Do you take a vitamin or dietary supplement? Over half of all American adults do, making this a $30 billion dollar business. Many of us even take supplements in the absence of any clear medical or health need. I’m often told it’s a form of nutritional “insurance” or it’s being taken for some presumed beneficial effect – like Steven Novella outlined in yesterday’s post on antioxidants. We love the idea of a risk-free magic bullet that improves our health and wellness. Especially one that avoids what are presumed to be toxic, unnatural drugs. Supplements are marketed as safe, natural and effective, and there is no question that messaging has been effective.
I used to take supplements. For me it was multivitamins. But as I’ve taken a closer look at the evidence for supplementation, my personal behaviors changed. The primary reason is a lack of evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that vitamins offer any health benefits in the absence of deficiency. The balance of evidence suggests that routine multivitamins are unnecessary for most people. Vitamins should come from your food, not from supplements. More generally, looking at the broader category of supplements that range from probiotics to herbal remedies, there is little evidence to support most of them. With a few exceptions, the research done on dietary supplements is unconvincing and largely negative. If you don’t supplement, you don’t seem to be missing out on any tremendous health benefits.
Going beyond the lack of evidence, there’s an even more compelling need for consumers to be wary of them. The safety of supplements is increasingly being called into question. Evidence has emerged demonstrating that quality standards for supplements sold in many countries are erratic and unpredictable. The root cause seems to be regulatory systems that prioritize manufacturer interests ahead of consumer protection. With supplements, products are effectively being tested for safety after they are marketed, and the consumer is the unwitting research subject. (more…)
Ear Tone is a supplement claimed to help tinnitus. Does it work?
“Why do you bother blogging?” asked a colleague. “You take hours of your personal time to write, and you do it for free. You’re not even getting any citations for all that work.” I admit I found the questions a bit surprising. True, you won’t find SBM posts abstracted in PubMed. But I’m writing for an entirely different audience. I blog for the same reason that I became a pharmacist: to help people use medicines more effectively. Practicing as a pharmacist is one way to do that. In that setting, you’re helping one patient at a time. And seeing how your advice and support can enhance someone’s care is tremendously gratifying.
I see blogging as another form of pharmacy practice, hopefully with similar effects. Yes I do get regular hate mail, and the occasional legal threat, but there’s also gratitude for a post that resonated with someone, or helped them make better decisions about their health. When Google searches don’t give answers, I get questions — too many to answer. Today’s post is based on a request for help from someone seeking advice on natural supplements to treat ringing in their ears. They have tinnitus, and they’re frustrated at the limits of what their physician (and medicine) can do. They sent me an advertisement for a supplement called Ear Tone, a natural health product which is advertised (and approved) to provide tinnitus relief. Can natural supplements do what conventional medicine cannot? (more…)
Chinese geranium, apparently a natural meth factory, making that bee a suspect
by Igor I. Bussel & Drey A. Pavlov
Jann Bellamy has recently authored an excellent piece on the limitations of the FDA and how the DSHEA actually protects the profits of supplement manufacturers rather than the health and well-being of consumers. Bellamy used the very poignant and currently “controversial” example of DMAA (methylhexanamine or 1,3-dimethylamylamine) to illustrate her point regarding the loopholes and lack of enforcement power of the FDA. The authors of this piece had been considering writing about DMAA and felt this would be an excellent time to further expound on Bellamy’s work. The goal of this article will be twofold: 1) to discuss the known history and pharmacology of DMAA, especially in regards to the basic methodology for evaluating novel substances or novel uses of substances in the context of lacking randomized, controlled trial-level evidence (i.e. the concept of science vs. evidence based medicine) and 2) how the DMAA story clearly and unequivocally demonstrates how the DSHEA allows for unscrupulous profiteers to game the system with little, if any, consequence and nothing but profit until the cost in lives forces the issue.
DMAA was originally developed by Eli-Lilly in 1948 and then later trademarked as Forthane to be used as a nasal decongestant (there are varying accounts but it seems that Eli Lilly patented the molecule in the early 1940s, trademarked and marketed it as Forthane in 1971 for allergic rhinitis, and then voluntarily withdrew it in 1983). The mechanism of action was vasoconstriction – the blood vessels in the nose would constrict so that less blood flow would lead to less nasal discharge. This is a mechanism used by common OTC nasal sprays like oxymetazoline (Afrin) and is indeed quite effective. However, Forthane was later withdrawn from the market because of significant side effects including headaches, tremors, and increased blood pressure. These effects likely occur because DMAA is structurally similar to amphetamine and as a result, the compound is not only a vasoconstricting agent but is also a central nervous system (CNS) stimulant.
Having grown up on a dairy farm, I am one of the least likely people to object to the deification of yogurt. However, as a critical thinker, I cannot help but resist the idea (promoted by some health sites) that probiotics are a reasonable alternative to chemotherapy in the treatment of colon cancer. And there are many other equally unhelpful claims being made all the time. Fish oil for ALS anyone?
What amazes me about the “cherry yoga” camp (as my friend Bob Stern likes to call it), is that they aggressively market CAM as “harmless” and “natural.” They point to the warning labels and informed consents associated with science-based medicines as evidence that the alternative must be safer. In reality, many alternative practices are less effective, and can carry serious risks (usually undisclosed to the patient). For your interest, I’ve gathered some examples of risks associated with common alternative practices that have been described by the CDC and in the medical literature: