There is no polite way to put it, but we will start with pure unadulterated BS as the most succinct analysis.
All the criticisms of meta-analysis apply to studies like these. They are so unbelievably imprecise. Also, There are not just 67 studies of vitamin usage, there are THOUSANDS, if not tens of thousands over the 50-60 years. 67 sounds pretty selective to me.
Moreover, there is no effort to identify those who are in poor health from those who are not.
Plus, next to nothing is known about what constitutes an effective dosage for a lot of vitamins and supplements.
So many negative studies are simply because they either gave too little or for too short a period of time.
Plus, the article leaves you with the impression that vitamins are unhealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth...read the GD literature for craps sake.
Many of these studies rely on self-reporting by subjects, quite possibly leading to inaccuracies in supplement identification and dose.
Nice rant!
I think it could have something to do with their government wanting to regulate supplements, too.
From what I’ve heard of this one, they excluded all studies in which there were no deaths reported. Sounds like a biased collection of studies to me, but then, I’m not a scientist.