Read, But Be Careful: Sources of Inaccurate Information

In the world of science, we have what can be described as "notions, "assumptions, inferences, and conclusions." Notions and assumptions are rampant in the world. They are usually knee-jerk reactions that are passed around almost religiously by people. We all have them, and few of us question them when they come our way. They push familiar buttons that feel like they are not only correct, but almost taken for granted because they seem so common-sensical. Marketing people know well how to use them to sell products, and the sales of some of the best selling products in the world are founded on the use of these push buttons. With some frequency, the most popular sources of information are riddled with notions and assumptions that are stated as conclusions.

These are then taken for granted by a majority of the reading public. For instance, when the New York Times features an article on a subject, many people take it as gospel because of the reputation for credibility that the New York Times has. I occasionally find significant errors in articles on nutritional topics that appear in the New York Times. One of my best friends who has a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard has the same problem, but in the areas of his expertise.

Inferences come because factual information adds up to a logical conclusion, but the conclusion hasn't been proven yet. Inferences are sometimes shown to be true, although wolves in sheep's clothing can use them to take advantage of less perceptive people by using an inference to get a person to jump to a conclusion, without a conclusion actually having being reached by scientists.

Conclusions are the hardest thing in science to obtain. They come after inferences and hypotheses have been tested, usually in several high quality studies, and group of scientists evaluate all the information to find out what is true. Below I note some commonly available popular sources of nutritional information that make statements are sometimes not only not conclusive but actually ends up being contrary to the conclusions of quality published scientific data. Unfortunately, this happens a lot in mainstream media and all too often by those who have been blessed by the media as "experts."

Consumer Reports
While I subscribe to Consumer Reports and consider their advice on many purchases I make, I find that what they say about vitamins and other dietary supplements is riddled with misinformation. Obviously, their expert sources are biased against the use of dietary supplements, which is why they do not report in a balanced, accurate manner. They consistently regurgitate negative press and the conclusions of poorly designed studies that cast a negative light on the progressive use of dietary supplements, especially higher, more optimal dosing of dietary supplements that can provide optimal effects in reducing the potential for many diseases.

Dr. Joseph Mercola
The most popular health site on the internet is the one owned by Dr. Joseph Mercola. I used to read his site regularly, but after having discourse with Dr. Mercola about whether HIV causes AIDS - he thinks it does not - and watching his site degenerate into a hype-ridden commercial enterprise, I almost never view it now. Dr. Mercola posted a detailed article by someone who was in the school of thought that HIV does not cause AIDS that to me could cause incredible harm to people with HIV who believe it and do not seek treatment. When I questioned the author and Dr. Mercola on this issue, the author dismissed most of my questions and told me that the article was "peer-reviewed" and that Dr. Mercola was one of the peer-reviewers.

I asked how many HIV patients Dr. Mercola, as a "peer-reviewer" had treated and received no reply. I wonder whether the answer is "none." Promoting the notion that HIV does not cause AIDS and not answering my question makes Dr. Mercola considerably less credible to me. I'm sure his intentions have been good, but they are biased. He continues to have insight into a few useful topics from time to time -- he promoted taking higher doses of vitamin D before it became popular and he promoted taking fish oil supplements. However, the majority of what he puts on his site the last few years is either useless to me or hype or in some cases it is inaccurate. Recently, it has degenerated to the point where some articles are just sales pitches for deceptively marketed products. Therefore, I can't rely on him to be a consistent source of accurate information, especially related to things he sells.

Our office bought twenty-four of the lights Dr. Mercola recommends as being the best full spectrum lights available. When two of the lights were installed the people that work with me complained that the lights were "cold, harsh and reminded us of the horrible lights we remember in grade school." We returned them. The good news is Mercola's company reversed the charges on my credit card immediately.

Prescription for Nutritional Healing by James F. Balch, MD, and Phyllis A. Balch, CNC.
Unfortunately, this is the number-one selling book in many natural foods stores. The first thing I note is that the notions presented in the book are not accompanied by references to peer-reviewed medical journal studies. In fact, when I went looking at studies that investigated some of the notions in the book, all too often I found that published studies did not support what the book says. Several times I found that quality published studies disagreed with what is contained in this book. In its favor, the bulk of information in this book are simple concepts telling what certain vitamins, minerals and natural products do. This is harmless enough. However, the book makes several recommendations about dosages and diseases that are based on notions and assumptions, not hard science. This book is an example of the "Trust me, I'm a doctor" school of authorship.

I have a saying, "In God I trust. All others must provide references." The contents in this book would change radically for the better if the authors took the time to do their homework and read the studies related to what information they provide. This would cause them to correct inaccuracies in the book, and then provide references that confirm their new-found conclusions.

Dr. Andrew Weil
Dr. Weil consistently demonstrates a lack of depth in his understanding of nutrient science and dietary supplements and makes mistakes in his recommendations to the public that can harm great numbers of people because of his international reputation as being an "expert." While he has done much good to increase the acceptance of natural medicine and healthy living for millions of people, he promotes some dogma that is based on his misunderstandings.

For instance, he recommends avoiding vitamin A and iron supplementation. He says, "They are toxic." Vitamin A and iron only create problems if you have too much OR too little of them. They are essential nutrients that are required for long-term health and for life itself. Unless you eat a very well-balanced diet it's more likely that you are getting too little of them than too much, according to the preponderance of scientific evidence. And it's hard to get too much of them with supplements you buy in health food stores.
Click here to read about vitamin A.
Click here to read about iron.
Click here to read about nutrient dosing and safety with a table showing US government conclusions about what doses are safe.

Consumer Labs
Read ConsumerLabs' Credibility Challenged.

Wikipedia
I thought that Wikipedia, the internet encylopedia, was a precise reference work. It is not always so. On inspecting the page on whole food supplements I found that anyone can create or edit pages there without any science to support what they say. All a person has to do to put text on Wikipedia pages is type it there. One can attach some kind of reference, even references that have little to do with the text. Pages that have many people working on them can be quite sophisticated with amazing detailing. However, on pages that are not popular or watched by many people with scientific accumen, no one checks the details to confirm that they are precisely supported by science. On pages that aren't watched and edited by many people, Wikipedia can be just a bunch of monkeys typing whatever they want.

With love and care and prudence,
Michael Mooney
www.michaelmooney.net
www.medibolics.com