Question: What is the reason for bias against Vitamin C in Mainstream Medicine? Is it due to the fact or conflict of interests?
Answer from ChatGPT:
There is no bias against Vitamin C in mainstream medicine. In fact, Vitamin C is recognized as an essential nutrient by the medical community and is widely used to prevent and treat scurvy, a disease caused by Vitamin C deficiency.
There is some controversy surrounding the use of Vitamin C as a treatment for various health conditions, such as cancer and the common cold. While some studies have shown promising results, others have been inconclusive or have not shown a significant benefit.
It is important to note that mainstream medicine relies on evidence-based practice, meaning that treatments are recommended based on scientific evidence and rigorous testing. While some alternative therapies, including high-dose Vitamin C therapy, may show promise, they must go through the same rigorous testing and evaluation as mainstream treatments before they can be widely recommended by the medical community.
Therefore, any perceived bias against Vitamin C in mainstream medicine is not due to conflict of interest, but rather a result of the rigorous standards for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of treatments.
Evidence has shown unambiguously that, in certain contexts, vitamin C is effective against the common cold. However, in mainstream medicine, the views on vitamin C and infections have been determined by eminence-based medicine rather than evidence-based medicine. The rejection of the demonstrated benefits of vitamin C is largely explained by three papers published in 1975—two published in JAMA and one in the American Journal of Medicine—all of which have been standard citations in textbooks of medicine and nutrition and in nutritional recommendations. Two of the papers were authored by Thomas Chalmers, an influential expert in clinical trials, and the third was authored by Paul Meier, a famous medical statistician. In this paper, we summarize several flaws in the three papers. In addition, we describe problems with two recent randomized trial reports published in JAMA which were presented in a way that misled readers. We also discuss shortcomings in three recent JAMA editorials on vitamin C. While most of our examples are from JAMA, it is not the only journal with apparent bias against vitamin C, but it illustrates the general views in mainstream medicine. We also consider potential explanations for the widespread bias against vitamin C.
Conclusions
In this review, we have demonstrated significant bias in many influential papers on vitamin C. We have shown that many influential papers have been uncritically cited in textbooks and reviews, assuming that they are scientifically valid, when in fact many of them have serious flaws. Influential authors have referred to the papers without undertaking any critical appraisal themselves. We have proposed conceptual explanations for the long-lasting and deep bias against vitamin C. This bias is unfortunate because vitamin C is safe and inexpensive, and therefore even reasonably small treatment effects are well worth taking into consideration.
这是ChatGPT的回答:
主流医学界并不持保留意见，认为维生素C对免疫系统有一定的支持作用。事实上，维生素C是一种必需营养素，对人体的健康起着重要作用。
然而，尽管有些研究表明维生素C可以增强免疫系统的功能，但这些研究结果并不一致，也存在一些争议。目前，主流医学界认为维生素C可能有一定的支持作用，但并不是治疗各种疾病的万能药。
需要指出的是，主流医学界强调的是以证据为基础的医学实践，也就是治疗方法必须经过科学实验和严格的评估。虽然一些替代疗法，包括高剂量维生素C疗法，可能表现出良好的疗效，但在成为主流治疗方法之前，它们必须经过与其他治疗方法同样的严格测试和评估。
因此，主流医学界不持保留意见的观点，并不是因为利益冲突，而是因为需要依据严格的科学标准评估治疗方法的安全性和有效性。
这是Microsoft new Bing (with ChatGPT)的回答:
根据我找到的信息，主流医学界对维生素C对免疫系统有支持的观点多持保留意见的原因可能有以下几点：
- 维生素C的研究结果并不一致，有些研究显示维生素C可以增强免疫力，有些研究显示维生素C没有明显效果或者副作用。
- 维生素C是一种水溶性维生素，人体不能储存过量的维生素C，多余的部分会随尿液排出。因此，补充过量的维生素C可能是浪费或者有害的。
- 维生素C并不能直接杀死病毒或者治愈感染，它只能在一定程度上帮助免疫系统抵抗外来侵袭。因此，单纯依赖维生素C来预防或治疗感染是不科学的。
- 维生素C可能和一些药物发生相互作用，影响药物的效果或者引起不良反应。例如，维生素C可能降低抗凝血药物、降压药物、抗癌药物等的效果。
至于是否存在利益冲突，这个问题很难回答。一方面，可能有一些制药公司或者医疗机构不愿意看到廉价而普遍的维生素C影响他们的利润；另一方面，也可能有一些营养品公司或者健康网站为了推销自己的产品而夸大维生素C的功效。
总之，在使用任何营养补充品之前，请咨询您的医生，并按照建议用量服用。过量服用任何东西都可能带来风险。
Question: What is the reason for bias against Vitamin C in Mainstream Medicine? Is it due to the fact or conflict of interests?
Answer from ChatGPT:
There is no bias against Vitamin C in mainstream medicine. In fact, Vitamin C is recognized as an essential nutrient by the medical community and is widely used to prevent and treat scurvy, a disease caused by Vitamin C deficiency.
There is some controversy surrounding the use of Vitamin C as a treatment for various health conditions, such as cancer and the common cold. While some studies have shown promising results, others have been inconclusive or have not shown a significant benefit.
It is important to note that mainstream medicine relies on evidence-based practice, meaning that treatments are recommended based on scientific evidence and rigorous testing. While some alternative therapies, including high-dose Vitamin C therapy, may show promise, they must go through the same rigorous testing and evaluation as mainstream treatments before they can be widely recommended by the medical community.
Therefore, any perceived bias against Vitamin C in mainstream medicine is not due to conflict of interest, but rather a result of the rigorous standards for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of treatments.
Bias against Vitamin C in Mainstream Medicine: Examples from Trials of Vitamin C for Infections
Abstract
Evidence has shown unambiguously that, in certain contexts, vitamin C is effective against the common cold. However, in mainstream medicine, the views on vitamin C and infections have been determined by eminence-based medicine rather than evidence-based medicine. The rejection of the demonstrated benefits of vitamin C is largely explained by three papers published in 1975—two published in JAMA and one in the American Journal of Medicine—all of which have been standard citations in textbooks of medicine and nutrition and in nutritional recommendations. Two of the papers were authored by Thomas Chalmers, an influential expert in clinical trials, and the third was authored by Paul Meier, a famous medical statistician. In this paper, we summarize several flaws in the three papers. In addition, we describe problems with two recent randomized trial reports published in JAMA which were presented in a way that misled readers. We also discuss shortcomings in three recent JAMA editorials on vitamin C. While most of our examples are from JAMA, it is not the only journal with apparent bias against vitamin C, but it illustrates the general views in mainstream medicine. We also consider potential explanations for the widespread bias against vitamin C.
Conclusions
In this review, we have demonstrated significant bias in many influential papers on vitamin C. We have shown that many influential papers have been uncritically cited in textbooks and reviews, assuming that they are scientifically valid, when in fact many of them have serious flaws. Influential authors have referred to the papers without undertaking any critical appraisal themselves. We have proposed conceptual explanations for the long-lasting and deep bias against vitamin C. This bias is unfortunate because vitamin C is safe and inexpensive, and therefore even reasonably small treatment effects are well worth taking into consideration.
单靠食物摄取是达不到的。比如5克以上的VC，靠食物天然VC是根本做不到的。