Talk:Megavitamin therapy/Archive 1

Archive 1

January 2006 comments

Is anyone going to add to this article? Right now it should be merged with orthomolecular medicine, which needs some more content. Since my merge/redirect were reverted, I'm adding a merge tag. --CDN99 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think megavitamin therapy should stay separate from orthomolecular medicine. First, megavitamin therapy is but one modality in orthomolecular medicine, albeit probably the part with most name recognition. Hence a separate article, for quick reference and, long term, for separate distinction in more of the public's mind as a piece of OM, *not* synonymous with OM. 69.178.31.177 12:15, 15 January 2006

re: Molecular Disease Linus Pauling was generally recognized for his discovery of molecular disease and molecular medicine with biochemical explanation of sickle cell anemia due to tenth order biopolymer kinetics at the threshhold of oxygen depletion, hence its treatment (mo' oxygen!). This is the foundation of molecular medicine and later, orthomolecular medicine. Academia and the pharmas are spending hundreds of millions of $ pa on molecular medicine. LP won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry shortly (5 yr) afterwards. from Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary, 27th Edition: molecular disease - a disease in which the manifestations are due to alterations in molecular structure and function. from Dictionary.com: molecular disease - A disease in which there is an abnormality in or a deficiency of a particular molecule, such as hemoglobin in sickle cell anemia. 03:13, 18 January 2006 69.178.31.177

references need(ed) work

I am removing the QW link here. I allow(ed) it as a counterpoint ref in orthomolecular medicine simply because I haven't seen a more concise position stmt. Once is enough. OM is linked here, so QW is represented, just not directly promoted again. The link is a skillful weave of literary fact, offical political ("scientific") positions, and indirect references to popular "factoids" (see Hoffer) or popular misconceptions without actually restating them. This likely misleads less sophisticated readers. It uses individual facts mixed with ambiguous generalities that may avoid an easily provable "wrong" but mislead ordinarily informed readers to draw erroneous conclusions. For example, I think many ordinary readers likely think that RDAs are around the "physiological needs" or "capacity" nebulously mentioned there but carefuly not elaborated "...as drugs rather than vitamins". The "RDA conservative" faces several tough issues of low limits. An example: large individual biochemical and situational variation such as flat out problems with the actual RDAs used for vitamin D. Is that 200-400-600 IU? or 2000-4000 IU? Apparent deficiencies with other vitamins/nutrients may complicate D'issue (ahem) but it is a critical health issue in northern climes. Also pharmacology professors Hickey and Roberts have carefully dissected the shortcomings of the vitamin C RDA.

Of course some of these things are definitional and conceptual. e.g. QW, if it acknowledged the utility of Cathcart's bowel tolerance vitamin C regimen, say 40-100 g/day for several common illnesses, would presumably call that a drug. Whereas some animals manufacture these peak levels to meet their internal physiological needs during the stress of illness, an orthomolecular view would not be as a (toximolecular) drug. Also the vitamin concept as conventionally promoted misleads with a simple "equivalence" among different molecules with significant impacts for population segments amongst vitamins B's, D, E, K and provitamins for A. 69.178.31. 22:42 15 January 2006

rtg

I cannot see a basis for the "unverified" sign. The article is presented pretty straightforward. As stated in edit notes, it was heavily linked. It has comprehensive references, enough to begin to distract from the article with anymore. Pls state specific objections to any sentence.

The external link section is balanced 1:1, pro/con. As previously stated, the specific qw link is boringly repetitive, slightly off topic, and provocative (as I said once was enough, simply to directly balance reference POV in namesake orthomolecular links, not quality). Qw authors & predecessor forms, spearheading a multi decade, anticompetitive persecution, are now suffering consecutive losses in court. Please try to come with a higher quality link, and more than 1:1 max the section simply becomes anti-V POV, rather than on topic "MV".

POV tag

Megavitamin therapy is generally considered quackery, but the article consists entirely of the minority point of view. -- FRCP11 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Generally" seems over overgeneralized, at least in those states with licensed, degreed naturopathic doctors (who may use a "megavitamin therapy") as well as treatments long recognized in conventional medicine or emerging in conventional medical schools. Megavitamin therapy, as described by a number of serious MD/PhD types, is serious if controversial, and sometimes adversarially disputed where modern research on specific vitamers clearly calls current RDA/DRI rationales for preventive nutrition into question [1], much less therapeutic levels such as niacin for mixed dyslipidemias where it is really the #1 (gold standard) treatment molecule (of course it is not exactly advertised that $2-$5/mo of niacin often can do a better job than $200/month of a highly advertised fungal toxin). Oh, yes, there is now a pharma patent on adding niacin to the fungal toxin so that the combined material better addresses the all other dislipidemia measures (triglycerides, IDL, apoB, Lp(a), small dense LDL, HDL_2b, etc) other than the less atherogenic component of LDL (of 3 LDL related components) effectively controlled by the fungal product. The quackery part is a clear 'tude and pejorative in such cases. The article is descriptive and historical in nature about the subject.--69.178.41.55 21:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Arguing that something isn't generally considered quackery by noting that it's approved of by "naturopathic" "doctors" is rather self-defeating, given that "naturopaths" are generally considered quacks graduated by diploma mills. The article is POV, rather than "descriptive and historical", because it lists none of the evidence against, nor the general consensus of quackery. -- FRCP11 21:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See my respones at | orthomed. You should be aware that the ND licensure states would not be agreeable to "diploma mill" degrees, they want 4-5 years in an accredited school. Also you are ignoring areas that conventional medicine (Europe, Japan, and/or US) is actually in agreement, niacin and vitamin D are examples as above, or the original source. (ditto A, B's, E, K2, Q10, a number of enzymes, Se, Cr), never mind some of the more interesting pharma patents that actually provide biological support. The quackery part is unwelcome where there are real references to real science, and the "generally" part is about 10-20 years too late anyway.--69.178.41.55 00:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

pov, expert tags

You are not scoring factual points yet. This is a factual article that describes the subject of a reasonably rapidly growing, controversial medical-scientific minority. Just because they are a minority doesn't validate red lining the article. Please point to 1 - 2 sentences that you disagree with. Add interesting, *cogent* criticism. Most of this article is simply historical, descriptive and appropriately referenced. I can only see a personal opinion so far wholly unsupported by any factual basis. Actually the previous conventional medicine complaint was that there were too many superscripted references. The Controversy section is plenty of warning that not everyone agrees about everything. Description of the subject is primary, not outside unsupported opinions that have already been covered, as in OM.--69.178.41.55 05:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the WP:NPOV guidelines already. I've explained the position and the problem. -- FRCP11 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You broadside "skeptical...", "pseudoscience" and "quackery" without foundation here and at orthomolecular medicine[2][3]; this is clearly asserting POV. You accuse me of "sanitizing" an article when I am bending over backwards to try to improve the article over any potential disagreement with merit; this is not "assuming good faith". You refuse to discuss the article or any specifics, where you are clearly discounting it en masse (the pejorative labels). The article is actually constructed with SPOV in mind. The article herein refers to the specific lifework of the following authors:

• Abram Hoffer, PhD U. Minnesota, MD U. Toronto
• William B. Parsons, Jr. MD, Mayo Clinic
• Roger J. Williams, PhD U. Chicago (magna cum laude), vitamin discoverer, professor, founder of Clayton Biochemical Institute at U Texas, National Academy of Sciences, President, American Chemical Society
• Irwin Stone, research biochemist, long industrial patent series on ascorbic acid
• Linus Pauling PhD CalTech, Prof Chemistry CalTech, Stanford, two time solo Nobelist, pioneer in modern organic chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, molecular medicine, coined "orthomolecular"
• Drs. James, Evan, Wilfrid Shute, Canadian pioneers in vitamin E
• Fred R. Klenner MS Biology, doctoral studies in Physiology, MD Duke University
• William Kaufman, MD, PhD, both U Michigan, gme fellow at Yale.

These are hard-to-dismiss qualifications as mere "quacks" with lifetimes of research and literature. Hanging out the NPOV sign is not a permanent roadside sign of convenience. Assuming good faith, and trying to favorably interpret the NPOV sign to you, all I can divine is that means your POV is that "pseudoscience" and "quackery" are still your version of being polite about a crock, fakes or frauds. It would also mean that you have less familiarity with the relevant scientific and medical literature in an industrial segment that is highly controlled and influenced by various rent seeking interests. I might point out that certain popular "antiquack" authors have beaten an involuntary retreat in the face of legal and technical developments. Actually reading some of the literature involved, they still have miles to go on retreat on some subjects.

So far all I see is an uninforming tag attack. If you have a specific complaint, pls show it. There are "Controversy" and "side effect" boxes, edit them. If there is a misstatment of fact, nail it. If you are unhappy with *any* sentence, lets discuss it. I've asked for any improvement or suggestion possible.--69.178.41.55 01:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir. You greatly misunderstand the point of NPOV. You are arguing that you are correct. I don't believe that you are, but it is irrelevant. The problem is that the majority point of view is not reflected in this article, as WP:NPOV requires. -- FRCP11 03:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the article is about megavitamin therapy, its referenced facts and history. Opinions are not needed for substitution, majority or not; they are notable primarily in the Controversy part because they are just opinions. This is one of the edit tensions with SPOV. Fair warning, orthomolecular subjects are not just some grab bag of "alt med" beliefs; in proper form they honor scientific principles more closely than the pharma editions' spin on *principles* - which the pharmas have striven to exclude others' legitimate data by re- & overdefinition rather than appropriately analyze and / or (re)test inconvenient data. Also one of the most poisonous ongoing problems in orthomed is the public's lack of access to accurate definitions and sources on the subject as well as non-commercially propelled views (I am speaking very broadly about pervasive commercial influences on popular & professional views).

The position you seem to be advocating overlooks several points:

1. Most "megavitamin critic fans" simply do not know what constitutes the technically based megavitamin therapy regimes - how much, what formulation, how often. The references given in Megavitamin therapy[4] and Orthomolecular medicine[5] attempt to resolve that. The MV article provides the barest intelligible direction to references that should be high quality sources on the subject, its rationale and its practices.

2. This is also seems to be a problem with much purported mainstream testing, else how would they keep repeating multiply defective protocols, announcing their own failure as the molecules' failure decade in, decade out, unless of course, it was deliberate? (I have actual experience weeding out scientific error and misconduct by academics) Those familiar with nice oranges kind of look contemptuously at mushy apples. Outside claims that fail to recognize and use correct regimes should be considered irrelevant or low priority at best, especially if they have rejected repeated prior notice by a year or a decade or more.

3. Canards and counterfactual claims, believed by the majority or not, fundamentally fall into a different position and priority. Certain MV & orthomed critics have begun to run afoul of this recognition.

Finally there are legitimate controversies, but they are often not what or where most critics say they are. The current article is an attempt to yield a succinct World Book level article. Constructive comments or edits are welcome.--69.178.41.55 07:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you continue to miss the point. NPOV is not just about what an article includes, but what it omits. The mainstream view needs to be included in the introduction. The article consists of a variety of assertions about the therapy that go unrebutted; a segregated section that mentions the mainstream view, but buries it with a lot of qualifications that shade the argument in the minority-view's direction; and a series of links where the legitimate medicine is left undistinguished from the illegitimate. You continue to argue this on the merits, but that fundamentally misunderstands WP:NPOV. Please read the guideline already and stop this arguing in circles about matters entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. -- FRCP11 12:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be very interested to see your sources, which items you class as mere "assertions" and what you present as "mainstream". As I said before, constructive comments and criticism are welcome, I simply have been very wary since you used three POV trigger words with unfortunate associated histories here at Wiki, lack of response to my basic points, and your claims to NPOV. As for "legitimate medicine...undistinguished from the illegitimate," this is all legit in my state and probably most of the NMD/ND licensure states. I would recommend trying any "views" in Controversy first. This article best serves the general readership as a concise, descriptive, factual article because an accurate, substantial summation is so hard to find. I am not afraid to acknowledge disagreements in an appropriate manner and place. As for NPOV, the health & medical articles have frequently used a format that allows substantial presentation of the basic concepts, subject description and background before the interjected politics are added or farmed out to a more specialized article.--69.178.41.55 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am pitching FRCP11's tagging, see "Dumped for cause" at Orthomed as well as tag Talk at npov tag Orhtomolecular medicine and above, POV tag .--69.178.41.55 12:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

POV retag

Looking for specific improvements, cogent comments, or at least factual challenges, to justify continuance of the ((NPOV)) & ((expert)) tags.--69.178.41.55 12:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Nautilus: Thanks for your tireless efforts. You are much more patient with your opponents than they deserve. You're a gentleman and a scholar; they're quacks. --AEL

RFC:Restore the POV tag

Megavitamin therapy is quackery, and widely criticized by leading scientists,[6] but one would not know this at all from this POV-pushing page. -- 70.232.110.230 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki "Orthomolecular medicine" article has long linked the QW page, I put it there myself in January when I redid the OM reference section. Barret is not a leading scientist or even an expert source according to recent court declarations, his dated article qualifies as a *sentiment* and a disputed technical position in science at Wiki. The generalzed statement that "megavitamin therapy is quackery" is an easy to factually contradict statement already heavily counterexampled in the text of the megavitamin article. A megavitamin therapy even long accepted for conventional medicine is vitamin B3 (niacin). Vitamin C is seriously under medicial & scientific study for cancer again, PNAS(2006) because of the previous "errors" and omissions against hard data. Within the med schools themselves, vitamin D is is the slow process of transition of megavitamin, from 200 IU a decade ago to some intermediate value, 1000-4000 IU strongly pushed by the actual medical researchers, well under the sunlit human production values of 10,000 - 50000 IU per day. This is just for starters, read the talk page here and at Orthomolecular medicine. So the quackery statement falls, the QW ref is long referenced at orthomed, and it is incorporated by linked orthomed reference to "Megavitamin therapy". No basis for the tag has been shown.--69.178.41.55 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The basis for the tag is that you persist in censoring relevant information that disagrees with your POV.

WP:LEAD says "The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies." The most notable fact about megavitamin theory is that it is dangerous, objected to by leading scientists, and widely criticized. Yet, not only has this been deleted from the lead paragraph by your edit, but it has been deleted from the article all together. -- 70.232.110.230 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Per your note[7], I improved the first paragraph[8] accordingly. Your self statements clearly identify you as a very strong believer of "Brother Stephen" and his particular POV. And that's fine. However, here, and at orthomed, contentional or "conventional" medical pov, is not the last word or an automatic genuflect. We have attempted to resolve things logically, with quality references with a substantial nod to generalized scientific priority. It does turn out that some highly contentious editors can't find or at least present references that give precedence to their claims to superior priority but have been simply argumentative (surprise!). Criticized vociferously by *some* of the population, yes. Orthomed megavitamin therapies dangerous ? Which way? With respect to conventional medicine, such apprehensions are discussed in both articles' talk pages, the orthomed article and elsewhere. The orthomed article is actually still being generous in terms of SPOV. Censorship? Show up with howlingly ignorant statements & POV, persist in the face of high quality references and the barest reason, and yes, several editors have worn out their welcome - even from Wikipedia and from other doctors. Reason, references and careful, respectful edits *are* welcome.--69.178.41.55 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Such edits are clearly not welcome on this welcome, because they keep getting deleted, and I keep getting insulted by an anonymous editor who engages in edit wars and improperly removes POV tags. -- Cri du canard 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

From the FAQ:

==== Pseudoscience ====

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

The article fails to adhere to the NPOV guidelines because it emphasizes the minority viewpoint over the majority viewpoint. -- Cri du canard 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You persist in an ad hominem word usage when it has been explained, crystal clear, by previously uninvolved editors (linas and Michael C Price) that it is not "ps". This alone makes you look like a POV warrior. Your primary source of "knowledge" seems to be the polemics of "Brother Stephen" et al, an effective and unfortunately popular writer in certain anticompetitive quarters with dated and heavy handed prose that is not aging well in science or court (I have been thinking about when I first began reading the Readers Digest about the Lehigh High Valley... so it must be mid to late 70s. I still read his bios on alt med credentials, the most complete dirt). You simply don't seem to know what "science" is. Before the waters of progress smooth it over, science gets messy as hell and orthomed is in the thick of that transition. Orthomed is actually founded on a technical foundation that was well ahead of conventional medicine in a number of ways (orthomed was born molecular, conventional medicine was not, and on review seems to have spent much of the 20th century resisting it, starting around 1900). In part due to being upstaged, conventional medicine is now scurrying madly to reassert dominance and control with greater science requirements, u/g research and generally monopolizing the kids' time between 19 & 27. Little time is left for independent thought, much less scientific (vs even dogmatic) nutrition courses. I am going by Boston and New Haven this weekend, think I should spoil a birthday party with a host biotech MD regarding this?--TheNautilus 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither linas nor MCP have applied the NPOV or LEAD standard to these articles. They've made factual arguments, but the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability. Wikipedia is not supposed to resolve the debate. It just reports the debate, so your insistence on "right" and "wrong" is irrelevant, even if you were right (and most doctors think you're not). Right now, this article doesn't fairly report the debate; worse, it doesn't fairly report the view of the majority of the scientific community.

Most doctors view megavitamin therapy as quackery and pseudoscience. They may or may not be correct, but WP:NPOV requires that the majority viewpoint be reflected as the majority viewpoint. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, and your attempting to argue that all of mainstream medicine is part of a conspiracy by doctors and pharmaceuticals to shut down orthomedicine is utterly irrelevant to the WP:NPOV standard.

Quackwatch has done a nice job of summarizing the evidence against OM, but the fact of the matter is that it's the primary sources, not Quackwatch, that provides the damning argument against megavitamins and related issues. And Quackwatch is a heck of a lot more credible in my eyes than "orthomed.org", which you've been relying upon. What pseudoscience movement admits that they're pseudoscience?

I think your POV is utterly wrong and dangerous, and is the message of charlatans who should be barred from the practice of medicine and jailed for consumer fraud, but I recognize that WP:NPOV requires its inclusion in this article. But your position that your POV is the only POV that belongs in the article is simply false by the rules of Wikipedia. You can cite all the irrelevant studies about run-of-the-mill nutritional debates you want (which are irrelevant to what orthomedical proponents are pushing), but what you need to be citing are the Wikipedia standards you're not adhering to. Please read the NPOV guidelines. -- Cri du canard 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's nice when an encyclopedia article has actual, coherent, up to date information that readers can concisely trace a knowledgable thread of thought on a subject without disparagement, intimidation and fear tactics. The article you are writing is "Bro. Stephen trashes sinful Nobel laureates, godless rational thought, and most forms of evidence". I have to say, you are a true Believer. The world is bludgeoned by these outdated radical skeptic POV sites, that frequently cite cooked tests that did nothing to test the supposed hypothesis. You continually ignore the effect of priority from the latest major scientific papers in the area, you deny multiple distinguished scientists (in conventional pubs and institutions) their very work is even science. The parts you mention were addressed in much more muted tones as a general heads up, not the bash happy denial-of-all-who-disagree.--TheNautilus 07:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia intro policy states that the intro should make "mention of its notable controversies". Simply stating that some unnamed controversy exists is not the same as actually making mention of notable controversies. Claims that it is ineffective/dangerous is a notable controversy. And adding the other side of the debate is not POV! Excluding other viewpoints, especially when those viewpoints are THE MAJORITY VIEWPOINT, is exactly the kind of thing the NPOV policy disallows. Also, the phrase " Historically it has existed in its own right as a controversial approach to health" doesn't even make any sense. What is that suppose to mean? CaptainManacles 07:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The background to this article presented the false impression that megavitamin therapy is generally accepted, and appeared to give evidence the status of proof. The assertion of a therapy as "officially recognized" needs factual verification, and statements about the importance and impact of publications are mere promotion without objective evidence.Gleng 09:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ames

WP editors have a responsibility to ensure that it does not become a vehicle for promotion of disputed health claims especially for treatments widely regarded as fad remedies promoted opportunistically for commercial gain to a vulnerable public, and especially where there are serious health risks. The Helsinki thesis quoted as support for acceptance of megavitamin therapy in fact concludes that there is no benefit for ordinary people, but draws the natural and conventional conclusion that there are some rare cases of individuals with genetic defects that impair their ability to metabolise vitamins who mifght benefit from supplements; essentially this is also the valid conclusion of Ames' workGleng 09:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Ames concludes that all people should take daily multivitamins daily, irrespective of their diet.

See:

The advocacy of daily multivitamins in cancer prevention by Bruce Ames and by others in a JAMA review article for "chronic disease prevention in adults".

--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ames believes that it might be beneficial for people who eat less than the recommended daily intake of fruit and vegetables to take supplements. This is not particularly controversial - the recommended intake is what is thought to be needed. There is no indication that there is any benefit from supplementing above the recommended normal ditary intake. However Ames is concerned that many people are not eating enough fresh fruit and vegetables, and his recommendation is to bring the cost of these down to a level that makes this diet readily affordable. From his Reason interview, "On the other hand, only 10 percent of the population are eating two fruits and three vegetables a day. So I'm coming to the conclusion that people should be taking one-a-day pills. Certainly pregnant women and poorly nourished people and anybody of childbearing age and older people."Gleng 12:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm, afraid you are wrong, Ames concluded that all people should take daily multivitamins daily, irrespective of their diet.. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to look at the context. Ames' argument is that because many people are not eating a healthy diet, then as a prescription for health policy it's efficient and effective to simply give everyone a pill a day because it will help those who aren't on a healthy diet and won't harm those who are. This is controversial because some feel that while a single multivitamin pill per day won't do any harm, the message that vitamin pills are good for you might mislead people into taking very high doses which may pose a serious health risk. Ames message here is compromised also by his commercial interests in marketing his own pills. In science, this is the end of credibility as an objective reporter; once you have a financial stake in a message then you are not an objective witness. The last thing WP should be doing is promoting such remedies.Gleng 13:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to Ames, he doesn't take any money from the marketing of his pills. But, otherwise, Gleng's analysis of Ames's position seems to me to be precisely correct. -- Cri du canard 13:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to know this; Ames has been a great scientist. However, he is now a director of Juvenon, not a charity that I can see, and this is an apparent conflict of interest that must affect the objectivity of comments that he makes about the desirability of taking supplements.Gleng 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Juvenon isn't a charity, but Ames passed along his ownership share in Juvenon to a charity. As conflicts of interest go, it's miniscule. -- Cri du canard 08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

? Unpaid as director? Gleng 08:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Teaatthebbc's edits

I think most of these edits improve readability (thanks), but I think this one is now wrong: "he term "megavitamin therapy" itself was also criticized by proponents of orthomolecular psychiatry in the early 1970s as misleading, because they believed the term falsely implied therapeutic benefit, because of a dispute over scientific proof." I think it would be more accurate to say "opponents" here rather than "proponents". Previously it said "APA psychiatrists". Am I right -- is it wrong? --Coppertwig 02:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

yes--TheNautilus 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Cathcart and Bowl Tolerance articles are up for deletion

Interested parties should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Cathcart and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowel tolerance and voice their opinion. Lumos3 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

POV problem

This article reads like an advert for vitamin therapy.

Specific problems:

• Use of "critics claim", see Wikipedia:Words to avoid
• Use of scare quotes, previous "expert" statements
• Highly POV description of the concerns about high doses of vitamin A as coming from "some medical organizations of minor political units"
• No mention in the lead of the scientific and medical consensus against this form of alternative therapy being generally effective.

This needs total rewriting and the addition of high-quality reviews from the medical literature, to replace the current one-sided presentation of the data. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The day that science is about reaching consensus is the day that science has become religion. -- Cogrumpin (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources?

Like I said in my edit when I removed the final sentence of the lead, I didn't see the support for the claims of that sentence within the sources. This was reverted, which is fine, but an explanation would be helpful (briefly - just point me to the sentences in the sources that back this claim). That's all I'm looking for here. Antelan^talk 04:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored, moved ref #1 slightly. Pls read ref #2 more closely - vitamin C (1500+mg/d) and (400-800mg/d) certainly qualify as "megavitamin". Phrases, "scornful dismissive tone", "uncritical acceptance of [bad] news", "ignoring claims of efficacy", "why the resistance?" certainly sound like some stigma, eh?--TheNautilus (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "dismissed," as being closer to the sources? Two other issues: (1) I don't see any mention of the mainstream's stance in the lead. It would be good to get that in there. (2) The sentence in question says "Historical", which to me implies that there has been some sort of change. Should the word be cut? Antelan^talk 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait a little on sources & wordsmithing here, the Goodwin(1998) ref refers to the historical use of stigmatizing QW-type words. In the 1990s, on both cancer and respiratory illness, some important federal parties conceded that the "mainstream" evaluations of vitamin C were flawed. Goodwin (1998) indicates the change on megavitamin C: This idea is now a respectable hypothesis, but 20 years ago it was...[trashed]. Also NIH flip-flops on IV vitamin C ca 2000 with NIH, mega-vitamin D warms up with the med school researchers & public policy types across the board ca 2001. So there is favorable institutional change showing and the historical stigma examples are easy to spot. I haven't seen RS sources that accurately summarize the current situation. Uh, oh, it seems to be spreading[9].--TheNautilus (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Goodwin ref explicately talks about micronutrient supplementation. You're view that the doses are "macro" is OR. Jefffire (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For the momemt, "macro" is conversational, "megavitamin" is the topic. Per OR "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Acknowledging that 800 iu vitamin E is a megavitamin treatment is *not* WP:OR, contrary to what you seem to indicate, in the edit, it might require an additional reference for the especially unfamiliar reader. The phrase, "Micronutrient supplementation", where megavitamin is generally accepted as including uses 5-10x the vitamin RDA of the 1960s and 70s, generally includes the megavitamin range. There is nothing new and novel about that for readers or editors, it is definitional in nature. Statements that are *generally* applied (correctly) to "Micronutrient supplementation" generally apply to "megavitamins" as a matter of definitional operation, not original research. Additional specific references, "Pauling", "orthomolecular", "high-dose" support the statement as written. Indeed, the authors' comments on the first page indicate that the original draft was more explicitly about megavitamins, perhaps alone, and suggests that this stigma forced them to write for the more general case or terminology. I edited the WP article's statement to reflect the Goodwin paper's general nature.--TheNautilus (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite what you may believe this is original research. It is covered quite clearly by WP:SYNTH, the synthesis of published sources to advance a point of view. You may very well be entirely correct in you assertation, but that's entirely irrelevent. Jefffire (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the paper?--TheNautilus (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The opinion piece by Goodwin? Yah. Have you read WP:SYNTH? Jefffire (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence, as written, is supported by the Goodwin paper alone and is a valid summary. The sentence does not depend on the first reference, which is a vestigial example. It's not SYNTH.--TheNautilus (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If the lede stays *simply descriptive* of, I'm fine not using it in the lede and just moving it to background. As is, the statement, and paper, factually reflect upon a historical issue, and background, about megavitamin usage that can be corroborated by other sources. The current article is perhaps not explicit enough that megavitamin therapies often include at least RDA centric micronutrients, with iron & copper optional, such as relatively conventional multivitamin-multimineral supplements in addition to one or more "megavitamins".--TheNautilus (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we have the issue that it's an opinion piece, rather than the objective truth, as you are presenting it. Jefffire (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It contains clear, largely factual matter with minor commentary. In fact, given the complaint about revisions, it makes one wonder to what degree some of the "stigma" still was operating ("go to the back the bus", but at least not walking). There are other sources, too.--TheNautilus (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We're getting back onto the WP:TRUTH again. I don't think you get it. Wikipedia isn't the place to overturn the big evil science paradigm, even if it were wrong. Jefffire (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we are going to get into comparing sources for differents kinds of quotes, phrases, qualities, statements made at different times, and how to reconcile them them for consistent writing with Weight & NPOV, beyond WP:V's reliable source criteria. I am not about overturning science. I am tired of various factions that ignore or distort actual reported science, do nothing experimental or relevant, are recognized as unreliable sources, yet claim science's imprimatur.

see also Wikipedia:Check_your_facts, Wikipedia:These are not original research. Additional policies, guides and essays, so we are on the same page, are welcome.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in going into anymore detail on this subject, and I have no interest in repeating myself further. I've made quite clear which policies would be violated by your preferred version, and no amount of debate will change that it is a policy violation. Jefffire (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any objection to my two points above in this section (they are numbered), so I'll be implementing them later today. Antelan^talk 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Non consensual changes

A series of changes are in the process of being implemented by an editor who has a track record of making erroneous claims and duplicitous changes. For instance the latest edit's comment says Removed citation that actually said that nutrition does not have an effect. which is a lie. The study (PMID 18208598) concluded no such thing, and actually says Studies have shown that daily supplements of vital nutrients often effectively reduce patients' symptoms. . It is tedious to individually fact check this rather excitable editor's vandalism; I suggest we simply revert at some future date.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Everyone has reverted your POV. You'll be at ANI next. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong was your claim about the study; it does not say, as you claimed, nutrition does not have an effect. Quite the reverse, as the about quote (and the rest of the abstract), shows.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Non consensual? Sounds a bit like rape! Anyway, I consent to them, and they're good edits which bring the article closer to policy. If you have specific problems please bring them here (with specificity - a quote so we can find the section) and raise them for discussion. Verbal chat 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already given a specific example of a citation that was removed erroneously. The edit comment says Removed citation that actually said that nutrition does not have an effect. which is a lie. The study (PMID 18208598) concluded no such thing, and actually says Studies have shown that daily supplements of vital nutrients often effectively reduce patients' symptoms. .--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you called OM mistaken I might have taken your word for it and had a look, but by calling him a liar I'm going to not bother and see what OM says - and I'll probably believe him. One mistake does not warrent the revert of all the edits, which on the whole seem to have vastly improved the article. Please see WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and picking fights is not a good way to make your point. If your angry with an editor email a friend, punch a pillow, or take some anger remedy thing, and then respond when you've calmed down. And try to see things from the other persons point of view. This article was a huge mess, and has started to get better. Work with OM and others rather than against, and you'll get further, but if you're here to advocate for a belief or topic then you'll be better off elsewhere. Verbal chat 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was isolated example, I'd call it a mistake as well. But since it is repetitive, and combined with the abuse, there's only one conclusion. I started going through his edits at OMM and found one "error" after another. There's a point where the truth becomes unavoidable. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW If you called OM mistaken I might have taken your word for it and had a look, is a bit odd. If you had taken my word for it, you wouldn't have to have a look. Now that you don't take my word for it you don't look either.... errrr :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You called me a liar? Sorry, you've crossed a line. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't lie then. It's a bit hypocritical to be so thin skinned when you are so abusive yourself. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin C and the cold; toxicity of vitamin B12

I recently corrected some statements in the article to fit their sources. User:Keepcalmandcarryon reverted, saying that the changes were "confusing". These corrections come straight from the sources, although in the case of vitamin B12 I suppose it also comes from a slightly broader knowledge of nutrition. It's actually somewhat surprising how wrong this material was; the sources, prior to my correction, contradict what they are cited as saying. The errors were added by Orangemarlin (vitamin C error; vitamin B12 error).

• On the cold, the plain English summary of the cited source is fairly clear:

  This review is restricted to placebo-controlled trials testing at least 0.2 g per day of vitamin C. Thirty trials involving 11,350 participants suggest that regular ingestion of vitamin C has no effect on common cold incidence in the ordinary population. It reduced the duration and severity of common cold symptoms slightly, although the magnitude of the effect was so small its clinical usefulness is doubtful. Nevertheless, in six trials with participants exposed to short periods of extreme physical or cold stress or both (including marathon runners and skiers) vitamin C reduced the common cold risk [incidence] by half.

  The bolding and bracketed text is mine.
• On vitamin B12's toxicity, the Food and Nutrition Board, which came up with the U.S. Dietary Reference Intakes, had this to say in its 1998 report:

  On the basis of the review of data involving high-dose intakes of B12, there appear to be essentially no risks of adverse effects to the general population even at the current ninety-fifth percentile of intake noted above. Furthermore, there appear to be no risks associated with intakes of supplemental B12 that are more than two orders of magnitude higher than the ninety-fifth percentile of intake. Although there are extensive data showing no adverse effects associated with high intakes of supplemental B12, the studies in which such intakes were reported were not designed to assess adverse effects.

  To give some perspective, the RDA for vitamin B12 is 2.4 micrograms/day, but the FNB report notes that 1 mg/day is sometimes used to treat pernicious anemia with no adverse effects. This report was produced in 1998, while the cited source on vitamin B12 was produced in 1986. In order to avoid the problem of people not clicking the links and reading the sources, I quoted straight from the 1986 source: ""it is not known whether maintaining a prolonged high level of vitamin B12 is harmful". This is in direct contrast to statement restored by Keepcalm, which says that the toxicity of vitamin B12 is "well-established".

Please restore the text unless there are further problems. II | (t - c) 05:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. The idea that B12 is toxic is completely ludicrous. It's non-toxicity is so well established that it often used as a placebo by doctors.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Confusing" because: "A thorough review of clinical trials in the treatment of colds with small and large doses of Vitamin C have established that it does not reduce the incidence of vitamin C. It does reduce the duration and severity, although the effect is so small that there is doubtful clinical significance. " Again, large doses of Vitamin C...does not reduce the incidence of vitamin C? Huh? This entire exercise seems predicated upon finding something, anything, even if not significant, to support one's preconceived notions of Vitamin C. The best way to summarise the studies on Vitamin C is the current text, namely that Vitamin C has no proven efficacy against the common cold.

As for the toxicity of Vitamin B12, I trust we can agree that we should follow the sources, not our own impressions of what is or is not toxic. The current source refers to Vitamin B12 hypervitaminosis. Either we find a more reliable and acceptable source, or we continue to state that very high doses of the vitamin may have some toxic effects. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that your source does not say tht B12 has toxic effects. It says that some of the components of B12 (such as cobalt) have, which is something entirely different. As for your vitamin C claim, well they state the severity and duration of the colds were reduced. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have said "does not reduce the incidence of vitamin C in the ordinary population, like the source. The current text is far from a summary of the actual source's conclusions. The source actually contradicts what it's cited as saying. I don't know how to make that more clear. As far as vitamin B12's toxicity, I just gave you a link to the conclusions of the Food and Nutrition board. The 1986 source might use the word "hypervitaminosis", but it also states in the abstract "it is not known whether maintaining a prolonged high level of vitamin B12 is harmful". Anyway, you don't seem inclined to read, and I can't force you to read, so I'll see about getting some outside opinions. II | (t - c) 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

← A few random comments, since this discussion was mentioned here:

• Vitamin B12 contains cobalt. It doesn't make sense to blame "cobalt", rather than B12, for toxicity - you don't get one without the other. That's like saying that cisplatin is entirely non-toxic, and it's only the platinum that causes problems.
• It seems reasonable to note both a) vitamin C didn't affect colds in the general population, and b) vitamin C did appear to have an effect in people exposed to "extreme physical stress" (on the order of running a marathon). Those are both in the source, and both worth mentioning; I think we can briefly and clearly make the appropriate distinction.
• I would be extremely cautious about generalizing safe-intake levels of B12 in pernicious anemia to the general population. The underlying defect in pernicious anemia is an inability to absorb B12 (due to a lack of intrinsic factor). That's why such large doses are given in pernicious anemia - they are necessary to achieve any level of bioavailability in the absence of intrinsic factor. Presumably, if you gave the same dose to a normal individual and to a PA patient, the absorbed and effective dose would be much higher in the normal individual.
• I would welcome a source for Michael's claim that B12 is often "used as a placebo by doctors", mostly out of personal curiosity.
• Regarding the toxicity of B12, I think we can mirror the source, and just say that extensive studies have found no adverse events associated with high doses, though these studies were not specifically designed to assess for such adverse events.

It seems like the sources are agreed-upon, so it shouldn't be too hard to hash out an acceptable wording to present them (or am I being overly optimistic)? MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with first point about cobalt and toxicity. The toxicity of a complex compound is not the sum of it parts.

As for B12's placebo usage, I don't have a source to hand but any practicing doctor should be able to confirm it. The colour impresses patients, apparently.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute the relative non-toxicity of B12; I only suggest we should follow the sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that the source contradicts every other source in their usage of the term "hypervitaminosis" for B12. And if you look at the WP:MEDRS guidelines you will see that we should be arguing from review articles not from isolated maverick studies which don't distinguish between the toxicity of a compound and that of it subunits.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument about "subunits" is specious, as MastCell shows above. Like saying, it's not water that drowns people, it's all the damn hydrogen bonds.

The source doesn't contradict every other source, but, rather, examines a specific group, dialysis patients. But I do agree on the importance of reviews. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

MastCell's point is completely specious. We can eat salt, therefore we can ingest chlorine and potassium separately. Noooooo, I don't think so. Not does the toxicity of cyanide imply we can't inhale nitrogen. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that you're educated enough to realize why your examples, which conflate the toxicity of an elemental substance with the ingestion of an ionic form, are inapt. However, it's largely irrelevant, since you're fundamentally misrepresenting the source (PMID 3818116). It states that "both cobalamin and cobalt may be potentially toxic." Cobalamin is not cobalt - it's an organic compound which is, essentially, vitamin B12. Barring an actual, honestly represented, reliable source, that will be my last comment on that matter; I have no desire to argue editorial opinions any further here.

I would agree that a study looking at dialysis patients should not be generalized to the average population, as many substances have greater toxicity in end-stage renal disease than in normal individuals. I'm still a bit intrigued by the claim that B12 is a widely-used placebo, and that "any practicing doctor" can confirm it. Let's suppose I'm a practicing doctor. Let's also suppose I know a lot of other practicing doctors, and none have ever used B12 as a placebo (let's further suppose that many would consider doing so a fundamental breach of a physician's ethical responsibility, but I digress...) I'd be quite interested to see a source. MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not regard "Cobalamin [..as..] essentially, vitamin B12" since there is a presence of an adenosyl complex to complicate matters. And I do not see how I misrepresent the source since they are one inferring the toxicity of B12 from cobalt (yes, and cobalamin, but why did they even mention cobalt?).

Re placebo, If I was a doctor I'd point you to the relevant manual. Since I'm not, a bit of medical gossip will have to suffice. : B12 is a WONDERFUL placebo. Pretty ruby color (heap powerful color), inoccuous, not terribly expensive. But mildly painful to administer (that's important-- you need SOME kind of a price shamanistically to expect a reward). (Steve Harris a doctor, BTW). --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Michael is making the same point that you're making ... anyway, I suspect none of us has read the original source, and I'd be a bit surprised if any of us had access to it. The article is dated and the journal sounds obscure. The NRC didn't mention any of this animal/epidemiological evidence. Picking out vitamin B12 as an example of a "bad megavitamin therapy" just makes this article seem ignorant. B6 is much more toxic. We should move on. I hope you can agree that the way that Douglass et al are represented on vitamin C right now is untenable. II | (t - c) 05:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should note both the lack of meaningful effect of Vitamin C in the general population as well as the apparent effect in people exposed to extreme physical stress. For B12, I think we can mirror the NAS source in saying that extensive studies have found no adverse events associated with high doses of B12, though these studies were not specifically designed to assess for such adverse events. MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple studies show potential for harm

I have reverted the edits by User:Vitaminman stating that harm was demonstrated in only "one study". Although only one publication is cited, that publication includes discussion and citation of two additional studies with similar results. Thus, the reference does indeed support the previous wording. As a side note, the reference was a study (VITAL) of over 77 000 individuals. The other two studies had over 29 000 (ATBC) and over 18 000 (CARET) participants. If other users feel it's necessary, citations can be added. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Diff for discussion. I see no reason to artificially weaken the statement that, improperly used, vitamins can be bad for you, sometimes ironically so. Are there studies of similar reliability and rigor of which I am not aware? - 2/0 (cont.) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pharma ads and dietary supplements

full text is at the link.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/11

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2008, 8:11 doi:10.1186/1472-6882-8-11

Open Access

Does pharmaceutical advertising affect journal publication about dietary supplements?

Kathi J Kemper1 email and Kaylene L Hood2 email

1 Department of Pediatrics and the Program for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

2 University of Florida, Department of Nutrition, Gainesville, FL, USA

author email corresponding author email

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/11

Received: 6 August 2007 Accepted: 9 April 2008 Published: 9 April 2008

⌐ 2008 Kemper and Hood; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Advertising affects consumer and prescriber behaviors. The relationship between pharmaceutical advertising and journals' publication of articles regarding dietary supplements (DS) is unknown.

Methods

We reviewed one year of the issues of 11 major medical journals for advertising and content about DS. Advertising was categorized as pharmaceutical versus other. Articles about DS were included if they discussed vitamins, minerals, herbs or similar products. Articles were classified as major (e.g., clinical trials, cohort studies, editorials and reviews) or other (e.g., case reports, letters, news, and others). Articles' conclusions regarding safety and effectiveness were coded as negative (unsafe or ineffective) or other (safe, effective, unstated, unclear or mixed).

Results

Journals' total pages per issue ranged from 56 to 217 while advertising pages ranged from 4 to 88; pharmaceutical advertisements (pharmads) accounted for 1.5% to 76% of ad pages. Journals with the most pharmads published significantly fewer major articles about DS per issue than journals with the fewest pharmads (P < 0.01). Journals with the most pharmads published no clinical trials or cohort studies about DS. The percentage of major articles concluding that DS were unsafe was 4% in journals with fewest and 67% among those with the most pharmads (P = 0.02). The percentage of articles concluding that DS were ineffective was 50% higher among journals with more than among those with fewer pharmads (P = 0.4).

Conclusion

These data are consistent with the hypothesis that increased pharmaceutical advertising is associated with publishing fewer articles about DS and publishing more articles with conclusions that DS are unsafe. Additional research is needed to test alternative hypotheses for these findings in a larger sample of more diverse journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan2012 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

EXTREME Quackery

You pretty much need a highschool education to realize that megavitamin toxicosi- er, sorry, "therapy" is bunk. It is logically inconsistent even on the most basic level. What kind of licensed doctor would do this to their patients? Yeesh. People poison themselves just from taking OTC multi-vitamins. This is not only fake and useless, but actively dangerous! Yes, lots of diseases are caused by deficiencies. Almost always due to diet, which is cured by eating a whole-food diet and cutting out junk foods. Genetic conditions would not be helped by vitamin overdose either. Quackery at it's worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.168.174 (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Article contains much detail written by mistaken bigots

The article seems to quote evidence, but when one looks at the study mentioned, it turns out not to be a study in megavitamin doses, oh and another study mentioned is the same ... and ... oh I don't have time to screen all of the content, but please work on this if you are interested. I found a study that seems quite valid, even though not double-blind etc, which indicated very good results[10] (not 100% but few cancer therapies have high rates of success). I have only been reading on this topic for a couple of hours, so I am confident there is more evidence to support the therapy, or why would it be so popular????? And still around after so many decades ... and there is nothing to stop this therapy being combined with other drugs, so why be so quick to discount it. Despite what some posters would have us believe, not all vitamins have known toxic effects, and presumably the studies which have evaluated megavitamin therapy and found success would have noticed if there was a toxic reaction that was more dangerous than the diseases being treated ... this is why medecine is a science, and why tyre mechanix are not employed to treat medically ... there are complex decisions to make, and they have important consequences. Nothing which promises value should be dismissed simply because of complexity! Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogrumpin (talk • contribs) 12:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

STOP, Cogrumpin. You're making altogether too much sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.61.39 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Worthless and Dangerous "Megavitamin Therapy"

Public release date: 20-Jan-2011

Contact: Dr. Harri Hemilä harri.hemila@helsinki.fi 358-415-329-987 University of Helsinki Vitamin E may increase the life expectancy of restricted groups of men

Depending on the level of smoking and dietary vitamin C intake, vitamin E supplementation may extend the life-span of restricted groups of men, according to a study published in the Age and Ageing.

Several large randomized trials of humans found that vitamin E supplementation does not reduce mortality. However, the average effect on mortality in a group of people with a wide age range may mask an effect of vitamin E on the life-span.

Dr. Harri Hemila, and Professor Jaakko Kaprio, of the University of Helsinki, Finland, studied the age-dependency of vitamin E effect on mortality in the large randomized trial (Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study) which was conducted in Finland between 1985-1993. Their study was restricted to follow-up period over 65 years and 10,837 participants contributed to the analysis.

Among all analyzed participants, vitamin E had no effect on mortality when participants were 65 to 70 years old, but reduced mortality by 24% when participants were 71 or older.

Among 2,284 men with dietary vitamin C intake above the median who smoked less than a pack of cigarettes per day, vitamin E extended life-span by two years at the upper limit of the follow-up age span. In the other participants, consisting of 80% of the cohort, vitamin E did not affect mortality, which shows that vitamin E is no panacea for extending life expectancy.

The researchers concluded that "if vitamin E influences the life-span, it is possible that a benefit on the oldest participants might be camouflaged by the large middle-aged majority of study participants". Therefore, they propose that it might be useful to analyze the effect of vitamin E supplementation in large controlled trials by the age of the participant at the follow-up and not just by the time after randomization that has been customary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.61.39 (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The campaign against vitamin therapy

An interesting article about the campaign against vitamin therapy: http://www.doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, especially for medical claims. Yobol (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yobol, that's the circular reasoning of Wikipedia. Any source that is about non-mainstream therapy is by definition not suitable for Wikipedia because it is for a non-mainstream therapy. So only opponents of CAM therapies are allowed a voice on Wikipedia. It's somewhat like trying to put forward a left-wing perspective on Fox News. Fox call it "Fair & Balanced", Wikipedia calls it "neutral POV". 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

All that's being asked for is that the standard for sourcing be the same for all articles. If megavitamin therapy is effective, then it should be possible to show this through well-designed studies rather than anecdotes and uncontrolled trials. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)