Originally posted by Limbo
Originally posted by ManFromEurope
You won't like this posting, but I am here to DEBUNK most of your illusions about vitamin C.
Fact is, and that is proven (with methods of that old-school-medicine and its statistics, you know) by MANY MANY MANY studies that the human body can only take up to 100 miligrams of vitamin C. It can not be stored by the human body. The excess will be disposed with the usual wastes in the usual way.
Take 25.000 mg of vitamin C and you will get diarrhoe.
There is no doubt that the human body NEEDS vitamin C it its role as a scavenger.
Excess might lead to renal calculi (ugly!). Its LD50 is at about 12g per kg bodyweight.
Would YOU take 15g of Vitamin C and then go into a broken nuclear reactor to clean it? Well, I would use lots of lead-gear, but that is only my opinion, I guess. Its some kind of the way this board works..
I don't mean to be rude but..
Animals in times of stress make 10s of grams of vitamins c.
This makes your assertion (unbacked by evidence I might add) a moot point.
The comment on vitmain c causing kidney stones also is a myth. I think it was pushed by Victor herbet,
a well known "quackbuster" and.mouthpiece for big pharma. Studies have shown this to be a myth.
www.victorherbert.com...
I suggest you do more research before posting disinfomation.
A good place to start www.vitamincfoundation.org...
The toxicity of vitamin c is well documented, as I recall it is less toxic than normal sugar.
The diarrhea is probably caused by reverse osmosis through the bowel wall.
Limbo
Pardon?
I might also, I find add your diatribe against Linus Pauling offensive.
He was one of the best chemists/scientists on the planet. Also he was a Nobel Laureate
How How many Phd/Nobel prizes do you have?edit on 29-9-2012 by Limbo because:edit on 29-9-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)
Ah right, so Nobel prizes make the recipient experts in everything do they?
Going on his studies into Vitamin C and cancer which have ALL been proven wrong I would say I have more experience and knowledge (and qualifications) than him in human physiology and pharmacolgy. However, non-scientific people have accepted his views on vitamin C and mega-vitamin doses and use him (and his Nobel prizes, one in chemistry (not biochemistry) and Peace) as a shining example and as a big stick to beat the debunkers with.
A lot of his other work I greatly respect him for but in this case he was severely mistaken about vitamin therapy
As I mentioned earlier, just because someone had a doctorate or PhD doesn't mean you have to accept what they say without question.
Incredibly Effective Protection from Fukushima Nuclear Radiation, page 2
reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 03:48 AM by RogerT3
Where have you guys been? There was and still is a very active and informative thread on how to make your own Liposomal VitC at home here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
For those still believing you are limited by diarhhea (sp?) check out the thread. We discussed this at length and many of us tried out large doses personally.
I tried 10g or so at a time without any problems (bit of tummy rumbling).
For those still believing you are limited by diarhhea (sp?) check out the thread. We discussed this at length and many of us tried out large doses personally.
I tried 10g or so at a time without any problems (bit of tummy rumbling).
reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 03:54 AM by RogerT3
Originally posted by Pardon?
Pardon?
I might also, I find add your diatribe against Linus Pauling offensive.
He was one of the best chemists/scientists on the planet. Also he was a Nobel Laureate
How How many Phd/Nobel prizes do you have?edit on 29-9-2012 by Limbo because:edit on 29-9-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)
Ah right, so Nobel prizes make the recipient experts in everything do they?
Going on his studies into Vitamin C and cancer which have ALL been proven wrong I would say I have more experience and knowledge (and qualifications) than him in human physiology and pharmacolgy. However, non-scientific people have accepted his views on vitamin C and mega-vitamin doses and use him (and his Nobel prizes, one in chemistry (not biochemistry) and Peace) as a shining example and as a big stick to beat the debunkers with.
A lot of his other work I greatly respect him for but in this case he was severely mistaken about vitamin therapy
As I mentioned earlier, just because someone had a doctorate or PhD doesn't mean you have to accept what they say without question.
You'll find that on ATS you have to back up your opinions with references or at least with a few links if you want the 'thinking' members to take you seriously.
In my understanding Pauling had a hatchet job done on his research by a bought and paid for a'hole at the Mayo(naise) Clinic. They didn't even follow Pauling's protocol
His research has been replicated on at least 3 continents successfully - you are talking out your arse, sorry!
I'm sure a few better informed peeps will come along shortly and post the relevant research, I really can't be bothered since I've read it for myself and also done the experiments on my own body. Nothing like a bit of personal reality experience to remove the need to convince the unenlightened - meh!edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
ETA: ah bollox, I suppose I should at least do a 10 second google on it for you:
Orthomolecular medical researcher and Nobel laureate Linus Pauling (pictured) long touted the value of vitamin C in the fight against cancer . He and Scottish medical doctor Ewan Cameron published Cancer and Vitamin C in 1979 in addition to publishing several earlier scientific articles on the subject. Unfortunately, a hatchet job was almost immediately published in the New England Journal of Medicine which claimed Dr. Pauling’s research was nonsense. This work is so devious and evil that I will not cite it. In 2007, Dr. Mark Levin finally set the record straight and published a paper validating Dr. Pauling’s work which pointed out that while Dr. Pauling gave patients with cancer vitamin C intravenously, the refuting paper which claimed that Pauling results were not real since they were not replicated, only gave vitamin C by mouth!
weeksmd.com...
Work of Hugh D. Riordan M.D. et al
Intravenous Ascorbate as a Chemotherapeutic and Biologic Response Modifying Agent (Riordan et al), describes the results of fifteen years of clinical studies administering intravenous ascorbic acid to approximately fifty cancer patients.
In this study, the authors put forth that 1) numerous tumor cells are highly susceptible to the toxic effects of ascorbic acid and 2) a concentration of ascorbic acid toxic enough to cancer cells can safely be achieved with virtually no detrimental effects to the individual.
NIH Research Confirms Work of Pauling and Riordan
The article, “ Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells: Action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues” presents research conducted by National Institutes of Health scientists and was published in the September 12, 2005 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The NIH funded study confirms the hypotheses put forth by Riordan et al in Intravenous Ascorbate as a Chemotherapeutic and Biologic Response Modifying Agent:
1) Tumor cells are more susceptible to the effects of high-dose, ascorbate-induced peroxidation products because of a relative catalase deficiency
2) Concentrations of ascorbate high enough to kill tumor cells likely can be achieved in humans.
Neil H. Riordan PhD. commented on the study, “It is gratifying to have our research on vitamin C and cancer confirmed by scientists at the prestigious National Institutes of Health,”
That should get you started and at least point you in the direction of the authentic research, not the pharma funded panic attack!edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 05:22 AM by Limbo
reply to post by Pardon?
A valid point, but Pauling was an amazing chemist, so obviously an expert on the topics was was refering to..
(He did not have one doctorate but many.)
The studies on vitamin C and cancer have not all been proven wrong.
The problem with the Mayo studies (That I guess you are refering to) is that they
used oral supplements and did not replicate the studies done by Cameron which were open to selection bias
due to the way the 2 groups were picked. It's usually the case with the Mayo studies that they did not replicate
the protocol completely, so their conclusions are erroneous.
There are recent studies being done using IV ascorbate protocols.
If it was so proven wrong as you say then why are these studies being done?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Limbo
A valid point, but Pauling was an amazing chemist, so obviously an expert on the topics was was refering to..
(He did not have one doctorate but many.)
The studies on vitamin C and cancer have not all been proven wrong.
The problem with the Mayo studies (That I guess you are refering to) is that they
used oral supplements and did not replicate the studies done by Cameron which were open to selection bias
due to the way the 2 groups were picked. It's usually the case with the Mayo studies that they did not replicate
the protocol completely, so their conclusions are erroneous.
There are recent studies being done using IV ascorbate protocols.
If it was so proven wrong as you say then why are these studies being done?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Limbo
reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 05:25 AM by Limbo
reply to post by RogerT3
Cool. I did not have the information at hand about the later studies. I was aware of them.
From time to time I pop over to vit c foundation to see what's new.
I noticed also in one of those blogs someone posted that vitamin c blocked chemotherapy agents,
and posted a reference refering to this. As usual in slanted anti orthomolecular blogs, this is only
half the story....
What they did not mention are the studies which vitamin c enhancing chemotherapy.
(If anyone wants more information on this you read the following books)
Questioning Chemotherapy + Antioxidants & Cancer (Moss)
Ascorbate : The Science Of Vitamin C (Hickey & Roberts.)
700 Vitamin C Secrets: (and 1,000 Not So Secret for Doctors (Professor Sydney J. Bush)
The Bush book opens up a lot of research so it's a good primer to start.
The Ascorbate Science of Vitamin C is very in depth and a joy and an education to read.
Limbo
Cool. I did not have the information at hand about the later studies. I was aware of them.
From time to time I pop over to vit c foundation to see what's new.
I noticed also in one of those blogs someone posted that vitamin c blocked chemotherapy agents,
and posted a reference refering to this. As usual in slanted anti orthomolecular blogs, this is only
half the story....
What they did not mention are the studies which vitamin c enhancing chemotherapy.
(If anyone wants more information on this you read the following books)
Questioning Chemotherapy + Antioxidants & Cancer (Moss)
Ascorbate : The Science Of Vitamin C (Hickey & Roberts.)
700 Vitamin C Secrets: (and 1,000 Not So Secret for Doctors (Professor Sydney J. Bush)
The Bush book opens up a lot of research so it's a good primer to start.
The Ascorbate Science of Vitamin C is very in depth and a joy and an education to read.
Limbo
edit on 30-9-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 03:16 PM by Pardon?
reply to post by RogerT3
You're incredibly arrogant and pompous given that it's plain that you know nothing about what you're saying.
Pauling, albeit a great scientist in his field (as every time his name is mentioned in connection with vitamin C therapies, his Nobel prizes are also mentioned...), was no clinician. Having been involved in clinical research for more years than I care to remember I was amazed that his study wasn't terminated early as his methods were a complete mess. All I can put this down to was the fact he had no experience in these types of clinical trials since, as I said, he wasn't a clinician. He didn't even publish his results in a clinical journal.
As you say "You'll find that on ATS you have to back up your opinions with references or at least with a few links if you want the 'thinking' members to take you seriously." well I think you'll find that out in the big wide world even a few links aren't sufficient especially the one you've quoted to back up your "understanding" that there was a hatchet job done on his study. I'll quote these two lines from your post "Unfortunately, a hatchet job was almost immediately published in the New England Journal of Medicine which claimed Dr. Pauling’s research was nonsense. This work is so devious and evil that I will not cite it ".
How very convenient. And how very typical. A study fails and it HAS to be a hatchet job. Grow up.
Were you aware that Pauling was sponsored quite heavily by a company called Hoffman-La Roche? This company effectively produced the majority of the world's vitamin C. So no conflict of interests there then...
What the likes of you really don't understand about cancer is that virtually any compound if used in high enough concentrations can kill tumour cells (my particular favourite's paracetamol) in vitro. The negating factor is that getting them into the body in these ridiculously high concentrations to effect the cells would always prove highly toxic irrespective of how they are administered. In vitro studies are generally the first step in formulating an hypothesis however when these are then moved on to in vivo studies that when you sort the wheat from the chaff. Even if they seem to do well in animal studies (mice, rats etc) there's still no guarantee that they'll work in humans.
The "studies" you've cited as proof of what you're arguing for, to use your vernacular, are bollocks and are typical of the pseudo-scientific studies used by people such as yourself as proof. If you read the study properly you will see that although some of the tumour growth was delayed, there was NO shrinkage in any of them. Again, this "effect" can be replicated with a myriad of other compounds.
"That should get you started and at least point you in the direction of the authentic research, not the pharma funded panic attack!"
Tell you what, go away and learn how to understand clinical studies and their implications and how to differentiate between a good, robust and useful study from those just making up the numbers or trying to prove already decided conclusions rather than the other way around.
You're incredibly arrogant and pompous given that it's plain that you know nothing about what you're saying.
Pauling, albeit a great scientist in his field (as every time his name is mentioned in connection with vitamin C therapies, his Nobel prizes are also mentioned...), was no clinician. Having been involved in clinical research for more years than I care to remember I was amazed that his study wasn't terminated early as his methods were a complete mess. All I can put this down to was the fact he had no experience in these types of clinical trials since, as I said, he wasn't a clinician. He didn't even publish his results in a clinical journal.
As you say "You'll find that on ATS you have to back up your opinions with references or at least with a few links if you want the 'thinking' members to take you seriously." well I think you'll find that out in the big wide world even a few links aren't sufficient especially the one you've quoted to back up your "understanding" that there was a hatchet job done on his study. I'll quote these two lines from your post "Unfortunately, a hatchet job was almost immediately published in the New England Journal of Medicine which claimed Dr. Pauling’s research was nonsense. This work is so devious and evil that I will not cite it ".
How very convenient. And how very typical. A study fails and it HAS to be a hatchet job. Grow up.
Were you aware that Pauling was sponsored quite heavily by a company called Hoffman-La Roche? This company effectively produced the majority of the world's vitamin C. So no conflict of interests there then...
What the likes of you really don't understand about cancer is that virtually any compound if used in high enough concentrations can kill tumour cells (my particular favourite's paracetamol) in vitro. The negating factor is that getting them into the body in these ridiculously high concentrations to effect the cells would always prove highly toxic irrespective of how they are administered. In vitro studies are generally the first step in formulating an hypothesis however when these are then moved on to in vivo studies that when you sort the wheat from the chaff. Even if they seem to do well in animal studies (mice, rats etc) there's still no guarantee that they'll work in humans.
The "studies" you've cited as proof of what you're arguing for, to use your vernacular, are bollocks and are typical of the pseudo-scientific studies used by people such as yourself as proof. If you read the study properly you will see that although some of the tumour growth was delayed, there was NO shrinkage in any of them. Again, this "effect" can be replicated with a myriad of other compounds.
"That should get you started and at least point you in the direction of the authentic research, not the pharma funded panic attack!"
Tell you what, go away and learn how to understand clinical studies and their implications and how to differentiate between a good, robust and useful study from those just making up the numbers or trying to prove already decided conclusions rather than the other way around.
reply posted on 1-10-2012 @ 08:26 AM by RogerT3
reply to post by Pardon?
Dude, you're probably right.
Anyway, this discussion has nothing to do with the OP, so apologies for going off topic.
If radiation becomes an issue in my neighbourhood, I'll become much more interested in the Japanese observations and consider megadosing with vitC.
Personally, I'm glad I got over my need to have a peer reviewed study give me permission to experiment with my own body. At least I now know how to get my own, cheap, home-made liposomal C into my body (and family too) at v. high concentrations without pooping it out 10 mins later
Dude, you're probably right.
Anyway, this discussion has nothing to do with the OP, so apologies for going off topic.
If radiation becomes an issue in my neighbourhood, I'll become much more interested in the Japanese observations and consider megadosing with vitC.
Personally, I'm glad I got over my need to have a peer reviewed study give me permission to experiment with my own body. At least I now know how to get my own, cheap, home-made liposomal C into my body (and family too) at v. high concentrations without pooping it out 10 mins later
edit
on 1-10-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 04:08 AM by Limbo
Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by RogerT3
What the likes of you really don't understand about cancer is that virtually any compound if used in high enough concentrations can kill tumour cells (my particular favourite's paracetamol) in vitro. The negating factor is that getting them into the body in these ridiculously high concentrations to effect the cells would always prove highly toxic irrespective of how they are administered. In vitro studies are generally the first step in formulating an hypothesis however when these are then moved on to in vivo studies that when you sort the wheat from the chaff. Even if they seem to do well in animal studies (mice, rats etc) there's still no guarantee that they'll work in humans.
Yes but compared to paracetamol, vitamin c is highly non toxic and kills cancer cells in concentrations easily attainable in the bloodstream by I.V methods with no adverse side effects.
Water kills cancer if injected into the tumor mass.
Free radical damage causes DNA mutations and healing reactions. Ascorbate prevents this.
The tumor enviournment is a pool of free radical damage. That's why the cells DNA is scrambled.
As far as I can tell, Pauling did not have a medical license, however he had a lot of contacts in the field and was highly respected. It was a clinician who did the vitamin c studies. (Cameron)
There's no evidence that shrinking tumors affects survival.
Sure it might be a good plan to reduce tumor mass if it hurting the patient. Some chemo drugs do this very well.
Limbo
edit on 2-10-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)
A virus that kills cancer: the cure that\'s waiting in the cold
Posted 6 days ago with 21 member flags
Posted 6 days ago with 21 member flags
Anyone else get "vaccines" in school (United States) in the mid to late 70\'s?
Posted 1 days ago with 11 member flags
Posted 1 days ago with 11 member flags
Use these tips to detox after exposure to aerial or ground sprayed pesticides
Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
My block was sprayed for mosquitos 3 days ago, been sick ever since!
Posted 5 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 5 days ago with 6 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
1000-year-old coins found in Northern Territory may rewrite Australian history.
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 38 minutes ago
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 38 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Planck Space Data Yields Evidence of Universes Beyond Our Own
Science & Technology: 17 hours ago, 23 flags
Science & Technology: 17 hours ago, 23 flags
18-year-old’s breakthrough invention can recharge phones in seconds
Science & Technology: 13 hours ago, 12 flags
Science & Technology: 13 hours ago, 12 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
6 Reasons Why Obama’s Popularity Is Likely to Plummet; The politics of hope & the politics of nope
US Political Madness: 17 hours ago, 72 replies
US Political Madness: 17 hours ago, 72 replies
Planck Space Data Yields Evidence of Universes Beyond Our Own
Science & Technology: 17 hours ago, 40 replies
Science & Technology: 17 hours ago, 40 replies
18-year-old’s breakthrough invention can recharge phones in seconds
Science & Technology: 13 hours ago, 29 replies
Science & Technology: 13 hours ago, 29 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.249 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.249 seconds
