Mega doses of vitamin C and my 35 years of experience

It is also true that treatment procedures that are aimed at people in reasonably good health often only show marginal benefit but may have dramatic results on people who have a chronic problem caused by underlying conditions.

For example, there are lots of substances that promote wound healing- vitamin c, d, e, zinc, bioflavinoids, aged garlic extract, prescription drugs etc..etc. But if young people - for example- in good health have a wound and you apply all those approaches then probably it will show only negligible benefit. Wounds require at least some time and their systems are pretty much in tip top condition to begin with. But for people with chronic problems with wound healing some of those approaches can make a remarkable difference, even if the data for the general population is not that impressive.

It is the same with nutraceuticals- so called. Vitamin C probably may make little or no difference for many people with colds or the usual rhinovirus problem because -at least some time is required to boot that virus out even under the best of conditions. But you can't turn that around and therefore conclude that it does not make a significant difference for some- who have a more chronic condition where there are underlying conditions that may be helped by the vitamin c.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5295174/
 
It also makes sense to me that if you improve the nutrition of a cancer patient you might at the same time accelerate the growth of the cancer.
 
Pekelo said:
You might like his negative eugenics views, like tattooing certain gene characteristics on the forehead so others can avoid you with your bad genes. If I could remember which political group had some similar ideas in history...

https://paulingblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/mastering-genetics-pauling-and-eugenics/
More...
He was a practical person. logic rather then emotions ruled his life, but he was by no means a person devoid of emotions. Certainly one of the most interesting of our species during the twentieth century. And yes those views are interesting and you can see in them that there was a certain logic based on science behind them.
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
It also makes sense to me that if you improve the nutrition of a cancer patient you might at the same time accelerate the growth of the cancer.
More...

Ahhh, I can only nod because is beyond what can be discussed in posts.

But the answer is probably yes to that. Sorta, but is extremely complicated. Anti-oxidents for example seem to be highly effective in lowering certain types of cancers but the dilemma is that if you do get cancer and have been taking lots of anti-oxidents and get cancer it tends be more aggressive, and lethal. Not necessarily because you have been "feeding" the cancer cells along with the normal cells as it is that the body the cancer cells have learned a workaround before you killed them off. Mother nature is a little pisspot like that (or to look at it differently you have to admire intelligence and elegance of cancer cells even if they kill you). Antibiotics and all sorts of other drugs are also like that. If you hit your infection hard with a potent and appropriate antibiotic it can be a wonder drug but if you have been taking little doses of antibiotic over the years for acne, or every little ill you have, ir in the meat you buy, then you could be screwed. They have figured out the code and see you coming...ie. anti-biotic resistance.

Hormones can be a double-edged sword like that too. Low testosterone is definitely correlated with the development of aggressive prostate cancer but on the other hand it will drive a cancer faster if you do get it. Tricky stuff. Mother nature getting a vote every step of the way despite your efforts to outmaneuver it.

It is not always like that though. Sometimes your immune system is just subpar because of poor nutrition and if you improve that then it helps you to stay alive and that is all for the good.

Speaking of Pauling, he said once "every man gets prostate cancer if he lives long enough." A lot to think about there. In fact, almost every man over forty or even younger already has cancerous cells in his prostate - although not necessarily progressing- yet- and possibly not in your lifetime if you die early enough from some other cause.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
Ahhh, I can only nod because is beyond what can be discussed in posts.

But the answer is probably yes to that. Sorta, but is extremely complicated. Anti-oxidents for example seem to be highly effective in lowering certain types of cancers but the dilemma is that if you do get cancer and have been taking lots of anti-oxidents and get cancer it tends be more aggressive, and lethal. Not necessarily because you have been "feeding" the cancer cells along with the normal cells as it is that the body the cancer cells have learned a workaround before you killed them off. Mother nature is a little pisspot like that (or to look at it differently you have to admire intelligence and elegance of cancer cells even if they kill you). Antibiotics and all sorts of other drugs are also like that. If you hit your infection hard with a potent and appropriate antibiotic it can be a wonder drug but if you have been taking little doses of antibiotic over the years for acne, or every little ill you have, ir in the meat you buy, then you could be screwed. They have figured out the code and see you coming...ie. anti-biotic resistance.

Hormones can be a double-edged sword like that too. Low testosterone is definitely correlated with the development of aggressive prostate cancer but on the other hand it will drive a cancer faster if you do get it. Tricky stuff. Mother nature getting a vote every step of the way despite your efforts to outmaneuver it.

It is not always like that though. Sometimes your immune system is just subpar because of poor nutrition and if you improve that then it helps you to stay alive and that is all for the good.

Speaking of Pauling, he said once "every man gets prostate cancer if he lives long enough." A lot to think about there. In fact, almost every man over forty or even younger already has cancerous cells in his prostate - although not necessarily progressing- yet- and possibly not in your lifetime if you die early enough from some other cause.
More...
You're a Kindred soul. I can tell you have an excellent education is undergraduate science and something beyond that as well, probably biochemistry/molecular biology.
 
piezoe said:
You're a Kindred soul. I can tell you have an excellent education is undergraduate science and something beyond that as well, probably biochemistry/molecular biology.
More...

Thank you indeed.

I have no formal education in either science or chemistry. I did however survive bone cancer as a teenager. So let us just say, the nature of what one starts reading can dramatically change over night which is not all bad. And of course in the pre-internet days it involves some heavy hunting and gathering to accumulate information.

I will say no more about that but just flashed my kimono open for a minute, and we know that can be scary for others.

:cool:
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Thank you indeed.

I have no formal education in either science or chemistry. I did however survive bone cancer as a teenager. So let us just say, the nature of what one starts reading can dramatically change over night which is not all bad. And of course in the pre-internet days it involves some heavy hunting and gathering to accumulate information.

I will say no more about that but just flashed my kimono open for a minute, and we know that can be scary for others.

:cool:
More...
How an education is acquired, though not inconsequential, is less important than the knowledge acquired.
 
If you are into strength training or bodybuilding, too much vitamin c will interfere with the muscle repair and building process. This is due to vit c's role as an inflammation suppressor...inflammation is part of muscle repair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top