China is using high dose vitamin C therapy to help treat coronavirus patients

[Wayne]

But where are the hard figures? If this doctor is administering these meds, doesn't have any data to offer? Like the death rates in the treated and untreated groups?

@Hip, why not look at the history of Vit. C therapy? Some of that early history. which prominently includes the work of Frederick Klenner M.D. who successfully used Vit. C to cure polio in the 1940's, is what greatly influenced Linus Pauling to delve deeply into the therapeutic value of Vit. C.

It seems pretty apparent to me that what they're now discovering in China and NY is only a validation of thousands of studies that have been done previously. This is according to Thomas Levy M.D., who's one of the foremost proponents of Vit. C therapy today. The following is from this article:

Levy argues that the medical profession has routinely ignored research showing that high doses of Vitamin C can combat bacteria, toxins and severe viral infections including avian flu, SARS, hepatitis and herpes. And this is not a case of doctors sniffing at anecdotal evidence from a handful of enthusiasts.​

​

"Vitamin C is possibly the best-researched substance in the world. There are more than 24,000 papers and articles on the authoritative clinical website, Medline. Yet virtually the all the evidence has been dismissed." Levy even claims that Aids can be controlled if a high enough dosage of Vitamin C is maintained​

​

You forgot to quote this bit:

No, I didn't forget that bit. I just believed the statement as written: “The patients who received vitamin C did significantly better than those who did not get vitamin C,” he said. I assume that's the case whether or not it was administered with other drugs.

Do you not believe that statement? If so, I would be interested in why not. The statement may not be empirical science, but it sure sounds like valid observation to me, Which I don't have a problem believing, because it lines up with decades of known clinical value of Vit. C therapy.
.

 

[Wayne]

I think the following snippet from the NY Post article is quite significant, especially in light of the fact that it was recently discovered and publicized that high doses of Vitamin C can dramatically improve treatment of sepsis patients. This is the first time I've read that coronavirus patients are dying from sepsis.

"Weber, 34, said vitamin C levels in coronavirus patients drop dramatically when they suffer sepsis, an inflammatory response that occurs when their bodies overreact to the infection. -- “It makes all the sense in the world to try and maintain this level of vitamin C,” he said."​

​

​

 

[Wally]

@Wayne and @pamojja - I believe the New York hospitals are using the dose of IV Vitamin C that was used in these Sepsis/Vitamin C/Hydrocortisone/Thiamine clinical trials. See, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2759414 and https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(17)30018-1/fulltext

The dose of 1500 mg or 1.5 grams given 3 to 4 times a day that is being used in the New York hospitals is still way below the China study at 24 grams. In looking at the case studies presented by Dr. Cathcart, Dr, Klenner etc... it looks like about 15 grams was a starting point for super size dosing a small sized adult for an acute infection, but the size of the patient and the severity of the infection could result in the dose range being increased to 50 to 200+ grams. See, http://www.doctoryourself.com/titration.html

A New Zealand farmer who contracted Swine Flu and was in critical condition on life support was given 50 grams of IV Vitamin C per day (divided dose) over a period of 2 days, which allowed him to come off an ECMO machine.. When the hospital would no longer continue high dose IV Vitamin C, a compromise with his family was reached to give him a much smaller dose (1 to 2 grams) of IV Vitamin C. At this dose, the family felt he was only achieving a very gradual, minimal improvement in his condition. They ended up helping the patient to self treat with an additional 6 grams of oral Liposomal Vitamin C . They and the patient believe the addition of the high dose of liposomal Vitamin C was the turning point of his rapid and complete recovery from the complications caused by this severe case of Swine Flu. Dr. Thomas Levy was the doctor that the family consulted with regarding the use of high dose Vitamin C (IV and Liposomal). See, minute markers 8:48 to 16:00 of the New Zealand “60 Minutes” News Show for reference to the IV Vitamin C dosing and the dosing with LivOn Labs Liposomal Vitamin C

New Zealand “60 Minutes” video linked here -

Also see, a 2010 lecture on Vitamin C, presented by Dr. Levy, which includes an introduction by the New Zealand Swine Flu patient and his family members. See minute marker O:05 - 4:47 of this video.

The China study’s Vitamin C findings will be very interesting to exam because as far as I can tell this is the first super high dose IV Vitamin C clinical trial for an acute infection, which might get a fair crack at seeing if all the 70+ years of case studies re high dose Vitamin C deserve a lot more attention, review and funding for additional clinical trials. Fingers crossed that the trial shows a positive outcome, at the 24 gram dose, for most, if not all of the patients who received this treatment and that no outside or inside pressure will be exerted to derail or suppress this potential outcome.

 

[pamojja]

The dose of 1500 mg or 1.5 grams given 3 to 4 times a day that is being used in the New York hospitals is still way below the China study at 24 grams.

Don't underestimate 1.5g by IV 4 times a day. The following study came to this result:

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/717329/vitamin-c-pharmacokinetics-implications-oral-intravenous-use

Peak plasma vitamin C concentrations were higher after administration of intravenous doses than after administration of oral doses (P < 0.001), and the difference increased according to dose. Vitamin C at a dose of 1.25 g administered orally produced mean (±sd) peak plasma concentrations of 134.8 ± 20.6 µmol/L compared with 885 ± 201.2 µmol/L for intravenous administration.

About 6 times higher peak concentrations in plasma repeated up to 4 times per day. However, from an other interview with Hickey:

https://wholefoodsmagazine.com/colu...arch-on-optimizing-blood-and-cellular-levels/

Hickey: ..One notable thing is that the NIH are promoting an idea for the use of IVC in cancer treatment. They state that only IVC could be helpful in cancer as supplements could not work. In doing so they compound their initial errors by adding more mistakes.

For example, they inaccurately claimed that the successful clinical trials of vitamin C in cancer by Ewan Cameron, Linus Pauling and others were done with IV. The failure of the Mayo Clinic to repeat the successful studies was supposedly because they used oral vitamin C.
The initial trials using oral vitamin C in cancer gave astounding results. Patients lived far longer. Dr. Abram Hoffer gained similar results to Cameron and Pauling as did a group of doctors in Japan (10). Importantly, these successful trials used oral vitamin C, or oral vitamin C occasionally supplemented by IV. Dr. Cameron was quite specific and stated that IVC provided no additional benefit unless the patient was unable to take the vitamin by mouth because of vomiting.

The NIH emphasize the massive concentrations that can be briefly achieved in the blood using IV. High levels are obviously possible as the vitamin is being poured directly into a vein. In taking this macho IV approach they have forgotten one of the first rules of pharmacology. The effect of a substance depends on the dose, duration and frequency of administration. In other words, how often you take a drug and for how long can be as important as the size of the dose. I know saying it like this is obvious but apparently it needs restating.

Passwater: Each of the parameters is important. It’s like a three-axis graph, with the effective area in the middle and the ineffective areas along the edges.

OK, this is the crux of this discussion, so let’s be as clear as possible for our readers, even if we must be redundant. Is it your contention then that the scientific literature supports that oral vitamin C can be safely consumed at a level that is at least as effective as IVC? As a follow-up, is it your contention that the science suggests that oral vitamin C can be even more effective that the current IVC protocols?

Hickey: Yes. Essentially IVC will increase blood levels to a very high value for a short period, a few hours. However, oral intakes can sustain high blood levels. In other words, oral doses can deliver a far greater total amount of vitamin C to a tumor than can be achieved practically using IV. I can find no data supporting the contention that IVC is a more effective cancer treatment than oral vitamin C. Given some minimum effective concentration, the longer the exposure, the more cancer cells are killed. (Please see figure 3.)

Also the only study to my knowledge which till now tested the plasma levels in oncology patients taking between 0-20 g of ascorbic acid throughout the day found:

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topi...nal.nzma.org.nzjournal115-1160156#entry797721

Self-reported daily intake varied from 0 to 20 g/day. The plasma AA levels ranged from 11.4 to 517 µmol/L and correlated well with the reported intake. Regression analysis of their GHb and plasma AA values showed a statistically significant inverse association (eg, each 30 µmol/L increase in plasma AA concentration resulted in a decrease of 0.1 in GHb).

And an other historical anecdote, meassuring even astronomical levels with oral ascorbic acid:

http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2005/pdf/2005-v20n04-p230.pdf

Another was Albert Szent-Gyorgyi. In a 1982 letter,14 Stone tells Szent-Gyorgyi of a friend of his who, was diagnosed with prostate cancer at age 44 and then treated with surgery and radiation. A few years later, the cancer had metastasized to the pelvic bone and the patient was declared terminal and given about a year to live. However, Stone writes:

“Since he began taking 80 grams a day in 1979, his well-being has been excellent. He says he feels great most of the time, has also been able to continue working every day and lives a fairly normal life of the years since November 1978 when orthodox medicine said he would be dead. Visually he looks more like an athlete than a terminal cancer patient...

In the last few weeks he has been able to improve his well-being by increasing his ascorbate intake to 130 to 150 grams per day! He has been taking oral doses every hour of 5 to 10 grams of a mixture of nine parts sodium ascorbate plus one part ascorbic acid dissolved in water. These doses are well tolerated and within “bowel tolerance” and he has had no trouble from diarrhea except just lately when he had to reduce the 150 grams a day to 130 grams.

I believe his case is a classic and a good demonstration that if sufficient ascorbate is given to fully counteract all the incident stresses, then the cancer can be controlled. If given early enough in this disease, then cancer may no longer be a problem. Up to now we just haven’t realized how big these daily controlling doses have to be.”

Stone adds that the man’s doctor “ran some ascorbate determinations on Joe’s blood and came up with the highest blood levels I ever saw. At one point it was 35 mg%! Our so-called “normal” but scorbutic population averages 1 mg% or less, our kidney threshold is 1.4 mg%...

I would like to see a crash ascorbate program started on terminal cancer patients using doses in the ranges found to keep his cancer under control. Since these “terminals” have been abandoned by orthodox medicine, they have nothing to lose but their ill health.”

(All bolding by me.) That would calculate to 15380 µmol/L!!!

Also think about Dr Paul Marik's protocoll against sepsis, which uses similiar small IV doses spread out.

Regardless what the study will show, Ascorbic acid powder taken in water frequently throughout the day up close to bowel-tolerance is already now for everyone available, for use of emergency of a viral pneumonia. For which the bowel-tolerance can even be higher than 200 g per day.

Hardly ever possible to be given in a ICU setting.

 

[Hip]

The China study’s Vitamin C findings will be very interesting to exam because as far as I can tell this is the first super high dose IV Vitamin C clinical trial for an acute infection, which might get a fair crack at seeing if all the 70+ years of case studies re high dose Vitamin C deserve a lot more attention, review and funding for additional clinical trials.

It will be interesting to see the results.

If we look at an in vitro study on the effect of vitamin C against herpes simplex virus type 1, influenzavirus and poliovirus, we see that it "weakly inhibited the multiplication of viruses".

So we might find the same thing with coronavirus: IV vitamin C may have a mild antiviral effect, but nothing to write home about.

Note that these high doses of vitamin C are cytotoxic: they kill human cells, and the authors say that its antiviral effect may in part result from this toxicity.

The also found that dehydroascorbic acid (the oxidized form of vitamin C) was a far stronger antiviral, and had less cytotoxicity than ascorbic acid. But unfortunately dehydroascorbic acid has a very short plasma half-life of a few minutes, so even if it were available as a supplement, it would not have any prolonged effect.


In terms of what IV vitamin C might do for coronavirus acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and sepsis, this study on vitamin C or ARDS and sepsis found that it did not reduce organ failure or the need for a ventilator, but the all-cause mortality was lower in the vitamin C group compared to the placebo group (46.3% vs. 29.8%).

 

[Mary]

THIS THREAD IS BEING REOPENED. PLEASE STAY ON-TOPIC, AND AVOID PERSONAL REMARKS. WE WANT TO KEEP THIS THREAD OPEN - IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT SOURCE OF INFORMATION RIGHT NOW! PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING FROM RULE 1:
Please keep your focus on the facts of the topic under discussion - not on the person with whom you disagree.

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

New York hospitals treating coronavirus patients with vitamin C

Seriously sick coronavirus patients in New York state’s largest hospital system are being given massive doses of vitamin C — based on promising reports that it’s helped people in hard-hit China, The Post has learned.

Dr. Andrew G. Weber, a pulmonologist and critical-care specialist affiliated with two Northwell Health facilities on Long Island, said his intensive-care patients with the coronavirus immediately receive 1,500 milligrams of intravenous vitamin C.

Identical amounts of the powerful antioxidant are then readministered three or four times a day, he said.

Each dose is more than 16 times the National Institutes of Health’s daily recommended dietary allowance of vitamin C, which is just 90 milligrams for adult men and 75 milligrams for adult women.

The regimen is based on experimental treatments administered to people with the coronavirus in Shanghai, China, Weber said.
Enlarge ImageDr. Andrew G. WeberLinkedIn
“The patients who received vitamin C did significantly better than those who did not get vitamin C,” he said.

“It helps a tremendous amount, but it is not highlighted because it’s not a sexy drug.”

I wanna know where I can get the sexy drugs.

 

[pamojja]

Do you guys, ( @Hip and any others who know their way around studies ), know of any treatments backed up by studies that are good in general against infections, coronavirus, cold, and flu for instance? I hear vitamin c and sometimes other antioxidants mentioned for this purpose but don't know if there is anything to that and at what kind of doses

There is a large extent of literature of vitamin C and infections which shows effects even at very low doses. For example this review of the literature worth reading:

Vitamin C and Infections

Abstract
In the early literature, vitamin C deficiency was associated with pneumonia. After its identification, a number of studies investigated the effects of vitamin C on diverse infections. A total of 148 animal studies indicated that vitamin C may alleviate or prevent infections caused by bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. The most extensively studied human infection is the common cold. Vitamin C administration does not decrease the average incidence of colds in the general population, yet it halved the number of colds in physically active people. Regularly administered vitamin C has shortened the duration of colds, indicating a biological effect. However, the role of vitamin C in common cold treatment is unclear. Two controlled trials found a statistically significant dose–response, for the duration of common cold symptoms, with up to 6–8 g/day of vitamin C. Thus, the negative findings of some therapeutic common cold studies might be explained by the low doses of 3–4 g/day of vitamin C. Three controlled trials found that vitamin C prevented pneumonia. Two controlled trials found a treatment benefit of vitamin C for pneumonia patients. One controlled trial reported treatment benefits for tetanus patients. The effects of vitamin C against infections should be investigated further.

The problem is that really large doses have never been trialled. The reasons is a strong bias in the medical community against, also described in this review:

12. Misconceptions and Prejudices about Vitamin C and Infections

In the first half of the 20th century, a large number of papers were published in the medical literature on vitamin C and infections and several physicians were enthusiastic about vitamin C. The topic was not dismissed because of large-scale controlled trials showing that vitamin C was ineffective. Instead, many rather large trials found benefits of vitamin C. There seem to be four particular reasons why the interest in vitamin C and infections disappeared.

First, antibiotics were introduced in the mid-20th century. They have specific and sometimes very dramatic effects on bacterial infections and therefore are much more rational first line drugs for patients with serious infections than vitamin C. Secondly, vitamin C was identified as the explanation for scurvy, which was considered a disease of the connective tissues. Evidently it seemed irrational to consider that a substance that “only” participates in collagen metabolism might also have effects on infections. However, the biochemistry and actions of vitamin C are complex and not limited to collagen metabolism. Thirdly, the three papers published in 1975 appeared to herald the loss of interest in vitamin C and the common cold (Figure 1) and it seems likely that they increased the negative attitude towards vitamin C for other infections as well. Fourthly, “if a treatment bypasses the medical establishment and is sold directly to the public ... the temptation in the medical community is to accept uncritically the first bad news that comes along” [155].

The belief that vitamin C is “ineffective” has been widely spread. For example, a survey of general practitioners in the Netherlands revealed that 47% of respondents considered that homeopathy is efficacious for the treatment of the common cold, whereas only 20% of those respondents considered that vitamin C was [156]. Prejudices against vitamin C are not limited to the common cold. Richards compared the attitudes and arguments of physicians to three putative cancer medicines, 5-fluorouracil, interferon and vitamin C, and documented unambiguous bias against vitamin C [157,158,159]. Goodwin and Tangum gave several examples to support the conclusion that there has been a systematic bias against the concept that vitamins may yield benefits in levels higher than the minimum needed to avoid the classic deficiency diseases [160].

The use of vitamin C for preventing and treating colds falls into the category of alternative medicine under the classifications used by the National Institutes of Health in the USA and of the Cochrane collaboration. However, such categorization does not reflect the level of evidence for vitamin C, but reflects the low level of acceptance amongst the medical community, and may further amplify the inertia and prejudices against vitamin C [161].

However, the clincal experience of some rare physicians using real high doses of ascorbic gives a completely different picture:

TABLE I - USUAL BOWEL TOLERANCE DOSES

                               GRAMS ASCORBIC ACID      NUMBER OF DOSES   
CONDITION                  PER 24 HOURS           PER 24 HOURS
normal                       4 -  15              4 -  6
mild cold                   30 -  60              6 - 10
severe cold                 60 - 100+             8 - 15
influenza                  100 - 150              8 - 20
ECHO, coxsackievirus       100 - 150              8 - 20
mononucleosis              150 - 200+            12 - 25
viral pneumonia            100 - 200+            12 - 25
hay fever, asthma           15 -  50              4 -  8
environmental and                                     
food allergy              0.5 -  50              4 -  8
burn, injury, surgery       25 - 150+             6 - 20
anxiety, exercise and                                 
other mild stresses        15 -  25              4 -  6
cancer                      15 - 100              4 - 15
ankylosing spondylitis      15 - 100              4 - 15
Reiter's syndrome           15 -  60              4 - 10
acute anterior uveitis      30 - 100              4 - 15
rheumatoid arthritis        15 - 100              4 - 15
bacterial infections        30 - 200+            10 - 25
infectious hepatitis        30 - 100              6 - 15
candidiasis                 15 - 200+             6 - 25

FIGURE 1. REPRESENTATIVE DOSES TO TREAT ACUTE SYMPTOMS OF
DISEASE IN PATIENTS VERY TOLERANT TO ASCORBIC ACID

1) Note that disease symptom curves indicate very little effect on acute symptoms until doses of 80-90% of bowel tolerance are reached. Perhaps it is only near tolerance doses that the ascorbate is pushed into the primary sites of the disease. 2) Suppression of symptoms in some instances may not be total; but usually it is very significant and often the amelioration is complete and rapid. 3) Hepatitis may require 30 to 100 grams.

Therefore, despite the encouraging results of numerous low-dose studies, really effective doses in serious diseases with appropiate doses have never been tested in controlled trials. And I really see no way how even more than 200g per day of ascorbic acid could be rantdomized with a placebo.

The only non-controlled trial with the highest ascorbic acid doses of 20g per day to my knowledge, came to this conclusion:

Glycohaemoglobin and ascorbic acid

Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 23-August-2002, Vol 115 No 1160

We studied 139 consecutive consenting non-diabetic patients in an oncology clinic. The patients had been encouraged as part of their treatment to supplement AA. Self-reported daily intake varied from 0 to 20 g/day. The plasma AA levels ranged from 11.4 to 517 µmol/L and correlated well with the reported intake. Regression analysis of their GHb and plasma AA values showed a statistically significant inverse association (eg, each 30 µmol/L increase in plasma AA concentration resulted in a decrease of 0.1 in GHb).

Therefore with upto 500 µmol/L of daily doses of ascorbic acid reducing glycacted hemoglobin up to 1,6% - easily as effective as any prescibtion drug today prescribed to diabetics.

 

[Wally]

Another video (3/27/2020) from Dr. Cheng in China. He has listed a number of highlights from the video in the video description on Youtube. Unfortunately, I can not cut and paste from the description section. One of the highlights from this video is that he says the dose of IV Vitamin C being used in New York hospitals is too low. *

“N.Y Hospitals use of Vitamin C is applaudable, but the doseage is too small.”

*Edit Dr. Cheng also states in this video that he believes that larger doses of Vitamin C that are being using in China are still sub-optimal for some people and severity of infection.

 

[Wally]

I have posted the same link noted below in this thread - https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/antivirals-effective-against-coronavirus.79014/page-13 at Reply No. 260. But I thought it might be worthwhile to post it here re IV Vitamin C not being listed in the John Hopkins COVD-19 Guide. I have only included the section of the guide titled “antibiotics and antivirals”, but you may also find other information in the guide interesting to review.

https://www.hopkinsguides.com/hopki.../540747/all/Coronavirus_COVID_19__SARS_CoV_2_

Antivirals and immunomodulators

• No proven efficacy of any drug for humans as of March 23, 2020.
  
  • Chinese Guidelines for COVID-19 suggest using chloroquine, traditional Chinese medicines, and for anti-IL6R drug tocilizumab as an anti-inflammatory in patients with extensive lung disease/severe illness and elevated IL-6 levels. These recommendations are not yet supported by robust clinical evidence.
  • Lopinavir / ritonavir (LPV/RTV) widely used in China; however, COVID RCT in hospitalized patients yielded no benefit[6].
• A large number of antivirals and immunomodulators are being investigated for treatment or prophylaxis.
  
  • Caution is advised as to whether any are effective or safe for COVID-19.
    
    • If a clinical trial available, consider enrolling patients rather than prescribing off-label drug use to assist in understanding whether intervention is efficacious for COVID-19.
  • Types of drugs under investigation include antivirals (protease inhibitors, influenza drugs, nucleoside analogs) anti-inflammatories, surface protein antagonists such as lecithins.
  • Much like with influenza, antiviral drugs if effective, likely need to be started early in infection course, or used as a preventative.
• Drugs currently under investigation[18]:

• Remdesivir (Gilead; used to treat Ebola)
  
  • Currently under study in a trial in Wuhan and U.S.; activity is seen in vitro with SARS-2-CoV, MERS-CoV (also including MERS-CoV primate studies)
  • Likely the most promising drugl
  • Drug has been used in the U.S. under compassionate use; however, unclear how long this will last
• Chloroquine (or hydroxychloroquine; HCQ) has been reported to have some efficacy in vivo and in limited, very low-quality evidence for COVID-19 pneumonia, the mechanism may be by interfering with cellular acidification in the phagolysosome.[10],[11]
  
  • Gautret et al. suggest decreased SARS-CoV-2 shedding in 6 patients in a post-hoc analysis if HCQ is combined with azithromycin in non-RCT of 36 patients.[21] Small sample size and lack of clinical correlation mean clinicians ought to not base decisions on these limited results.
  • Chloroquine generally unavailable in the U.S., many reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine.
• ASC09/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir, with or without umifenovir (not available in U.S.)
  
  • Negative Clinical trial using LPV/RTV in hospitalized patients with COVID-19[6]
• ASC09/oseltamivir, ritonavir/oseltamivir, oseltamivir
• 
  
• pAzvudine
• Baloxavir marboxil/favipiravir and LPV/RTV in combination(s)
• Favipiravir (aka T-705, Avigan, or favilavir)
• Zinc
• Indomethacin
• Camostat mesylate
• Darunavir/cobicistat alone or with lopinavir/ritonavir and thymosin α1 in combination(s)
• Interferon alfa-2b alone or in combination with LPV/RTV and ribavirin
• Methylprednisolone
• Camrelizumab and thymosin
• Tocilizumab and other IL-6 inhibitors
• Convalescent sera (from recovered COVID-19 patients)
• Monoclonal antibodies, specific to SARS-CoV-2

 

[pamojja]

Why Oral Ascorbic Acid Combined with IV C is the Ultimate Two-Pronged Attack That Will Turn the Tide on COVID-19 Pandemic – DorisLite Version By Doris Loh

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

I have not yet seen any results from the Chinese clinical trials of IV vitamin C for coronavirus, which is strange. The trial you linked to was started a month ago. Given that China has had 80,000 cases to work with, you would have thought some results would be in by now.

It's China. Not exactly an open book at the best of times, which definitely doesnt describe where we are now ....

Maybe it'll trickle out later ...

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

But I'm gonna push bowel tolerance at the first signs of infection.

That's what I did as soon as I realized that I had something other than a nasty cold or a mild flu. When I progressed to the dry hacking cough, high temp, and dramatic, almost crippling, shortness of breath, I started inhaling it like a drowning man coming up for air ....

It did something .... whatever I had only lasted, in its worst form, for just about a week, after taking another leisurely week to fully express, and kept gradually reducing. It keeps popping up, tho nowhere near as bad as the first round, just a sort of petulant "Not so fast there, Pilgrim, we're done when I say we're done ..." kind of response. Touch wood.

Yes, echinacea and allicin are shown in studies to reduce the risk of catching colds (coronavirus is a cold virus). See this post.

Glycyrrhizin, based on something I just read and already can't find to quote here ....

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

I wanna know where I can get the sexy drugs.

.... count me in .... please !!!

If I contribute a lovely lacey black silk negligee, will that up my chances ?

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

I've been hopscotching thru this thread due to severe brain-deadness and will come back and read it more thoroughly when circumstances permit.

As @Mary noted, this is a critically important topic right now and, sadly, probably for the foreseeable future.

Dr Fauci answered in the affirmative when asked if he thought this was coming back around for another tour in the Fall..... I trust him, even when he says shite I soooooo don;t wanna hear ....

 

[Wally]

Look at the linked article below, which was just published on 3/29/2020 by Forbes.*
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2020/03/29/no-megadoses-of-vitamin-c-will-not-cure-coronavirus/amp/

*Forbes is an American business magazine. Published bi-weekly, it features original articles on finance, industry, investing, and marketing topics. Forbes also reports on related subjects such as technology, communications, science, politics, and law. Its headquarters is located in Jersey City, New Jersey. Wikipedia

Note - I edited/added bold and underline to parts of the article quoted below for emphasis.

No, Megadoses Of Vitamin C Will Not Cure Coronavirus

The world is awash in treatments for COVID-19, the illness caused by coronavirus. Or at least that’s what you might think if you just searched the internet.

The truth is, we don’t yet have any effective treatments for COVID-19, although thousands of scientists are working furiously to try to create them.

Today we’ll look at just one of the supposed treatments, which is being actively promoted on social media and many websites: vitamin C.

For those who don’t want to read further, I’ll start with the conclusion: vitamin C won’t help to prevent or to treat coronavirus infection. I wish we had such a simple solution, but we don’t. . . .

The modern craze with vitamin C started with Linus Pauling, a brilliant chemist and a Nobel Prize winner.. . . The bottom line: vitamin C doesn’t work at preventing or curing the common cold. (See Paul Offit’s book if you want more details on this and many other “miracle” cures.)

But wait, someone might object: haven’t some of those vitamin C studies (as in this review paper) shown a benefit against the common cold? Well yes, but when you run hundreds of studies of a treatment that doesn’t work, this is what happens: negative studies are hard to get published, but positive studies are easier. Run enough studies, and a few of them, merely by chance, will show a small positive effect. That’s what we’ve seen with vitamin C.

Today, though, everyone is looking for a cure for COVID-19, and not surprisingly, many people (even some doctors) are claiming vitamin C is the answer. . . . This website comes right out and states that high-dose vitamin C will cure coronavirus, based on a widely-shared video from a doctor in China. (I won’t provide the link because it has already done enough damage.)

It’s almost impossible to disprove a claim that a treatment works. For example, I could claim that ginger snap cookies help to prevent coronavirus infection. That’s right! Ginger snaps, made with real ginger, which seems to have magical curative properties. If you object, I could demand that you prove me wrong–but the onus is on me, as the one making the claim, to first provide some genuine evidence. We haven’t seen anything like that for vitamin C.

We need well-controlled experiments to know with any confidence that a treatment works. Some doctors at Wuhan University have started a trial of vitamin C to see if it has any benefits for COVID-19, but results won’t be available for many months. I’m skeptical, but at least they’re approaching the question the right way. . , ,

Dozens of studies of new treatments for COVID-19 are being launched right now, with remarkable speed due to the urgency of the pandemic.The WHO has just launched trials of the 4 most promising existing drugs (which don’t include vitamin C, I should add). . . ,

We’ve been down this road too many times with vitamin C, though, and the chances that it will have any effect are, based on past experience, close to zero.

Why are so many media outlets out to attack Vitamin C as a possible treatment for COVID-19? Why is most of the medical establishment in the U.S. not discussing the Vitamin C trial in China? Yes, the final result of this trial in China will not be released until Septembrt, but what great harm has Dr. Richard Cheng (an American physician) done by reporting about what he has been told (by the lead investigator) about the preliminary results of the trial? What harm has been created by Dr. Cheng reporting on case studies in China reported to him by doctors treating patients diagnosed with this virus? (Dr. Cheng’s videos re Vitamin C use in China are available for viewing in this thread in Post/Reply Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 12 and other statements/reporting from China re Vitamin C use as a treatment for this virus can be viewed at Post/Reply Nos. 1, 5, 13 and 16.)

I personally don’t know if high doses of Vitamin C will be a successful treatment option for COVD-19, but just as hydroxychloroquine has been hypothesized to be a possible treatment for this virus perhaps Vitamin C should not be knocked out of the running so soon.

 

[ljimbo423]

I personally don’t know if high doses of Vitamin C will be a successful treatment option for COVD-19, but just as hydroxychloroquine has been hypothesized to be a possible treatment for this virus perhaps Vitamin C should not be knocked out of the running so soon

Agreed!

 

[pamojja]

Vitamin C at truely high doses is too damaging to the business model of the pharmaceutical industry. From which the media gets about 60-70% of their advertisement income.

 

[Wayne]

Why are so many media outlets out to attack Vitamin C as a possible treatment for COVID-19?

@Wally -- My top two theories: 1) Excellent clickbait; 2) Ingratiates them with pharmaceutical companies who may be more inclined to advertise on outlets that don't give credence to anything but their own drugs.

 

[Hipsman]

Vitamin C at truely high doses is too damaging to the business model of the pharmaceutical industry. From which the media gets about 60-70% of their advertisement income.

This. Why else would they be so focused on mocking down Vit C?? Why not focus on any other drug since there is not enough data on any of them to draw conclusion of effectiveness? Also, there isn't enough data to conclude ineffectiveness of any drugs that are trailing now. Hellish greed of big pharma is the only anwser I see.