I think there has to be an element of logic and not just total reliance on scientific evidence, which often ends up being 180 degrees wrong a few years later.
This comment is influenced by the psuedo science currently being practiced by modern medicine sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies. You combine this with a deliberate media campaign to distort the truth - and it looks like science has conflicting findings.
That is why I value Linus Pauling so much. Real science is capable of approaching truth in a rigorous way, unfortunately, real science w/r to nutrition ended, at least for a time, when medicine realized where it was heading if "simple, unpatentable vitamins could cure everything."
Back to nature - I have been asked to swallow quite a bit of Naturopathic training and history, but I have done what I wish more medical doctors would do - take the training with a grain of salt. I don't simply accept that everything "natural" is good for us. I do respect the early science that discovered which molecules the body requires for life and good health, and that we don't make, and that we need to obtain in our food. And I believe that bioidentical copies of these molecules are entirely natural, while pharmaceutical altered versions are dangerous. So maybe I should call myself a "Bio-identical-path"?
As to whether these bioidentical molecules we require for life are somehow made better when taken in the way they appear in plants, I am sure there are examples both ways, I simply haven't found good rationale arguments to support this notion, in general, especially with respect to vitamin C.
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info CARDIO-C.COM VITC-STORE.COM
LifeWave.COM/vitamincfoundation (Partner ID 2486278)
LifeWave.COM/inteligentVitaminC (Partner ID 2533974)