33 replies to this topic

[osris]

Thanks for the reply. However, your post continues to exhibit many of the same issues already raised. To clarify:

 

You rely heavily on anecdotal personal impressions accumulated over years of forum browsing, yet these are neither systematic nor verifiable. Quoting your participation levels (“about 2000 posts per forum”) does not confer authority. It simply signals volume, not quality of insight, nor protection from bias.

 

Your claim — "not once in one taking persistently multi-gram vitamin C" — functions as a tautology. You're effectively saying: “I’ve never seen an anxious person persist with high-dose C, therefore they don’t exist.” But that assumes what you're trying to prove. It's a closed-loop statement — circular and unfalsifiable.

 

You also continue to conflate “speculative” with “invalid.” The article you criticize was clearly a general behavioral observation, not a clinical case report or peer-reviewed paper. Dismissing it because it doesn’t contain a footnoted case study is like calling a weather forecast invalid because it isn’t a satellite image.

 

Furthermore, you suggest you’re open to correction — “I would be open to be convinced by just one case” — but then load the deck: not only must such a case exist, but it must also match your standards and be personally delivered to you as proof. This isn't genuine openness; it’s rhetorical insulation.

 

You also continue to rely on emotional framing — “triggered,” “plight,” “speculative only throughout” — rather than engaging directly with the nuanced and balanced intent of the article, which was to contextualize patterns of behavior in a helpful way.

 

Finally, your apology, while appreciated, is immediately followed by a reaffirmation of your earlier stance, as though the admitted errors were irrelevant to the credibility of your argument. That undercuts the sincerity of your correction.

 

In short, the issue isn’t your passion or experience — it’s your repeated reliance on non-falsifiable claims, selective memory, and shifting rhetorical tactics to defend an inflexible view. That’s not evidence-based reasoning. That’s gatekeeping by anecdote.

 

 

Edited by osris, Yesterday, 12:51 PM.

[pamojja]

I outlined, that my extensive experiences can only be taken observational. Speculative is not even observational. In the hierarchy of evidence. And I didn't give the appearance of 'appeal to authority' either. Just pointing out the important difference in the hierarchy of evidence.

 

I firmly stand to my earlier, rational arguments. I did regret and apologize for my only mistake in assuming a crucial quoted post being deleted, and all that painful speculative conundrum, following out of such a stupid misperception. Now corrected

 

Nowhere, I did apologize for my still standing arguments. Nor do I agree to your many misrepresentations of my arguments, which I let unanswered. They are just too many. However, my words are still there to read, and your words misrepresenting mine, too. So everyone easily can read both, compare and decide for oneself.

 

 

Finally, your apology, while appreciated, is immediately followed by a reaffirmation of your earlier stance, as though the admitted errors were irrelevant to the credibility of your argument. That undercuts the sincerity of your correction.

 

You now think an ad hominem, an admitted and apologized error in another area, would lessen the credibility of an unrelated argument?!?

 

I strongly disagree. And you would disagree too, if I did that, do you.

 

 

[pamojja]

Your claim — "not once in one taking persistently multi-gram vitamin C" — functions as a tautology...

 

— but then load the deck: not only must such a case exist, but it must also match your standards and be personally delivered to you as proof.

 

It's not possible to prove, without doubt, that something speculative does not exist. Since you can't hear it from me, maybe you reconsider it, in the words of perplexity.ai?

 

Can You Prove a Negative? The Role of the Hierarchy of Evidence

 

Impossibility of Proving Non-Existence

 

It is a fundamental principle in science and logic that you cannot definitively prove the non-existence of something—especially rare or hypothetical cases—using empirical methods. The absence of evidence (such as case reports or studies) is not absolute proof that something does not exist, only that it has not been observed or documented so far^[1][2].

 

Hierarchy of Evidence: How Strong Is Your Observation?

 

The hierarchy of evidence in medicine ranks the strength of different types of research, from systematic reviews and meta-analyses at the top, down to expert opinion and anecdotal evidence at the bottom^{[3][1][4][5][6][2][7]}. Here’s how your experience and the opposing speculation fit into this hierarchy:

 

Your experience is anecdotal and thus low on the evidence hierarchy, but it is still based on observation. Pure speculation, in contrast, is not even grounded in observed cases and ranks even lower^{[3][1][5][2].}

 

 

What Does the Evidence Say About Vitamin C and Anxiety?

• Multiple studies, including randomized controlled trials, show vitamin C supplementation reduces anxiety, not that it causes anxious individuals to discontinue protocols^[8][9].
• No case reports or observational studies document anxious individuals being unable to persist with multi-gram vitamin C dosing due to their anxiety^[8][9].

Conclussion

• You cannot prove the absolute non-existence of such cases, but the lack of documented reports or studies—even at the level of case reports—means there is no evidence to support the speculation.
• In the hierarchy of evidence, observed absence (your experience and the lack of published cases) is stronger than pure speculation without observation^[3][1][5][2].
•  If someone claims otherwise, the burden of proof lies with them to provide at least a case report or observational evidence.

 

In summary: While you cannot prove a negative, the hierarchy of evidence supports your position: absence of documented cases is more credible than unsupported speculation.

1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35909178/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence

3. https://canberra.libguides.com/c.php?g=599346&p=4149721

4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3124652/

5. https://libguides.mssm.edu/ebm/hierarchy

6. https://www.physio-pedia.com/Hierarchy_of_evidence

7. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/21/4/125

8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26353411/

9. https://www.ijbamr.com/assets/images/issues/pdf/o36S1t_3Nc2Yd_76ZOmq_Pw226j_602596.pdf

 

Emphasis in red by me.

[Daniel Cooper]

Ok gentlemen - as of now both participants have complained about what is going on in this thread. 

 

I will sort through this thread later when I'm not at work and figure out what the situation is and make necessary corrections. Until then I am locking it to new posts.