Whorled View

October 21, 2007

Winning the War on Terror through Vitamin C

Filed under: defense,economics,Health,medicine,middle-east,Science,Vitamin C,war — lullabyman @ 3:05 am

The war on Terror costs money. Lots of it. It seems then that the best way to win the war on terror is to free up tons of money, making it available to the economy so the war on terror can be funded. After all, most wars are not won on the battlefield anymore than they are in the pocketbook. Whoever can afford to fight the longest and hardest wins.

Where to get such money? Well, according to the results of a British researcher: http://torontosun.com/Lifestyle/2007/10/20/4590932-sun.html we could very likely solve heart disease problem cheaply and efficiently and heart disease is (the #1 killer in the United States) costs Americans more money every year by far than does the Iraqi conflict. The wild thing is that tons of research backs up this claim the cheap doses of Vitamin E (an antioxidant), cheap resveratrol (another antioxidant), and cheap megadoses of Vitamin C can prevent, and even reverse the conditions that lead to heart attacks, and yet our “noble” allopathic tradition discourages it, claiming that it’s dangerous because it can give you diarrhea … or even worse: it might make you fart!

Oh! The horrors!

Meanwhile the war on terror is bankrupting the world, yet heart disease costs even more. Same thing with Cancer (costs more than the war on terror), which disease is also very treatable, very effectively by extremely cheap IV based ascorbate treatments (as high as 200 mg/day, but usually 70 mg twice/week is adequate). So if we started using these cheap treatments and reinvesting that money usually spent on Cancer and Heart Disease into the economy then we would have more than enough to pay for the War on Terror. Not to mention it would save 100,000,000’s lives every year worldwide – allowing the patients to live full and productive lives.

But then who’s going to pay for all the Yachts? No wonder the AMA and your very own doctor frowns upon anything that has anything to do with Vitamin C. And so we’ll bankrupt the economy of the world. Just remember – it wasn’t the war that did it. It was the refusal to save money where money could have been saved.



  1. I personally stake my money on vitamin D, but C is a worthy neighbour.

    Comment by mo79uk — October 21, 2007 @ 10:51 pm

  2. No doubt Vitamin D is a part of a good orthomolecular program, but I doubt you’ll see any well-established antioxidant researcher put D above C. Besides, the best way to receive D is through sunlight – and there is a toxic upper limit for orally ingested D. Not so for vitamin C. People have received as high as 300 g/day of ascorbates intravenously (that’s 2/3 pounds in dry weight form) – a common treatment for critical Aids cases, with no negative long term affects from the treatments.

    The best therapeutic value (and the most covered up results) of C is found in administering blood concentrations of ascorbates in volumes unattainable by oral ingestion (example: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/140/7/I-61). Do some research … it will blow you away, a good place to start is this horribly dated list of research (stops at 1999 – the most exciting stuff has happened since then): http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/

    Comment by lullabyman — October 22, 2007 @ 12:47 am

  3. I want to refrain from a C vs. D debate as I don’t dispute C’s benefits (I’ll be the first to up my C during a cold/flue!), and of course both can be taken together.

    I do wonder though why humans lost the ability to manufacture C. Was it an error of evolution or did we no longer need it so much?

    The best source of D is indeed sunlight and more recent evidence suggests 40k of oral D (8 5000IU tablets) for prolonged periods is when toxicity begins. The sun can give us 10k in 15-30mins of prime UVB (dependent on latitude and skin exposure), after which the body prevents further production, so a 5000IU capsule is half of adequate sun exposure and rises slightly above the 4000IU the body uses daily. The average vit D capsule contains a measly 400IU, only enough to cover basic bone health.

    Even though vit C can be given at much higher doses, there must be only so much a body needs before excreting the rest. It’s just a shame D can’t do this at higher doses.

    The reason why I believe D is more crucial – at least for heart disease – is that statins have been shown to raise D (some manufacturers as Pfizer didn’t even know this!). When UVB hits the skin it turns a cholesterol precursor to D, so if you’re getting D from your supplement, your liver will remove the excess substrate as it’s no longer required for conversion. Also if you’re getting enough UVB, a lot of the precursor will be converted and not turn into cholesterol.
    Statins have been shown to also benefit bones, which is a typical D role. This is linked with heart disease as it’s calcium plaques (not cholesterol) which form in the arteries to cause heart disease. If your calcium metabolism (regulated by D) is poor, calcium won’t be binding to your body in the right way and straying elsewhere. The reason why men are more likely to get a heart attack than osteoporosis is that testosterone means higher bone mass, so even if calcium is lost it mightn’t be enough to fully affect their skeleton, but just enough to inflict the heart.

    The reason why I believe C is also good is due to collagen production, which also has an effect on bones. By keeping calcium binded to not fall apart, this is achieving a similar function to D.
    A lot of other functions of C match those of D, so it’s interesting if both were looked at with enthusiasm.

    Comment by mo79uk — October 22, 2007 @ 10:30 am

  4. Yeah, my post would probably have been better termed Winning the War on Terror via Ortho-molecular medicine, or via cellular medicine (or whatever you want to call it). Although Vitamin C just seems to influence the widest range of illnesses, vitamin D imho is just as critical as C for heart disease (and maybe more so), as is E which also has recently shown to prevent heart disease. It’s the #1 killer, costs the US over $200billion/year, and can be cured by cheap vitamins, and yet hardly nobody knows this.

    I think we’ve just scratched the surface with regard to investigating therapeutic levels of vitamins or “nutriceuticals” for therapy.

    There is such an insidious ongoing systematic effort by the AMA community to disparage any use of them. It’s sad … nearly all drugs promoted by allopaths are inherently toxic to the body at very low doses, and it doesn’t take much to kill a person, however they discourage the therapeutic use of say Vitamin D because it is toxic at a much higher level than their own prescribed pharmaceuticals. How utterly hypocritical. How utterly un-hypocratic.

    Comment by davea0511 — October 22, 2007 @ 1:03 pm

  5. I agree that the inability of mankind, gorillas, fruit bats, and guinea pigs to produce vitamin C is a fascinating mystery. The gorillas, fruit bats, and guinea pigs, I can understand because they naturally consume a diet in regions that are always rich in vitamin C even in drought-like conditions. Mankind does not though. What it tells me is that mankind has not evolved much, if at all, since he left his vitamin C rich cradle of origins, or in other words those guys were a lot smarter than what we give them credit for.

    If we are to consume as much as primates per body weight who also do not produce their own C, we then should be consuming around 5000 mg/day which is anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than most people consume on average. Its also about 70 times higher than the ridiculous “recommended daily allowance”. If I didn’t know better I’d think the medical industry was trying to keep us just sick enough to pay for doctors visits so they could charge us when we come in to get prescribed antibiotics, when all we needed was as much daily Vitamin C as the first homosapiens consumed.

    Comment by davea0511 — October 22, 2007 @ 2:01 pm

  6. Nah, your title wouldn’t be catchy with orthomolecular in it! 😉

    It might sound conspiratorial to some but a fair minority believe unprescribed doses of certain vitamins are deliberately kept low to ensure patented drugs fill bank accounts, albeit toxic analogues of natural substances. Unfortunately we get tagged as quacks at the moment. But evidence exists to support this.

    That’s not say the medicine industry hasn’t made necessary synthetic drugs, but it’s not crazy to think that some of the best medicines are within nature itself and it’s simply a matter of finding, not making them.

    And as for dietary vitamin C, you have a strong point. It’s no wonder in England we have a campaign of 5 five fruit and veg a day to prevent cancer as a number of the popular items contain vitamin C. And then also not everyone seems to be consuming much natural food anymore, and even foods fortified with C (and D) contain very very small amounts, enough to make people think “ooh, it has vitamins in it!”.
    The antibiotic example is also a very good one. Prior to 1928 we didn’t have Penicillin and as far as we know there wasn’t gargantuan deaths attributed to rampant infection. Back then we also didn’t have convenience foods. Even more before that in the Neanderthal period we constantly got enough sun (D) on our skin and due to still being close to the equator consumed enough C.

    Comment by mo79uk — October 22, 2007 @ 2:58 pm

  7. It never ceases to amaze me how something so saturated with pure common sense is considered quackery by the very people who took an oath to practice common sense for the health of mankind. Insidious is the only word I can think of to describe it.

    I used to think that the onslaught of mounting evidence combined with the free access of information on the net would eventually overcome professional prejudices of the medical society. Unfortunately I’ve become more jaded though over time, as the willfully ignorant forces to disparage vitamin based therapies seem to increase at the same rate or even a greater rat as the ever mounting evidence to support such therapies.

    The amazing thing is that they have little to no pertinent evidence to support their positions, and yet the medical community as a whole embraces those prejudices wholeheartedly. Although there are exceptions I find most doctors embrace their undeviating faith in pharmaceutically funded research and opinions with extreme passion.

    Comment by davea0511 — October 22, 2007 @ 5:13 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: