9 ms·

First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it. I'm also biased in favor of taking daily supplem

by relix 13y ago

First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it. I'm also biased in favor of taking daily supplements, because I take daily supplements and don't want to feel like a fool. That said, here's some analysis of his sources: Most of the articles he (doesn't) link to are about harmful effects of beta-carotene and vitamin A, which coincidentally turn out to be mostly the same thing, just in a different form. Checking out the one article I found [1], they gave 30mg of beta-carotene (16K UI), and 25000 UI of retinyl palmitate, which converts to a total of 41000UI of vitamin-A, or 800% of the recommended daily dosage. That dosage is insanely high. I have a very good "mega multi" vitamin, and it only contains 200% of vitamin-A, because it is well known that vitamin A and vitamin D are one of the few vitamins that are actually harmful at large doses, and you can get poisoned/die from overdoses. It's the reason why you don't want to eat polar bear livers. To OD on vitamin A is quite easy, with effects being seen starting at daily 21000 UI doses. So no multivitamin pills actually contain that high of an amount of vitamin A. I find it strange that he's not talking about specific brands, probably because none of them contain the high amounts that are used in the articles he talks about. It doesn't surprise me that taking 41000 UI has adverse effects, since it's known that this is already well over OD limits, and is especially risky for smokers, who have a lower OD limit. All in all, the reasons he puts forward why mega doses are bad, are not relevant to consumer vitamin pills because the doses are not in the same ballpark. I would also like to see the amount of lives saved because of the pills - much like airbags and car belts, there might be people who die from using them especially, but there might be many more people saved as well, turning it into a net profit. [1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15572756 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15572756

lake99 13y ago
I agree entirely. Also, instead of giving proper references to papers, the author takes the scumbag approach of being vague "in 2004, a review of 14 randomized trials for the Cochrane Database found that the supplemental vitamins A, C, E and beta carotene, and a mineral, selenium, taken to prevent intestinal cancers, actually increased mortality." That, alone, should qualify this article as tripe.
- jstsch 13y ago
  This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. Providing all those direct references would not make for good reading. The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up.
  - lake99 13y ago
    > This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. This is the attitude that I'm trying to address. > This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. Look at this discussion on HN. How many of them give references. Is their writing any less clear for it? > The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up. Refer to my earlier comment about accuracy and context.
- DanBC 13y ago
  The Cochrane Review is a widely respected organisation who publish careful, reviewed, systematic meta-studies. Here's a link to a metastudy about gastro-intestinal cancer and anti-oxidant supplements. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004183/antioxidant-supplements-cannot-be-recommended-for-gastrointestinal-cancer-prevention http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004183/antioxidant-supplemen...) That introduction is very clear. it is unambiguous. "Trial quality was exceptionally good". "Based on properly designed and conducted randomised clinical trials, convincing evidence that beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E or their combinations may prevent gastrointestinal cancers is not found [...] These antioxidant supplements even seem to increase mortality." Here's the study for lung cancer. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002141/antioxidant-drugs-for-preventing-lung-cancer-in-healthy-people http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002141/antioxidant-drugs-for...) Note that these people would really want to find effective cheap treatments for cancer, so it is in their interest to find that vitamin supplements work.
  - relix 13y ago
    The trials show vitamins don't help cancer patients. They also show that OD-level supplementation of vitamins that are hard on the liver (vitamin A) increase mortality in cancer patients. That last part shouldn't surprise anyone. I'm sure if you give weakened people who already take chemo and whatnot, high levels of anything, mortality will increase. They say nothing about the effects of healthy people, or the effects of lower (common) doses. I don't understand how the author jumps from that, to the concusion that multivitamin pills are bad for everyone.
latch 13y ago
"First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it." That's a cynical glass-half empty perspective. The other way to look at it is that he might be an expert... For example, assuming this is the same Paul Offit...you could claim that his book on the importance of vaccination makes him non objective, which would be a silly claim given that he's widely considered a leading expert in the field of vaccination. Edit: I'm going to get a little more personal because, for some reason, your opening line really bothered me. You're dismissing someone's opinion, in a field for which he holds an M.D., where he spent 25 years of his life building a vaccine against a disease which kills 600 000 children a year . You've been barely alive for that period of time and you've studied computer science....the guy's an expert. Doesn't make him right...but there's no reason to disrespect him by assigning him false motives.
- relix 13y ago
  I'm just adding to the body of facts here. There's an almost identical article by him in the Guardian linked below which contains a plug to his book. It feels a lot like a marketing campaign for his book which will be released next week. Edit: what do any personal facts matter here? Could you please stay on-topic and not make this about me vs him, but more about the content of his article? On top of the logical fallacies[1][2] you're committing, I feel really creeped out that you're posting personal details about me. [1]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem [2]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
  - latch 13y ago
    That he's "probably not being objective" isn't a fact. You opened up with the ad-hominem, do you really not see that?
    - relix 13y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem "Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem."
codersteve 13y ago
He could be writing the book because he wants to make people aware. I don't understand why people insist on taking supplements when they have no medical reason to do so. From the bottom of the page: "Paul A. Offit is the chief of the infectious diseases division of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia"
- relix 13y ago
  I can give you my reason: I take supplements because I'm positive I'm not getting 100% of my necessary vitamins from my diet/sunlight. Also because on some days I might need more, and on others less, so I make sure that I take enough for even the most "vitaminy-requiring days" (i.e. after infection but before symptoms of a disease, or after workout). That's why I take a dose that's higher than the RDA. There's almost no evidence contrary to taking higher-than-normal doses of vitamins, except for the ones that get stored in fatty acid such as VitA and VitD. For those I watch out that I don't take too much. On the other hand, there's a lot of studies done where people deficient in vitamins have lots of adverse health effects which they may not even be aware of. I figured that there's lots of potential benefits to gain from taking vitamin supplements, and if it doesn't work then I'm only out money.
  - codersteve 13y ago
    >> there's a lot of studies done where people deficient in vitamins have lots of adverse health effects Sure, that's why you should go for physicals. A doctor can have blood tests done to check, then you have a medical reason for taking them.
    - relix 13y ago
      The doctor's check up might cost $200. I pay $60 a year for my vitamins.
brown9-2 13y ago
First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it. I think you are reversing the cause and effect here. You assume that because he is releasing a book on this topic, therefore his opinion has been molded to fit the book. But you should be asking where the opinion behind the book came from originally. Meanwhile, the reverse can also be true - the author, a highly credentialed doctor, started out objective on the topic and after years of research has come to the conclusion that he advocates in his article and book. The focus here on "being objective" is a bit odd - not every issue has two sides that are both equally correct. The fact that someone has done all the research and looked at years of studies and has arrived firm conclusion does not automatically make him or her an unfair observer. In fact, that's not even bias! Bias is refusing to consider any other viewpoint even with evidence. I do agree with you though that the article would be better if it was more clear about the dosages in the studies. It's advice comes off as "vitamins are dangerous" rather than "megadoses of vitamins are dangerous".
- giardini 13y ago
  If you're a scientist and objective observer you publish papers on a topic. You write a book to make money on that topic.
  - danielharan 13y ago
    Writing a book is generally a terrible way to make money, especially given the salary he must be making now. Another motivation besides greed could be wanting to warn people and potentially save many lives.
    - giardini 13y ago
      Luckily for the publishing business, most would-be authors do not realize that.
gruseom 13y ago
First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it. Ok, but that standard applies to any researcher who receives grant money or a salary. In fact, it's so high a standard that objectivity can be claimed by no one. Which is probably accurate, but not very useful for making distinctions—it's a case of what Hegel called "the night in which all cows are black".
readme 13y ago
Of course he's not being objective about it! He's being sensationalist. If you go and look for studies on vitamins increasing mortality, you will find them. If you look for studies on vitamins increasing longevity, you will find them. Seems the author is choosing to present only the former, though!

by relix 13y ago

lake99 13y ago

I agree entirely. Also, instead of giving proper references to papers, the author takes the scumbag approach of being vague "in 2004, a review of 14 randomized trials for the Cochrane Database found that the supplemental vitamins A, C, E and beta carotene, and a mineral, selenium, taken to prevent intestinal cancers, actually increased mortality." That, alone, should qualify this article as tripe.

jstsch 13y ago
This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. Providing all those direct references would not make for good reading. The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up.
- lake99 13y ago
  > This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. This is the attitude that I'm trying to address. > This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. Look at this discussion on HN. How many of them give references. Is their writing any less clear for it? > The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up. Refer to my earlier comment about accuracy and context.
DanBC 13y ago
The Cochrane Review is a widely respected organisation who publish careful, reviewed, systematic meta-studies. Here's a link to a metastudy about gastro-intestinal cancer and anti-oxidant supplements. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004183/antioxidant-supplements-cannot-be-recommended-for-gastrointestinal-cancer-prevention http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004183/antioxidant-supplemen...) That introduction is very clear. it is unambiguous. "Trial quality was exceptionally good". "Based on properly designed and conducted randomised clinical trials, convincing evidence that beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E or their combinations may prevent gastrointestinal cancers is not found [...] These antioxidant supplements even seem to increase mortality." Here's the study for lung cancer. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002141/antioxidant-drugs-for-preventing-lung-cancer-in-healthy-people http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002141/antioxidant-drugs-for...) Note that these people would really want to find effective cheap treatments for cancer, so it is in their interest to find that vitamin supplements work.
- relix 13y ago
  The trials show vitamins don't help cancer patients. They also show that OD-level supplementation of vitamins that are hard on the liver (vitamin A) increase mortality in cancer patients. That last part shouldn't surprise anyone. I'm sure if you give weakened people who already take chemo and whatnot, high levels of anything, mortality will increase. They say nothing about the effects of healthy people, or the effects of lower (common) doses. I don't understand how the author jumps from that, to the concusion that multivitamin pills are bad for everyone.

latch 13y ago

"First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it." That's a cynical glass-half empty perspective. The other way to look at it is that he might be an expert... For example, assuming this is the same Paul Offit...you could claim that his book on the importance of vaccination makes him non objective, which would be a silly claim given that he's widely considered a leading expert in the field of vaccination. Edit: I'm going to get a little more personal because, for some reason, your opening line really bothered me. You're dismissing someone's opinion, in a field for which he holds an M.D., where he spent 25 years of his life building a vaccine against a disease which kills 600 000 children a year . You've been barely alive for that period of time and you've studied computer science....the guy's an expert. Doesn't make him right...but there's no reason to disrespect him by assigning him false motives.

relix 13y ago
I'm just adding to the body of facts here. There's an almost identical article by him in the Guardian linked below which contains a plug to his book. It feels a lot like a marketing campaign for his book which will be released next week. Edit: what do any personal facts matter here? Could you please stay on-topic and not make this about me vs him, but more about the content of his article? On top of the logical fallacies[1][2] you're committing, I feel really creeped out that you're posting personal details about me. [1]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem [2]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
- latch 13y ago
  That he's "probably not being objective" isn't a fact. You opened up with the ad-hominem, do you really not see that?
  - relix 13y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem "Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem."

codersteve 13y ago

He could be writing the book because he wants to make people aware. I don't understand why people insist on taking supplements when they have no medical reason to do so. From the bottom of the page: "Paul A. Offit is the chief of the infectious diseases division of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia"

relix 13y ago
I can give you my reason: I take supplements because I'm positive I'm not getting 100% of my necessary vitamins from my diet/sunlight. Also because on some days I might need more, and on others less, so I make sure that I take enough for even the most "vitaminy-requiring days" (i.e. after infection but before symptoms of a disease, or after workout). That's why I take a dose that's higher than the RDA. There's almost no evidence contrary to taking higher-than-normal doses of vitamins, except for the ones that get stored in fatty acid such as VitA and VitD. For those I watch out that I don't take too much. On the other hand, there's a lot of studies done where people deficient in vitamins have lots of adverse health effects which they may not even be aware of. I figured that there's lots of potential benefits to gain from taking vitamin supplements, and if it doesn't work then I'm only out money.
- codersteve 13y ago
  >> there's a lot of studies done where people deficient in vitamins have lots of adverse health effects Sure, that's why you should go for physicals. A doctor can have blood tests done to check, then you have a medical reason for taking them.
  - relix 13y ago
    The doctor's check up might cost $200. I pay $60 a year for my vitamins.

brown9-2 13y ago

First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it. I think you are reversing the cause and effect here. You assume that because he is releasing a book on this topic, therefore his opinion has been molded to fit the book. But you should be asking where the opinion behind the book came from originally. Meanwhile, the reverse can also be true - the author, a highly credentialed doctor, started out objective on the topic and after years of research has come to the conclusion that he advocates in his article and book. The focus here on "being objective" is a bit odd - not every issue has two sides that are both equally correct. The fact that someone has done all the research and looked at years of studies and has arrived firm conclusion does not automatically make him or her an unfair observer. In fact, that's not even bias! Bias is refusing to consider any other viewpoint even with evidence. I do agree with you though that the article would be better if it was more clear about the dosages in the studies. It's advice comes off as "vitamins are dangerous" rather than "megadoses of vitamins are dangerous".

giardini 13y ago
If you're a scientist and objective observer you publish papers on a topic. You write a book to make money on that topic.
- danielharan 13y ago
  Writing a book is generally a terrible way to make money, especially given the salary he must be making now. Another motivation besides greed could be wanting to warn people and potentially save many lives.
  - giardini 13y ago
    Luckily for the publishing business, most would-be authors do not realize that.

gruseom 13y ago

First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it. Ok, but that standard applies to any researcher who receives grant money or a salary. In fact, it's so high a standard that objectivity can be claimed by no one. Which is probably accurate, but not very useful for making distinctions—it's a case of what Hegel called "the night in which all cows are black".

readme 13y ago

Of course he's not being objective about it! He's being sensationalist. If you go and look for studies on vitamins increasing mortality, you will find them. If you look for studies on vitamins increasing longevity, you will find them. Seems the author is choosing to present only the former, though!