Misplaced Pages

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; 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 and Orthomolecular medicine 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, 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, I improved the first paragraph 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is verifiability. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Cathcart and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 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 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 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.... 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.--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 "Misplaced Pages 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)

1. ^ http://www.juvenon.com/pdfs/june05_ames-prescrip.pdf
2. http://reason.com/amesint.shtml
3. Vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults: clinical applications. Fletcher RH, Fairfield KM in JAMA 2002 Jun 19;287(23):3127-9 (PMID 12069676) “Most people do not consume an optimal amount of all vitamins by diet alone. Pending strong evidence of effectiveness from randomized trials, it appears prudent for all adults to take vitamin supplements. We recommend that all adults take one multivitamin daily. It is reasonable to consider a dose of 2 ordinary multivitamins daily in the elderly”
4. Vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults: scientific review. Fairfield KM, Fletcher RH in JAMA 2002 Jun 19;287(23):3116-26 (PMID: 12069675) “Although the clinical syndromes of vitamin deficiencies are unusual in Western societies, suboptimal vitamin status is not .”