We may have cured father-in-laws cancer naturally - symptoms are gone in three weeks!!

reply to post by NavyDoc


If this is true then where is the study proving so?
Limbo

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

If this is true then where is the study proving so?
Limbo

I referenced it in my post. Over 20K subjects over ten years is a pretty good study. And it was doen in Sweden so you can't push it off on the great American pharmacutical conspiracy.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Again...I don't unerstand you being upset. Even with natural products, too much of something can be just as harmful as too little. Natural balance gives good health, not blasting the heck out of yourself with the vitamin of the week.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Observation study open to bias etc. I thought you would mention this.
(This study went big news as I recall as usually anti vitamin propaganda does.)
This contradicts several other studies showing no link.
Also I remind you that there is an almost identical study in women showing no link.
Why is this study so significant and the others not?
Limbo
The Swedish study has been well critiqued..
orthomolecular.org...

www.vitamincfoundation.org...


jasn.asnjournals.org...

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Why do som many people in the suppliment sid of things get all angry and confrontational if anyone suggests that there is any downside or any sort of side effects with "natural" healing? Rational thought teaches us that nothing is without risk and too much of a good thing can be harmful. One of the biggest incorrect beliefs in this arena is that if something is called "natural" it is completely without risk or side effects and can be taken in any amount without problems. This is not true anywhere in nature.

Why do you get so angry when someone suggests alternatives to your cutting, burning, or poisoning therapies?

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Observation study open to bias etc. I thought you would mention this.
(This study went big news as I recall as usually anti vitamin propaganda does.)
This contradicts several other studies showing no link.
Also I remind you that there is an almost identical study in women showing no link.
Why is this study so significant and the others not?
Limbo
The Swedish study has been well critiqued..
orthomolecular.org...

www.vitamincfoundation.org...

edit on 9-4-2013 by Limbo because: (no reason given)

jasn.asnjournals.org...

edit on 9-4-2013 by Limbo because: (no reason given)

Okay...since you sem to obsessing on one single point of the many points that are important, let me redirect for a moment before you go off into the weeds.The point I made is the fact that there is nothing in nature that is without risk or potential side effects and one of the most silly assumption people make is that if something is labled a vitamin or "natural" that it is complete risk free with no adverse effects ever possible and works every time for every ailment. This is not true in nature and this is not true in taking a wholistic approach to health.

Secondly, I find it funny that you discard University Studies as being "biased" but you direct me to two websites that are obviously biased and agenda driven. I know you are biased based on the verbage "anti vitamin propaganda." Considering I use 1000mg vitamin C myself and said so several posts back, I'm not anti-vitamin. However, a smart porponent of natropathic medicine is going to use reason, not emotion. Sometimes people are vested in a belief system that they think that any criticism or evaluation of their system is an "attack" or "propaganda." Sometimes it is like talking to a fundimentalist Bible thumper who get all upset and angry if you don't buy their interpretation of the word of god.

Anyhoo...

I find it amusing that people who reject double blinded placebo controlled studies when conventional medicine is concerned and insist that anecdotal evidence is great where non-conventional medicine is concerned is adequate suddenly want to insist on double blinded placebo controlled studies when a study differs than their belief system (see above.) If you reject one academic study as being "biased anti vitamin propaganda" and as being in the pocket of big pharma because we all know that univeristies are in the pocket of big pharma than how can you turn around and say that another university study with the same methodology is not biased simply because you agree with the conclusion? Either we are all in the pockets of big pharma or not.

The blog that "debunked" the Swedish study mentioned several guys selling books, Riodan, and Cathart. Mayo is biased but guys who are trying to sell books and and cures in their clinic are not? C'mon.

I don't know why the Brigham study had no increase in stone formation. It was teh same sort of questionair study as the Swedish study. Women do metabolize differently. THis is an interesting quote:"inverse association may be attributed to the discontinuation of vitamin C supplements by stone formers in response to medical advice."

Regardless, I use vitamin C because of proven coronary vasodilation and cholesterol reduction. Even if my relative risk of a kidney stone doubles from 1% to 2%, IMHO, the small risk is outweighed by the benefit and I will keep on with my 1000 to 2000 MG per day. My entire point, which you missed, is that nothing you put in your body is without risk or give and take or potential side effects. Nothing is perfect. Insteady of being blindly fanatical, people should still persue naturopathy with their eyes open and their feet on the ground and be ready to accept that anything and everything we put in our bodies have consequences, good and bad, and to evaluate ever choice you make with balancing that risk. Vitamin C is low risk, assuredly, and very beneficial but not without zero risk and people who use mega-doses increase their risk of various side effects without much added benefit. Keep yourself at less than 2000mg per day and you get the same benefit without as many problems as those people who obsessively scarf down 10 grams per day because "it is a vitamin and good for you and if a little is good for you then a ton must be even better." Nature and your body does not work that way.

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Why do som many people in the suppliment sid of things get all angry and confrontational if anyone suggests that there is any downside or any sort of side effects with "natural" healing? Rational thought teaches us that nothing is without risk and too much of a good thing can be harmful. One of the biggest incorrect beliefs in this arena is that if something is called "natural" it is completely without risk or side effects and can be taken in any amount without problems. This is not true anywhere in nature.

Why do you get so angry when someone suggests alternatives to your cutting, burning, or poisoning therapies?

edit on 9-4-2013 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-4-2013 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)

I don't. I get angry when a jerk accuses me of intentionally keeping people sick to profit off them. That is a stupid and nasty and ill informed thing to say.

reply to post by NavyDoc


It's funny that you are so defensive. I never suggested you personally. I suggested there are those that do, and you must be one of them!

Originally posted by Rezlooper
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

It's funny that you are so defensive. I never suggested you personally. I suggested there are those that do, and you must be one of them!

Cute.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Okay...since you sem to obsessing on one single point of the many points that are important, let me redirect for a moment before you go off into the weeds.The point I made is the fact that there is nothing in nature that is without risk or potential side effects and one of the most silly assumption people make is that if something is labled a vitamin or "natural" that it is complete risk free with no adverse effects ever possible and works every time for every ailment. This is not true in nature and this is not true in taking a wholistic approach to health.

Sure I agree, but vitamin c has been extensively tested even in IV form,
so why would people say it is dangerous? Modern mans diet could be dangerous also.

also .. before this advances into a tirade of ad hominem and me vs. your beliefs.

Sure the websites I posted are proponents of vitamin c I am a proponent of vitamin c also, so what?

The websites you claim are biased posted a thorough evaluation of the evidence for and
against a causal link between vitamin c and kidney stones. The weight of the evidence shows
no link and that is all that matters until properly designed studies show otherwise?
I have a couple of ebooks on ascorbate I've bought here.
You can read under fair use/education and critique if you want.

I find it amusing that people who reject double blinded placebo controlled studies when conventional medicine is concerned and insist that anecdotal evidence is great where non-conventional medicine is concerned is adequate suddenly want to insist on double blinded placebo controlled studies when a study differs than their belief system (see above.) If you reject one academic study as being "biased anti vitamin propaganda" and as being in the pocket of big pharma because we all know that univeristies are in the pocket of big pharma than how can you turn around and say that another university study with the same methodology is not biased simply because you agree with the conclusion? Either we are all in the pockets of big pharma or not

See europa.eu...

I agree with gold standard studies, that doesn't make them bullet proof, but where are they in this case?
Surely we can only make conclusions on all the evidence and the bulk of this says no link.

I also "mega dose" vitamin c when it's needed (When I am worn down?) but I prefer to get my nutrients
from a natural diet. To treat a disease I would go with science approach first and then seek alternatives.

Also I find the case of the OP interesting I would like to see more information maybe medical records
as someone requested for the absence of tumors/markers etc.
This would not rule out spontaneous remission sure, but might give me a lead if anything happened to me...
Limbo

Thread I authored on vitamin c and CVD
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Okay...since you sem to obsessing on one single point of the many points that are important, let me redirect for a moment before you go off into the weeds.The point I made is the fact that there is nothing in nature that is without risk or potential side effects and one of the most silly assumption people make is that if something is labled a vitamin or "natural" that it is complete risk free with no adverse effects ever possible and works every time for every ailment. This is not true in nature and this is not true in taking a wholistic approach to health.

Sure I agree, but vitamin c has been extensively tested even in IV form,
so why would people say it is dangerous? Modern mans diet could be dangerous also.

also .. before this advances into a tirade of ad hominem and me vs. your beliefs.

Sure the websites I posted are proponents of vitamin c I am a proponent of vitamin c also, so what?

The websites you claim are biased posted a thorough evaluation of the evidence for and
against a causal link between vitamin c and kidney stones. The weight of the evidence shows
no link and that is all that matters until properly designed studies show otherwise?
I have a couple of ebooks on ascorbate I've bought here.
You can read under fair use/education and critique if you want.

I find it amusing that people who reject double blinded placebo controlled studies when conventional medicine is concerned and insist that anecdotal evidence is great where non-conventional medicine is concerned is adequate suddenly want to insist on double blinded placebo controlled studies when a study differs than their belief system (see above.) If you reject one academic study as being "biased anti vitamin propaganda" and as being in the pocket of big pharma because we all know that univeristies are in the pocket of big pharma than how can you turn around and say that another university study with the same methodology is not biased simply because you agree with the conclusion? Either we are all in the pockets of big pharma or not

See europa.eu...

I agree with gold standard studies, that doesn't make them bullet proof, but where are they in this case?
Surely we can only make conclusions on all the evidence and the bulk of this says no link.

I also "mega dose" vitamin c when it's needed (When I am worn down?) but I prefer to get my nutrients
from a natural diet. To treat a disease I would go with science approach first and then seek alternatives.


Limbo

Want to put aside personal stuff. Great! I honestly think we may be talking cross purposes here. I don't think that vitamin c is "dangerous" and neither did the Swedish study. They simply concluded that large doeses might increase risk of kidney stones. Excessive calcium supplementation can do the same thing. The point is not that vitamin C is "dangerous" (and the Swedes didn't even claim that) but rather excessive use of supplements can cause problems jsut like anything else. Take St John's Wort for example--an excellent anti-depressant but it can also be an abortifant. A pregnant woman with the peripartum blues might take it because she thinks it is safe because it is a natural product but might actually have a harmful effect on the fetus. Is St John's Wort "dangerous?" No, but it can have side effects. Plants have chemicals too...they are just made in nature's lab. This is why they work for various things. Digitalis for heart failure comes from the foxglove plant.

[See previous post for edits I am adding.]
Limbo

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

If this is true then where is the study proving so?
Limbo

I referenced it in my post. Over 20K subjects over ten years is a pretty good study. And it was doen in Sweden so you can't push it off on the great American pharmacutical conspiracy.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Again...I don't unerstand you being upset. Even with natural products, too much of something can be just as harmful as too little. Natural balance gives good health, not blasting the heck out of yourself with the vitamin of the week.

Please, stop with the ad hominem attacks already, it does not serve your purpose. No one is blasting themselves with anything, near as I can tell. Why so dramatic?

Why are you so convinced vitamin C megadose is bad? That's all you got for proof, a skewed study on kidney stones and vitamin C? As you well know, correlation does not imply causation, come on now.

Do you prescribe statins for cholesterol and other issues? Well, do you, NavyDoc?

What Really Causes Kidney Stones (And Why Vitamin C Does Not)
Submitted by Bob-45 on Tue, 02/12/2013 - 00:59
in Health


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 11, 2013
What Really Causes Kidney Stones
(And Why Vitamin C Does Not)

(OMNS Feb 11, 2013) A recent widely-publicized study claimed that vitamin C supplements increased the risk of developing kidney stones by nearly a factor of two.[1] The study stated that the stones were most likely formed from calcium oxalate, which can be formed in the presence of vitamin C (ascorbate), but it did not analyze the kidney stones of participants. Instead, it relied on a different study of kidney stones where ascorbate was not tested. This type of poorly organized study does not help the medical profession or the public, but instead causes confusion.

The study followed 23,355 Swedish men for a decade. They were divided into two groups, one that did not take any supplements (22,448), and another that took supplements of vitamin C (907). The average diet for each group was tabulated, but not in much detail. Then the participants who got kidney stones in each group were tabulated, and the group that took vitamin C appeared to have a greater risk of kidney stones. The extra risk of kidney stones from ascorbate presented in the study is very low, 147 per 100,000 person-years, or only 0.15% per year.

Key points the media missed:

The number of kidney stones in the study participants who took ascorbate was very low (31 stones in over a decade), so the odds for statistical error in the study are fairly high.
The study was observational. It simply tabulated the intake of vitamin C and the number of kidney stones to try to find an association between them.
This method does not imply a causative factor because it was not a randomized controlled study, that is, vitamin C was not given to a group selected at random.
This type of observational study is fraught with limitations that make its conclusion unreliable.
It contradicts previous studies that have clearly shown that high dose ascorbate does not cause kidney stones.[2-6]
The study authors' conclusion that ascorbate caused the low rate of stones is likely due to a correlation between the choice of taking a vitamin C supplement with some other aspect of the participants' diet.
The study could not determine the nature of this type of correlation, because it lacked a detailed study of each patient's diet and a chemical analysis of each stone to provide a hint about the probable cause.

haproxy.dailypaul.com...
read more orthomolecular.org...

Plants have chemicals too...they are just made in nature's lab. This is why they work for various things. Digitalis for heart failure comes from the foxglove plant.

Sure it's ridiculous to assert natural products are safe - take for example ephedra/Amygdalin etc.
Sometimes people have to take the hard choice because they have no science based option
and their only real hope is in the unknown..
Limbo

reply to post by toastyr


Well the recent evidence says statins save lives, but the real question is would a natural approach be better?option?

reply to post by NavyDoc


You make it sound like drugs came before plants as medicine, lol, too funny.

They scour the jungles for more ways to introduce new drugs from plants, synthetically, of course so it can be patented. Am I right? Partially at least?

reply to post by Limbo


That's what I am saying, vitamin C is so much more effective at controlling cholesterol yet mums the word. There is a price to be paid for being on statins or almost any pharmaceutical drug out there.

reply to post by NavyDoc
Vitamin C megadose "cure" helps dying man.

Vitamin C "cures" dying man

reply to post by Rezlooper


I'm going to try this as well but why no dairy (like a bit of milk in coffee)? I might have missed this if you included it so apologize if I did. I actually tried this once as I'm healing some stuff right now but felt I was starving as I cut out all carbs. With this success story I'm newly motivated. Thank you

Originally posted by toastyr

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

If this is true then where is the study proving so?
Limbo

I referenced it in my post. Over 20K subjects over ten years is a pretty good study. And it was doen in Sweden so you can't push it off on the great American pharmacutical conspiracy.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Again...I don't unerstand you being upset. Even with natural products, too much of something can be just as harmful as too little. Natural balance gives good health, not blasting the heck out of yourself with the vitamin of the week.

Please, stop with the ad hominem attacks already, it does not serve your purpose. No one is blasting themselves with anything, near as I can tell. Why so dramatic?

Why are you so convinced vitamin C megadose is bad? That's all you got for proof, a skewed study on kidney stones and vitamin C? As you well know, correlation does not imply causation, come on now.

Do you prescribe statins for cholesterol and other issues? Well, do you, NavyDoc?

What Really Causes Kidney Stones (And Why Vitamin C Does Not)
Submitted by Bob-45 on Tue, 02/12/2013 - 00:59
in Health


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 11, 2013
What Really Causes Kidney Stones
(And Why Vitamin C Does Not)

(OMNS Feb 11, 2013) A recent widely-publicized study claimed that vitamin C supplements increased the risk of developing kidney stones by nearly a factor of two.[1] The study stated that the stones were most likely formed from calcium oxalate, which can be formed in the presence of vitamin C (ascorbate), but it did not analyze the kidney stones of participants. Instead, it relied on a different study of kidney stones where ascorbate was not tested. This type of poorly organized study does not help the medical profession or the public, but instead causes confusion.

The study followed 23,355 Swedish men for a decade. They were divided into two groups, one that did not take any supplements (22,448), and another that took supplements of vitamin C (907). The average diet for each group was tabulated, but not in much detail. Then the participants who got kidney stones in each group were tabulated, and the group that took vitamin C appeared to have a greater risk of kidney stones. The extra risk of kidney stones from ascorbate presented in the study is very low, 147 per 100,000 person-years, or only 0.15% per year.

Key points the media missed:

The number of kidney stones in the study participants who took ascorbate was very low (31 stones in over a decade), so the odds for statistical error in the study are fairly high.
The study was observational. It simply tabulated the intake of vitamin C and the number of kidney stones to try to find an association between them.
This method does not imply a causative factor because it was not a randomized controlled study, that is, vitamin C was not given to a group selected at random.
This type of observational study is fraught with limitations that make its conclusion unreliable.
It contradicts previous studies that have clearly shown that high dose ascorbate does not cause kidney stones.[2-6]
The study authors' conclusion that ascorbate caused the low rate of stones is likely due to a correlation between the choice of taking a vitamin C supplement with some other aspect of the participants' diet.
The study could not determine the nature of this type of correlation, because it lacked a detailed study of each patient's diet and a chemical analysis of each stone to provide a hint about the probable cause.

haproxy.dailypaul.com...
read more orthomolecular.org...

Please look up "ad hominem" it does not apply to the quoted post.

Please go back a few pages where I addressed statins. I mentioned the cholestol lowering benefits of vitamin c in this page. I don't think you have read everything I've posted and are just looking for something to fight about. My favorite cholesterol lowering combo is niacin and vitamin C, 1000mg. I also add CoQ 10 and liposome A as a great cardiac combo...all available at most vitamin shops.

I use megadoses of C occasionally for things like acute infection but I don't think evidence supports doses over 2 grams per day on a routine basis. Good enough for you?

reply to post by toastyr


I think niacin also regulated it too in a randomised study?
You would have to do some digging if you don't already know.
I think google keywords : hoffer niacin cholesterol.

Statins kill q10 and this is essential for heart muscle so bit of controversy there.
Limbo