I bought the magazine and read the article the other day. I agree with Mrs. D., I think it just generally addresses a healthy person. I know there are people that are deficient in certain Vitamins and of course they would have to write a book to go into all of that. Anyway, I do agree with some of it while at the same time taking it with a grain of salt too.

These days, with the internet so handy, anyone..... can publish.... anything.
99.9% of the time it is just plain WRONG !
I don't know where these people get their info,
but today's journalism just doesn't get the facts straight, or bother to research deeply enough to inform correctly.
I studied Broadcasting in college, and am old enough to remember Walter Cronkite & Edward R. Murrow- and the ethic used to correctly inform the public.
Ahhh....the good ole days!!

I singled out the zinc information to show...
 

that these general articles cannot provide really useful, accurate data.

There are space constraints in publications. And you are at the mercy of the writer who may be not so great. I don't consider myself a good writer, but I do get the FACTS straight, while my grammar is sometimes lacking.:o My son is always after me for my punctuation, for example. :thud:

We are so overwhelmed with commercials today for vitamins and it is hard
to know what to choose/select. Look at the new Centrum, with the guys jumping out of a PLANE to get your attention.:rolleyes:

I have been to professional seminars in the past and PROFESSORS have told us in the audience (we who paid good money for the subject!) to just tell people to get Centrum! End of point! :rolleyes:

Today things are a little better...with good companies like NatureMade now promoting RxEssentials. That commercial is very good IMO to turning things around from the one vitamin mix fits all people, to illustrating that individuals have certain needs that differ from others.

If I see another reference to that disgusting misleading Vit E meta-analysis paper, I will scream! The rumor has it that this paper was paid for by drug companies. An explanation as to why it was useless can be found at
Linus Pauling Institute, BTW. But the general media continues to quote that dastardly paper...ad nauseaum.

Another example I am reminded of.... Robitussin and other cough preps were forced out of their grandfathered FDA approval to get studies behind them for safety and efficacy. This is happening across the board for RX items too (hence quinine is now gone). But Robitussin (guaifenesin) is not harmful. And passed easily with an outlay of big bucks. But our local ABC affiliate reported one night ---Dangerous cough medications recalled by FDA--- and this was inflammatory and not accurate at all. Media coverage of medical things is very poor, and spotty, and should be read carefully! VERY !!

So frustrating.

And add to that that you can find MDs publishing such blatantly bad information in print as well as on the Internet: bananas, potatoes and beans as great sources of B12. Ack!!!! :eek:

I once read an article in the New York Times that shocked me, it was so riddled with errors. I thought, "How could they have hired such a person." But on looking into it, I found that it was written by their medical reporter who had been working for them for many years. Sooooo disappointing.

Between "studies" skewed by funding, reporters who get even simple things wrong, it is like a dangerous form of the old telephone game.

rose