New Zealand Man Taken Off Life Support Because of Vitamin C

charlesmartel

charlesmartel

Anarcho-Monarchist
Jun 26, 2006
2,270
41
0
Tierra del Fuego
This guy had a bad case of swine flu complicated with pneumonia and leukemia and in a coma. The doctors were about to take him off life support but the family insisted on vitamin C injections. The doctors repeatedly said it was of no worth and wrangled with the family, taking him off it several times. In the end, he was taken off life support because his health started to improve and the leukemia is now gone.

New Zealand 60 Minutes segment on the guy:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrhkoFcOMII]Vitamin C: The Miracle Swine Flu Cure (60 Minutes) "Living Proof" - YouTube[/ame]


Life-Saving, Mega-Dose IV Vitamin C can be Achieved Orally Now : Natural Society
 


On the day I came down with the worst flu of my life I ate several polos. On the day I got better, I didn't eat polos.

Thus, I can conclude that the best way to get flu is to eat polos, and the best way to cure flu is by not eating polos.
 
6a00d8341bf8ea53ef014e5f327f1f970c-580wi.jpg
 
he has a point and it aint witchcraft...VIT C injections do work and cure people. Research DR COLDWELL

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgbdNNfotwM"]Every Cancer Can be Cured in Weeks explains Dr. Leonard Coldwell - YouTube[/ame]
 
Looks like it's feeding time for the sheeple. There's some scientific evidence to suggest that vitamin C helps with pneumonia. Of course, the fact that drug companies cannot patent vitamin C is probably a contributing reason as to why there are not more studies on the matter.

Vitamin C may affect lung infections

Any of you guys aware of the SMON epidemic in Japan in the 1960's? The medical community thought it was caused by a virus. The "disease" was actually caused by a drug the victims were taking. And that wasn't admitted by the Japanese government until 1978! Had WF been around back then, I'm sure a lot of you sheeple would have been pooh-poohing anyone questioning the omniscient medical community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subacute_myelo-optic_neuropathy
 
charlesmartel said:
Looks like it's feeding time for the sheeple. There's some scientific evidence to suggest that vitamin C helps with pneumonia. Of course, the fact that drug companies cannot patent vitamin C is probably a contributing reason as to why there are not more studies on the matter.
Click to expand...
And the $68 billion supplement industry can't afford a clinical trial? Vitamin and Supplement Industry: Market Research Reports, Statistics and Analysis

And 'not more studies'? There's one or two...
xLq6gsB.png


charlesmartel said:
Vitamin C may affect lung infections
Click to expand...
It's hard to debate a paper that doesn't really make sense as a part of your argument. Did you actually read the paper?

"However, the trials are clinically so heterogeneous that a pooled estimate is not meaningful for either preventive or therapeutic effect. Therefore, the positive findings cannot be generalized widely"

"An issue of particular importance in vitamin C trials is the dosage of the vitamin in diet and in the supplements. A difference between vitamin C and control arms may result from a very low dietary intake in the control arm, which may be labeled ‘marginal vitamin C deficiency’, or from high dose supplementation in the vitamin C arm. In the former case, a small dosage of supplement would produce a similar effect, whereas in the latter case the large dose is essential. Previously, a low dietary intake level was proposed as an explanation for the reduction of common cold incidence by vitamin C supplementation in a set of four trials with UK males"

"However, even if we recognize that there are nonscorbutic effects of vitamin C, it is possible that they are important only in specific conditions. For example, it is possible that variation in vitamin C intake does not affect the immune system in the ordinary Western population because of their relatively high dietary intake levels. Vitamin C might, however, be a limiting factor in populations with low dietary intakes."


Is there any specific part of that paper that jumped out to you as helping your argument? The paper itself, excluding references & title page is only 4 pages long, it's not exactly an arduous read. The original PDF is easier to read than the Royal Society's, imo. http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/hemila/H23.pdf
 
Polos are amazing really. They essentially removed half of the mint and marketed it as "the mint with the hole" and people fell for it!

One way to increase profit. ;)
 
microphone head said:
Polos are amazing really. They essentially removed half of the mint and marketed it as "the mint with the hole" and people fell for it!

One way to increase profit. ;)
Click to expand...

The cost of the mint is insignificant compared with marketing, distribution, etc though. All these branded products you're paying for the name, the cost to produce is typically tiny.
 
I love polos. Fruit ones too. That is all.
 
Loafy said:
Don't knock the vitamin c m8. DoctorYourself.com - Klenner Vitamin C Paper

It's good stuff. Liposomal vitamin c - easy way to get high doses orally for overall well being.
Click to expand...
I've yet to find a site recommending liposomal vitamin C that isn't pushing magical cures for cancer.

In response to that link (feel free to debate my points any time, particularly why the $68 billion supplement industry can't afford a clinical trial, when doing so would give them the legal right to market high dose vitamin C as a treatment, which they don't currently have), firstly, it'd be good to have a verifiable source - DoctorYourself have a book out, which I feel influences things a bit. I can't find a single reliable source that's published that study, PubMed doesn't even record its existence, and the 5 studies of his it does have on record don't even have abstracts. According to his wikipedia page, only 2 of these have even been published, one of which in the very first issue of a journal that no longer exists, and another one by a journal that still lists 'copyright 2011' on its website. Even the wikipedia page (which I would hazard a guess, has been outsourced, from some of the errors that I spotted when just glancing at it) doesn't mention the study you linked to.

I attempted to read that link, but it doesn't seem like an actual research paper. After hearing a vague study performed by 'Stanley', but didn't cite, performed in 1935, and several more that were apparently performed by him in the 1950s (that there seems to be no record of), comparing his 100% success rate to a study of a measly 10 people, without naming the study (although I managed to find it), and so on, and so on, I gave up. (not to mention the fact it's 11,600 words - for a paper written that badly, I'd rather spend the time plucking hairs from my arms.)

It seems to be a review rather than an actual research paper, and seems to regularly cite his own papers, along with a myriad of unnamed papers, which it would be hell on earth to find, in these days of the internet, let alone when that was published (if it was published)

Next?
 
OP, your False Dilemma Straw Man is on a Slipper Slope leading to Hasty Generalization and Ad Hominem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom