The Case is Closed: Editorial Bias Prevents Reasonable Evaluation of Dietary Supplements.
Year: 2014
Type: article
Abstract: Being involved with dietary supplement research for almost 18 years, I have witnessed my share of hype for, and against, the use of dietary supplements. Few, however, have attempted such blatant finality to the subject as the recent editorial in the Annals of Internal Medicine—titled “Enough is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements.”1 The editorial authors, acting as both judge and jury, declare in no uncertain terms that “we believe the case is closed—supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful. These vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention. Enough is enough.” The verdict, they tell us, was sealed by 3 papers published in the same Annals issue. Not surprisingly, the publication of the editorial was touted by many news outlets that quickly found the usual supplement bashers all too willing to add insult to injury by regurgitating decades-old sound bites.
Anybody who has spent even a brief amount of time evaluating medical research, especially as it pertains to the use of vitamins and minerals, knows that such a conclusion (“the case is closed”) is as arrogant as it is absurd. In fact, the editorial does not even do justice to the data presented in the 3 papers published within the same issue—let alone the broader evidence used to evaluate the use of vitamins and minerals for the prevention of chronic disease. In any system of justice, this would be declared a mistrial.
Let us first re-examine the testimony of the 3 witnesses (the 3 papers published in this particular Annals issue) before asking the broader questions that may expose the real agenda behind this editorial. We call the 3 witnesses to the stand: (1) the vitamin-only and placebo-only arms of the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) tracking event rates after an initial myocardial infarction (MI); (2) the measurement of cognitive changes when giving men a multivitamin—part of the Physicians Health Study II (PHS2); and (3) a systematic review of a select group of studies using various vitamin preparations for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer—a review prepared for the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force.
Source: PubMed
Author: Thomas G Guilliams
Language: English
Topic: Nutrition and Health Studies
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2305588199