Vitamin C - What You Don't Know May Kill You AND Why The USDA is Wrong

page: 12
186
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Just FYI, your OP contains direct quotes from website that need to be put in external content tags.

I've stayed away from this thread since it's a regurgitation of countless other threads touting the same nonsense. Two points:

1. The premise here is that our natural diet is inadequate at providing enough vitamin c. I have a problem believing that superdosing one particular vitamin is the answer to all of our health maladies. The rebuttal, I assume, is that we lost our ability to produce vitamin c endogenously... meh


2. The problem that I've noticed is this... We're not deficient in vitamin c ingestion, per se, but rather vitamin c cell uptake. Glucose and Vitamin C share the same cell receptor for cellular uptake. When glucose is elevated, vitamin c uptake is inhibited (this is because blood glucose is much more dangerous at high levels).

Now, considering that cancer, and other diseases of modern diet, weren't especially problematic until the last 40-50 years... it seems that there is an obvious connection.

Carbohydrate consumption has increased dramatically. Diabetes and pre diabetes is at an epidemic level. For the most part, Americans have abnormally elevated blood sugar levels... which is leading to insufficient cellular uptake of vitamin c.

There's a reason why the best studies have shown that vitamin c supplementation isn't as efficacious as most would have you believe.

Cochrane Review of Vitamin C for treatment/prevention of common cold


The failure of vitamin C supplementation to reduce the incidence of colds in the general population indicates that routine prophylaxis is not justified. Vitamin C could be useful for people exposed to brief periods of severe physical exercise. While the prophylaxis trials have consistently shown that vitamin C reduces the duration and alleviates the symptoms of colds, this was not replicated in the few therapeutic trials that have been carried out. Further therapeutic RCTs are warranted.


Cochrane reviews are considered the best of the best in the scientific community.

I'm definitely willing to discuss this further.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Thank you I asked on the previous page for accredited non-profit sites with a discussion of this topic. Cochrane reviews is highly regarded and I will offer you a further opinion after reading the entire article.
edit on 14-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


Backing up your information, that vitamin C actually does what you and others are claiming it to do. Basically a source to substantiate the information you've provided such as like another poster posted a review from cochrane. I'm looking for credible scientists who have evaluated and reviewed this information, if this is as 'great' as it's supposed to be I'm sure you could find me a .org source or at least a scientific journal of high regard.
edit on 14-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Basically it doesn't say Vitamin C doesn't work but instead says that trials on a large population need more looking into. No where in the article does it state that the vitamin C wasn't helpful and actually claims it is extremely beneficial to athletes (I land in this category). This is another article from 2011 claiming the beneficial affects on pneumonia: summaries.cochrane.org... but again claims further testing on a larger population is needed.
edit on 14-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


Athletes and people in colder climates. Keep in mind, athletes probably have lower fasting glucose allowing for more vitamin c uptake.


It's rather telling that the best studies on vitamin c are ambiguous and show modest efficacy at best... considering that the consensus is that vitamin c supplementation does wonders.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


Backing up your information, that vitamin C actually does what you and others are claiming it to do. Basically a source to substantiate the information you've provided such as like another poster posted a review from cochrane. I'm looking for credible scientists who have evaluated and reviewed this information, if this is as 'great' as it's supposed to be I'm sure you could find me a .org source or at least a scientific journal of high regard.
edit on 14-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



Did you check out a source links that I provided to back up the claims made.

All the claim made have been backed up by medical studies for which I provided source links to.

Some include:

The Journal of Applied Nutrition.
Vitamin C Foundation.org
U.S. National Library of Medicne - National Institues of Health.gov
University of Maryland Medical Center
Oregon Health & Science University.edu
Western Human Nutrian Research Center, US Department of Agriculture
Oregon State University
The Lunus Pauling Institute

Take the time to read some of the source links provided, I believe you will find them all credible sources.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Examples of medical research:


Moreover, a regimen of daily pharmacologic ascorbate treatment significantly decreased growth rates of ovarian (P < 0.005), pancreatic (P < 0.05), and glioblastoma (P < 0.001) tumors established in mice.

Similar pharmacologic concentrations were readily achieved in humans given ascorbate intravenously.

These data suggest that ascorbate as a prodrug may have benefits in cancers with poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options.


US National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health.gov




A Japanese study on vitamin C and colds was published in 2006 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. This study was a five-year, randomized, double-blind (but not placebo-controlled) trial designed to evaluate the effect of a daily dose of 50 mg or 500 mg of vitamin C on the development of gastric cancer among 244 subjects. (The 50-mg dose of vitamin C served as a quasi-placebo.)

The researchers evaluated the effects of the vitamin C supplements on the common cold at the completion of the study.

The risk of contracting three or more colds in the five-year period was decreased by 66% by the daily intake of the 500-mg vitamin C supplement.


One of the best links of information is here:


Disease Prevention

The amount of vitamin C required to prevent chronic disease appears to be more than that required for prevention of scurvy. Much of the information regarding vitamin C and the prevention of chronic disease is based on prospective studies, in which vitamin C intake is assessed in large numbers of people who are followed over time to determine whether they develop specific chronic diseases.


This link covers many of the diseases that Vitamin C has a profound affect on.

Oregon State University



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


For the most part, it takes intravenous treatment to reach blood plasma levels of ascorbate that even considered to be efficacious.

Regarding the first link, most of the results are implicated by in vitro experimentation. As noted above, in vivo efficacy is only positive if administered pharmocologically and intravenously. Even then, tumor growth impairment was modest and described as a slow growth.

Suggesting that supplementation of vitamin c will prevent cancer, prevent heart disease, treat cancer, treat heart disease or simply prevent the common cold is such an overstatement and isn't supported by the bulk of quality research on the subject. It's an attempt, or at the very least an unfortunate side effect, to take away from the real cause and the real way to treat these diseases.

I can pull studies that support tons of crazy hypotheses. There's overwhelming, observational evidence that dogs who wag their tails more often have high cholesterol and then tail wagging causes high cholesterol. There's also a study that suggests that shaving less often can cause heart disease, lung cancer and early death from cardiovascular events Link

Cherry picking studies is essential when trying to determine which studies one should take to heart. But this cherry picking must come be accompanied by a standard of quality. Simply searching for studies that support one's hypothesis is not the way to go.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


And can you provide a link to the second quote you provided in the previous post of yours?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Very important suppressed information has started to show up in regards to Vitamin C and

Vitamin B injections. Research is the key.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


And can you provide a link to the second quote you provided in the previous post of yours?


Sorry about missing the link on it... I've lost it... but I'll keep looking. It was on the US National Library of Medicine website and I've closed my browser.

However most all the medical back up I use is located at the US National Library of Medicine. These are all documented medical studies.

Here is a search of medical studies on Vitamin C and there is an abundance of data that proves the benefits of Vitamin C.

US National Library of Medicine

Yes, treament for diseases such as cancer requires mega doses (50,000mg - 100,000mg) of intraveneous Vitamin C.

Most of the other doe not require a "mega dose" of Vitamin C, just a consistent diet of 1,000-2,000mgs of Vitamin C that you cannot get in pill form.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Here's another good study:


OBJECTIVE:

To study the effect of megadose Vitamin C in preventing and relieving cold and flu symptoms in a test group compared with a control group.

SUBJECTS:

A total of 463 students ranging in age from 18 to 32 years made up the control group. A total of 252 students ranging in age from 18 to 30 years made up the experimental or test group.

METHOD:

Investigators tracked the number of reports of cold and flu symptoms among the 1991 test population of the facility compared with the reports of like symptoms among the 1990 control population. Those in the control population reporting symptoms were treated with pain relievers and decongestants, whereas those in the test population reporting symptoms were treated with hourly doses of 1000 mg of Vitamin C for the first 6 hours and then 3 times daily thereafter. Those not reporting symptoms in the test group were also administered 1000-mg doses 3 times daily.

RESULTS:

Overall, reported flu and cold symptoms in the test group decreased 85% compared with the control group after the administration of megadose Vitamin C.

CONCLUSION:

Vitamin C in megadoses administered before or after the appearance of cold and flu symptoms relieved and prevented the symptoms in the test population compared with the control group.


US National Library of Medicine

The Cochran study was flawed. They didn't use enough Vitamin C. They only used 200mgs of Vitamin C.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


And can you provide a link to the second quote you provided in the previous post of yours?




A Japanese study on vitamin C and colds was published in 2006 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. This study was a five-year, randomized, double-blind (but not placebo-controlled) trial designed to evaluate the effect of a daily dose of 50 mg or 500 mg of vitamin C on the development of gastric cancer among 244 subjects. (The 50-mg dose of vitamin C served as a quasi-placebo.) The researchers evaluated the effects of the vitamin C supplements on the common cold at the completion of the study. The risk of contracting three or more colds in the five-year period was decreased by 66% by the daily intake of the 500-mg vitamin C supplement. There was little difference in severity or duration of colds between subjects in the low-dose or high-dose groups. This study deserves special mention because it was much longer (five years) than the trials reported by Hemila and covered many cold seasons in which subjects were probably exposed repeatedly to many cold viruses.


Oregon State University



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


TY I was looking for an abridged version, you did well. Thanks, now some reading to do.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


The Cochrane study isn't flawed. It's a meta-analysis. They weed out the poorly designed studies and expose industry influence and bias. Here:


We are an independent, not-for-profit organisation, funded by a variety of sources including governments, universities, hospital trusts, charities and personal donations.

We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding – this is vital for us to generate authoritative and reliable information, produced by people who can work freely, unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.



Cochrane Reviews are unique because they are both produced by, and are relevant to, everyone interested in the effects of human health care. Based on the best available evidence, healthcare providers can decide if they should fund production of a particular drug. Practitioners can find out if an intervention is effective in a specific clinical context. Patients and other healthcare consumers can assess the potential risks and benefits of their treatment.



Our work is internationally recognised as the benchmark for high quality information about the effectiveness of health care.


Again, it's not flawed.

You should really get a grasp on how to understand what you're posting. The cochrane review was based on multiple studies:


Twenty-nine trial comparisons involving 11,306 participants contributed to the meta-analysis on the risk ratio (RR) of developing a cold whilst taking prophylactic vitamin C. In the general community trials, involving 10,708 participants, the pooled RR was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.00). Five trials involving a total of 598 marathon runners, skiers and soldiers on subarctic exercises yielded a pooled RR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.64).

Twenty-nine comparisons examined the effect of prophylactic vitamin C on common cold duration (9649 episodes). In adults the duration of colds was reduced by 8% (3% to 12%), and in children by 13% (6% to 21%). The severity of colds was significantly reduced in the prophylaxis trials.

Seven trial comparisons examined the effect of therapeutic vitamin C (3249 episodes). No consistent differences from the placebo group were seen in the duration or severity of colds.


The abstract actually states that they excluded any studies with less 200mg dosed per day:


We excluded trials if a dose less than 0.2 g per day of vitamin C was used, or if there was no placebo comparison. We did not restrict to randomised controlled trials (RCTs).


If you need help understanding the difference between types of studies, I suggest you have a gander at this thread...

Causation vs. Correlation: How Medical Studies work!




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


1st... Statistical significance is important. 2nd... It wasn't placebo controlled.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


I would be interested in reading more of the astract of the studies used, but apparently the site is a membership only site and I am not able to access the full PDF.

Their website also appears very limited in analysis of Vitamin C studies.


We excluded trials if a dose less than 0.2 g per day of vitamin C was used, or if there was no placebo comparison. We did not restrict to randomised controlled trials (RCTs).


But we don't have the study in front of us to see who took what, how much and when. This is the most important part.

Cochrane Review

And they even conclude in their summary this:


Trials of high doses of vitamin C administered therapeutically, starting after the onset of symptoms, showed no consistent effect on either duration or severity of common cold symptoms. However, only a few therapeutic trials have been carried out, and none have examined children, although the effect of prophylactic vitamin C has been greater in children.

One large trial with adults reported equivocal benefit from an 8 g therapeutic dose at the onset of symptoms, and two trials using five-day supplementation reported benefit.

More trials are necessary to settle the possible role of therapeutic vitamin C, meaning administration immediately after the onset of symptoms.


My OP has included additional studies showing that higher doses of Vitamin C do have an effect on colds.

Use the Cochrane database as a source for information, we find this:


Overall, the results of the five identified trials suggested vitamin C is beneficial in both preventing and treating pneumonia. However, these trials were carried out in such extraordinary conditions that the results may not apply to the general population. Therefore, more research is needed. In the meantime, supplementing pneumonia patients who have low plasma vitamin C levels may be reasonable because of its safety and low cost.

Cochrane Summary

At any rate, it appears that none of the sources I use are up to your acceptable standards... so I'm not sure what else to say.

I've done a lot of research on the issue, I've found medical studies to support it and I agree more studies need to be done.

Do not any the the studies done br Dr. Robert Cathcart, Dr. Frederick Klenner, Linus Pauling or Oregon State University hold value? I appreciate the fact that peer reviews and single and double blind studies are very important. However, I'm not willing to throw the "baby out with the bath water" just yet.

VITAMIN C HAS BEEN KNOWN TO FIGHT 30 MAJOR DISEASES ... FOR OVER 50 YEARS




If so, why haven't you heard more about it? Why haven't more doctors used vitamin C as medicine?

Progress takes time. Fresh fruit was known to cure scurvy by 1753, yet governments ignored the fact for nearly 100 years. Countless thousands died in the meantime. The 19th century doctor who first advocated washing one's hands between patients died ignored and in disgrace with the medical profession. The toxic metal mercury was used as medicine into the twentieth century.

The first physician to aggressively use vitamin C to cure disease was Frederick R. Klenner, MD, beginning back in the early 1940's. Dr. Klenner successfully treated chicken pox, measles, mumps, tetanus and polio with huge doses of the vitamin.

The following is a complete list of the conditions that Dr. Klenner found that responded to extremely high dose vitamin C therapy:

Pneumonia
Encephalitis
Herpes Zoster (shingles)
Herpes Simplex
Mononucleosis
Pancreatitis
Hepatitis
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever
Bladder Infection
Alcoholism
Arthritis
Some Cancers
Leukemia
Atherosclerosis
Ruptured Intervertebral Disc
High Cholesterol
Corneal Ulcer
Diabetes
Glaucoma
Schizophrenia
Burns and secondary infections
Heat Stroke
Radiation Burns
Heavy Metal Poisoning (Mercury, Lead)
Venomous Bites
Multiple Sclerosis
Chronic Fatigue
Complications of Surgery

This seems like an impossibly long list.

At this point, one can either dismiss the subject or investigate further.

Dr. Klenner chose to investigate.

The result? He used massive doses of vitamin C for over forty years of family practice. He wrote two dozen medical papers on the subject. (1) It is difficult to ignore his success, but it has been done. Dr. Klenner wrote: "Some physicians would stand by and see their patient die rather than use ascorbic acid (vitamin C) because in their finite minds it exists only as a vitamin."


Orthomolecular.org



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I used to take a gram 3x a day, but backed off to 500mg 4x a day. It's better absorbed in lower doses.

If I'm recalling correctly, 1 study found 42% is absorbed from 1 gram dose, and 79% from 500mg dose.

That means I can have more absorbed from 2 grams than 3 each day by simply reducing dose, and increasing frequency.

S + F




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 

Julie,
Thank you for your kind response. I have finally ordered liposomal and vitamin b3 niacin off Amazon and I'm just waiting for it to get here. Yes I did watch the vid on b3, I researched in thevitamins helping with depression but I got the flush free kind, so that's prob why my results weren't so great. if this really works with my depression and anxiety, hopefully I can get off the prescribed stuff, which has always been my goal. I will def be back on this thread to report my results.
edit on 22-1-2013 by miss_sky because: type os



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by miss_sky
reply to post by Julie Washington
 

Julie,
Thank you for your kind response. I have finally ordered liposomal and vitamin b3 niacin off Amazon and I'm just waiting for it to get here. Yes I did watch the vid on b3, I researched in thevitamins helping with depression but I got the flush free kind, so that's prob why my results weren't so great. if this really works with my depression and anxiety, hopefully I can get off the prescribed stuff, which has always been my goal. I will def be back on this thread to report my results.
edit on 22-1-2013 by miss_sky because: type os


MissSky, just wondering if you got your liposomal therapy going yet? Would love to hear any feedback especially about the B3 niacin.





new topics
top topics
 
186
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join