Can we find objective studies on Vit C, Iodine and other antivirals vs Ebola? [Archive]

View Full Version : Can we find objective studies on Vit C, Iodine and other antivirals vs Ebola?

Daozen

29th September 2014, 17:18

The infowar contimues. Im going to bed now, but I wondered if anyone could track down an actual study on nutriceuticals vs Ebola. There's a lot of accusations flying around: Quack on one side, Vaccine peddler on the other. So can we dig up some objective evidence and start to prove the issue one way or another.

Google scholar might be a good start. Thanks if you can help.

Olaf

29th September 2014, 18:24

Vitamine C is no antiviral.
The body is fighting viruses with a chemical substance, nitrogen monoxide (NO) which is produced by the mitochondria. Mitochondria are the so-called power generators inside the cells cells. They process oxygen. The human part of our cells is NOT running with oxygen. In evolution life on earth has incorporated a kind of bacteria that were capable to run on oxygen and hence producing a lot more energy in a given time. In humans those mitochondria produce about 60..80 kg of ATP a day.
Besides ATP production another main task of mitochondria is fighting viruses and fungi with an toxic, gaseous substance, NO.

Now, the problem for human cells and mitochondria itself is, that NO is toxic. It will kill cells, it reacts with enzymes, it reacts with proteins, and it can switch off mitochondria which seems to be the case in cancer cells. Inside mitochondria there is a protecting substance called glutathione, which is an antioxidant. After about three days (or even some hours when very large amounts of NO are produced) this glutathione is consumed (which means it is changed so that it becomes a radical species itself). That is the moment where various radical catchers are needed: Vitamin C, Vitamin E (not to confuse with alpha tocopherol, which is the weakest form of it), alphalipon acid and others. In a complicated chemical chain these substances have to reduce the others back to the form that can catch radicals. If only one of them is missing, this does not work.
The good message is: nature has invented other substances that can directly catch radicals without needing vitamin C and the others: herbal radical catchers (curcumine, opc, resveratrol, flavionide, polyphenols and others. These are the substances you need to keep your mitochondriae working so that they can continiue to fight against viruses.

There is another aspect. NO is produced from the amino acid Arginine. So arginine is consumed in this process, so that it can run out of stock. So you might also need some arginine to keep the process running. But be carefull: Argine is feeding each inflammation in your body and can increase the amount of toxic NO dramaticly. You have to use it with care. It will be a good idea to combine arginine with herbal radical catchers. Normaly do not take more than 3 g arginine a day.
The production of glutathione can be supported by taking 1...3 times daily a dosis of 600 mg Acetyl cysteine, which is one of three components that form glutathione (this is the one that in most cases is missing).
The recycling of glutathione is supported by Vitamin B2.

So infact the combination of Acetyl cysteine and herbal radical catchers is what me and my family are using for some years and it helped us to bypass viral infections with almost no symptoms. Do not underestimate this.

In addition each other substance can be helpfull to keep your body running if - and only if - your body is missing these substances.

Bob

29th September 2014, 19:05

Vitamine C is no antiviral.
The body is fighting viruses with a chemical substance, nitrogen monoxide (NO) which is produced by the mitochondriae. Mitochondriae are the so-called power generators inside the cells cells. They process oxygen. The human part of our cells is NOT running with oxygen. In evolution life on earth has incorporated a kind of bacteria that were capabel to run on oxygen and hence producing a lot more energy in a given time. In humans those mitochondriea produce about 60..80 kg of ATP a day.
Besides ATP production another main task of mitochondriae is fighting viruses and fungi with an toxic, gasous substanze, NO.

Now, the problem for human cells and mitochondriae itself is, that NO is toxic. It will kill cells, it reacts with encymes, it reacts with proteins, and it can switch off mitochondriae which seems to be the case in cancer cells. Inside mitochondriae there is a protecting substance called glutathione, which is an antioxidant. After about three days (or even some hours when very large amounts of NO are produced) this glutathione is consumed (which means it is changed so that it becomes a radical species itself). That is the moment where various radical catchers are needed: Vitamine C, Vitamine E (not to confuse with alpha tocopherol, which is the weakest form of it), alphalipon acid and others. In a complicated chemical chain these substances have to reduce the others back to the form that can catch radicals. If only one of them is missing, this does not work.
The good message is: nature has invented other substances that can directly catch radicals without needing vitamine C and the others: herbal radical catchers (curcumine, opc, resveratrol, flavionide, polyphenols and others. These are the substances you need to keep your mitochondriae working so that they can continiue to fight against viruses.

There is another aspect. NO is produced from the amino acid Arginine. So arginine is consumed in this process, so that it can run out of stock. So you might also need some arginine to keep the process running. But be carefull: Argine is feeding each inflammation in your body and can increase the amount of toxic NO dramaticly. You have to use it with care. It will be a good idea to combine arginine with herbal radical catchers. Normaly do not take more than 3 g arginine a day.
The production of glutathione can be supported by taking 1...3 times daily a dosis of 600 mg Acetyl cysteine, which is one of three components that form glutathione (this is the one that in most cases is missing).
The recycling of glutathione is supported by Vitamine B2.

So infact the combination of Acetyl cysteine and herbal radical catchers is what me and my family are using for some years and it helped us to bypass viral infections with almost no symptoms. Do not underestimate this.

In addition each other substance can be helpfull to keep your body running if - and only if - your body is missing these substances.

I would agree -

"The redox reaction(s) forms of nitrogen monoxide, NO-, NO and NO+, only NO significantly activates soluble guanylyl cyclase (GTP pyrophosphate-lyase cyclizing, EC 4.6.1.2). Neither of the NO-donors tested, Angeli's salt (Na2N2O3) or Piloty's acid (C6H5SO2NHOH), caused a change in the guanylyl cyclase activity relative to the basal activity level. Interference by other reaction products was eliminated as a possible explanation for the lack of activation. To the extent that NO+ could be stabilized in aqueous solution, by dissolution of the nitrosonium salt NOPF6 in dry organic solvent prior to addition to the enzyme in buffer, NO+ had no effect on the activity of soluble guanylyl cyclase. The counter-ion, PF6-, had a minimal effect on the enzyme activity and, therefore was, not responsible for the lack of activation by NO+. These observations suggest that NO- is the natural activator of soluble guanylyl cyclase and is reasonably identical with endothelium-derived relaxing factor, the physiological regulator of soluble guanylyl cyclase activitity.

What then is guanylyl cyclase ?

SIGNALING MECHANISM - meaning in simple English "HERE, pay attention here, fix here, go after this or that.. "

Does vitamin C do that, no. What it can do is actually TURN OFF the Nitric oxide(s) killing mechanism that is PRECISELY NEEDED to destroy the viruses.. (Source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909187/))

Here is the documentation on that:

The primary free radicals generated in cells are superoxide (O2•−) and nitric oxide (NO). Superoxide is generated through either incomplete reduction of oxygen in electron transport systems or as a specific product of enzymatic systems, while NO is generated by a series of specific enzymes (the nitric oxide synthases). Both superoxide and NO are reactive and can readily react to form a series of other ROS and RNS. Thus superoxide dismutates rapidly to form hydrogen peroxide and subsequently hydroxyl radicals in the presence of catalytic transition metals (292) while superoxide and NO rapidly react to form peroxynitrite and subsequently other RNS (69, 292). An overview of major and secondary ROS and RNS follows.

A. Superoxide

Superoxide is primarily formed as an intermediate in biochemical reactions (134). This anion is negatively charged and is relatively membrane impermeable. Nonetheless, compared with other free radicals, superoxide has a relatively long half-life that enables diffusion within the cell and, hence, increasing the number of the potential targets. Inflammatory cells produce relatively large amounts of superoxide as part of the process by which they resist invading organisms (116). Although superoxide is generally considered relatively unreactive compared with other radical species, it can react rapidly with some radicals such as NO and with some iron-sulfur clusters in proteins (136). Interest has surrounded the possibility that protonation of superoxide to produce the hydroperoxyl radical (HO2·) may occur to at physiological pH, facilitating the transfer of superoxide across membranes (344). Nonetheless, the probability and circumstances required for the protonation of superoxide in cells remains a topic of debate. As a redox active species, superoxide can reduce some biological materials (e.g., cytochrome c) and oxidize others such as ascorbate. Dismutation of superoxide, both spontaneous and catalyzed by the superoxide dismutases, provides a major source of hydrogen peroxide in cells (reaction 1)

O−2⋅+O−2⋅+2H+→H2O2+O2
(reaction1)
B. Hydrogen Peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a reactive compound that can readily generate free radicals such as the hydroxyl radical in specific circumstances. Hydrogen peroxide is stable, permeable to membranes, and has a relatively long half-life within the cell. Hydrogen peroxide is cytotoxic but is considered a relatively weak oxidizing agent. In addition to formation from dismutation of O2•−, a number of enzyme systems also generate H2O2 including urate and amino acid oxidases. Hydrogen peroxide is unable to oxidize DNA or lipids directly but can inactivate some enzymes (136). The cytotoxicity of hydrogen peroxide primarily occurs through its ability to generate hydroxyl radical through metal-catalyzed reactions, such as the Fenton reaction (reaction 2)

H2O2+Fe2+→Fe3++⋅OH+O−H
(reaction2)
In biology it seems likely that this reaction is particularly important as part of the Haber-Weiss reaction, where iron (or copper) is maintained in a reduced form by superoxide and hence capable of catalyzing the formation of the hydroxyl radical from hydrogen peroxide (134). The net reaction is

O−2⋅+H2O2−→−−−−−−Metalcatalysis⋅OH+O−H+O2
(reaction2a)
In practice the reactions involved are

O−2⋅+Fe3+→Fe2++O2
(reaction2b)
H2O2+Fe2+→Fe3++⋅OH+O−H
(reaction2)
or

O−2⋅+Cu2+→Cu1++O2
(reaction2c)
H2O2+Cu1+→Cu2++⋅OH+O−H
(reaction2d)
C. Hydroxyl Radicals

Hydroxyl radicals (·OH) are highly reactive with a strong oxidizing potential. Hydroxyl radicals damage molecules close to their site of their generation, and due to their high reactivity, they are not membrane permeable. Hydroxyl radicals appear to combine with cell components at a rate constant of 109–1010 M−1 ·s−1 (134). They are potentially the most damaging ROS present in biological materials, and their reactivity is such that it is virtually impossible to confirm that they exist in living organisms other than through demonstration of the presence of specific products of their reactions.

D. Singlet Oxygen

Another reactive form of oxygen, singlet oxygen, can also be generated in some biological materials. Singlet oxygen has a very short half-life but is capable of diffusion and is permeable to membranes. Singlet oxygen is an electronically excited form of oxygen and is not a radical since no electrons are unpaired. Singlet oxygen exists in one of two states, the first excited state (1ΔgO2) or the more reactive second excited state (2ΣgO2) (134). Singlet oxygen has no spin restriction, and hence, the oxidizing ability is greatly increased (136). Dismutation of the superoxide anion in water can lead to the formation of singlet oxygen in biological systems. At present, it is unclear if singlet oxygen is produced in contracting skeletal muscles during exercise.

E. Nitric Oxide

Nitric oxide (NO·) is synthesized from the amino acid L-arginine by many cell types. Synthesis occurs through nitric oxide synthases (NOS) of three main types: neuronal NOS (NOS1), which was originally found in neural tissue but is also present in most cell types; endothelial NOS (NOS3), originally described in endothelial cells; and inducible NOS (NOS2) that is predominantly found in inflammatory conditions, but now recognized to be more widespread. The nitric oxide synthases convert L-arginine into NO and L-citrulline utilizing NADPH.

NO readily binds to some transition metals, and its major actions in cells relate to its ability to bind to the ferrous ion in guanyl cyclase activating this enzyme and resulting in the formation of cGMP. This binding of NO to iron not only comprises a major mechanism of action, but also appears to play a major role in its inactivation and removal through binding to the iron in hemoglobin. Nitric oxide is a weak reducing agent, reacts with oxygen to form nitric dioxide, and reacts very rapidly with superoxide to produce peroxynitrite (133).

F. Peroxynitrite

The reaction of superoxide with NO to produce peroxynitrite (reaction 3) occurs approximately three times faster than the dismutation of superoxide to produce hydrogen peroxide and even faster than the reaction of NO with heme proteins; hence, this is the primary reaction when both are present

O−2⋅+NO⋅→ONOO−
(reaction3)
Peroxynitrite (or its protonated form ONOOH) is a strong oxidizing agent and can lead to depletion of thiol groups, damage to DNA, and nitration of proteins. A further effect of the formation of peroxynitrite is a reduced bioavailability of superoxide and NO. Peroxynitrite is classified as RNS that also includes NO and N2O3 and some nitrogencentered radicals, but much less is known about the occurrence and roles of these latter species in biology.

G. Hyperchlorite

Hyperchlorite is formed by the action of myeloperoxidase utilizing hydrogen peroxide (reaction 4). Hyperchlorite is predominantly formed by neutrophils and can damage various biomolecules by oxidizing thiols, lipids, ascorbate, and NADPH with the generation of various secondary products (136). Moreover, in the acid form (i.e., hypochlorous acid), this oxidant can cross cell membranes and can cause fragmentation and aggregation of proteins by multiple reactions (136)

H2O2+Cl−→HOCl+O−H
(reaction4)
H. Secondary Radical Species

Since free radicals can initiate radical chain reactions in some biological molecules, a number of other free radical species occur in cells as part of these processes. A primary example of these secondary radical species include the intermediary radicals formed during lipid peroxidation (i.e., oxidative degradation of polyunsaturated lipids). The lipid bilayer is the basic structure of all biological membranes and is composed of lipids and proteins. Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are a large constituent of the membrane around cells and their organelles (136). Lipid peroxidation of PUFAs such as arachidonic acid occurs via several stages. The hydroxyl radical typically initiates peroxidation by abstracting a hydrogen atom from a methylene carbon side chain, initially forming a carbon-centered, lipid radical and water (135). For example, arachidonic acid can undergo hydrogen abstraction at carbons 13, 10, and 7 (136). Monoun-saturated and saturated fatty acids have an increased resistance to oxidation compared with PUFAs, since the double bonds in the PUFAs are more susceptible to oxidation (100, 135).

The carbon-centered lipid radical has an unpaired electron, and the molecule stabilizes by molecular rearrangement (393); that is, two lipid radicals can cross-link and form a conjugated diene or usually, the lipid radical donates an electron to oxygen, forming the peroxyl radical (designated LOO·, where L = polyunsaturated fatty acid) and propagating the chain reaction. Generation of a lipid radical is terminated by the formation of a cyclic peroxide or cyclic endoperoxide and other termination products (Fig. 1).

Lipid peroxidation can theoretically result in degeneration of membrane structure and loss of membrane protein function (121).

Structural derangement of the lipid bilayer alters the fluidity and increases the rigidity of the membrane.

This enables proteins within the membrane to be more directly attacked, impairing essential membrane functions such as the activity of intrinsic enzymes and transporters and/or decreasing the rate of carrier coupled flow of ATP and ADP.

Here is more data on the NO (Nitric oxide(s) role in dealing with stressor issues (and it conforms with your observations about NO importance to deal with "damaged cells". Without dealing with damaged cells, lipufusic substance build up, and in that case many organ systems can CLOG UP, (requiring flushes, fasting, etc.):

. Mitochondria
Mitochondria have generally been cited as the predominant source of ROS in muscle cells (e.g., Refs. 85, 217), and many authors have reiterated early reports that 2–5% of the total oxygen consumed by mitochondria may undergo one electron reduction with the generation of superoxide (48, 239). More recent research has identified the major site(s) of superoxide generation within mitochondria, and most data now indicate that complexes I and III of the electron transport chain are the main sites of mitochondrial superoxide production (36, 272). In complex I, the main site of electron leakage to oxygen appear to be the iron-sulfur clusters, and in complex III, it appears to be the Q10 semiquinone (272). Furthermore, complex III releases superoxide from both sides of the inner mitochondrial membrane (272). It is unclear if this superoxide crosses the outer mitochondrial membrane or is dismutated by Cu/Zn-SOD located in the mitochondrial intermembrane space where it may minimize this possibility. During exercise, a number of researchers have assumed that the increased ROS generation that occurs during contractile activity is directly related to the elevated oxygen consumption that occurs with increased mitochondrial activity, implying potentially a 50- or 100-fold increase in superoxide generation by skeletal muscle during aerobic contractions (e.g., see Refs. 193, 392). However, a recent finding suggests that mitochondria may not be the dominant source of ROS during exercise (170), and future studies will be required to fully elucidate the role that mitochondria play in contraction-induced production of ROS in skeletal muscle.

Brand and colleagues (371) have recently reassessed the rate of production of ROS by mitochondria and have concluded that the upper estimate of the total fraction of oxygen utilized that forms superoxide was ~0.15%; this value is several orders of magnitude lower than the original estimate of 2–5% (371). This low rate of superoxide production may include a role for uncoupling proteins (specifically UCP3 in skeletal muscle) as regulators of mitochondrial production of ROS (52, 53) acting to protect mitochondria against oxidative damage. In addition, there has been considerable debate about the effect of changes in the respiratory state on ROS generation by mitochondria, and growing evidence reveals that mitochondria produce more ROS during state 4 (basal) respiration compared with state 3 (maximal ADP-stimulated respiration) (4, 93, 149, 219). This is significant because during aerobic contractile activity, skeletal muscle mitochondria are predominantly in state 3, and this limits their generation of ROS during contractions (93, 149, 219). Collectively, these findings suggest that mitochondria are not the primary source of ROS production in skeletal muscle during exercise.

Finally, recent evidence suggests that compared with type I fibers, type II skeletal muscle fibers possess unique properties that promote mitochondrial ROS production. Specifically, using an in situ approach to measure H2O2 release from mitochondria in permeabilized rat muscle fiber bundles, a recent study reported that mitochondrial ROS leak (i.e., H2O2 release/O2 consumed) was two- to threefold greater in type II fibers compared with type I (15). The mechanism responsible for this observation remains unclear but does not appear to be due to differences in mitochondrial GPX activities between type I and II fibers.

2. Sarcoplasmic reticulum
Studies have identified NAD(P)H oxidase enzymes associated with the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) of both cardiac (66) and skeletal muscle (409). The superoxide generated by these enzymes appears to influence calcium release by the SR through oxidation of the ryanodyne receptor (66). The skeletal muscle enzyme described appears to preferentially use NADH as substrate (409). Some inhibitor studies have indicated that extracellular superoxide release from stimulated myotubes was reduced by treatment with diphenyleneiodonium (DPI), a nonspecific inhibitor of NAD(P)H oxidases (292), although the NADH oxidase described by Xia et al. (409) is localized to the SR and hence seems unlikely to contribute to the extracellular release.

3. Transverse tubules
Recent data indicate that the transverse tubules of skeletal muscle contain a NADP(H) oxidase whose activity is increased by depolarization (109, 154). This enzyme contains some of the classical subunits found in the NADP(H) oxidase of phagocytic cells and appears to release superoxide to the cytosol of skeletal muscle cells. Finally, this skeletal muscle specific NADP(H) oxidase is inhibited by nonspecific inhibitors of this class of enzyme and by prevention of membrane depolarization.

4. Plasma membrane
Numerous studies reveal that skeletal muscle cells release superoxide into the extracellular space (e.g., see Refs. 253, 292, 321, 325, 427). All cells contain plasma membrane redox systems capable of undertaking electron transfer across the plasma membrane. A NAD(P)H oxidase complex has been reported to be constitutively expressed in diaphragm and limb muscles of the rat and localized to the region of the plasma membrane (172). The enzyme contains four of the subunits that are found in the enzyme in phagocytic cells (gp91phox, p22phox, p47phox, and p67phox), all of which were associated with the cell membranes (236). Whether this complex predominantly releases superoxide to the inside or the outside of the plasma membrane cannot be ascertained from the experiments reported (172), and any potential overlap with the recent discovery of the NAD(P)H oxidase located in the transverse tubules (109, 154) has not been investigated.

There are other plasma membrane redox systems that are capable of transferring electrons from intracellular reductants to appropriate extracellular electron acceptors, although no such system has been described in skeletal muscle (346). Morré (269) has described external NADH oxidase (ECTO-NOX) proteins that exhibit a hydroquinone (NADH) oxidase activity and a protein disulfidethiol exchange activity. The current understanding of these systems is that they accept electrons from the hydroquinones of the plasma membrane and can reduce a number of nonphysiological (e.g., ferricyanide and WST-1) and physiological (e.g., protein thiols or oxygen) electron acceptors outside the cell, although oxygen is likely to be a major acceptor in vivo (89). Transfer of electrons from cytosolic NAD(P)H to the plasma membranes has been proposed to occur through either NADH-cytochrome b5 oxidoreductase or NAD(P)H quinone oxidoreductase (NQO1) (89). Thus, through a series of linked steps, intracellular NAD(P)H can act as substrate for superoxide generation on the cell surface. The relevance of these processes to skeletal muscle contractions has not been established, but it is feasible that these systems are activated during contractile activity or that the substrate level rises to increase electron transfer across the membrane through these systems. The characteristics of the release of superoxide from skeletal muscle are compatible with the involvement of such a system.

5. Phospholipase A2-dependent processes
Phospholipase A2 (PLA2) is an enzyme that cleaves membrane phospholipids to release arachidonic acid, which is a substrate for ROS-generating enzyme systems such as the lipoxygenases (426). Also, activation of PLA2 can stimulate NAD(P)H oxidases (421), and increased PLA2 activity has been reported to stimulate ROS generation in muscle mitochondria (276) and cytosol (130) and release ROS into the extracellular space (426). Both calcium-dependent and independent forms of PLA2 are reported to play a role in muscle ROS generation. The calcium-independent enzymes (iPLA2) have been claimed to modulate cytosolic oxidant activity in skeletal muscle cells (130), while a 14-kDa calcium-dependent isoform (sPLA2) located within mitochondria has been reported to stimulate intracellular ROS generation during contractile activity (277). In nonmuscle cells, activity of the third major type of PLA2, cytosolic (cPLA2) that is activated by micromolar concentrations of calcium, has been linked to ROS generation (273). Reid and colleagues (130) hypothesized that the calcium-independent PLA2 was a major determinant of ROS activity under resting conditions, whereas during contractions, heat stress, or other processes elevating intracellular calcium, the calcium-dependent PLA2 was activated and stimulates ROS production at supranormal rates.

6. Xanthine oxidase
There has been considerable speculation concerning a role for xanthine oxidase in superoxide generation by skeletal muscle. At present, this speculation is primarily based on the effects of the xanthine oxidase inhibitors allopurinol or oxypurinol (e.g., see Refs. 129, 151). Although rat skeletal muscles contain significant levels of xanthine oxidase (188), human skeletal muscle cells per se appear to possess low amounts of xanthine dehydrogenase or oxidase (145), although these enzymes will inevitably be present in associated endothelial cells. Clearly, additional research is required to determine the role that xanthine oxidase plays in exercise-induced ROS production.

Thus there is clear evidence that superoxide and hydrogen peroxide are generated in muscle cells during contractions, and more limited data indicate that hydroxyl radicals may be generated under more specific circumstances. Despite the initial indications that mitochondria are the predominant site for ROS generation during activity, a number of alternative potential sites have been identified. It is still unclear whether all of these multiple sites contribute to the increased ROS activities that are observed during contractions or whether one site predominates. It is entirely feasible that the multiple sites of generation are active in differing situations and that the effects of the ROS generated are relatively localized and important for disparate functions. For example, localized ROS generation by the sarcoplasmic reticulum or t-tubule systems may be much more important in regulation of sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium handling (see sect. VIIIA1) than ROS generated by mitochondria or extracellular oxidases.

B. Endogenous Sites for NO Production

NO is generated continuously by skeletal muscle, a production that is increased by contractions (32, 207). Skeletal muscle normally expresses the neuronal (type I or nNOS) and the endothelial (type III or eNOS) isoforms of NOS. nNOS is strongly expressed in fast-twitch muscle fibers and localized to the muscle sarco-lemma where it is associated with the dystrophin-glycoprotein complex (DGC). eNOS is localized to the muscle mitochondria (208). iNOS (type II) is also expressed in skeletal muscle in some inflammatory conditions, but it does not play a significant role in normal muscle (373). Analysis of myotubes in culture has confirmed that skeletal muscle cells per se release increased amounts of NO during contractile activity (292), a release that was greatly reduced by the NOS inhibitor L-NAME. nNOS appears to be the prime source of the NO released from skeletal muscle (156). Passive stretching of muscle has also been shown to increase NO release from rat skeletal muscle in vitro (388) and to increase nNOS expression.

NITRIC oxide compounds ARE needed to effectively treat infections, viruses... TURNING OFF or reducing NO then means the virus can further get inroads into cellular damage. IT IS ESSENTIAL THEN to keep UP NO (nitric oxides) production ability, not defeat it with vitamin C or any other free-radical scavenger..

Macrophages are suspected to play a major role in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection pathogenesis, not only by their contribution to virus dissemination and persistence in the host but also through the dysregulation of immune functions. The production of NO, a highly reactive free radical, is thought to act as an important component of the host immune response in several viral infections.

(Source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC102085/))

PS - MOD question: seems to me this thread maybe better suited to be in a location other than "Archaeology" ?

ThePythonicCow

29th September 2014, 23:49

PS - MOD question: seems to me this thread maybe better suited to be in a location other than "Archaeology" ?
Thread moved, to the Medicine sub-forum :).

Daozen

30th September 2014, 00:18

Did I put it in archaeology? Strange. Perhaps a freudian slip. Will Ebola bury us all?

Oh my!

Olaf

30th September 2014, 07:25

Daozen

30th September 2014, 07:59

Olaf, your advice on herbs and glutathione is interesting. I've read a lot of similar advice and take many alkalizing herbs myself. I'm busy with another pressing project and work right now, but I can tel you think a search for "Vitamin C" "antiviral" returns many, many results, lots of them from well known universities.

That does not prove Ebola specific actions, but it does go a long way to show that your opening statement "Vitamin C is no anti-viral" looks like it's disputed by many, many mainstream university researchers.

Here are some quick copypastes. I haven't checked them out yet:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3659258/

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n09.shtml

http://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/hn-2929001#hn-2929001-uses

http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=21570

http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01250743

Bob

30th September 2014, 17:06

IT IS ESSENTIAL THEN to keep UP NO (nitric oxides) production ability, not defeat it with vitamin C or any other free-radical scavenger..

Sorry Bob, I have a different opinion. As I wrote, NO also kills the mitochondriae itself after three days or so (at least it makes them dysfunctional). So it switches off the only solders that you have that should fight against the viruses. This is the cause why so many people have persistant virus infections, such as herpes - dysfunctional mitochondriae. Pneumonia is another example.
[..]

We have no disagreement really. NO is modulated by, as you say B12 and acetyl cysteine. And both are in the body, so it is self corrected, and it is a delicate balance. An overload by ascorbic acid for instance as you point out will upset the balance. I do also use self B12 modulation :) found that out some years ago. I have an article up on the use of acetyl cysteine AND other redox controls - see http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?73942-Potential-of-silver-to-treat-Ebola&p=866074&viewfull=1#post866074

From my reference notes:

N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) prevented the significant ROS (reactive oxygen species) increase. Similarly, a strong protective effect of antioxidants from Gentiana asclepiadea flower and haulm extracts was observed in HEK 293 cells treated with a pesticide.

Under environmental stress, the cell reacts by increased ROS generation and this leads to imbalance between ROS generation and their neutralisation by antioxidative enzymes and low molecular weight antioxidants, among others by glutathione. So glutathione is part of the delicate balance, not JUST NAC.

This disturbance of the redox equilibrium is defined as oxidative stress. Under conditions of oxidative stress the cell accumulates ROS, and the antioxidative response that follows involves modifications in signalling pathways, among them – activation of mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPK) and release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. ROS are highly reactive and thus, able to modify cellular components, among them DNA. The oxidative damage thus inflicted leads to genotoxic effects. The GENES are disturbed or destroyed. The cell will try to compensate by turning on mechanisms to try to recreate a proper gene code (kind of like a cyclic redundancy check mechanism in repairing damaged data on disk drives).. With the repair mechanisms damaged cancerous situations, or cell death can happen.

The whole point being using C in massive quantities creates an imbalance. I assume part of the logic behind the various "natural" treatment regimines is to create a deliberate out-of-balance of some kind to upset what the pathogen finds itself comfortable within, subsequently then to turn on the needed balancing mechanisms in the cells and carefully regulate the repair trigger cycles. I believe it is a delicate balance, not some shotgun approach, which would be more conducive to induce systemwide shock.

A Voice from the Mountains

30th September 2014, 19:24

I'd also like to hear more about what studies are actually showing (or not showing) when they report that vitamin C is important for fighting diseases, to take it in very large doses, etc. Is this just second-layer trap for people to fall into once they're smart enough to turn away from pharmaceuticals?

Also the alkalizing diet mentioned above as well. Is it even important to try to eat or avoid foods based on their pH levels? Doesn't the body self-regulate pH too, and keep several different pH levels in different parts of the body (for example very acidic in the stomach, slightly acidic on the skin, slightly alkaline in the blood), or is there some benefit in eating more of one or the other side of the pH scale?

Sorry if this is getting off topic but I see that we have people here who seem very familiar with the chemistry of how all this works, and it's too tempting to inquire directly to these people where I see them.

ThePythonicCow

1st October 2014, 01:03

Vitamine C is no antiviral.
Some would disagree.

For example, from Vitamin C As An Antiviral (Orthomolecular Medicine) (http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n09.shtml):

Our bodies cannot make vitamin C (ascorbate), although most animals can. We must get it from our food and from supplements. But how much do we really need? Persistent arguments on this question may be settled by looking at how much vitamin C animals manufacture in their bodies. The answer is: quite a lot. Most animals make the human body-weight equivalent of 5,000 to 10,000 milligrams a day. It is unlikely that animals would have evolved to make this much vitamin C if they did not need it and use it. Indeed, cells in many human body tissues concentrate vitamin C by 25-fold or more over blood concentration.

Each person's need for vitamin C differs because of differences in genetics and individual biochemistry [1,2,3]. Further, our bodies undergo different stresses, and we certainly eat different foods. Therefore, the daily need for ascorbate to maintain health for an adult varies between 2,000 - 20,000 mg/day. Linus Pauling personally took 18,000 mg of vitamin C daily. Although he was often ridiculed for this, it is interesting to note that Dr. Pauling had two more Nobel prizes than any of his critics. He died at age 93. Abram Hoffer, MD, a colleague of Pauling's, took megadoses of vitamin C and successfully gave it to thousands of patients over 55 years of medical practice. Dr. Hoffer died at age 91.

Antiviral Function

When we are challenged with a viral infection, our need for vitamin C can rise dramatically, depending on the body's immune function, level of injury, infection, or environmental toxicity such as cigarette smoke [4,5]. Ascorbate at sufficiently high doses can prevent viral disease and greatly speed recovery from an acute viral infection. Surprising to some, this was originally observed by physicians in the 1940s and has been verified and re-verified over the last 60 years by doctors who achieved quick and complete recovery in their patients with ascorbate mega-doses [5]. The effective therapeutic dose is based on clinical observation and bowel tolerance. Clinical observation is essentially "taking enough C to be symptom free, whatever that amount may be." Bowel tolerance means exactly what you think it means: the amount that can be absorbed from the gut without causing loose stools. [5,6]. Very high doses, 30,000 - 200,000 mg, divided up throughout the day, are remarkably non-toxic and have been documented by physicians as curing viral diseases as various as the common cold, flu, hepatitis, viral pneumonia, and even polio. [4,5,7]. On first reading this may sound incredible. We invite interested persons to read further, starting with the references listed below, and especially Dr. Frederick R. Klenner's Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C. This short book is posted in its entirety at The Clinical Experiences of Frederick R. Klenner, M.D. (http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/198x/smith-lh-clinical_guide_1988.htm) .

Mechanism For Ascorbate Antiviral Effect

Several mechanisms for vitamin C's antiviral effect are known or suggested from studies [4,8]. The antioxidant property of ascorbate promotes a reducing environment in the bloodstream and tissues, enhancing the body's response to oxidative stress from inflammation [9], thereby helping to fight microbes and viruses that propagate in stressful conditions [10]. Ascorbate has been shown to have specific antiviral effects in which it inactivates the RNA or DNA of viruses [11,12,13], or in the assembly of the virus [14].

Vitamin C is also involved in enhancing several functions of the immune system. Ascorbate can enhance the production of interferon, which helps prevent cells from being infected by a virus [15,16]. Ascorbate stimulates the activity of antibodies [17], and in megadoses seems to have a role in mitochondrial energy production [18] . It can enhance phagocyte function, which is the body's mechanism for removing viral particles and other unwanted debris [4]. White blood cells, involved in the body's defense against infections of all types, concentrate ascorbate up to 80 times plasma levels, which, if you take enough vitamin C, allows them to bring huge amounts of ascorbate to the site of the infection [4]. Many different components of the immune response, B-cells, T-cells, NK cells, and also cytokine production, all with important roles in the immune response, are enhanced by ascorbate [19-23]. Additionally, ascorbate improves the immune response from vaccination [24,25].

Summary

Vitamin C at high doses is effective in preventing viral infection and enhancing recovery. Several mechanisms are known, including specific viral anti-replication processes and enhancement of many components of the body's cellular immune system. When taken at an appropriate dose in a timely manner, ascorbate is our best tool for curing acute viral illness.

References:

[1] Williams RJ, Deason G (1967) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 57:1638-1641. Individuality in vitamin C needs.

[2] Pauling L (1986) How to Live Longer And Feel Better, by Linus Pauling (Paperback - May 2006) ISBN-13: 9780870710964

[3] Hoffer A, Saul AW (2009) Orthomolecular Medicine for Everyone: Megavitamin Therapeutics for Families and Physicians. ISBN-13: 9781591202264

[4] Levy TE (2002) Curing the Incurable: Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins. ISBN-13: 9781401069636

[5] Hickey S, Saul AW (2008) Vitamin C: The Real Story, the Remarkable and Controversial Healing Factor. ISBN-13: 9781591202233

[6] Cathcart RF (1981) Vitamin C, titrating to bowel tolerance, anascorbemia, and acute induced scurvy. Med Hypotheses. 7:1359-1376.

[7] Klenner FR (1979) The significance of high daily intake of ascorbic acid in preventive medicine, in: Physician's Handbook on Orthomolecular Medicine, Third Edition, 1979, Roger Williams, PhD, ed., p 51-59.

[8] Webb AL, Villamor E (2007) Update: Effects of antioxidant and non-antioxidant vitamin supplementation on immune function. Nutrition Reviews 65:181-217

[9] Wintergerst ES, Maggini S, Hornig DH (2006) Immune-enhancing role of vitamin C and zinc and effect on clinical conditions. Ann Nutr Metab. 50:85-94.

[10] Kastenbauer S, Koedel U, Becker BF, Pfister HW (2002) Oxidative stress in bacterial meningitis in humans. Neurology. 58:186-191.

[11] Murata A, Oyadomari R, Ohashi T, Kitagawa K. (1975) Mechanism of inactivation of bacteriophage deltaA containing single-stranded DNA by ascorbic acid. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 21:261-269.

[12] Harakeh S, Jariwalla RJ, Pauling L (1990) Suppression of human immunodeficiency virus replication by ascorbate in chronically and acutely infected cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 87:7245-7249.

[13] White LA, Freeman CY, Forrester BD, Chappell WA (1986) In vitro effect of ascorbic acid on infectivity of herpesviruses and paramyxoviruses. J Clin Microbiol. 24:527-531.

[14] Furuya A, Uozaki M, Yamasaki H, Arakawa T, Arita M, Koyama AH (2008) Antiviral effects of ascorbic and dehydroascorbic acids in vitro. Int J Mol Med. 22:541-545.

[15] Gerber, WF (1975) Effect of ascorbic acid, sodium salicylate and caffeine on the serum interferon level in response to viral infection. Pharmacology, 13: 228.

[16] Karpinska T, Kawecki Z, Kandefer-Szerszen M (1982) The influence of ultraviolet irradiation, L-ascorbic acid and calcium chloride on the induction of interferon in human embryo fibroblasts. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 30:33-37.

[17] Anderson R, Dittrich OC (1979) Effects of ascorbate on leucocytes: Part IV. Increased neutrophil function and clinical improvement after oral ascorbate in 2 patients with chronic granulomatous disease. S Afr Med J. 1;56476-80.

[18] Gonz lez MJ, Miranda JR, Riordan HD (2005) Vitamin C as an Ergogenic Aid. J Orthomolecular Med 20:100-102.

[19] Kennes B, Dumont I, Brohee D, Hubert C, Neve P (1983) Effect of vitamin C supplements on cell-mediated immunity in old people. Gerontology. 29:305-310.

[20] Siegel BV, Morton JI (1984) Vitamin C and immunity: influence of ascorbate on prostaglandin E2 synthesis and implications for natural killer cell activity. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 54:339-342.

[21] Jeng KC, Yang CS, Siu WY, Tsai YS, Liao WJ, Kuo JS (1996) Supplementation with vitamins C and E enhances cytokine production by peripheral blood mononuclear cells in healthy adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 64:960-965.

[22] Campbell JD, Cole M, Bunditrutavorn B, Vella AT (1999) Ascorbic acid is a potent inhibitor of various forms of T cell apoptosis. Cell Immunol. 194:1-5.

[23] Schwager J, Schulze J (1997) Influence of ascorbic acid on the response to mitogens and interleukin production of porcine lymphocytes. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 67:10-16.

[24] Banic S (1982) Immunostimulation by vitamin C. Int J Vitam Nutr Res Suppl. 23:49-52.

[25] Wu CC, Dorairajan T, Lin TL (2000) Effect of ascorbic acid supplementation on the immune response of chickens vaccinated and challenged with infectious bursal disease virus. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 74:145-152.

Bob

1st October 2014, 01:10

People obviously will do what they want with vitamin C, or injecting themselves or recommending others inject themselves. I have not seen ONE piece of data saying the sodium ascorbate has successfully cured Ebola in a repeatable clinical setting, where for instance any doctor woud say, YES IT WORKS - which I believe was the subject of the discussion..

I will never use such megadose amounts, nor recommend megadosing. Putting 1.1 POUNDS of a substance directly into the bloodstream, which is not NORMALLY in the body is not what I would call even theoretically as safe recommended logic. Overloading organs that are damaged is not smart, IMHO.

in post http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?75437-Ebola-It-s-Far-Far-Worse-Than-You-Thought&p=882804&viewfull=1#post882804 - from the Science Blog, there is another opinion and viewpoint.

ThePythonicCow

1st October 2014, 01:12

Vitamine C is no antiviral.
Some would disagree.
Or this, from the National Institutes for Health (US Government): Vitamin C Is an Essential Factor on the Anti-viral Immune Responses through the Production of Interferon-α/β at the Initial Stage of Influenza A Virus (H3N2) Infection (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3659258/):

Abstract

L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is one of the well-known anti-viral agents, especially to influenza virus. Since the in vivo anti-viral effect is still controversial, we investigated whether vitamin C could regulate influenza virus infection in vivo by using Gulo (-/-) mice, which cannot synthesize vitamin C like humans. First, we found that vitamin C-insufficient Gulo (-/-) mice expired within 1 week after intranasal inoculation of influenza virus (H3N2/Hongkong). Viral titers in the lung of vitamin C-insufficient Gulo (-/-) mice were definitely increased but production of anti-viral cytokine, interferon (IFN)-α/β, was decreased. On the contrary, the infiltration of inflammatory cells into the lung and production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukin (IL)-α/β, were increased in the lung. Taken together, vitamin C shows in vivo anti-viral immune responses at the early time of infection, especially against influenza virus, through increased production of IFN-α/β.

ThePythonicCow

1st October 2014, 01:21

An earlier thread, from almost two months ago, discusses possible remedies for Ebola: BREAKING - Rogue Dr. SHARES EBOLA VIRUS CURE!!! (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?73513-BREAKING-Rogue-Dr.-SHARES-EBOLA-VIRUS-CURE---).

As best as I can tell from the considerable number of Google search links that I've chased today, the August 1, 2014 The treatment for ebola, along with accompanying MOA has been sent to this web site (Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist) (http://jimstonefreelance.com/ebola.html) article, linked and quoted in the opening post of the above thread, is the origin of the report that led to the Project Camelot report, that was behind the opening post of the recent Haemorrhagic fever / Ebola outbreaks (Split thread, on topic of 500 gms Vit C IV per day) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?75520-Haemorrhagic-fever-Ebola-outbreaks--Split-thread-on-topic-of-500-gms-Vit-C-IV-per-day-) thread.

Bob

1st October 2014, 01:22

Paul, the point was taking MEGA-DOSES, IV, not a small modulating method to deal with turning OFF the nitric oxides.. Ascorbate in small amounts works great, as you have pointed out based on the doses you take by mouth. Great ! I like C too by mouth to the point of bowel issues, so the right amount for daily stress (ROS issues) is perfect for a person based on their needs. Excessive amounts with EBOLA could kill the patient, and that is what clinical testing on animals would be one with first.. Being sensible means doing the research on animals infected with Ebola, and then seeing what happens. IF the dose of another substance won't overload the body, and is better tolerated, it make NO SENSE to try to push one's pet treatment and risk the patient. 150 milligrams a day to effect a cure with a demonstrated substance verses 1.1 POUNDS a day of an unproven substance (against EBOLA) is a simple concept to work with.

ThePythonicCow

1st October 2014, 01:38

Bob

1st October 2014, 02:01

Paul, the point was taking MEGA-DOSES, IV, not a small modulating method to deal with turning OFF the nitric oxides.
I'm still favoring mega doses of intravenous sodium ascorbate, as a potential remedy that I would welcome, for a variety of serious illnesses.

The evidence I've seen so far today (not yet read carefully, I'll admit) to the contrary, involving nitric oxide reaction, was based in part at least on one focused research paper, copied in part here by yourself, that I will confess to not understanding, that I doubt anyone else reading it here for the first time understood well, and that I would suspect can only be extended to the general question of Vitamin C efficacy by making further assumptions as to what are the relevant mechanisms of activity, not proven by the actual research behind that paper.

Just because one mechanism can be described by which Vitamin C would be contra-indicated for such uses, according to a focused research result, does not out weigh the significant amount of material from the likes of Levy and Pauling that I've read over the last couple of decades, and the reactions of my own body to various doses of (oral) Vitamin C that I've consumed over that same time.

I fully understand and appreciate what you are saying.

How it is done to establish credibility - for others to use it legally, and effectively and recommend it ethically:

If a clinic in a University, or with a Prof who can act as Lead Researcher, would want to test putting 1.1 pounds a day (for the primate, of equivalent weight, of a human) for as long as the infected subject requires the dose levels, (they would need to get approval from the ethics committee I believe at the university), then document it on Ebola infected primates, and understand up to 8.8 pounds for the 8 day treatment (as discussed on the internet as a "treatment")....

that would start to establish a theory that using sodium ascorbate is useful to treat ebola..

BUT before that, putting 8.8 POUNDS of sodium ascorbate into a HEALTHY Primate's blood stream would be needed to see what types of changes happen.. Testing such as liver function, kidney function and so forth would be needed. Does withdrawal scurvy occur after prolonged administration of 2 to 3 grams per day? (such has been reported with abrupt cessation of C. What about withdrawl issues after putting 8.8 pounds of the substance into the blood stream? Any data on that showing what changes, electrolytes, IRON utilization, cardiac function?

Then some sort of baseline could be created, probably with 50 so primates.. in other words, document that much megadosing..

Then infect a single primate with Ebola-Zaire and infect a CONTROL primate with Ebola-Zaire, and add the vitamin C in the recommended dosage (as instructed by those on the internet).

And document.. Then increase the statistical group by adding more patients and more controls.

After a while the data will be available and can be presented to PEER REVIEW at the university and in trade journals.

At that point, one would have a realistic test with realistic test results..

That is how it should be done.. IMHO.. (and based on clinical testing guidelines)

references: http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/
there is a lot more to doing the animal studies - folks obviously who want to shot-gun don't care and will do what they want. But if they want the rest of the medical world to accept what they are doing, there are some procedures to be taken.

ThePythonicCow

1st October 2014, 02:12

How it is done to establish credibility - for others to use it legally, and effectively and recommend it ethically:
There is a difference, in my view, between what is scientifically sound, and what I choose to do personally.

I don't always (or even occasionally) get to run statistically valid, double blind, studies on all the options in my life before having to make a choice. So far as I know, I've got one life, and it gets lived at full speed, with no option to try multiple "timelines."

(For that matter, the finest double blind, peer reviewed results in the most respected journals don't have a perfect tract record of truth, integrity or accuracy either :).)

A Voice from the Mountains

1st October 2014, 02:16

Thank you all for posting these kinds of studies and information.

As someone who is not a chemist and has a limited understanding of the complex chemistry inside the body, the studies themselves are the most important thing to me. I can see what was done, what the result was, and who is publishing this report (whether they are from an institution that has any obvious ties to big corporations or funding, etc.). Editorials such as "where is the evidence of such and such??" are not as impressive to me because I've seen on a large variety of subjects that someone will ask "where is all the evidence?" when it's apparent that they have already found it and simply ignored it for any of a variety of reasons they may come up with. But I don't doubt that the studies are out there, probably scores of them at least when it comes to something like the properties of vitamin C, and it only requires someone who knows the subject a little better to find them.

Roisin

1st October 2014, 02:36

Trivia: Linus Pauling died of prostrate cancer and we know he took his Vitamin C everyday but he still got cancer even though he said it's supposed to help prevent cancer.

The Ebola virus goes way beyond cancer because it hopscotches over the tumor stage and dives right into the stage where it turns everything into mush.

We're dealing with a whole different animal when it comes to the final stages of this disease.

Bob

1st October 2014, 02:39

just to point out in another article from the parent website...

http://immunenetwork.org/Synapse/Data/PDFData/0078IN/in-12-18.pdf

(IMMUNE NETWORK.ORG is the PARENT which generates many PDF's that the other repository uses NCBI, each library gets data from the others to build a databank.., not important tho...)

This is the key from the current 2012 research report:

" Regarding the roles and functions of vitamin C on the anti-viral and anti-tumor immunity, it is believed that vitamin C directly increased the cytotoxic activity of natural killer (NK) cells or antigen specific cytolytic T cells (CTLs), but it is still controversial.

" It is because that most of experiments regarding the effect of anti-viral and anti-tumor immunity (were performed) in vitro.

" Even if the experiments were done , it was impossible to distinguish whether the anti-viral and anti-tumor effects are induced by vitamin C supplementation, since most animals used in experiments can produce the large amounts of vitamin C by themselves. "

Humans don't manufacture their own vitamin C, some other animals do..

I have noticed things in Abstracts don't necessarily correspond with what is INSIDE the article.

I have seen with MEDICAL Abstracts they generally are attention getters, so that the reader will read the article, and generally in the article there would be data to support or challenge items discussed or highlighted in the medical abstract.

C may HELP to kick off enzymes, and help trigger KILLER CELLS, but C is not acting as an ANTI-VIRAL by itself, which I believe is what Olaf was saying.. C doesn't do the killing, NO does from within cells which are killer cells..

Vitamine C is no antiviral.
Some would disagree.
Or this, from the National Institutes for Health (US Government): Vitamin C Is an Essential Factor on the Anti-viral Immune Responses through the Production of Interferon-α/β at the Initial Stage of Influenza A Virus (H3N2) Infection (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3659258/):

Abstract

L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is one of the well-known anti-viral agents, especially to influenza virus. Since the in vivo anti-viral effect is still controversial, we investigated whether vitamin C could regulate influenza virus infection in vivo by using Gulo (-/-) mice, which cannot synthesize vitamin C like humans. First, we found that vitamin C-insufficient Gulo (-/-) mice expired within 1 week after intranasal inoculation of influenza virus (H3N2/Hongkong). Viral titers in the lung of vitamin C-insufficient Gulo (-/-) mice were definitely increased but production of anti-viral cytokine, interferon (IFN)-α/β, was decreased. On the contrary, the infiltration of inflammatory cells into the lung and production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukin (IL)-α/β, were increased in the lung. Taken together, vitamin C shows in vivo anti-viral immune responses at the early time of infection, especially against influenza virus, through increased production of IFN-α/β.

Bob

1st October 2014, 02:54

Again, I fully understand and sympathise about the lack of time (and money) for anyone to go about trying to do home clinical studies, it just can't happen unless one is born with a very large set of silverware in their mouth..

MEGADOSING is the issue, as Roisin pointed out Linus Pauling whom folks cite as the "authority" on C apparently didn't get benefits to stop his cancer. His megadosing did nothing to help him. What did he miss? That maybe for C to work right, just the right amount with just the right additional substances are needed, and a combination, not a shotgun is needed..? Suppose? That is where the clinical studies with the proper protocols comes in.. Partial information can be detrimental, or give one false expectations.. Folks obviously want a miracle cure, and that would be great.. I disagree that megadosing of C is the solution in EBOLA's case.

How it is done to establish credibility - for others to use it legally, and effectively and recommend it ethically:
There is a difference, in my view, between what is scientifically sound, and what I choose to do personally.

I don't always (or even occasionally) get to run statistically valid, double blind, studies on all the options in my life before having to make a choice. So far as I know, I've got one life, and it gets lived at full speed, with no option to try multiple "timelines."

(For that matter, the finest double blind, peer reviewed results in the most respected journals don't have a perfect tract record of truth, integrity or accuracy either :).)

A Voice from the Mountains

1st October 2014, 06:06

MEGADOSING is the issue, as Roisin pointed out Linus Pauling whom folks cite as the "authority" on C apparently didn't get benefits to stop his cancer. His megadosing did nothing to help him. What did he miss?

I'm still following this topic with a layman's interest, but just to play Devil's advocate here, one could say that if he was onto something very revolutionary, he could have been murdered by a cancer-causing agent. I believe this is what happened to Bob Marley and maybe even Hugo Chavez. Bob Marley was killed by toe cancer of all things, but it was later rumored that some sort of fine needle had been found in his shoes corresponding to where he developed the toe cancer.

Just saying, nothing can be taken for granted, including why someone potentially important to fighting big pharma has died and what really caused it or why it couldn't have been helped.

Bob

1st October 2014, 16:05

MEGADOSING is the issue, as Roisin pointed out Linus Pauling whom folks cite as the "authority" on C apparently didn't get benefits to stop his cancer. His megadosing did nothing to help him. What did he miss?

I'm still following this topic with a layman's interest, but just to play Devil's advocate here, one could say that if he was onto something very revolutionary, he could have been murdered by a cancer-causing agent. I believe this is what happened to Bob Marley and maybe even Hugo Chavez. Bob Marley was killed by toe cancer of all things, but it was later rumored that some sort of fine needle had been found in his shoes corresponding to where he developed the toe cancer.

Just saying, nothing can be taken for granted, including why someone potentially important to fighting big pharma has died and what really caused it or why it couldn't have been helped.

Do the full clinical studies and publish the data. But think about putting 8.8 POUNDS of a substance into your veins in a short period of time.. Visualize what that is going to do to your kidneys.. Take a look at the stress on the heart.. Then publish all that data.

avid

1st October 2014, 16:14

I found this article interesting on dosage of intravenous Vitamin C, curing a dying man not only of severe swine flu, but also leukemia. If it's good for that, perhaps it will snuff out any Ebola rubbish?
Just my 2 cents.....
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/29/high-dose-iv-vitamin-c-found-useful-for-near-terminal-swine-flu.aspx

A Voice from the Mountains

1st October 2014, 16:59

ThePythonicCow

1st October 2014, 17:33

Do the full clinical studies and publish the data. But think about putting 8.8 POUNDS of a substance into your veins in a short period of time.. Visualize what that is going to do to your kidneys.. Take a look at the stress on the heart.. Then publish all that data.
Well, the original Cathcart speculation, as told by Dr Levy, was that up to 500 grams/day (about one pound) of intravenous sodium ascorbate might be needed. This was based on prior clinical work using up to 300 grams per day (see Wikipedia quote, below) for severe cases of flu or pneumonia. Taking that speculative upper limit number and multiplying it by 8 days (where did you get the 8 days number?), and ridiculing the resulting total is perhaps a useful rhetorical device to suggest to the reader that using Vitamin C to treat Ebola is ridiculous.

But it is not a particularly helpful remark, in my estimation. It was a speculated upper bound, per day, to be modulated by patient condition and response. Multiplying a speculative upper limit by an (arbitrary, so far as I can tell right now) 8 days to create a seemingly ridiculous 8.8 pound amount is not helping us understand what Levy, Cathcart and (the earlier) Klenner are reporting to us.

Cathcart's work, and Fred R. Klenner's earlier work, modulated the amounts by the patients ability to stay hydrated and by their kidney's ability to continue to handle the fluid levels. If you've ever drunk a bit too much beer in your youth, you might know that some of us have kidney's that can excrete fluids at rates approximating a pint per hour.

"A pint's a pound, the world around." (quote from my long departed Dad.)

So talking a pound of ascorbate per day, which would be diluted (according to what I'll quote right below) to five pints of intravenous fluid, is not ridiculous, in my personal experience. I'm a 100 kg (16 stone) man with (last I tested them with excess beer) strong kidneys. I'd wager (if I were a wagering man) that I could easily handle an intravenous fluid intake at that rate. I've also donated blood, which extracts a pint of blood in 20 minutes. I have perhaps 14 or 15 pints of blood in my body (the body is about 7% blood). I can handle losing one pint in 20 minutes with no apparent effect. I'm confident I could handle gaining five pints of saline solution containing one pound of sodium ascorbate (~500 grams), over the space of an entire day.

From the Merck manual (http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/critical_care_medicine/shock_and_fluid_resuscitation/intravenous_fluid_resuscitation.html):

Patients with intravascular volume depletion without shock can receive infusion at a controlled rate, typically 500 mL/h.
This Merck recommended maximum rate of 500 mL/h (about a pound, aka pint, per hour) would be 24 pints per day, and is well above this speculated upper limit of five (5) pints of fluid per day required to administer one pound (~500 grams) of sodium ascorbate per day.

From Fred R. Klenner's Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_R._Klenner):

Klenner's main subspecialty was diseases of the chest, but he became interested in the use of very large doses of Vitamin C in the treatment of a wide range of illness. Many of his experiments were performed on himself. In 1948, he published his first paper on the use of large doses of Vitamin C in the treatment of virus diseases.

In 1949 Klenner published in and presented a paper to the American Medical Association detailing the complete cure of 60 out of 60 of his patients with polio using intravenous sodium ascorbate injection. Galloway and Seifert cited Klenner's presentation to the AMA in a paper of theirs. Generally, he gave 350 to 700 mg per kilogram body weight per day.

He described giving up to 300,000 milligrams (mg) per day of neutral pH sodium ascorbate. Klenner published 27 medical papers, most about vitamin C applications for over 30 diseases, two about treatment of severe neuropathies including multiple sclerosis using aggressive supplementation.
According to this Wikipedia article, Klenner described giving up to 300 grams (300,000 mg) per day. I don't consider 500 grams/day to be a ridiculous speculative upper limit for treatment of severe Ebola, given Klenner's prior work.

From pages 436 and 437 of Thomas E. Levy's Curing the Incurable: Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins (\"http://amzn.com/1401069649 \"):

Treating Infections and Toxin Exposure

Klenner lead the way in establishing the optimal doses of
vitamin C for treating individuals with an aoote infection or
significant toxin exposure. Klenner (1971) asserted that in order
to "bring about quick reversal" of both infectious and toxic insults
to the body, the initial vitamin C must be given intravenously, in
doses ranging from 350 mg to 1,200 mg/kg body weight. He added
that when the dose of vitamin C was under 400 mg / kg of body
weight, the injection could be made directly by syringe as long as
the solution was adequately buffered to neutral pH with sodium
bicarbonate, and every 1,000 mg of vitamin C was diluted to at least
a five cc vQlume. The injecting solution could be dextrose in water,
saline in water, or Ringer's lactate. This IV push application should
be limited to very critically ill patients who could die before an IV
bottle for continuous infusion can. be prepared.

Intravenous dosing is straightforward. Sterile water, saline, and
Ringer's lactate solution are probably the best choices of IV fluid.
Vitamin C as sodium ascorbate or ascorbic acid: buffered to pH
neutrality with sodium bicarbon9-te can be added directly to these
fluids. A final fluid voh.l.me of 500 cc in the IV bottle or bag with a
total of 50,000 mg of vitamin C works very well. As a general rule,
when combating infection or toxicity, do not add anything else to
the IV. Mixing .a wide variety of supplements in with the vitamin
C can have mixed results, and any other nutrients or supplements
can be given orally. Future research may produce superior IV
combinations, but pure vitamin C solutions without additions have
been shown to work exceptionally well.

As Klenner demonstrated on numerous occasions, intravenous
vitamin C can be given very quickly or slowly, depending upon
the circumstances. For acute toxic exposures, such as occurs with
a poisonous -snake bite, let the IV run in rapidly since the toxin
increases its damage the longer it remains unneutralized, and a
certain dosage level of vitamin C must ultimately be reached to
completely neutralize the venom dose. A 500 cc IV bottle with
50,000 mg vitamin C can be infused in as few as 50 to 60 minutes
under such circumstances.

When treating less critical toxin exposures and most clinically
stable infections, infusing the 500 cc bottle of vitamin C should
take from two to four hQurs. With comatose or mentally confused
encephalitis patients, however, go as fast as you can since death can
occur very quickly. Starting with 5,000 to 15,000 mg of vitamin C IV
push is a good way to initiate therapy in such patients.

There is no absolute cookbook approach for the best vitamin
C doses to finish out a treatment plan after the patient initially
shows a positive response. Fever, pulse rate, and the lessening of
the patient's primary presenting symptoms dictate how aggressive
the continuing dosing of vitamin C must be. What is probably most
important to remember is that you should err on the side of excess
vitamin C and duration of therapy to' assure no unexpected clinical
relapse occurs some time after the last high doses.

Patients must be vigorously hydrated, and high volumes of
urine output must be maintained. Of course, this is generally good
medical advice, but it is especially important when giving high
doses of vitamin C or any other medicines to critically ill patients
with fever, increased rates of fluid loss, and generally decreased
fluid intakes.

I favor research over ridicule, as a better means to improving our understanding. We can't do peer reviewed, double blind, statistically significant studies here on the forum, nor in our personal lives, but we can at least research and report what has been published or written so far, and engage in thoughtful analysis and discussion.

... and if I were bleeding to death from Ebola, and a fine doctor, nurse, medical tech or anyone else able to hit a vein with an IV needle volunteered to drip such high doses of sodium ascorbate solution into my veins, I'd welcome their efforts. One can currently purchase 480 grams of sodium ascorbate, retail, for about $20 (see for example here (http://www.swansonvitamins.com/swanson-premium-buffered-sodium-ascorbate-vitamin-c-powder-4-23-oz-120-grams-pwdr).) I've got pounds of it in my pantry, as well as pounds more of ascorbic acid powder, which can be used with sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) to get the same buffered solution. Do the best you can by clean water, preferably a saline or dextrose solution ... but rest assured, I won't be fussing too much over that detail in such a time.

Bob

1st October 2014, 17:44

I would request a 10 day supply of lamivudine and be done with the ebola in less than a week.

I wouldn't inject a cheap grade of anything in my blood stream especially something ordered through an internet bargain site.

:)

Doing a google on the pricing - 80$ for generic for 30 days supply - that is realistic.

80/10days - 8 $ for the treatment cost ! For Ebola, with a clinically tested registered substance known as an ACTUAL ANTI-VIRAL.

AND with such a substance, lamivudine , there are no IV required costs, no worries about IV contamination, no worries about unknown potential results from a substance not clinically tested on Ebola.. there would be no doubt a doctor's fee for the script, and any visit costs..

I can't make it any clearer, I won't play "doctor" with virus treatments and nor would I ever even suggest that anyone ever consider massive megadoses of C when there are effective antivirals out there which use much smaller quantities to create effective treatments. Any doctor following the needed compassionate use rules can request that a labeling "exception" be granted for using this drug (or any other they may have) specifically for EBOLA.

Advocating other use treatments (using that word CURE is hazardous for a non-drug) for C (other than for scurvy) puts it in the drug class, and that then so similar to what happened as with the silver and the oils claims being made for curing Ebola - THAT will bring the FDA scrutiny. And that will run the risk of vitamin C and other nutricuticals being banned, or regulated requiring a prescription, and doctor's care to be able to use the stuff..

I don't think I want to see vitamin C banned, and regulated, which would very well be a possibility should people INSIST on recommending vitamin C be used as a DRUG - especially with IV dispensing..

http://chanlo.com/images/lam-1.jpg

references: COMPASSIONATE USE rules US and Europe

https://dcc2.bumc.bu.edu/ocr/ClinicalResearchNewsletter/article.aspx?article=78

and

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/3/10-085712/en/

avid

1st October 2014, 18:29

This is all so wrong, that folk are denied honest viable treatments due to profiteering. It makes me sick reading about all the heartless moves by the big Pharma, globally. Has noone got a shred of conscience any more? If it works - for goodness' sake - give it! We pay enough for medical care - surely they can give us what we truly need? Oh - I'm off to bang someone's head against the stupid brick wall if I come across this in my doctor's surgery. They are becoming more difficult to see, and remotely prescribe these days...... ie - withdrawing essential services. This is the NHS UK! A 2 week waiting list for urgent appointments, or if you're really poorly, sit in a queue for hours for a max 5 minute appointment in amongst dozens of virus-ridden folk 'smittling' everyone else with their bugs. Gross....

ThePythonicCow

1st October 2014, 18:57

I would request a 10 day supply of lamivudine and be done with the ebola in less than a week.

I wouldn't inject a cheap grade of anything in my blood stream especially something ordered through an internet bargain site.
That's your choice what to inject or consume, so long as you are a conscious and competent adult, not on death row.

On the one hand, we have lamivudine, which by the one report I've seen (your earlier report, here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?69697-Haemorrhagic-fever-Ebola-outbreaks-have-been-reported-accident-natural-or-bio-weapon&p=882026&highlight=lamivudine#post882026)), saved 13 out of 15 Ebola patients.

On the other hand, we have Vitamin C, with decades of successful reports on other, perhaps similar, diseases, but nothing I've seen, in such mega-doses, on Ebola.

"It is altogether fitting and proper that we" (Lincoln, Gettysburg, 1863) might make different choices here.

===

If you would, however, please tone down the negative rhetoric ("a cheap grade of anything ... ordered through an internet bargain site") and fear mongering ("CURE ... FDA ... banned").

Yes, the FDA is a risk here, a major risk. But an informed and level headed awareness amongst the wider population of the options (silver, MMS, Vitamin C, lamivudine, etc, etc) and of their various uses and tradeoffs, is the proper bulwark against FDA overreach, not fear mongering warnings that would appear to recommend avoiding discussions of it on the grounds that such could provoke the FDA.

In my experience, the FDA clamps down on people selling alleged, but unapproved, cures. They are however limited in their overreach by an informed public that makes wide and informed use of a particular substance.

We should continue discussing this, from our various viewpoints.

Bob

1st October 2014, 19:04

Very good data Paul just would hate to see vitamin C and the rest of the herbals declared drugs since the push to have them used as drugs.

I find the argument that the FDA made against the silver people, and the oil people quite revealing where things are headed.

Folks insisting that supplements be used as drugs puts one squarely under legislated rules made for many years longer than C was being recommend for instance to use it other than for scurvy. It just seems to me some good solid sense about advocating "drug-like" use for non-drugs (as far as we all seem to feel that they are not drugs) should be looked at carefully.

I think the FDA is on the warpath with the Ebola and its getting a lot of press.

IT concerns me and I am worried about the FDA potentially clamping down on substances. I pointed this out in the silver thread, that using the wrong words will bring their wrath. Using a dialog that alludes to "practicing medicine" (without a license), will similarly incur their wrath.

Discussing a philosophy without advocating treatment, or cures probably could be done, but they would be watching, no doubt for the verbiage changing to laypeople acting like doctors.

Do I like vitamin C, absolutely, but I would never megadose myself, that is me, my feelings as I know what my liver and kidneys do when overloaded. I like things to be gently balanced back into a healthful feeling.. Do I like herbals, absolutely, and I dowse which one feels right for me, not scientific, but I do the research on the substance before ingesting, and if it doesn't seem to help how I want my "NUTRITION" to be :) I will change..

With that DOCTOR in Liberia having used the accepted antiviral, that had he gotten to the patients EARLY on no doubt he would have 100%. That substance can be taken for a YEAR in a prophylactic regimen. And that is only ONE of similar types of substances with complete cure's and treatments, just in different levels of registration.. They are generic.

It seems to me this is a very sensitive subject, and pushing for "drug use" for non-drugs is going to really push the buttons for regulating the whole industry.. I urge a LOT of caution here.

ThePythonicCow

1st October 2014, 19:16

...
The FDA is, however, limited in their overreach by an informed public that makes wide and informed use of a particular substance.

Bob

1st October 2014, 19:18

...
The FDA is, however, limited in their overreach by an informed public that makes wide and informed use of a particular substance.

I hope so dearly, we shall see how the three companies they recently sent letters to are able to deal with that...

Daozen

2nd October 2014, 04:37

Trivia: Linus Pauling died of prostrate cancer and we know he took his Vitamin C everyday but he still got cancer even though he said it's supposed to help prevent cancer.

Here's some trivia you selectively forgot to add: He was 93 when he died. Anyone who gets that far is worth looking at.

I don't have much time to follow this thread now but a lot of the yes and no camps are missing some of the shades of grey. For example, there are better, more bioavailable forms of Vit C than Sodium Ascorbate.

500 grams a day might well be overload and only necessary in extreme cases. A mix of high Vit C berries like acerola, orange juice, ascorbic acid and all sorts of ascorbates might be a good start. Much easier for the body to deal with. It could be a potent first line of defence for general immunity against infection.

Then add Iodine and you might be on to something...

Daozen

2nd October 2014, 04:43

Daozen

2nd October 2014, 04:51

MEGADOSING is the issue, as Roisin pointed out Linus Pauling whom folks cite as the "authority" on C apparently didn't get benefits to stop his cancer. His megadosing did nothing to help him. What did he miss? That maybe for C to work right, just the right amount with just the right additional substances are needed, and a combination, not a shotgun is needed..? Suppose? That is where the clinical studies with the proper protocols comes in.. Partial information can be detrimental, or give one false expectations.. Folks obviously want a miracle cure, and that would be great.. I disagree that megadosing of C is the solution in EBOLA's case.

Again, he got to a very active 93, so full respect to the man. I find it borderline disrespectful to both Pauling and the audience to leave that point out. He sure saved my life, and those of many others on his very well known therapy.

What did he miss? Good question. His prostate gave out, that *might point* to Zinc or Iodine deficiency. Vit C can deplete both Zn and Iodine, AND they are essential to the prostate.

Plus he was sometimes taking commercial powders, I don't think he was around to see the rise of Nascent Iodine, or the more bioavailable forms of C.

*

Its good to see this thread has simmered down to a productive round table. I'm guilty of sniping and baiting too.

Onward.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

How it is done to establish credibility - for others to use it legally, and effectively and recommend it ethically:
There is a difference, in my view, between what is scientifically sound, and what I choose to do personally.

I don't always (or even occasionally) get to run statistically valid, double blind, studies on all the options in my life before having to make a choice. So far as I know, I've got one life, and it gets lived at full speed, with no option to try multiple "timelines."

(For that matter, the finest double blind, peer reviewed results in the most respected journals don't have a perfect tract record of truth, integrity or accuracy either :).)

That's the sad reality. Waiting for alt therapies to be accepted could take decades. So we're going to have to muddle through in a free market.

The bright side is the research is available and products are sitting there on Ebay. The free market will rise again.

Daozen

2nd October 2014, 05:03

Case study proves the healing power of liposomal vitamin C
New Zealand dairy farmer Alan Smith had a miraculous recovery from a coma induced by leukemia and severe double lung pneumonia. Doctors were ready to pull the plug on him when the family begged them to try high dose IV vitamin C. Alan began showing positive results after the doctors administered 50-100 grams of IV vitamin C.
Unfortunately, the doctors at the hospital who were relatively uneducated on vitamin C were concerned about any possible complications with the high dose IV vitamin C. They dropped the dosage to 2g of vitamin C and Alan began to struggle for survival again. His family began giving him 6 grams of oral liposomal vitamin C and within weeks he was significantly better and was discharged from the hospital.

- See more at: http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vitamin_c/liposomal-c.html#sthash.SNOKJM9z.dpuf

http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vitamin_c/liposomal-c.html

Daozen

2nd October 2014, 05:08

The "average" extreme IV is 50-100 grams a day. Remember that is in extreme cases. I never heard of 500 grams before this thread. If we all took 2 grams (for example) a day as a maintenance dose we wouldn't have to get that extreme.

For the record: 50 bucks a kilo/10= 5 bucks for 100 grams. 10 days: 50 dollars minus IV costs.

2 grams a day would be very cheap. 10 cents a day by my calculation.

Olaf

2nd October 2014, 17:15

The problem with many of those clinical studies is that they do not investigate the biochemical status of the patients. All get the same substances, nobody looks whether they are needed or if other co-factors are also missing. In my view this is not the proper art of medicine. Even if two patients have the same disease, they can have very different biochemical status and very different flaws.

In my opinion it has not much sense to hope that a single substance will fight a virus.
I am deeply convinced, that it is much better you keep the immune system of the body running, because it is intelligent.
So one have to look, (or just to try by trial and error) where the weakest parts in the immune system are.

Protect the immune solders
Most antioxidants (Vitamin C, E, glutathione, alphalipon-acid) are needed to recycle glutathione (produce reduced glutathione), which is needed as a protection so that the mitochondria do not get dysfunctional when they produce NO. All depends on them.
But this reduction of glutathione only works when the whole radical catching chain is working. (see image)

27469

Vitamin C is a vital part of that, but the whole chain does only work, when all of the other substances in their reduced form are present.

Probably one can circumvent this restriction by taking large amounts of vitamin C. It takes the radicals, and itself becomes radically, but as long as you supply new reduced vitamin C, it can bind the free radicals.
However, this procedure is not physiologically. A physiological procedure would try to keep and restore the function of the entire chain, so that the existing vitamin C can be continuously reduced.

Because of these complex dependencies herbal radical scavengers are safer to use. They do not need to be reduced again by other substances. They just are consumed, but some of them are very effective. Therefore, nature has invented them. Because cells of plants have mitochondria, they also need to protect against free radicals. That is the reason for the existence of herbal radical scavengers.

... and supply them
When the amino acid arginine is exhausted, which is not uncommon, no more NO can be produced. I have seen laboratory values of people that had less than -50% of norm values of arginine in their blood. (This also is one of more possible reasons for high blood pressure.) That’s why I think it is a good idea to have some arginine at hand, when a very heavy virus infection is circulating. As with all other substances - it should only be taken, if it is missing. You would also not flooding a car with gasoline in the hope that it then runs faster.

Daozen

2nd October 2014, 21:11

I don't disagree with any of that Olaf. You need more than one substance. People have different metabolisms and body types.

A Voice from the Mountains

3rd October 2014, 01:34

The FDA is, however, limited in their overreach by an informed public that makes wide and informed use of a particular substance.

I agree 100%, and also I believe this is the key to cutting out this ebola nonsense. When we see behind the curtain and know how simple it is to protect ourselves, they've lost a lot of ground.