This is post #108 on the site (exposing more ridiculous nutrition and vitamin myths from a doctor). The site is a collection of breakthrough articles and resources at your fingertips! Feel free to browse the information here.
Whether you have health, life or prosperity challenges, I can help you have the life you desire! I offer a unique mix of coaching, training and experience based on multiple certifications and overcoming my own life challenges (yes, I’ve had a whole batch of those)!
I’m here to inspire you that anything is possible if you want it! Enjoy optimum health, a better life or more money in a few, affordable calls. That means you can live anywhere in the U.S. or Canada (if you live elsewhere, we can discuss).
For previous articles and posts, scroll down below this one for their titles and links (or if you are on a specific post, go to the Home page to find the other posts below current one). If you would like help with some of your health/life challenges and business issues, I offer a free, 30-minute call to discuss your goals ideas and concerns.
I continue to encounter doctors who, in spite of their lack of nutrition and health education, still comment about topics on nutrition, supplements and health. I had a recent encounter with an MD on a social media site. And it’s stunning to see the lack of nutritional education and understanding these doctors lay out for all to see!
I’ve been through this situation before and I refuse to be bullied by these people and their obvious ignorance, even after they resort to name calling and personal attacks (and many do). And once again, this doctor had no credible evidence to support his wild claims about nutrition and heatlh.
After I challenged him on a range of his unproven comments, he resorted to cheap shots in order to look superior. It’s an old and tired pattern: doctors show contempt for those who successfully challenge them in a nutrition or research debate.
In my case, I have many more years of research, writing and training then most doctors will ever have in areas of nutrition, supplements, health and wellness, fitness, disease prevention, etc. I’ve put in the work; they haven’t but still claim they are experts!
How it started
A post was put up in a discussion group called 7 Scientifically Backed Reasons You Should Take a Multivitamin. The article made several credible points about vitamins and minerals, based on research studies. The article was reasonable as it outlined ways vitamins and minerals can be helpful for health.
The introductory paragraph mentioned that vitamins have gotten a bad rap recently, referring to the series of biased and poorly done studies that have attempted to proclaim that vitamins are either useless or dangerous! I’ve researched and debunked those junk studies before and I include several comments and links below to support those points.
The shocking truth is that most doctors have no significant nutritional education (about 9 total hours delivered in 3 lectures with minimal detail or testing). They are incorrectly taught that vitamin doses over the modest RDA/DRI levels are useless or dangerous (remember those levels are set for average people to avoid diseases like scurvy or rickets).
Because most doctors are poorly educated about nutrition and supplements, they easily embrace poorly-done, anti-vitamin studies that are published in their favorite medical journal (JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine/AIM, etc.). I also know that most doctors don’t read these studies fully because they are trained to “believe” vitamins are useless or unproven, and they really don’t understand the importance or benefits of them (for health and cells, genes, energy, mood, etc. ).
Most docs only read the study’s dramatic headlines and maybe the abstract (often a short summary designed to attract media coverage like the headline). That’s all! They aren’t reading the whole study, nor are they applying a scientific approach by looking for bias or manipulation (I know this from research and personal experience) as docs rarely know about or comment on the study details and they assume the abstract is a good description of the findings, a misguided view.
They already believe vitamins are unnecessary or a waste of money (a classic demonstration of bias). This whole process is rife with corruption (see links below) and is equivalent to letting a 6-year old drive the car on a cross country trip! It’s completely crazy! No rational person would do it.
Many of these anti-vitamin studies use crude methods and poor science which largely disqualify the study’s conclusions (things like questionnaires every few years, no actual blood levels or objective tests, cheap vitamins with poor dosing, poor compliance, high drop-outs, etc.). The study methodologies could never be used to get a drug approved; they are far too sloppy, with overstated conclusions. More on these points later.
The 7 points in the article (summarized):
1. Studies show that multivitamins can help to slow aging because genes and cells need a good supply of nutrients to help with proper DNA replication and telomere function. They also provide antioxidant support and help with healthy mitochondria and energy production. These are all valid points, one’s I’ve covered in previous posts (see links below).
2. Studies show that multivitamins can help lower cancer risk by providing improved nutrient support but synthetic vitamins may not be as helpful. These are also valid points and one’s I’ve covered in many posts, including the posts described in point 1 above.
3. Help keep your bones strong. I have covered this area in many posts as well. The article correctly indicates that people need more than calcium for strong bones. You also need magnesium, vitamin D and vitamin K2, among other nutrients. I’ve made these same points in many posts before, so again, these comments are supported by credible research.
4. Lower heart attack risk. This point includes some recent studies with obvious bias against vitamins and those studies have been debunked already. The article included supplements that support good heart health: vitamins and minerals, CoQ10, fish oil, antioxidants, etc. Again, I’ve written extensively about these connections and the points are totally valid. I include several links below.
5. Supplements can help mood and anxiety, and studies support that as well (I’ve written about this area too, see Depression and Health on this site). The article includes specific vitamin recommendations, including B-vitamins and vitamin D, along with additional content on sleep, and fatigue. So far, I know about all of these areas. Anyone with a background in health should know that vitamins and minerals (along with lifestyle) do have a significant impact on mood and emotional health.
6. Skin and hair also reflect your overall health, and they are also improved with multi-vitamins, including vitamins A, C and E for skin support (A and C do support healthy collagen), and B vitamins for hair. Plus, multi-vitamins help overall organ/tissue function. Like the areas above, I’ve written about skin and hair too).
7. Immune health and fighting illness also requires a good supply of vitamins and minerals, including vitamins A, C and D, and key minerals like zinc. They go on to say that a multi-vitamin can help maintain, or boost the immune system. I agree and have written many articles about good immune function and supplements.
The article then summarized many of the reasons that people lack full nutrient intakes, including processed and GMO foods, modern soil depletion, and other unhealthy food choices, all things I agree with and areas I’ve covered before. See links below for more details.
The bottom line is that the source article for the discussion thread is credible. It’s not super detailed but the conclusions are indeed sound and backed by research. Dr. Rima Laibow says she has 10,000 studies on vitamins and supplements (see her links below)!
Dr. Sean adds a penny’s worth?
The first person to respond to the thread was a Dr. Sean (his first name). He attempted to rebut the article’s main premise, proclaiming there was little reason to take multi-vitamins (if you read this post and links, you’ll see how terribly misinformed he really is).
He included a few study titles with summaries that were not actual links (making it harder to find them and requiring a search for each one). Often, only abstracts are available to those who don’t subscribe to expensive medical journals. Those journals make many millions annually and they want your money before you can read their content, even things that might affect your health or provide misinformation. And these articles are often quite pricy, even their junk anti-vitamin studies can cost $50-$100 to access a study!
Fortunately, I recognized some of the studies and I knew they had already been debunked by other credible experts (including me), and some were from years ago. Many of these “studies” reflect the medical industry’s consistent bias against supplements as they attempt to drive consumers to drugs and the billions they provide to drug companies and journal advertising.
Most of the studies he referenced are bogus (not even worth a penny), based on these biased study methods:
They often use cheap, synthetic vitamins with low potency and bioavailability
They often test vitamins in isolation but vitamins and minerals don’t operate that way
They often use too low or too high dosages
Studies are often based on occasional questionnaires (often every 3-6 years), with no blood tests
The studies include uneven standards for frequency of intake (sometimes just 1-2X/week)
The studies often have no objective blood or other screening tests (to measure actual blood levels)
The studies often employ biased subject selection (using people who are already sick)
The studies often ignore other lifestyle influences and/or have poor compliance
Studies with serious problems like these are junk science! Yet, these studies are happily published in medical journals to attack perceived competition. They want you to doubt vitamins or supplements and buy drugs instead! Here are some studies he listed and my comments and rebuttals:
National Institutes of Health (NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement on Multivitamin/Mineral Supplements and Chronic Disease Prevention. Ann Intern Med 2006). He had a link to a non-existing PDF file. So I skipped that specific info but offered some general observations about the remaining studies that bash vitamins in medical journals. Some quick observations:
Something from 2006 (his first citation) is 8 years old and hardly current or compelling! Notice the title was not about health benefits or vitality outcomes but about chronic disease prevention. How many of the thousands of existing drugs can you name that prevent chronic disease from occurring? How about none?
As mentioned above, these so-called “studies” often put vitamins in the role of drugs, testing them in isolation. This is a false premise and deeply unscientific! Vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants don’t work well in isolation; they work together in complex ways as co-factors. So most studies that test single vitamins are often doomed to fail (although if done properly, some have had good results for things like health improvement).
These vitamin isolation studies tend to use disease or death outcomes in their conclusions, again showing medicine’s stunning lack of knowledge and comprehension about nutrition as they obsess over disease and death (not health, vitality and longevity)!
This research approach clearly demonstrates medicine’s failure to understand the role of micronutrients and lifestyle in human health. As I mentioned above, many doctors only get 9 total hours of nutrition education while some get none at all. Then they are taught that drugs and procedures are proven and based on evidence while vitamins are unproven. Both positions are false, and those positions have been repeatedly demonstrated as false by independent researchers (see many links below).
For comparison, I often put in 10 or more hours of study and research every week (1-2 hours daily), and I have for many years! I get dozens of news alerts and updates about vitamins, nutrition, health prevention, aging, genes and related topics every day!
As I mentioned earlier, these anti-vitamin studies often fail to track important confounders (things which can significantly influence study findings and conclusions). Lifestyle factors such as age, gender, education, health status, existing chronic conditions/disease, prescription drug use (those drugs often interfere with normal biological processes), nutrition, exercise, smoking/alcohol intake, sleep and stress levels, and a myriad of other lifestyle behaviors and attitudes that influence health are simply ignored, rendering most anti-vitamin research meaningless!
Since the online discussion began, I did find some info about his first reference from 2006. And the first line is just what I thought (quoted directly, see link below):
Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, some of the information in this statement is likely to be out of date.
So the opening evidence for his wild claims is an old, questionable study acknowledged as such by the very group who published the study! If I found this important caveat, why didn’t he know about it? He clearly isn’t current, these are things he found in the past, yet he relies on them like they are current, claiming they offer evidence!
As I reviewed the info, I could see that the review behind the study and statement relied on many far older studies from the 1980s and 1990s (sorry, but that’s really old stuff now)! This was not a new study but a review of much older studies, now so dusty with age, their relevance as faded as a decades-old newspaper. But Dr. Sean found it convincing! That in itself tells a story and exposes his amateurish knowledge and skill level.
Not only did those old studies include some decades-old, debunked studies like the Finnish Smoker’s study (as nonsensical and irrational as it gets, see debunks in links below), but they said they included studies that had single, 2 or 3 nutrients, clearly NOT multi-vitamins (usually a multi is a more comprehensive mix of 15-20 or more vitamins and minerals). Yet the title is called: NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement on Multivitamin/Mineral Supplements and Chronic Disease Prevention!
See how this game of deception and misinformation is played? It’s right there if you look carefully and objectively (many of the studies were NOT based on multivitamins)! Let me be frank: The study is a lie!
And many of the included studies have been debunked long ago. (covered in more detail in additional studies and rebuttals below). These highly biased and manipulated studies get quoted over and over by medical people as they repeat the same misinformation, often as claims of proof. I’ve seen Dr. Offit, the anti-vitamin, vaccine-pushing doc do this often (surprise, he’s made millions off vaccines)!
My overall conclusion from his first reference, one he found so credible (as an obvious nutritional amateur), is that it’s as misguided and false as all the other junk anti-vitamin studies I’ve seen. Like most other anti-vitamin research, this is an exercise in pseudo-science, bias and marketing, not science! But to Dr. Sean, it’s the real deal!
His remaining studies
He offered some additional studies and reviews for vitamins and cancer/cancer mortality (including the often debunked Physicians’ Health Study II), vitamins and heart/vascular disease and mortality (again, notice the endpoints of disease and death rather than health, anti-aging or prevention), more studies in so-called multi-vitamins and cancer, plus heart disease and stroke (as I stated earlier, to medical researchers, a multi-vitamin is any old thing, including a single vitamin or small combination with only a few synthetic vitamins). Again, the ignorance behind these studies is so obvious and pervasive.
He also included a study on older people who already had a heart attack (meaning decades of bad lifestyles, often ignoring risks or symptoms), then treated with a few synthetic vitamins for a few years, again using unreliable questionnaires to track intakes), the study paraphrased as High Dose Multivitamins after a Heart Attack (see below for the stunning details and strong debunkings of this entire batch).
He added 2 more references that claimed to show small effects for memory but not dementia, and more about breast cancer, plus another reference to the Physicians’ Health Study II and cognition (again, see my debunking links below).
Finally, he added a study on elderly people who had fewer sick days and possibly less infections. Some of those were meta-analysis, with a whole mishmash of cheap vitamins that may or may not be a true multi-vitamin/mineral with decent bioavailability, especially a full 20+ multi-vitamin/mineral, indicating some possible benefit for undernourished people. Those somewhat positive findings were meager compared to the more aggressive anti-vitamin studies he started with.
All and all, the information he provided was highly biased, manipulated, lacking in credible design, but included highly exaggerated headlines and conclusions to sway people like doctors and consumers with false claims! This is typical for anti-vitamin studies and the gullible views of many MDs. I see it all the time.
My first debunking response with links (edited to shorten and re-format):
I made this initial comment to rebut his nonsensical claims and info:
A good balance of vitamins and minerals (especially from a USP tested source), and also those who supplement based on a decent, healthy lifestyle can benefit with better health and longevity.
It’s interesting to see studies that relentlessly attack vitamins because it’s claimed they don’t prevent disease. The irony is that I know of no drugs that are proven to prevent heart disease, cancer, type-2 diabetes, arthritis, dementia, etc. And drugs rarely cure either, they are designed to mostly treat symptoms.
This ridiculous double standard is ignored by the media and most doctors. But there is a huge difference in injuries and deaths:
Over 27 years, there were no deaths from vitamins or minerals, but 3 million from prescription drugs! And annual visits to ER and doctors run about 4 million for drug side effects. Yet we attack vitamins? It’s total nonsense (see links below for more stats).
As the original article pointed out, many of those studies are riddled with bias and poor methodology, such as using occasional questionnaires, failing to track vitamin or mineral blood levels, often lacking effective tracking of other health and lifestyle confounders, often presented to the media through press releases with overly dramatic headlines. And the media loves it!
Here is an insightful quote from the first link below (from a 2013 article called, Big Pharma and FDA: A Marriage Not Made in Heaven, showing some of the collusion between the drug industry, the FDA and medical journals to attack supplements with junk science (see link below for full details):
Drug companies and the FDA are not alone in wishing to suppress supplement alternatives to hyper-expensive patented prescription drugs. They have allies among both politicians and doctors. For example, the Archives of Internal Medicine [AIM], run by the American Medical Association, and supported financially by drug companies, often publishes flimsy studies attacking supplements, and generally ignores the considerable scientific evidence in their favor.
One such study, published October 10, 2011, by University of Michigan researchers, purported to show that taking supplements could shorten your life. It caused a media feeding frenzy, with headlines everywhere. The problem was that this study, like its predecessors, was junk science. The women in the study were asked every six years what they had taken. They were supposed to remember what they had taken for the six-year period. The reports did not have to be specific: the word “multivitamin” could mean anything. Who knows what was taken or even it if was taken? It could also be synthetic or natural.
It’s also known that lifestyle drives about 80% of most chronic disease, yet most doctors aren’t given much training in nutrition, wellness, prevention, lifestyle modification, or natural approaches to reversing common physical system imbalances. (see links below for more details).
NOTE: I bolded this next paragraph for more emphasis here, not on the forum:
There are thousands of studies that show positive benefits for vitamins, minerals and other supplements and health. I have links to many on my site, along with many articles that debunk many anti-vitamin studies. Here are several links with many source links (I could post dozens more):
Here are some specific debunking sources for his studies:
I decided to search and look at the specific medical journal studies cited above and as I expected, they are highly biased and have little credibility. I added a comment with these additional source links to a series of debunks, all showing major flaws. These Physicians Health Study debunks expose the poor methodology, bias, and pseudo-science behind these study versions:
Some additional debunkings of the recent AIM/Annals of Internal Medicine anti-vitamin publication claiming vitamins are a waste or useless (I have many more in the links below):
Here is the breast cancer and multi-vitamin study with a fuller abstract, showing that some studies went back to 1950 and multi-vitamin use was sporadic, as low as 2X per week and for as few as 3 years, too short a time to have meaningful anti-cancer benefits:
Breast cancer, like other cancers, often takes decades to develop and once again, a few years of taking occasional supplements is supposed to prevent or cure the disease? It’s an irrational and unscientific premise to begin with!
This study was included in the cancer studies and is riddled with poor methodology:
As usual, this was a weak study showing a possible association only (not cause and effect).
Once again a vague questionnaire was used and it goes back to 1997 (17 years ago)!
The minimum was only 1 supplement taken per week (useless) for a year or more.
There was NO information gathered on vitamin/mineral brand, nutrient content, nutrient balance, bioavailability or other critical details!
I see many lifestyle factors were not tracked, a common approach in anti-supplement research (nutritional intake, fitness levels, sleep, stress, prescription drug use, etc.).
The study only proves one thing: how often poorly done research is accepted for publication, nothing more!
NOTE: I had to break into 2 parts per comment limits! Here is the last section:
The MI (heart attack) study is truly cringe worthy, largely based on chelation therapy and some multi-vitamins, in a true case of bias titled: Oral High-Dose Multivitamins and Minerals After Myocardial Infarction (this title is overly dramatic and exaggerated based on the actual study details and debunks).
Here is a link to an abstract:
Huge study failures that anyone who read the study would have noticed:
The subjects already had a heart attack and had a median age of 65. That’s a lifetime of possible problems with diet, exercise and other lifestyle factors that all added to HD to begin with! Unless those confounders were carefully and accurately tracked as part of the entire study period, including prescription drug use, the conclusions are dubious at best.
The average time for the supplements was about 30 months. What? A lifetime of possible bad living fixed in a few years with some vitamins? Once again, what drugs fix these problems (statins do not, their absolute risk is often a few percent difference in drug vs. placebo and their side effects raise all-cause mortality so there is no overall benefit). I’ve written extensively about these issues before and use numerous expert sources including medical doctors!
Huge numbers of subjects (over 40%) did not follow the regimen which should render the entire study moot. Yet is was published by a medical journal anyway! Talk about sweeping bias and pseudo-science!
Another 17% of subjects withdrew from the study, another high number that distorts the findings!
Even the authors stated there were serious adherence and compliance issues in the study:
Limitation: There was considerable nonadherence and withdrawal, limiting the ability to draw firm conclusions (particularly about safety).
Here are more sites which debunk these poorly done studies, including MI study:
As any reader can see, the anti-vitamin studies he cited have little credible science behind them!
That’s the end of the double comment I made (notice how many links and studies I was able to include on short notice), and those links include many credible source links), one’s that under cut his initial premise and citations.
One additional note for this post is that the study on heart attacks debunked above set a minimum threshold for the reduction in cardiovascular events at 25%, something that is not done for drug studies. Again, a higher standard for vitamins and a lower one for drugs (to compare, many drugs only have an absolute risk improvement of 1-2% above placebo, which the FDA finds convincing)! These are the kinds of tricks and desperate manipulations (among the many others listed and included in the debunks) to help create failure so the medical journals can claim vitamins are useless!
In short, if you reviewed my links you can easily see how many of this doctor’s claims are bogus and full of hype. No respectable doctor should cite these junk studies as proof of anything! But like most docs, I predict Dr. Sean didn’t read the full studies and details, just headlines and abstracts, feeding his bias and misguided beliefs, all too happy to relay the misinformation to his patients and the public.
The truth really is that modern medicine is far more of a religion then a science: It’s about indoctrinating doctors to “believe” in medical procedures and to follow the dogma they are taught. I haven’t met any doctors who actually read and dissect research studies, with the exception of a few holistic practitioners and debunkers I do follow.
I then added a short comment about the USP with a link to their site, so the people could see how their independent testing works and which supplements got their seal of approval.
More unproven claims from Dr. Sean
Dr. Sean responded with more unproven/disproven claims that food and sun were the best sources of vitamins! Although I’ve always coached people to improve their lifestyle and health by improving their nutrition with more whole foods, most people can’t get all their nutrition, including the right balance of micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) from food and sunshine only.
Dr. Sean went on to warn of pill pushers who only want profits, not health, a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black (are you kidding me? Like doctors don’t push pills to help themselves and the drug companies?). See my links on 5 Big Medical Lies and other links about shocking and widespread medical corruption.
I then added a new comment that only people in the south have any chance of getting enough vitamin D from sun year round (I’ve researched this issue before, see various links included above and below), unlike Dr. Sean. The northern 2/3 of the U.S. has more cold and cloudy weather for 6-plus months of the year. I’m in Colorado and we wear jackets or coats in the winter and spring. Bare arms and legs all year? Hardly! Good sun exposure when it’s 30 degrees and snowing? What do you think? Yet he claims it’s true! Talk about misguided and naive!
Many health experts have looked into this and they agree, most people need a vitamin D3 supplement, especially over the cooler winter months. Apparently, all of that has escaped Dr. Sean.
I also said that I don’t sell any supplements and that nutrient levels have been studied and they have fallen in the last few decades (up to 50%), not to mention crop variability, differing growing conditions, shipping and storage (many of our foods now come from other continents or storage warehouses), all of which deplete nutrient levels compared to more locally grown food. Even a few days in storage can lower nutrient values significantly.
Many health experts have pointed out that people have nutrient deficiencies (see links below) and those are based on the minimal RDA/DRI levels set to only avoid diseases for “average” people, not those with existing health conditions, ages, genders, etc. I included another batch of links that show widespread problems in these areas (see vitamin and mineral posts below to save space here).
He then commented that regardless of expert opinions on food and soil composition (what I mentioned was from several studies, not just opinions), and I predict he never made an effort to review or read any of the links I provided above (he never addressed any links or research directly), showing contempt for my research and due diligence. He did add that he thought a study showing a whole foods diet vs. a typical diet with supplements would be useful.
What? He doesn’t have a collection of studies on these issues already, yet he is proclaiming people don’t need vitamins because all the nutrients they need are in food already? This is science? Of course not! It’s ignorance!
These ridiculous claims are part of an endless series of myths and falsehoods perpetrated by medical journals and doctors regarding nutrition, supplements and health.
BTW, I wanted to update the link and research numbers to here: he provided 1 dead link and about 6 study references in his initial comment (all bogus studies, rife with problems and bias), with no study links after that. I had added about 30 links (and each of my links has dozens or more source links)! So it’s probably about 100 to 1 by this point! But his comments are based on evidence? Where is it? In reality, he has no credible evidence for his claims while I’ve supported mine many times over and I include even more below!
My comment response:
I asked how he would define “real whole foods” and whether we should all grow our own fruits and veggies, raise our own meat, eggs, fish and seafood, etc., so we could eat fresh when 2/3 of the country can’t grow crops year round (it would be impossible for most of us).
I also asked why he needed another study? Doesn’t he know all about nutrition? If so, he should already know about all the vitamin and mineral deficiencies that are so common (again, these are clear from the links I posted). The simple reality is that most people can’t get their vitamin D from sunshine for most of the year. Then I challenged him about whether he read the posts or links I provided (the answer is obvious).
He also said we just need to return to sensible food production, but what’s his solution? I asked how he proposes to change the massively corrupt, profit-driven corporate food practices we have today? I asked about his plan to take on Monsanto and all the other big-agriculture people, including the food and chemical lobbying armies that swarm the capital daily, just like big pharma does! They have the largest lobbying army in the U.S. with almost 1,200 lobbyists, swarming the capital every day? How many billions will you spend to change the system we have now?
I told him what I mostly see are platitudes, myths and vague generalities (without any actual solutions, credible plans or substantiation).
Another simplistic response
He responded with another simplistic comment about real whole foods being minimally processed foods derived from living plants and the animals that eat them, compared to more processed foods (those are hardly revelations for anyone with a background in nutrition).
He went on to proclaim (again, without any supporting links or citations) that vitamin deficiencies are rare in the developed world, and not nearly as common as those who scare-monger to help sell supplements.
Then he said we were done here, and to let those who could make their way through the ramblings above decide for themselves (referring to my comments). He resorted to cheap shots to try to tear me down but as usual, he included no studies or links to support his own claims. See the ingrained double standard? I’ve put my cards on the table and demonstrated an expert-level of competence in the subject matter. He dropped his cards on the floor leaving him with an empty hand!
I then asked that they (another crackpot person had jumped in) provide studies that demonstrate that whole food alone will provide all of all the nutrients people need for health, including repair, immune function, cellular and gene health, healthy growth for children, and including the range of age, gender and health-specific conditions (many of which can interfere in digestion, metabolism, heart/brain/liver/muscloskeletal and other organs and tissues).
The truth is I don’t recall seeing any such studies and after I posted the comment, I checked Pubmed (the main government website for published studies), plus other online sources and I found nothing! I keep trying to remind people, I’ve been around this field for many years!
I requested that they provide those study links about whole foods providing 100% of our nutritional needs and that the studies need to demonstrate nutrient sufficiency for a broad cross section of our 300 million people in the U.S., including access, affordability year around, and that people would want to eat these foods on a daily basis, all proven to have great nutrient content without any GMOs. I added more links, but some are repeats of links I already included earlier so I won’t add them again here.
I realized I should be a bit more specific for my study parameters (these guys were slippery, manipulative and full of bombast but with no street cred), so I added a few additional requirements: The studies needed to be well-constructed, in vivo human trials (not lab studies), with at least 100 subjects (larger would be better). Also, no mouse or rat studies because they rarely translate to human subjects and behavior. And no in vitro studies either, they are even less reliable.
The only exception is if lab or small mammal studies demonstrate a mechanism of action and only after the human studies are listed.
I finished the comment saying they could provide an example dietary plan for a single day that will meet 100% of the dietary requirements for the broad cross section of subjects as outlined above (males, females, young, old, pregnant women, seniors with health conditions, etc.) That proved you didn’t any supplements to meet your daily requirements. I already knew there are none!
I included this recent, 2014 study on over 16,000 children and adults to help them showing more widespread vitamin and mineral deficiencies (from about 30-75%):
Here is the conclusion of this 2014 study which supports what I already said above (NOTE: MVMM means Multi-vitamin/Multi-mineral):
CONCLUSIONS: In large proportions of the population, micronutrient sufficiency is currently not being achieved through food solutions for several essential vitamins and minerals. Use of age- and gender-specific MVMM supplements may serve as a practical means to increase the micronutrient status in subpopulations of Americans while not increasing intakes above the UL.
Of course neither of them offered any studies or credible articles to support their wild claims! They had no proof whatsoever, just hype and bombast with no basis in fact. It’s proclamations from nutritional amateurs. I also included this info from a recent study, showing how supplements could save billions in healthcare costs:
Here are a few more recent studies that support my claims of micronutrient deficiencies (vitamins and minerals) and disease issues. I’ve added for this post only, these were not in original comment. Again, why hasn’t he seen any of this info?):
Here is his response (paraphrased accurately), filled with more contempt, but as I expected, not a single research study to support his claims that food and sunshine provide all the nutrition everyone needs:
Although I find the tangential rantings of a “life coach” (questioning what that is) who moonlights as a “business coach” (questioning what that is) charming, if you prefer to get your health information from actual health professionals, see this book I helped to write. He provided a short link, probably to track who clicked on it.
Ironically, his own statements and lack of evidence demonstrates that he knows very little about nutrition, supplements or what a credible research study is or is not. He was also not interested in learning or looking at the evidence I provided and he offered no credible evidence to support any of his statements or wild assertions.
By comparison, I offered dozens of links, each with numerous additional source links included. I provided credible evidence, while he offered none. Yet he’s the real professional? On what basis does he make such a nonsensical, self-serving claim?
He went on to promote a book he helped to write on public health, claiming he was a real professional (I won’t be buying or recommending it)! Is this the kind of contempt and arrogance you like from your doctor? Are you drawn to doctors who come across as demeaning and smug? Unfortunately, Sean is more the norm of what I’ve seen all my life in MDs! Think party balloons, full of hot air, easily deflated by a small pin prick!
Like other doctors, I predict that Dr. Sean deals with research superficially. For example, he probably only read the study headlines and abstracts he offered in his initial comment (abstracts are that short summary of the study with few details like those I included above).
Sorry, but a superficial approach like that is not scientific; it reflects existing beliefs and a willingness to embrace myths, bogus claims and propaganda. And he never offered a single shred of support or credible evidence for all his bombastic claims and comments while I provided numerous links to debunk his weak citations. And because he had nothing credible to offer, he resorted to unprofessional cheap shots.
Those who claim to know things based on superficial knowledge are neither credible informers or educators. I’ve had doctors tell me that the journal that publishes the study is what they look for, even with all the obvious bias and junk science uncovered here. Still, they “believe!” Most doctors get it really wrong because of their amateur knowledge of nutrition, their high degree of gullibility for biased marketing, and their lack of scientific rigeur.
Doctors and journals misinform their patients often, even daily. This boils down to politics and propaganda used to attack the competition, not sources of credible information to support one’s actual claims and statements. And this practice is widespread and common, putting your health at risk every day!
I can only condemn the ignorance and misinformation I’ve experienced in this latest episode of medical posturing. Even though they reveal sweeping incompetence, Dr. Sean presented his nonsense claims with the usual dose of confidence and swag. My grade for Dr. Sean is an “F” and I feel badly for anyone who takes his misguided advice seriously (I think he practices in New York).
My recommendation to Dr. Sean is to be more of a real scientist and to look deeper into any subject matter he decides to comment on (I haven’t seen any new comments sine that series from a few weeks ago, maybe a good sign?). And if someone challenges you about research, the worst thing you can do is hide behind myths, ignorance and your initials, including your unprofessional put-downs and contempt that everyone can see. True professionals like me see right through your smoke and mirrors presentation.
This is the original article that was the basis of the one posted, including more source links, which is linked at the bottom of the summary article:
His first citation (see the dead end I saw?):
Here’s what I found later:
Add links for my vitamin and mineral posts, ones for aging/genes, debunking posts, vitamin D and bones, heart disease, depression and mood, skin and hair, and inflammation.
This link is to a page on my site. It probably has 500 links to studies about nutrition, including vitamins and minerals, health, aging and disease, including many categories:
© 2014 by Steve Carney/End Sickness Now