Vitamins used to be scoffed at by mainstream physicians, but that changed in 2002 when a report in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) began to signal conventional support of their use. Nevertheless, much confusion on the topic remains. In terms of nutrient supplementation, there is still a large amount of controversy surrounding their value in helping to reduce certain diseases.
It used to be that doctors mocked vitamin supplements and told patients they only led to expensive urine. Having been a mainstream medical doctor for many years, I understand where this thinking originated. First, as students in medical school, we received only about one 60-minute lecture concerning nutrition in four years of medical education. In residency training we got even less. None of our physician-educators knew anything about the role of nutrition in health, and they had no grasp of the value of nutrient supplementation for the prevention or reversal of chronic illness. Furthermore, private-practice doctors receive expensive catered lunches from pharmaceutical salespeople to teach them about pharmaceutical drugs but are never wined and dined by people knowledgeable about nutrient supplements.
It wasn’t until July 2002 that the American Medical Association (AMA) finally endorsed the limited use of supplements (multivitamins with minerals) [1]. That report looked at vitamins A, B, C, D and E and concluded: “Inadequate intake of several vitamins has been linked to chronic diseases, including coronary heart disease, cancer, and osteoporosis.” The topic of vitamins and nutrient supplements is a really important one. It seems to be a dividing line between conventional medical thinking and natural or “alternative” health, but it shouldn’t be that way. The scientific literature helps us understand which types of nutrients work and which ones don’t.
We know there have been some large studies of supplements beginning in 1994. Some demonstrated benefits, while others found no benefits for taking certain single vitamins, such as vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E. At the same time, there have been an even larger number of studies showing overwhelming proven effectiveness for a whole lot of other nutrient supplements. Therefore, rather than attack all natural supplements, wouldn’t it be wiser and more valuable for us all to take an honest look at the nutrients and their studies so we know which ones work, which ones don’t, and why?
Unfortunately, even now, flawed studies make headlines that support and those that refute the use of a certain natural intervention. This is why anyone who wants to know the truth about supplements can’t rely on a doctor but personally has to sift through the conflicting points of view. It reminds me of how the tobacco industry fooled the public for many years even after it was reported in 1950 by the British Medical Journal [2] that smoking was strongly linked to lung cancer. Even after the 1964 U.S. Surgeon General’s “Report on Smoking and Health” proved the dangers of smoking, the tobacco companies wouldn’t admit the health risks.
One-sided opinion articles about supplements are so often so one-sided that they are actually dishonest. An opinion article written by a rather well-known anti-supplement doctor, published in the June 8, 2013 issue of The New York Times Sunday Review [9] is entitled “Don’t Take Your Vitamins.” This doctor points to what I call the “big five” published studies that failed to find benefits for supplements.
