LIFE Obey­ing the ‘laws’ of health

Sep­a­rat­ing med­i­cal fact from fic­tion

Edmonton Sun - - LIFE - Dr. gif­ford JONES

Break a law and you end up in jail. “Ig­no­rance of the law is no ex­cuse,” it’s said. So should ig­no­rance of med­i­cal facts ex­cuse any­one? Time and time again so-called med­i­cal ex­perts pub­lish il­log­i­cal re­ports with­out reper­cus­sion. Re­cently, a physi­cian stated pub­licly, “There is no case for vi­ta­min sup­ple­men­ta­tion in nor­mal, healthy, non-preg­nant adults who are re­ceiv­ing the rec­om­mended daily in­take of nu­tri­ents.” But is this med­i­cal fact or fic­tion?

Bill Sardi, a com­men­ta­tor on health is­sues, takes is­sue with this state­ment in the well-re­spected pub­li­ca­tion, Ortho­molec­u­lar News Ser­vice.

The doc­tor of­fered so-called proof of his state­ment that se­ri­ous tox­i­c­ity oc­curred in Arc­tic ex­plor­ers who con­sumed the liver of bears, which is rich in Vi­ta­min A. This caused in­creased pres­sure in their brain, vom­it­ing, dou­ble vi­sion, and con­vul­sions.

But Sardi ex­plains that bear’s liver con­tains mil­lions of in­ter­na­tional units (IU) of vi­ta­min A. So ob­vi­ously hu­mans should not eat bear’s liver. The Coun­cil for Re­spon­si­ble Nu­tri­tion adds it would take 25,000 to 50,000 IU of vi­ta­min A sup­ple­ment daily for sev­eral months to cause liver prob­lems. So why worry pa­tients when tak­ing the nor­mal dose of 5,000 to 10,000 IU daily has a long his­tory of safety?

The same doc­tor wrote that vi­ta­min D is not needed, un­less there is clin­i­cal in­di­ca­tion for it. This, in spite of the fact that an In­sti­tute of Medicine re­port in­di­cates that 25% of North Amer­i­cans are at risk of vi­ta­min D de­fi­ciency.

Of­fice work­ers get lim­ited sun ex­po­sure. And a study showed that chil­dren only re­ceive seven hours of sun­shine a week. More­over, dur­ing win­ter months, due to the an­gle of the sun’s rays, it pro­vides zero amount of vi­ta­min D, even if peo­ple were to stand out naked in the noon­day sun.

What bor­ders on in­san­ity is an­other state­ment that the daily amount of vi­ta­min C should not ex­ceed 45 mil­ligrams daily. I won­der where this critic has been hid­ing for so many years. We know as proven fact that, eons ago, a hu­man gene mu­ta­tion stopped the hu­man pro­duc­tion of vi­ta­min C. An­i­mals, with the ex­cep­tion of the guinea pig, were for­tu­nate and es­caped this mu­ta­tion. Dogs, for in­stance, man­u­fac­ture 5,000 mg of C daily. But should a dog de­velop an in­fec­tion, or be in­jured, it will man­u­fac­ture up to 100,000 mg daily!

I find it amaz­ing that this critic has not heard that sev­eral hun­dred thou­sand mil­ligrams of in­tra­venous vi­ta­min C saved the life of a New Zealand farmer dy­ing of Swine Flu virus. More­over, it is well doc­u­mented that Dr Fred­er­ick Klen­ner, a U.S. fam­ily doc­tor, saved 60 po­lio pa­tients from de­vel­op­ing paral­y­sis dur­ing the 1948 epi­demic of this dis­ease by pre­scrib­ing in­tra­venous C.

To­day, in spite of these his­tor­i­cal facts, it’s ap­palling that many physi­cians still do not know that po­lio, menin­gi­tis, en­cephali­tis, other vi­ral dis­eases, and even the bite of a rat­tlesnake, can be cured by large in­tra­venous doses of vi­ta­min C.

What I am writ­ing about is not science fic­tion. It’s a fact that a pill con­tain­ing 500 mg of C is not go­ing to pro­tect you if faced with dev­as­tat­ing in­fec­tion, se­vere emo­tional stress, or ma­jor surgery. These prob­lems im­me­di­ately de­crease the reser­voir of vi­ta­min C in the blood. In these sit­u­a­tions 10,000 to 20,000 mg of oral C daily are re­quired to re­store blood lev­els. And since C is wa­ter sol­u­ble, and lost in the urine, this amount should be taken in three di­vided doses.

Sardi’s ar­ti­cle points out that 100 mil­lion di­a­bet­ics in North Amer­ica have a greater need for vi­ta­min C. So do 50 mil­lion As­pirin users and mil­lions that still smoke, abuse al­co­hol, or take drugs, such as di­uret­ics that de­plete blood lev­els of vi­ta­min C.

Sardi adds that hos­pi­tal­ized and nurs­ing home pa­tients all re­quire ad­di­tional vi­ta­min C. And an of­ten neglected point, so do grow­ing chil­dren. Sardi con­cludes that out of a U.S. pop­u­la­tion of 325 mil­lion, 200 mil­lion have in­ad­e­quate amounts of vi­ta­min C and must rely on vi­ta­min sup­ple­ments. Medi-c Plus and other forms of high-pow­ered C can be ob­tained at Health Food Stores.

Ig­no­rance of med­i­cal facts, even by physi­cians, con­tin­ues to be a stub­born en­emy of truth­ful ther­apy. These facts must be re­peated un­til ev­ery­one lis­tens. ED­I­TOR’S NOTE: The col­umn does not con­sti­tute med­i­cal ad­vice and is not meant to di­ag­nose, treat, pre­vent or cure dis­ease. Please con­tact your doc­tor. The in­for­ma­tion pro­vided is for in­for­ma­tional pur­poses only and are the views solely of the au­thor. See For com­ments;


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.