yes you can cherry pick studies to prove just about anything you want. you can find “scientific” studies that prove climate change is bogus too. there’s a lot of crap science out there. look at meta-analyses and recommendations from trusted institutions like Johns Hopkins as I linked above which you clearly didn’t read.
However, the effect of vitamin and mineral supplements on the risk of non-communicable diseases in “generally healthy” populations is controversial. We examine patterns of supplement use and the evidence on their effects from randomised trials.
to date, randomised trials have largely shown no benefit of vitamin, mineral, and fish oil supplements on the risk of major non-communicable diseases in people without clinical nutritional deficiency. These results contrast with findings from observational studies, where supplemental nutrient intakes are often associated with a reduced risk of these diseases. The apparent associations from observational studies may result from unknown or unmeasured confounding factors such as socioeconomic status and lifestyle factors, including a better overall diet
Their use as general ‘pick-me-ups’ is of unproven value and, in the case of preparations containing vitamin A or D, may actually be harmful if patients take more than the prescribed dose.
yes you can cherry pick studies to prove just about anything you want. you can find “scientific” studies that prove climate change is bogus too. there’s a lot of crap science out there. look at meta-analyses and recommendations from trusted institutions like Johns Hopkins as I linked above which you clearly didn’t read.
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2511
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/treatment-summaries/vitamins/
As previously stated there is evidence for and against.
yes there is “evidence” for and against literally everything. you have to put your thinking cap on and examine what that actually means.