Annotated Bibliography
Hamilton, Jonathan. “A Scientist Debunks The ‘Magic’ Of Vitamins And Supplements.” NPR. 23 Jul. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Jonathan Hamilton’s use of Dr. Paul Offit as an authority figure greatly legitimizes his article. Hamilton discusses the issues with the non-regulation of vitamins and the outcome that has had on society. The general public may not be aware of the vitamin industry’s history with the FDA, so it is important to provide that sort of knowledge. In doing this, his audience gains a sense of trust with him as a journalist who is willing to provide his audience with the truth.
The main reason this article is great for this debate is for the language Hamilton uses in reference to Dr. Offit. He associates the blind faith of supplemental vitamins to that of the church and points out the contradiction of calling supplemental vitamins natural. The church analogy creates a connection in mind for the reader and sends a message that people should always question the intentions of certain institutions. The contradiction brought to light also has his audience thinking about what other acts they might commit that could possibly be contradictory as well.
Hyman, Mark. “Why You Should Not Stop Taking Your Vitamins.” Huffington Post. 20 Oct 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
Dr. Mark Hyman’s article offers several views to support the argument that is in favor of supplemental vitamins. He has split his article up into sections, making it easy for his audience to understand his sub-points. Dr. Hyman spends a lot of time discussing the flaws of scientific studies that claim supplemental vitamins are harmful so that he can devalue the opposing side. He uses pathos as a rhetorical tool also when he claims that vitamins can save money and lives – two things dear to people. He does a great job instilling fear in people that if they don’t take vitamins, they will become obese, as he has associated malnutrition to obesity.
This article is appropriate for the discussion surrounding the rhetorics of this debate as Dr. Hyman appeals to his audience in several ways. All his points sound logical which appeal to the audience’s rational state of mind but also evoke emotion at the same time. He is also an authority figure due to his career and education, M.D., which serves as a high ethos.
Miller, Anna. “Popular but Dangerous: 3 Vitamins That Can Hurt You.” US News. 24 Feb. 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Anna Miller’s article brings to light the possible harmful effects of the three most popular vitamins. She discusses in detail how Vitamin E, A, and C can hurt a person’s health when taken in excess amounts. Vitamin E can actually lose its benefits if a person is taking too much. Supplemental vitamin A can increase the risk of getting cancer whereas if received from a diet, it does the opposite. Vitamin C can cause side effects like stomach cramps and when taken in excess, can cause kidney stones in some people.
This article tests the American motto, “more is better”. This motto is said in reference to many things but points out that it is false in this case. Vitamins are good, Miller doesn’t deny that or even seems that she doesn’t believe that. She argues that too much vitamins, in the pill supplemental form, is bad. This tactic helps this side of the debate as people start to question what they believe and why.
Offit, Paul A. “Don’t Take Your Vitamins.” The New York Times. 8 Jun. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
There is a lot being discussed in Dr. Paul Offit’s article. He appeals to his audience first by being an authority figure. He is not only a doctor but also a researcher, which highly boosts his ethos. He also appeals to his audience by bringing to light many different studies that conclude harmful effects of supplemental vitamins.
Of the many trials Dr. Offit discusses, there is one that is most convincing that supplemental vitamins are harmful. A study was held involving 18,000 people who were already at risk of developing lung cancer. Some people in the study were given a supplemental vitamin and some were given a placebo but the study could not be finalized because it had to be stopped. Investigators had to actually stop the study when the risk of death for those taking the supplemental vitamin was 46% higher. There mere knowledge of knowing a study was too risky because of vitamins, something that is good for people, drastically communicates the message of the harm supplemental vitamins can bring.
Pray, Steven. “The FDA, Vitamins, and the Dietary Supplement Industry.” US Pharmacist (2008): n. pag. Web. 27 Oct 2013.
This type of source is of extreme importance when discussing a debate. The history of the Food & Drug Administration in terms of supplemental vitamins is a long one, and essential when discussing the rhetorics of it. Providing the background information needed to truly understand people’s views and arguments instills trust in the audience. Those reading feel that there is nothing that the author now needs to hide and will not hide as they are providing them with the whole view.
The industry has wanted the FDA to not have regulations concerning them, claiming that vitamins are natural and do not need regulation. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act barring the FDA from regulating the industry. Companies were not free to create whatever vitamin supplement they wanted to and include information that was beneficial to their profits on the labels. As there was no regulation, companies could advertise supplements as healthy without any scientific evidence supporting such claims.
Other Works Cited
Bird, Alexander, "Thomas Kuhn", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013), n. pag. Web. 28 Oct 2013.
Luong, Khanh Vinh Quoc, Lan Thi Hoang Nguyen. The Role of Vitamin D in Alzheimer’s Disease.” American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias 28.6 (2013): n. pag.. Sage. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
Hamilton, Jonathan. “A Scientist Debunks The ‘Magic’ Of Vitamins And Supplements.” NPR. 23 Jul. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Jonathan Hamilton’s use of Dr. Paul Offit as an authority figure greatly legitimizes his article. Hamilton discusses the issues with the non-regulation of vitamins and the outcome that has had on society. The general public may not be aware of the vitamin industry’s history with the FDA, so it is important to provide that sort of knowledge. In doing this, his audience gains a sense of trust with him as a journalist who is willing to provide his audience with the truth.
The main reason this article is great for this debate is for the language Hamilton uses in reference to Dr. Offit. He associates the blind faith of supplemental vitamins to that of the church and points out the contradiction of calling supplemental vitamins natural. The church analogy creates a connection in mind for the reader and sends a message that people should always question the intentions of certain institutions. The contradiction brought to light also has his audience thinking about what other acts they might commit that could possibly be contradictory as well.
Hyman, Mark. “Why You Should Not Stop Taking Your Vitamins.” Huffington Post. 20 Oct 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
Dr. Mark Hyman’s article offers several views to support the argument that is in favor of supplemental vitamins. He has split his article up into sections, making it easy for his audience to understand his sub-points. Dr. Hyman spends a lot of time discussing the flaws of scientific studies that claim supplemental vitamins are harmful so that he can devalue the opposing side. He uses pathos as a rhetorical tool also when he claims that vitamins can save money and lives – two things dear to people. He does a great job instilling fear in people that if they don’t take vitamins, they will become obese, as he has associated malnutrition to obesity.
This article is appropriate for the discussion surrounding the rhetorics of this debate as Dr. Hyman appeals to his audience in several ways. All his points sound logical which appeal to the audience’s rational state of mind but also evoke emotion at the same time. He is also an authority figure due to his career and education, M.D., which serves as a high ethos.
Miller, Anna. “Popular but Dangerous: 3 Vitamins That Can Hurt You.” US News. 24 Feb. 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Anna Miller’s article brings to light the possible harmful effects of the three most popular vitamins. She discusses in detail how Vitamin E, A, and C can hurt a person’s health when taken in excess amounts. Vitamin E can actually lose its benefits if a person is taking too much. Supplemental vitamin A can increase the risk of getting cancer whereas if received from a diet, it does the opposite. Vitamin C can cause side effects like stomach cramps and when taken in excess, can cause kidney stones in some people.
This article tests the American motto, “more is better”. This motto is said in reference to many things but points out that it is false in this case. Vitamins are good, Miller doesn’t deny that or even seems that she doesn’t believe that. She argues that too much vitamins, in the pill supplemental form, is bad. This tactic helps this side of the debate as people start to question what they believe and why.
Offit, Paul A. “Don’t Take Your Vitamins.” The New York Times. 8 Jun. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
There is a lot being discussed in Dr. Paul Offit’s article. He appeals to his audience first by being an authority figure. He is not only a doctor but also a researcher, which highly boosts his ethos. He also appeals to his audience by bringing to light many different studies that conclude harmful effects of supplemental vitamins.
Of the many trials Dr. Offit discusses, there is one that is most convincing that supplemental vitamins are harmful. A study was held involving 18,000 people who were already at risk of developing lung cancer. Some people in the study were given a supplemental vitamin and some were given a placebo but the study could not be finalized because it had to be stopped. Investigators had to actually stop the study when the risk of death for those taking the supplemental vitamin was 46% higher. There mere knowledge of knowing a study was too risky because of vitamins, something that is good for people, drastically communicates the message of the harm supplemental vitamins can bring.
Pray, Steven. “The FDA, Vitamins, and the Dietary Supplement Industry.” US Pharmacist (2008): n. pag. Web. 27 Oct 2013.
This type of source is of extreme importance when discussing a debate. The history of the Food & Drug Administration in terms of supplemental vitamins is a long one, and essential when discussing the rhetorics of it. Providing the background information needed to truly understand people’s views and arguments instills trust in the audience. Those reading feel that there is nothing that the author now needs to hide and will not hide as they are providing them with the whole view.
The industry has wanted the FDA to not have regulations concerning them, claiming that vitamins are natural and do not need regulation. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act barring the FDA from regulating the industry. Companies were not free to create whatever vitamin supplement they wanted to and include information that was beneficial to their profits on the labels. As there was no regulation, companies could advertise supplements as healthy without any scientific evidence supporting such claims.
Other Works Cited
Bird, Alexander, "Thomas Kuhn", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013), n. pag. Web. 28 Oct 2013.
Luong, Khanh Vinh Quoc, Lan Thi Hoang Nguyen. The Role of Vitamin D in Alzheimer’s Disease.” American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias 28.6 (2013): n. pag.. Sage. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.