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.
the RDA in the States is a hundred milligrams of vitamin C a day but in this experiment and we don't know what these other people were eating in general so they probably were also eating glucose containing foods Bart and I will talk about a glucose ascorbate antagonism theory but even in the setting of a mixed diet 10 milligrams of vitamin c a day was enough to reverse all of the symptoms of scurvy in these patients
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.
what they found was that there was no benefit to any more vitamin C in any of the metrics that they were checking there was no clinical benefit there was no Sarah logic or biochemical benefit meaning that they couldn't find any evidence I mean this is again the 1930s and 1940s so what kind of blood tests were they doing but they couldn't find any evidence of any benefits of vitamin C above ten milligrams a day