Talk:Vitamin C and the common cold

27 Oct 2013: Rewriting of the vitamin C and common cold article: reasons for the rewriting
The wikipedia article on vitamin C and the common cold was of such a poor quality that I deleted all the old text and replaced it with a new text on 27 October 2013. Here I describe the problems of the old version. The old version can be found through this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitamin_C_and_the_common_cold&oldid=578129214

The first sentence of the lead of the old version implied that the common cold is a virological definition, which is not correct. The common cold is a clinical concept. This is not a big issue in the context, but the clinical entity of “the common cold” is caused also by some bacteria such as mycoplasma.

The lead also stated “human and animal studies have shown that vitamin C does significantly improve immune function”. This statement did not have any sources and in addition it is incorrect. The lead also wrote “vitamin C does not prevent the common cold or decrease the severity of symptoms in non-athletic people.” This is also incorrect, since according to our Cochrane review, vitamin C does decrease the severity of colds.

Previous “Origin” section implied that Linus Pauling initiated the idea that vitamin C might influence the common cold. That is misleading. The history of the topic goes to the 1930s and 1940s and the first controlled trials on vitamin C and the common cold were published already in 1942. Pauling did make the topic popular in the 1970s, but the topic was not his invention.

“Origin” section further claimed that “Spurred by Pauling's claims, NIH conducted one of the first double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of vitamin C." That is incorrect. There were over a dozen controlled trials before the NIH trial in 1975 (which was by Karlowski et al.) so it was not one of the first.

Thereafter the “Origin” claimed that “The results showed a moderate decrease in duration and severity of colds, however, a post-trial analysis by the authors suggested to them that the results may have been attributable to a failure of the double-blind protocol.” The NIH study was carried out by Karlowski et al. (1975): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/163386 However, the “post-trial analysis” was shown to be erroneous 2 decades ago, in 1996: http://hdl.handle.net/10250/8082 See also a section of my thesis (2006) as a html version, which also gives a link to the thesis as the pdf version and the corresponding pages: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/hemila/karlowski

“Origin” further stated: “A subsequent meta-analysis found only very minor reduction in duration, and the authors concluded that vitamin C had no value in treating the common cold." This sentence refers to Chalmers review (1975): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1092164 However, the Chalmers review was shown to be erroneous 2 decades ago, in 1995: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/hemila/H/HH_1995.pdf See also a section of my thesis as a html version: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/hemila/reviews/chalmers

Thus, there were no valid statements in the “Origin”.

“Research” section wrote: “Claims of vitamin C's efficacy in treating the common cold have been criticized by many researchers. The most-cited reviews of the subject have concluded that there are no beneficial effects beyond a placebo.[3 refs]” One of the 3 refs for the sentence above was the Chalmers (1975) review, which was shown to be erroneous in 1995 as described above. The second reference for the sentence was Dykes and Meier (1975) review in JAMA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1089817 That review was shown to be erroneous in 1996: http://hdl.handle.net/10250/7979 See also a section of my thesis as a html version: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/hemila/reviews/dykes The third reference for the sentence was Truswell's (1986) minireview in NEJM: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3748077 That review was shown to be erroneous in 1996: http://hdl.handle.net/10250/7979 See also a section of my thesis as a html version: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/hemila/reviews/truswell

“Research” section also claimed that “A review of 72 studies, published in January 2013, found no significant effect of consuming vitamin C supplementation on the incidence of colds.” That is false. Our Cochrane review found that vitamin C did not influence cold incidence in the ordinary people, however that is not the whole story: vitamin C decreased the incidence of colds by half in people who were under short-term physical stress during the study. Halving the number of colds is not a negligible effect, although it must be emphasized that the conditions in those studies were special.

“Sources of vitamin C” section is relevant in a general vitamin C article but it is irrelevant in a “vitamin C and the common cold” article. If vitamin C is used for treating the common dold, the relevant doses are, for example, 6 g/day as in the Karlowski (1975) study. Such doses are not obtained from diet. Section deleted therefore.

Among three core principles, Wikipedia has the following two:

1) The references must be reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS

2) There should be neutral presentation of the topics: “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing … all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic... NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The old version was inconsistent with both of these principles. There were sources that were shown to be unreliable already 2 decades ago, in 1995 and 1996. The presentation of topic was not neutral as the negative refuted reviews were given much weight.

In the old version, 3 references were from 1975 and 1 from 1986 which is inconsistent with the guidelines that Wikipedia references should be recent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDDATE#Use_up-to-date_evidence

Hhemila (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You raise a number of good points, and more broadly I think expert participation by people like yourself will be an excellent stimulus to improve this article. As you note, there are a number of problems. That said, I don't think that a wholesale replacement of the old article with material sourced solely to your own work is the best way forward. Given the amount of published work on vitamin C and the common cold, I think we can agree that we need to cite more than just your personal work to produce a comprehensive encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Of the issues you raise above, is there one area you think is most important where you'd like to start? It's probably best to work piecemeal since there is material in the "old" article worth saving or incorporating, even as we revise it substantially. MastCell Talk 23:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Study
[JG's personal WP:OR on Cathcart protocol]...In 1984, when Dr Barry Marshall drank a culture of bacteria to prove to his colleagues that it was bacteria and not stress that was the main cause of stomach ulcers, little did he know that his conviction would win him a Nobel Prize for medicine 20 years later. ... John Gilbert


 * Wikipedia isn't the place to ask people to do a study, or to report on your personal experiences with purported cures. Please respect the Talk Page Guidelines.—greenrd (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations
This article appears to be copied and pasted together from various other web pages:



article deficiencies - Technical, updated 2015.02
This article through 10/24/08 falls into commonplace biases that completely fail to distinguish multiple orders of magnitude differences in various tested, observed and/or proposed prevention and therapeutic treatment regimes. I am going to suggest identifying 40-200mg/day data/papers/discussions as previous and proposed "mainstream" RDA for one prevention regime; 200 - 2000 mg/day for mainstream recognized subpopulations and mainstream medicine's experimental failures in the general population; and 2,000-20,000 mg per day in divided doses for continuous elevation of blood levels (i.e. at least 5 doses/day of crystalline, ~3 doses/day for time release) for the "advocates". Likewise "megadose" treatment regimes are roughly 1-4 grams/day (mainstream testing), Pauling's 1-2 grams per hour *immediate* "first aid" for 1st sniffle or tickle; and "Modern megavitamin" & "bowel tolerance" designs (eg. ca 5 - 25 grams first hour divided into 2-20 minute interval doses, with decreasing (0.4-3) hourly administration levels between symptom supression and "bowel tolerance" during respiratory ills in the 40g - 200 g/day range.  Hemila's 2nd PhD thesis (published 2006) is the mainstream's high water mark on dosage at ca 4 grams per day and subpopulations that *are* recognized to benefit in prevention by the 1g - 4 grams per day range.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting information. What is the current 2015 situation in research for shortening common cold? 2-20 minute interval doses still? Continue for 3 days or how long? Or are the Zinc Acetate Lozenges enough? Difficult to find accurate tips! You can also contribute here: http://examine.com/supplements/Vitamin+C/#howtotake http://examine.com/discussion/Vitamin+C/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_acetate ee1518 (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No other source for dosage?
The Linus connection in the dosage section concerns me. Do we not have another recommendation, say from the FDA? Imagine Reason (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead
The lead in this article leaves a lot to be desired. For example, the third sentence is both non-encyclopedic and grammatically incorrect. Overall, the three sentences provide a very poor summary of the article's content and fall way short of the guidelines at WP:LEAD.Vitaminman (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

falsehoods in vitamin C article
This will have some similarity in content to the megavitamin therapy article.

The idea that vitamin C has neglible effect on the common cold has been disproven consistently and reliably. Examples appear in the authoritative sources I have cited.

"Quackwatch" is not reliable: http://longevitylibrary.com/article/243.pdf

Of course people have not viewed that article. What it shows is that Barett frequently engages in character assasinations, does not have an authoritative background (he was a bit of a failure until he got into his recent bit of hucksterism), that there are a plethora of peer reviewed studies on Pubmed supporting CAM, that there are authoritative sources completely refuting Barett on many of his major points, and that he has shamelessly libeled his opponents, as exposed in court cases. It uses facsimilies of primary documents from a recent court case to prove it's point.

For some reason, the "doctor yourself" website has been deemed "unreliable". Hoaxers like Stephen Barett are given ample space. Nevertheless, the doctor yourself website has an excellent overview of this insanity. I will post just the beginning of the article: http://www.doctoryourself.com/safety.html

By golly, Lincoln was right. You really can fool some of the people all of the time. When the topic is vitamins, some of the most easily fooled are news broadcasters and newspaper reporters. IF YOU HAVE RECENTLY HEARD THAT VITAMINS ARE HARMFUL, you may want to read this page, or at least as much of it as you need to get your perspective back. [Are you looking for information on a particular vitamin? Please scroll down the page.] How to Make People Believe Any Anti-Vitamin Scare It Just Takes Lots of Pharmaceutical Industry Cash by Andrew W. Saul, Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, October 20, 2011 Recent much trumpeted anti-vitamin news is the product of pharmaceutical company payouts. No, this is not one of "those" conspiracy theories. Here's how it's done:

1) Cash to study authors. Many of the authors of a recent negative vitamin E paper (1) have received substantial income from the pharmaceutical industry. The names are available in the last page of the paper (1556) in the "Conflict of Interest" section. You will not see them in the brief summary at the JAMA website. A number of the study authors have received money from pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Amgen, Firmagon, and Novartis.

2) Advertising revenue. Many popular magazines and almost all major medical journals receive income from the pharmaceutical industry. The only question is, how much? Pick up a copy of the publication and count the pharmaceutical ads. The more space sold, the more revenue for the publication. If you try to find their advertisement revenue, you'll see that they don't disclose it. So, just count the Pharma ads. Look in them all: Readers Digest http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n11.shtml, JAMA, Newsweek, Time, AARP Today, NEJM, Archives of Pediatrics. Even Prevention magazine. Practically any major periodical.

3) Rigged trials. Yes, it is true and yes it is provable. In a recent editorial, we explained how trials of new drugs are often rigged at http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n20.shtml . Studies of the health benefits of vitamins and essential nutrients also appear to be rigged. This can be easily done by using low doses to guarantee a negative result, and by biasing the interpretation to show a statistical increase in risk. 4) Bias in what is published, or rejected for publication. The largest and most popular medical journals receive very large income from pharmaceutical advertising. Peer-reviewed research indicates that this influences what they print, and even what study authors conclude from their data. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n02.shtml. 5) Censorship of what is indexed and available to doctors and the public. Public tax money pays for censorship in the largest public medical library on the planet: the US National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed). http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n03.shtml. See also: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n05.shtml.

Don't Believe It? How well were these pro-vitamin, anti-drug studies covered in the mass media? •A Harvard study showed a 27% reduction in AIDS deaths among patients given vitamin supplements. (2) •There have been no deaths from vitamins in 27 years. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v07n05.shtml •Antibiotics cause 700,000 emergency room visits per year, just in the US. (3) •Modern drug-and-cut medicine is at least the third leading cause of death in the USA. Some estimates place medicine as the number one cause of death. (4) •Over 1.5 million Americans are injured every year by drug errors in hospitals, doctors' offices, and nursing homes. If in a hospital, a patient can expect at least one medication error every single day. (5) •More than 100,000 patients die every year, just in the US, from drugs properly prescribed and taken as directed. (6)

Double Standard

Countless comedians have made fun of the incompetent physician who, when called late at night during a life- threatening disease crisis, says, "take two aspirin and call me in the morning." It's no longer funny. One of the largest pharmaceutical conglomerates in the world ran prime- time national television commercials that declared: "Bayer aspirin may actually help stop you from dying if you take it during a heart attack." The company also promotes such use of its product on the Internet. http://www.wonderdrug.com/, formerly http://www.bayeraspirin.com/news/heart_attack.htm Daily Aspirin Use Linked With Pancreatic Cancer Here's something you may have not seen. Research has shown that women who take just one aspirin a day, "which millions do to prevent heart attack and stroke as well as to treat headaches - may raise their risk of getting deadly pancreatic cancer. . . . Pancreatic cancer affects only 31,000 Americans a year, but it kills virtually all its victims within three years. The study of 88,000 nurses found that those who took two or more aspirins a week for 20 years or more had a 58 percent higher risk of pancreatic cancer." (7) Women who took two or more aspirin tablets per day had an alarming 86 percent greater risk of pancreatic cancer.

Study author Dr. Eva Schernhammer of Harvard Medical School was quoted as saying: "Apart from smoking, this is one of the few risk factors that have been identified for pancreatic cancer. Initially we expected that aspirin would protect against pancreatic cancer."

How about that.

Say: What if there was one, just one case of pancreatic cancer caused by a vitamin? What do you think the press would have said about that?

The fact is, vitamins are known to be effective and safe. They are essential nutrients, and when taken at the proper doses over a lifetime, are capable of preventing a wide variety of diseases. Because drug companies can't make big profits developing essential nutrients, they have a vested interest in agitating for the use of drugs and disparaging the use of nutritional supplements.

(Orthomolecular Medicine News Service editor Andrew W. Saul taught nutrition, health science and cell biology at the college level, and has published over 100 reviews and editorials in peer-reviewed publications. He is author or coauthor of ten books and is featured in the documentary film Food Matters. His website is http://www.doctoryourself.com .)

References: 1. Klein EA, Thompson Jr, IM, Tangen CM et al. JAMA. 2011;306(14):1549-1556. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/14/1549

2. Fawzi WW, Msamanga GI, Spiegelman D, Wei R, Kapiga S, Villamor E, Mwakagile D, Mugusi F, Hertzmark E, Essex M, Hunter DJ. A randomized trial of multivitamin supplements and HIV disease progression and mortality. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 1;351(1):23-32.

3. Associated Press, Oct 17, 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15305033/ 4. Null G, Dean C, Feldman M, Rasio D. Death by medicine. J Orthomolecular Med, 2005. 20: 1, 21-34. http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2005/pdf/2005-v20n01-p021.pdf

5. The Associated Press. Drug errors injure more than 1.5 million a year. July 20, 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13954142 6. Leape LL. Institute of Medicine medical error figures are not exaggerated. JAMA, 2000. Jul 5;284(1):95-7; Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA, 1994. Dec 21;272(23):1851-7; Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA, 1998. Apr 15;279(15):1200-5. 7. Fox M. Daily aspirin use linked with pancreatic cancer. Reuters, Oct 27, 2003. http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/10/27/cancer.aspirin.reut/index.html

DEATHS FROM VITAMINS?

The American Association of Poison Control Centers, which maintains the USA’s national database from 61 poison control centers, indicates that even including intentional and accidental misuse, the number of vitamin fatalities is less than one death per year. http://www.doctoryourself.com/vitsafety.html And, it turns out, that there is NO documented evidence that any one of those alleged "deaths" was due to a vitamin. No evidence whatsoever. http://www.doctoryourself.com/vitsafety.html Drugs, however, are an entirely different matter:

“Harmful reactions to some of the most widely used medicines — from insulin to a common antibiotic — sent more than 700,000 Americans to emergency rooms each year, landmark government research shows.” (Associated Press, Oct 17, 2006) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15305033/

VITAMIN BASHING IS NONSENSE The news media can be absolutely relied on to trumpet any allegation that vitamins are harmful. Vitamin E has been accused of actually causing deaths. Even multivitamins have been accused of causing deaths.

Baloney. What Kind of Medical Study Would Have Grandma Believe that Her Daily Multivitamin is Dangerous?

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, October 12, 2011 by Robert G. Smith, PhD (OMNS, Oct 12, 2011) A newly released study suggests that multivitamin and nutrient supplements can increase the mortality rate in older women [1]. However, there are several concerns about the study's methods and significance. • The study was observational, in which participants filled out a survey about their eating habits and their use of supplements. It reports only a small increase in overall mortality (1%) from those taking multivitamins. This is a small effect, not much larger than would be expected by chance. Generalizing from such a small effect is not scientific. •The study actually reported that taking supplements of B-complex, vitamins C, D, E, and calcium and magnesium were associated with a lower risk of mortality. But this was not emphasized in the abstract, leading the non-specialist to think that all supplements were associated with mortality. The report did not determine the amounts of vitamin and nutrient supplements taken, nor whether they were artificial or natural. Further, most of the association with mortality came from the use of iron and copper supplements, which are known to be potentially inflammatory and toxic when taken by older people, because they tend to accumulate in the body [2,3,4]. The risk from taking iron supplements should not be generalized to imply that all vitamin and nutrient supplements are harmful. •The study lacks scientific plausibility for several reasons. It tabulated results from surveys of 38,000 older women, based on their recall of what they ate over an 18-year period. But they were only surveyed 3 times during that period, relying only on their memory of what foods and supplements they took. This factor alone causes the study to be unreliable.

• Some of these women smoked (~15%) or had previously (~35%), some drank alcohol (~45%), some had high blood pressure (~40%), and many of them developed heart disease and/or cancer. Some preexisting medical conditions were taken into account by adjusting the risk factors, but this caused the study to contradict what we already know about efficacy of supplements. For example, the study reports an increase in mortality from taking vitamin D, when adjusted for several health-relevant factors. However, vitamin D has recently been clearly shown to be helpful in preventing heart disease [5] and many types of cancer [6], which are major causes of death. Furthermore, supplement users were twice as likely to be on hormone replacement therapy, which is a more plausible explanation for increased mortality than taking supplements. •The effect of doctor recommendations was not taken into account. By their own repeated admissions, medical doctors and hospital nutritionists are more likely to recommend a daily multivitamin, and only a multivitamin, for their sicker patients. The study did not take this into account. All it did was tabulate deaths and attempt to correct the numbers for some prior health conditions. The numbers reported do not reflect other factors such as developing disease, side effects of pharmaceutical prescriptions, or other possible causes for the mortality. The study only reports statistical correlations, and gives no plausible cause for a claimed increase in mortality from multivitamin supplements. •The effect of education was not taken into account. When a doctor gives advice about illnesses, well-educated people will often respond by trying to be proactive. Some will take drugs prescribed by the doctor, and some will try to eat a better diet, including supplements of vitamins and nutrients. This is suggested by the study itself: the supplement users in the survey had more education than those who did not take supplements. It seems likely, therefore, the participants who got sick were more likely to have taken supplements. Because those who got sick are also more likely to die, it stands to reason that they would also be more likely to have taken supplements. This effect is purely statistical; it does not represent an increase in risk that taking supplements of vitamins and essential nutrients will cause disease or death. This type of statistical correlation is very common in observational health studies and those who are health-conscious should not be confounded by it. •The known safety of vitamin and nutrient supplements when taken at appropriate doses was not taken into account. The participants most likely took a simple multivitamin tablet, which contains low doses. Much higher doses are also safe [4,7], implying that the low doses in common multivitamin tablets are very safe. Further, because each individual requires different amounts of vitamins and nutrients, some people must take much higher doses for best health [8]. Summary: In an observational study of older women in good health, it was said that those who died were more likely to have taken multivitamin and nutrient supplements than those who did not. The effect was small, and does not indicate any reason for disease or death. Instead, the study's methods suggest that people who have serious health conditions take vitamin and mineral supplements because they know that supplements can help. Indeed, the study showed a benefit from taking B-complex, C, D, and E vitamins, and calcium and magnesium. Therefore, if those wanting better health would take appropriate doses of supplements regularly, they would likely continue to achieve better health and longer life.

(Robert G. Smith is Research Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania Department of Neuroscience. He is a member of the Institute for Neurological Sciences and the author of several dozen scientific papers and reviews.)

References: [1] Mursu J, Robien K, Harnack LJ, Park K, Jacobs DR Jr (2011) Dietary supplements and mortality rate in older women. The Iowa Women's Health Study. Arch Intern Med. 171(18):1625-1633. [2] Emery, T. F. Iron and your Health: Facts and Fallacies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991. [3] Fairbanks, V. F. "Iron in Medicine and Nutrition." Chapter 10 in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, editors M. E. Shils, J. A. Olson, M. Shike, et al., 9th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1999. [4] Hoffer, A., A. W. Saul. Orthomolecular Medicine for Everyone: Megavitamin Therapeutics for Families and Physicians. Laguna Beach, CA: Basic Health Publications, 2008.

[5] Parker J, Hashmi O, Dutton D, Mavrodaris A, Stranges S, Kandala NB, Clarke A, Franco OH. Levels of vitamin D and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2010 Mar;65(3):225-36. [6] Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91. [7] Padayatty SJ, Sun AY, Chen Q, Espey MG, Drisko J, Levine M. Vitamin C: intravenous use by complementary and alternative medicine practitioners and adverse effects. PLoS One. 2010 Jul 7;5(7):e11414. [8] Williams RJ, Deason G. (1967) Individuality in vitamin C needs. Proc Natl Acad SciUSA.57:16381641. Also of Interest: Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, April 29, 2010. Multivitamins Dangerous? Latest News from the World Headquarters Of Pharmaceutical Politicians, Educators and Reporters. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n15.shtml

HERE IS A SOURCE for reliable information from a publication that is peer-reviewed by a panel of 20 nutritionally-minded researchers and doctors who are in favor of vitamin supplementation: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats (talk • contribs) 09:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said on the megavitamin therapy article (and alt med), you really need to stop creating these huge walls of text. I won't tell you again because after three times I'm assuming that you're ignoring me rather than missing it.  Secondly, quackwatch (as I also said before) is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia by a long standing consensus that has a negligible probability of being changed.  I'll add this time that listing a bunch of primary studies is pretty pointless as we prefer reviews and other types of secondary sources.  WP:MEDRS guidelines apply to all medicine related articles and it is a stringent sourcing policy.  N o f o rmation  Talk  09:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that Barett can be shown to have misrepresented information in court cases, he is still considered "reliable". That is merely because ideologues favoring his position have insinuated themselves into wikipedia articles.


 * As far as meta-studies are concerned, Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, inan article entitled ""Big Pharma, Bad Medicine How corporate dollars corrupt research and education"", she detailed how major pharmaceutical industries slant the most widely cited studies, such as those you suggest I cite: http://bostonreview.net/BR35.3/angell.php


 * More solid evidence that the pharmaceutical industry owns the medical profession is presented in "The Dr. Burzynski Movie" @31:55 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zBBfN5mQa8


 * Thus, the best approach, rather than citing one meta-studies providing the (corrupt) mainstream consensus, is to find consistent, peer-reviewed, dispirate studies that come to the same conclusions. And this is what I have done.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (i) Is the Angell paper about Megavitamin therapy or about vitamin C? If not then it's not relevant to this article. (ii) WP:AGF is a non-negotiable pillar of being an editor here.  Please stop speculating as to the motives of other editors - comment on content, not on contributors.  (iii)  Your opinions about the pharmaceutical industry are irrelevant - WP is not going to change sourcing policy because you have a problem with big pharma. (iiii) You may think that this is the best approach but it is not wikipedia's approach.  You are, of course, welcome to start a blog or consider WP:Alternative outlets but please take some time and go over our policies entitled WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FRINGE.  Wikipedia is not the place you go to right great wrongs.  We are a mainstream encyclopedia, we source to the mainstream and we do so with metareviews.  You may not like it, but you came to our community, we did not come to yours.  So if you're going to join us you have to conform to our policies.  If you're willing to do that then you're more than welcome to stay and contribute, but if you are here to push an agenda then I'm sorry but your career here will likely be shortlived.  Just to clarify a point about "neutrality" on WP - it does not mean the same thing as when a journalist attempts to be "balanced," neutrality on WP means we represent what experts in the mainstream report.  Furthermore, we do not WP:SYNTH statements, meaning that unless a source makes a conclusion, we don't make that conclusion.  N o f o rmation  Talk  10:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent points. Angell has plenty to say, and it's definitely not supportive of alternative medicine. Since it's not specific to this article, I'll just point the way to a subpage of mine (and not visible to search engines) - Alternative medicine critics. Just look at what Marcia Angell has to say! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the points Angell made have any bearing on the studies I referenced showing the efficacy of vitamin C. Incidentally, Robert Todd Carroll, one of the sources for one of the "skeptical" websites you highlighted, is, like Barrett, intellectually dishonest: http://www.sces.info/skepdic-com.htmlPottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it that you think a criticism of a mainstream scientific source from an admittedly "alt science" website would be convincing? Intelligent design proponents criticize Richard Dawkins, do you think we take it seriously? N o f o rmation  Talk  05:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I only put that forth to show misrepresentation by a favored source. My main points, as I said, pertain to the studies I referenced showing the efficacy of vitamin C. I may attempt to put forth a revision of the article that includes both the criticisms and the studies and any other meta-studies I can find. Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh, WP:TLDR. According to much previous discussion, quackwatch is an acceptable parity source, see here, here and here.  Byrzinski, isn't he that piss doc that gives regular chemotherapy, plus injections of piss?  Does the piss help, or is it just like, a bonus?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The actual facts contradict your statement regarding Barrett. The fact that ideologues on wikipedia like his arguments is irrelevant to the fact that he is not a reliable source: http://longevitylibrary.com/article/243.pdf
 * Your comments about Buzynski just show that you have no understanding of the therapy. The peptides under consideration appear in the urine of healthy patients, while they do not appear in patients with cancer. They are then extracted from the urine. You seem to be forgetting that extracting compounds from urine is an established medical modality. Tens of millions of women have been swallowing extracts from horse urine (e.g. - Premarin). Glib comments such as your's only make you look ignorant.
 * The "mainstream" acceptance of some of the nostrums put forth by Quackwatch and similar sources are perhaps the reason why modern medicine is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/284/4/483, http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm
 * There is a tendency among editors here to confuse "mainstream" and "authoritative". The two are not synonyms.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a tendency among editors here to mistake this talkpage for a forum for their personal views. This is an encyclopedia. There are sourcing guidelines for medical material on this site. Please take a look at them. If you think you can abide by them, then please join us. If this site's sourcing guidelines seem intolerable to you, then please look for a more appropriate venue to express yourself. MastCell Talk 07:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the sources I have cited fit the sourcing guidelines for medical material, so I don't see how there is a problem. In addition, some of the studies are recent. The main problem for the editors is that the material radically departs from their thoughts on the subject.


 * You are right that exploring a wide variety of tangents detracts from the issues concerning the article itself. So here, so that other editors understand what is being disputed, is the content of what I had posted in the introduction, modified so that others can read it better:


 * "Multiple studies have found that high doses of vitamin C alleviate common cold and flu symptoms, indicating that the vitamin does indeed have physiologic effects on colds.   In a 5-year clinical trial using 50 milligrams (mg) or 500 mg of vitamin C daily, the high-dose group reported fewer colds than the low-dose group. From a meta-analysis of four double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, Dr Linus Pauling found a 45 percent decrease in the incidence of colds when 1000 mg of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) was used daily. "Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS the page should rely on the most recent and highest quality sources. That means review articles, with emphasis on newer articles, published in the highest quality sources. Here are your sources, with my analysis: The best and most recent sources converge on the idea that vitamin C might help stressed people exercising in harsh conditions conditions; that idea is represented in the body of the page (and now the lead ). That's the state of the art for the best secondary sources at this time, and we're not going to change it to something cherry-picked from a biased selection of the peer reviewed literature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * - a review article from 1997
 * - a primary source, which is inapplicable. Giving text to this source would place undue weight on it, and synthesizing it to be a secondary source would be original research.
 * - this is a review article, and as a secondary source could be used. The results are not generalizable beyond those living in conditions analogous to military recruits however, and this information is already summarized in the final two sentences of the history section with a newer review article (2005) by the same author.  It is corroborated by this 2008 Cochrane review, which could be integrated.
 * - primary source, not appropriate.
 * - PNAS has a modified review process which Pauling used to publish pet theories; further, this is from 1971.

Recent addition
I have removed the recent addition of the above article; while nominally a "review", a closer look at the study shows it is written by Roche or Bayer employees (or former employees) and is a "meta-analysis" of two previously unpublished trials conducted by Bayer regarding a Bayer product. Too many red flags to be used, especially to contradict high quality Cochrane review. Yobol (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Major Revision Warranted
I have begun revising this article as it seems both to have missed some significant sources, to have an inaccurate emphasis, and to need editing (some refs repeated, etc.). Some of the evidence on this question is equivocal, which makes it difficult to encyclopedize. I suggest:
 * a better historical treatment of the issue
 * emphasis on the most recent and broadest-based reviews and meta-analyses
 * relegation of the older studies to an historical context, rather than as citations for current claims (as is the current state of the article)

This recent review is a good starting place http://www.clinicalcorrelations.org/?p=3670 Michaplot (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Free Advertising
The picture of "Cuties" brand clementines and the accompanying caption sure skirt the line of information and promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.26.108 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk is 10X larger than the actual article
Does anyone else find this simultaneously funny and sad? David notMD (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)