Talk:Thiamine

It looks to me like Biotest is advertising more then it is educating.

They cite no studies to demonstrate that thiamine di(2-methylpropionate) disulfide is more easily absorbed, also absorbed doesn't mean it's biologically active. I googled the words "biologically active" thiamine, and it was "Thiamine pyrophosphate" which kept appering as the most active form of thiamine.

I think biotest is using Wiki to peddle their product, what say you?

Nutrition science news?

It's a quack "journal" advocating homeopathy. I can't see how this article can be taken seriously if NSN is cited. Man i hate chemisry.

GA nomination

Beginning review for GA nomination. Starting with reviewing all refs that are available online. Sections will be retitled and ordered to align with other vitamin articles that are GA. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominated on 16 July 2022. Intention is to do some more work prior to review. David notMD (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"Overdose"

The article states that it is non-toxic and that it is excreted in urine. As this is a water-soluble vitamin I think that excess B1 consumption would have no adverse effect. If this is true (as it is with all of the water-soluble vitamins) its inclusion would benefit the page; currently it is not clear on the low risk of overdose.

The same on the Vitamin C article, which I think has been translated in whole, elsewhere, from here. The article on Vitamin C may go into "quack" science being wrong because the dose recommended is very high. This statement is pointless if the above is true. Thanks. Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)