The title says it all... the article is very well written.
The article does understand that we do need to *supplement*, but concludes that:
>>Due to common nutrient deficiencies as well as inaccessibility to fresh, nutrient dense food, we need to supplement our body with vitamins and other essential nutrients. However, what many of us have been failing to realize is that in order to thrive, our bodies require optimum levels of nutrients, as naturally occurring in food and not maximum levels of nutrients, as chemically isolated or synthetically produced by the industry. It may take another decade or perhaps another century for scientists to fully understand the magnitude of benefits we get from the multiple complexities of whole food's nutrients and accordingly establish undeniable principles upon which the human diet should be based. Until then, we need to rely on the logic behind our life. Biology means the "logic of life" and this logic clearly indicates that our health is programmed to thrive on food nutrients, not chemicals.<<
I suppose we have all heard the arguments one way or the other... but tell me, which one makes *common sense*?
Here is a bit from the article on vitamin C which also goes onto describe how antioxidants turn into pro-oxidants...
>>A recent article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Vol. 87, No. 1, 142-149, January 2008) reveals that supplementation with vitamin C ascorbate devastates the muscle, causing impairment in mitochondrial function, loss of endurance, and inhibition of the body's own antioxidant enzymes superoxide dimutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxide. Levels of SOD and glutathione enzyme are known markers of health and any substance that causes a substantial decrease in the levels of these essential antioxidant enzymes, disrupts the body's immune system, lowering the capacity to resist infection and disease. In this case, rather than being a beneficial antioxidant, vitamin C ascorbate has shown to work as an adverse pro-oxidant.<<