Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tony Ricci's avatar

This conclusion and the whole paper is such a disappointment. The so-called failure study used a 10th of the vitamin C used in the Tanaka trial. This reminds me of the earlier studies in the early 2000s that claims to debunk vitamin C's affectiveness, but instead of replicating the proven method, that is going IV with vitamin C, the debunking studies used PO vitamin C which is a completely different animal. Then as now they use an apples and oranges argument to debunk vitamin C's effectiveness returning everyone back to a baseline of pseudoscience. An utter embarrassment. Isn't it the most basic of science to replicate other studies that have proven success and not creature own study and then try to apply those findings to previous models?

No posts

Ready for more?