Hacker News Reader

Comment by petra | Hacker News Reader

Even if there's not enough data, the risk of supplements is very low , especially compared to the risk of pharmaceuticals.So why not try ?

And the reason they don't have as much high-quality proof as pharmaceutical(clinical trials), is just because of monetary incentives, nothing more.

View on HN

When we talk about pharmaceuticals, we talk about financial toxicity. Americans spend over $10 billion on nutritional supplements annually [1], most of which have very poor supporting evidence. Should people be able to spend their money how they see fit? Sure. Are they getting utility from it? Not the utility they're hoping for.

1 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/04/ameri...

I'm not denying there's a lot of unsubstantiated or over-inflated advertising within the supplement market, not at all. It takes hours and lots of digging into personal reviews and other sources to begin to find things that are both 1) effective and 2) legal. It's not a quick fix, which is what most advertising claims to provide.

If we're talking about wasting money and health though, then I think it's equally important to point out that homeopathy is apparently a multi-billion dollar industry as well in the US ($6B in 2012 [1]) and if we're going to rank things on effectiveness, I'm pretty sure homeopathy is just about on par with drinking water from a clean toilet.

[1] http://www.nutraceuticalsworld.com/issues/2013-07/view_indus...

When we talk about healthcare, we talk about financial toxicity. Americans spent $3 trillion on healthcare in 2014 [1], much of which had very poor outcomes. Should the healthcare system get a defacto blank check to charge insurance companies as much as they want? Sure. Are the patients getting utility from it? Not the utility they're hoping for.

1 = https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta...

(lol, sorry. $10 billion on supplements is a drop in the bucket.)

I don't think the risk is as low as you think.

Easy example: St. John's Wort

It's a proven effective anti depressive. It also reacts badly with just about every medication on the market.

Without more studies you can't make the types of statements you just made.

In addition, there is some strong evidence linking medium-term St. John's Wort use with cataracts due to photosensitivity. This makes it risky to combine with light therapy, which of course a lot of people do anyway.

Part of me agrees with the monetary aspect, but history and current events have shown that the medical community still doesn't even have solid footing for a lot of 'simple' type issues. Nutrition seems to be a relatively new area of study, as evidenced by the seemingly routine changes in 'official' dietary recommendations. I do think the medical profession is working to incorporate nutrition into their concepts of treatment, but it's going to take a lot of time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com