Somehow supplements get put under a much more critical eye than FDA approved drugs, which is completely ludicrous.
No they do not.
Yes, they do, as this article and many others show so obviously. Somehow a rubber stamp by the FDA is enough to completely dispel any doubts in most people's minds about a drug. I guess we can play the no they don't yes they do game all day long so I will simply assume you have problems with reading comprehension and not argue this point any further. There's a huge volume of data on some supplements, and more so on vitamins, though of course some supplements have very little data as well.
There is a concept of a 'preponderance of evidence', and that (in different words) is the core basis of science.
Take it from a scientist - no, it is not. It takes only one counterexample to sink a theory.
If you were a scientist, you'd know there's a difference between proving and disproving something (if you don't, then you need to take more math). Everything in science is theory, though some parts are much less easily challenged than others. Even so, even basic scientific principals are constantly being shown to work slightly differently than was believed.
I have worked in bioinfometrics, and believe me I know all too well the intelligence and knowledge of the average 'scientist', and their understanding of the scientific method. A layman can pick up a 4th year biology or chemistry textbook and understand each word. Not so with subjects that truly require logic. All of science hinges on basic premises, and since the basic premises are not provable, nothing else is truly provable. If you don't know that, then you simply are not a scientist, no matter what your degree or place of employment. I'd say that maybe 10% of so called scientists seem to get this principle (even though it's at the core of all scientific research), so don't feel too bad.
There have been more studies performed on many supplements than on the vast majority of drugs approved by the FDA, and virtually every vitamin has had more research performed on it than any drug ever made.
Not true.
Are you trolling here? Do you honestly believe this? Some drugs have a lot of studies, but most have a relatively small number...founded by the company that made it, and often tampered with to varying degrees. There have been countless studies performed on every vitamin in existence. I'll grant that I don't have any easy way to count the studies but I'd have to say you are as full of it here as when claiming to be a scientist (and I stick by these words whatever your credentials). Certainly, at any rate there's enough studies out there to say that vitamins are necessary to life. As far as I know that is the definition of a vitamin.
Sure, there is good science and bad science, and unlike most people I don't think resveratrol has much going for it and I would be pretty cautious taking a ton of chelating agents or super high antioxident levels. However, anyone who swallows this crap 1) knows nothing of science 2) knows nothing of supplements and 3) knows nothing of drugs.
Make up your mind. First you say vitamins are fine because more research has been performed on them, and then you slam people for actually quoting some of that research. Can't have it both ways.
Sure I can.
The study linked proves nothing at all. Being deficient in one thing and then taking lots of another means that the stuff you did take is bad for you? Hopefuly I don't have to point out the basic logic flaw there.
More importantly, though, I do not break continuity with my own logic. As I said from the start, one piece of evidence means nothing. Otherwise, why have peer review at all?
Just because some jackass makes a claim doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. Even if the science behind it were good, which it's obviously not even to a third grader, that doesn't mean that they are not simply making it up or else performed their study incorrectly or intentionally cherry picked their data set because of some agenda - and when billions of dollars are at stake to drug companies it's easy to see why that could (and often does) happen.
