It has been sent out for review, and I'll post a few comments below.
If any forum members are willing to preview this paper and provide advice and comments, send me a private message with an email address than can accept attachments. Thanks for your help in advance!
A. Hoffer wrote:Dear Dr Fonorow:
Although I am more skeptical than most scientists when it comes to medical therapeutic claims I was very surprised by the argument that there is only a vitamin C complex and no such substance as vitamin C. In my opinion this is not a scientific matter but an important advertising problem. For years I have had patients tell me that they wanted to take only natural vitamins and no synthetics and this is after they had been taking many of man made( synthetic) vitamins with success. I point out to them that scientifically the pure vitamins whether made by man (synthetic) or whether made by plants (synthetic as well but made plants ) are
Synthetic vitamin C is bio-identical, the new term used in talking about human hormones, It is an interesting hypothesis but has no relevance since if they demanded only natural vitamins they would have to stop taking all the nutrients which are today present on the market. And even when nutrients such as vitamins and amino acids are extracted from plants they are no longer natural since they have been made by chemists who grind, mix, extract, purify and crystallize the products using all sorts of chemicals in order to do so, which are then sold as natural.
And finally I point out the word natural is a play on words and allows the producers to charge more for the item. If natural vitamin C products contained 90% synthetic ascorbic acid and they add 10% dried rose hips powder, this allows the label to use the word natural but the honest manufacturer will in small letters at the bottom add plus ascorbic acid.
The vitamin C role of ascorbic acid and its ascorbates are so well established as a vitamin that it will take an immense amount of very careful research to throw it over.
Certainty the other anti oxidants are also beneficial and are in food. Therefor to call a number of anti oxidants vitamin C complex is the same as calling niacin (B-3) not natural since it does not contain all the other B complex vitamins. We would have to call the B complex preparations on sale natural vitamin B-3 and all the others will disappear from our nutritional language. It is as logical as lumping all the anti oxidants together and calling it the anti oxidant vitamin.
I will accept that synthetic( human) vitamin C is not the same as synthetic (plants) vitamin C when the evidence is clear, and powerful.
The claim that synthetic vitamin C is toxic reminds me of the claims made by oncologists who with no evidence believe vitamin C prevents chemotherapy from being effective
p.s. OK to post on your website.
By the way have you noted that I am into a new career having given up my licence to practice in Dec last. You might look up my new website http://www.orthomolecularvitamincentre.com
Here is a comment from the Linus Pauling Institute and Oregon State:
Steve Lawon wrote:Dear Owen:
Thanks for sending a copy of your paper. I was unaware that any such controversy about vitamin C exists. Actually, among scientists, there is no controversy about “natural” and “synthetic” vitamin C: it is exactly the same molecule, regardless of source. As far as vitamin C activity is concerned, the only substance in the so-called “vitamin C complex” that provides this is ascorbic acid. This has been well established for many decades and is not in question among professional scientists.
Vitamin E is different. A protein synthesized in the liver, the alpha-tocopherol transfer protein, recognizes only the d-alpha, or natural, form for distribution to tissues. For this reason, the RDA for vitamin E is based only on natural vitamin E. Synthetic vitamin E, or dl-alpha-tocopherol, is only about half d-alpha-tocopherol.