scrugby>
I can't say I was impressed with your critique of the sources I provided. Hope you find the time to go thru what I responded with. To make things more readable, I placed a "+" in front of your original comment.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+*Injectable Vitamin C and the Treatment of Viral and Other Diseases by Robert D. +McCracken, Ph.D.*
+This is an independently published book. As such, “evidence” provided cannot be held to the +same standard as any evidence found in a peer reviewed journal. Independent publishing +means the author is free to expand on his biases and promote a single agenda – not +evidence.
Where do you get this info? I'd like to know where it's written that evidence provided cannot be held to the same standard. You throw out these rules -- as if they're law -- and I want to know where they come from.
Also, does an independently published book automatically mean that every single statement in that book is wrong?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+*The Origin of the 42-Year Stonewall of Vitamin C
+Robert Landwehr, Berkely, CA,
+Journal of Opthomolecular Medecine, 1991, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 99-103*
+Unfortunately there is no “Journal of Opthomolecular Medecine.” If you were referring to the +Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine then again, we need to understand that this is not a good +source. The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is not indexed by MEDLINE, a database of +biomedical literature. Journals are selected for MEDLINE by the National Library of Medicine +based on scope and coverage, quality of content, quality of editorial work, intended audience, +quality of the layout, printing, graphics, and illustrations. – not evidence.
Yes, this is probably a mis-type, should probably be Orthomolecular Medecine.
" .... we need to understand that this is not a good source."
It is not a good source BECAUSE ........?
Regarding your comment about MEDLINE, I have no experience with it. However, I have read other articles about MEDLINE, unfavorable ones, that we can discuss (or rather you can enlighten me about) on another thread. In essence, MEDLINE is subject or political manipulations and that may account for what does or does not show up in it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+*Observations on the Dose and Administration of Ascorbic Acid When Employed Beyond the +Range of a Vitamin in Human Pathology
+Frederick R. Klenner, M.D., F.C.C.P
+Journal of Appplied Nutrition, 1971, Vol. 23, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 61-87*
+As stated above, Frederick Robert Klenner is Deceased. Has published nothing new on +Vitamin C since his death in 1984. Many of his studies are in direct conflict with more recent +inquisitions on the subject - there is a reason that he is widely ignored in the medical +profession. Widely refuted, not science.
Please explain how does being deceased effect the published research of Klenner.
Please explain why, if Klenner was alive, must he publish something new.
"Many of his studies are in direct conflict with more recent inquisitions on the subject"
Examples of this please?
"There is a reason that he is widely ignored in the medical profession."
Who says Klenner is widely ignored in the medical profession? And how does being "widely ignored" effect the quality of what he published?
" Widely refuted, not science."
Please give examples of him being "widely refuted".
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+*Prevention of Rabies by Vitamin C
+S. Banic, Institute of Microbiology, Medical Faculty, Yugoslavia
+Nature, November 13, 1975, Vol. 258, pp. 153-154*
+Single study on the efficacy of Vit C protecting against rabies in Guinea pigs. The effect of +vitamin C against rabies in the guinea pig does not directly imply that vitamin C is beneficial +for humans, further research is needed on approach and supporting studies are required. +Also, 1975, there is more recent science.
"The effect of vitamin C against rabies in the guinea pig does not directly imply that vitamin C is beneficial for humans"
This is true when looking at this study by itself, in isolation. When looking at this study in conjuction with the study of rabies in monkeys, and the many studies of vitamin c effect on the many different viruses, this paints an overall encouring picture that rabies in human will respond similary to the rabies in the guinea pig and monkey -- it'll be prevented / cured if given in large enough dosage.
You do understand the issues involved with conducting rabies studies on humans, yes? Animals have to be used. And since guinea pigs, like humans, must get their vitamin c from diet they are perfect test subjects for an animal that does not product it's own vitamin c -- like humans.
"Also, 1975, there is more recent science."
May I see it?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+* A Cure for Mushroom Poisoning
+M.D. Laing, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg
+Sa Mediese Tydsdrif, April 14, 1984, p. 590*
+Not a study, a letter to the editor of the journal in question with no supporting clinical +evidence.
This is not true. I have a copy of the letter. It describes the treatment and case studies. It also says the the treatment has been adopted as the tretment of choice at a number of centers in France.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
+*Effect of Ascorbic Acid in the Treatment of Tetanus
+K. Jahan, K. Ahmad and M.A. Ali, University of Dhaka and Infectious Disease Hospital, +Mohakhali, Dhaka
+Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulliten, June 1984, pp. 24-28*
+Really old study. Check out this one from 2008 +
Read More.
"Really old study."
Does being an old study invalidate the study?
"Check out this one from 2008 +
Read More. "
I get a "page does not exist" for the link.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+*Vitamin C Pharmacokinetics: Implications for Oral and Intravenous Use
+Sebastian J. Padayatty, MRCP, PhD: He Sun, PhD, CBS: Yaohui wang, MD: Hugh D. Rordan, +MD: Stephen M. Hewitt, MD, PhD: Arie Katz, MD: Robert a. Wesley, PhD: and Mark Levine, +MD: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseses, and the National Cancer +Institute, and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
+Annals of Internal Medecine, April 6, 200, Vol. 140, No. 7, pp 533-537*
+“Only intravenous administration of vitamin C produces high plasma and urine concentrations +that might have antitumor activity. Because efficacy of vitamin C treatment cannot be judged +from clinical trials that use only oral dosing, the role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should +be reevaluated. “
+So according to the study authors (and more names don’t mean a better study), vitamin C +might, it might, have antitumor activity, but you really can’t tell in a clinical setting so who the +hell knows. More studies needed, no conclusive proof. Heck, THC has more support as an +anti-cancer agent, you’re better off advocating that everyone goes out and smoked copious +amounts of weed.
You've focused on the wrong point of the study.
This research report helps explain why vitamin c administered through injection is so much more effective in treating disease than when taken orally. "Oral vitamin c," the authors say, "produces plasma concentrations that are tightly controlled" by the body, not rising more than 2 or 3 times above levels found when vitamin c rich foods are consumed. Intravenous vitamin c, by contrast, bypasses the body's control system, resulting in plasma concentrations that are as much as 70-fold above baseline. And the size of increase varies according to amount injected. CONSEQUENTLY, VITAMIN C TAKEN ORALLY CANNOT SERVE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR INJECTED VITAMIN C WHEN TREATING DISEASE.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+*Vitamin C as an Erogogenic Aid
+Michael J. Gonzalez, DSsc, PhD, FACN, Jorge R. Miranda, PharmD, and Hugh D. Rorodan, +MD, University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Camput, San Juan, Puerto Rico
+Journal of Orthomolecular Medecine, 2005, vol. 20, No. 2*
+"We’ve done this source above, and it’s not an actual source. Fringe research not credited by +the scientific community."
Please explain again why it's not an "actual source".
What is your defination of "fringe research"?
May I see your documentation where the scientific community has not credited it?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
"Then the rest of your Sources come from pre-2000, with many of the same issues – they’ve all either been widely refuted or the science simply doesn’t support what you’re trying to prove."
Can I see some examples of something "widely refuted"?
Can I see some examples of the science not supporting what I'm trying to prove?
Also, what's the signifigance of pre-2000 sources? Are they inferior in any way?
" .... especially if they are as weak as the first few."
If you go back and read my comments to your rebuttal, you'll find that what's weak is your critique of the sources.
"Where are the NATURE articles?"
I have no idea of the thought process that leads a researcher to publish his/her work in one journal, as opposed to another journal. Since you come across as a person intimately familar with the "scientific publishing community" perhaps you can tell me where the NATURE articles are.
"Where are the studies which haven't been refuted?"
I'm still waiting for you to provide the studies that have refuted something.
"Where are the repeated experiments?"
Again, since you probably work in the industry, perhaps you can tell me the process that determines how experiments are repeated?