The issue of primary versus secondary prevention aside, in going through the fine print of the new trial we might have predicted failure in advance. The Se status in the subjects of the new report was far better than had been the case in the successful trial conducted by Larry Clark et al.
The difference between the poor Se status in Clark-trial subjects versus better Se status in subjects in the new report was highly statistically significant (P<0.0001). The difference between the poor Se status in Clark-trial subjects versus better Se status in subjects in the new report was highly statistically significant (P<0.0001). Previous evidence had already revealed that higher Se status was probably a rule-out for any expected benefit. Therefore, showing no benefit in the new report is what we would have anticipated. Thus, the negative findings of the new report merely underscore the fact that if Se does have a protective effect, it is limited to overcoming deficiency. The authors of the new trial admit,