我在2017-9-20發表胜肽謊言何其多，質疑口服胜肽製劑有益健康的論調。
前幾天（2018-4-22），有位署名陳善存的讀者回應：
我覺得提出質疑，不同的觀點！在民主社會裡是常見的，但我覺得能提供證據跟數據會更有力，不然容易讓人質疑您提出反對意見的背後目的為何？
還有您所質疑的有醫生在支持，不管哪個品牌也都有不計其數的見証，那這部份您如何去詮釋？您下的標題，是否也是為了讓廣大群眾注目而拜讀？
所以我會建議作者應提出足夠反証，而非是自己認知的推判！
好，我在下面逐條回應陳先生提出的質疑，會把較容易回答的擺在前頭。
問題：您下的標題，是否也是為了讓廣大群眾注目而拜讀？
回答：當然，寫文章就是希望有人看。關鍵是在於，內容是否為良心之作。
問題：您所質疑的有醫生在支持，不管哪個品牌也都有不計其數的見証，那這部份您如何去詮釋？
回答：醫生為了中飽私囊而代言保健品，是再稀鬆平常不過的事，而廠商的行銷技倆，請人做假見證，那就更不用說了。
問題：您提出反對意見的背後目的為何？
回答：我提出反對意見的目的，只有前面，沒有背後。前面，就是要破解偽科學，背後，我在這個網站已經發表了近400篇文章，至今沒有收受過一分錢。
問題：所以我會建議作者應提出足夠反証，而非是自己認知的推判！
回答：首先，胜肽無法被腸道吸收，是一個最基本的生化常識（只可惜多數人忘記了），絕非只是我個人的認知。但是儘管如此，我還是在文章裡提供了兩個參考資料，其中一個是網路連結，另一個是醫學論文。
網路連結打開的是科羅拉多州立大學教授Richard Bowen所撰寫的Absorption of Amino Acids and Peptides（氨基酸和胜肽的吸收）。
這篇文章很詳細清楚地說明，胜肽是無法被腸道吸收的。
當然，我可以理解，並不是每位讀者都看得懂英文。所以，我已經寫了一篇中文的，會在近期內發表。
至於那篇醫學論文，它的標題是Oral absorption of peptides and nanoparticles across the human intestine: Opportunities, limitations and studies in human tissues（口服胜肽和納米顆粒在人腸道的吸收：機會，限制和在人體組織的研究）。
它主要的論述之一是，醫藥界在經過了一百多年的努力之後，還是無法製作出一個可以被腸道吸收的胜肽藥品。（附註：目前市面上的胜肽製劑是屬於補充劑，無需功效的證明，只要吃了死不了就好了。請看FDA認證，真真假假）
該論文是由瑞典烏普薩拉大學（Uppsala University）藥劑系教授Per Artursson 所撰寫，裡面採用了269篇研究論文做為參考資料。
讀者陳先生，您不至於說，這樣的證據還不足夠吧。（事實上，我可以再提供另外幾十篇醫學論文都沒問題）
不管如何，如果您真的認為胜肽製劑是有益健康，那就請您提供足以佐證的科學資料。
請注意，廠商的廣告，醫生的代言，或某某人的見證，都沒有資格做為證據。
後記：陳善存先生2018-5-13寄來電郵：謝謝您的回覆！很佩服您認真做學問的態度！
科學的養生保健 
您好，
我常上網看您發表的文章，在這裡讓我瞭解很多醫藥及營養方面的知識，我表示肯定，當然有些發表會抵觸別人的利益，會有些人提出可笑的辯護，就好像有些人迷信宗教一樣，總是無腦為一些神話辯護，最後還是感謝您的分享。
讚讚
謝謝您的肯定。我很清楚我的文章會抵觸“某些人”的利益，但是為了幫助大眾，就顧不得了。至於讀者提出辯護，不管是否可笑，我都是歡迎的。因為這會讓我有機會把事情說得更清楚。
讚Liked by 1 person
太讚了但按讚程序太困難-不會用
讚讚
您必須是Wordpress的會員才能按贊，就如同您必須是臉書會員才能在臉書按贊。但是，您可以在文章下面的回應裡表達您的意見，褒貶皆可。謝謝。
讚讚
谢谢你的文章！最近确实很多肽产品，多是用于传销骗钱。希望能读到更多你的文章。谢谢！
讚讚
謝謝Jonathan的肯定。請繼續支持。
讚讚
您好,您說某某人的見證並不會成為證據
如果是數以百計千計的人身見證呢?
科學不就是以不停的實驗(見證)來成立數據(證據)的嗎?
讚讚
一個藥品有效用的證據必須通過嚴格的臨床試驗，包括用安慰劑做為對照（control）。沒有對照，無論多少人做見證，都不能成為證據。這是因為，我們人類有很強烈的自我判斷傾向。明明無效的東西，也會被判斷成有效。
讚讚
您要破解偽科學，而在這個網站辛勤地發表了近400篇文章，這種吃力不討好的作為，真是令人欽佩，功德無量，末學隨喜讚嘆！也請您再接再厲，多多利益眾生，辛苦您了。 阿彌陀佛！
讚讚
謝謝黃先生的鼓勵。目前我已發表484篇文章。
讚讚
1.請問一下，蛋白質是四級結構，但經分解後會形成分子量較小的多胜肽(胜肽鏈)，但
這些胜肽鏈有什麼分類方法嗎?依據什麼來分類呢?
會是依照胜肽鏈中胺基酸的多寡來分嗎?(如:三胜肽、六胜肽)
2.請問一下，不同胺基酸序列所形成的胜肽鏈，可以只是因為胺基酸數目都相同而歸為
一類嗎?
讚讚
胜肽的分類可以根據胺基酸數目或功能。如果是根據胺基酸數目，那通常就只局限於二或三。
讚讚
There is virtually no absorption of peptides longer than four amino acids. {However, there is abundant absorption of di- and tripeptides in the small intestine.} These small peptides are absorbed into the small intestinal epithelial cell by cotransport with H+ ions via a transporter called PepT1.
Once inside the enterocyte, the vast bulk of absorbed di- and tripeptides are digested into amino acids by cytoplasmic peptidases and exported from the cell into blood. Only a very small number of these small peptides enter blood intact.
I don’t know what are you reading but it is saying that the absorption of four amino acid is not available being absorbed, but do you know the basic fact about cell. Four amino acid can be digested by enzymes which can catalyze them to be tri and di peptide and they are able to be at a high concentration, which is mentioned in the passage you sent. Then, di or tri peptide can get into the cells easily in order to synthesize protein with rough ER. Then, more protein can be synthesized. Now, what will happen next, more proteins to form cells, the number of healthy cells are increased. Thus, this is the science behind of it. So, I don’t know are you trying to skip the part of your logical proof or not. Tell me the steps if you know what is going on in a cell. Don’t quote the passages that you might not even understand.
The second passage you sent
“Whether administered in soluble form or formulated in nanoparticles, these two functions are clearly at odds with the oral delivery of large molecules such as peptides and proteins. It is, therefore, not surprising that oral delivery of peptide drugs remains a challenge. "
The statement of challenge is not meaning it is not useful, it is just less effective. It also said large molecules, do you how big the peptide in the product is.
“While, in theory, nanoparticles have a good potential to enable the oral delivery of peptides and proteins, the design of a nanoparticle able to survive passage through the gastrointestinal tract and to pass the intestinal epithelium is in itself a significant challenge."
Second, yes it said oral delivery of peptides of drug remain challenge but it also said nanoparticles have a great potential to enable oral delivery of peptides and proteins, which mean do you have the data to prove the peptide of some company of their product is not at nano size. If not, then i think you are making a careless statement.
Plus this research doesn’t target on the product of peptides, it is targeting the peptide itself. You can just use it to prove the product is not effective or science based.
There are quite a few research are suggesting the peptide can be a better carrier to bring vaccinc, drug into cells.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jaa/2012/967347/
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jir/2015/761820/
So tell me, why do you think that peptide can not help fixing cells so firmly based on the nonspecific research that you have given. Or you can just type peptides cures cancer, then you will find more than 10 articles that prove the peptide is being investigated for long years, and it has been proven in some cancer trails even. So i don’t know what you are trying to prove. Since you don’t really directly prove the product is not function.
By the way, I can read Chinese and I am from Hong Kong, and studying in Biochemistry in my major!!
讚讚
https://professorlin.com/2019/06/10/%e5%b0%8f%e8%82%bd%e7%9b%b4%e6%8e%a5%e9%80%b2%e5%85%a5%e5%be%aa%e7%92%b0%ef%bc%8c%e5%90%88%e6%88%90%e8%9b%8b%e7%99%bd%ef%bc%9f/
https://professorlin.com/2019/06/12/%e6%9c%80%e6%9c%89%e6%95%88%e7%9a%84%e8%86%a0%e5%8e%9f%e8%9b%8b%e7%99%bd%ef%bc%9f/
https://professorlin.com/2018/06/25/%e8%83%9c%e8%82%bd%ef%bc%8c%e8%86%a0%e5%8e%9f%e8%9b%8b%e7%99%bd%ef%bc%8c%e6%9c%89%e6%95%88%ef%bc%9f/
https://professorlin.com/2018/05/23/%e8%83%9c%e8%82%bd%ef%bc%8c%e8%9b%8b%e7%99%bd%e8%b3%aa%ef%bc%8c%e6%80%8e%e9%ba%bc%e5%90%b8%e6%94%b6/
讚讚