ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Bias against Vitamin C in Mainstream Medicine: Examples from Trials of Vitamin C for Infections.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin C reduces the severity of common colds: a meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- Vitamin C May Improve Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Are the UK's vitamin C recommendations evidence-based? A critical comment.The British journal of nutrition · 2026Review
- The Involvement of Ascorbic Acid in Cancer Treatment.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Rebound effect explains the divergence in survival after 5 days in a controlled trial on vitamin C for COVID-19 patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Vitamin C: From nutrition to oxygen sensing and epigenetics.Redox biology · 2023Article
- Pleiotropic Functions of Nitric Oxide Produced by Ascorbate for the Prevention and Mitigation of COVID-19: A Revaluation of Pauling's Vitamin C Therapy.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Epigenetic Targets and Pathways Linked to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Pathology.Microorganisms · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.