Contagious or Not?

Well, yes and no. It's a war, as you know and both "sides" get casualties.

On the tactical side of the war, one of the body's own defense mechanism is to produce pyrogens which instruct the hypothalamus to crank up the body's thermostat and generates a fever. It's one of a multi-prong attack the body has for its defenses. I think you know that, so I am just repeating what you know for the sake of others here.

The prevailing theory that I learned was that fever helps defeat bacteria and viruses that are sensitive to temperature changes. It's been a while (10+ years) since I was in school (I changed careers and went into engineering), so if you have newer information, please let me know. I still find the subject fascinating.

Sorry, but the hole in your logic is not filled by putting "denature" and "sides" in quote marks. If you wish to denature, without quotes, a bacterium or virus you are talking about pasteurisation, not just a hot bath. I think you will find that 60°C for 10 minutes will denature you quite effectively. The body's rise in temperature induced by leucocyte pyrogens is of a much more modest magnitude, which allows the metabolic processes of the immune response to proceed faster. Note that this rise in temperature also stimulates the bacterial metabolism, so it is a question of the immune system getting there first.

I want to now ask the expert panel about the weakness(es) of ebola virus:

(1) is the pH of it environment important? To what extent?

(2) Obviously temperature plays a role...is there a minimum temperature of survivability?

(3) As most of are aware, recent published information about the 3D structure and unfolding of ebola virus are well-known and are likely playing some role in development of anti-viral treatment and/or vaccine. Really, how likely is this to be in time to help?

(4) What decontaminants are best (not that I need any right now), but forearmed is forewarned...bleach? hydrogen peroxide? quaternary ammonium compounds?

(5) I learned of a new robot for disinfection of hospital rooms (after general bodily fluids cleanup) that goes into the room and irradiates the room with xenon excimer laser radiation (I think), that is near the vacuum UV in wavelength, and is highly effective in total kill on airborne particles containing virus, bacterium, etc. I think this is pretty new stuff, but could be important as time progresses.

I can buy that.

True, but humans can survive a 'partial denaturing,' it's called Cell Replacement, We lose a few million muscle cellsin our limbs from excessive head, a few million skin cells, a few thousand liver cells, a few housand kidney cells. We feel like utter poopie but our body makes new cells to replace the lost ones, while clearing away the detritus of what used to be bits of our body. We also have ways of shuffling hear around from overheated area to various 'heat sinks' (fingers, toes, lungs, top of the head, with general skin area and sweating as primary backups, and the desire to move to a cooler area as a secondary backup system). These heat-shuffling systems can also be used to concentrate heat and increase cellular denaturing in a localized area.

Virusesses and bacteria don't have these heat-shuffling techniques, each cell/viral capsule is on its own, if they can be denatured/destroyed/consumed by white blood cells faster than they can replicate, then they will be wiped out of the body in time. and afterwards, the body can focus of repairing the damage it did to itself.

It's like that one commercial for Listerine, "You can take it, Big Guy, bacteria can't." I would not be surprised to find that Listerine destroys the cells lining your mouth, and even kills taste buds, but even if it stripped the entire mouth liningdown to the last layer of cells before it gets to the next tissue layer, ou7r ouths would make more 'lining cells and recover, even if it stripped away ALL the lining cells, the tissues in the next layer will likely contain some stem cells that will respond to the direct saliva exposure by diffrentiating into lining cells.

Remember, I could pull a pink of blood out of you every month without hurting you, in one year, I'd have bulled out almost two and a half times the total blood in your body, but you'd still be just fine. People don't denature' as readily as individual cells do, we get better from it.

It's a fascinating snapshot of a parallel universe, but it's not the one we live in. Allow me to explain again in simple terms.
1. The virus is not going to be denatured by the levels of temperature occasioned by the body's normal fever response.
2. The virus is widely distributed in the body.
It follows from [1] and [2] that you are going to have to generate a uniform and widespread high temperature in the body if you wish to denature the virus through heat. There is no point in discussing heat dissipation mechanisms because you wish to generate a sufficient temperature for a sufficient length of time in the whole distribution of the virus through the body. What I am telling you is that those conditions will kill the human. Furthermore I defy you to define a "heat-shuffling system" to "concentrate" heat. Heat in the human body is transferred from a hotter region to a cooler region by conduction just as it is in the rest of our universe. The cardiovascular system is not a heat pump in the engineering sense. It simply circulates blood which has been warmed in the liver to the rest of the body. If you want to generate and transfer sufficient heat to kill a virus then the liver itself has to be at a greater temperature still.

"It follows from [1] and [2] that you are going to have to generate a uniform and widespread high temperature in the body if you wish to denature the virus through heat."

While I now agree with you that denaturing the virus is not practical, (I need to discuss this more with my business partner (he is a surgeon)) the temperature need not be uniform nor is it under the conditions of a short soak.

Appendages will warm up faster than the core and blood does circulate (let's assume the patient is alive) along with the virus in the blood stream.

Again, I will buy point 1, but point #2 does not necessarily substantiate the claim that you would need to generate uniform and widespread high temperature throughout the body.

point #2 does not necessarily substantiate the claim that you would need to generate uniform and widespread high temperature throughout the body.
But it does. The alternative concept of generating a local ball of heat around each viral particle or aggregation is not tenable. Even if the idea is to heat the virus in the bloodstream there is no way of preventing the adjacent blood cells being cooked at the same time.
Appendages will warm up faster than the core
So in order to kill the virus in the core you are prepared to overcook the limbs? Thank you very much.

Whatever.

Basically, I had a talk about this with my business partner. Elevation of body temperature via a hot bath will help retard the growth of a virus as well as help activate the body's immune system.

While "denature" might be the wrong term here, elevating the body temperature does make it more difficult for a virus to reproduce and function as its optimal environmental temperature range is narrower than the human body's range.

While not a cure, it helps.

Elevation of body temperature via a hot bath will help retard the growth of a virus
Not true. It is true that viruses preying on cold-blooded animals may have lower temperature ranges for replication than those in warm-blooded animals, but in general, whatever the host can tolerate the virus can too. Here is an example of a bird virus actually enjoying a 56 degrees C water bath:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20544430
So the hot bath, if it has any effect at all, works by increasing the rate at which the immune system gets to work. The problem, you see, is that what appears logical to a lay mind is not necessarily established by the scientific process (we are back to evidence-based medicine here). If you Google "hot bath virus" you will find any number of websites recommending the idea but with no medical referencing. If you do the same search in PubMed, you won't find any such recommendations, but near the top of the list you will find this reference:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2834657/
containing the quote "at 56°C, 40 min were required to eliminate HCVcc [hepatitis C virus] infectivity". Do you fancy an hour in a 56 degree bath?
Finally, if the hot bath is of any use at all, then someone must have established the bathing parameters. Not only temperature, but also duration, frequency, and total number. I suggest you go back to your business partner and ask him whether you need 1 60-minute bath at 40°C daily for a week or 4 30-minute baths at 45°C daily for 10 days or whatever. If he doesn't know, i suspect nobody else knows either.

I agree with your point and conclusion but not your interpretation of the abstract of that article. It took an hour with (presumably chicken) embryo eggs at 56°C (≈ 133°F) to produce attenuated (altered, damaged) versions of the original pathogen. This virus did not enjoy this bath at all. Your point that the host will not enjoy this is spot on the money. The nominal chicken incubation temperature is 10° ~ 15° C in air. The embryos in these eggs were nearly poached.

Thank you. I think you will note, though, that the virus, after being incubated at 56°C for up to an hour (not in the chicken embryos), was still capable of inducing lesions when transferred to the embryos. It may not have enjoyed the bath, but it was certainly not dead.

Maybe we are not talking about the same thing.

To be clear, I am not stating that elevated body temperature will eradicate a virus.

I did say that it will help retard the reproduction cycle and even that is a generalized statement where some virus will perform better at elevated temperatures than others.

AFAIK one of the earliest symptoms is a high fever. This is why body temperatures and FLIR imaging is being used at airports for screening. At best inducing a fever will mask this indicator. At worst this might even expedite or guarantee death as the disease runs its course.

With the exception of the two ZMAC treatments, that exhausted the existing supply of this mystery drug, the best treatment seems to be to try and find a matching healthy survivor of this ebola strain and transfuse platelets. In the mean time treat the symptoms and try to maintain the patient while their immune system

There are no easy answers to this or any new contagious disease. Let the medical practitioners do their jobs. Pray for the victims and their families.

OK fair enough, scrap the fake fever idea....

I am listening to a very interesting interview right now by another "expert" on Ebola while playing chess on an alternate screen and drinking a good beer and watching the TV.

Another new ebola victim is being reported on the news today, apparently out of Dallas, TX. Also this woman apparently got on a flight out of Dallas and traveled to Cleveland, even after she noticed that she had a fever the night before. I hope everyone realizes what this means... we are going to go from 1 to 2 to X number of cases quickly, then it blows up from there because: (1) the government will not stop people who should be in true guarded quarantine from traveling, and (2) people have lost their sense of morality to the point they either do not care about anyone but themselves, or they are too broke (mentally, spiritually) to pay attention.

The best government efforts to stop this from becoming a totally chaotic outbreak will accomplish nothing without 101% compliance from people understanding they can be a danger to themselves, but also to any number of others. A lot of the younger generation seems to either not know there these things called news channels, or they choose to not be informed, or simply have "love" on their minds 24/7. If you love people, then for the love of God, stop running around like stupid chickens with your heads cut off.

I think she traveled before getting a fever unless you have some new news that has not been reported yet.

The report I read said it was a mild fever of only 99.5° F before her return trip from Ohio to Dallas to visit family. The report I just cited is ambivalent if this was before leaving Dallas or Cleveland. I doubt that she drove to Cleveland and flew back. This goes to show the sloppy reporting we have today.

That scares me too.

If health care "professionals" don't bother to take proper steps to control the outbreak of a deadly disease, we're doomed!

This person should be banned from medicine and medical facilities.

You are going to state that this person (named) should be banned from the medical profession, in your opinion, based on some inuendo in a news report? Jesus lyn, come back to earth. You don't know anything about this person, for God's sake you probably don't even know her name. You certainly were not there, and I know you haven't heard any testimony in her medical board hearing. Oh wait, there hasn't been one. Of all the people to be talking this unsubstantiated trash, you should know better. You chastise 6 people a day for failing to search out the most mundane things. Tar and feather the bitch!

Just trying to make my quota.

Against Rules, Amber Vinson, Dallas Worker With Ebola ..

CDC: Woman with Ebola shouldn't have flown commercially

Second Ebola Nurse Violated Guidelines By Flying on ...

New Texas nurse with Ebola had slight fever on airliner ...

Second Dallas nurse with Ebola was on Frontier Airlines ...

Second Dallas nurse with Ebola takes off for Atlanta from ...

1. Latest Updates / Second Texas healthcare worker tests ...
2. Second Texas healthcare worker tests positive for Ebola ...
3. Second Texas nurse contracts Ebola after treating Thomas ...
4. Second nurse with Ebola Amber Jay Vinson traveled to Ohio ...
5. Second Ebola-infected nurse ID'd; flew domestic flight day ...
6. 2nd Texas nurse has Ebola, took flight before being ...
7. 2nd Ebola Nurse Was On 2 Flights And The CDC Is Looking ... US.
8. Second health care worker tests positive for Ebola - New ...
   

   ---

This article (which also cites papers) seems germane to infection mechanism/criteria.

Firestone Did What Governments Have Not: Stopped Ebo

You'd have to be crazy to go to a shrink!

But only in his mind.

A member of the special team being assembled in Arizona to fight the Ebola virus by the new Ebola Czar.

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought it was the new concussion-proof football uniform.

I just found this article, which, I think, is a good discussion of vitamin C -- how and why it works and how and when/why it doesn't.

You believe this is a scholarly paper? They actually site a paper with a footnote that laments the fact that the paper is not relevant to the thesis. Legitamacy has always been hard to get. There is not one cited source that says vitamin C (unless one is deficient) can provide protection against viral infection. I'm a complete layman.

.

I didn't submit it as a "paper." The authors didn't either. It is submitted as a "News Release." I called it an article. It is an article published as a "news release." (It is common in a scientific venue to include citations where they are deemed helpful. Also, the authors have researched and written about vitamin C extensively. An interview with Steve Hickey is here. I find the comment at the end about the "skeptical," retired, father-in-law, surgeon humorous.)

I assume your reference to an irrelevant paper is this one:

(Pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed contains mostly abstracts of medical research papers. Unfortunately, most of these have been selected to exclude observations on high doses of vitamin C)

They are saying that if you search PubMed you'll mostly find abstracts that don't include papers making observations about high-dose vitamin C. They use the word "exclude," implying a willful filtering of abstracts mentioning dosages that might be supportive of vitamin C effectiveness.)

Regarding protection, it depends on what you mean by "protection."

The second paragraph states:

1. Taking a gram or so a day of vitamin C won't protect you against anything except acute scurvy; it doesn't matter whether the vitamin is liposomal, nano-particles, or even gold-plated. Beware of websites, companies, and Youtube clips making wild and unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of vitamin C. (underlining mine.)

So the news release/article, states up front a more realistic view of vitamin C expectations; especially "protective." How many people do you know who take their vitamin C for "protection" with the knowledge of its half-life, plasma level, recommended dosage schedule, etc.? And if they don't, then their usage of it is not informed enough, and failure, as stated in the above statement, is the likely result.

If by "protection" we mean ability to curb further damage of a viral infection, then I think there is quite a bit of empirical (aka anecdotal) evidence that the IV form, especially, provides "protection."

The authors also point out that almost all studies done to test the "efficacy" of vitamin C have used doses well below the values established by empirical usage by proponents -- both orally and IV. So, it's hard to take such studies seriously. I would prefer to see studies where it is not apples and oranges from the empirical report vs. the studies. Look again at some of the suggested dosage values in the article and then search PubMed for studies replicating similar values.

I posted the link to the article, hoping, it would be a corrective view of using vitamin C. It points out that once you've got an active viral infection the amount needed to effectively treat the infection increases dramatically and is also modified by biochemical individuality.

The debate over vitamin C's role in treating diseased conditions -- especially infectious disease -- has little meaning if researchers won't attempt using the same dosages (both IV and orally) as reported by those physicians who have used it in their clinical practice. Naysayers in the medical community should be welcomed, as long as they are truly open-minded and are willing to try similar dosages and schedules on themselves and/or their patients. (Oral is relatively easy to try it on oneself.)

I don't expect -- in my lifetime, anyway -- to ever see much fair and independent research regarding IV vitamin C. As I've posted in other threads the first positive, claimed use for IV vitamin C to treat infectious disease, was Dr. Fredrick Klenner back in the late '40's, treating Polio and other infectious diseases. Since then a few curious, open-minded physicians have tried to duplicate his results with their patients and report similar outcomes.

I think any physician with a real curiosity about the claims made by Dr. Klenner should be willing to read a compilation of his reported results, study recommended procedure and usage by some contemporary physicians using it (Dr. Cathcart, Dr. Levy, pyhsicians at the Riordan Clinic, etc.), and actually try it on patients in clinical situations. The Riordan Clinic has quite a list of published articles.

Medical observations usually have a basis in fact. Research can be helpful to establish a statistical efficacy, which still has the limitation of biochemical individuality. Also, I find this article helpful to temper the results of much medical research -- especially epidemiological studies. (Don't put medical research on too high a pedestal.) To me it means that the final arbiter in any medical case is empirical -- final results. Did the treatment in this case work? Is so, what a dissenting paper, book, or doctors say has little relevance to that case anymore. Over so many decades now, there seems to be good cumulative evidence from many cases to think they are outliers. (no pun intended)

As the article I cited in post #132 states:

This account is intended for intelligent adults, who can make their own rational decisions and take responsibility for their health. We strongly promote the idea that medicine should be based on rational patients, rather than authoritarian doctors. Doctors are there to provide the information for patients, to help them choose between available options. This is information only - what you decide to do with it is up to you.

I'm O.K. with whatever anyone decides for him/herself. But any of us can change her/his mind as our information and experiential database increases.

Thanks for that thoughtful reply. You seem to believe that there is a lack of intelligent research into the efficacy of Vitamin C in any (but ebola in this case) disease. I would put it right up there with aspirin, in terms of historical evidence and data availability. There have been some interesting discoveries made about aspirin, mainly how incredibly safe it is, and how it's blood thinning properties can have positive effects on those with heart disease and various other disorders. It has no preventative qualities that I;'m aware of, nor does the decades of data on Vitamin C show any impact, except the almost centuries old knowledge about scurvy, which is deficiency. I just don't get the wild grasping at the straws of conspiracy. Sure it would be great if you actually had discovered something novel, but you are just spreading unsubstantiated innuendo.

Like a lot of people on this site

Sorry for a delayed reply. I, generally, don't do emails or CR4 on weekends and had other matters to attend to the first couple of days this week.

I don't think any posts I've made concerning vitamin C convey a "grasping at straws" presentation. I try to give links to information worth considering. And I don't think I have labeled the mainstream ignoring of its usefulness as a conspiracy. Ignorance, yes; conspiracy, very unlikely. Willful ignorance is what concerns me.

The unfortunate thing about a vitamin C "controversy" is that it does require some research and reading to form an informed opinion. Too many people have let the commonplace status of vitamin C in the mainstream media become their "proven" model of reality. Therefore, since the matter is settled in their mind, they don't take the time to read any information that might provide a corrective view. And if they do, they have a preconceived bias that it is just "junk science." Those who have tried to correct this view have been marginalized, so the "incomplete/incorrect view," based on low-dose, (read irrelevant) "research" prevails.

Comparing vitamin C to aspirin is apples and oranges. Vitamin C is quite ubiquitous in life forms on the planet. Plants, birds, reptiles, and most animals synthesize vitamin C. (And they are still trying to figure out the plant pathway.) I've never read that aspirin is naturally occurring. If you have information to the contrary, I would be interested to read it. There is no disagreement as to whether vitamin C has antioxidant properties. It might surprise some to find that aspirin does as well. But I wouldn't recommend taking aspirin in "large" doses for that purposes. I would opt for ascorbate, alpha lipoic acid, and other "natural" antioxidant substances. (On a side note, there is a risk of utilizing aspirin for prevention of heart attack and stroke. There is a "rebound" effect. An article discussing it is here. I realize some will think the end statements reactionary. And the citations to sources are not quickly found as presented. If I can find links to the sources of the citations I will add them in a follow-up post. I would prefer magnesium for the same purpose.)

The original article about Ebola and vitamin C from post #132 along with the interview link in my last post, with Steve Hickey, in which his book, Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, is mentioned, provides some background on the author's history and credentials. And if you read them both, (which your response seems to indicate you didn't) you would easily find links (or can search to find) to enough "intelligent" research to then have a specific, reasoned, debate on what you think is in error in the research advocating megadose vitamin C. Steve Hickey and Hillary Roberts used the NIH's own research data to show that their (NIH's) conclusion about plasma levels is wrong. Do you consider NIH data to be "unsubstantiated?"

Your criticism of the subject is vague, at best, and lacking in any details for discussion. If you want to criticize the information, please do so specifically. Otherwise, your critique has little value. It's like responding, "because," as an explanation for why one believes something.

A couple of extracts from that interview indicate that the community of professional detractors has not stepped up to the plate:

DY NEWS: Advocating megadoses of vitamin C as actual cure for serious disease has been a fount of frustration for many an academic (Linus Pauling coming instantly to mind), practicing physician or grant-seeking research scientist. What heat have you personally been taking from your book?

HICKEY: None whatsoever - so far. We have been actively trying to provoke a response from the NIH, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and associated scientists. I suppose they are trying to ignore us, but they can't hide forever. I think it is clear that the current ideas of plasma saturation are simply wrong and cannot be defended.

Many of the people whose work we have respected for years have welcomed the book, which is encouraging. Those on the opposite side have tended to ignore it, which is disappointing, but unsurprising. We have taken time and effort to seek out and email the establishment scientists that support the low-dose ideas, but none have chosen to defend these ideas.

There are more than a few well-credentialed researchers and physicians providing both research and positive empirical results with IV vitamin C, as well as megadose, oral vitamin C. Again, hardly "unsubstantiated." If you care, take some time to look into their research and experience. Then cite specifically what you disagree with and we will have some common ground to discuss/debate. If you only want to disagree "because," then...?

I find that a lot of people in this forum are very intelligent and willing to take the time to read through information.

Using vitamin C as a means to fight ebola is like using a bullet to stop an oncoming tank.

"I find that a lot of people in this forum are very intelligent and willing to take the time to read through information."

The acid test for this kind of stuff is called clinical trials. Everything I have read on subject trials to date doesn't point to it being a wonder drug. The good news is as long as the doses are not excessive to the point of being toxic, vitamin C doesn't do any harm.

AH, I'll respectfully disagree about trials in this instance. The point being made in the articles by Steve Hickey, etc. is that the dosages and scheduling that Klenner used, with success, was arrived at empirically in his own practice and hasn't really been replicated in "official" research or trials that I know about. (Well, I do think Dr. Levy might have found a couple in his search of the literature for writing his book, Curing the Incurable. But I don't have it with me.) A handful of "curious" doctors have replicated his results in their practice.

One test that made the news is the case of Alan Smith, the New Zealand dairy farmer who contracted Swine Flu. I've posted the link to the video before. He and his family strongly think that the IV vitamin C that he received after having to fight the hospital over it was the start of saving his life. They recommended to his family that his life support be removed so he could die. (In case anyone didn't see it before the video is here on YouTube.) I can't imagine the story not sparking enough curiosity to experiment with the substance. And it caused a real stir in New Zealand. Curiosity, should be a hallmark of science. That curiosity is what has driven a handful of physicians to just try it and not wait on "trials." If viewers would just put themselves in the Smith family's place, it wouldn't be so hard to understand their request to try the treatment. The brother-in-law was familiar with IV vitamin C, and that very likely means being familiar with Dr. Klenner's experience. If your Dad, wife or any close loved-one was in a similar situation where you were told "unplug him," and you had heard about Dr. Klenner's work, I can't imagine the lack of clinical trials would keep you from considering at least the possibility of trying the treatment. Klenner's work wasn't just a few cases.

In this case, with Ebola, it isn't even being given consideration. Klenner's clinical experience, as well as Dr. Cathcart and Dr Levy suggest at least IV vitamin C be given an trial. Not just in one case, but in multiple cases.

I heard on the radio this morning that the WHO is "advancing" the use of 2 prospective anti-viral drugs and blood plasma from survivors, as three experimental things to try and save lives. The drugs have not been approved. I suppose the blood plasma is considered just a blood transfusion.

The deaths in this recent outbreak have risen to over 5,000. Which is one reason the WHO is, apparently, willing to "try" experimental drugs that haven't been approved.

In this case (or in any other disease that might be relevant and life-threatening), are people's lives treated in such a cavalier way that we demand clinical trials before "experimenting?" Are statistical results that important? Obviously the WHO doesn't think so, or why would they be willing to try the 3 methods they are about to embark upon, which have no approval; i.e., limited or no clinical trials? Yet if any one of them increased the survival rate by even 10%, I bet they would be using it. That's 500 lives spared.

It is such an obvious question that it is what gives rise to advocates thinking that there is an "agenda" at work here against such an experiment.

No. In this case, the acid test for me, is, "Will it save lives?" This is precisely why I feel so strongly about the subject. If naysayers want to try to put this to rest, then they should be very willing to let, at least a couple of physicians with experience in administering IV vitamin C to join this "experiment" in looking for aid in slowing down the disease and saving lives. And precisely because of the Alan Smith case (which never got any news air time here in the States) the profile of IV vitamin C should have risen enough for the public to be asking the same question. But within the U.S. it hasn't. I haven't checked, but I would bet the web site started in New Zealand after the Smith case is actively asking this question, too.

Since there is not a good orthodox treatment yet, and as you point out it is harmless, why not try IV vitamin C along with the other experiments? That's is what I was saying in other posts. I would think all those who dismiss the idea should see this as a perfect opportunity to bury it for good. You couldn't get a higher profile "stage" to perform on. I mean, it's considered mostly incurable, right? It should represent the highest probability of failure for IV vitamin C.

The doctors mentioned -- Levy and Cathcart have administered IV vitamin C in hundreds of cases, if not thousands, with excellent results, similar to what Klenner reported.

Given the number patients that Dr. Klenner, alone, treated in this manner, it likely has as much or more to recommend "trying" it as the 2 experimental anti-viral drugs. Polio was destroying many lives when Klenner first reported his method of "curing" it. It was probably too bold a statement for anyone to take seriously.

I would urge anyone who thinks IV vitamin C is just smoke and mirrors to contact someone -- anyone -- and demand that these doctors be put on that worldwide stage to embarrass them and put a stop to the madness and quackery.

I agree with a statement made by Dr. Klenner: Some physicians would stand by and see their patient die rather than use ascorbic acid because in their finite minds it exists only as a vitamin. I'm sure the Smith family was grateful that at least one hospital board member didn't want the denial of their request for IV vitamin C on his/her conscience.

Sorry for going on about this but it touches a real nerve with me. I do appreciate your comment.

"why not try IV vitamin C along with the other experiments?"

Probably because no one sees any value in trying.

However, if any reliable clinical trials produce convincing evidence in the future, then that may change. To date that has just not happened...

Clinical trials are not cheap, so you need to present a convincing case for the expense.

See my post replying to phph001 below. I combined the info for both your responses.

1. From http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminC-HealthProfessional/
"Approximately 70%-90% of vitamin C is absorbed at moderate intakes of 30-180 mg/day. However, at doses above 1 g/day, absorption falls to less than 50% and absorbed, unmetabolized ascorbic acid is excreted in the urine [4]. Results from pharmacokinetic studies indicate that oral doses of 1.25 g/day ascorbic acid produce mean peak plasma vitamin C concentrations of 135 micromol/L, which are about two times higher than those produced by consuming 200-300 mg/day ascorbic acid from vitamin C-rich foods. Pharmacokinetic modeling predicts that even doses as high as 3 g ascorbic acid taken every 4 hours would produce peak plasma concentrations of only 220 micromol/L."
In other words, there is no point in giving vitamin C IV when it is readily absorbed enterally. Note also that the surplus vitamin C is not retained to do anything useful. It is rapidly excreted in the urine. 2. The evidence that vitamin C can cure viral illness is anecdotal (a polite word for saying that people make it up as they go along).

phph001, you maybe didn't read through the summary of Dr. Klenner's work, Guide to the Clinical Use of Vitamin C. The doses he used result in plasma levels that just can't be reached by oral ingestion. Intracellular levels are another consideration. That is an apparent advantage of the liposomal form. Also, in the book, Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, the authors go into a detailed analysis of the misinterpretation by the NIH study of their own data regarding plasma levels. A summary article/paper by them is here.

Dr. Klenner treated 3,000+ cases and that has been added to by several physicians who currently utilize the treatment with similar results.

The fact that water prevents dehydration is largely, if not totally anecdotal. Anecdotal, doesn't mean "made up." It is observational.

I respect your medical experience and service. The doctors I've mentioned are also medical professionals. They have used the treatment and reported their results. You, as well, as almost all detractors, have never tried it -- or have you? If you said, "I've tried it and couldn't get the results Klenner and others report," that would carry more weight. To just say it's "made up," with no substantiating reason is like the "because" I mentioned earlier. Please find the studies or papers where the clinicians used IV vitamin C at the levels and intervals noted by Klenner, and found negative results and I'll be happy to read them. Otherwise your judgments about the protocol hold little weight. At least detractors of cold fusion tried the experiments with the same parameters before poo-pooing it.

Also, the description by Klenner concerning the action of vitamin C is that it essentially buys time for the body to respond with its own immune system. Much of vitamin C is concentrated in white blood cells. The vitamin C isn't "curing" it is doing what it does throughout the animal kingdom -- supporting the immune system by limiting the action of the pathogen while the immune system adapts and goes into action.

As I mentioned in post #124, the recent discovery that vitamin C destroys a very antibiotic-resistant strain of TB startled the investigators. That isn't "made-up." The short video at the bottom of the page is only 3 minutes and it is by one of the principles who made the discovery at The Albert Einstein College of Medicine. I find his statement, We don't know whether vitamin C will work in humans, but we now have a rational basis for doing a clinical trial," said Jacobs. It also helps that we know vitamin C is inexpensive, widely available and very safe to use. At the very least, this work shows us a new mechanism that we can exploit to attack TB. curious since Klenner's, as well as Levy's, Cathcart, and other physicians work indicates it does work in humans. As a matter of fact Klenner thought that C was most effective with viruses, not, necessarily, bacteria. He prescribed antibiotics along with C in some cases. (Also, note, AH, that he seems to think it provides a rationale basis for clinical trials. What doesn't make sense is why not try vitamin C direct rather than trying to mimic its mechanism. It's called reinventing the wheel.) So, phph001 you can also take up your disagreement with Dr. Jacobs.

I've already said I'm not a physician. Nor am I presenting myself as one. But I'm intelligent and curious enough to not dismiss Klenner's work. (And I have my own positive "anecdotal" experiences with vitamin C -- although, not IV.) Dr. Levy is a practicing cardiologist. If you want to debate the science at a physician to physician level, please contact him. I'm sure he would be happy to engage with you in a sincere manor. I emailed him a few years ago and he responded. Give it a try. Or contact Steve Hickey. Either can have a discussion about the subject at a deeper level than me.

I'm curious. Are you currently practicing?

Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid while insisting that others must drink it. too. I do not care one iota if you wish you hade gome with Reverend Jim Jones on his sacred journey.

"If your Dad, wife or any close loved-one was in a similar situation where you were told "unplug him," and you had heard about Dr. Klenner's work, I can't imagine the lack of clinical trials would keep you from considering at least the possibility of trying the treatment."

Yes that is clearly understandable. It also reminds me of an old saying:

When you find yourself falling down a cliff, start flapping your arms and trying to fly. It can't make things worse, and you may just surprise yourself.

In this case, he *DID* fly (or bounce, or land in a haystack, or just passed a major Luck test) and the treatments he was given deserve at least a cursory test to try and figure out how on Sinatra's green world he did what he did.

I'm reminded of a similar case, one of the British Medical Institutes mapped out Ozzy Osbourne's DNA to answer the question of "How did this guy manage to do ALL those drugs and not die three times over?" Turns out he's a mutant, his genes code for a protein or enzyme that breaks down opiates and barbituates much faster than us mere humans.

I am being somewhat of a minimalist in my presentation for making a case for "trying" it. As mentioned in earlier posts several physicians (on the map, and others off the map) have been using IV vitamin C for decades and just keeping a low profile. There are many hundreds of additional cases, beyond Klenner's 3,000+; not just the Alan Smith case. His was high profile because it aired on TV in New Zealand.

As mentioned in my reply to phph001, Dr. Jacobs thinks it demands more than a cursory look. Although, he wants to reinvent the wheel.

No, you are not being a minimalist. You are being a pedantic maximalist. Your egomania or other disorder insists on force feeding this medical clap trap onto an engineering blog for reasons that baffle me.

Forcing a human body to exceed the concentration of any chemical above or below what the alimentary canal will permit and the excretory system will void by applying an intravenous (IV) push is probably the most invasive medical procedure known. Rank amateurs should not perform, promote or for one the sole exception of a purely desperate moment even consider such an act.

STFU!!!!!

Hm-m-m-m? I have acquired a distaste for modern posting/texting/email acronyms as it carries minimalism a bit too for for my taste. "So Try Finding Umbrage" using specific, valid reasons, rather than vague generalities.

I'll apologize ahead of time for the length my reply. It should be my last. (I can hear the cheers -- you in the lead. )

I honestly don't mean to make anyone angry when posting about anything. Guess my posts just rub some the wrong way. I'm sorry I have upset you and anyone else. Some here can have a civilized discussion, even if they don't like the person (via their presentation) posting. I am sorry to have pushed you beyond that threshold. But there is frustration from proponents on the other side of the fence, too. I try not to use anger to present whatever viewpoint I am presenting.

I will, also, honestly do my best to make this my last post in this thread, which by the way, is valid for the the BioMech & BioMed topic area. Admins can correct me if my posts have been in error. So far they have let them stand. The links and discussion I have posted are specific to dealing with infectious disease.

Intravenous injection of "therapeutic substances," apparently started around 1850. As with most "applied" techniques incorporated by medical professionals, they come into use and are just commonly accepted. In other words their safety is a matter of anecdotal testing. In advocating that people should be willing to experiment with health supplements, after due research, I have never suggested IV administration as something a non-professional medical person should do. For any type of IV medical protocol, any of us should seek out someone trained in that. Nurses do it all the time in clinics and hospitals, so it doesn't require a full blown medical degree to do the procedure. And the dosage and interval should be done by a physician with experience doing it. My allusion to experimenting is strictly oral ingestion of supplements -- with the usual caveats about fat soluble vitamins.

This is really very straight forward.

Using a spray bottle it is quite easy to extinguish a burning match. Try the same thing on a burning building and you would be considered foolish. But fire departments still use water, for the most part, to try to extinguish burning buildings. The "therapeutic" substance in this case is water. It is the rate of application (concentration, if you will) of water that allows it to put out a large fire vs. using a spray bottle for the purpose. No other "routes of administration" compare in rate and concentration. Digestive ingestion is just too limited for critical situations.

Intravenous administration of therapeutic substances, is usually done in the interest of time -- the rate of application -- but also plasma concentration. The basic ways to get any substance in the body are: orally, via the digestive system, nasally, via the rectum, through skin absorption, and via the relatively new liposomal nano-technology. Liposomal absorption bypasses normal digestion. Which is why liposomal vitamin C seems much more effective than standard oral.

I think a standard IV in an emergency room is likely to be Ringer's solution (or similar) which is a standardized mix of electrolytes as salts with a buffering compound like sodium bicarbonate. A main ingredient is potassium chloride, which, in comparison to sodium ascorbate is much more likely to be lethal, if misapplied, due to variation in concentration and/or rate of application. It stops the heart due to accelerated activity.

Intravenous application of any substance as a therapeutic agent is done when other "routes of administration" are too slow and/or too ineffective. No one would suggest IV administration to be an indefinite way to live no matter what substance is being applied. It is finite, hopefully short term, for crisis situations. But one might be able to reach fire hose concentration whereas the digestive route would be like the spray bottle. Anecdotal experience of Dr. Klenner and current proponents say it works for any number of infectious and toxic substances. Ebola? Who knows until it is tried.

The team at The Albert Einstein College of Medicine, seems to think the substance has proven its mettle -- at least with a very resistant strain of TB.

Chemotherapy is done in a life or death scenario, usually by IV, because of the mentioned advantages of speed of application and concentration. And it is quite destructive to the rest of the body along the way -- a real shotgun approach.

The only real question regarding the subject of IV sodium ascorbate (the IV form of vitamin C) is its efficacy as a therapeutic agent. Plain and simple. It has more leeway in variation of concentration and application, as far as safety, than potassium chloride, or any number of pharmaceuticals that might be given via IV administration.

Dr. Jacob's opinion that the discovery about vitamin C killing the resistant form of TB was startling and now, (in his opinion) gives reason to warrant clinical trials, is old news to those who for, decades now, have been making similar valid observations from direct clinical use. This is part of the willful ignorance I see regarding the subject. To me it is also disingenuous. Still, if you want to label his opinion as clap-trap...

How many times did they do the experiment in which they got this startling result? I bet a lot less than the 3,000+ cases that Dr. Klenner treated and documented. So if a few PhD's do an experiment and observe this startling capability of vitamin C, their opinion as to the worth of investigating vitamin C as a possible treatment for a resistant form of TB, suddenly becomes worthy of news articles across a spectrum of online scientific news venues. But a handful of people (physicians and scientists) have for, going on 65 years, now, been saying, "Hey. Take a look at what we're seeing IV vitamin C do." And now one can add the increasing positive experience with liposomal delivery. And no one has paid any attention to their work.

I would hope you can imagine the frustration and anger on the proponents side, too. They're not just frustrated due to debating "theories," they're offering their experience -- anecdotal, though it be -- trying to get other physicians and researchers to try it for themselves. Dr. Klenner wasn't seeking notoriety or wealth. He had no "blog," nor was he peddling any health products. He quietly went about doing what his experience showed him to be right and helpful to his patients.

Given its safety and, now, some notoriety because Dr. Jacobs and his colleagues made the announcement that it kills TB bacteria, AND that the WHO is going to try unapproved methods to stem the spread of Ebola, why not include IV sodium ascorbate??

I know of at least a couple of people who frequent the forum who would surely support this idea. I guess they prefer to stay out of the fray.

I'm happy with my perspective and I assume you are happy with yours. Fine. I had been off of CR4 for quite some time when I saw the Ebola post. I thought... well, maybe just once more. I hope, in this post, I have reduced the conceptual argument for its inclusion in experiments by prevailing organizations to the simplest, most basic level.

You, as well as any readers here can just unsubscribe from threads they find objectionable. Unless my conscience overrides, I'll refrain from posting on this subject anymore. I had already mentioned, I think I've done it quite enough. I was hoping the ongoing "discoveries" might change a few minds. I guess not.

I don't like disharmony, but in my current circumstances in life I would rather present what I know to be worthwhile, rather than worry about making friends -- another online phenomena I find silly.

Good evening.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

Please stop. I'm bored.

I sympathise. I am medically qualified and I am bored too. I can assure everybody that large sections of this text are complete nonsense, betraying as they do a complete lack of understanding of elementary physiology and biochemistry.

Well, let's start something intelligent then?

Have you read about that blood filter device Aethlon Medical makes that the German Frankfurt University hospital used to "cure" an ebola patient?

The claim was that the patient's viral blood count went from 400,000 to 1,000 viral copies per milliliter following one 6.5 hour treatment with the filter in a standard dialysis machine.

Granted, dialysis itself is not risk free, but it seems like this may be another viable tool in the tool chest for doctors to use when standard treatment for viral infections are not working.

Additionally, it looks like they augmented this treatment with a battery of other drugs, but it sounds like the filter was a major contributor to the patient's recovery.

The research is ongoing but promising. Here is an early paper suggesting some fairly dramatic responses in patients with hepatitis C virus infection:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19169020
In fact the result looks so good that you wonder why it is taking so long to get full approval. Given that the device also absorbs exosomes, which are probably involved in the spread of cancers, I would have expected a lot more excitement.
The obvious question is what does it do to the red cells, white cells and platelets, but they seemingly pass the virus-absorbing material by.

Dang! And it was really meant to be my last post. This type of response leads to the obvious observation that there has been ample opportunity in the thread to point out any of those misunderstandings, specifically. Instead of assuring readers that the idea is a misunderstanding, correct, them. Gross misunderstandings can easily be summed up in a sentence or two. There is ample scientific information regarding the physiology and biochemistry of ascorbic acid supporting it. In the real world, experience sometimes trumps expectations, as the TB experiment demonstrates. Stare decisis. "Vitamin C slays TB" and ulcers are 2 good examples of how stare decisis can be wrong. Oxygen therapy provides for insufficiencies. Similar principle.

Regarding the implication that the discussion was not intelligent, ditto. There was ample time/space for physiological/biochemical discussion to make it more intelligent. Articles discussing the "said" phenomena/anecdotal experiences were linked to. Criticisms should have been on the specific points discussed in them. Don't let the ignorance stand for readers -- correct them.

Please, do ignore this post. (If one is really bored, one won't waste time stating the boredom.)

This post is only a notation for "other" readers (if there are any others) ala "be assured." We've had ample opportunity for a back and forth discussion of the physiology and biochemistry, but it never happened.

Since I am not medically trained, it should be child's play, for those who are, to run circles around me discussing the biochemistry and physiology that disproves any possibility of ascorbic acid having any therapeutic value. Disproofs offered, so far, are only "because."

Much to the chagrin of some, I'll occasionally check back to see if the possibility ever arises, so I can defend the information or admit I was wrong. I don't have problems with that, either. But I doubt it will.

Otherwise... Stopped.

I'm not bored. There is no evidence that Vitamin C has the slightest impact on the life expectancy of someone infected with ebola. Is it possible that a dose won't kill them? I'll give you that. An aspirin could make them feel better, also.

This gross misunderstanding is indeed gross. Some would call it delusional, drawing conclusions not supported by evidence. Sometimes it's the path to genius.

Dang! And it was really meant to be my last post.
Indeed, it should have been, demonstrating as it did that your background knowledge amounts to diddley-squat. For your information the solution referred to in hospitals as Ringer's contains no bicarbonate, for a very good reason which you should know. Furthermore potassium chloride is not a main ingredient. Since the concentration of potassium in Ringer's approximates to that of normal plasma it is difficult to see how the potassium in Ringer's could represent any sort of danger to the heart.
Nor can one see the relevance of the reference to liposomes in "new liposomal nano-technology". That material is injected intravenously (nothing new there) and the technology uses markers on the outside of the tumour cell to target the said tumour cells. Viruses do not hang their hats on the doorknob as they slip inside the cell. If the target is the virus in the bloodstream, then it would suffice to inject the antibody without any liposome.
We can now set up a syllogism:
1. You get it wrong on the bicarbonate content of Ringer's
2. You get it wrong on the risk to the heart of the potassium in Ringer's
3. You get it wrong on the relevance of liposomes
THEREFORE
4. There is no reason to believe you know anything about the therapeutic properties of vitamin C
I'll admit that a formal logic analysis might pick holes, but it remains an attractive proposition
Footnote:
Ringer's solution as used in US hospitals is named after Sydney Ringer, an English physiologist. The solution used in hospital contains lactate rather than bicarbonate. In the UK we use essentially the same solution and call it Hartmann's solution, after a US paediatrician A. F. Hartmann. Truly a prophet is without honour in his own country