Bad C Info from Sarah at Healthy Home Economist

[ofonorow]

[ofonorow]

[randian]

Where is this "vitamin c complex" notion coming from? I see it all over "health food" websites.

The "OMG, it's from GMO sources" bit seems absurd as well. Unless you can show that GMO-based ascorbic acid is an isomer who cares that it came from GMO sources? Once you've processed down to pure ascorbic acid you shouldn't be able to tell where it came from, just like iron is the same no matter where you got the ore from. That's why I wonder about people who claim that corn-based vitamin c doesn't work for them. The only way that's possible is if (1) it's actually an isomer of ascorbic acid, or (2) the powder is contaminated. The former could have wildly deleterious effects on the body. You'd think somebody would have noticed the latter and blown the whistle.

[ofonorow]

I'll move this where it belongs - the the "Vitamin C Complex" forum as this notion has been around a long time, fed by several books that we have already challenged, one by Sally Faloon who is a reputable advisor to Weston-Price. People are apparently easily swayed by this notion even though there isn't an iota of evidence such a natural complex exists.

Ironically the fear that "ascorbic acid" was harmful, is the reason why Berkley Biddell's Foundation for Alternative and Integrative Medicine declined to fund a study of Linus Pauling's vitamin C and lysine protocol for heart disease. It is ironic, because Pauling's therapy has (so far) saved Mr. Beddels life after we were told more than a year ago that he was on his deathbed with heart disease.

[tjohnson_nb]

It's a shame all that work that went into isolating the molecules we call 'vitamins' is called into question when someone comes along and says "that's not the real vitamin". The internet is a remarkable place but READER BEWARE! Actually I don't see a problem if someone wants to define Vit C Complex as a certain group of molecules go for it - but the term "vitamin C" is already taken - sorry.

[ofonorow]

[davids1]

[torisellon]

I was happy to find this thread because several months ago I read this post by Sarah after I read the Primal Panacea. I have to say her comment about C killing good bacteria has been a nagging thought in my head. I also was struck that there were no references for her comment. I contacted the Weston A Price foundation for clarification and didn't hear a reply, but after reading the threads regarding Thomas Cowan and Sally Fallon, I now understand why. I'd like to ask here though, are there any references that prove otherwise? Anything that proves that C doesn't harm flora?

The argument that people have been doing high dose C for years doesn't cut it for me. People are doing all kinds of things that destroy good bacteria. I have lyme and it's why I'm looking into high dose C, but many people take years of antibiotics to treat their lyme and there are some who say they get better from that method, but that clearly kills good bacteria. People do chemo and reach remission, but that absolutely kills good bacteria.

I just want to be clear here. I am not bashing C. I hope dearly it's the cure I'm hoping for, but I do want to have all my facts clear before I start treating so any insight here that would bolster confidence in C's ability to kill only the bad stuff would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Tori

[ofonorow]

I think this argument may have some merit, because we evolved, like the other species, to make our own vitamin C, not eat it. So the amount in the digestive tract (if we were making it) would be minimal. Ergo we cannot say because the animals don't experience this problem (loss of friendly gut flora) it doesn't exist.

Logically, what would be the problem if important gut flora were wiped out by high vitamin C?

For one thing, I suppose our supply of vitamin K would be diminished. (My wife and I take high vitamin C, and her calcium score from a Fast CT scan was zero. If we didn't have gut flora, and no vitamin K, the end result would be calcification of soft tissues.)

I suppose digestion would be affected. I have followed in the foot steps of Linus Pauling since 1986, taking about 18,000 mg of vitamin C daily (usually 2 doses of 9,000 mg every 12 hours.) I have no digestive problems. Neither has my wife.

And while Pauling reportedly died of prostate cancer, he lived to age 94 (after almost dying at age 40 of a normally fatal kidney disease. After this he started taking a daily multivitamin. He only learned about vitamin C from Irwin Stone around age 60, and lived another 30 years. (ref: Linus Pauling in his own words. Edited by Barbara marinacchi)

[bluemustang]

I was happy to find this thread because several months ago I read this post by Sarah after I read the Primal Panacea. I have to say her comment about C killing good bacteria has been a nagging thought in my head. I also was struck that there were no references for her comment. I contacted the Weston A Price foundation for clarification and didn't hear a reply, but after reading the threads regarding Thomas Cowan and Sally Fallon, I now understand why. I'd like to ask here though, are there any references that prove otherwise? Anything that proves that C doesn't harm flora?

The argument that people have been doing high dose C for years doesn't cut it for me. People are doing all kinds of things that destroy good bacteria. I have lyme and it's why I'm looking into high dose C, but many people take years of antibiotics to treat their lyme and there are some who say they get better from that method, but that clearly kills good bacteria. People do chemo and reach remission, but that absolutely kills good bacteria.

I just want to be clear here. I am not bashing C. I hope dearly it's the cure I'm hoping for, but I do want to have all my facts clear before I start treating so any insight here that would bolster confidence in C's ability to kill only the bad stuff would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Tori

I am also wondering as you say there isnt any evidence, I havent found any either that says its doesnt harm good bacteria, I am quite confused. How can it be that it kills bad bacteria but not the good? Andrew Saul notes some info here, but he doesnt explain if and why vitamin still kills bad bacteria and is unable to kill good bacteria is doesnt make sense. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v09n27.shtml