High Dose Vitamin C Mystery

bad1080

Senior Member
Messages
251
Last edited:

linusbert

Senior Member
Messages
1,593
The problem of e-cars is even worse.
its not, i do not understand why people push this narrative. i originally thought this was pushed by german carmakers.

"rare earths" arent rare on earth, they are richly distributed around earth crust. they are just harder to mine because they are not in big chunks together but spread everywhere. but then they should come up with new mining methods. its like helium3 on moon, its abundant, but also only spread out as dust.
Then please provide a case study only, where it caused kidney stones.
ai provides these:
https://www.kidney-international.org/article/S0085-2538(15)48976-8/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1568519?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(23)29553-2/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(17)30785-0/abstract?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Worthwhile complaining with them about your allergies to their products.
i did contact them, but their customer care does not care, at best i can get retour. recently i wanted to send back my acetylcarnitine because it smelled fishy. they lied to me told me its normal, which is not, probably didnt knew it better, after discussion i got the money back.
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,546
Location
Austria
but then they should come up with new mining methods.
Then we happily agree to disagree. New mining methods may or may not be found. Just as a uniting cause for ME/CFS. Meanwhile, the monstrous heavy metal poisonings will continue, changing into high gear.

This just repeats why this myth originated in the first place. Oxalate excretion is increased with vitamin C, which might be why it actually could be beneficial at higher doses with oxalate kidney stones. You didn't even check your cheap AI responses for validity.

Here is the problem with prospective studies, which can't really disentangle cause and effects, without even knowing the doses taken, much less anything else. Assumed to be a mere 1000 g/d. Or any randomization, where concomitant factors could be at play just as well.

On the opposite, some Orthomolecular physicians reported, that kidney stones ceased forever, as soon as their kidney stone patients used many grams instead of milligrams a day. Who is right? Only randomization would show. Meanwhile, for my own safety I prefer actual repeated clinical experiences, instead of mere fearmongering theories.

Again the increased risk of increased oxalates excretion, but where is even one resulting in kidney stone from that in my eyes beneficial increased excretion?

Finally, a sole case study behind a pay-wall:

We report a case of acute kidney injury due to oxalate nephropathy in a patient using chelating therapy with oral ethylenediamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA), intravenous supplementation with vitamin C, and chronic diarrhea and discuss the potential kidney damage these factors can cause in particular settings.
Just as predicted:
Then please provide a case study only, where it caused kidney stones. To see if there were not more serious co-morbidities at work.
In particular settings: Chronic diarrhea, IVs, EDTA. What was the chronic diarrhea from to begin with? Against what the EDTA and intravenous acerbate was applied? Indicating, the cause for 'acute kidney Injury' was most likely completely elsewhere. As outcome, presumably a usually very painfully passing kidney stone?

Compare the hypothesized risk to of a kidney stone (in approx. 99.8% not deathly), compared to the thousands already reported deaths from regulated medications, each year in the US alone.

Not one case study with otherwise healthy individual using many gram doses orally for many, many years, like me. Not one reported death from oral ascorbic acid. Or case study of any non-reversible side effects.
 
Last edited:

JES

Senior Member
Messages
1,380
Here is the problem with prospective studies, which can't really disentangle cause and effects, without even knowing the doses taken, much less anything else. Assumed to be a mere 1000 g/d. Or any randomization, where concomitant factors could be at play just as well.

On the opposite, some Orthomolecular physicians reported, that kidney stones ceased forever, as soon as their kidney stone patients used many grams instead of milligrams a day. Who is right? Only randomization would show. Meanwhile, for my own safety I prefer actual repeated clinical experiences, instead of mere fearmongering theories.
Prospective studies are superior to recognize patterns like this compared to actual clinical experiences because what counts as an actual clinical experience? Doctors do not often follow up on patients and let's say something like vitamin C caused a *minor* increase in the risk of kidney stones, how many actual clinical experiences would it require for a) it to even happen and b) it to happen *and* a random doctor actually being able to tie this problem of a random patient to vitamin C? That's why larger studies are superior.
 

Violeta

Senior Member
Messages
3,293
Hi @linusbert -- Yes, you understood it correctly. Some of the misconceptions you've had are very similar to the ones Dr. William Jeffries--who wrote the definitive book on low-dose hydrocortisone therapy--was constantly dealing with while doing his research. To give you a brief review of Jeffries:

He spent I think about 30 years researching low-dose hydrocortisone therapy. I believe he started his research in the 1950's. It was a time shortly after cortisone was discovered, and some amazingly positive things were happening for people who took fairly large doses of it.

But it soon became apparent there were serious "side effects" or ramifications from taking it for extended periods of time, because the doses they were giving were much more than the body normally makes in a single day. This lead to the adrenal glands not producing any cortisol at all, with its dire consequences. Understandably, this therapy soon fell out of favor with mainstream medicine.

Enter William Jeffries, who devoted his entire career to researching low-dose hydrocortisone therapy, which advocates doses that are less than replacement, so the adrenal glands never shut down their own production. No matter how hard he tried, Jeffries could not break through the mindset that had become established that steriods were not good for you. And those misconceptions continue to this day, more than a half century later.

I spent many hours reading and pouring over William Jeffries' book "Safe Doses of Cortisol" before I undertook my own low-dose hydrocortisone experiment. After reading it 2-3 times, I felt comfortable enough to overcome my own misconceptions (and apprehensions) about taking it.

The effects for me were immediate and positive, and have been ever since, more than 25 years later. I haven't read the book in a while, but I just did a query on ChatGP, and came up with the following. I thought I'd remembered he had found success using his therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, and sure enough, there it is listed in the compilation below. I believe he devoted an entire chapter in his book to the various health issues he had great success treating.

Interestingly, after he retired, he started experiencing some of the health issues he'd studied all his life. He was able to readily diagnose himself with adrenal insufficiency, and upon starting to take low doses of hydrocortisone, his health issues improved.

His book and his research changed the course of my life. Below is the ChatGP exchange.

In William Jeffries' book "Safe Doses of Cortisol", what were the primary health issues that were benefitted by low-dose hydrocortisone therapy?


In William McK. Jefferies' book "Safe Uses of Cortisol", the author argues that physiologic doses of cortisol can offer significant improvements for a wide range of health conditions without the dangerous side effects associated with higher doses1. The primary health issues that were reported to benefit from low-dose hydrocortisone therapy include:
  1. Addison's disease
  2. Rheumatoid arthritis
  3. Female fertility problems
  4. Autoimmune disorders
  5. Allergies
  6. Common cold
  7. Influenza
  8. Shingles
  9. Mononucleosis
  10. Hypoglycemia
  11. Chronic fatigue syndrome
Jefferies provides numerous case studies from his own clinical practice to support these claims1. Additionally, a randomized controlled trial mentioned in the search results showed that low-dose hydrocortisone treatment resulted in modest but statistically significant improvements in fatigue and reduced disability in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome24.

It's important to note that while Jefferies had extensive clinical experience using cortisol safely, he also called for more controlled research to be conducted on its less widely accepted uses1.
Shingles! Wow!

Do you get the hydrocortisone from your doctor? Is it Cortef?

Thank you for posting all the information about this, @Wayne !
 
Last edited:
Back