You should realize that vertebrates before some fresh water ones developed ascorbic acid capable kidneys were all hypoascorbemic.
Well, instead of realizing what you propose
, I choose to discover and become aware of what humans think they know about times gone by in the context of evolution and science...(as opposed to religion, for example) So, having said this, before I proceed, with all due respect I feel the urge to correct your spelling...the above quote should IMO say:"---
before some fresh water ones developed ascorbic acid-PRODUCING capable kidneys---"
or perhaps:"---
before some fresh water ones developed kidneys capable OF PRODUCING ascorbic acid ---" to make sense (to me) ...
Anyway...you see a hypothesis as a compendium... I see it as a book...I can be cool with that...
It seems to me that labeling all of us (and them) as hypoascorbemic is a little exaggerated.
Well, this suggests to me that you haven´t (yet?) grasped the concept of evolution to the point where you can distinguish between physiological workings in animal life before and after endogenous production of AA came about...so try to explain to me if you will, or link to someone who with scientific logic can,
how an animal living say 5 million years before the advent of endogenous AA-production (in the kidneys, or where-ever) could be labeled as being hypoascorbemic, when it´s specie originated before, and was alive at a time when there still was no internal animal-production of ascorbate going on at all in any animal existing on the planet...
... and some of these creatures continues to exist to this day with this same physiology, although many other animals who did evolve the mechanism of internal ascorbate-production nowadays outnumber them and exist parallell to them...
Noone I´ve heard of so far thinks or says that animals who are naturally, as opposed to genetically impaired, uncapable of endogenously produce Ascorbic Acid are hypoascorbemic......
My point is that I think that we should be able to approach optimal health without daily megadoses.
Well, if you exclude the word "optimal" I´ll agree with you...
I take benfotiamine every day
Well, here´s where we bifurcate into two similar but slightly different belief-systems...I think/believe that this supplementation is good for you, and I have no problem with you taking it, on the contrary, feel free ...to me, on the other hand, it sounds as a
synthetical substance, and since I´m biased towards "natural", or perhaps "organic" substances as far as possible, (AA is an exception) I go for e.g. whole grains instead, which also contains
B-vitamins...
So, we differ in some minute ways of thinking/believing, and agree in a whole lot of others, right? It´s inevitable given that we´re all unique in our own respects...you supplement with Benfotiamine, I eat whole grains...no big deal compared with issues where we, hopefully? agree, concerning e.g. the detrimental health-aspects of habitual over-consumption of alcohol, smoking, culturally maintained white sugar-eating, fluoridated tapwater, mecury-amalgams or to grapple with cancer, as I see it.
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention the impact of the vaccine-industry, which according to
Teresa Forcades, a Spanish nun, have managed to lobby the UN into changing their policies as to what constitutes a pandemic...so that it financially benefits the vaccine-industry...I assume we both agree that this is morally speaking the wrong outcome to strive for?