I found this New York Times article on the hidden dangers of supplements to be a little unsettling. The piece focuses on some aryuvedic supplements and lead levels and pulls out to talk a little about the lack of testing on other types of supplements as well. (In other words, the writer isn't piling on aryuvedic practices or supplements.)Frankly, the fact that some supplements are untested (or not tested by independent labs) and potentially dangerous isn't news -- charlatanism, quackery, and snake oil are as old as mankind. But the kinds of questions I'd want to ask about complementary medicine include: Are there "alternative" medicines that DO undergo rigorous testing? Can we trust the results? Who's watching the watchers in the case of non-FDA-approved, alternative medicines? It's obvious that we can't trust sellers fully -- as the article states, over 20% of the 193 products bought online from American and Indian websites contained lead, mercury, or arsenic. (My skepticism is aimed at big pharma, too -- think of all the medicinal recalls you've read of recently.)
I also found it interesting that most of the people in the article utilizing the supplements were doing so for skin problems like cystic acne. It's a tough call -- would you rather have a potentially dangerous "natural" treatment for a serious skin condition, or take something like Accutane, where even a single dose can cause horrible birth defects if you get pregnant while taking it? The article's subject is important, but it's just describing the tip of the iceberg.
Posts
