductionist research! I’m not because I know lots of that research is biased and poorly designed, especially for supplements. I see human beings as the complex organisms they are! Vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants work in groups and as co-factors, just like I stated in my article! And many people in the US have significant deficiencies of those micro-nutrients, which I also pointed out in the articles and source links. We don’t need to prove every single nutritional intake, especially when it comes to micro-nutrients. This a false dogma that comes from Western medicine, where everything is seen through a reductionist view, looking for single causes for complex etiologies, or testing a few isolated synthetic supplements in isolation to prevent or cure disease! Here is an article that debunks the basis of reductionism for medical and health research:

I was really frustrated by his inclusion of such poorly designed, myopic, reductionist studies but I ran out of space (Linkedin has a character limit), so here is the remaining comment I added with some detailed debunking for his type-2 diabetes study:

@Derek: Here is the rest of my comment: I’ve been doing what I do for over 20 years. You? A few years tops? And It’s clear that you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of doing, which is picking a few studies that question the anti-oxidant/ROS theory and then claiming my position is wrong. These theories have been studied for many years, a decade or more, and the preponderance of the evidence shows that indeed, the SAD is inadequate for coping with ROS. The fact that I used more general sources to start is that I write for a more general audience. That’s my choice! And that last study you put up concluded this:

“Conclusion: Our randomized trial data showed no significant overall effects of vitamin C, vitamin E, and [beta]-carotene on risk of developing type 2 diabetes in women at high risk of CVD.” That was a bizarre study! T2D [type 2 diabetes] is strongly tied to inflammation, obesity, excessive sugar and refined carb intake, inactivity, etc., not a few synthetic, anti-oxidant vitamins!

My comments are salient, valid and accurate. Notice that I again make a reference to testing supplements in isolation to prevent or cure disease through a reductionist approach! I’ll debunk all of his absurd, myopic, poorly-conceived WACS studies in even more detail below. I also called out his blatant hypocrisy, which is on full display now. He has only provided a few poorly-done, biased studies by many of the same authors, largely void of critical detail and context for free radical damage, ignoring all of the studies and article links that have established the role of ROS and oxidative stress credibly (more details below).

I then added this thought because I wondered where he was coming from (he seems so biased, close-minded and agenda-driven). I wondered why he was being so manipulative, critical and argumentative:

Before I forget, please provide a thorough summary of what department you work in, who supervises your work, what projects you have worked on previously, what projects you are working on currently, and where the funding comes from?

Before I get to his nasty, unprofessional response (a total attack on my accurate, reductionism article and my many years of experience), I’d like to add the series of debunking links I’ve mentioned previously. These will help clarify why my original article is accurate and why his “studies” offer little relevance, meaning or credibility.

Widespread nutrient deficiencies

First, these additional links will again provide a proper context for a discussion on anti-oxidant intake. They demonstrate that 80-85% fail to achieve the recommended intakes for fruits and veggies (less than 20% eat the recommended amounts for fruits, less than 15% get the recommended amounts for veggies, with Louisiana one of the lowest states for veggie intake where Derek attends grad school)!

Clearly, many people have insufficient nutrition, including micro-nutrient intakes of vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants, while the anti-oxidants you make internally also rely on good nutrition and many of those same key vitamins and minerals to function effectively (see my original anti-oxidant article for more detail about Glutathione, SOD, Catalase, etc.). That’s why I raised these salient issues and included source links in my original article, initial comments and in previous articles.

These links provide a necessary reality check on common nutrient deficiencies and unhealthy lifestyles (the ones that Derek and so many researchers tend to ignore), because these significant deficiencies are largely excluded in his comments and studies. Yet they clearly indicate that very few people get enough dietary anti-oxidants to prevent oxidative stress, especially given the terrible SAD! The poor eating and lifestyle habits outlined here (and below) are critical for any study or meaningful discussion about ROS and anti-oxidant sufficiency:

Amateur scientists like Miketinas often forget that the RDAs and DRIs for nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) are set at minimal levels to prevent historical diseases like scurvy, pellagra, rickets. They are also based on average nutrient needs for healthy subjects, not people over 40 eating the SAD, combining unhealthy nutrition and lifestyles, with excess weight, inflammation, inactivity, health conditions, chronic disease or disability, and potentially exposed to smoking, pollution and radiation!

Here are several more links that explore common vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and they help to explain why people have too many ROS and oxidative stress in the actual world, not the artificial lab world that Miketinas seems to live in. I included links to these articles in my original antioxidant article but I’m sure he never bothered to read them:

The 14 studies below demonstrate a significant pattern of ROS damage and oxidative stress from multiple sources, including those from outside the body like chemical exposure, radiation, pollution, alcohol, drugs, stress and those generated inside the body from metabolism, inflammation and chronic disease. ROS can disrupt cells, mitochondria, DNA, genes, lipids (fats, cholesterol, triglycerides, etc.), glucose, proteins, enzymes, digestive mucosa, and numerous tissues and organs. Those are all areas that Derek’s weak, myopic, reductionist studies tend to ignore, and these multiple sources of oxidative stress are ones he never addressed in any of his comments! 

Clearly, there are multiple areas of cellular and molecular damage that can disrupt the normal function of many cells, organs and bodily systems, contributing to the development of chronic disease, which is the point I made in my original article (notice the extensive list of internal and external free radicals/ROS in the first link):

This study below again debunks the theories Miketinas is pushing. Here is a partial quote from the abstract but the whole study it worth reading:

. . .According to some followers of this view, ROS such as hydrogen peroxide and superoxide are not just causative agents of aging but may also be agents that increase the life span by acting, for example, as prosurvival signals. The goal of this review is to recall that many of the effects of ROS that are interpreted as beneficial may actually represent adaptations to toxicity and that some of the most extravagant recent claims may be due to misinterpretation, oversimplification, and ignoring the wealth of knowledge supporting the traditional view. Whether it is time to abandon the free radical (oxidative stress) theory of aging is considered.

I couldn’t have said it better myself! Notice the real insights and context offered in that quote. Here is another detailed article the explores ROS and oxidative damage, with some interesting new details on how DNA, lipids and proteins are changed by ROS, contributing to aging and disease. The article is from 2016 and written by a PhD:

His WACS studies

Remember that Miketinas made several references to the WACS (Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study) in his recent comments? That study is quite old (started in 1995), which is more than 20 years ago, with additional studies on cancer and diabetes retrospectively based on it (recycling the original data to look for other disease associations in the findings).

The initial study appeared to show failure for a few anti-oxidant vitamins, but they used older, high-risk subjects who were given a modest dose of vitamin C (500 mg), some vitamin E (only 1 of 8 forms), and some synthetic beta carotene in a single form (there are many). Compliance was not very good (details below).

Researchers were apparently surprised that those few vitamins didn’t prevent heart attacks, strokes or death in women with serious, pre-existing CVD (cardiovascular disease) risks and diagnosis. That study and its recycled versions are filled with enormous design flaws, and I expose them below. The original study included subjects over 40 years old (mean age was about 60) with multiple and serious CVD risk factors:

The cardiac risk factors determining eligibility were self-reported diagnosis of hypertension, high cholesterol, or diabetes mellitus, parental history of premature myocardial infarction (MI) (before age 60), obesity (body mass index (BMI) = 30 kg/m2), current cigarette smoking, and inconsistent report of prior CVD.

Those are significant, high risk CVD histories, including women with pre-existing heart disease factors like hypertension (high BP), high cholesterol and diabetes! Many also had a family history of early heart attacks (before age 60), obesity and were current or former smokers, all known to damage arteries and increase CVD and cancer risk! This is a typical approach of researchers who are grossly ignorant or want the study to show failure for supplements. Vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants work together and as co-factors with food. They need to be taken in relative balance, not in isolation like drugs (And remember that I mentioned this false testing method in my early comments and first article)! 

These serious disease factors are not ones a few vitamins would be expected to prevent or treat; giving the subjects 3 vitamins would not be expected to prevent any chest pain, heart attacks, or strokes! Not to mention that compliance to the intervention was around 75%, and it fell below 70% as the years passed for taking just 66% of their supplements (meaning 33% could be routinely skipped and still be compliant).

Here is more detailed listing from the WACS shows even more serious risks because the subjects are seriously ill patients! They had histories of chest pain, heart attack, stroke, and various procedures for atherosclerosis or artery clearing or things like stents.

Again, no drugs can prevent these serious heart attack risks either (not even statins, which don’t work as well as advertised). See the statin sections in Why Medicine Fails linked above. Here is the detailed subject CVD description:

The Women’s Antioxidant and Cardiovascular Study (WACS) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial of the balance of benefits and risks of antioxidant vitamins (vitamins E and C, and beta-carotene) among 8000 women with preexisting CVD. This secondary prevention trial will be conducted as a companion to the recently started Women’s Health Study, a primary prevention trial of vitamin E and beta-carotene, as well as aspirin. In the WACS, US female health professionals aged 40 years and older with a history of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary revascularization, stroke, transient cerebral ischemia, carotid endarterectomy, or peripheral artery surgery will be randomly assigned, utilizing a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, to receive vitamin E, vitamin C, beta-carotene, and/or placebo.

This is why amateur scientists like Derek are such a danger to science and accurate information, and why they make such biased, ignorant comments! They don’t read entire studies to look for these critical details, design errors, flaws, compliance levels, drop-outs or limitations. No competent health practitioner would ever design this study, nor should they ever use these studies as proof of anything related to anti-oxidants and their relevance to oxidative stress, aging, DNA damage, disease prevention, etc. Rather, the WACS demonstrates how poorly-conceived and designed supplement studies can be!

Before I add more research links that debunk Derek’s CVD, cancer and diabetes claims based on that same WACS, here is a general debunking of poorly-done, anti-oxidant studies like the ones Derek tossed into his comments. Ironically, it’s from an organization Miketinas is a member of, the American Society for Nutrition (ASN). See link below quote:

Much of the problem lies in the study design, according to Jeffery Blumberg, PhD. The dynamic relationship among antioxidants leaves a challenge for researchers, noted Blumberg. With about 10,000 dietary antioxidants, testing one antioxidant supplement at a time is much too simplistic of an approach for such a complicated issue. In addition, antioxidants are multifunctional molecules that play many different roles in the body beyond decreasing the adverse effects of free radicals. Yet, this tunnel vision approach has affected the way we design studies, he argued.

He [Blumberg] questioned study protocol – the form of antioxidant, dosage, duration of the studies, compliance, and possibly most importantly the lack of measurement of the state of oxidative stress. If someone isn’t under a lot of oxidative stress, then feeding him or her an antioxidant supplement will not likely provide benefit. In addition, it’s possible vitamin levels are sufficient before supplementation and maybe doses beyond our needs don’t provide additional benefit. It’s also important to look at the details of the cohort being studied. In some studies that looked at the effect of antioxidants on cardiovascular disease, a good portion of the subjects were taking beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, lipid lowering agents, and diuretics, which one can’t ethically ask them to stop taking for the study. But it’s a lot to expect one vitamin to provide greater benefit than proven pharmacological substances.

And here is a link that shows the ASN committees Miketinas is on (Fundraising and Social Media):

This link apparently shows that Miketinas was arrested for drunk driving and traffic infractions recently: 

Funny, the points raised in the quote are some of the same points I raised in the Linkedin discussion and in this debunking! The WACS study and it’s recycled versions did indeed, track each supplement separately! I’ve also addressed these terrible anti-vitamin and mineral studies in many other posts, including the one I already provided to him (Why Medicine Fails).

Remember that the WACS study Miketinas is so fond of chose older women who were already at high risk for a heart attack or stroke. They had a mix of hypertension (high BP), high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity and smoking, plus a family history of early heart attack before age 60. This terrible combination of risks would be expected to cause numerous heart attacks and deaths with a few years of the study! Giving the subjects modest doses of a few vitamins as an intervention strains all credulity and common sense. It was a cruel study to put those subjects through, and I think the researchers should all be prosecuted (these study subjects’ lives and health were put at significant risk).

What’s worse is that The WACS was recycled to create 2 more bogus studies because the original findings were essentially null. To expect any positive outcome from any of these poorly-designed studies is incredibly foolish and ignorant! Clearly, these researchers didn’t understand heart disease, nutrition or supplements to any reasonable degree. 

As mentioned above, the exact details of their risk factors included female health professionals with a history of heart attacks, chest pain, coronary revascularization (bypass surgery or stents), stroke, peripheral artery surgery and more.

So many subjects already had serious CVD disease states, ones that no drugs can cure. Yet Derek Miketinas believes this study is compelling, showing his utter lack of health and disease knowledge, common sense and critical thinking skills! I think the WACS is ridiculous and it was designed to fail (remember, poorly-designed studies always bring poor results)!

Here are 8 studies that debunk the WACS. They show how ROS and oxidative stress can contribute significantly to CVD:

WACS recycled for cancer

Now lets debunk his reference to the recycled WACS study to look at cancer, taken from the same pool of female subjects started in 1995 for the CVD study. Remember that the original subjects had the following risk factors for CVD and cancer:

The study used the same older woman who were at high risk for a heart attack or stroke (mean age was about 60). They had a mix of health conditions including hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity and smoking. This terrible combination of risks would be expected to increase cancer risks and rates significantly, especially from diabetes, being overweight or obese (75% of subjects), high rates of smoking (about 55% were former or current smokers), and a family history of cancer (about 30%). They relied on the subjects self-reporting previous cancer diagnosis but didn’t test participants independently for cancer (because it was a CVD study), leaving lots of potential error for undiagnosed, early-stage cancer.

Remember, cancer, like heart disease, is a multi-factorial disease, often decades in the making to reach the point of symptoms or tumors (and most adults battle cancer cells daily). This is why recycled (retrospective) studies often fail. The endpoint for this recycled study was no longer heart disease, it was changed to invasive cancers (cancers that have spread beyond their original location to other tissues), which often takes years to develop. Once again, giving them modest doses of a few vitamins as an intervention to prevent invasive cancers in high-risk subjects strains all credulity, rational thought and common sense. Compliance for the vitamins was similar as the CVD study, around 75% early on, falling to below 70% as time wore on for taking just 66% of the supplements, meaning 33% could be routinely skipped and still be compliant! Terrible science again!

Yet, Derek Miketinas thinks this is also a worthy study to support his position that ROS can extend lifespan, and that they are not broadly proven to contribute to aging or disease! Again, it shows his poor critical-thinking skills, along with his inability to analyze a study and all its details: design, subjects, methods, charts, graphs, compliance, etc. The myopic, amateur scientist and arrogant troll strikes again! Here is the obvious and predictable study conclusion for the cancer version:


Supplementation with vitamin C, vitamin E, or beta carotene offers no overall benefits in the primary prevention of total cancer incidence or cancer mortality.

No one should be shocked by that predictable conclusion! Like the CVD Miketinas cited previously, giving 3 vitamins in modest doses (2 were single form and synthetic without measuring actual blood levels) as an intervention with older, high-risk subjects with multiple health conditions and cancer risks, then expecting 3 vitamins to prevent invasive cancer or cancer mortality is beyond ridiculous. BTW, the highest incidence of cancers were breast and lung cancers, exactly what you would expect for this group of diabetic, obese, former and current smokers with a family history of cancer.

This recycled “study” does a good job at demonstrating how biased and grossly ignorant some researchers are when it comes to understanding how vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants work: they are rarely effective in isolation, they work in groups and as co-factors. Vitamins and minerals are not drugs as I’ve pointed out numerous times! Like the CVD study, it’s the poor study design and weak intervention that failed. It doesn’t in any way support the notion that ROS and oxidative stress are helpful for lifespan or healthspan in human subjects! Still, Miketinas “believes!”

BTW, no drugs prevent invasive cancer or mortality to any consistent degree. At best, most cancer treatments prolong life for some. These studies are absurdly designed and poorly thought out, yet impressive to the amateur scientist Miketinas!

Here is a link to his study:

These 6 links demonstrate how ROS and oxidative stress contribute to cancer. It take more than a few vitamins to prevent invasive cancer in high-risk, older subjects:

WACS recycled for diabetes

Finally, let’s debunk the diabetes version of the same WACS recycled study. I made some important points about this version in my comment to him above, but again, these woman already had many significant CVD, cancer and other health risks. Some already had diabetes so this cohort was a apparently a smaller number of about 6,500 subjects after those with existing diabetes were excluded.

Again, these were older subjects (about 70% were older than 55) who were current or former smokers (about 55%), with the same multiple CVD and cancer risks. Most were overweight or obese (70-75%), a group traditionally at high risk for insulin resistance and type-2 diabetes. Many also had a family history of diabetes (35-40%) and many surely had high levels of inflammation (excess weight triggers cytokines which spread). Given their excess weight, many probably consumed too many refined carbs and they were not active enough to maintain a healthy BMI under 25 (those variables were not adequately tracked and no measurements of oxidative stress were taken). Once again, many of these unhealthy, older subjects would be expected to develop type-2 diabetes, including their smoking and the same few vitamins would not be expected to prevent it.

This is part of the same group that took the same 3 vitamins C, E and beta-carotene) and again, compliance fell over time (average was just over 70%). No rational health expert or scientist would expect 3 vitamins to prevent diabetes in this high risk group. And again, Derek found this study version compelling enough to include it in the discussion!

Derek’s 2009 WACS diabetes study link:

These 5 studies show how ROS can contribute to diabetes:

More lifestyle contributions to ROS

One of the critical things that is missing from Derek’s simplistic position and weak, poorly-designed studies is his obvious lack of understanding of human health, aging and disease prevention or development. Free radicals and ROS don’t just occur from things like normal respiration, metabolism or exercise, they are also increased by things like pro-inflammatory foods, exposure to toxins and unhealthy lifestyle practices.

The SAD is prone to increase systemic inflammation, especially from junk and processed foods, high in sugars and refined carbs (low in anti-oxidants) that spike glucose, raise inflammation and triglycerides, plus processed inflammatory veggie oils (processed with heat, solvents and bleaches and often void of any micro-nutrients), and other habits like smoking, alcohol consumption and inactivity. Then include excess weight/obesity, high stress, poor sleep and you have a recipe for chronic systemic inflammation, increasing chronic health problems and increasing ROS that go way beyond just exercise or immune health.

Here are 9 additional links that show how lifestyle and aging can effect ROS and oxidative stress: 

Back to Linkedin thread

With all those debunking studies above, hopefully, it’s obvious that Miketinas provided very little basis or support to attack my article and the one initially posted in the thread. But as we return to the comments in the Linkedin thread, notice the outrageous, manipulative and dishonest comments Derek Miketinas makes again:

Steven, I’ve read your article on “reductionism;” you’re misrepresenting the state of science and research in favor of an unsubstantiated belief in what you call “holism.” Your preoccupation with industry and conspiracies shows through in your writing and cherry-picking of supporting resources. In most cases, your references are not credible. Western medicine is, like you point out, interested in specific functions of biological systems but it also studies the gestalt of these systems. Just because you don’t like the results of a study doesn’t mean you can dismiss them as “bizzare.” Please elaborate- read the study and explain why you these findings are not accurate and provide evidence to the contrary. There’s no need to be so defensive, we’re just having a conversation. I don’t care about your experience, I care about the claims you make and the supporting evidence. It doesn’t matter what my degree is; just like it doesn’t matter that your degree is in an unrelated field.

This comment is filled with more extreme and outrageous attacks on my work, more than anyone has ever said. His comment is unfounded, unwarranted, dishonest and simply ugly! BTW, holism is an accepted aspect of research that is the opposite of reductionism, although some call it systems biology. I explained it in that article and included credible links (none of which he read)! And his claim about the gestalt of science is largely false as well. His continuing ignorance of the state of science is astonishing! 

Remember the studies he put up: An exaggerated yeast and critter study with a narrow focus on a few metabolic conditions (CR and GR) that most people never try, with an exaggerated, misleading title, then a 3-X study version (the WACS with recycled versions) that no rational person or scientist would ever expect to work. I’ve written about reductionism many times and accumulated lots of evidence because many scientists have concerns besides me!

I included well-over 50 source links in that reductionism article (again linked below) which I know he didn’t read! Claiming I’m misrepresenting science is a serious and false charge (although he clearly did it in many of his comments above)! My article is very truthful and probably exposes realities he hasn’t seen before. That doesn’t give him the right to attack me or my work, even if he “believes” otherwise.

I also said far more than his diabetes study was bizarre long ago, I added several critical debunking points at the time, all included in my comment above (of course, he skipped my valid debunking points to focus on a single word). That’s skilled manipulation and trolling! It shows he’s practiced at it! As it was earlier in this article, here it is again:

Conclusion: Our randomized trial data showed no significant overall effects of vitamin C, vitamin E, and [beta]-carotene on risk of developing type 2 diabetes in women at high risk of CVD.” That was a bizarre study! T2D [type 2 diabetes] is strongly tied to inflammation, obesity, excessive sugar and refined carb intake, inactivity, etc., not a few synthetic, anti-oxidant vitamins!

He also claims I need to keep debunking the studies I already debunked in earlier comments, and again in this article. His studies are biased and poorly designed with little relevance or credibility to the main discussion thread as shown throughout this article.

He dismisses my decades of experience because he doesn’t have it. He keeps seeing this discussion in a warped way, as though I must answer to him, the great Miketinas (sounds like a third-rate magician’s name to me). The disrespect is astonishing! But very much like a manipulative troll!

Just for fun, here is a link to that reductionist article again. I bet you will find it well-written and sourced, with lots of credible experts backing what I’m saying:

He added an additional comment that my work and arguments were crude and reductionist, which is pure and utter nonsense. He’s gaslighting me now, he’s unhinged from reality!

I responded with this comment given all that I have now said in this article and all of the links I have provided, I’m confident my comment is even more telling and accurate:

Wow, you really like to fly high! Unfortunately, experience and a broader view DOES matter, and your naiveté about “science” is amazing. Throughout this thread, you have shown incredible bias by putting up weak and poorly-designed studies (several were retrospective/recycled versions of that Women’s Cardiovascular Study with never reliable results), then exaggerated their meaning well beyond the findings to boldly claim they undercut the benefits of antioxidants and the ROS theory. Those reductionist studies prove no such thing! They only prove that bad research corrupts the record and misleads the public.

You also falsely claimed I said free radicals were the sole cause of chronic disease in my article, but I never said that at all. What I said was, “Because ROS and free radicals can damage cells and DNA, they contribute to aging (more wrinkles, gray hair), degeneration, and a host of chronic health conditions and diseases.” because that’s what many studies show. You are a troll!

He responded with even more false claims and dishonesty:

Fly high? Boasting 20 years of “experience” isn’t? Just because a study is retrospective doesn’t mean it can’t have useful findings. Of course it does not show evidence of cause-and-effect, it leads to the generation of useful hypotheses which can be studied by more rigorous studies. I didn’t say they undercut the benefits of antioxidants. I said the role of antioxidants in human health is more complex than you claim or can claim with the available evidence. If you read through my comments you’ll find that I did not say that you claimed free radicals were the sole cause of chronic disease. You like to claim the studies I’ve cited are poorly designed. Could you please provide a study that you consider to be designed well?

I didn’t boast about my 20 years experience at all, I merely stated it (feel free to see that previous comment copied above). Here what I said at the beginning of the previous comment:

I’ve been doing what I do for over 20 years. You? A few years tops?

See how he continues to manipulate and attack me and my work? He now denies what he said earlier and he again wants me to debunk the studies I already undercut in the comments! Yep, this is how aggressive, emotionally unstable trolls operate, and he ranks as one of the most offensive I’ve even encountered on Linkedin! Fortunately, these ridiculous comments are almost finished.

As you can see, he denied saying what he said about my article (claiming he didn’t say I said ROS were the sole cause/etiology of disease) when he clearly did misstate what I wrote. He continues to want to debate his studies but I now saw it as the endless trap it is: he would never accept my position or study links, he just wanted to keep it all going, seeing himself as the great puppet master.

He continues to act as though I must answer to him, like he’s my boss or my teacher, and I’m the lowly student who must prove what I say to him. Ridiculous! But he has never once read or investigated my work in a reasonable or fair way (his comments reveal that he is lying about reading my articles and links), skipping most of the content and links I’ve included. He’s never accepted all of the material I already provided in comments or links. He simply attacks me again, showing what an extreme troll he is. Because Linkedin has a limit on characters, it makes thorough debunking almost impossible.

I then added this terse, valid comment about why his studies were poorly done and how political and corrupt research often is:

As for debunking the studies you put up (apparently you can’t do that yourself), and because the weaknesses are so obvious, I’ll be happy to do so for $25.00 per hour (figure at least $300 to do 3-4). Any Functional Medicine doctor, Lifestyle Medicine doctor, competent nutritionist or health coach who has a good understanding about the multi-factorial/decades-long nature of chronic disease development would have told those cardio researchers that synthetic vitamin C, vitamin E and synthetic beta carotene would under no condition prevent or cure heart disease, diabetes or cancer.

The reductionist premise is ridiculous on its face and doomed to fail, which is why they recycled it. Researchers and journals often want novel findings and big claims to drive media headlines, new subscribers and reprint fees. Those issues are well-covered in my work, and backed by numerous independent researchers, all found in the many thousands of links I’ve already included in my articles.

Of course, I didn’t expect him to pay me; I wanted to make a point that this takes up time and that he also violated several personal and professional boundaries throughout the thread. I also clarified a mistake I made on one of his comments, where I though he deleted it. I added I thought he was a troll and I said he was a discredit to LSU, which he clearly is.

Here is his last comment to me, which I refused to respond to. It reveals more of his sarcastic, manipulative, unprofessional, argumentative and irrational trolling, as he continued to distort and misstate my comments, articles and links, including saying that because I would debunk his studies for a fee, I was now a hypocrite! He also changed what I said about him to say I besmirched his alma mater, which I didn’t do (but I probably should). This is total gaslighting:

Steven, Why are you so upset? How have I disrespected you? Yes, by ignoring the evidence contrary to your position, you imply oxidative stress was the sole cause of chronic disease. You speak a lot about research fraud and debunking evidence-based research but you don’t give concrete examples. All you do is make broad, unfounded accusations of bias. No, I won’t pay you to do anything; I asked you what your problem with the studies I presented are because your past comments are vague, unsupported, and unconvincing. Where is your evidence to suggest synthetic vitamins would be handled any differently by the body? For someone who talks a lot about financial bias in research to demand a fee to give his impression seems a bit hypocritical. I dont think you can provide a convincing, unbiased critique of the articles I provided. Trying to besmirch my name and my alma mater is undeserving of you as a professional. It’s clear you can’t have a civil discussion.

Again, his comment is just insane! He is at a point where he is willing to simply make things up, to just fabricate whatever he feels like, without a rational or factual foundation. His comment reflects delusions on multiple levels (BTW, I did collect another batch of studies about synthetic, single-form vitamins and why they are less effective, but it’s not necessary to add them at this point).

I’ve covered these issues in links I’ve already included or in links in those posts but he isn’t going to read them anyway! Because I’ve done so much debunking already (in comments and in this lengthy article), I’ll move to the closing.

In closing

In truth, the studies Derek Miketinas claimed I needed to include in my post were neither relevant or applicable to it. So there was no basis for any of his so-called studies to be included in his comments, and certainly no basis for him to be as abusive, manipulative and dishonest toward me and others in the thread as he was.

It’s obvious that Derek Miketinas is no scientist or student of science fundamentals! He lacks scientific curiosity, savvy, objectivity and understanding on a fundamental level. He comments clearly reveal someone who has a strong bias against supplements, which shows ignorance, not education! I don’t think he belongs in science at all. I think politics is a better choice, where aggressive commentary and untethered deception is common.

He clearly can’t judge relevant or good science from bad, which is probably a combination of ignorance and laziness. He doesn’t know how to view science in broader terms and how properly apply study findings in the right context (unfortunately, schools seem to be turning out biased nutrition students like him too often). Throughout this thread, he tossed many bad studies at me, expecting me to review them, while he didn’t give my work the time of day. That shows a masters-level of hypocrisy and manipulation, only gained from years of practice!

Students are often taught to trust and believe in so-called peer-reviewed medical journals, blinding them to the myriad of political, financial and career agendas that permeate science now. They are not taught to apply critical thinking skills, independent analysis or good judgment, as demonstrated by the terrible studies he chose to use in the Linkedin discussion. Most MDs and dietitians never read full studies, something I’ve seen for years. They talk about research headlines and abstracts in simplistic, reductionist terms, like it’s cocktail-party banter! That’s why lives are put at risk. This is not a game, there are real lives at stake here.

Too often, there is little context or accurate perspective for the meaning or application the study has for human health, disease prevention or healthy aging (I pointed out those issues many times above). Derek’s studies are not only poorly conceived and designed, they lack relevance or meaning for the anti-oxidants and free radical discussion we were having, given the early context of wide-spread, micro-nutrient deficiencies as a focus. Yet he is willing to risk health and lives without accountability by promulgating those studies heavily!

But there are even more troubling issues with Derek Miketinas, both on a professional and personal level. Although still in school, he has already forgotten the whole purpose of science!

At its core, science is about new discoveries, insights and a search for truth, using credible, replicatable research and accurate, quantitative analysis. There should be some wonder and passion for breaking new ground, which is what I’m about!

In the health area, science should be focused on discovering and implementing ways to optimize health and vitality, prevent disease and support healthy aging, including overall quality of life (not just lifespan like so many critter studies use).

I see none of these insights or awareness in Derek’s comments or the studies he tosses so blithely about, as he consistently exaggerates their relevance and meaning. In fact, I never saw a hint of humanity in his studies he used or the comments he made about them.

He never once seemed to grasp that we are talking about actual people’s lives and health, including the millions of aging and elderly people facing challenging health conditions every day. He comes from a world of laboratory abstraction, void of empathy, compassion or humanity for the needs and suffering of older, more vulnerable people.

He should be required to spend a year with people in hospice care to see the pain, anguish and suffering many seniors and their caregivers go through. I never once thought he cared about anyone but himself. His comments were often based on grandstanding, with his needs for ego gratification and attention placed well ahead of an honest or professional discussion. And he seems willing to put other professionals down and misrepresent their work to score a win.

Indeed, he consistently used science for political posturing, like it was a contest or sporting event. Bad science was used like a weapon against me and others in the thread. That’s clearly how Derek used his myopic, biased studies, including those poorly conceived, badly-done studies with little rational thought, usefulness or common sense behind them. They are agenda driven, with none broadly applicable to average adult populations!

His ignorance about human health and disease is on full display, not his savvy or insight. For me, he has no real credibility. And his personal manipulation, misstatements and dishonesty have rendered him unfit to be involved in research, where integrity still matters. Derek Miketinas, I condemn your grandstanding,  arrogance, manipulation, dishonesty and vicious trolling. You are a true disgrace to science, LSU and the ASN!

Derek Mikentas has consistently demonstrated that he is one of the worst of people in research and science. His behavior demonstrated these terrible qualities:

• Grandstanding
• Arrogance
• Manipulation
• Dishonesty
• Amateurishness
• Myopia
• Ignorance
• Pseudoscience
• Disrespect
• Deceptive
• Trolling
• Egocentric thinking

Congratulations Derek Miketinas!

You are a newest inductee into my HALL of SHAME! After hours of extensive review, you have been accepted as new member of my Hall of Shame, created for the most unprofessional people I encounter, for your high levels manipulation, arrogance, dishonesty, and aggressive Linkedin trolling. Not to mention your scientific ignorance and failure to understand good science from bad!

If I have any updates, I’ll post them here:


© 2017 by Steven Carney/End Sickness Now


Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: