Talk:Orthomolecular medicine

Neutrality disputed

Based upon the discussions that have been taking place here over the past few days or so, it is clear that CSC 42 is disputing the article's neutrality. I strongly support his/her concerns on this aspect of the article and have therefore added the appropriate tag. Vitaminman (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone should be aware of the usage notes at {{NPOV}}, particularly:

• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

It's now incumbent upon editors who believe the article is not neutral to demonstrate this using high quality reliable sources. So far I have seen a series of complaints, but no new sources suggested or added. There are lots of sources that criticize orthomolecular medicine for being unfounded, for promoting quackery, for being dangerous, and so on. There is a difference between editors not liking the contents of the page, and the page being non-neutral. If people are going to tag the page, please place much effort and time into demonstrating with mainstream, high-quality, recent reliable sources that the beliefs and perspectives on OM are somehow misrepresented, unbalanced, or erroneous. Approaches that should be avoided include lengthy talk page postings that proclaim OM to be valid (that would be soapboxing and advocacy) or extensive citation of primary sources that "prove" OM has merit (which violates our policy on original research). What are necessary are explicit, mainstream, high-quality secondary sources that support the approach and efficacy of OM. Sources come first, always. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I support WLU's statement and interpretation of tagging guidelines. It is clear that CSC 42 and Vitaminman harbour strong feelings about this topic. It is unclear that they have specific objections supported by sources. Unless and until they provide a detailed, well sourced critique of the article's neutrality, I consider the tag invalid. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree to review any source-based discussions and comments about this issue, but simply removing, ghettoizing, or downplaying well-sourced criticisms is unacceptable, as is unsourced or poorly-source promotion of OM claims. That so many research and medical juggernaught agencies have criticized OM means there is no reason for these criticisms to not be voiced, and is again evidence that OM lacks mainstream credibility, evidence to support their claims, or research support. Neutral does not mean conciliatory, positive or sympathetic. There is clear evidence OM is considered quackery by at least some notable and authoritative groups, ergo this remains in the article. One thing I wouldn't mind adding is why the approach is seen so negatively. There should be no a priori assumptions or statements that OM works, doesn't work or must be treated charitably. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily I support the use of tags to attract interested editors, but along with placing the tag there must be a serious statement of how the article differs significantly and systematically from an accurate summary of the available sources weighted by their reliability. The current article looks pretty okay, and a deuce of a lot better than it was around two years ago. We might should diffuse section six as I am not sure Medical and scientific reception is the best heirarchy here, and maybe the AIDS and vitamin E subsections could be reduced, but I am really not seeing any major problems here. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that this page already has over 100 watchers [1] there doesn't seem to be much need of tags for the purpose of drawing attention. A simple talk-page statement of what the problem words are should be enough to get a discussion moving. If accompanied by a sound rationale, we might be able to get somewhere. LeadSongDog come howl 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That argument is a new one to me, I must admit. Could you perhaps be so good enough to point out the specific WP policy or guideline that supports your claim here? To be honest, I would have thought you were on pretty shaky ground in making this assertion. If you're correct, however, there are clearly many thousands of WP articles, from which, due to their having large numbers of watchers, tags can justifiably be removed. Vitaminman (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The usage guide for that template is at Template:POV/doc, though WLU quoted the key points above. If is it your contention that the tag should be used without any talk page explanation, I would suggest that you make that proposal at WP:NPOVN. It seems to me that that would be a singularly counter-productive approach. LeadSongDog come howl! 09:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, CSC 42's points have substantially failed to garner support, and as I and others have tried to demonstrate, fail substantially on policy and source-based grounds. The sticking point on this, and similar articles, seems to be that the page doesn't give orthomolecular medicine's position on "orthomolecular medicine". That's appropriate, we are supposed to give the mainstream position on orthomolecular medicine. Which is to say, the page correctly points out that OMM is not a well-respected, and well-supported discipline within mainstream scholarship. Editors may not like that fact, but policy supports that being how we deal with it. You are welcome to try to change the policy, but I doubt you'll get much buy-in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The article should mention something about the clear motivation of drug companies to sell drugs, and it should also be pointed out when citations used in the article are pointing to drug company funded and controlled studies. If the argument here is eat healthy food without chemicals, take vitamins, and avoid taking drugs - and drug companies obviously have a problem with that because they make billions of dollars off long term drug based treatments - this perspective should lend credibility just because its obvious the deck is stacked against any organization that would cast doubt on drug therapy and the billion dollar drug industry. Mrrealtime (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"A drug lag update"

Regarding this undo, I've removed the "European" statement per WP:PROVEIT and added a url to the "Japan" article that claims orthomolecular treatments have been sanctioned. The article, sourced to Drug Information Journal, does not appear to be pubmed indexed and I can't find a full text online. Does anyone have a copy of the article in question? It's 15 years old, I've never heard of the journal, and seems to deal with North American (per the subject keywords). I can't even see an abstract. Looking at its use online, it seems to be about the lag in approval of drugs, not vitamins. [2][3][4][5] On the other hand, a search in google books for the title + orthomolecular turns up nothing [6]. A websearch for the same seems to turn up mostly wiki mirrors.

Thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in introductory sentence

The introductory sentence [fragment] "Orthomolecular medicine, or megavitamin therapy, ..." is inaccurate.

Linus Pauling defined the term "orthomolecular" as "the right molecules in the right concentration." While in some cases megavitamin therapy is called for to bring nutrient levels to optimal, orthomolecular medicine is not synonymous with this (or any specific) form of treatment; OM deals with optimizing nutrient levels, generally.

See Pauling's 1967 paper, "Orthomolecular Psychiatry" (Abstract [7]; original [8]), where he suggests that in some cases levels of nutrients are too high and intake must be reduced to return a patient to optimal health. This makes clear that "orthomolecular medicine" does not mean "megavitamin therapy", which could only increase nutrient levels.

Per OrangeMarlin's suggestion, I'm posting on this talk page to notify all concerned that a simple error has been made: The definition of the term itself has been altered in a way that biases readers.

Unless there are specific objections, I'll correct the sentence over the next few days.

BGortney (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to bring more than a 50 year old article per WP:MEDRS. They are one and the same. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article itself, in the second sentence, confirms my (Pauling's) definition of OM: "Orthomolecular medicine focuses on what it sees as the right nutritional molecules in the right amounts for the individual." This definition is in wide-use and says nothing about [megadosing]vitamins or therapy; it only implies optimization, be it through [increases or decreases in nutrient intake through modification of] diet or supplementation.

No additional sources are required (though plenty are available), as "megavitamin therapy" was attached in error. There's no source to support the assertion that "orthomolecular medicine" is "megavitamin therapy"; and there can't be, because they aren't the same.

Adding to the definition is misleading, and unless there's some credible objection I'll modify it over the next few days.

BGortney (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's absurd. Given that there is no WP:RS to support it, I've reverted it per WP:DISCUSSED and WP:CCC. Vitaminman (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. It hasn't been discussed. Reverted POV edits by COI user. Give me a break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no "simple error". For all practical purposes, orthomolecular medicine is synonymous with megavitamin therapy. I don't understand why this is such a big issue: does it detract from the cool-sounding name? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

American Cancer Society, currently source 11 lists megavitamin as an alternate name for orthomolecular. The etymology is different, as is the philosophical approach suggested by the name, but in practice they are different names for the same set of practices. Unless there has been some schism in the community that reliable sources have thought significant enough to make comment? - 2/0 (cont.) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OM deals with optimization of nutrient levels to maintain and improve health; sometimes that involves increasing levels of vitamins, sometimes it deals with increasing levels of amino acids, minerals, or, chunked up, specific types of foods; other times it involves reducing levels of these vitamins, minerals, aminos, foods. Pauling himself directly states this, and basic research confirms it. As you correctly note, 2over0, the approach and etymology are entirely different. MVT is a form of treatment that falls under OM. If you have multiple, credible sources that define OM as MVT (and exclusively as MVT), let's see them (more than an "aka" reference by ACS); otherwise, Pauling's original definition of the term should stand. This article can be neither neutral nor accurate when it starts off with a skewed definition of the term itself. And there's no need to cuss or be sarcastic. BGortney (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pauling definition is presented in the lede already. As 2/0 correctly states, and sources to the ACS, the two names are practically synonymous. With proper sources, one could perhaps go into more detail elsewhere, but for the lede, this is fine. That, and I see OM has provided additional sources anyway. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Pauling definition" is *the* definition. He *created* the word. Keeping MVT as a part of the definition because ACS does it is misleading at best, and dishonest at worst. Definitions of OM at: Wikipedia's category description [9]; Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine [10]; Orthomolecular Society [11]; Foundation for Alternative & Integrative Medicine [12]; Pfeiffer, Carl Dr., Nutrition & Mental Illness, an orthomolecular approach [13]; MedicineNet [14]; WebMD [15]; Dr. Richard Kunin [16]; Dr. Barrett at QuackWatch [17]. This is a simple change based on simple logic. OM != MVT. MVT is a specific type of therapy that fits within/under OM. See Megavitamin Therapy for its definition, which is decidedly *not* OM. Sentence 2: "It is typically used in complementary and alternative medicine by practitioners who call their approach "orthomolecular medicine", but also used in mainstream medicine for "exceedingly rare" genetic conditions which respond to megadoses of vitamins." BGortney (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you getting so upset by this? They are one and the same thing. We've been over this over the past 5 years. Notice what is still here. Every few months another editor thinks they want to change what is completely accurate. You're looking for the couple of articles that support your POV. Even Megavitamin therapy says its OM. Anything else? Can we move on. And can you please read WP:NOTAFORUM please.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not the same thing. MVT is a specific therapy that falls underneath OM. The MVT article specifically states that it's *used* in OM/by practitioners of OM, making it a *part* of OM. If MVT is OM, why are there separate articles? I cited/linked 9 references, none of which mention MVT in the definition of OM. You cannot equate MVT with OM when MVT is a part of OM. And I'm not using this as a forum; I'm not chatting, discussing, preaching, soapboxing, or arguing for or against OM, I simply want the article to be as accurate as possible and the lede unbiased. We'll move on when it is. BGortney (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussing it here and gaining NO consensus whatsoever does not mean you can engage in edit warring. You are now at 4RR. Read WP:3RR to understand what the consequences of continuing your edit warring. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, using Wikipedia as a proof of anything is silly. It cannot be a reliable source for itself. We have placed reliable sources that convince most readers, just not you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Orthomolecular medicine focuses on what it sees as the right nutritional molecules in the right amounts for the individual." That's fine-sounding, but it hardly qualifies as definition that sets OM apart from anything. Every health discipline, including the most staid conventional medicine, would like to the right nutritional molecules in the right amounts for the individual! Can I see a show of hands for health care people who want the WRONG amounts of the wrong nutritional molecules for individuals?? I certainly don't. (Perhaps Dr. Barrett secretly does, and he's not telling?)

Look, the focus of the debate is not here. The focus of the debate is between people who think that the optimal amounts of a lot of nutrients are a lot higher than you'd get from the RDA/DRI or whatever. Hence, MVT or whatever you want to call that.

The issue is one of philosophy between people who suspect your body is a lot like a car that doesn't run any better or faster or last longer if its oil and gas tanks are kept totally full all the time, vs. (say) half full. The other side argues that the body isn't like a car, and needs to be kept topped off all the time with everything, and will tell you when it has too much by spilling oil or gas on the ground, so to speak. In the absense of evidence one way or another (which we still don't have for much of this) the default-philosophy (default hypothesis) matters in a very Bayesian probability way: see [18]. We all have prior assumptions that can't be defended as objective-- even the people who make the DRIs and RDAs have prior assumptions, and most of these are a lot like the car one (have you noticed?). The opposite idea is just as indefensible. Some things in biology apparently run like cars with respect to optimal nutrient pools, and some do not. We haven't really done enough life span experimentation (and certainly not in humans) do be able to construct such stuff. We do know (or are pretty sure) that diet matters, and we'd like to know how closely the US diet (for example) can be made to look metabolically like the French or Japanese diet by addition, rather than subtraction. That means supplements in addition to restrictions, unless you're a chef with access to really expensive import items. The name for such supplements is whatever you'd like to call it, but it's not conventional nutrition. "Conventional nutrition" the handmaiden of modern medicine in the US, is the Food guide pyramid, which is heavily USDA and US farm policy influenced-- there a lot of corn based stuff, and fish and olives look just like beef and soybean oil. So where is one to start when one still knows little, for sure? There is (for example) evidence that age-adjusted prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis has gotten a lot worse. What are we doing wrong? If you believe already that we're doing something wrong life-style wise (not just eating at MacDonalds too often), then you're likely to see a given bit of evidence in a different light than if you believe in quick fixes like more fruits and vegetables, and only rare fast-food. "Reliable sources" have their own biases also, remember. They even have their own biases about which sources are reliable. SBHarris 06:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the commenatary in the April 6 JAMA about the vitamin clinical trials? Based on the way that researchers have been designing their clinical trials, it certainly does not seem as if they think that humans are cars. Supplementing large doses of vitamins in a haphazard manner to those who are already replete in them has been a big business for mainstream research medicine, which certainly shows that there has not been a lot of confidence, at least in the research community, that large doses of vitamins don't have some potential to have extra beneficial effects. Unfortunately, testing the long-term effects of micronutrient deficiencies in a controlled manner might still be in an infancy stage - especially for the most common deficiencies such as magnesium. II | (t - c) 11:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hold on there II...you pointed to a commentary in JAMA, which is slightly above a letter to the editor in the scale of publications in a medical journal. The amount of clinical trials looking at various nutrients and dementia have shown nothing, even the simplest correlation. And your comment that "supplementing large doses of vitamins in a haphazard manner" is belittling the quality of a lot of the research without evidence of that. Well, other than the letter to the editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Arguments that orthomolecular medicine is not equivalent to megavitamin therapy would be more convincing if specific examples of orthomolecular proponents advocating for moderation and restriction of a certain micronutrient were shown. For example - vitamin E clinical trials have shown increased overall mortality. Therefore, looking for the "right amounts", we would expect orthomolecular medicine proponents to advocate that vitamin E supplementation be reduced or even avoid entirely. But so far they haven't said that. II | (t - c) 11:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple. OM is not just about vitamins, mega or otherwise. (OM includes herbs, minerals and who-knows what - all types of molecules, I guess). Conflating the two would an elementary category error. (If anyone has sources that say othewise, they'd better be damn good (i.e. conform to WP:MEDRS, which they don't) and actually imply an identity (which they don't! The same terms in the same sentence implies a distinction, in my mind), and get consensus on the megavitamin therapy page for a merge.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

At least one of the references used to support this claim does not actually do so. In chapter 1 (entitled: "What is Orthomolecular Medicine?") of the Hoffer & Saul book, paragraph one states the following:

Orthomolecular physicians use all modern treatments, including drugs, surgery, and physical and psychological methods, when these are appropriate. For example, when antidepressants or tranquillizers are needed, they are used in conjunction with the nutrients and nutrition. The drugs are used to gain rapid control over undesirable or disabling symptoms and are slowly withdrawn once the patient begins to respond to orthomolecular treatment.

And then this:

Orthomolecular nutrition, in contrast to "eat the food groups" nutrition, emphasizes the use of supplemental vitamins, minerals, and other accessory factors in amounts that are higher than those recommended by the government-sponsored "dietary allowances."

Bottom line then, is that not only do orthomolecular phsyicians use other categories of nutrients alongside vitamins, they also use drugs.

Finally, I would also point to the "Orthomolecular Medicine and Megavitamin Therapy: Future and Philosophy" paper by Eric Braverman[19], which states quite categorically in its first paragraph that: Megavitamin therapy has become a sub-category of Orthomolecular medicine.

Guys and gals, they ain't they same thing, really, and trying to pretend that they are is, well, simply absurd. Enjoy your weekends and ponder. Vitaminman (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, a plain and simple error. Note that OrangeMarlin is reverting without further dialogue, claiming non-existent PA. I leave it to others to decide whether this warrents a trip to AN/I. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple solution. Bring current reliable sources to establish that they are different. A 1979 paper from a walled-garden journal doesn't cut it. Until then, the long-established text should stand, as it is suitably referenced.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not suitably referenced, as I explained above. Where does any ref say they are identical, as opposed to one being a subset of the other?

I see you are a trained physicist, like me. You therefore know the difference between molecules and vitamins. Please end this absurdity!

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If your only objection is that of confusing the superset with the set, then how about the alternative "Orthomolecular medicine, an extension of megavitamin therapy to include other nutrients ..." instead? Surely a RS can be found for that? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is a rather cruical difference.... but which came first (I'm not sure). And there'd be no need to bold "megavitamin therapy", since it is already a separate article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Hoffer and Saul book is current (2008) and, whilst being used as one one of the supporting references for the claim that Orthomolecular Medicine and Megavitamin Therapy are one and the same thing, clearly states that "Orthomolecular physicians use all modern treatments, including drugs, surgery, and physical and psychological methods, when these are appropriate." The fact that some editors are clearly attempting to disregard this bothers me greatly. But what worries me even more is that the proponents of the notion that the two are one and the same thing have apparently not even bothered to research the relevant literature before jumping to their conclusions. For example, the opening of the second paragraph of the article - which I don't see anybody here disputing - states that: The term "orthomolecular" was coined by two-time Nobel laureate and chemist Linus Pauling to mean "the right molecules in the right amounts" However, if you examine what Pauling actually said when defining the term it is abundantly clear that he was not at all confining its use simply to vitamins. In Chapter 11, page 118, of his book "How to Live Longer and Feel Better", entitled "Orthomolecular Medicine Defined", he states the following: "An example of orthomolecular medicine is the treatment of diabetes mellitus by the injection of insulin." As such, WP is in grave danger of misleading people if we allow the claim that Orthomolecular Medicine and Megavitamin Therapy are one and the same to remain in this article. Vitaminman (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I got nauseous quoting that piece of shit book, but I had to do what I had to do. Treatment of diabetes with the injection of insulin is orthomolecular? Oh that is rich. No, treatment of diabetes with insulin is endocrinology and REAL medicine, not your pseudoscientific thing. You know, I am seriously amused by you guys. Orthomolecular medicine and megavitamins are both pseudoscientific, snake oil medicine. You're fighting with real scientists over minor semantic differences, because it might insult your carefully constructed POV that this stuff does anything but waste people's money. The sentence has been there for over 4 years (I believe, but it could be 3). Now, you get upset. Well, prove to us with a current reliable source that they're different. And cutting some tiny semantic line between the two is just not going to pass the smell test. The fact is they're both junk medicine. PERIOD. And the article says so. It's amusing this is the edit war you want to fight. I'm here to make sure medical articles don't trick people into thinking they work–I'm pretty certain that people confusing the junk science of multivitamins and the junk science of orthomolecular aren't going to care one wit. Nevertheless, bring some real sources. I'm open minded to revising this junk medicine article to point people to the other junk medicine article, but only until you convince us all with reliable sources that they are somehow different.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Orange, I don't see an argument here, just rhetoric and bias. You'll have to do better than that to stick a major logical fallacy in the lede. Anyway it seems the consensus is against you. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Which RSMED "reliable source" to believe? Hmmm?

For all my medical career it's a well-known fact that it's a well-know fact that saturated fat intake contributes to atheromatous cardiovascular disease. Every major medical body has said this for 30 years and more. Of course, 30 years before that (taking us back to 1950) there was no official position on diet and coronary disease, until 1953 when Ancel Keys published his 6 country study. A timeline is here, for those of you who didn't live through a lot of this: [20] from 1956 until the official US government guidlines on fat intake were codified, saturated fat was the badguy. McGovern's Senate Select Committee issues the final version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 1977, in which animal fat is the primary Bad Thing. The evidence: a bunch of epidemiology in which a lot of societies that had the "wrong numbers" (Polynesians who live on coconut, and French who eat butter and fois gras) were selectively ignored. The animal studies were pitiful, and generally malnurished a bunch of animals with hydrogenated oils and no EFAs. Nobody cared. The reliable government sources considered this data reliable, due to their previous bias, due to Keys.

Okay, fast-forward to last year:

---

Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46. Epub 2010 Jan 13.

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.

Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Children's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute Oakland, CA, USA.

Comment in:

   Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):497-9.
   Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Aug;92(2):459-60; author reply 460-1.
   Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Aug;92(2):458-9; author reply 459.

BACKGROUND: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies. DESIGN: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD. RESULTS: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

---

That's a GIGANTIC meta analysis. Now, the "reliable sources" told us one thing in 1953, something else quite different in 1977, and now we're back again to 1953. How can that not make you cynical? The 4 food groups were killed by the low fat people. The 4 food groups had no backing anyway. But neither did the low fat food pyramid. This is fail after fail after fail.

And all this cynicism is not just that I'm a medically unsophisticated person following along in the newspapers. I've been deep in the medical journals following the mechanisms and formal recomendations for years. And recognizing their bias. But unable to do very much about it. Sometimes they even suceeded in fooling me: I can't know everything and my instincts are not always good. But I was ahead of a lot of THIS game.

So, watch that the same kind of thing doesn't happen to you, in any field in medicine where there are no randomized prospective controlled primary prevention studies. (Ornish isn't one). You can get major egg on your prefessional face this way. SBHarris 06:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

First thing, just something about which you should be aware, ==Heading== creates a break and heading. You're kind of creating arbitrary breaks, when I think you just wanted to draw a double line. Anyways, that's the thing about science...it changes with new data. I'm all right with it, because it doesn't cause me to be cynical, just openminded. Pseudoscience is never open to change, and cannot be falsified. I'm not sure what your point is, but just because no one has shown that massive doses of vitamins does anything but give us very vitamin rich urine, doesn't mean they will. Moreover, and the fallacy of any epidemiological study is that it identifies correlation, but it does not explain causation. There could have been some other co-determinant factor, mainly that a fatty diet usually leads to fat people who have a higher propensity to cardiovascular disease. Because it's not an epidemiological study that shows overweight leads to heart disease, we can show causality.

Anyways, you are absolutely right. No randomized clinical trials means it's next to impossible to make any type of statement. However, it would be a logical fallacy to say that "well, since there is no clinical trial, it doesn't mean that that megavitamins don't work." Well, that's the old "the absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence." Well, in fact, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, using evidence in the truest sense. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)