> I honestly doubt that you are getting much
> real benefit from them either (unless you have
> a real, medical deficiency)
For stuff like Vitamin D, it depends on where you live. For example, in Portland, OR[1], it's very sunny during the summer months, but there is very little sun during the fall, winter and spring. I remember reading that even if you spent all day out in the sun during the summer months, it would be impossible to store up enough Vitamin D to last the rest of the year.
And on the 'real, medical deficiency' front, there are many debates as to what optimum levels are for some vitamins and minerals. Nutrition is the one area where some things seem very unsettled (e.g. All fat is bad! No wait only some fat is bad! No wait eating fat doesn't necessarily make you fat! etc). [ And even then a real, medical deficiency may just mean that your body is degrading vs. operating efficiently. E.g. maybe taking Vitamin X will help your body digest and absorb food better, but you don't need it to keep living so there is no real, medical deficiency. ]
[1] Used Portland as an example, because I remember reading about this.
That's why milk companies in Sweden (total fucking darkness for 6 months every year) have to enrich milk with less than 1,5% fat with Vitamin D. It's actually a requirement by law.
Note: Sweden does not have total darkness for half of the year. Firstly, 85% of Sweden is below the arctic circle, and does get daylight every day. Secondly, the 15% that is above the arctic circle is the most remote and least populated part of Sweden. Thirdly, even above the arctic circle in wintertime, it seldom actually gets dark as you might imagine; the sun is just below the horizon much of the time, and you merely get a sort of twilight/early morning light.
Portlander here, my doctor recommends that all of his patients take a low-dose vitamin D supplement because a large percentage of them would show subclinical deficiency on blood work if tested, somewhere over 40 percent, with the rate increasing the darker your skin is.
That GP should be reported. They're not following NICE guidelines for CFS, and they are failing their patients. It's easy to mock people with chronic fatigue and laugh about sending them away with a placebo, but that's abuse and should be stopped. That GP clearly doesn't want to treat them, which isn't fine but understandable. But that's why we now have primary mental health teams to refer people onto.
Fatigue is a non-specific symptom and is not necessarily chronic (fatigue is only classed as chronic after 4 months -- according to the article you linked).
Nobody was laughing about it or mocking: we were discussing medical ethics quite seriously, and the medical value of placebo.
As I understood, the GP only applied this to situations where by-the-book they would have to send people away unmedicated and dissatisfied.
Although you might reasonably disagree with their methods, the GP felt quite strongly about it: believing that showing care in such a simple, non-harmful way early led to fewer chronic cases.
And on the 'real, medical deficiency' front, there are many debates as to what optimum levels are for some vitamins and minerals. Nutrition is the one area where some things seem very unsettled (e.g. All fat is bad! No wait only some fat is bad! No wait eating fat doesn't necessarily make you fat! etc). [ And even then a real, medical deficiency may just mean that your body is degrading vs. operating efficiently. E.g. maybe taking Vitamin X will help your body digest and absorb food better, but you don't need it to keep living so there is no real, medical deficiency. ]
[1] Used Portland as an example, because I remember reading about this.