MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

The newest recruit to the (by now quite crowed) coronavirus bandwagon is orthomolecular medicine. In case you are unsure what hides beind this pseudoscientific name, here is a (slightly abbreviated) explanation from my book:

Orthomolecular medicine is the term for a mega-vitamin therapy coined in the 1960s by Linus Pauling (1901-1994). Pauling had two Nobel prizes to his name and was once called one of the 20 greatest scientists of all time. In 1968, he published a paper stating that the functioning of the brain is affected by the molecular concentrations of many substances that are normally present in the brain. The optimum concentrations of these substances for a person may differ greatly from the concentrations provided by his normal diet and genetic machinery. Biochemical and genetic arguments support the idea that orthomolecular therapy, the provision for the individual person of the optimum concentrations of important normal constituents of the brain, may be the preferred treatment for many mentally ill patients. It was the start of his (and the world’s) obsession with mega-doses of vitamins.

Orthomolecular medicine assumes that an optimum nutritional environment in the body is a precondition for good health and suggests that diseases reflect nutritional deficiencies. Treatment for disease, according to this view, involves the correction of imbalances or deficiencies based on individual biochemistry by use of high doses of vitamins, minerals, amino acids, trace elements and fatty acids. The assumptions of orthomolecular medicine lack biological plausibility. Although there are some encouraging reviews, no compelling evidence exists that orthomolecular treatments are clinically effective for patients who do not suffer from nutritional deficiencies. (references: see original book)

But perhaps I was too harsh in my judgement?

Perhaps there is something to orthomolecular medicine after all?

Perhaps Linus Pauling (photo) was right?

Perhaps it even helps against the coronavirus infection?

Dr. Andrew W. Saul, an international expert on vitamin therapy, says, “The coronavirus can be dramatically slowed or stopped completely with the immediate widespread use of high doses of vitamin C.” Yes, this is what proponents of orthomolecular medicine are trying to tell us. They go on to persuade the unexpecting public that:

Physicians have demonstrated the powerful antiviral action of vitamin C for decades. There has been a lack of media coverage of this effective and successful approach against viruses in general, and coronavirus in particular.

It is very important to maximize the body’s anti-oxidative capacity and natural immunity to prevent and minimize symptoms when a virus attacks the human body. The host environment is crucial. Preventing is obviously easier than treating severe illness. But treat serious illness seriously. Do not hesitate to seek medical attention. It is not an either-or choice. Vitamin C can be used right along with medicines when they are indicated.

“I have not seen any flu yet that was not cured or markedly ameliorated by massive doses of vitamin C.”
(Robert F. Cathcart, MD)

The physicians of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service and the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine urge a nutrient-based method to prevent or minimize symptoms for future viral infection. The following inexpensive supplemental levels are recommended for adults; for children reduce these in proportion to body weight:

  • Vitamin C: 3,000 milligrams (or more) daily, in divided doses.
  • Vitamin D3: 2,000 International Units daily. (Start with 5,000 IU/day for two weeks, then reduce to 2,000)
  • Magnesium: 400 mg daily (in citrate, malate, chelate, or chloride form)
  • Zinc: 20 mg daily
  • Selenium: 100 mcg (micrograms) daily
  • Vitamin C [1], Vitamin D [2], magnesium [3], zinc [4], and selenium [5] have been shown to strengthen the immune system against viruses.

The basis for using high doses of vitamin C to prevent and combat virus-caused illness may be traced back to vitamin C’s early success against polio, first reported in the late 1940s.[6] Many people are unaware, even surprised, to learn this. Further clinical evidence built up over the decades, leading to an anti-virus protocol published in 1980.[7]

It is important to remember that preventing and treating respiratory infections with large amounts of vitamin C is well established. Those who believe that vitamin C generally has merit, but massive doses are ineffective or somehow harmful, will do well to read the original papers for themselves. To dismiss the work of these doctors simply because they had success so long ago sidesteps a more important question: Why has the benefit of their clinical experience not been presented to the public by responsible governmental authorities, especially in the face of a viral pandemic?

____________________________________________________________________

Yes, exactly: Why has the benefit of their clinical experience not been presented to the public by responsible governmental authorities, especially in the face of a viral pandemic?

Does anyone know the answer to this question?

I suspect it goes something like this:

Their clinical experience is misleading and orthomolecular medicine is bogus.

45 Responses to ‘Orthomolecular medicine’: more quacks jump on the CORONAVIRUS bandwaggon

  • The linked article’s headline:

    People are dying needlessly of coronavirus

    This closely resembles the recent Samoan measles crisis, where quacks had the gall to blame doctors and healthcare workers for the death of dozens of children, claiming that these children were deprived of ‘lifesaving’ vitamins, and instead received only Evil vaccines. (And they even blamed the actual outbreak on those vaccines, but I digress.) These were lies packed in lies – as a) extra vitamins were distributed by health officials, and b) these vitamins hardly have any effect on the course of the disease, except in malnourished people.

    Physicians have demonstrated the powerful antiviral action of vitamin C for decades

    I very much would like to see some evidence of this. As far as I can recall, studies do show that vitamin C deficiency has all sorts of detrimental effects, including impaired immune function, but also that daily dosage in excess of 500 mg is quite useless, and does not significantly contribute to preventing viral infections. At best, taking an increased daily dose (200 mg) of vitamin C reduces the duration of a cold with perhaps one day. This is rather less impressive than the claime “powerful antiviral action”.

    Unfortunately, it still appears to be fully legal to spread myths, nonsense and lies about serious health threats, making people spend money and time on useless treatments at best, and at worst causing unnecessary sickness and death.

  • > Why has the benefit of their clinical experience not been presented to the public by responsible governmental authorities, especially in the face of a viral pandemic?

    I don’t want to take sides here… but this is the argument? What about the mentioned studies? On the one hand I see hundreds of studies about vitamin C with the earliest from 1933, on the other I see two arguments: “There is no evidence.” and “Not approved by authorities.” That’s not really how scientific arguing works. The principle of falsification means, “that for something to be scientific it must be be able to be proven false. If things are falsifiable (able to possibly be proven false) then they can be used in scientific studies and inquiry.”

    Would you be so kind and point to a study that falsifies the claims of the proponents of orthomolecular medicine, i.e. proves the uselessness of higher doses of vitamin C?

    Thank you.

    (For reference: https://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/)

    • that’s not how science works.
      I do not make the claim that vit C cures/prevents viral infections.
      the burden of proof is with the one who makes the therapeutic claim.

      • I must agree with you. The one who makes the claim must bring proof. But are the studies about vitamin C that show successful treatment not proof, until otherwise falsified? Doesn’t that (just logically) bring the burden of proof to the other side, to bring proof that it’s not working what was initially claimed?

        At which point is a study accepted as “proof”? What’s the definition of proof in regards to scientific studies and what are these studies lacking that they are not regarded as valid scientific studies?

        Apart from that, there seem to be numerous studies made by researchers not affiliated with the proponents of orthomolecular medicine regarding viral infections, e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14787210.2020.1706483. As an example, would this study be valid?

        I’m not trying to say that one or the other group is right or wrong. Right now it’s about analyzing the discourse about these topics I find it quite interesting to see by which not quite obvious standards studies are accepted or disregarded.

        Thank you very much.

        • ” are the studies about vitamin C that show successful treatment not proof”?
          can you provide the links to some of those that, in your view, show efficacy, please?

          • Yes, here are some links to studies […] that seem to show the efficiency of high dosages of vitamin C:

            The clinical effects of vitamin C supplementation in elderly hospitalised patients with acute respiratory infections, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7814237

            Efficacy of Vitamin C in Reducing Duration of Severe Pneumonia in Children, https://www.journalrmc.com/volumes/1405749894.pdf

            The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing and relieving the symptoms of virus-induced respiratory infections, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10543583

            Vitamin C and Immune Function, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29099763

            And here’s an interesting one to watch, just started:

            Vitamin C Infusion for the Treatment of Severe 2019-nCoV Infected Pneumonia, https://www.journalrmc.com/volumes/1405749894.pdf

            Thank you for your attention.

          • the studies you linked to are either not showing that vit C prevents or cures infections, or are not related to viral infections, or are not clinical trials at all.

          • Wilhelm,

            That’s not really how scientific arguing works. The principle of falsification means, “that for something to be scientific it must be be able to be proven false. If things are falsifiable (able to possibly be proven false) then they can be used in scientific studies and inquiry.”

            A hypothesis such as “Vitamin C is useful in the treatment of coronavirus” isn’t strictly falsifiable in the way that “swans are white” can be falsified by a trip to Australia where there are black swans with red bills.

            Unfortunately biological systems, such as the response of an infected patient, are subject to a huge range of random influences, genetic and environmental, which makes it difficult to tease out real effects from random noise. We have to resort to statistical tools to do this, though unfortunately they aren’t always applied at the design stage of a trial, which can lead to invalid results, and often the analysis of the data is carried out by people who don’t have a clear idea of what they are doing.

            Many studies looking at questions of this sort (vitamin C and coronavirus) start their analysis by assuming the null hypothesis, which is that the intervention has no effect and any differences found are due to chance. Stanadard statistical methods then give a probability of getting the results that have been found, and it that probability is low (less than 5% is a commonly used value) then the results are said to be statistically significant (though a significant effect may not be large enough to be clinically useful). Note that this is very different from saying that the results have a 95% probability of being true – the probability of this is usually much lower, requires additional information to calculate which may well not be available, and is not normally given in medical reports of this nature.

            Now let’s look at some of your links:

            The clinical effects of vitamin C supplementation in elderly hospitalised patients with acute respiratory infections, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7814237

            Unfortunately this only links to the abstract, and the full paper is hidden behind a paywall, so we have very little information about how the study was conducted and analysed. Even so, the authors state that the greatest effect of vitamin C was seen in subjects who had very low serum and white blood cell vitamin C levels. This suggests that what they were treating was vitamin C deficiency in these patients, which is quite a common problem in elderly individuals who don’t eat enough fresh fruit and vegetables. From this it might seem a reasonable idea to administer supplemental doses of vitamin C to elderly hospitalised patients, but it doesn’t really tell anything about the effects of vitamin C in well-nourished individuals with respiratory tract infections.

            Efficacy of Vitamin C in Reducing Duration of Severe Pneumonia in Children, https://www.journalrmc.com/volumes/1405749894.pdf

            Here we have the full paper, and it is apparent that the study population comes from a deprived area of Pakistan with widespread malnutrition. Unfortunately the treatment and placebo groups are not well balanced, with a higher proportion of children under 1 in the latter, and also a higher proportion of those who are very underweight (and therefore presumably the worst-nourished). This alone is enough to skew the results and invalidate any conclusion other than that vitamin C treats vitamin C deficiency.

            Vitamin C and Immune Function, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29099763

            This is a review discussing the mechanisms of action of vitamin C, which we already know is essential for normal metabolic function (or it wouldn’t be a vitamin), so while it is interesting and infromative, it isn’t really relevant here as it does not address the question we are investigating.

            Vitamin C Infusion for the Treatment of Severe 2019-nCoV Infected Pneumonia, https://www.journalrmc.com/volumes/1405749894.pdf

            This links to the paediatric paper from Pakistan that we have already discussed, which presumably wasn’t your intention. OldBob provides the following link:
            https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04264533

            which I think was the one you meant to put in.

            This is a proposal for a clinical trial. It will be interesting to see where it leads but it would be wrong to pre-empt the results.

            Real-world clinicians have to make all kinds of decisions concerning the management of the patient in front of them. In this they are guided by their own training and experience, their knowledge of the totality of the medical literature as it applies to their area of specialisation, the opinions of their colleagues, local policies etc. In Britain we have NICE, which provides guidance based on cost-effectiveness, and Cochrane reviews are also very helpful since they present a summary of the data in one place making it easily accessible to busy practitioners.

            [Note that I have taken the trouble of replying to you at length since you maintain that you hold a neutral position. I wrote a similarly long reply yesterday and accidentally deleted it just before it was ready to post – I spent the rest of the day in hospital having cancer treatment so I wasn’t able to start again until this morning, with interruptions from phone calls and the grandchildren accidentally smashing a glass jar in the kitchen while the dog was drinking water leaking through the ceiling… Anyway, I hope you find this useful.]

        • the link you provided is not to a ‘study’!

        • At which point is a study accepted as “proof”? What’s the definition of proof in regards to scientific studies and what are these studies lacking that they are not regarded as valid scientific studies?

          My response to this would be the current state of the scientific consensus on a topic. “Proof” isn’t really the right word. To me, it implies a single thing to demonstrate a claim. Science doesn’t really work like that.

          This feels like the situation that homeopathy finds itself in. There’s a mountain or literature on the topic, but most of it is crap. When the crap is filtered out what’s left is collated and, hopefully, it shows a common trend falls out at the end of the process. In the case of homeopathy, it is, in layman’s terms, quite conclusive in showing it doesn’t work.

          My understanding of the state of the art on Vit C mega dosing was that it has a similar outcome. Not really useful for any of the things it is typically claimed to be useful for.

          This is also why it isn’t worth presenting a single, or even a handful of studies to demonstrate a point like this. When there is enough research on a topic you can find studies to fit any agenda. Individual studies aren’t worth presenting unless you are intentionally trying to manipulate a discussion with people that don’t know better.

          Is this a reasonable understanding of how things should work?

  • Your mention of Linus Pauling’s cause of death is really bad form. And certainly, although he named it, he was not the father of orthomolecular medicine.

    The orthomolecular medicine approach generates falsifiable hypothesis as Wilhelm points out. Drs. Hoffer, Klenner and (if we include minerals) Abraham could be considered the orthomolecular medicine fathers and their hypothesis are falsifiable: benefit of megadoses of niacin on Schizophrenia is mostly falsified (new acute cases too?) but benefit of megadoses of either vitamin C on bacterial or viral infections, or megadoses of iodine on cancer are certainly not. For example, research on sepsis (now I see vitamin C benefit —without hydrocortisone—, now I don’t —with hydrocortisone) and breast cancer (iodine RCTpreliminar results) is ongoing nowadays; now that of vitamin C on viral infections too.

    My claim? Orthomolecular medicine is NOT pseudocientific. You should correct your book.

    Moreover, since a risk/benefit analysis on using oral saturation doses of vitamin C is positive (very low risk, highly probable benefit), there are lots of us that will proceed to try it for the coronavirus too if the time comes, even if the intravenous route RCT is not yet completed by then.

  • Andrés on Monday 17 February 2020 at 14:36 said:

    “…there are lots of us that will proceed to try it for the coronavirus too if the time comes, even if the intravenous route RCT is not yet completed by then.”

    How about 50 tons of it?

    From here:
    https://twitter.com/dsm?lang=en

    this:
    “ Yesterday, we shipped 50 tons of immunity boosting Vitamin C from our DSM Jiangshan plant to the Province of Hubei, of which Wuhan is the capital city. The banner text on the truck reads: ‘In the fight against N-CoV the people of DSM Jiangshan and Wuhan are heart to heart’ ”

    (DSM is the Dutch State Mining company.)

  • Thank you for your post Michael Carney. I really mean that. I am quite intrigued by it and it has caused me to dig dipper. I can attest to my own experiences with orthomolecular medicine that it has benefited me greatly and it is part of what compelled me to create this page. It is a responsibility of each individual to discern for themselves the approach that works best for them. I am not licensed to give any sort of advice and so sharing in opposing points of view is highly welcomed here. Your post has a lot of information to it that I’m still pondering on. I counter you on orthomolecular medicine being bogus though. Here is an article from the US National Library of Medicine / National Institutes of Health that relates to the posted topic. The study is from 2006 and while I understand that science evolves, the quality of science published is at the hands of us humans. Our society and cultural is not as altruistic as we’d like to believe it is. All the commercials for lawsuits against previously FDA approved drugs is an example of that. It makes me wonder how much of science has become a race for patents, recognition and greed. So I believe that this 2006 article from US National Library of Medicine / National Institutes of Health still holds valid consideration.

    “Overall, research suggests that vitamin C provides a wide variety of benefits in daily doses from 500 mg to 6000 mg, and higher doses may be of value in some conditions. Many of these benefits would be of particular value to the elderly, with compromised immunity, degenerative heart and brain disorders, as well as cancer and inflammatory processes. I typically recommend 3000 mg to 6000 mg daily for many patients.”
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695174/

  • Stacie Didier,

    So I believe that this 2006 article from US National Library of Medicine / National Institutes of Health still holds valid consideration.

    “Overall, research suggests that vitamin C provides a wide variety of benefits in daily doses from 500 mg to 6000 mg, and higher doses may be of value in some conditions. Many of these benefits would be of particular value to the elderly, with compromised immunity, degenerative heart and brain disorders, as well as cancer and inflammatory processes. I typically recommend 3000 mg to 6000 mg daily for many patients.”
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695174/

    In what sense is this paper from the National Institutes of Health? NIH is mentioned nowhere in the Author Affiliation.

    Your link points to an indexing service which NIH provides to enable people to find academic papers, but that does not mean that they had any part in authoring, sponsoring or publishing it, and it is certainly not an endorsement, as you seem to be suggesting.

  • You mean Linus Pauling who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954 and the New Scientist hailed as one of the greatest scientist of all time!
    Who are you again?

    • It’s funny, isn’t it, how someone can be right about some things and completely wrong about others…

      • Alan Henness on Friday 10 July 2020 at 22:00 said:
        “It’s funny, isn’t it, how someone can be right about some things and completely wrong about others…”

        There is nothing special about that, it applies to everyone. You need to give an example e.g. Pauling’s biggest mistake was missing out on the structure of DNA.

      • Linus Pauling received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954 for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances. This work was totally unrelated to his later work in medical research and advocacy for Vitamin C. He also received the Nobel peace Prize for peace activism, again unrelated to his later vitamin C related work.

        Linus Pauling was indeed a remarkable man and rightfully earned the title of most remarkable scientist of his time, that is until he passed his prime and lost sight of his capabilities.
        After his laudable scientific achievements, he became the scientist who epitomises what came to be known as the Nobel-disease. In his later years he became obsessed with the idea that Vitamin C was a cure for the common cold and many other health problems. He believed this simple substance might be a veritable panacea and spent enormous effort on proving it. His fixation with this crusade became pathological in nature and blinded him to any results, which did not corroborate his infatuation.
        Because of the weight his eminence lent the subject, Vitamin C became one of the most studied of vitamins but trial upon trial did not supstantiate Professor Paulings hopes. As a result, he became increasingly aggressive and estranged from his colleagues with advancing age. One of many sad stories tells how his friend and co-worker was thrown out and fired by Prof. Pauling when he dared present him with a negative result of an experiment.
        As is the case with most health-related fads and fantasies, others took over and propagated vitamin C as a panacea for easy money. Despite evidence to the contrary it remains a popular item in the bag of tricks of naturopaths and other health-charlatans. The news that it supports sepsis treatment is in no way a corroboration of Linus Paulings mistaken advocacy for it.

    • Dr Levy seems unaware of the results of clinical trials of some of the treatments that he is recommending for Covid-19 showing them to be ineffective or harmful. For instance he describes his own observation of six patients who recovered after receiving chloroquine, and seems to regard this as supporting its use, rather than basing his recommendations on the results of a randomised prospective trial in which those patients receiving chloroquine did worse than the control group (though undoubtedly some of them would have recovered following administration of this drug).

      Many of the agents he is recommending are known antiseptics, and while they can kill viruses outside the body, they are harmful if administered internally (despite what Trump has said about them).

      Yet others are the subject of ongoing clinical trials, the results of which are as yet unknown.

      I was curious to see that low-dose radiotherapy to the lungs has been tried, though I don’t know what out-dated equipment was used that took as long as 10 – 15 minutes to give a dose of 1.5 Gy (the dose-rate from a standard medical linear accelerator would be nearly ten times that, though the patient would be allocated a ten-minute treatment slot to allow time for setting up); possibly he is mis-reporting what was done. Of course, the high-dose vitamin C that he is recommending for all patients would have mopped up the oxygen free-radicals that radiotherapy generates, thereby reducing the effective dose by an unknown amount. Low-to-medium dose radiotherapy is sometimes used for treating benign conditions owing to its anti-inflammatory effect, but this is generally avoided if possible because of the risk of radiation-induced tumours. It seems plausible to me that it could help some people with Covid-19 but I have not seen the data and I have no personal experience of using it in a similar way.

      I think in the UK he would be on dangerous territory publishing these guidelines. Like all rights, the right to free speech carries responsibilities, and as a doctor he has an additional responsibility to ensure that what he says has a sound basis, and to consider the consequences. I could see the General Medical Council taking an interest here.

      • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Sunday 19 July 2020 at 20:31 said

        “…Like all rights, the right to free speech carries responsibilities…”

        You cannot have a principle and a compromise at the same time, either you have free speech or you don’t.

        • You seem to have a very simplistic view of what rights and responsibilities are.

          There is rightly a continual debate about what the limits of free speech should be; by statute in England hate speech is currently a crime, as is any communication which is threatening or abusive, or is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone, and the other countries making up the UK have their own versions of this or are consuling on them. This is to protect minorities and other vulnerable members of society. On the other hand anybody is free to criticise the Government, and indeed here the right to free speech is an essential component of democracy.

          If you have the right to own a gun that doesn’t mean that you have the freedom to go round indiscriminately shooting other people, even if some gun owners think otherwise, though it baffles me why so many Americans regard this as an acceptable price to pay for liberal gun laws.

          In the case of your gun laws and Dr Levy’s advice the outcome is the same – avoidable deaths. But perhaps you feel that the victims’ right to life can be set aside.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Monday 20 July 2020 at 11:51 said:
            “There is rightly a continual debate about what the limits of free speech should be”

            Yesterday it was Lady Chatterley’s Lover.
            Today it is Hate Crime.
            Tomorrow it will be… hang on, Today’s is enough. Hate Crime can be, “…any communication which is threatening or abusive, or is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone.”

            Which means anything at all because there will always be someone in the world who feels threatened or abused or feels the intention of harassment, alarm or distress from someone else – people kill each other for just being looked at the wrong way.

            “This is to protect minorities and other vulnerable members of society.”
            And who is to decide who needs protection? Those in the protection business, the Tony Sopranos of State protection.

            “On the other hand anybody is free to criticise the Government, and indeed here the right to free speech is an essential component of democracy.”
            That is no longer true e.g. I am not allowed to say “xxxxx lives matter” – But which one is it? It’s the one we are not allowed to say. Which just goes to show what a mockery of logic non-objective law is.

            “If you have the right to own a gun that doesn’t mean that you have the freedom to go round indiscriminately shooting other people.”
            That is correct and inherent in one’s right to one’s own life by definition.

            “In the case of your gun laws and Dr Levy’s advice the outcome is the same – avoidable deaths. But perhaps you feel that the victims’ right to life can be set aside.”
            Dr Levy’s advice saved Alan Smith. There is no reason why the same thing would not likewise avoid most of current deaths from the complications of coronavirus. Gun laws do not “set aside victim’s right to life”, only bad people do that, mainly by other means.

          • Old Bob,

            Which means anything at all because there will always be someone in the world who feels threatened or abused

            Hate crime has a specific legal definition, and is not just saying something that somebody else objects to.

            That is no longer true e.g. I am not allowed to say “xxxxx lives matter”

            I think you will find that legally you are allowed to say such things, and it is certain sectors of society who will judge you, not the Law. Unfortunately the Court of Social Media doesn’t have the same checks and balances as the Courts of Law, nor does it presume innocence until guilt has been proven.

            Dr Levy’s advice saved Alan Smith.

            That is arguable. Alan Smith is convinced but I am not. It is very unwise, not to say dangerous, to base medical practice on the outcome of a single case.

            Gun laws do not “set aside victim’s right to life”, only bad people do that, mainly by other means.

            Mortality statistics say otherwise.

            In countries such as the UK where gun laws are stricter, deaths from shooting are uncommon. Restricting access to guns makes it harder for the bad guys to get hold of them, harder to carry them and also less likely to use them. But it isn’t just the bad guys. What about suicides? The urge to end one’s own life often passes quite quickly, unless the means is readily available. What about accidental deaths (e.g. children playing with a parent’s gun)? What about trigger-happy police? What about self-defence where the situation is not actually life-threatening? What about mass shootings (mad guys, not bad)?

            Whether restricting access to guns saves lives is not in question – it is a well-established fact. Gun laws allowing ordinary citizens to have ready access to assault weapons result in many lives lost; the question is whether you feel that your right to bear arms trumps another man’s right to life.

            I grew up with guns and although I prefer to shoot wildlife with a camera I am grateful for a steady supply of game from other members of my family. However, guns are strictly controlled over here, and are not even routinely carried by the Police. Nobody even considers the possibility that there are situations where they might get shot; it is not part of normal life.

    • ” its effectiveness and safety are still pending verification by large-scale clinical trials.”

      so, do you have a point. Old Bob?

      • I think that is exactly the point that Old Bob was making. Though personally I am surprised to find this review hosted on an orthomolecular medicine Web site.

      • Edzard on Friday 07 August 2020 at 07:07 said:
        “so, do you have a point. Old Bob?”

        Yes, plenty, but these are Chinese guys making their points, not mine.

        But suppose I do say something such as “…it works for me.” or “…it doesn’t work for me.” – that would be opinion right? And just as valid as Christine’s opinion.

        Also Old Bob and Christine are of type-anonymous anyway, that’s two removes from reality.

        • … these are Chinese guys making their points, not mine.

          Please tell what your point is with referring to a discussive article by some “Chinese guys” published in an obscure alt-med paper?

          Vitamins C has been found to be a possible[sic] supplement to active drug therapy in the treatment of sepsis, based on theories that vitamin C stores are depleted in this desperate condition. That does not support Linus Pauling’s fallacious fantasies about the general utility of oral or i.v. vitamin C – certainly not in the prevention or treatment of anything from coryza to Covid-19.

          • Björn Geir commented on ‘Orthomolecular medicine’: more quacks jump on the CORONAVIRUS bandwaggon said:

            “Please tell what your point is with referring to a discussive article by some “Chinese guys” published in an obscure alt-med paper?”

            I find it interesting.

            You are angry about Linus Pauling – why? He is long dead and does not hear you. This is also interesting, human beings watch, fascinated by trivia (such as orange-yellow smoke from NO2)…

            My own trivia is my cancer. That’s why I am here, posting this stuff and these links etc, and I learn more interesting things from e.g. JMK.

            I am not angry about Linus Pauling. I don’t mind if he is wrong or right – in fact I expect him to be wrong quite often because that is the nature of finding out, it is a cliche to say that the guy who does not make mistakes did nothing (but I know that EE does not like my cliches – sorry EE, about that 🙂 – and anyway, I agree with you, cliches are so lazy!

          • Björn Geir on Friday 07 August 2020 at 23:41 said:

            “Vitamins C has been found to be a possible[sic] supplement to active drug therapy in the treatment of sepsis, based on theories that vitamin C stores are depleted in this desperate condition. That does not support Linus Pauling’s fallacious fantasies about the general utility of oral or i.v. vitamin C – certainly not in the prevention or treatment of anything from coryza to Covid-19.”

            You have several errors here:
            1 The “…possible supplement to…” is based on the-Result-at-the-sickbed, not “…based on theories…”.

            2 “…certainly not…” – this, before the results of the trials are out. There is nothing certain here – except in fantasy or fallacy.

          • Is there any reason for me to respond to this practically incomprehensible comment by a nameless, apparently non-medically educated person?

          • Björn Geir on Sunday 09 August 2020 at 17:00 said:
            “there any reason for me to respond to this practically incomprehensible comment by a nameless, apparently non-medically educated person?”

            No, response remains voluntary…

          • Björn Geir on Sunday 09 August 2020 at 17:00 said:
            “Is there any reason for me to respond to this practically incomprehensible comment by a nameless, apparently non-medically educated person?”

            1 “…practically…” – why not “certainly”?
            2 “…apparently…” – ditto?

            Because, evidently, you don’t know, you cannot know, and yet you are “certain” about Pauling and “…anything from coryza to Covid-19.”, which in the grand scheme of things, includes the workings of the Human Body and its interaction/integration with viruses and vitamin C.

            Suppose you did have this knowledge. You would be able to immediately say something like “Vitamin C cannot work because of xyz.” instead of personal attack.

        • But suppose I do say something such as “…it works for me.” or “…it doesn’t work for me.” – that would be opinion right? And just as valid as Christine’s opinion.

          I would say precisely as valid.

  • From here, page 57:
    https://visionearth.org/downloads/THE-HEALING-FACTOR-v20150318-001.pdf

    Regulation dietary vitamin C at mg / kg is for:
    monkey == 55mg / kg
    guinea pig == 42 -167mg / kg
    human == 1mg / kg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories