In conclusion, the premises upon which both the Dosers and Megadosers base their positions on the safety of dietary supplements are flawed. They rely on what amounts to the logical fallacy of the appeal to nature; that is, what is natural is inherently good and imbued with some guarantee of safety. Furthermore, a misunderstanding of what constitutes a “chemical” allows them to underestimate the potency and potential toxicity of compounds derived from natural sources. This fact alone undermines their entire position: that dietary supplementation should be unregulated.

Furthermore, there is a substantial body of evidence contraindicating the need for widespread dietary supplementation, regulated or otherwise. From the treatment and prevention of conditions said to be brought on by nutritional deficiencies, such as diverticulitis; to dietary supplements for the athlete, the range of applicability for supplements is growing ever smaller with each published study. Their claims to efficacy are largely clustered around areas lacking studies of quality or depth; their position has become something of a God of the gaps, a retreat to obscure corners of pseudoscience with anecdotal claims, as science closes in around them.