- Joined
- Nov 6, 2014
- Messages
- 402
- Likes
- 217
- Degree
- 1
No sense in this anymore. You clearly trying to prove YOUR point. As I have said, this is not what I was after. You are now just trying to play straw man with me but, I'm not interested in this kind of discussion.You're quoting a single preliminary case report, which was not controlled (i.e. no placebo/control group) in three (!) women to prove a point? In case you didn't know, I referenced a meta-analysis (basically a collection of all studies) of RCT's (which is the gold standard in medical research) and was published in a one of the most prestigious nutrition journals.
The researchers didn't want to prove anything BTW. They just collected a bunch of studies which fitted their inclusion criteria and analyzed them. It's not their fault a lot of the RCT's they collected had these inclusion criteria. Whatever the case, at the moment there is no good evidence vitamin D helps to treat depression.
Creatine obviously works and is the single best studies sports supplement out there, but still it only adds about ~5% to your bench. My point was that even much touted legal dietary supplements like creatine are only marginally effective at best.
Besides being a distinguished chemist who won two Nobel prizes Pauling was dead wrong on vitamin C. This is not even an area of controverse in medicine. This subject has been studied to death and instead of quoting a report from some questionable source you could've also used Pubmed to find the numerous meta-analysis and systematic reviews which show that vitamin C supplementation doesn't treat cancer or even the common cold like Pauling claimed. If you teach crap like that in medical school you'd be kicked out in a sec and rightly so.
I don't even know how to respond to this, LOL.