The much debated topic of Vitamin C

Barry Ritz, PhD, in research at Drexel University has shown NK (natural killer) cell activity at the first stages of viral infection is extremely important to successfully combating a viral infection.

Nutritional support of the immune system, via key nutrients, should enhance the body's ability to defend against a previously unseen pathogen such as the "Swine Flu". While this shouldn't be construed as a "cure", but it may very well help blunt the impact of the swine flu.

When viral epidemics hit, like the current one, there is always a pattern of death and survival. A hundred people can be exposed to the same virus, some will have no symptoms, others will have mild symptoms but recover quickly, while others will have more severe symptoms and take longer to recover, and a few unfortunate individuals will die. The difference is not due to the virus, or the medical attention they receive, but the strength of the immune system in each person. We know certain things will harm or strengthen the immune system. By avoiding things that weaken the immune system and taking advantage of things that strengthen the immune system, you can fortify your body to have the best chance for survival. Most people survive swine flu with no intervention. So obviously, an intact human immune system is capable of defeating the virus.

The trouble with the National Academy of Science press release announcing the increased RDA of vitamin C and vitamin E is its alarming implication. The council implies that the mounting evidence for higher intakes is flimsy. Taking high amounts of these antioxidants might be harmful, they claim as they set suggested maximum dosages.

This reasoning is why we as laymen get lost trying to follow medical thinking. As far as anyone knows, there hasn't been a single death caused by an overdose of either vitamin C or vitamin E. For that matter, in recent memory, no one has died taking too much of any vitamin or amino acid.

On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, doctors and the pharmaceuticals they prescribe are a leading cause of death and disability in the USA.

The National Academy of Science cites no evidence that taking too much vitamin C causes harm (other than a small minority of people with specific genetic diseases, e.g., hemochromatosis.) According to the mounting literature, the harm comes by taking too little vitamin C. People who follow Dr. Robert Cathcart's advice have taken over 100,000 mg (100 g) of vitamin C daily to relieve their symptoms, without adverse side affects. Vitamin C is about as toxic as water. The body seems to absorb what it needs.

Vitamin C is not the only completely non-toxic substance that, when taken in large amounts, confers great benefit and thus competes directly with pharmaceuticals. MSM and Co-enzyme Q10 (Co-Q10) come to mind. There are multiple reports of breast cancer remissions from high-dose Co-Q10. The first report was during a 1993 clinical study by Dr. Folkes in Denmark. During this study, a woman increased her daily Co-Q10 from 90 mg to 390 mg. In one month, her tumor was no longer palpable and in the following month, a mammogram confirmed the disappearance of her tumor. (See Ralph Moss's Antioxidants Against Cancer and Jean Carper's Miracle Cures.)

When the medical profession acts like a business, it cautions us about taking antioxidants, while pushing dangerous prescription drugs down our throats.

hope4bestprep4wrst wrote: I think vitamin C is pretty good stuff. The only complication I have seen iwas n  a friend of mine whose kidney stones were attributed to high dose vitamin C by his urologist (how did he figure that out, I do not know) FYI-that photo of the child kissing the pig is a webpage photo of a very very famous pork farming corporation.......ironic but very cute.

VITAMIN C DOES NOT CAUSE KIDNEY STONES

By Steve Hickey, PhD and Hilary Roberts, PhD.

(OMNS) It is strange how some medical authors seem desperate to show that vitamin C causes harm. One recurrent scare story is that vitamin C might cause kidney stones. However, although such warnings pop up regularly, these reports do not demonstrate an increase in the number or size of stones; instead, they rely on vague indicators of improbable risk.

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.

PURPOSE: The association between the intake of vitamins C and B6, and kidney stone formation was examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of the relationship between the intake of vitamins C and B6 and the risk of symptomatic kidney stones in a cohort of 45,251 men 40 to 75 years old with no history of kidney calculi. Vitamin intake from foods and supplements was assessed using a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire completed in 1986. RESULTS: During 6 years of followup 751 incident cases of kidney stones were documented. Neither vitamin C nor vitamin B6 intake was significantly associated with the risk of stone formation. For vitamin C the age-adjusted relative risk for men consuming 1,500 mg. daily or more compared to less than 250 mg. daily was 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.11). For vitamin B6 the age-adjusted relative risk for men consuming 40 mg. daily or more compared to less than 3 mg. daily was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.31). After adjusting for other potential stone risk factors the relative risks did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: These data do not support an association between a high daily intake of vitamin C or vitamin B6 and the risk of stone formation, even when consumed in large doses.