despite regularly cleaning up my kids' snot when they have colds. And I take a vitamin C morning and night. Coincidence? Who knows?

Just like millions of others. That is why they are called 'supplements'. They make up for what is lacking in my diet. A child could understand that logic and most do.

The FUD being pushed on DU lately is sad and pathetic imo.

Be scared, be very scared!

She Who Must be Obeyed, an old school nurse and a stickler for sanitation, has proven to me washing hands is the number one way to avoid catching colds. That, and NOT touching eyes when you're out and about.

I make sure not to touch my face or eat anything until I have washed my hands. Donald Trump is a blowhard but this is one thing that he is right about.

usually, it is almost meal time so it is a natural for me to wash my hands before I start to cook.

And otherwise, I probably wash my hands 3 times a day...now it's a habit...

I'm a wussy.

My water is heated with natural gas

In other words, useless for any determination.

I, for instance, do not get colds very often. It has been years since I've had one. I never take vitamins of any kind. But my data point is no more valid than yours.

Medical research is typically double blinded, and with a placebo group. The placebo, by definition, is the null effect. Doing nothing.

Anecdotes are worthless.

Research is useless, too

As in research that states, for example, that coffee is good for you...then a few months later, more research says it's bad, months go by and then it's good again...etc., etc.

Eggs...bad for you. Good for you. Bad for you

Mammograms at age 40...no,wait! Age 50!!! No, wait again!!! Age 30!! Oh no!!! More research says women don't need them every year! Etc., etc

Sometimes even the "experts" are full of shit and anecdotal evidence is just as valid. Especially if someone believes something works for them

First, research has to go through peer review. That means that other scientists analyze the methodology, statistics, and conclusions of the paper. Also, other researchers may repeat the research, tightening the protocols and narrowing the statistical errors. The important thing about real research is that one paper by itself is never definitive, although if it is done well, building on a base of previous studies one could make a definitive conclusion.

Anecdotes are worthless. The have no controls, no statistical power. They are one offs. Useless in science. I took some sodium vibraphone for three days and my mortapror went away. That's not how one does science.

Concerning changes over time. That's something else that science has over pseudoscience. Science changes when better evidence comes out. Nowhere is this more important than in medical standards of care. How often should I get a mammogram? That's a very good question. Answering that question takes a fairly big effort, many subjects some who get mammograms and some who do not. I do not think that an ethics committee would approve a study where one branch had no mammograms. Maybe that's not the best example, but it exhibits the kind of tangled web that science has to get through. But when the information comes in that an intervention like a mammogram is not needed as often, the standard of care changes. But it takes lots of research to determine that. That's why it changes over time.

Drug trials are more straightforward. You have multiple groups, including a placebo group, the null effect. But many drug effects are long term. So this kind of research can take years. Maybe many years.

Some people complain about Big Pharma, but ignore the science. I do not like Big Pharma anymore than anybody. But the standards of care in medicine is not set by Big Pharma, it is set by physicians working at research hospitals all across the country. Many of these doctors are academics who are paid by salary by a University, not by prescriptions they write (A straw man by the AltMed crowd).

Science changes because our look into nature is necessarily imperfect. And no part of nature is more complicated than living things. It's fucking difficult shit. I learned physics, but biology is a mind job for me. All the universe is four forces and 12 particles. But biology is really difficult.

And anecdotal evidence is never valid.

Sid

Certainly for something like cancer - trying to treat cancer with vitamins, to me, is the very definition of "woo."

The Science Based Medicine Blog is a wonderful resource with a compendium of dedicated physicians who fight the woo while simultaneously recommend more openness and transparency in medical research. It's one of my favorite Web visits.

R&K

And it's amazing how similar Adams' bullshit is, to the woo sometimes posted at DU.

Sid

Sadly. Then there's LEF.org, a very large seller of supplements of all types. Telling Big Supplement from Big Pharma is tough, except that one sells only medications approved by the FDA, while the other sells whatever they can put in capsules and put in a bottle, whether they're effective and safe or not. Wait...that's a real difference, isn't it?

Never mind...

I'm going to go order a 90 day supply of Voodoo Berry Extract right fucking now!

He's been on my favorite podcast, SGU. Love the guy. I wish the another SBM blogger was more active, Mark Crislip. He's always high value. Lots of snark and ridicule, which is the only thing that AltMed deserves.

I'm always surprised at the amount of anti-science nonsense posted on this site (like the recent rant about multi-vitamin study).

I guess I always think of liberals as being smarter or more able to consider evidence than right-wingers, but I'm apparently quite wrong. Yet, you call these people on their anti-science thinking and you are a agent of "Big Pharma". Never mind that is it "Big Vitamins" that make a killing off useless supplements. Supplements, I might add, that are not held to the same standards of effectiveness and quality as pharmaceuticals.

But I have always had a good immune system. I only take B-12, Biotin and Vitamin E. I take the Vitamin E because of nighttime leg cramps. I was plagued with leg cramps and I read that Vitamin E could help. Well, I started taking Vitamin E at night and no more leg cramps ever since.

Though there's always the possibility of the placebo effect, I suppose...

I take Vitamin E because it prevents leg cramps at night. I don't think there is any placebo effect from these vitamins. They work for me.

and I've cut down my own meat consumption for both health and environmental reasons.

(the rx preceded the FDAs decision that 80 mg of simvastatin shouldn't be given) I went on B12 as one of the only known ways to raise my levels of good cholesterol which had been driven so low by the high dose of statin that it increased my coronary risk.

I find it possible to hold both the following as true...

vitamin supplements generally provide limited benefits for persons with balanced diets.

and

there are circumstances where vitamins represent a proper response to a medical problem.

It is argued up-thread that anecdotal evidence is never valid. Well that is simply not true. Take the ford Pinto. It started with a single case -- and anecdote if you will -- where a collision resulted in an explosion and fire. A sample of one may not be valid evidence. But the anecdotes just kept coming in. There comes a point where a collection of anecdotes actually IS valid evidence. It may not be sufficient to establish 100% certain cause and effect, but news flash. None of the drug studies establishes 100% cause/effect either.

I have talked to a number of people who suffered sever problems with Simvastatin -- particularly depressed cognition. it is a fact that Simvasatin passes through the blood-brain barrier, which is consistent with these symptoms of memory loss and a general feeling of "stupidness"

It happened to me and a friend of mine -- both independently reaching the same conclusions the same month. (Neither of us knew of the others' problems. We both got off Simvastatin and the problems went away in a couple of weeks. I went to Pravastatin, which is about as effective in lowering the numbers and does not pass through the blood-brain barrier.

Anecdote? Yes. So what? it is better information than you can get from the drug companies.

Yep....that pretty much means 90% of Americans should be on a vitamin supplement. Pretty much everyone I know eats terrible.

nt.

What is your evidence that Americans eat terribly (note:adverb modifies verb)?

If this is ones personal observation, as it seems, it is meaningless. Anecdotal evidence is worthless. The plural of anecdote is not data. This seems to be mere personal justification to continue what someone has already decided they will do.

But what does science say?

Oopsie!

That's an easy slogan to remember and to heed in daily life. I find it helpful to remember...

Pretty easy to get that kind of data if one wants it.

I see adverts for those loose weight fast without dieting supplements all the time on the televisionary set. But what doctors say is quite simple. Eat less; exercise more. Make that a lifelong change.

But the supplement manufacturers continue to write checks they cannot cash.

Support your immune system! ( How? Let's see throw that works?)
Eliminate toxins! (If your liver shuts down, you're gonna die, but if you take our...)
Increase your erections! (Particularly insidious scam.)
Loose weight without dieting! (Right! :sarcasm
Cure all cancer!!! (Paging Hulda Clark, Stanislaw Burzynski, et al.)
Etc.

And don't get me started about that 18th century wonder of medicine, homeopathy, which has never cured anything, but is particularly good at making people feel better about their self-limiting or psychogenic symptoms. That would be called confirmation bias which is one of the very many logical fallacies used by both supplement manufacturers and those who swallow the hype.

'What is your evidence that Americans eat terribly (note:adverb modifies verb)?'

Why did you change the subject between us? I was merely pointing out to you how easily it is to find this kind of information. The CDC website is great for such information.

As for supplements helping lose weight, totally different subject. As for supplements helping maintain a balanced diet, yeah kinda general knowledge that they do.

NOT talking about the people that shove 1000s of vitamins down their throat each day...that seems to be a high form of quackery imo.

I was bringing you back to the thread topic. No matter.

Are you saying that the obese are lacking nutrients?

Where is the data for that?

nt.

Still waiting for somebody to address that. It seems like some don't want to address the topic of the OP, which is supplements have been shown to be not beneficial, and possibly harmful.

You brought up obesity as a sort of exemplar of Americans not eating well (with the sotta voce message that they might need supplements -- a common fatuous argument by supplement advocates).

I apologize for not focussing on the particulars.

So maybe somebody has the answer to that question, hopefully with appropriate data and peer review.

nt.

But people like to think that their personal experiences are the rule. A few centuries of science says no. One doesn't get to make stuff up. Nature is what nature is. And the human body is exquisitely adapted to fit into its place on this planet via some millions (dare I say billions) of years of evolution. So while your liver quietly removes your body of toxins as it does in all mammals and many quadrupeds since time immemorial, there will still be people who foolishly pay fancy Spa prices for a coffee enema to flush out toxins. And there will be many more who think the American diet is somehow insufficient so everybody needs these supplements to live a longer, more healthy life, none of which is supported by research. But it is supported by the anecdotes in the commercials on the televisionary set and on the Intertubes.

So have at it, Hoss.

Myself? I'll trust the science.

You trust FUD, I will trust evidence.

Scientific research goes through peer review, where it is checked, and rechecked by others, many of whom would gleefully prove one wrong. That's an important part of it. Science is competitive, yet beholden to final arbitration by nature itself. There is no substitute for such open oversight. (And yes, it is never open enough, which is why Science Based Medicine is becoming a big thing.)

Take your vitamin C. I hope you don't have my life long kidney stone problems, which is triggered by vitamin C supplementation. But that's something a doctor would know. But by all means, decide for yourself what you need. Don't bother telling your doctors. It's none of their business.

Unless you're Suzanne Somers, who was self-medicating with bio-identical hormones (steroid analogues) which suppressed her immune system. She could have died from the resulting fungal infection which put her into the hospital. But Somers claims it was Western Medicine's fault when they misdiagnosed her because she apparently had said nothing to them about her personal hormone supplementation which would have led them directly to a diagnosis.

She still apparently pitches her woo.

Since half of all pregnancies are unplanned, doctors still strongly advocate that any woman who "might" get pregnant -- even accidentally -- take multivitamins containing 400 mg of folic acid. An additional supplement is recommended during pregnancy. This has been proven to reduce the rate of spina bifida and other serious defects.

From the CDC:

http://m.cdc.gov/en/HealthSafetyTopics/LifeStagesPopulations/Pregnancy/QAfolicAcid

Q: Why can’t I wait until I’m pregnant—or planning to get pregnant to start taking folic acid?

A: Birth defects of the brain and spine (anencephaly and spina bifida) happen in the first few weeks of pregnancy; often before you find out you're pregnant. By the time you realize you’re pregnant, it might be too late to prevent those birth defects. Also, half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned.

These are two reasons why it is important for all women who can get pregnant to be sure to get 400 mcg of folic acid every day, even if they aren’t planning a pregnancy any time soon.


Q: Can’t I get enough folic acid by eating a well-balanced healthy diet?

A: It is hard to eat a diet that has all the nutrients you need every day. Even with careful planning, you might not get all the vitamins you need from your diet alone. That’s why it’s important to take a vitamin with folic acid every day.




http://www.marchofdimes.com/pregnancy/take-folic-acid-before-youre-pregnant.aspx

Who should take folic acid?
All women, even if they’re not trying to get pregnant, should take folic acid.

Folic acid helps prevent NTDs only if taken before pregnancy and during the first few weeks of pregnancy, often before a woman may even know she’s pregnant. Because nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, it's important that all women take folic acid every day.

How can you get folic acid?
Before pregnancy, take a multivitamin that has 400 micrograms of folic acid in it every day. Most multivitamins have this amount, but check the label to be sure.

During pregnancy, take a prenatal vitamin each day that has 600 micrograms of folic acid in it. Your health care provider can prescribe a prenatal vitamin for you. You can also get prenatal vitamins over the counter without a prescription.

Most women don’t need more than 1,000 micrograms of folic acid each day. But some women, like those who’ve had a pregnancy affected by NTDs or women with sickle cell disease, may need more. Talk to your provider to make sure you get the right amount.

Can you get folic acid from food?
Yes. Some flour, breads, cereals and pasta have folic acid added to them. Look for “fortified” or “enriched” on the package to know if the product has folic acid in it. Even if you eat fortified or enriched foods, be sure to keep taking your multivitamin or prenatal vitamin with folic acid.

I've heard vitamin K recently.

Supplements should be targeted, not general.

For instance, men should not supplement iron, since they can recycle their iron and iron toxicity can be a problem. Women before menopause can supplement iron if they become anemic.

Vitamin C has nothing to do with the common cold. It just makes expensive urine. It also promotes kidney stones in those who have that tendency. Have a glass of orange juice once in a while, or better yet, a Screwdriver, and you'll be fine.

Many supplements, when analyzed were shown to be mislabeled. They had no contents of the actual herb on the label. In other words, they were a scam.

But the whole supplement industry is a scam because there is absolutely no regulation other than that they're not allowed to make claims of curing disease. (That doesn't stop some of them.)

The only alternative in AltMed is the lack of regulation. And corporations are getting wealthy marketing what is mere snake oil. And if people think BigPharma isn't in the game, they are delusional.

And so is the American Academy of Obstetricians.

Many pregnant women have problems like morning sickness that keep them from eating all the foods they need, in the quantities they need, for a perfectly balanced diet. That is why the standard medical recommendation is for them to take a multivitamin, not just folic acid.

Which one must take before one becomes pregnant! Again, if one eats a balanced diet, supplements are unnecessary. That includes almost all the US populace.

That's what these studies state unequivocally.

Here (from Science Based Medicine Blog): http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/more-evidence-that-routine-multivitamin-use-should-be-avoided/

And from Neurological Blog:

Strike Three for multivitamin use

And the response to inevitable questions...

OK, but should I take a vitamin

Science informs. Quackery obscures.

are capable of childbearing. That includes most females between the ages of 12 and 50 -- a very large chunk of the populace.

You are right that folic acid is critical before and during the early weeks of pregnancy. But half of all pregnancies are accidents. That's why the CDC recommends ALL fertile women take 400 mg. of folic acid and says that a multivitamin can supply that folic acid.

Are you accusing the CDC of quackery?

http://m.cdc.gov/en/HealthSafetyTopics/LifeStagesPopulations/Pregnancy/QAfolicAcid

The FUD expressed in the OP and by a few here is only a curious as their hypocrisy over their hatred for anti-vacciners.

Funny how FUD is okay when it comes to vitamins.

It is expected.

I just did not word it the way you did.

I did say one needs to supplement folic acid before one gets pregnant, which means, yup., women of child bearing age should take it.

The way you put it is better.

I stand corrected.

Because what you're telling me is 180 degrees away from what every doctor I've had has said.

Take a multivitamin including folic acid at all times if a woman of childbearing age. Once pregnant, take more vitamins!

Sounds like a good deal to me

Did you not like to chew up your Flintstones vitamins as a kid?

We need vitamins. If we have a decent diet and time to eat right, we get the vitamins we need from the food we eat.

For the other 99% of us, there are vitamin supplements.

Now, take yer vitamins and quit yer complaining.

OK, you can call me a proponent of woo. But I'll keep on taking my supplements, and keep on having great skin and hair. I'll keep on having energy and being cold-free (for 3 years now).

So, by all means, call me names. I'll live longer than you, and be far healthier and happier, so I can grant you a little name-calling.

multivitamins with 400 mg of folic acid for ALL women who are capable of pregnancy -- since half of pregnancies are accidental.

The CDC takes the woo-ish position that folic acid can help prevent spina bifida and other birth defects. But what does the CDC know?

The authors of the article cited in the OP clearly forgot that half of the "normal" population is made up of females, many of whom are capable of childbearing.

This guy's a doctor, and he has a blog!

</sarcasm>

If one would bother to actually read and understand the actual study one would understand that it was not about targeted supplements, for instance, folic acid and iron for child-bearing aged women, but it was about people falling for the vitamin/supplement scam that ones health/skin/penis/libido/hair/acne/weight/immune system/toxins can be in any way effected by some mysterious concoction of natural ingredients. (Yup! It's always natural. So is the arsenic in some of these unregulated concoctions.)

If you want to live longer, the recipe is simple. Eat a well balanced diet. Get some exercise. Do things that make you happy. Don't smoke tobacco. Drink alcohol, but only in moderation.

Forget supplements. It's snake oil.

Yes, there are supplements like folic acid and iron that have science behind them for women before menopause. The latter, only if one's anemic. But a physician should recommend those things and should know about all the supplements that you take on your own. For instance, St. John's Wart can interfere with HIV medications. Not good if one has HIV and you haven't told your doctor that you're taking St.John's Wart.

For Christ sakes. Watch the TV ads for things like penis enlargement, weight loss, etc. Do you actually believe them?

containing 400 mg of folic acid -- half of all pregnancies are unplanned, so they recommend this for all fertile teens and women.

Just another hit piece on supplements in the OP...a carryover from the other thread.

continue to do so.

I'm not talking 'supplements.'

MDs prescribed these to me and my family, in doses greater than are can be bought OTC.

Sid? Don't leave us now.

that are breast-feeding.

Here is also a 10 year study that puts that ridiculous woo about second-hand cigarette smoke causing lung cancer to rest as well.

That was by the way.

I work with a lot of researchers - fudging numbers and cherry-picking data about certain research, to keep the grant money rolling in near fiscal years end is nothing new. Sad that the for-profit media is giving some of them so much help at it lately.

don't get enough Vitamin D through the sun alone.

The surgeon in the OP who "knows his shit" apparently has a lot he doesn't know.

that half of the population is made up of women, and that the CDC recommends a daily multivitamin containing 400 mgs. of folic acid for every fertile woman, whether she is trying to get pregnant or not.

I'm pretty sure he hasn't forgotten about women.



Sid

for "normal" people.

Women in their childbearing years are normal people, and daily multivitamins or at least folic acid supplements are recommended for all of them, whether they're trying to get pregnant or not.

it lacks the vitamins needed from food, various negative things can happen to ones health. Enter supplements. I cannot believe I am seeing FUD pushed here, it is like 5th grade here.

I guess the OP thinks developing countries that rely on supplements should go without...

they need from their food every day. Who are we to say they're wrong?

I agree, always good idea if you can. To the billions that cannot however...well, cheer up. Even if you cannot and never will be able to.

I stand aside to their wisdom, specially in an age when the GOP is cutting aid to the poor by the millions.

" ... and is far more reliable a source of good information than any anecdote-laden proponent of woo."

This is DU "anecdote-laden" is the DU way on this subject.

I will admit I take a multi vitamin and Omega-3's ... don't know why I do it (except my diet can really, really suck), but I acknowledge my expensive urine!

To categorically make the claims he made gives him no credibility at all, in my book. I have no doubt that there are some very zealous purveyors of supplements that have no basis for their claims. But to generalize to say (essentially) "It is foolish to take multi-vitamins" is preposterous.

I could say the same thing about statins. I am not aware of a single credible study that proves beyond a statistical doubt that statins actually prolong life. There are plenty of studies that show statins can lower the LDL levels. And there are some studies that show a coincidence of high LDLs and heart attacks. But I'm not aware of convincing studies that show lowering of the LDL numbers with statins actually makes a difference in mortality.

But we make risk-reward decisions and take statins on the basis that there probably is a connection.

Another issue is that studies are very expensive. Who would fund the studies that show the benefits of the various vitamins, considering that the benefits are thought to be very long-term things?

I'd like to know who is funding this schmuck. I bet there is a lot of Big Pharma money behind him.

Personally, I'm going to continue taking my multi-vitamins, fish oil, niacin, and baby aspirin. That all costs me about $1 per day. I can't prove that it keeps me healthy, but in fact, I haven't been in a hospital bed (other than routine screening tests for 55 years. I rarely get the flu and colds are rather mild. I'm sure there are Pharma companies out there that think I would be better off giving them $500 a month.

a single one that is in the top 10 producers of vitamins and supplements. Big Pharma wants you to buy pills that cost $3.00 per pill and up. The supplements are more like 20 cents a pill, which gives Big Pharma a very strong incentive for attacking them.

The cited studies are extraordinarily narrow in scope, yet they use that to make a grandiose, categorical conclusion that all supplements are a waste of money/ This isn't science. It is pseudo-science, and if you follow the money, you will find it is from Big Pharma or lackeys in government that are cozy with Big Pharma.

I don't deny that some supplements are grossly oversold and lack a scientific basis for claims of benefits. But that does not justify a categorical conclusion that taking supplement is a waste of money.

For example, how long has aspirin been available? Over 100 years? But it wasn't until a couple of years ago that there were solid studies that showed daily usage of small doses had a huge benefit in longevity related to heart disease and various cancers -- far more than any preventative medicines the Big Pharma industry produces. But who wants to pay for studies about generic compounds that cost a penny a dose?

... and big Pharma is looking to buy even more to cash in on this cash cow.

The conversation regarding this research has reached levels of bizarre. The research is narrow .... and it reaffirms previous research. At no point does it indicate that folk should not take vitamins for deficiencies, malabsorbtion or as directed by a physician for any number of conditions. Under no circumstances does it even insinuate that those suffering from malnutrition would not benefit.

I am astounded that folk are arguing against looking at this 30-40 Billion dollar industry with a critical eye. I am very glad the OP posted this .... hoping to counter the very slick and extremely effective advertising carried out by the supplement industry.

It is your choice (and everyone else s) how they choose to look at things and whether they choose to discount respected researchers ... I will continue to look at, consider and appreciate this information.

I tried to find some and I couldn't identify any. It is the consumer products companies (J&J, P&G, et al) that have ownership in some of the big supplement companies. I couldn't find any case of a top 10 Big Pharma company (Astrazenica, Lilly, Squibb, Glaxo, Merck et al) owning any of the top 10 vitamin & supplement companies.

If there are any, I'd expect it to be Bayer or Squibb.

I did find some articles speculating that some of the big Pharma companies may start making acquisitions in that sector because they aren't able to grow their top lines fast enough with their exotic, expensive drugs.

But what if a Pharma does own a supplement company? It is still far more profitable for them to sell expensive, exotic drugs, so they still have plenty of incentive to trash vitamins and supplements. It is called hedging your bets.

Again, the studies may be proper, but they are so narrow that they cannot possibly justify the headline that all supplements are a waste of money. Therefore, the entire thing should be treated as bullshit -- "science" with an agenda. That is unfortunate because I have no doubt that a lot of money is wasted on supplements that do nothing. It would be nice to have some useful information instead of the BS this article is dishing out.

Galaxo Smith Kline ... when you do internet searches of what these major companies produce ... you will find they are all in the supplement manufacturing business ... again do an internet search for their subsidiaries as well.

The article I linked to gives a really good "jumping off place" ... leading to more and more info.

Is it really more profitable to sell expensive pharmaceuticals to a very limited number of folk or is it more profitable to sell cheaply produced supplements to a mass market (I don't trust these companies on either level). I have no idea which is more profitable (but it is not as clear as I think you are implying), but I do know BOTH are highly profitable.

Again, those that choose to not look at this industry with an extremely critical eye are just as bad as those that refuse to look at big Pharma or anybody else with a critical eye. The only objection I have to the research in the OP is that this has been affirmed over and over.

I chose to think critically on most things (we all have topics and issues that we think emotionally about) ... for those that choose not to... it is their business (as long as it doesn't effect me).

Edit to add a few seconds brought up the supplements manufactured by Merck ...http://pharmasimple.com/en/mc/20-merck-cons-hlth/17-food-supplements. i do not have the time or inclination to research all the dietary supplements manufactured by all of Big Pharma , but if you are interested you can find it easily. "google" the drug company and "dietary supplements" it may be edifying

I never said that none of them produces ANY vitamins or supplements. I said that none of the top 10 Pharmas were in the top ten of vitamin/supplement producers, as far as I can tell. And you haven't provided any information to the contrary.

and an industry in which big Pharma is inextricably linked ... no skin off my teeth.

When you do a bunch of M&As you end up with a grab bag of products that aren't strategic. I expect most Pharma companies has some vitamins or supplements somewhere in their empire. But you have not identified any case where a big Pharma company is also a big player in vitamins and supplements. And my point is that it is undoubtedly Big Pharma companies behind these organized efforts to dis vitamins and supplements.

This is not unbiased science. It is an attack campaign.

Herbalife is a lot better that a pharmaceutical company (?) ... Lol ...

Edited to add: You of course were correct about Herbalife, but really

I agree about statins and numerous other drugs. I do not trust "Big Pharma" (and its influence) on physicians. I can look at many issues critically. Looking at the 30-40 Billion dollar a year supplement industry critically does not mean that one embraces big pharmacology (actually in this case it is an attack on the pharma industry)

The study was fairly narrow ... that was the point of it. If you are healthy and in good health (living in the US), there is a high likelihood that there is no need for nutritional supplements.

It is disingenuous (or ignorant) to assert that the study claimed that pregnant and lactating women (or women of child bearing age should not insure adequate intake of folic acid), the study in no way implied that those suffering from malnutrition or malabsorbtion would not benefit, the study did not suggest that vegetarians and vegans may have trouble insuring adequate intake of some nutrients. the study did not suggest that there were not appropriate and targeted uses of vitamin and mineral supplements ... it countered the mass marketing scheme (very effective marketing) by supplement companies (most subsidiaries of Pharma companies).

I think the point of this OP and others like it ... is to encourage folk to think critically about a number of things .... I can look at both "drugs" and 'supplements" with a critical eye.

As far as I am concerned the best predictor of health and longevity are genetics, environment and healthy life style choices .

(I actually take a multi vit, fish oil and glucosamine)

You seem to want to imply that everyone who doesn't buy your argument is not thinking logically. I beg to differ. It is an outrageous claim (that all supplements are a waste of money) that is not supported in any manner by the actual research they quoted.

I am not claiming the reverse -- that this proves supplements are always effective. But there is plenty of evidence that vitamins and supplements can be very helpful in some cases -- often much more helpful than the expensive drugs pushed by Big Pharma.

Therefore, we have to question who has the agenda here. Who is funding this guy? And why?

" But there is plenty of evidence that vitamins and supplements can be very helpful in some cases" ... the authors in the studies do not dispute this at all ...?

This guy was discussing three studies ... follow the links ... one was from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health

The gist of the article and the studies is: "These vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention. Enough is enough."

That is BS. This is a blog written by this "Orac" fool. He determined the headline. Therefore, his destroyed any possibility of credibility. I'm not going to read every word of the cited articles because it is obvious from the blog headline that "Orac" is not competent or objective.

I don't dispute that some of the supplements are hyped, overpriced, and without any proof of efficacy. But that does not apply to all supplements and vitamins.

We can say that about any product. ESPECIALLY pharmaceuticals.

But be sure to load up on statins, antidepressants, flomax, anti-inflamatories, and boner pills because we all know they are _completely_ safe...

as I grow older and use the health care system more frequently, I find that whatever problem I have, their only solution is pharmaceutical. When the medical professionals badmouth supplements they are implicitly saying that pharmaceuticals are the way to go. In the last several years I've seen probably a half dozen general practitioners and specialists who were basically pharmaceutical reps...

... largely owned by Big pharma and its subsidiaries.

I am not a big fan of the "Medical industrial complex" ... but I am a big fine of careful scientific research

IKR!?!

?

I wonder if calcium helps women prevent osteoporosis? Also, many people don't or can't eat a balanced diet...Then would taking vitamin supplements be helpful as many people don't eat as many fruits and vegetables as they should. I wish they would have done a study on this. I spend money on vitamins that I could spend on something else and would be bummed if I'm wasting my money.

Vitamins are physiologically active in vanishingly small amounts. They're often enzyme co-factors. For most healthy people with reasonable-- not necessarily absolute-- food security, vitamins supplements are wholly unnecessary (vitamin D might turn out to be a bit of an exception as long as we insist on wearing clothes). But big pharma thanks everyone who believes otherwise just 'cause they read it on the internets. My god how the money rolls in....

... Try taking calcium at bedtime and see how much better you sleep. Take zinc and notice how you stop getting colds. ...

I'm sure he won't say.

I am a carnivore. Sometimes I eat bloody meat and I eat meat often. Last year I had a complete vitamin analysis and I found I was so incredibly deficient in vitamin b12 (only found in meat and vitamin supplements) and had been so long that I was ataxic, had neuropathy in both my feet and legs (I had to look to see if I had socks on) and was incredibly anxious, with my "nerves on edge." I began weekly vitamin b12 injections (I don't absorb the vitamins) and one year later, I can actually catch things, feel the earth under my feet and have a more calm view of the world. So, I'm not sure I agree with you. Okay, I don't agree with you.
Oh, so I guess it's woo hoo to you, Sid.

The problem is that nearly EVERYONE who eats a balanced diet receives more than adequate amounts of most vitamins, most of the time. Vitamin D is a partial exception, but only because we evolved to produce sufficient amounts while naked all day long, in the tropics. So yes, if you have a vitamin deficiency for whatever reason, including metabolic issues that block absorption or foster elimination of essential vitamins, you will usually suffer symptoms of vitamin deficiency. But most people with access to even marginally balanced diets-- the overwhelming majority in most developed countries-- have no such deficiencies. Vitamin deficiency isn't common except for folks on highly restrictive diets.

I have a similar metabolic problem with vitamin D-- when tested a few years ago, my serum vitamin D was off-the-charts low, so I take a supplement and it's fine. I could likely do without it by spending more time outdoors without clothes on. But that's a specific deficiency-- I eat a balanced diet and have no need to supplement other vitamins.

Sid is right. Mostly multivitamins go down the toilet.