Talk:Vitamin C megadosage

message: Here I present my edits, removed by Yobol at 9 August 2012‎, which claimed those were "non MEDRS". As it stands now, entire article doesn't represent "varying viewpoints" as described in MEDRS wikipedia guidance. 
What I wrote could be put under the following guidance available on MEDRS article: Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Pauling and Hemilia which I cite are clearly vitamin C experts. Some papers I cite are from the same author which Cohrane review was cited in common cold section, which itself is totally inappropriate here since this systematic review uses <1g dose (majority are even less then 500mg, starting as low as 200mg) which has nothing to do with what is claimed by Pauling and others. Even Cohrane review information is presented badly as only abstract is cited, the reference also being outdated (shows review from 2004 instead 2010, the correct reference is here) and so protective information of vitamin C on subpopulatin is missing (i.e. "this effect was variable, ranging from -0.07% to a 39% reduction in symptom days". This is not a good style as promoted by MEDRS section "... as the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says". 
I edited few sections to provide more balanced view on the topic and to actually say something about original claims that are now not present and thus entire section is meaningless. Actually, entire article is meaningless which is clearly seen in ratings (currently the rating is 1, with 20++ votes).
I understand that this topic is controversial and is considered to be fringe theory by many, but without presenting correctly the actuall claims we can never have neutral and informed view. This entire article is in extreme opposition of such standards because of few non-constructive individuals. 
I didn't delete anything from existing information. Some of my additions were as following:
:My Edits: Common Cold
:Small doses of vitamin C do not offer substantial benefit in treatment of common cold although treatment is beneficial in some populations. The published trials indicate that the effect of a given vitamin C dose is on average greater for children than for adults  
: [ I left Cohrane review info intact here ]
:Pauling's advice, 1-2g of vitamin C every hour starting after the first symptoms of common cold and continuing so until resolution of the symptoms   has never been tested. Trials analyzed in Cochrane Review mainly used doses lower then 1g. Several physicians have used vitamin C in the treatment of the common cold with doses ranging from 10-30g per day . Linear extrapolation from published trials with doses higher then 1g suggests that 4 g/day can on average reduce the severity of cold episodes by half in children, and 10-18 g/day may produce a similar effect in adults. These estimates should be interpreted with caution but it seems probable that the doses used in the placebo-controlled trials have not been large enough to demonstrate the maximum effect of vitamin C supplementation .
:My Edits: Heart Disease
: [ Original content ]
:Pauling recommended 5-20g of Vitamin C and 1-6g of Lysine daily for those diagnosed with cardiovascular disease   . The function of marginal dietary Vitamin C deficiency in the development of heart disease was later confirmed in animal model: mice unabled to synthesize ascorbic acid develop aortic wall damage. The authors explanation of the pathology was defective crosslinking of collagen and elastin. Besides its function in collagen synthesis, the role of ascorbic acid in the regulation of cholesterol and lipid metabolism is well described in the literature.  
At the end, I think its the best for my edits to be restored as those are neither sensational or promotional - only facts were served. Here you can see how page looked like before it was reverted. (note: on this page some references don't work as they refer to existing references on original article)
This practice of censoring information on this article is obviously well established. Even skim read of this entire talk page shows the problem. User Shbrown previously expressed his concern on his user page. No matter what is offered here as evidence, its never good enough. Majkinetor (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue removal of my edits in Common Cold, Heart disease and other sections 

message: I just cut out a large chunk of text from the cancer section.  The sourcing was poor-quality and in some cases simply wrongly summarized.  
* All references to "orthomolecular" were removed , .  Orthomolecular medicine is a fringe theory without mainstream acceptance.  These are not pubmed articles, they're opinion pieces from people with a reputation for running well in advance of any actual science.  One didn't even mention cancer, making it original research.  
* Block I retained but the actual findings are not what they are purported to be - there were only three trials, they didn't involve grossly megadosage ranges, they incorporated numerous other antioxidants and the results didn't support the use of vitamin C - no significant results, only "X group was slightly better than Y group". 
* Simone 2007 barely touched on vitamin C at all and not in the megadosage range.
* Jaakkola 1992, Lockwood 1994, Osaki 1994 and both levine articles are all primary sources and are thus out.  Levine's articles were also in vitro and animal studies - irrelevant to humans.
* Padayatty is a survey of what practitioners do, it's not even a research article and certainly isn't a reliable source for medical claims.  
* Ohno I've retained but only to say no protocols actually exist and that someone has said vitamin C should be re-evaluated.
* All of the links to clinical trials were removed.  The fact that clinical trials are being tested are meaningless and does not mean we will ever see the results.  
The whole set of additions very strongly supported an unjustified POV that vitamin C has been demonstrated to be a clearly effective chemotherapeutic agent when it is very clearly not.  Results are equivocal, and no well-designed, large-scale trial has produced indications that it should be considered one.  At best we can say there is interest, per Ohno, we should not portray it as an unjustly maligned and neglected effective treatment that mean old allopaths are ignoring out of spite or, (to forestall the usual pharmanoia) that it's all TEH DRUG CUMPANIES CAUSE THEY CANT PATENT IT!!!1!!!!!11!11  If the medical community comes to accept megadosage vitamin C therapy as an effective agent, we document it.  Otherwise, it's rank speculation and POV pushing to present it as anything but idle speculation.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large trim 

message: If someone can get a copy, this might be a good article to integrate.  May be redundant to the IOM reference already included. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnston 

message: Here's a finding that should be reported in the article.
Myint PK, Luben RN, Welch AA, Bingham SA, Wareham NJ, Khaw , Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Jan;87(1):64-9. 
:Hmmm. Are you aware of any primary observational studies which conflict with this finding? If so, on what basis should we highlight this particular article and disregard others? MastCell Talk 23:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to add citations that conflict with it but it clearly supports a positive result for Vitamin C in  clinical trials investigating heart disease. Lumos3 (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MEDRS, WP:PSTS (this would be considered a large, but still primary source), WP:NOR for your final point.  I also point to the conclusion in the abstract: "Plasma vitamin C concentrations may serve as a biological marker of lifestyle or other factors associated with reduced stroke risk and may be useful in identifying those at high risk of stroke."  It's also doesn't relate to vitamin C megadosage (unless that upper quartile were taking megadoses), it's correlational meaning you can't be sure if vitamin C is causing fewer strokes or if people who eat lots of fruits and vegetables or take vitamin C have a variety of other factors that protect against stroke (for instance, people who eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables may also engage in regular exercise; they may pay more attention to health information; they may take the advice of their physicians more seriously; they may take prophylactic aspirin).  This may have a place on the vitamin C page proper, or the stroke page proper, but I would not support its conclusion on this page.  This page is vitamin C megadosage meaning unless they did a study of people taking several times the RDI for vitamin C, a study making an extreme claim for this fringe hypothesis is essentially irrelevant.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, careful there Lumos3, hang around and you'll quickly learn that positive studies on vitamins aren't welcome here. But twist the evidence against them and you'll soon find that Masty and his friends will fill your page with barnstars... ;-) Vitaminman (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will give you a barnstar if you can find the last time I gave anyone a barnstar. But I assume that was intended as just a general disparagement rather than a factual statement. MastCell Talk 20:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vitamin C concentrations predict risk of incident stroke

message: Uncooperative IP at work on two articles. An IP who changes IPs is edit warring and not discussing. The IPs have been warned.
See: :Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 80.133.57.193
Brangifer (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Protected - it will be quicker to go to WP:RFPP  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

text: See my response here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vitamin_C#Edit_warring_about_.22criticism.22 -- Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection request 

message: Brangifer, you are the one who initiated the edit war. I, unlike you, am trying to incorporate scientific contributions. My last two edits, which were again reverted, referenced a peer-reviewed review, not letter. How can this not be considered compliant with WP:MEDRS?
You stated that "letters" were not compliant with WP:MEDRS. However, WP:MEDRS only explicitly forbids letters from non-experts. The letters I originally referenced were from university researchers, i.e., experts in their respective fields published in scientific journals. In conclusion, your original claim - and reason for reverting my contributions - that all letters were incompliant with WP:MEDRS is not supported by WP:MEDRS.
You further claim that I were using sock puppets when, in fact, I am simply using an Internet connection with dynamic IP address assignment. I do not see Wikipedia as a social network, I do not wish to maintain an identity here and care even less about self-congratulatory user pages plastered with pathetic symbols of virtual achievements. To use Wikipedia's silly jargon, I am generally a "WikiGnome" and hate to be dragged into all this drama just because of power-trippers like you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.40.80 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vitamin_C#Edit_warring_about_.22criticism.22 -- Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring about "criticism" 

message: There are a large number of quacks and quack websites which make claims of vitamin C megadoses as a "cure" for AIDS, cancer etc. These include Matthias Rath, Patrick Holford, CANCERactive and numerous others. Since this is, in my experience, a very common argument made by quacks, I think it's likely to beone of the things people come to this article looking to read about. I have therefore added a brief summary of this, distilled from the article itself along with a couple of extra sources, into the lede. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackery 

message: I recently posted a question at the village pump about these references, which I believe to be essentially circular:  Whilst there was not complete agreement over this, what came through strongly was that, at the very least, JzG should expand those references to include specific page or chapter citations, rather than just book titles and author names.Vitaminman (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular references? 

message: This one is highly problematic - you can read the criticisms here: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/69/22/8830.1.long
I will excerpt: "To the Editor:
On the basis of cell and animal experiments with dehydroascorbic acid, Heaney and colleagues state, 'These results suggest that supplementary vitamin C may have adverse consequences in patients receiving cancer therapy' (1). Selectively referring to dehydroascorbic acid as vitamin C throughout the majority of this work may send a clouded message to patients and their caregivers. All known actions of vitamin C are mediated by the reduced molecule ascorbate, not the oxidized molecule dehydroascorbic acid. Mice lacking the tissue transport protein specific for ascorbate (Slc23a2) do not survive because of severe vitamin C deficiency, despite having no impairments in dehydroascorbic acid transport (2).
The suggestion that '…study conditions were relevant to clinical conditions' (1) should be viewed cautiously. Compared with cells devoid of any ascorbate, researchers attenuated cytotoxicity to antineoplastic agents in vitro (11-27%) by prior treatment with 500 μmol/L dehydroascorbic acid, which rapidly elevated intracellular ascorbate concentrations up to 18 mmol/L within 1 hour (1). In vivo, numerous reductive systems ensure plasma concentrations of dehydroascorbic acid do not exceed 1 μmol/L (3, 4). Although alluded to, the actual level of dehydroascorbic acid formed endogenously within the oxidative environments of tumors was not measured in either this (1) or the previous studies cited by this group (5, 6). Most cells in vivo, including cancer cells, maintain a constant intracellular ascorbate concentration of 1 to 5 mmol/L, which never decreases to zero. Data collected in vitro by comparing two extremes, 0 and 18 mmol/L ascorbate for instance, are implausible with regard to tumors and other tissues in general. The investigators conclude that 'This finding could have important clinical relevance given the wide use of vitamin C as a nutritional supplement' (1). However, to produce an effect in xenografted mice, a course of 8 × 250 mg/kg dehydroascorbic acid was administered intravenously (1). This regimen does not simulate oral ingestion of vitamin C supplements. In fact, irreversible diabetes can be induced in rats after intravenous injection of 700 mg/kg dehydroascorbic acid (7).
Because meaningful differences exist in regard to chemistry, bioavailability, and metabolism, it may be imprudent to connect data gathered with dehydroascorbic acid to vitamin C (ascorbate) and oral supplements. Numerous randomized human clinical trials have not shown decreased chemotherapeutic efficacy with dietary supplement usage, including vitamin C (8). Scientific dialogue on the subject may benefit from further preclinical testing of oral vitamin C (ascorbate) supplementation and cancer treatment in addition to experiments deigned solely with dehydroascorbic acid."
Furthermore, this is controverted by the systematic review , which, while reserved, noted: "Many of the studies indicated that antioxidant supplementation resulted in either increased survival times, increased tumor responses, or both, as well as fewer toxicities than controls" Pottinger's cats (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed {{PMID|18829561}} 

message: That dismissal of vitamin C is inconsistent with the actual data. It bases itself on kidney stone claims and vitamin B-12 interference claims.
Regarding Vitamin B-12, a review on the JAMA noted  "Harmful effects have been mistakenly attributed to vitamin C, including hypoglycemia, rebound scurvy, infertility, mutagenesis, and destruction of vitamin B12. Health professionals should recognize that vitamin C does not produce these effects.": http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=189543#qundefined
William J. McCormick demonstrated that vitamin C actually prevents the formation of kidney stones: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20994442, search google for a pdf of the study.
Other research reports that: "Even though a certain part of oxalate in the urine derives from metabolized ascorbic acid, the intake of high doses of vitamin C does not increase the risk of calcium oxalate kidney stones. . . (I)n the large- scale Harvard Prospective Health Professional Follow-Up Study, those groups in the highest quintile of vitamin C intake (greater than 1,500 mg/day) had a lower risk of kidney stones than the groups in the lowest quintiles.": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9429689Pottinger's cats (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed reference 5 

message: The dismissals in this article - citations 1-4 from non-peer reviewed sources - blogposts/articles by David Gorski and Stephen Barrett, who are popular with many editors here but are not specialists in the fields they are critiquing, are controverted by the following 2 articles from the JOM: 
1) http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2009/pdf/2009-v24n01-p015.pdf
2) http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2009/pdf/2009-v24n02-p065.pdf
I think these are certainly better overviews for the lede, but I invite others to read them so that a consensus can be established.Pottinger's cats (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine isn't even MEDLINE-indexed and so does not meet even the bare minimum WP:MEDRS requirements and so should not be used to support biomedical content in Wikipedia articles.  Zad68 16:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I would encourage Pottinger's cats to familiarize themselves with the WP:FRINGE guideline, and especially look at WP:PARITY, under which the Gorski and Barrett sources would be deemed reliable sources. Yobol (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

text: You appear to have missed the relevant word in the phrase "verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory". Yobol (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

text: When you find a high quality secondary source that doesn't use largely outdated primary studies published in disreputable journals such as Medical Hypotheses we might have something to talk about.  As of yet, Quackwatch is a perfectly valid source for discussion of fringe alt med material, and should not be removed unless you can come up with a consensus to remove it.  Yobol (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

text: All pertinent points from this secondary source appears to be already mentioned in this article. What new text are you suggesting? Yobol (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  dismissal in article 

message: I flagged a statement in the lead that “An article published in International Journal of Oncology, No. 1/2013, confirmed the efficiency of C-vitamin megadoses against cancer” as being non-neutral.  To fix it, I suggest changing it to one of the following four versions:
* “An article published in International Journal of Oncology, No. 1/2013, confirmed the efficiency of C-vitamin megadoses against cancer in laboratory mice”;
* “An article published in International Journal of Oncology, No. 1/2013, confirmed the efficiency of C-vitamin megadoses against cancer in mice that are unable to synthesize vitamin C on their own”;
* “An article published in International Journal of Oncology, No. 1/2013, confirmed the efficiency of C-vitamin megadoses against cancer in knockout mice”; or
* “An article published in International Journal of Oncology, No. 1/2013, confirmed the efficiency of C-vitamin megadoses against cancer in vitamin C-deficient mice.”
As I lack the scientific expertise to interpret the original source, I come here seeking advice on which of my four proposed edits is most neutral and accurate.
71.178.188.47 (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions, but normally we do not include primary-source animal study results like this in our articles at all, that is why it was removed.  Please see WP:MEDRS for our sourcing guidelines for biomedical information.  Cheers... Zad68 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of WP:MEDRS is that primary sources are permitted if they are so new as not to have been mentioned in any reliable secondary sources, and also, animal studies are “pre-clinical” (and therefore should be buried in the middle of the article) rather than being given undue weight.  Thank you for removing it from the lead. 71.178.188.47 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, but it shouldn't be in the article at all.  The allowance in WP:MEDRS for the citing of primary studies is restricted to brand new areas of research where there aren't any secondary sources at all, and, honestly, the consensus has been moving to restrict the use of primary studies even more.  The use of vitamin C in those with cancer is well-studied and there are literally dozens of high-quality secondary sources that cover it, for example (and I haven't thorougly examined each of these to ensure they're top-quality):  Ascorbic acid: chemistry, biology and the treatment of cancer, Antioxidant vitamins and mineral supplementation, life span expansion and cancer incidence: a critical commentary, Vitamin C, gastritis, and gastric disease: a historical review and update, Stomach cancer screening and preventive behaviors in relatives of gastric cancer patients, Antioxidant therapy: current status and future prospects, and that's just a few from the past year or two. With so many up-to-date secondary sources available, there's no reason to include a recent primary research study in mice.  If that study is of good quality, it will get picked up in a secondary source, which can be used in the article.  Zad68 15:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead 

message: I see that the above statement has actually been deleted now.  When I marked it as being non-neutral, however, I did not mean to imply that it should be deleted, but rather, it should be rewritten to accurately say what the source says (and, like I said, I lack the requisite education to interpret the source and its significance.)
71.178.188.47 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions, but normally we do not include primary-source animal study results like this in our articles at all, that is why it was removed.  Please see WP:MEDRS for our sourcing guidelines for biomedical information.  Cheers... Zad68 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of WP:MEDRS is that primary sources are permitted if they are so new as not to have been mentioned in any reliable secondary sources, and also, animal studies are “pre-clinical” (and therefore should be buried in the middle of the article) rather than being given undue weight.  Thank you for removing it from the lead. 71.178.188.47 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, but it shouldn't be in the article at all.  The allowance in WP:MEDRS for the citing of primary studies is restricted to brand new areas of research where there aren't any secondary sources at all, and, honestly, the consensus has been moving to restrict the use of primary studies even more.  The use of vitamin C in those with cancer is well-studied and there are literally dozens of high-quality secondary sources that cover it, for example (and I haven't thorougly examined each of these to ensure they're top-quality):  Ascorbic acid: chemistry, biology and the treatment of cancer, Antioxidant vitamins and mineral supplementation, life span expansion and cancer incidence: a critical commentary, Vitamin C, gastritis, and gastric disease: a historical review and update, Stomach cancer screening and preventive behaviors in relatives of gastric cancer patients, Antioxidant therapy: current status and future prospects, and that's just a few from the past year or two. With so many up-to-date secondary sources available, there's no reason to include a recent primary research study in mice.  If that study is of good quality, it will get picked up in a secondary source, which can be used in the article.  Zad68 15:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: deletion of sentence citing to {{doi|10.3892/ijo.2012.1712}}

message: I wonder if my sentence about using vitamin C to prevent complex regional pain syndrome after injury belongs in this article or in the main Vitamin C article.  (Is 500 mg a megadose?)
The idea is already mentioned in the article on complex regional pain syndrome, which cites to a petition and to a book by a certain Paul Zollinger.  Luckily I have found a more suitable source than the petition.    
71.178.188.47 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preventing CRPS after wrist injury 

message: Did anyone read this before writing the introduction and saying that there is "no evidence that it works". Perhaps it is time to update the introduction.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/highdosevitaminc/patient/page2  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.241.227.21 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The current text reads: Vitamin C advocates [who?] argue that there is a large body of scientific evidence [specify] that the vitamin has a wide range of health and therapeutic benefits [example needed] but that this belief is rejected by current [when?] science and medical research.[who?][1]
There is some evidence regarding the applications and efficacy of vitamin C, but recommended governmental agency doses and frequency of intake have remained relatively fixed.  This has led some researchers to challenge the recommendations. In 2003, Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts of the Manchester Metropolitan University published a fundamental criticism of the approach taken to fix the nutritional requirement of vitamin C. In 2004, they again argued that the RDA, which is based on blood plasma and white blood-cell saturation data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was based on flawed data. According to these authors, the doses required to achieve blood, tissue, and body "saturation" are much larger than previously believed.
 
Issues:
The the first sentence treats the issue of higher Vitamin c consumption as a fringe/pseudoscience issue. This is using using paper from 1988, that is primarily about cancer, to vaguely paint broad brushes. The criticism can be enhanced by finding a more up to date source that addresses the actual claims of advocates. 
Here is a list of potential sources and other background information that could be of use in this section. 
http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2005/pdf/2005-v20n04-p237.pdf
http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2007/pdf/2007-v22n01-p021.pdf
http://prhsj.rcm.upr.edu/index.php/prhsj/article/view/13/11
http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19874953
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18938145
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1236801/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23446899
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22332036
The tone of the article needs a pretty major reworking. I'll try it later this week. I just though I'd make this post to state my plans. Cheers. Khimaris (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's portrayed as fringe because it is fringe. A quote from one of the links you provided, -"Ascorbate administered intravenously has already been tested in a phase I clinical trial, is in wide use by complementary and alternative medicine (integrative medicine) practitioners"-  The references could use some updating but it doesn't appear that your provided sources say what you think they say. As a whole they point to speculation that large doses of Vitamin C "could" be useful but then call for further research. This was a cursory run through so maybe there is actual conclusions in the papers but they didn't jump out at me. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  [[User:Daffydavid|Daffydavid], I have problems with that kind of thinking. Most practitioners of alternative medicine would support eating fruits and veg. Well obviously that means anyone who supports eating their five a day is a quack and a nutter /s.  I'm not a supporter of Vitamin C megadosing. The links I've posted aren't there simply to support it's use. I simply think the article should attempt to look at the science behind it instead of treating the issue as patent nonsense. This isn't reiki after all. Consuming higher levels of Vitamin C depending on the route, amount and time between dosing could be useful. The article should state as much instead of trying to list as many quacks who have supported it. Using that sort of logic I should add Blondi to the article on pet ownership.Khimaris (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Covering it in tags is not appropriate and kind of pointy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please refer me to the rule that states this is not appropriate. Khimaris (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

text: The problem here is that Khimaris is using non MEDRS sources (letters to the editors, primary studies, non MEDLINE indexed journals, etc) to try to debunk high quality studies. Clearly that is not convincing, and will not gain consensus. Yobol (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yobol for the love of christ, I'm not trying to debunk anything. I was posting background information from the perspective of Vitamin C advocates that could potentially be used later. The behavior you're expressing is near bullying at this point. Every edit I make is subject to near immediate revert. I'm not going away. You all need to realize this. Any further misbehavior, whether it be individual or collective, will be reported to the proper channels. Khimaris (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocacy arguments issues.  

message: It is not "nit-picky" to point out scientific evidence does not suggest there is no effect. What "alt med" people claim or don't claim is irrelevant. 
You have to be concise and get it right. No critic of alt med claims that huge IV doses of vitamin c has no effect. Anonywiki (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't like "nit-picky", how about pedantic. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a disruptive editing warning at Anonywiki's page. In his edit summary he has admitted that the original version was clearer. User has failed to heed WP:BRD but I remain hopeful that he will come to this page to discuss his edit. I feel the edit the user has inserted is not only less clear but is also repetitive in nature. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I did come here to discuss the edit. Once again the original version was inaccurate. It's a very simple and straightforward matter. The version you advocate is clearer but it is false. Anonywiki (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific evidence does not suggest there is no effect.  

message: I removed the subsections on the common cold and cardiovascular disease and cataract.  I carefully read the sources provided, and none of them disusses megadoses. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off target material 

message: The progression of this passage:
::The use of vitamin C in high doses as a treatment for cancer was promoted by Linus Pauling, based on a 1976 study published with Ewan Cameron which reported intravenous vitamin C significantly increased lifespans of patients with advanced cancer. This trial was criticized by the National Cancer Institute for being designed poorly, and three subsequent trials conducted at the Mayo Clinic could not replicate these results.
does not represent the balance of the sides, and underrepresents all this information in the Linus Pauling article that goes on further (my emphasis in bold):
::Pauling denounced the conclusions of these studies and handling of the final study as "fraud and deliberate misrepresentation", and criticized the studies for using oral, rather than intravenous vitamin C (which was the dosing method used for the first ten days of Pauling's original study). Pauling also criticised the Mayo clinic studies because the controls were taking vitamin C during the trial, and because the duration of the treatment with vitamin C was short; Pauling advocated continued high dose vitamin C for the rest of the cancer patient's life whereas the Mayo clinic patients in the second trial were treated with vitamin C for a median of 2.5 months. The results were publicly debated at length with considerable acrimony between Pauling and Cameron, and Moertel (the lead author of the Mayo Clinic studies), with accusations of misconduct and scientific incompetence on both sides. Ultimately the negative findings of the Mayo Clinic studies ended general interest in vitamin C as a treatment for cancer. Despite this, Pauling continued to promote vitamin C for treating cancer and the common cold, working with The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential to use vitamin C in the treatment of brain-injured children. He later collaborated with the Canadian physician Abram Hoffer on a micronutrient regimen, including high-dose vitamin C, as adjunctive cancer therapy. A 2009 review in the journal Anticancer Research was somewhat partial to Pauling, noting that there were significant methodological differences between the Mayo Clinic's and Pauling's studies (the Mayo clinic did not use intravenous Vitamin C), that other researchers administering intravenous vitamin C to patients reported that the patients gained benefits such as increased survival, improved well-being, and reduced pain, that intravenous administration is necessary to achieve high enough plasma levels for a pharmacological effect, and that convergent evidence shows that Vitamin C is effective as an anticancer agent.
It seems difficult to insert as it should be surgically condensed, and also, the 2009 study listed in my 2nd quote is chronologically after the 2008 study listed in the first sentence following my first quote ("More recently, in vitro data..."), yet before the 2010 review listed right after the 2008. Squish7 (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should include info on the Linus Pauling page about the Mayo Clinic studies 

message: I don't think the scientific evidence is currently overwhelmingly supporting one view or the other.
With cancer, for instance, some studies in rodents (like this one) show a significant increase in survival rates when given large does of C. Others show substantial decreases in metastasis (example). I think this sentence in the article header is too debatable, and suggest rewriting it indicating that the scientific evidence is mixed. --Spenb (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The available scientific evidence does not support these claims" may be too debatable 

message: Intravenous vitamin C deserves its own article (as a medical therapy) but we could start with a section here ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should clearly separate oral from injected vitamin C 

message: Can we mention the Vitamin C treatment protocol used in hospitals during the C-19 pandemic?
Drsruli (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Drsruli Do you have a reliable source that says as much? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-19 

message: I added research explaining why Mayo's studies supposed refutation of Pauling is wrong (in short, intravenous route leading to much higher plasma concentrations and treatment being much shorter), mentioned studies replicating his results in Japan, a more recent review of trials (2018, including a randomized one) and National Health Institute (an organization with the same level of "authority" than the one cited) statement, but it keeps being deleted under accusation of "fringe". I didn't even remove the anti statements and mentions. Where's "neutrality"?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15068981/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6811475/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6071214/
https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-central/blog/2020/yun-cantley-vitamin-c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:9800:9094:dd3:2cd4:62dd:6edd:fd67 (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2022) (UTC)
: My assessment of those 4 sources: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15068981/ Paper is about pharmacokinetics and irrelevant to efficacy; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6811475/ An abstract of a 1982 paper that is unavailable and that is a primary source. It's not a reliable secondary source; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6071214/ (Nauman) and https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-central/blog/2020/yun-cantley-vitamin-c no clear evidence of efficacy and essentially a call for clinical trials. See the conclusion of the Nauman review and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine). ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence, explanation of Mayo's flawed methodology and vit. C route of administration and NIH statement being deleted 

message: I've asked this elsewhere and no reference or information has been found. How much daily ascorbic acid (i.e. mgs) is legally required to be fed or administered to captive apes and monkeys in zoos, circuses and the like in the U.S., European countries, etc. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Primate requirements in zoos, circuses, etc.

message: Saying there is "no evidence that vitamin C megadose can treat anything" is just silly. There's plenty of notes incidents of doctors using it in treatment. In particular for sepsis and burn patients. This needs to be reflected in the article. 
How do I put myself a reminder in a few weeks to modify the article? EdwinAmi (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please put references to reviews and meta-analysis about sepsis. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No evidence" is way too strong