It is currently Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:29 am

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 Japanese trial with 500 mg daily 
Author Message
Post Japanese trial with 500 mg daily
Hi everybody,
I think that we have not discussed recently published peer-reviewed article:

S Sasazuki et al.,
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2006) 60, 9–17.
Effect of vitamin C on common cold: randomized controlled trial.

Even though the authors compared 50 mg vs. 500 mg daily (single dose),
they prove significantly lower incidence of colds in what they call "high-dose"
group (we think it's not high, aren't we?).

The conclusion that duration of symptoms is even longer in "high-dose"
group is flawed - they check how long the nose is runny. Of course, the
reduced viscosity of nasal liquid is the logical explanation - this is one of
the tricks which leaves the nose open.

Linus Pauling is neither cited nor mentioned in this article, but nevertheless,
finally it is possible to publish in high-rated journal that he was right about
prevention of the common cold. The pharmacokinets is taken from the
flawed research (Levine's lab, 1996, instead what came from the same lab
in 2004.).

Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:45 am
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9686
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Thanks for this
I appreciate your point, which may be too subtle for medical students :)

Pauling/Stone recommended 1-2 g every hour. Not 500 mg daily

Still too low.

If they can find a way to test 8000 mg every 20 minutes for 2 hours - they will be amazed. (How do you prove the subject would have had the cold if they never get it?)


Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath

Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:41 am
Post Re: Thanks for this
ofonorow wrote:
I appreciate your point, which may be too subtle for medical students :)
Pauling/Stone recommended 1-2 g every hour. Not 500 mg daily
Still too low.

Owen, I think this citation is important because it shows that even this
miserable amount of vitamin C gives significant benefits. For example,
the next "Cochrane review" will either ignore this, to remain on the position
that vitamin C is nearly useless, or include it and show that there are clear
benefits for ordinary people, not just for marathon runners.

I have contacted the corresponding author and he send me additional
explanation. The study was preceded by a pilot study, which used 1000 mg
but for unexplained reason later research was done with only 500 mg.

Here is the reference for the pilot study:
Sasaki S, Tsubono Y, Okubo S, Hayashi M, Kakizoe T, Tsugane S.
Effects of three-month oral supplementation ... (snip) ...
Jpn J Cancer Res. 2000 May;91(5):464-470.

Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:29 am
Post Japanese study - useless me thinks
Just another pointless piece of research. I'd be suprised if they get a positive result.

If people ate right, you'd be getting 500mg a day anyway. You'd of course get a cold and not notice the difference.

500 mg is neither use nor ornament. This has already been established. One needs to take at least 2000mg an hour to feel an affect. That's if you know you're infected in the first place! :?

8000mg every 20 mins until you run to the toilet is probably regarded as "dangerous" or not "not user friendly". The fact that AA is a "SAFE" chemical doesn't stop the fear that taking more than 2 pills a day of anything is highly dangerous. This idea is indoctrinated into us from an early age. Ignorance has a way of poisoning the real truth of Vitamin C.

Surely the people in charge of this know of Linus Pauling? I doubt it. I read somewhere that studies done over 30 years ago are regarded as obselete?

Just what are they trying to prove when the evidence is knee deep that VIT.C is a highly effective anti-viral agent ? (heads and sand spring to mind)
They don't believe it and refuse to read/believe the peer-to-peer studies showing CONCLUSIVELY that Dynamic flow & Mega Ascorbate therapy
works. After all, those tests were done such a long time ago, they must be flawed in some way.
Just like the cure for polio using AA "must be wrong - it can't possibly do that - we won't test mega ascorbate therapy then - our bosses might
not appreciate us showing overwhelmingly that M.A.T. and prior DFlow works for such a wide range of conditions and diseases" They might not make any money seeing as though AA is regarded as a food which can not be patented!!!!

Could do their research company harm? More like bankrupt 90% of the pharma giants.

Not that AA is an answer for all though. Lets not forget AA augments / enhances anti-biotics. DR.LEVY admits this on his website after AA via drip failed to completely shift a nasty flu/cold bug he'd contracted.

After 80,000 studies and 60 years, the war on Vitamin C is in full force. This situation is criminally insane to the level of genocide. With all the evidence showing overwhelmingly that AA prevents,cures, and treats to a huge extent ;

1.All types of Cancer
2.All types of blood vessel disease (heart disease, stoke)
3.All types of Viral Infections including SARS, MRSA, FLU.......and so the list goes on and on...

The medical establishment should bloody ashamed of themselves that AA isn't prescribed and or advised as one of the key ways to keep well along with diet and exercise, reducing stress and so on. An AA drip/direct shot SHOULD be the first thing a Doctor gives to a patient when struck down with an unknown virus whilst they pondor the diagnosis. Do they? I bet the list is pitifully short.

I do keep on repeating myself alot on this site. I make no apology though. But the truth must be told. There arn't many of them to tell, so let it be one where precious lives can be saved by telling everybody we know "TAKE AT LEAST 4000MGS OF VIT C THROUGH THE DAY AND NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE"


Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:21 am
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9686
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Speaking of repeating one's self
Surely the people in charge of this know of Linus Pauling? I doubt it. I read somewhere that studies done over 30 years ago are regarded as obselete?

This is what dieticians and medical students are taught, (I've been to their training!) and it sounds plausible because our equipment (should) be much better now.

However, as previously stated here, I personally only take research older than 30 years at face value. It was clearly the BEST science, probably because there were more ethics and we had real scientists with a thirst for knowledge. (Not the psuedo-science to sell pharmaceutical products we have today, which makes it hard to figure out what is science and what is marketing.)

Memory fades, but I think the GULO gene defect was discovered in 1957, or fifty years ago. Think of it, the gene identified before most of us were born. How did they do that if the science was "obsolete?" I think the amino acid sequence of the digestive enzyme (protein) trypsin was sequenced in the early 1960s, again, real science over forty years ago.

What it boils down to is that the exciting work on the vital substances - vitamins, essential minerals and amino acids - begun around the turn of the century, finished up in the 1940s and 1950s with the discovery that replacing vitamin C fixed a great number of health issues. Oh oh!?!

If you want medical professionals who know nothing about all that work, you tell them that only science in the past thrity years is worthing learning.

Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath

Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:39 am
Post Re: Japanese study - useless me thinks
antioxidant_addict wrote:
Surely the people in charge of this know of Linus Pauling? I doubt it. I read somewhere that studies done over 30 years ago are regarded as obselete?

Certainly they know! And I suspect that a secret, unpublished research was
done, which set the upper "safe" limit as the limit which hides the obvious
positive effects of ascorbate.

The standard trick to produce the so-called up-to-date research from very
old data is called "retrospective review". In PubMed, this digest comes appears
the brand-new research, while in fact there was no data collection at all.

When vitamin C is in question, the masters of this method (Cochrane reviews)
might be:

Docent Harri Hemila,
University of Helsinki, Department of Public Health, link: ... and

Professor Bob (Robert?) Douglas,
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health,
The Australian National University Canberra, Australia, link:

Maybe we should consider a petition, where we can add how much ascorbic acid
(or whatever else) we take, describe the benefits and add our contact addresses?

Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:52 pm
Post Helsinki Trial
For the "meta analysis"
I bet they won't use an intravenous drip for the Vitamin C(upto 200,000mg a day for Pneumonia)
I bet they won't use 3200iu's+ of Vitamin E.
I bet they won't use at least 50,000 IU's of Beta-Carotene.

This begs a question : What about Zinc, Selenium, B-vitamins (the cheap ones), garlic?

Of course, a positive result (with the correct timing) would be disasterous for the Pharma's "COLD CURE" industry.
Every body would be in the Doctors office wanting an intravenous drip when the next Influenza virus starts wiping out millions..."get out of my office, that's just expensive urine" will be the reply of most "doctors" (drug pushers) if they're still alive of course.

Still, smoker's have it coming to them don't they? Premature death of course. Why waste the money on smokers? Pump the money into smokers who want to go cold turkey and give them a SA drip for 2 days. MOst of the toxins in thebody from smoking will have been flushed out by then making it easier for the person to keep off the ciggies.

With regard to the viral testing, all these so-called time wasting trials all show to me they are ignoring Dr. Klenners works, Pauling's, Cathcarts, Levy's and so on. The proof is there to see and use. Just do it Doctors! You have nothing to fear!
The patient will be out of the ward and hospital in half the time serving to free up resources for somebody else. It'll also save the hospital money and then they can hire more nurses etc. (yea right)

All the evidence is there to see from 70 years of research yet nearly all those in power refuse to use a super-cheap, massively effective anti-viral agent . The medical community should thoroughly ashamed of themselves for not using Intravenous SA as a matter of course for all nasty hospital viral infections, whilst the Doctor's ponder the diagnosis.

Do the people in charge of these "studies" do any study research about the chemicals they're researching on? In makes me wonder.


Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:31 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.