Question: Who funded the studies on the Vitamin C done?
The first two studies were conducted by the Mayo Clinic, known worldwide for producing legitimate, unbiased, top-notch medical research. Further
studies have been conducted into ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and its role/ability in curing or treating many diseases. A simple PubMed search for
ascorbic acid shows the 4000+ studies conducted worldwide with funding come from both private and public sectors.
I have no interest in selling information. I was simply a scouring the internet and literature for information regarding these issues and took
provable facts and presented them. If bias is your reasoning for not listening to that website, I suggest you don't read anything paid for by the
pharmaceutical companies either...because they aren't biased at all...right?
I don't read anything paid for by pharmaceutical companies. If I find a study that is produced by a lab known to partner with a company, or if the
university has a poor history of reporting conflicts of interest, I look for other results to verify what the study demonstrated. Sometimes the
results are valid, sometimes they aren't.
If a website is hocking some product or allows uncertified authors to post wildly ridiculous scientific claims, I tend to blacklist that website.
Naturalnews is a good example. I skimmed the site, and what I found were internet nutters posting anything they wanted, and the site admins are all
too happy to post it because the more pages they have, the more page-views they get and the more ad revenue they generate.
As much as I would love to link you to the JAMA to show the stats on people dying from adverse reactions to drugs under normal use, apparently
there is a fee to look at the records. Is it not feasible to think that had these patients been drinking freshly juiced vegetables and fruits...and
taught proper nutrition...that they may have a lower incidence of disease altogether?
I have a JAMA subscription and read the study that was mentioned in the article you linked earlier. It specifically states that the patient population
used for the "deaths due to drugs" study were those who were hospitalized and listed in critical or intensive care. This would suggest that they
have a weakened immune system due to some sort of infection or trauma, making ANY medication dangerous, despite being necessary for survival. It's
simply the risk you take in trying to save someone. You can sit back and do nothing, essentially preventing the "death from drugs" statistics from
going up (though the "Deaths from disease X" statistic would increase), or you can attempt to medicate them, with the risk that is may harm or kill
them given their fragile state.
It's basically a catch-22. When I, or other doctors, do something good, we're hailed as healers. When someone falls into that 1% (or whatever the
percentage is for the given treatment, some higher, some lower) that experiences an adverse effect or death, we're derided as poison pushers and
villains. It's no different than people thanking god when good things happen, but blaming people when bad things happen. It's silly and immature.
What if we gave hospitalized patients vitamins along with their meds? Maybe feed them fresh organic fruits and veggies instead of jell-o and
rolls?
We do that currently. Every hospital meal I've seen comes with choice of fresh fruit (unless they are diabetic or on some other sort of nutritional
restriction) and choice of fresh juice. The other items are typically fortified with vitamins, as well.
Let's INTEGRATE naturopathic medicine along with "modern" medicine and have them work hand in hand.
I'm sure we, in the medical community, would be glad to do this once your naturopathic schools agree to a standard of curriculum and quality. Until
it's standardized, I don't want you anywhere near my patients.
So few doctors know anything about nutrition. They want to shove pills down people's throats and cover up symptoms instead of getting to the
root cause of the disease. Why in the world can't we do both?
So few naturopaths know anything about medicine. They want to shove the latest herbal fad down people's throats. Wow, grossly ignorant generlizations
are fun!
If the Japanese walk everywhere they go...then my guess would be they get plenty of Vitamin D from sun exposure. Their diet is varied and
diverse with fruits and vegetables. Their increased intake of the fruits and veggies may provide an anti toxin effect and help to protect them from
the mercury in the sea food.
I have never heard of fruit or vegetables having any effect on the body's clearance of mercury. Source?
.
The rate of cancer in Japan is much lower than in the U.S....
False. Japan has higher rates of cancer per 100,000 than the United States.
Cancer Rates (Death and Incidence) - Japan
So is it their diet? Is it their exercise habits? Maybe it's both. But us bloated, sick, diseased American's should sit up and take notice.
Most likely their genetics, as the Japanese have a higher rate of cancer than the US white population.
My children have not needed a doctor in years.
I haven't been (other than for physicals and vaccinations) in nearly 6 years, and I don't take supplements. You understand the germ theory,
right?
As I said, you do what you wish. I could post a hundred references to show the studies regarding the effectiveness of vitamins. And you could
post a hundred showing me the opposite.
The only difference would be that my sources would be from laboratories worldwide, reproducible, and verifiable. Yours would be from a handful of
small research groups, and mostly anecdotal in nature.
