The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
clearly there are a lot of factors such as participants age as well as supplement dose and duration that can affect the outcome of vitamin C supplementation on the incidence and duration of the common cold these factors contribute to a lot of the inconsistencies in the findings among the various trials a lot of these inconsistencies can be attributed to the shortcomings in the trials designs especially those utilizing low and/or infrequent dosing schedules
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
with varied results much of this variation is due to the fact that a slew of factors such as age dose frequency and duration of supplementation can affect the degree to which vitamin C can prevent or decrease episodes of the common cold
the seemingly contradictory findings from much of the research on vitamin C appears to arise from differences in study design populations dose and delivery modalities as well as a host of other factors