Re: Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings
After reading Jungeblut's 1939 paper
only, A Further Contribution to Vitamin C Therapy in Experimental Poliomyelitis
, I didn't understand why he didn't try higher doses. He'd got strange results with higher doses beforehand. That explains a lot. In his second 1937 paper
Jungeblut used 100mg/day at most.
In which it is stated that larger doses has no effect as treatment or prophylaxis and that the dose NEEDS to be lower. Check out the summary at the end, point 4: [b]Treatment with large doses of vitamin C was without any beneficial effect (100-700mg) and nearly 1/2 animals receiving the lowest dose of 5mg had no complications.
From his first 1937 paper:
The doses of vitamin C covered a range from 700 mg. to 5 mg. and were mostly administered by the subcutaneous route.
Is there anything special about subcutaneous injection that may preclude absorption of a higher dose of vitamin C? Does "mostly" mean that for higher/lower doses another method was employed? There is not "mostly" in his 1939 paper:
daily subcutaneous injections
The ascorbic acid solutions were adjusted to a pH of between 5 and 6 shortly before administration to avoid any tissue ulceration at the site of injection.
It is important to note that Banič in Prevention of Rabies by Vitamin C
said "vitamin C was injected intramuscularly".Dr. Klenner used intravenous or intramuscular injection
Children up to four years received the injections intramuscularly.
Hawley and others have shown that vitamin C taken by mouth will show its peak of excretion in the urine in from four to six hours. Intravenous administration produces this peak in from one to three hours. By this route, however, the concentration in the blood is raised so suddenly that a transitory overflow into the urine results before the tissues are saturated. Some authorities suggest that the subcutaneous method is the most conservative in terms of vitamin C loss, but this factor is overwhelmingly neutralized by the factor of pain inflicted.
So is this orthomolecular news turning events upside down again ? I don't have any email but could anybody demand explanations?
It seems to me they haven't read Jungeblut's first 1937 paper yet. They use mostly Dr. Klenner's critique
. Although he cites Jungeblut's first and second 1937 papers I am not certain he had read the first one either.