Not to change the subject, because I think the ongoing question is
*the* most pertinent one: "Can any of that DHA be converted to useful AA beyond what *normal* cells normally reduce?" (I don't see that it can without an injection of bio-available electrons that AA automatically prepackages), but I must digress to respond to comments about what I said earlier (sorry for the belated reply as I was out)...
I've been wrong about a lot of things and one was thinking that the discoloration was DHA, and I think it must be a fairly common misconception, as I did gain my misunderstanding from Dr. Cathcart who said "this yellow is dehydroascrobate" (see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuRTLoQlSks, at 1:50). I don't mean to be throwing him under the bus as he's probably done as much good rectifying popular misconceptions and hands-on saving lives with IVC than anybody ever (Dr. Hugh Riordan probably is a close second), but if Dr. Cathcart thought this too then correction in this matter is most needed and welcome.
So a thank you to Mr. Kitt for that correction. I'm sure Dr. Cathcart would have also appreciated being directed to those studies.
But as Mr. Kitt seems concerned about my credentials (as if MD's and PhD's are vitamin C experts, and have spent 100's of hours pouring over articles in medline on Vitamin C like I have over the last decade) ... where is Mr. Kitt's peer reviewed study, or even a reproducible experiment demonstrating that AA decomposes in the presence of trace catalyzing metals and oxygen directly to various decomposition derivatives, but
*not* to DHA? I'm sure he knows that 35% of AA becomes DHA within 15 minutes of being in tap water, due to mobility of Fe and Cu in that environment (plus added Fe and Cu in tap water)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15493459. Is he saying that actually after 15 minute 35% of the AA is neither AA or DHA because that DHA immediately became something else - because that's incredible. Why didn't the tap-water study say that?
Kitt's DHA is reportedly stabilized and with fewer (if any) decomposition derivatives, yes? These are good selling points that makes it worth every penny especially for research purposes. But to suggest that DHA is complicated to create, requiring an enzyme from zucchini, that contradicts the study I just linked. Add that contradicting fact with his presumed selling-point that all that DHA in your cells will undoubtedly become AA (again, where's the evidence of that) ... certainly his message warrants some skepticism. My #1 credential as far as he should be concerned is this: I'm his educated customer with a chip on my shoulder after seeing slick-talking salesmen of supposedly superior vitamin C formulas give this most misunderstood undervalued nutrient a bad name. So I'm a natural skeptic. If he can convert me, then he can convert anyone, but he has to do better than rely on assumptions that he hasn't yet proven nor had validated.
Again, as I did at the first, I still complement his experimental process and results (kudos on using Labcorp, though I'm sure glucose strips would have also worked) as validating the glut-transporter mechanism. The theory was already there but only he was industrious enough to start testing the principle for the sake of health and wellness. That is laudable. Hopefully it will lead to a protocol with improved efficacy over plain old AA, or liposomal AA. I wish him the best in that endeavor. Honestly I hope his DHA is a miracle, and maybe with the right diet and reducing strategy one could get perhaps chemotherapeutic biological concentrations of AA as a result ... but I need more statistical significance and validated proof of in vivo casuality than a laboratory reading of DHA levels before I consider it superior to AA, let alone liposomal C, which he suggests. Especially with respect to taming ROS and boosting metabolic energy, which AA can do while producing DHA, see
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract.
In short, megadosing pure DHA is uncharted territory:
*Nobody* knows what good or
*bad* can be done by pumping one's cells with far more DHA than the cells are likely capable of reducing (note that most all studies regarding the GSH ascorbate reducing mechanism is done with tissues where AA is found to be 50x to 100X higher than most places in the body, like brain and eye-lense tissues - so we need to take those studies as representing only those tissues rather than the bulk of tissues in the body). Those megadosing DHA should know they are on the bleeding edge of science and take certain guinea-pig risks, and perhaps it would be in his legal best interest to be the messenger of that fact as a disclaimer.