The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will convene an “impartial, independent” panel to review the available science behind multivitamin/mineral (MVM) effectiveness and safety to help consumers make informed choices. Such a review would certainly be welcome if it is performed in depth and without bias from various vested interests and their regular political and bureaucratic stooges.
The NIH statement said: “As more and more Americans seek strategies for maintaining good health and preventing disease, and as the marketplace offers an increasing number of products to fill that desire, it is important that consumers have the best possible information to inform their choices.”
Multivitamin/mineral supplements are regularly taken by over one-third of American adults, equivalent to about 73m people, but, according to NIH, expert recommendations regarding supplement use differ greatly, as does the strength of the science behind the claims. A search of this site will show that I agree with this assessment by the NIH.
“In observational studies, MVM use has been associated with better health outcomes but there are few data available from randomized trials to provide more definitive evidence,” explained the NIH in a statement. "Toward that end, this conference is expected to delineate gaps in current knowledge and to provide guidance about how NIH can help to fill those gaps,” said the NIH.
One concern I have is that science has its limitations, including dangerous self-belief in its superiority, even when it makes errors, which is quite often. It is sometimes difficult for pure scientists (let's just accept for a moment that such persons exist) to recognize that science is unavoidably political and this opens up boundless opportunities for the introduction of error.
The types of studies will be important and I hope someone is able to remember what empirical medicine is before they draw conclusions. It is the reasoned use of observation and experience to inform knowledge and practice. So whatever some small, or even large, study may show, if it runs counter to the the daily experience of clinicians and countless ordinary people, it is the study that should first be doubted, not the abundance of observations and experiences.