Page 1 of 1

Only buffered C works?

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:58 am
by davea0511
I read the following at http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer02/VitaminC.html :

"Absorbic acid is useless in the body until it mixes with minerals and becomes a mineral ascorbate. However, when applying Vitamin C to skin cancer, an ascorbic acid has not had the opportunity to convert into a mineral ascorbate. Thus, ONLY A MINERAL ASCORBATE will be effective against skin cancer."

I see the word "thus" ... but it's non sequitur. Where's the proof that leads the "thus"?

Besides I've never heard that AA as an acid is useless against skin cancer before (let alone "useless in the body"). In fact, last I checked straight AA was the highest absorbency type of vitamin C out there. I use both AA and sodium ascorbate topically, and have for years, for many things to great effect. The AA always is more powerful. I used the buffered C for open wounds, eye drops, sore gums, and sensitive or sore skin, etc. After treating sore areas with buffered C for a few days first I'll follow it up with AA which works great for skin infections, ear drops*, rashes, and flaking* skin. I generally mix it to full strength (until there's precipitate).

Anyone heard of this "AA is useless without a mineral" and if so can you provide a reference?

Thanks!
Dave

* - these I start out with AA, skipping the buffered C step

Re: Only buffered C works?

Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:14 pm
by gofanu
If you read below the "More on the Theory of Vitamin C and Skin Cancer"

You will see where it comes from and also see this claptrap shot right out of the water.

FRM

Re: Only buffered C works?

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:00 am
by majkinetor
Anyone heard of this "AA is useless without a mineral" and if so can you provide a reference?

Not useless, but less effective for sure. It needs Mg, Na and Ca for SVCT2 to work properly.

Reference:

Mechanistic Insights and Functional Determinants of the Transport Cycle of the Ascorbic Acid Transporter SVCT2

Re: Only buffered C works?

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:32 am
by gofanu
All of that gobbledygook might be true, but there is no reason to think that you have to supply the Mg,Ca, etc, with the ascorbate. These are things that you should (and do, minimally if ill/malnourished but plentifully if healthy) have around. Pretty much as if I give you a pot of soup and you tell me it is useless because you don't have a stove or a spoon or a house to sit down in to eat.

FRM

Re: Only buffered C works?

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:13 am
by majkinetor
or hands ? :)

Magnesium deficiency is common. Also, it looks like Na concentration for optimal SVCT working is pretty high. Anyway, thats why I said its 'less effective' not infective. Focus :!:

Re: Only buffered C works?

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:31 am
by gofanu
Yep, hands too!

I think the effectiveness evaluation is not properly applied to the form of "vitamin C", but rather to the overall system state.
It is a difficult proposition to get the best wording in these things. In this case, impugning one or the other form of ascorbate seems to me to throw a spanner in the works of random people trying to decide what form of ascorbate to use, or whether to use any. Lots of sales are made by saying you need this or that form of something, when just getting the basics in place would help all. The magnesium oxide discussion applies. When I started, it was about the only form readily available that I could afford, so that's what we used. We also worked on other things, and the net result is success. Had we tried to wait until we could afford/get something "better", we might not have made our systems better, which made the issue moot. Had I understood, and been able to find magnesium ascorbate, things might have gone faster, but taking the MgO with the ascorbic acid works fine.

FRM

Re: Only buffered C works?

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:32 pm
by aaCharley
I simply take some Mg in the citrate form when I take one of the AA doses. When it disolves it get buffered pretty soon.

Re: Only buffered C works?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:38 am
by ofonorow
Thanks for noticing this. I searched the site but could not find a contact or email for Mr. Webster. Here is what I tried to email to his webmaster:

Dear Mr. Webster,

Some of our members (VitaminCFoundation.org) noticed incorrect information at
http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer02/VitaminC.html

I think your site is wonderful and often recommend it, however, it is easy to get caught up in the disinformation campaign aimed at vitamin C.

For the current discussion on the problem with your verbiage, see:
http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9810

If you and the author have information we don't have and would like to share supporting the claim about "buffered" vitamin C, we would be happy to post.

Also, I am guessing at your email since we cannot find any "contact" links on your site.

Owen Fonorow
Vitamin C Foundation.org