Re: Good article

I had not read your article, till now.  I take a few exceptions with some of the things you write.

Biological effect, Therapeutic Effect, Pharmacological Effect, Toxic Effect.

These terms need to be kept in mind when discussing or studying dosing.  Scientists tend to be conservative when deciding on dosage and evidently it has led to this situation.  However, since mega dosing can also have toxic effects, finding the correct dosage is not as easy as one would imagine.  Trying to focus in on that sweet spot is not simple, and as I mentioned in my article about caffeine and exercise; more is not always better.  So, just upping the dosage does not guaranteed a more powerful effect, and it could even have toxic consequences as in the case with vitamin A.
(Yes repetitive, I know)

Eventually, like in this case with vitamin E, we start zoning in the correct dosage.  Or at least figure out that the dose of previous studies has been too low.

I find you argument that there is no money in non patented molecules to be simply wrong.  As you know the vitamin/supplement industry rakes in around 10 billion in profit, and pharmaceutical companies control almost all of it.  They don't have to spend money on getting them approved or doing trials to prove the safety - it's pure profit.  The biggest vitamin/supplements are pharmaceutical companies, so there is plenty of economic incentive to provide reason for their consumers to start buying their products.  All without the fear of an over zealous shyster attacking them with a class action suit.   Clearly funding these cheap (compared to the development and testing of 1 new drug) studies is in their interest and in fact they are the ones putting the money in many cases.   A study showing X is good for Y is quickly seized by their marketing dept. and promoted.  We have seen this with lycopene, flaxseed oil, omega 3-6, vitamins, and many others.  The sales that these studies generate is pure profit.   I also addressed this argument in a previous post :
Patently False
Tweet