On the basis of results from four placebo-controlled trials with vitamin C doses >0.1 g/d, he calculated that it was highly unlikely that the decreases in the incidence of ( p = 0.0014) and morbidity caused by the common cold ( p = 0.000022) were caused by chance alone. In 1971, Linus Pauling published a meta-analysis of vitamin C and the common cold, which was one of the very first meta-analyses in medicine. We also consider potential explanations for the widespread bias against 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 discuss shortcomings in three recent JAMA editorials on vitamin C. In addition, we describe problems with two recent randomized trial reports published in JAMA which were presented in a way that misled readers. In this paper, we summarize several flaws in the three papers. 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. 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. However, in mainstream medicine, the views on vitamin C and infections have been determined by eminence-based medicine rather than evidence-based medicine. Evidence has shown unambiguously that, in certain contexts, vitamin C is effective against the common cold.

Reviews on the bob livingston letter