這是ChatGPT的回答:
主流醫學界並不持保留意見，認為維生素C對免疫係統有一定的支持作用。事實上，維生素C是一種必需營養素，對人體的健康起著重要作用。
然而，盡管有些研究表明維生素C可以增強免疫係統的功能，但這些研究結果並不一致，也存在一些爭議。目前，主流醫學界認為維生素C可能有一定的支持作用，但並不是治療各種疾病的萬能藥。
需要指出的是，主流醫學界強調的是以證據為基礎的醫學實踐，也就是治療方法必須經過科學實驗和嚴格的評估。雖然一些替代療法，包括高劑量維生素C療法，可能表現出良好的療效，但在成為主流治療方法之前，它們必須經過與其他治療方法同樣的嚴格測試和評估。
因此，主流醫學界不持保留意見的觀點，並不是因為利益衝突，而是因為需要依據嚴格的科學標準評估治療方法的安全性和有效性。
這是Microsoft new Bing (with ChatGPT)的回答:
根據我找到的信息，主流醫學界對維生素C對免疫係統有支持的觀點多持保留意見的原因可能有以下幾點：
- 維生素C的研究結果並不一致，有些研究顯示維生素C可以增強免疫力，有些研究顯示維生素C沒有明顯效果或者副作用。
- 維生素C是一種水溶性維生素，人體不能儲存過量的維生素C，多餘的部分會隨尿液排出。因此，補充過量的維生素C可能是浪費或者有害的。
- 維生素C並不能直接殺死病毒或者治愈感染，它隻能在一定程度上幫助免疫係統抵抗外來侵襲。因此，單純依賴維生素C來預防或治療感染是不科學的。
- 維生素C可能和一些藥物發生相互作用，影響藥物的效果或者引起不良反應。例如，維生素C可能降低抗凝血藥物、降壓藥物、抗癌藥物等的效果。
至於是否存在利益衝突，這個問題很難回答。一方麵，可能有一些製藥公司或者醫療機構不願意看到廉價而普遍的維生素C影響他們的利潤；另一方麵，也可能有一些營養品公司或者健康網站為了推銷自己的產品而誇大維生素C的功效。
總之，在使用任何營養補充品之前，請谘詢您的醫生，並按照建議用量服用。過量服用任何東西都可能帶來風險。
Question: What is the reason for bias against Vitamin C in Mainstream Medicine? Is it due to the fact or conflict of interests?
Answer from ChatGPT:
There is no bias against Vitamin C in mainstream medicine. In fact, Vitamin C is recognized as an essential nutrient by the medical community and is widely used to prevent and treat scurvy, a disease caused by Vitamin C deficiency.
There is some controversy surrounding the use of Vitamin C as a treatment for various health conditions, such as cancer and the common cold. While some studies have shown promising results, others have been inconclusive or have not shown a significant benefit.
It is important to note that mainstream medicine relies on evidence-based practice, meaning that treatments are recommended based on scientific evidence and rigorous testing. While some alternative therapies, including high-dose Vitamin C therapy, may show promise, they must go through the same rigorous testing and evaluation as mainstream treatments before they can be widely recommended by the medical community.
Therefore, any perceived bias against Vitamin C in mainstream medicine is not due to conflict of interest, but rather a result of the rigorous standards for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of treatments.
Bias against Vitamin C in Mainstream Medicine: Examples from Trials of Vitamin C for Infections
Abstract
Evidence has shown unambiguously that, in certain contexts, vitamin C is effective against the common cold. However, in mainstream medicine, the views on vitamin C and infections have been determined by eminence-based medicine rather than evidence-based medicine. The rejection of the demonstrated benefits of vitamin C is largely explained by three papers published in 1975—two published in JAMA and one in the American Journal of Medicine—all of which have been standard citations in textbooks of medicine and nutrition and in nutritional recommendations. Two of the papers were authored by Thomas Chalmers, an influential expert in clinical trials, and the third was authored by Paul Meier, a famous medical statistician. In this paper, we summarize several flaws in the three papers. In addition, we describe problems with two recent randomized trial reports published in JAMA which were presented in a way that misled readers. We also discuss shortcomings in three recent JAMA editorials on vitamin C. While most of our examples are from JAMA, it is not the only journal with apparent bias against vitamin C, but it illustrates the general views in mainstream medicine. We also consider potential explanations for the widespread bias against vitamin C.
Conclusions
In this review, we have demonstrated significant bias in many influential papers on vitamin C. We have shown that many influential papers have been uncritically cited in textbooks and reviews, assuming that they are scientifically valid, when in fact many of them have serious flaws. Influential authors have referred to the papers without undertaking any critical appraisal themselves. We have proposed conceptual explanations for the long-lasting and deep bias against vitamin C. This bias is unfortunate because vitamin C is safe and inexpensive, and therefore even reasonably small treatment effects are well worth taking into consideration.
