Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings

Ask questions, seek advice, or share your experience with vitamin C

Moderator: ofonorow

majkinetor
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:36 am

Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings

Post Number:#1  Post by majkinetor » Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:43 pm

On latest news from orthomolecualar.org:

http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources ... 9n16.shtml
"From a review of the literature one can safely state that in all instances of experimental work with ascorbic acid on the virus organism, in experimental animals, the amount of virus used was far beyond the range of the administered dose of this vitamin. . . . Jungeblut (in 1937) stated that the parenteral administration of natural vitamin C during the incubation period of poliomyelitis in monkeys is always followed by a distinct change in the severity of the disease; that after the fifth day of the disease larger doses are required. . . One of the most unfortunate mistakes in all of the research on poliomyelitis was Sabin's unscientific attempt to confirm Jungeblut's work with vitamin C against the polio virus in monkeys. Jungeblut in infecting his rhesus monkeys used the mild "droplet method" and then administered vitamin C by needle in varying amounts up 400 mg/day. . . (Even) with almost infinitesimal amounts, as we at present recognize, he was able to demonstrate in one series that the non-paralytic survivors was six times as g loreat as in the controls. On the other hand, Sabin, in infecting his monkeys did not follow the procedure given by Jungeblut whose experiments he was attempting to repeat, but instead employed a more forceful method of inoculation which obviously resulted in sickness of maximum severity. Sabin further refused to follow Jungeblut's suggestion as to the dose of vitamin C to be used. By Sabin's actual report the amount given was rarely more than 35 per cent of that used by his associate. (In 1939) Sabin makes this significant statement: 'One monkey was given 400 mg of vitamin C for one day at the suggestion of Jungeblut who felt that large doses was necessary to effect a change in the course of the disease.' Yet on the basis of Sabin's work the negative value of vitamin C in the treatment of virus diseases has been for years accepted as final."


However, I checked original paper
http://jem.rupress.org/content/65/1/127.full.pdf

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.

So is this orthomolecular news turning events upside down again ? I don't have any email but could anybody demand explanations?

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 9901
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings

Post Number:#2  Post by ofonorow » Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:34 pm

Very interesting. But there must be some misunderstanding, because why would Sabin have felt the need to check Jungeblut's findings if they had indeed found that higher dosages of vitamin C provided no beneficial effect?

Will take the time to read the entire paper.
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath

majkinetor
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:36 am

Re: Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings

Post Number:#3  Post by majkinetor » Sun Aug 18, 2013 1:14 pm

But there must be some misunderstanding, because why would Sabin have felt the need to check Jungeblut's findings if they had indeed found that higher dosages of vitamin C provided no beneficial effect?

Because lower does was miraculous since there was no cure, not the higher dose. I guess there might be some extrapolation based on Klenner's findings however, they explicitly stated that Jungeblut found the large dose if given early is beneficial while actually its totally opposite.

Again, if it takes me 5 minutes to find serious flaws in orthomolecular news service, even tho I am strong believer in vitamin C megadose, imagine what nonbelievers can make out of it.

w6nrw
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Cameron Park, CA, USA

Re: Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings

Post Number:#4  Post by w6nrw » Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:15 pm

Was it well known in 1937 that monkeys --or animals-- make their own vitamin C?
Curiosity cures boredom, there aint no cure for curiosity . . .

majkinetor
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:36 am

Re: Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings

Post Number:#5  Post by majkinetor » Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:16 am

Irrelevant since monkeys don't.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 9901
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings

Post Number:#6  Post by ofonorow » Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:49 am

majkinetor wrote:Irrelevant since monkeys don't.
]

We know higher order primates cannot make ascorbate - gorilla for sure, and very likely our closest relative genetically - the chimpanzee.

But w6nrw makes an excellent point! (Something else to consider.)

M-s point about orthomolecular news service may be valid, but in perspective - they still may be correct, they are almost volunteers, etc.
And if they are wrong, they will print a correction... Interesting find.
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath

Johnwen
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings

Post Number:#7  Post by Johnwen » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:01 pm

If you really want to know how to CURE polio with V-C read the instructions Here!

http://whale.to/v/c/klenner3.html
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many is
research!

Serdna
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings

Post Number:#8  Post by Serdna » Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:12 am

majkinetor wrote:However, I checked original paper
http://jem.rupress.org/content/65/1/127.full.pdf
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.

majkinetor wrote: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:
Jungeblut wrote: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:
Jungeblut wrote: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:
Klenner wrote: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.


majkinetor wrote: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.

Serdna
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Vitamin C and polio and few missunderstandings

Post Number:#9  Post by Serdna » Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:59 am

Jungeblut used doses between 100 and 700mg getting worse results (all of them paralyzed) than with lower doses. Take a look at Table II in his first 1937 paper for the 0.1cc virus dose. He used a 700mg dose only on one animal (paralyzed too) for a 0.01 virus dose. From there forward he used lower doses.

I have computed a gross estimation of the probability of all of the 9 monkeys under a dose of 700mg getting paralyzed while 9 or more out of 25 under a dose of between 5 and 10mg do not get typical paralysis, supposing the same probability of success (no paralysis or atypical one) irrespective of the dose and using its estimation 9/34. It gives a probability of such a extreme result being completely by chance of 1.2%. So, my hypothesis is that something was happening with those high doses given by subcutaneous route. I would much prefer pinpointing where the problem was.

I don't think it was Sabin's fault that vitamin C was discarded. I think this first experiment is to blame.


Return to “General Discussion Topics and Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests