Question and Answer About "Natural" Vitamin C

The following is a question sent to me concerning the use of high-dose vitamin C. The practitioner in question follows the belief that only vitamin C from "natural" sources – in other words, directly from plants – is helpful, and that "artificial" ascorbic acid is "really not a good idea". The orthomolecular definition of "natural", on the other hand, is a molecule identical to that used naturally by the human body. Whether it comes from a plant or is manufactured in a laboratory is of little consequence. Here we go:

 

 

 

 

Writes SH: 

 

 

 

Here is my reply:

 

1.  Vitamin C does not "greatly acidify the blood", even if someone takes 10,000 milligrams a day or more for decades, as has been done by many people.  I challenge SH or anyone else to bring evidence backing this statement. The body has several very effective mechanisms for keeping the blood pH within the vital range of 7.34-7.44.  Far from "laying the ground for serious disease", vitamin C powder has been used by responsible doctors and natural healers for about the last 70 years to cure a huge range of diseases from polio to the common cold to heart disease to viral hepatitis. Larger amounts than can be attained from food sources detoxify a very wide range of environmental toxins and has saved many people from death. The first rule for a healer is "do no harm". While statements made by people like SH may rooted in a genuine heart - as I truly believe they are - they are also rooted in abysmal ignorance, violating this rule and doing tremendous harm by causing the public not to use this valuable substance properly.

 

2. "As happened with Linus Pauling..."  Excuse me, but Linus Pauling died at the age of 93 years old, with absolutely no deterioration of his mental capacity. He died just before he was to give a lecture, showing that he functioned very well to the time of his death. I have a video of him talking about vitamin C and how it prevents heart disease. He was 92 at the time of this video, which I would be happy to lend you. Pauling was one of the greatest scientists of all time, sometimes referred to as "the Einstein of Chemistry." He studied, wrote and experimented with vitamin C for 25 years before his death, and had no commercial interest in the substance. He was certainly in a better position than SH or others of her kind to know whether vitamin C acidifies the blood or causes serious disease. SH's statement about Pauling displays absolute ignorance. If I'm not mistaken, Pauling died of prostate cancer, which takes decades to develop. Stating that vitamin C caused this disease shows a lack of intellectual honesty. The fact that vitamin C did not cure Pauling's cancer only shows that even vitamin C is not all-powerful, and cannot provide everlasting life. That said, it has been conclusively shown that vitamin C has the power to greatly extend and improve the lives of cancer sufferers, and sometimes has lead to total cures. It has been proven by Hugh Riordan and others, that a certain concentration of vitamin C, possible to achieve in the human bloodstream, kills cancer cells.

 

3.  "The best way..."  I am sure that 50 mg of vitamin C from a plant source is better than 50 mg from powder, and will certainly prevent outright scurvy. However, there is a tremendous body of scientific research, and the clinical experience of many doctors and millions of patients, that far more is needed for optimum health, particularly in today's world. Please study vitamin C theory about how hypoascorbemia – low levels of vitamin C – is a genetic disease of humans. Literally thousands of scientific trials have been conducted using pure ascorbic acid powder, showing the great benefits of using amounts of this substance far greater than can possibly be consumed from any plant source. This "the best way..." statement is brought without any explanation or backing. It is a philosophy, and no more than that. It displays ignorance of elementary scientific principals. The major source of vitamin C in the mammal kingdom, of which humans are a part, is not from plant sources, but from the mammalian liver. However, due to a genetic defect in making a vital enzyme, humans do not make any vitamin C in the liver.

 

4. I am quite sure that the cost of the Camu Camu berries, as a source of vitamin C, is a multiple of the cost of the powder. One teaspoon of power has more vitamin C in it than probably the whole bottle of Camu Camu and costs a dime or two.

 

5. With all due respect for SH and implicit trust, every healer should know his or her limitations. A one-shoe-fits-all approach, which is what apparently SH has, can "save people's lives every day" (which is quite a grand statement), but at the same time can cause people harm every day. The traditional approach to healing in most cultures is that nothing that is right for everyone all the time. I have had two people come to me in the last year who stated that SH's treatment caused them harm, possibly extensive, because they were encouraged to continue the raw foods program long after they felt it was weakening them. According to traditional Chinese medicine, a raw food diet for someone with "weak digestive fire" can be harmful, for example. In others, SH's type of program can be excellent as a therapeutic diet for a few months, and can definitely "save people's lives" as I'm sure she has done. However, for many and perhaps most people, when continued as a permanent life-style and philosophy, this program can cause damage which is very difficult to correct. The closest thing I have ever encountered as being good for everyone is vitamin C, although some people need a different form, not the ascorbic acid powder, and others can't tolerate large amounts.

 

If SH gives a reasoned rebuttal to the above arguments, please forward it to me.

 

All the best blessings,

Dolev