Articles

231 thoughts on “Should I Take a Multivitamin?

  1. nwtk2007 says:

    FiFi – “You are also downright rude”

    I have jsut reread a few of your responses to me in the past few days. You should talk.

    Did I really say I “represent” some group of chiropractors?

  2. Harriet Hall says:

    nwtk2007 said,

    “I can only “verify it” based upon what is known and my experience. I would personally rather not stop taking the vit C just to see if the S/S I have related to you come back.”

    I think it’s entirely reasonable for you to keep taking it, as long as you recognize the possibility that it might not really be doing what you think it is.

    You can say you feel better when you take it.
    You just can’t claim it works better than placebo unless you have real evidence. All you have given us is a testimonial and a hypothesis.

  3. Fifi says:

    “nwtk2007on 23 Jul 2008 at 2:29 pm

    FiFi, your just mad because I represent a group of chiropractors who do not do what you think ALL chiropractors do.”

    So what group of chiropractors do you represent and what are your collective beliefs and practices that are different from what most chiropractors do, different from what EB chiropractors do, different than what’s promoted and researched by the chiropractic college you attended, and different from EBM and science-based medicine (which don’t respect or adhere to in theory or practice)?

  4. Fifi says:

    correction: (which YOU don’t respect or adhere to in theory or practice)?

  5. nwtk2007 says:

    OK, you got me there. I did say represent. I should probably check with them before you take me to the bank on that one.

    I can’t say what their beliefs are. But the chiro’s I know do basically what I do, which is treat injuries. I have already told you that. We are forced into EBM because we are forced to adhere to treatment guidelines which are, so they say, based upon studies of patient treatment for their specific injuries.

    I have told you that. There is nothing about subluxations that ever come up in these types of practices, at least none that I have seen.

    I really don’t think the guidelines are EB however. The guidelines might be based upon studies, mostly studies funded by insurance carriers, but I don’t think EB could really be applied to them. Even the medical providers who treat the same patients are locked into the same treatment guidelines.

    Also, manipulation is only a small part of what we treat our patients with, so, if PT treatment is EB then at least we, the chiro’s who practice like this, can say that most of what we treat our patients with is EB

  6. Fifi says:

    So you base your treatments upon whatever insurance companies will cover? And you don’t know if those guidelines or treatments are evidence based?

  7. nwtk2007 says:

    FiFi – “So you base your treatments upon whatever insurance companies will cover?”

    No dear, that would be fraud.

    The guidelines do not say what an insurance company will cover and/or pay for. Not in the least. In fact, they are used by insurance companies to justify NOT paying for services.

    For example, lets say the guidelines give an average for therapeutic exercises at 6 visits for a low back injury with confirmed HNP with radiculopathy. The 6 visits is an apparent AVERAGE, found by who ever it was that wrote the guidelines and their search of the “literature” and the average billed by providers.

    If the provider treats a patient for more than 6 visits of therapeutic exercise, then the insurance company will use the “guideline” to deny payment or to deny any request for treatment beyond that 6 average visits, no matter what the situation or the need of the patient may be.

    Although much more complex than this example, this is a simple example. Most doctors and clinics won’t do anything beyond what the insurance pre-authorizes and thus not only do they use the guidelines to deny payment, they will also, in many cases, be determining care, no matter what the medical necessity documented by the doctor.

    The “literature” used by the writers of the guidelines, is, according to them, EB.

    So you ask if we know if the guidelines are based upon EBM? No we don’t know.

    Also, the guidelines specifically state that they are not to be used like this, but that is what happens. There are ways to challenge the insurance companies but the ones who decide are not doctors but are administrators and lawyers.

    This is, from what I have seen, the end result of EBM, at least as it is applied to injured people.

  8. Fifi says:

    nwtk dear, you seem to be forgetting what you yourself wrote yet again!

    “But the chiro’s I know do basically what I do, which is treat injuries. I have already told you that. We are forced into EBM because we are forced to adhere to treatment guidelines which are, so they say, based upon studies of patient treatment for their specific injuries. I have told you that. There is nothing about subluxations that ever come up in these types of practices, at least none that I have seen. I really don’t think the guidelines are EB however. The guidelines might be based upon studies, mostly studies funded by insurance carriers”

    Here you just said that what you do is based upon studies funded by insurance carriers (while trying to imply EBM is too). I’ll let the American MDs here speak to that claim but it seems pretty weird. Insurance carriers have no say in treatment in hospitals or clinics in countries in the rest of the world and don’t fund any research. Who is “forcing” you to adhere to WHAT treatment guidelines? And what are the repercussions if you don’t conform to these guidelines?

  9. nwtk2007 says:

    So not getting it FiFi.

    The studies are gathered, apparently, from research literature, not funded by insurance carriers, at least as far as we know, and average treatment for various conditions as reported in the billing by doctors, although we do hear that some studies are funded by the insurance companies..

    The insurance carriers fund the formation of the guidelines, either directly or indirectly thru contributions to legislators to get them to mandate the writing of these “guidelines.

    The “forcing” as you say, is that doctors will not treat beyond any guideline because the insurance carriers use the guidelines to deny payment by reason of exceding the “guidelines”.

    Since the “guidelines” are based upon averages on many levels, then the half of the injury treatment from past studies is canceled out. The next guidelines, also being based upon averages of treatment, will have lower averages and thus be even more limiting.

    For example, if a guideline is based upon averaging and the ranges are from 20 to 100, then the average is 60. Since nothing over 60 will be pre-authorized, then when the next guidelines are written, the new range will be 20 – 60, the new average will be 40 and thus, with the new guidelines, nothing over 40 will be preauthorized. When the next guidelines are written, the range will be 20 to 40 and the new average will be 30, and thus nothing over 30 will be pre-auth’ed.

    The guidelines will be used by insurance carriers to systematically reduce treatment to patients.

    So, the doctors, since they cannot get paid for services, will not offer the services and patients will not be treated adequately.

    The entire picture here is, in reality, much, much more complex with little subtleties that would prevent it from being obvious that this is going on.

  10. Joe says:

    nwtk2007 on 23 Jul 2008 at 4:14 pm wrote “I can only “verify it” based upon what is known and my experience.”

    What part of “your experience is worthless” don’t you understand? It may seem a complex, four-word phrase; but you have had time to mull it over.

    nwtk2007 on 23 Jul 2008 at 5:05 pm wrote “I really don’t think the guidelines are EB however.” And “… so, if PT treatment is EB then at least we, the chiro’s who practice like this, can say that most of what we treat our patients with is EB.”

    Which is it? Wait, I know- you don’t care as long as you get paid. PTs learn EB methods and DCs learn subluxation fairy tales- but it is all good if you can take it to the bank.

    A DC is a masseur with delusions of grandeur. If you have managed to raise yourself to the level of a PT, how are your customers to know? Rather than take a chance, it is simpler to just go to a PT.

  11. Joe says:

    nwtk2007 on 23 Jul 2008 at 8:02 pm wrote “The studies are gathered, apparently, …”

    Apparently!!?? You don’t know? (wait, that is believable).

  12. nwtk2007 says:

    Hey Joe Wisdumb,

    When I say “apparently”, in this context, I mean that is what is being implied by the guideline writers and insurance companies. The actual research studies them selves have to stand on their own merits.

    Hey Joe Wisdumb,

    I don’t do massages, back rubs, neck rubs, or anything resembling such. The closest thing would be some myofascial release which patients find extremely painful if done properly.

    Hey Joe Wisdumb,

    When I say the guidelines are not EB, I am referring to the extent of care, which is what the guidelines most often comment on. When I say ” Pt treatment” I am referring to the specific types of treatment often employed by PT’s as well as chiro’s which are shown to be EB medically effective.

    Hey Joe Wisdumb,

    All providers want to get paid for their services and will not treat if they aren’t going to get paid for their services, but ethical providers only recommend that which they feel is medically necessary.

    Hey Joe Wisdumb,

    You can’t just go to a PT in Texas. Duh.

    Hey Joe Wisdumb,

    Your comments are worthless, is there any part of that which you don’t understand?

  13. Fifi says:

    nwtk – I’m really interested in what you do and what it’s based upon. So far you’ve said EBN and science are corrupt (but you also say you base your treatment of injuries on what insurance companies say you’re allowed to do and this is EBM!), you’ve said you don’t practice chiropractice or follow the philosophy of the chiropractic college that you graduated from and you claim to represent a group (though you seem to be backpedaling on that pretty fast!)

    Since you’re not an MD and hostile to MDs, what you claim about MDs’ practices in the US is pretty meaningless to me. I’ll let the MDs say what they base their treatments on.

    Whatever the case, in most of the world medicine isn’t practiced under an insurance scheme and insurance companies have nothing to do with research. It sounds to me like you’re confused again – or trying to avoid what you actually do and what it’s based upon. So far you’ve said it’s based upon what insurance companies will pay you to do and research done by insurance companies (you apparently consider insurance companies some arbitrators of research when they’re the arbitrators of what get treatments get paid for and cherry pick research they base their conclusion on – kind of like how CAM and supplement manufacturers abuse research). It really does sound as if you know NOTHING about research or EBM and science-based medicine as practiced by doctors.

  14. Fifi says:

    nwtk – The fact that you’re making all kinds of wild claims and can’t even remember what you write and claim from one minute to the next indicates you’re, well, a liar who can’t keep track of their lies. Apparently the best you can do to try to divert people from the fact that you lie so much you can’t even keep your lies straight AND that you’re being evasive about what you actually DO (and keep trying to pretend it’s what MDs or physiotherapists do) and what your “treatments” are based upon – which are all relevant to the “health care” you provide – is to start calling Joe names that sound like a kindergarten kid make them up. It’s doubly ludicrous that you’re calling Joe a troll when you’re only here to promote your non-evidence based health care practices (based upon whatever you make up in the moment and keeps patients flowing through your doors and insurance cheques coming in!) and to try to divert people from understanding the risk of dangerous chiropractic.

    Joe may be acting like a troll on a chiro board if he acts there like you do here. That’s pretty irrelevant to the fact that you’re the troll on these boards. A la Tu Quoque – calling Joe a troll doesn’t make you any less of one.

  15. Fifi says:

    nwtk – “The closest thing would be some myofascial release which patients find extremely painful if done properly.”

    Ah, at least now we’re getting some idea of what you do finally. Any evidence to back up the effectiveness of this painful treatment? Or is the pain you observe in your patients a pleasing sign to you that it’s “working”?

  16. nwtk2007 says:

    Oh FiFi, is everything in the world as black and white to you? Are you so naive as to think that insurance companies aren’t influencing research in healthcare both indirectly and directly? You don’t see the benefit to them in promoting the need for treatment guidelines through their influence on legislators thru campaign contributions and guideline funding?

    Well they do. It is not some big conspiracy it is just them trying to pay out less money on medical claims while collecting premiums from individuals and businesses.

    Anyway, let me clear up a few things that you are trying to extrapolate from what I have said.

    First, I am not hostile to MD”S. I am hostile to those self-righteous individuals who point the finger at others while ignoring the problems in what appears to be their “good guys” group, namely, medicine and it’s harm to the public by making tremendous numbers of fatal “mistakes”. (And I am very mindful of Harriett’s comments on this just yesterday on the other thread.)

    Second, what I do is not based upon what insurance companies will pay for. No way. When a patient comes to me with an injury, I examine it, diagnose it and formulate a treatment plan that I believe is medically necessary for the patient to recover as best they can. I also make recommendations ancillary to that plan in order to clarify the diagnosis and further modify the treatment plan as it is carried out.

    These guidelines do not effect my treatment plans or my recommendations, but they do limit what a patient can receive. In most arena’s a patient is responsible for payment for health care services. Therefore, if an insurance company denies payment for services, based upon what ever they decide to base the denial on, then the patient either arranges for the payment or doesn’t receive the services, and thus is only able to partially comply with the my treatment plan, thus compromising recovery.

    For example, if I recommend a service based upon medical necessity, and the insurance company denies payment for that or denies pre-authorization for that service, then the patient either pays for it or it doesn’t get done. Since most people cannot afford health care services, then, in an indirect way, the insurance company is influencing the patients care and through treatment guidelines, they are in essence, directing patient care.

    In Texas, in the arena of work injuries, this is actually what is going on. This is further complicated by laws that say a worker in Texas cannot be billed for treatment of a work injury unless it is adjudicated and found not to have occured while in the course and scope of their employment, a very long process if pursued at all.

    The treatment plan and recommendations I make are based upon patient history, examination and medical necessity only. The insurance companies and these treatment plans limit the patients ability to comply with those recommendations and the treatment plan.

    Your last comment is nothing more than goofy at best and a bit insulting, but you have made a lot of those comments before. It really points to what little you know about the entireity of the health care situation and research.

    Yes, insurance companies DO cherry pick the research that they want to site as reason for paying anything. They even hire doctors to say that services and treatments are not necessary. Also, a lot of doctors DO let the insurance companies dictate care by basing their treatment plans and recommendations on what the insurance plans will allow and what they won’t allow. So, yes, they are arbitrators, as you say, of patient health care and they shouldn’t be.

    Is the system 100% like this? Of course not. But most doctors, if they are honest about it, can come up with examples like this that complicates and limits their patients ability to be treated properly.

  17. nwtk2007 says:

    FiFi, based upon your last two comments, you are beginning to bore me.

    I have pointed out how un-troll like my comments have been on this particular thread and I am correct.

    It is almost impossible to actually reply to many of your comments because they are so convoluted with mis-interpretation and accusation.

    Are you now going to say that myofascial release is not done by MD’s, DO’d and PT’s and that it is not an evidence based form of treatment? I doubt if I have done it in 2 or 3 thousand patient treatments but I think is an acceptable treatment when it is medically necessary and there is not another better alternative. I merely sated that it is as close to a massage that I have ever done for my patients in response to Joe’s idiot comment that DC’s are essentially massage therapists.

  18. Fifi says:

    nwtk – Are you so ignorant that you don’t realize that research goes on in countries other than the US where medicine isn’t profit-driven? (Most other countries don’t have governments that are anti-science, like in the US.) Do you believe all CAM research is being manipulated by insurance companies too?

    It really is entertaining that you claim to not be a troll while engaging in troll-like behavior such as calling other posters names in exactly the way a child in kindergarten does – particularly since you’re hostile to the focus of this blog and the authors of this blog. Do you really think people who read this blog are that stupid and blind to your lies and attempts to claim the authority of EBM and science while denigrating them at the same time? Let’s face it, most people who visit a blog named science-based medicine are interested in science and science-based medicine – the only person you’re fooling by trying to pretend you’re the equivalent of an MD or a scientist is yourself. And just maybe this shadowy, perhaps imaginary, group of chiropractors you claim to represent who don’t practice EBM; don’t adhere to chiropractic conventions, practices and philosophy as promoted by the college you got your chiropractic credentials from (making your credentials essentially worthless and meaningless) but do offer treatments that insurance says they’ll pay for (which only “work” if they’re painful, as if you believe pain is evidence of something being effective!).

  19. daedalus2u says:

    Fifi, do you have a blog? I would like to discuss some of your earlier comments on the role of the profit motive in medicine, but it is somewhat off topic.

  20. nwtk2007 says:

    ###t really is entertaining that you claim to not be a troll while engaging in troll-like behavior###

    Disagreement does not a troll make, nor name calling and insults. Thus you would be the troll. A troll lurks in the shadows looking for an opportune time to inject an insulting and off topic comment in order to promote his/her agenda and to illicit a response, essentially for entertainment purposes. I have been on topic with the the ongoing discussion since the beginning. I’ll not summarize it for you again.

    ###particularly since you’re hostile to the focus of this blog and the authors of this blog###

    Disagreement, of which I have only been partially in disagreement, the rest of the time defending your insulting attacks, is not trolling and not hostile. It is discussion. What good is a forum where everybody is all for one and yippy skippy, ooooh you’re so right!? How boring. I wonder at the defensiveness of your responses.

    ###Do you really think people who read this blog are that stupid and blind to your lies###

    I haven’t lied one single time other than, twice sited now by you, saying I represent a group of chiro’s who have particular kinds of practice. And the only thing I meant by “backing off” that one, as you put it, is that I have not been elected as representative of the group, but I am a part of that group of chiro’s who don’t treat subluxations or work to free the innate as it would seem you wish we all were so that your anti-chiro tendencies could be all encompassing, which, of course, that cannot be.

    ###attempts to claim the authority of EBM and science while denigrating them at the same time?###

    Absolutely right. I can practice it and criticize it at the same time. Can’t you? Are you so full of yourself that you can’t be objective and challenge your own “doctrine”? (If indeed it is yours.)

    ###the only person you’re fooling by trying to pretend you’re the equivalent of an MD or a scientist is yourself. ###

    How utterly stupid. I have not and do not claim to be the equivalent of an MD. Never have. It is you who have claimed that I have. What evidence do you have that I have claimed to be equivalent of an MD? None. Just your defensiveness and inability to cope with opposing points of view that are not total black or white, but fall into the gray areas where discussion can occur. YOU, sound religious to me. And the key word here is that you SOUND religious. I certainly am not calling you that.

    Scientist, absolutely. I don’t need to defend that.

    ###ust maybe this shadowy, perhaps imaginary, group of chiropractors you claim to represent who don’t practice EBM; ###

    I have covered the “represent part but, once again, your “don’t practice EBM” is off the mark and another of your misrepresentations (brought on by bias). You must do it subconsciously because it is disjointed and illogical and occasionally non-sequeter.

    ###; don’t adhere to chiropractic conventions, practices and philosophy as promoted by the college you got your chiropractic credentials from (making your credentials essentially worthless and meaningless) ###

    Once again you try to insult and are not very specific about it. Which credentials? All of them? Just the chiropractic degree?

    And yes, a lot of us deviate from what you say is “chiropractic convention”. Hun, people deviate from their roots all the time. That is change. I don’t pass judgement on religious groups because they are not consistent with the book they say they base their practices on. Man made “conventions” as you put it, are going to change and eventually be rewritten and modified. There is nothing wrong with that and nothing hypocritical about it. Continually referring to these “conventions” is a waste of breath and is part and parcel of why I continue to point out the incredible amount of damage done to the public by medical mistakes and errors. You seem to want to bring down the thunder on chiropractic. Bringing it down on them will most certainly bring it down on the medical community and their big Vita and big Pharma relationship, especially how their “tools” so easily are mishandled and mistakenly harmful to so many everyday. Or is it just poor training that results in so much harm?

    ###but do offer treatments that insurance says they’ll pay for (which only “work” if they’re painful, as if you believe pain is evidence of something being effective!).###

    How stupid.

  21. nwtk2007 says:

    One final thing FiFi,

    You also said, “(Most other countries don’t have governments that are anti-science, like in the US.)”

    Is that right? I’ll agree that research goes on in other countries. Sure.

    But what is your evidence that other governments are not anti-science? This is an EB blog, so what is your evidence?

    Which countries specifically are not anti-science and what is your evidence? If you list the ones that are not anti-science then I guess we will know the ones that are.

    I’ll give you a hint. Most EU countries are very pro-science. The magazine Scientific American does a special report on various countries around the world and their science interests. The most amazing are the USSR block countries which are now independent to pursue their scientific interests. Based upon what I have read, I would say they are nearing or have surpassed us in almost all areas of research.

  22. Joe says:

    nwtk2007 on 24 Jul 2008 at 8:17 am “… Joe’s idiot comment that DC’s are essentially massage therapists.”

    You are quoting me out of context. I said DCs are masseurs with delusions of grandeur.

  23. Fifi says:

    nwtk – Ah, I see you go in for bluster and righteous indignation – I don’t consider personal observation of people one makes a profit from treating to be “evidence” (and it’s not as defined within the context of this blog). I’m not anti-chiro – I’ve been to see a chiropractor a couple of times at the recommendation of a friend (work health insurance covered it) – I just found it didn’t do much (certainly not as good as a massage for me!) and the “diagnosing” using muscle dowsing and the neck twisting seemed weird, though I
    was willing to give it a try. (The neck twisting thing seemed more like a trust exercise, actually,….relax and trust me so I can twist your neck. I didn’t learn about the stroke risk until after the fact, which was somewhat alarming as strokes run in my family. Fortunately I only let her do it once since I found it creepy and unnatural, and the whole “trust me” element seemed manipulative.) Your responses in the thread about Sandy Nette – the Canadian woman who suffered a stroke and paralysis due to a chiropractic neck manipulation – wasn’t to critique your fellow chiropractors who do a potentially dangerous thing (that you claim you don’t do) but to go into Tu Quoque mode.

    Not everyone who disagrees with your claims is anti-chiro – which is your default claim and way to protect your beliefs. This is a science-based medicine blog – show me real evidence and I’ll accept your claims. (Harriet isn’t anti-chiro, and I noticed that yesterday you finally were able to acknowledge that, maybe you’ll actually respect her enough to read and acknowledge some of the evidence she presents rather than pretending it’s all corrupt science and some big anti-chiro plot, etc). nwtk, I’d take no issue with you – chiropractor, shaman or Luke Skywalker acolyte – if you didn’t try to claim science is corrupt when it doesn’t support your beliefs or if you didn’t wave a Tu Quoque argument around when the danger of neck manipulation is brought up.

    As for vitamins – to bring it back to topic – both I and Harriet pointed out to you that vitamin C is synergistic with iron and the potential health risks. I think it’s a shame that science blogs are constantly full of people trying to denigrate science – not to improve medicine but in an attempt to water it down to affirm philosophical and personal subjective beliefs. Like pec, I’ll leave you to Harriet and the blog authors to deal with from this point in.

  24. Fifi says:

    daedelus – As you say, it would be off topic and it’s a big conversation (it’s been going on in Canada for a couple of decades and I grew up with it being discussed around the dinner table) – it’s also about the politics of medicine (and insurance lobbyists and corporate medicine) and, like all politics, has a number of different dimensions and is integrally linked to time and place. Americans have gotten a slight taste of this conversation since the idea of universal healthcare was (is?) being floated. At its core it’s about politics and social philosophy so probably not an appropriate discussion for this blog unless one of the authors brings it up.

  25. nwtk2007 says:

    So FiFi, you’ve been to a chiropractor and his exam was creepy and un-natural.

    This sounds strange to me also. The exam that “us” non-creepy chiro’s do is a regular orthopedic/neurological exam. We do some ROM evaluations, palpation of the injured area noting tenderness, redness, swelling, fixations, muscle tightness or spasm, muscle testing for strength or weakness, orthopedic tests, cranial nerves, reflexes, dermatomal sensation, Bp, pulses, resp rates, etc. The exams run from problem focused to comprehensive and are very thorough. This is, of course, accompanied by a thorough history, both related to the complaint and not related.

    Nothing strange, just the usual that you should receive from any provider if you have a musculoskeletal complaint. Pretty standard really.

    If you get hurt, you just give me a call and swing down here to Dallas and I’ll have a look.

    I do remember the synergy of vit C with iron, but if not taking iron supplements, which virtually no-one needs (with exceptions of course) that would not be a problem. Although I did see a comment by an MD who had said that the increase in stored iron with vitamin supplementation could be enough to cause cardiac arrest. Pretty wild if true, but no evidence was sited.

    The big study sited earlier I mentioned shows only very slight increase in kidney stones associated with low levels of supplementation but above certain levels the increase (however slight) disappears.

    But maybe your right, maybe there is absolutely no need for supplementation if the diet is “good”. I personally will continue with my vit C supplements, but will also increase my intake of vit C rich foods.

    As far as denegrating science goes, well, I really haven’t denegrated science. I am critical of some things, but they are not all encompassing of science. Besides, I have been in science all of my life and heck, I will denegrate it if I choose or if I feel it, or some part of it, needs denegrating.

    I and a fellow teacher were trying to estimate the number of people we have influenced who are now in some science related field. The number is huge. He pointed out the ones who have openly come back and told us and others about how we influenced their lives. They would say that it was our demand on them to maintain scientific standards that helped them to develop into the successful “scientist” that they have become, be it doctor, nurse, PT, radiologist, med tech, engineer, environmental specialist, research scientist, RA, teacher, professor, house wife, etc.

    Unfortunately, the one who just won’t let me go a semester with out teaching something just died. Hopefully I will get to continue.

  26. Fifi says:

    *Like pec (and quackdoctor), I’ll leave you and other trolls to Harriet and the blog authors to deal with from this point in.*

  27. nwtk2007 says:

    Ok FiFi, you can back down. But don’t use an excuse that I am a troll on this thread.

    I did not come onto this thread to illicit a reaction from you or anyone else. Go back and read it.

    It was your assumptions about me that were wrong and I just gave back what I was getting.

    Oh and finally, Harriett mentioned NACM. They pretty much express the way I see the subluxation. But to me, they are also a bit too closed minded about possibilities and frankly, I have seen some things that would not permit me to take the oath they require to join.

    Later Baby Cakes. See you in the funny papers.

  28. nwtk2007 says:

    What study or paper is this to which you refer?

  29. quackdoctor says:

    Most people think they know about vitamins but they know very little. One needs to be careful. If one actually wants to learn something they should watch all parts of this. It is well worth the few minutes it takes.

    http://www.thewellnessdoc.com/custom/dr.ungar/videos/video.asp?Video=vitamins&VideoPart=1

Comments are closed.