However, numerous statements and conclusions throughout the article suggest the Archives authors are deficient in their understanding of supplement regulatory statutes. Thus, we propose the article should not be relied upon for accurate reporting. Our analysis points out the nature of the bias underlying the Archives article, and suggests ways that future surveys could be improved. The story relies on an unpublished report, and quotes anonymous experts and anonymous critics.
Sources are primarily people who view supplements as dangerous.
With only scanty information from other points of view, this news story is misleading and unbalanced. Our commentary clarifies the facts and provides another perspective. The Dietary Supplement shines a clear, impartial light on the subject, with intelligently written, science-based features and useful current news. Published quarterly, this 16-page newsletter is the best we've seen to date. Two studies of Chinese herbs, one in Belgium, the other in the US, bring the question of supplement regulation to the foreground once again.