>An extreme example to illustrate the point: if you eat a random plant and drop dead, I'm not going to look for an explanation, I'm going to avoid eating that plant until I can prove that your death was caused by another factor.
Even if the plant extended my life? Isn't trying to understand why I died the same thing as looking for an explanation?
Any studies which merely correlate supplementation with early death and then ‘conclude’ that supplements are bad can be refuted by saying that the relevant people in spite of supplementatation and not because of it.
>> Secondly, the context in which this occurs is that various government agencies and professional guilds want to prohibit the sale of supplements, or impose ridiculous 'standards' on their manufacture and testing.
>Source for this?
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformat...
>> However, it's very important that people remain free to choose which non-prescription chemicals to put in their bodies.
>Indeed, it's also important that people are well educated in the effects of those non-prescription chemicals and are in full possession of the known facts about their effects. Such is the aim of studies like this.
Like I said, the article gave no explanation for why any supplement or supplements in general are bad. So there's no scientific or educational value.
Since the freedom to take supplements is presently at risk, the article can only do harm.
>Maybe so, but they know a lot more about the human body than those who don't study it, since that is by definition their job.
Yes, doctors do know more about the body than most people but that doesn't make them infallible. Part of recognising our fallibility means not relying on any one source of expertise. If doctors and government took that seriously then they wouldn't be trying to restrict non-prescription items. The government's job is to protect our freedoms. Doctors can learn from ordinary people's experiences of supplementation.
>the great thing about science is that anyone can dive in and have a go at proving or disproving something
But he can't if the relevant supplements are banned!
Note also that, generally speaking, science thrives in an atmosphere of freedom and toleration.
>if you disagree with the conclusions in this article, run some research of your own and prove them wrong.
There's nothing to test from this article: it doesn't assert anything. It merely insinuates that supplements are bad. Science is about searching for explanations. It's not about counting studies or weighing evidence or anything like that.
>> Meanwhile, only a handful of people die annually from vitamin overdose, whereas hundreds of thousands people die who take prescription drugs (yet we don't say that there's no justification for prescription drugs).
>Sources for either of those statements?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_poisoning#Comparative_s...
> Your issue with prescription drug-taking is entirely separate; you might as well argue that thousands of people die driving yet we don't say there's no justification for driving
I don't have an issue with prescription drugs, but note the car driving argument is precisely what is being put forward with regard to supplements.