re: Mega-dose Vitamin C

[Guest guest]

Two reasons. One, there was no abstract provided probably because

the Klenner study was too old (PMID: 14855098 or PMID: 12984224).

Two, you don't like studies more than a few years old, nevermind an

allegedly ignored study from 1951.

My bad on Quackwatch, I was thinking of another site that started

with Q.

Logan

> Then why didn't you post the Klenner study? Either in the first

place or

> below???

>

> Quackwatch maintains a scientific advisory board of 67 esteemed

medical

> advisors from around the world as well as a cadre of many other

advisors in

> the scientific/health/nutrition field. That list and their

qualifications

> can be seen here:

[Guest guest]

There are some studies worthwhile in the oldies but hard to find and

they're not on medline.

So waht you have to do is get a copy from the library, read the whole

thing and produce a comment based on what you knwop today. A lot of

times it will be reveled to you the articles wern't that great.

We have a lot of new info, especially on the hazards of vit c.

Recall the UCLA study on carotid thickening?

As we egt more studies somone might do a mata-analysis and the

complete review may show the opposite to what was thought 40 yrs ago.

A characteristic of the Simpson's paradox.

The trick is to read all the old stuff you can get, books and

articles, " masage " it with the new stuff inlcuding Modern Nutrition,

and try to get an opinion from a practicing doctor, becasuse they are

too busy to publish anything. They know you'll find out when you get

to them.

Regards

> > Then why didn't you post the Klenner study? Either in the first

> place or

> > below???

> >

> > Quackwatch maintains a scientific advisory board of 67 esteemed

> medical

> > advisors from around the world as well as a cadre of many other

> advisors in

> > the scientific/health/nutrition field. That list and their

> qualifications

> > can be seen here: