This is an excellent example of intellectual absurdity by one DMM

[Guest guest]

This series of three posts copied below -- is an excellent example of

intellectual absurdity by one DMM.

 

Here we go again!

 

This writing by DMM is sent to disrupt our thinking.

 

These posts are by " Moles " . Please note the request for " proof " by a

writer who provides not even references!

 

These posts are intended to confuse those on the list that do not have time

to do the research.

 

These posts are intended to confuse. They have no other purpose.

 

Now watch-- I have written that what DMM has written is absurd and intended

to confuse. Watch for a reply to call " Me " names, and other personal

attacks------------- the refuge of scoundrels.

 

Lorenzo

 

 

> " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco

Re: Different Forms of Vitamin C

 

Just because someone popularly defines toothpaste as food does not

make it any more accurate or appropriate than calling ascorbic acid

vitamin C. I am not brining Pauling's work into question here, what

I am saying is that Paulings results came using the most substandard

non food vitamin c substitute available. The point is vitamin c is

as useful as he demonstrated only far more useful and effective when

vitamin c is the actual substance used. Ascorbic Acid is NOT vitamin

C and the results acheived with one are NOT the same as the other.

They are NOT synonymous regardless of the enormity of this cultural

error.

 

DMM

>> > This is a clever display of true intellectual dishonesty.

> > They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs. natural and

> > never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no more

> vitamin

> > c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make comparisons of

> > bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c from a food

> > source. And the reason is its not even close. Large amounts of

> > vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic acid is

> absurd.

> >

 

 

 

______________________

______________________

,

 

I am not certain what you want proof of ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin

C. I can't prove that anymore than I can proof that your arm is not

your head. It just ain't. The comments I made about the comparisons

that were made are from a post earlier in this thread.

 

DMM

 

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release 8/21/02

[Guest guest]

Lorenzo,

 

I am not a mole and I have no desire to " disrupt " your thinking other

than to have you understand that ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin C it is

ascorbic acid a singular synthetic chemical substance whereas vitamin

c is a complex (collection of) naturally occuring substances. The

claims about the positive effects of ascorbic acid when used

theraputically are TRUE! I am NOT trying to make you believe

otherwise your paranoia is getting the best of you. My point is that

these substances are NOT the same and any biochemist worth his salt

will tell you that if you extract vitamin c and concommitantly

produce synthetic ascorbic acid they are NOT the same substance.

You're making an illogical and impossible request when you ask for

proof that ascorbic acid is not vitamin C. As I said it is as absurd

as asking me to prove your head is not your arm. Simply stated your

head is NOT your arm and if you asked me to prove it... I can't, it

just is. If you insist on being so irrational as to understand the

lexicon of anatomy that states an arm is and arm and a head is a head

there is nothing that can be done for your understanding. The

biochemical lexicon says that vitamin C is a complex of many

naturally occuring substances and ascorbic acid is a synthetic

singular substance. The only people who state otherwise are ascorbic

acid manufacturers and those who fail to question their accuracy. My

point in these posts is simply that those of you who loved paulings

work will simply reap more benefits if you use his guidelines but

instead of using only ascorbic acid use real vitamin c with all of

its components. Its simple you can drive farther with a whole car

than you can with one tire. That's all, your defensiveness regarding

my intentions is foolish as I am in support of what you are doing. I

simply have come to this forum as I have others in an effort to be

helpful. Instead you are accusing me of malicious intent which I

resent. Just because I post something that questions

your " religious " faith based belief in a widespread accepted

overgeneralization and error does not require that you try to

discredit and or attack me.

 

I hope we do not have to continue persuing this line of

obnoxiousness. If you have questions just ask them. Please behave

as if I were standing face to face with you.

 

DMM

 

Gettingwell, " Lorenzo " <lorenzo1@w...> wrote:

> This series of three posts copied below -- is an excellent example

of

> intellectual absurdity by one DMM.

>

> Here we go again!

>

> This writing by DMM is sent to disrupt our thinking.

>

> These posts are by " Moles " . Please note the request for " proof "

by a

> writer who provides not even references!

>

> These posts are intended to confuse those on the list that do not

have time

> to do the research.

>

> These posts are intended to confuse. They have no other purpose.

>

> Now watch-- I have written that what DMM has written is absurd and

intended

> to confuse. Watch for a reply to call " Me " names, and other

personal

> attacks------------- the refuge of scoundrels.

>

> Lorenzo

>

>

> > " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

> Re: Different Forms of Vitamin C

>

> Just because someone popularly defines toothpaste as food does not

> make it any more accurate or appropriate than calling ascorbic acid

> vitamin C. I am not brining Pauling's work into question here, what

> I am saying is that Paulings results came using the most substandard

> non food vitamin c substitute available. The point is vitamin c is

> as useful as he demonstrated only far more useful and effective when

> vitamin c is the actual substance used. Ascorbic Acid is NOT

vitamin

> C and the results acheived with one are NOT the same as the other.

> They are NOT synonymous regardless of the enormity of this cultural

> error.

>

> DMM

> >> > This is a clever display of true intellectual dishonesty.

> > > They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs. natural and

> > > never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no more

> > vitamin

> > > c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make comparisons of

> > > bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c from a food

> > > source. And the reason is its not even close. Large amounts of

> > > vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic acid is

> > absurd.

> > >

>

>

>

>

____________________

__

>

____________________

__

> ,

>

> I am not certain what you want proof of ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin

> C. I can't prove that anymore than I can proof that your arm is not

> your head. It just ain't. The comments I made about the

comparisons

> that were made are from a post earlier in this thread.

>

> DMM

>

>

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release 8/21/02

[Guest guest]

DMM

There is only one point, with which I disagree, in your post below. It's

possible, I think you'll agree, that ascorbic acid, can have yeilded good

therapeutic results for Linus Pauling, " in spite " of being only a fraction

of Vit. C complex

-

" drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco

 

Saturday, September 07, 2002 10:55 AM

Re: This is an excellent example of intellectual

absurdity by one DMM

 

 

> Lorenzo,

>

> I am not a mole and I have no desire to " disrupt " your thinking other

> than to have you understand that ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin C it is

> ascorbic acid a singular synthetic chemical substance whereas vitamin

> c is a complex (collection of) naturally occuring substances. The

> claims about the positive effects of ascorbic acid when used

> theraputically are TRUE! I am NOT trying to make you believe

> otherwise your paranoia is getting the best of you. My point is that

> these substances are NOT the same and any biochemist worth his salt

> will tell you that if you extract vitamin c and concommitantly

> produce synthetic ascorbic acid they are NOT the same substance.

> You're making an illogical and impossible request when you ask for

> proof that ascorbic acid is not vitamin C. As I said it is as absurd

> as asking me to prove your head is not your arm. Simply stated your

> head is NOT your arm and if you asked me to prove it... I can't, it

> just is. If you insist on being so irrational as to understand the

> lexicon of anatomy that states an arm is and arm and a head is a head

> there is nothing that can be done for your understanding. The

> biochemical lexicon says that vitamin C is a complex of many

> naturally occuring substances and ascorbic acid is a synthetic

> singular substance. The only people who state otherwise are ascorbic

> acid manufacturers and those who fail to question their accuracy. My

> point in these posts is simply that those of you who loved paulings

> work will simply reap more benefits if you use his guidelines but

> instead of using only ascorbic acid use real vitamin c with all of

> its components. Its simple you can drive farther with a whole car

> than you can with one tire. That's all, your defensiveness regarding

> my intentions is foolish as I am in support of what you are doing. I

> simply have come to this forum as I have others in an effort to be

> helpful. Instead you are accusing me of malicious intent which I

> resent. Just because I post something that questions

> your " religious " faith based belief in a widespread accepted

> overgeneralization and error does not require that you try to

> discredit and or attack me.

>

> I hope we do not have to continue persuing this line of

> obnoxiousness. If you have questions just ask them. Please behave

> as if I were standing face to face with you.

>

> DMM

>

> Gettingwell, " Lorenzo " <lorenzo1@w...> wrote:

> > This series of three posts copied below -- is an excellent example

> of

> > intellectual absurdity by one DMM.

> >

> > Here we go again!

> >

> > This writing by DMM is sent to disrupt our thinking.

> >

> > These posts are by " Moles " . Please note the request for " proof "

> by a

> > writer who provides not even references!

> >

> > These posts are intended to confuse those on the list that do not

> have time

> > to do the research.

> >

> > These posts are intended to confuse. They have no other purpose.

> >

> > Now watch-- I have written that what DMM has written is absurd and

> intended

> > to confuse. Watch for a reply to call " Me " names, and other

> personal

> > attacks------------- the refuge of scoundrels.

> >

> > Lorenzo

> >

> >

> > > " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

> > Re: Different Forms of Vitamin C

> >

> > Just because someone popularly defines toothpaste as food does not

> > make it any more accurate or appropriate than calling ascorbic acid

> > vitamin C. I am not brining Pauling's work into question here, what

> > I am saying is that Paulings results came using the most substandard

> > non food vitamin c substitute available. The point is vitamin c is

> > as useful as he demonstrated only far more useful and effective when

> > vitamin c is the actual substance used. Ascorbic Acid is NOT

> vitamin

> > C and the results acheived with one are NOT the same as the other.

> > They are NOT synonymous regardless of the enormity of this cultural

> > error.

> >

> > DMM

> > >> > This is a clever display of true intellectual dishonesty.

> > > > They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs. natural and

> > > > never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no more

> > > vitamin

> > > > c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make comparisons of

> > > > bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c from a food

> > > > source. And the reason is its not even close. Large amounts of

> > > > vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic acid is

> > > absurd.

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> ____________________

> __

> >

> ____________________

> __

> > ,

> >

> > I am not certain what you want proof of ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin

> > C. I can't prove that anymore than I can proof that your arm is not

> > your head. It just ain't. The comments I made about the

> comparisons

> > that were made are from a post earlier in this thread.

> >

> > DMM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ---

> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release 8/21/02

>

>

>

> Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health

> and well being.

>

> list or archives: Gettingwell

>

> ........ Gettingwell-

> post............. Gettingwell

> digest form...... Gettingwell-digest

> individual emails Gettingwell-normal

> no email......... Gettingwell-nomail

> moderator ....... Gettingwell-owner

> ...... Gettingwell-

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

as I have posted now for the 3rd time, paulings work is beyond

reproach and he obviously vielded far in excess of just " good " with

the synthetic ascorbic acid fraction. My point all along is to

simply say that the use of actual vitamin c INCLUDING its ascorbic

component will yeild even better results than the fraction. I'm not

suggesting to reduce dosage or change his protocols I'm simply saying

that real vitamin c is far easier to assimilate and utilize and

therefore more suitable for humans. If anyone wants to continue

using the synthetic ascorbic acid fraction of vitamin c that's

perfectly fine. Just be accurate when you refer to it and instead of

being a zealot (not you John) simply acknowledge that it is NOT

vitamin C but instead simply a part of. This is just simply

biochemical fact and in no way reflects negatively on pauling's work

or his protocols.

 

DMM

 

Gettingwell, " John Polifronio " <counterpnt@e...> wrote:

> DMM

> There is only one point, with which I disagree, in your post

below. It's

> possible, I think you'll agree, that ascorbic acid, can have

yeilded good

> therapeutic results for Linus Pauling, " in spite " of being only a

fraction

> of Vit. C complex

> -

> " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

> <Gettingwell>

> Saturday, September 07, 2002 10:55 AM

> Re: This is an excellent example of

intellectual

> absurdity by one DMM

>

>

> > Lorenzo,

> >

> > I am not a mole and I have no desire to " disrupt " your thinking

other

> > than to have you understand that ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin C

it is

> > ascorbic acid a singular synthetic chemical substance whereas

vitamin

> > c is a complex (collection of) naturally occuring substances. The

> > claims about the positive effects of ascorbic acid when used

> > theraputically are TRUE! I am NOT trying to make you believe

> > otherwise your paranoia is getting the best of you. My point is

that

> > these substances are NOT the same and any biochemist worth his

salt

> > will tell you that if you extract vitamin c and concommitantly

> > produce synthetic ascorbic acid they are NOT the same substance.

> > You're making an illogical and impossible request when you ask for

> > proof that ascorbic acid is not vitamin C. As I said it is as

absurd

> > as asking me to prove your head is not your arm. Simply stated

your

> > head is NOT your arm and if you asked me to prove it... I can't,

it

> > just is. If you insist on being so irrational as to understand

the

> > lexicon of anatomy that states an arm is and arm and a head is a

head

> > there is nothing that can be done for your understanding. The

> > biochemical lexicon says that vitamin C is a complex of many

> > naturally occuring substances and ascorbic acid is a synthetic

> > singular substance. The only people who state otherwise are

ascorbic

> > acid manufacturers and those who fail to question their

accuracy. My

> > point in these posts is simply that those of you who loved

paulings

> > work will simply reap more benefits if you use his guidelines but

> > instead of using only ascorbic acid use real vitamin c with all of

> > its components. Its simple you can drive farther with a whole car

> > than you can with one tire. That's all, your defensiveness

regarding

> > my intentions is foolish as I am in support of what you are

doing. I

> > simply have come to this forum as I have others in an effort to be

> > helpful. Instead you are accusing me of malicious intent which I

> > resent. Just because I post something that questions

> > your " religious " faith based belief in a widespread accepted

> > overgeneralization and error does not require that you try to

> > discredit and or attack me.

> >

> > I hope we do not have to continue persuing this line of

> > obnoxiousness. If you have questions just ask them. Please

behave

> > as if I were standing face to face with you.

> >

> > DMM

> >

> > Gettingwell, " Lorenzo " <lorenzo1@w...> wrote:

> > > This series of three posts copied below -- is an excellent

example

> > of

> > > intellectual absurdity by one DMM.

> > >

> > > Here we go again!

> > >

> > > This writing by DMM is sent to disrupt our thinking.

> > >

> > > These posts are by " Moles " . Please note the request

for " proof "

> > by a

> > > writer who provides not even references!

> > >

> > > These posts are intended to confuse those on the list that do

not

> > have time

> > > to do the research.

> > >

> > > These posts are intended to confuse. They have no other

purpose.

> > >

> > > Now watch-- I have written that what DMM has written is absurd

and

> > intended

> > > to confuse. Watch for a reply to call " Me " names, and other

> > personal

> > > attacks------------- the refuge of scoundrels.

> > >

> > > Lorenzo

> > >

> > >

> > > > " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

> > > Re: Different Forms of Vitamin C

> > >

> > > Just because someone popularly defines toothpaste as food does

not

> > > make it any more accurate or appropriate than calling ascorbic

acid

> > > vitamin C. I am not brining Pauling's work into question here,

what

> > > I am saying is that Paulings results came using the most

substandard

> > > non food vitamin c substitute available. The point is vitamin

c is

> > > as useful as he demonstrated only far more useful and effective

when

> > > vitamin c is the actual substance used. Ascorbic Acid is NOT

> > vitamin

> > > C and the results acheived with one are NOT the same as the

other.

> > > They are NOT synonymous regardless of the enormity of this

cultural

> > > error.

> > >

> > > DMM

> > > >> > This is a clever display of true intellectual dishonesty.

> > > > > They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs.

natural and

> > > > > never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no more

> > > > vitamin

> > > > > c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make

comparisons of

> > > > > bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c from a

food

> > > > > source. And the reason is its not even close. Large

amounts of

> > > > > vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic acid is

> > > > absurd.

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

____________________

> > __

> > >

> >

____________________

> > __

> > > ,

> > >

> > > I am not certain what you want proof of ascorbic acid is NOT

vitamin

> > > C. I can't prove that anymore than I can proof that your arm

is not

> > > your head. It just ain't. The comments I made about the

> > comparisons

> > > that were made are from a post earlier in this thread.

> > >

> > > DMM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ---

> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > > Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release 8/21/02

> >

> >

> >

> > Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building

health

> > and well being.

> >

> > list or archives: Gettingwell

> >

> > ........ Gettingwell-

> > post............. Gettingwell

> > digest form...... Gettingwell-digest

> > individual emails Gettingwell-normal

> > no email......... Gettingwell-nomail

> > moderator ....... Gettingwell-owner

> > ...... Gettingwell-

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

-

" drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco

 

Sunday, September 08, 2002 4:32 AM

Re: This is an excellent example of

intellectual absurdity by one DMM

 

 

> as I have posted now for the 3rd time, paulings work is beyond

> reproach and he obviously vielded far in excess of just " good " with

> the synthetic ascorbic acid fraction. My point all along is to

> simply say that the use of actual vitamin c INCLUDING its ascorbic

> component will yeild even better results than the fraction. I'm

not

> suggesting to reduce dosage or change his protocols I'm simply

saying

> that real vitamin c is far easier to assimilate and utilize and

> therefore more suitable for humans. If anyone wants to continue

> using the synthetic ascorbic acid fraction of vitamin c that's

> perfectly fine. Just be accurate when you refer to it and instead

of

> being a zealot (not you John) simply acknowledge that it is NOT

> vitamin C but instead simply a part of. This is just simply

> biochemical fact and in no way reflects negatively on pauling's

work

> or his protocols.

>

> DMM

 

Le me phrase things in a different way. Please correct me if

my basic assumptions are wrong here. To the best of my knowledge,

the researchers who first investigated Ascorbic acid, named it

Vitamin C. For individuals or small groups to decide to re-define

what Vitamin C is composed of is (imo) a semantic nightmare.

Nomenclature is important. If one researcher gets interesting

results with a combination of ascorbic acid plus bioflavanoids, it is

confusing if he or she says that the combo is the *real* vitamin C.

Far better to simply say vitamin C plus bioflavanoids are a useful

combination.

 

I am not saying scientists do not change definitions.

Astronomers did exactly that with the word " planet " ) -- but such

re-definitions seem to lead to confusion. I meet many intelligent

people who seem to think that the ancients were wrong to call the sun

& moon planets, when, in reality, the definitions changed & neither

the ancients or modern folk are incorrect. They are just talking

about two different definitions.

 

Now, if there is a movement of concerned scientists who are

in the process of re-defining vitamin C, I'd like to see some essays

or a web page to read their arguments. But simply stating that your

definition is correct & the rest of the world is mistaken does not

really serve much good that I am ale to perceive.

 

Alobar

[Guest guest]

I continue to search for the best C (as a whole complex) on the market, just

as I continue to take E as mixed tocopherols/tocotrienols, A+mixed

carotenoids, etc. (let us know of a marketed product(s) recommendation for

C).

It's strange, however, that, as I recall when I read Pauling's own comments,

he said that there was no reason to be concerned about the form of C one

administered, and that plain ascorbic acid was adequate. I also believe he

wrote that, of all the mineral ascorbate products available to people,

sodium-ascorbate was the one he slightly preferred. I suspect he would view

this all somewhat differently today. Nutriton is the sort of science that

is in constant flux and change, as new information, of which there appears

to be a prodigious supply, appears.

Are you aware of any evidence, that prolonged administration of C, with or

without Lysine/Proline, etc., in mega-doses, can have any coronary

artery/blood vessel, cleansing/plaque reducing action?

John P.

-

" drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco

 

Sunday, September 08, 2002 2:32 AM

Re: This is an excellent example of intellectual

absurdity by one DMM

 

 

> as I have posted now for the 3rd time, paulings work is beyond

> reproach and he obviously vielded far in excess of just " good " with

> the synthetic ascorbic acid fraction. My point all along is to

> simply say that the use of actual vitamin c INCLUDING its ascorbic

> component will yeild even better results than the fraction. I'm not

> suggesting to reduce dosage or change his protocols I'm simply saying

> that real vitamin c is far easier to assimilate and utilize and

> therefore more suitable for humans. If anyone wants to continue

> using the synthetic ascorbic acid fraction of vitamin c that's

> perfectly fine. Just be accurate when you refer to it and instead of

> being a zealot (not you John) simply acknowledge that it is NOT

> vitamin C but instead simply a part of. This is just simply

> biochemical fact and in no way reflects negatively on pauling's work

> or his protocols.

>

> DMM

>

> Gettingwell, " John Polifronio " <counterpnt@e...> wrote:

> > DMM

> > There is only one point, with which I disagree, in your post

> below. It's

> > possible, I think you'll agree, that ascorbic acid, can have

> yeilded good

> > therapeutic results for Linus Pauling, " in spite " of being only a

> fraction

> > of Vit. C complex

> > -

> > " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

> > <Gettingwell>

> > Saturday, September 07, 2002 10:55 AM

> > Re: This is an excellent example of

> intellectual

> > absurdity by one DMM

> >

> >

> > > Lorenzo,

> > >

> > > I am not a mole and I have no desire to " disrupt " your thinking

> other

> > > than to have you understand that ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin C

> it is

> > > ascorbic acid a singular synthetic chemical substance whereas

> vitamin

> > > c is a complex (collection of) naturally occuring substances. The

> > > claims about the positive effects of ascorbic acid when used

> > > theraputically are TRUE! I am NOT trying to make you believe

> > > otherwise your paranoia is getting the best of you. My point is

> that

> > > these substances are NOT the same and any biochemist worth his

> salt

> > > will tell you that if you extract vitamin c and concommitantly

> > > produce synthetic ascorbic acid they are NOT the same substance.

> > > You're making an illogical and impossible request when you ask for

> > > proof that ascorbic acid is not vitamin C. As I said it is as

> absurd

> > > as asking me to prove your head is not your arm. Simply stated

> your

> > > head is NOT your arm and if you asked me to prove it... I can't,

> it

> > > just is. If you insist on being so irrational as to understand

> the

> > > lexicon of anatomy that states an arm is and arm and a head is a

> head

> > > there is nothing that can be done for your understanding. The

> > > biochemical lexicon says that vitamin C is a complex of many

> > > naturally occuring substances and ascorbic acid is a synthetic

> > > singular substance. The only people who state otherwise are

> ascorbic

> > > acid manufacturers and those who fail to question their

> accuracy. My

> > > point in these posts is simply that those of you who loved

> paulings

> > > work will simply reap more benefits if you use his guidelines but

> > > instead of using only ascorbic acid use real vitamin c with all of

> > > its components. Its simple you can drive farther with a whole car

> > > than you can with one tire. That's all, your defensiveness

> regarding

> > > my intentions is foolish as I am in support of what you are

> doing. I

> > > simply have come to this forum as I have others in an effort to be

> > > helpful. Instead you are accusing me of malicious intent which I

> > > resent. Just because I post something that questions

> > > your " religious " faith based belief in a widespread accepted

> > > overgeneralization and error does not require that you try to

> > > discredit and or attack me.

> > >

> > > I hope we do not have to continue persuing this line of

> > > obnoxiousness. If you have questions just ask them. Please

> behave

> > > as if I were standing face to face with you.

> > >

> > > DMM

> > >

> > > Gettingwell, " Lorenzo " <lorenzo1@w...> wrote:

> > > > This series of three posts copied below -- is an excellent

> example

> > > of

> > > > intellectual absurdity by one DMM.

> > > >

> > > > Here we go again!

> > > >

> > > > This writing by DMM is sent to disrupt our thinking.

> > > >

> > > > These posts are by " Moles " . Please note the request

> for " proof "

> > > by a

> > > > writer who provides not even references!

> > > >

> > > > These posts are intended to confuse those on the list that do

> not

> > > have time

> > > > to do the research.

> > > >

> > > > These posts are intended to confuse. They have no other

> purpose.

> > > >

> > > > Now watch-- I have written that what DMM has written is absurd

> and

> > > intended

> > > > to confuse. Watch for a reply to call " Me " names, and other

> > > personal

> > > > attacks------------- the refuge of scoundrels.

> > > >

> > > > Lorenzo

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

> > > > Re: Different Forms of Vitamin C

> > > >

> > > > Just because someone popularly defines toothpaste as food does

> not

> > > > make it any more accurate or appropriate than calling ascorbic

> acid

> > > > vitamin C. I am not brining Pauling's work into question here,

> what

> > > > I am saying is that Paulings results came using the most

> substandard

> > > > non food vitamin c substitute available. The point is vitamin

> c is

> > > > as useful as he demonstrated only far more useful and effective

> when

> > > > vitamin c is the actual substance used. Ascorbic Acid is NOT

> > > vitamin

> > > > C and the results acheived with one are NOT the same as the

> other.

> > > > They are NOT synonymous regardless of the enormity of this

> cultural

> > > > error.

> > > >

> > > > DMM

> > > > >> > This is a clever display of true intellectual dishonesty.

> > > > > > They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs.

> natural and

> > > > > > never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no more

> > > > > vitamin

> > > > > > c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make

> comparisons of

> > > > > > bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c from a

> food

> > > > > > source. And the reason is its not even close. Large

> amounts of

> > > > > > vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic acid is

> > > > > absurd.

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> ____________________

> > > __

> > > >

> > >

> ____________________

> > > __

> > > > ,

> > > >

> > > > I am not certain what you want proof of ascorbic acid is NOT

> vitamin

> > > > C. I can't prove that anymore than I can proof that your arm

> is not

> > > > your head. It just ain't. The comments I made about the

> > > comparisons

> > > > that were made are from a post earlier in this thread.

> > > >

> > > > DMM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ---

> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > > > Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release 8/21/02

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building

> health

> > > and well being.

> > >

> > > list or archives: Gettingwell

> > >

> > > ........ Gettingwell-

> > > post............. Gettingwell

> > > digest form...... Gettingwell-digest

> > > individual emails Gettingwell-normal

> > > no email......... Gettingwell-nomail

> > > moderator ....... Gettingwell-owner

> > > ...... Gettingwell-

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

For individuals or small groups to decide to re-define

> what Vitamin C is composed of is (imo) a semantic nightmare.

> Nomenclature is important.

 

 

======This is exactly why we are even having this ridiculous

conversation Vitamin C is Vitamin C ascorbic acid is ascorbic acid

and they are NOT the same substance. You are correct at some point

someone decided they would be called equivalents and they are not. I

agree this IS a nomenclature NIGHTMARE. I am not trying to re-define

it I am clarifying the real definition. An example of this is when

the fda defines vitamin c they define it as ascorbic acid but this is

a regulatory agency not a bastian of science. When a biologist or

biophysiologist looks at vitamin C he looks at the substance that

comes from food that is a complex of substances. Even ascorbic acid

with bioflavanoids is NOT vitamin C just as a tire and a steering

wheel do not constitute a car.

 

DMM

 

 

 

 

If one researcher gets interesting

> results with a combination of ascorbic acid plus bioflavanoids, it

is

> confusing if he or she says that the combo is the *real* vitamin C.

> Far better to simply say vitamin C plus bioflavanoids are a useful

> combination.

>

> I am not saying scientists do not change definitions.

> Astronomers did exactly that with the word " planet " ) -- but such

> re-definitions seem to lead to confusion. I meet many intelligent

> people who seem to think that the ancients were wrong to call the

sun

> & moon planets, when, in reality, the definitions changed & neither

> the ancients or modern folk are incorrect. They are just talking

> about two different definitions.

>

> Now, if there is a movement of concerned scientists who are

> in the process of re-defining vitamin C, I'd like to see some essays

> or a web page to read their arguments. But simply stating that

your

> definition is correct & the rest of the world is mistaken does not

> really serve much good that I am ale to perceive.

>

> Alobar

[Guest guest]

Firstly, if you or anyone else wants to continue using synthetic aa

that's fine. My intention was to be helpful. Whether you consume 5g

of actual vitamin c or 5g of synthetic aa it likely costs the same

amount and you will get much more substance in your 5g of C that's

all. Your approach along with much of the unscientific scientific

community of the last 50 years is on in which context appears to be

irrelevant. C as its entire substance is no different than one part

of C. E as its entire substance is no different than one part of E.

Just as the same exact logic would yeild a tire and a muffler = a

car. I do not dispute any of the benefits of synthetic aa I do

however think that context does matter and when the context is right

the results are much improved.

 

DMM

 

Gettingwell, " John Polifronio " <counterpnt@e...> wrote:

> I continue to search for the best C (as a whole complex) on the

market, just

> as I continue to take E as mixed tocopherols/tocotrienols, A+mixed

> carotenoids, etc. (let us know of a marketed product(s)

recommendation for

> C).

> It's strange, however, that, as I recall when I read Pauling's own

comments,

> he said that there was no reason to be concerned about the form of

C one

> administered, and that plain ascorbic acid was adequate. I also

believe he

> wrote that, of all the mineral ascorbate products available to

people,

> sodium-ascorbate was the one he slightly preferred. I suspect he

would view

> this all somewhat differently today. Nutriton is the sort of

science that

> is in constant flux and change, as new information, of which there

appears

> to be a prodigious supply, appears.

> Are you aware of any evidence, that prolonged administration of C,

with or

> without Lysine/Proline, etc., in mega-doses, can have any coronary

> artery/blood vessel, cleansing/plaque reducing action?

> John P.

> -

> " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

> <Gettingwell>

> Sunday, September 08, 2002 2:32 AM

> Re: This is an excellent example of

intellectual

> absurdity by one DMM

>

>

> > as I have posted now for the 3rd time, paulings work is beyond

> > reproach and he obviously vielded far in excess of just " good " with

> > the synthetic ascorbic acid fraction. My point all along is to

> > simply say that the use of actual vitamin c INCLUDING its ascorbic

> > component will yeild even better results than the fraction. I'm

not

> > suggesting to reduce dosage or change his protocols I'm simply

saying

> > that real vitamin c is far easier to assimilate and utilize and

> > therefore more suitable for humans. If anyone wants to continue

> > using the synthetic ascorbic acid fraction of vitamin c that's

> > perfectly fine. Just be accurate when you refer to it and

instead of

> > being a zealot (not you John) simply acknowledge that it is NOT

> > vitamin C but instead simply a part of. This is just simply

> > biochemical fact and in no way reflects negatively on pauling's

work

> > or his protocols.

> >

> > DMM

> >

> > Gettingwell, " John Polifronio " <counterpnt@e...>

wrote:

> > > DMM

> > > There is only one point, with which I disagree, in your post

> > below. It's

> > > possible, I think you'll agree, that ascorbic acid, can have

> > yeilded good

> > > therapeutic results for Linus Pauling, " in spite " of being only

a

> > fraction

> > > of Vit. C complex

> > > -

> > > " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

> > > <Gettingwell>

> > > Saturday, September 07, 2002 10:55 AM

> > > Re: This is an excellent example of

> > intellectual

> > > absurdity by one DMM

> > >

> > >

> > > > Lorenzo,

> > > >

> > > > I am not a mole and I have no desire to " disrupt " your

thinking

> > other

> > > > than to have you understand that ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin

C

> > it is

> > > > ascorbic acid a singular synthetic chemical substance whereas

> > vitamin

> > > > c is a complex (collection of) naturally occuring

substances. The

> > > > claims about the positive effects of ascorbic acid when used

> > > > theraputically are TRUE! I am NOT trying to make you believe

> > > > otherwise your paranoia is getting the best of you. My point

is

> > that

> > > > these substances are NOT the same and any biochemist worth his

> > salt

> > > > will tell you that if you extract vitamin c and concommitantly

> > > > produce synthetic ascorbic acid they are NOT the same

substance.

> > > > You're making an illogical and impossible request when you

ask for

> > > > proof that ascorbic acid is not vitamin C. As I said it is as

> > absurd

> > > > as asking me to prove your head is not your arm. Simply

stated

> > your

> > > > head is NOT your arm and if you asked me to prove it... I

can't,

> > it

> > > > just is. If you insist on being so irrational as to

understand

> > the

> > > > lexicon of anatomy that states an arm is and arm and a head

is a

> > head

> > > > there is nothing that can be done for your understanding. The

> > > > biochemical lexicon says that vitamin C is a complex of many

> > > > naturally occuring substances and ascorbic acid is a synthetic

> > > > singular substance. The only people who state otherwise are

> > ascorbic

> > > > acid manufacturers and those who fail to question their

> > accuracy. My

> > > > point in these posts is simply that those of you who loved

> > paulings

> > > > work will simply reap more benefits if you use his guidelines

but

> > > > instead of using only ascorbic acid use real vitamin c with

all of

> > > > its components. Its simple you can drive farther with a

whole car

> > > > than you can with one tire. That's all, your defensiveness

> > regarding

> > > > my intentions is foolish as I am in support of what you are

> > doing. I

> > > > simply have come to this forum as I have others in an effort

to be

> > > > helpful. Instead you are accusing me of malicious intent

which I

> > > > resent. Just because I post something that questions

> > > > your " religious " faith based belief in a widespread accepted

> > > > overgeneralization and error does not require that you try to

> > > > discredit and or attack me.

> > > >

> > > > I hope we do not have to continue persuing this line of

> > > > obnoxiousness. If you have questions just ask them. Please

> > behave

> > > > as if I were standing face to face with you.

> > > >

> > > > DMM

> > > >

> > > > Gettingwell, " Lorenzo " <lorenzo1@w...> wrote:

> > > > > This series of three posts copied below -- is an excellent

> > example

> > > > of

> > > > > intellectual absurdity by one DMM.

> > > > >

> > > > > Here we go again!

> > > > >

> > > > > This writing by DMM is sent to disrupt our thinking.

> > > > >

> > > > > These posts are by " Moles " . Please note the request

> > for " proof "

> > > > by a

> > > > > writer who provides not even references!

> > > > >

> > > > > These posts are intended to confuse those on the list that

do

> > not

> > > > have time

> > > > > to do the research.

> > > > >

> > > > > These posts are intended to confuse. They have no other

> > purpose.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now watch-- I have written that what DMM has written is

absurd

> > and

> > > > intended

> > > > > to confuse. Watch for a reply to call " Me " names, and

other

> > > > personal

> > > > > attacks------------- the refuge of scoundrels.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lorenzo

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

> > > > > Re: Different Forms of Vitamin C

> > > > >

> > > > > Just because someone popularly defines toothpaste as food

does

> > not

> > > > > make it any more accurate or appropriate than calling

ascorbic

> > acid

> > > > > vitamin C. I am not brining Pauling's work into question

here,

> > what

> > > > > I am saying is that Paulings results came using the most

> > substandard

> > > > > non food vitamin c substitute available. The point is

vitamin

> > c is

> > > > > as useful as he demonstrated only far more useful and

effective

> > when

> > > > > vitamin c is the actual substance used. Ascorbic Acid is

NOT

> > > > vitamin

> > > > > C and the results acheived with one are NOT the same as the

> > other.

> > > > > They are NOT synonymous regardless of the enormity of this

> > cultural

> > > > > error.

> > > > >

> > > > > DMM

> > > > > >> > This is a clever display of true intellectual

dishonesty.

> > > > > > > They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs.

> > natural and

> > > > > > > never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no

more

> > > > > > vitamin

> > > > > > > c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make

> > comparisons of

> > > > > > > bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c

from a

> > food

> > > > > > > source. And the reason is its not even close. Large

> > amounts of

> > > > > > > vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic

acid is

> > > > > > absurd.

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> >

____________________

> > > > __

> > > > >

> > > >

> >

____________________

> > > > __

> > > > > ,

> > > > >

> > > > > I am not certain what you want proof of ascorbic acid is NOT

> > vitamin

> > > > > C. I can't prove that anymore than I can proof that your

arm

> > is not

> > > > > your head. It just ain't. The comments I made about the

> > > > comparisons

> > > > > that were made are from a post earlier in this thread.

> > > > >

> > > > > DMM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ---

> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > > > > Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date:

8/21/02

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building

> > health

> > > > and well being.

> > > >

> > > > list or archives: Gettingwell

> > > >

> > > > ........ Gettingwell-

> > > > post............. Gettingwell

> > > > digest form...... Gettingwell-digest

> > > > individual emails Gettingwell-normal

> > > > no email......... Gettingwell-nomail

> > > > moderator ....... Gettingwell-owner

> > > > ...... Gettingwell-

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

-

" drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco

 

Monday, September 09, 2002 7:55 AM

Re: This is an excellent example of

intellectual absurdity by one DMM

 

 

> For individuals or small groups to decide to re-define

> > what Vitamin C is composed of is (imo) a semantic nightmare.

> > Nomenclature is important.

>

>

> ======This is exactly why we are even having this ridiculous

> conversation Vitamin C is Vitamin C ascorbic acid is ascorbic acid

> and they are NOT the same substance. You are correct at some point

> someone decided they would be called equivalents and they are not.

I

> agree this IS a nomenclature NIGHTMARE. I am not trying to

re-define

> it I am clarifying the real definition. An example of this is when

> the fda defines vitamin c they define it as ascorbic acid but this

is

> a regulatory agency not a bastian of science. When a biologist or

> biophysiologist looks at vitamin C he looks at the substance that

> comes from food that is a complex of substances. Even ascorbic

acid

> with bioflavanoids is NOT vitamin C just as a tire and a steering

> wheel do not constitute a car.

>

> DMM

 

But who are you to redefine it? What research have you done?

What credentials do you have? Ascorbic Acid is (to the best of my

knowledge) accepted as being the same as Vitamin C. You obviously

feel differently. But that does not make everyone else wrong. I do

feel other ancillary factors (bioflavanoids, a good mineral balance,

etc.) are also needed in one's diet. But I still do not see why one

needs to change the basic definitions.

 

Alobar

[Guest guest]

Alobar,

 

You may see it a stubbornly as you wish.

I am just a private practitioner working with clients daily.

I don't have any impressive grants or degrees for you.

Just my life's experience in doing research and working with clients.

I repeat I AM NOT REDEFINING THE NOMENCLATURE. THE NOMENCLATURE IS

WHAT IT IS. You my friend are the one who has accepted

the " redefinition " not I. I am not trying to redifine it I am

simply unwilling to allow it to be redefined and sit idly by.

Because honest people like the ones on this group for instance are

told that vitamin c is ascorbic acid and it is only in the world of

the fda where a tire is defined as a car. If you have no interest in

the truth of this matter let's just say that you will allow yourself

to be sheep like, you will call vitamin c ascorbic acid and we'll

just call it a day. It is a waste of your time, my time and the

viewers of this group list to continue this silly banter. If you

find a line of logic that equates a tire with a car then so be it.

You are entitled to your opinion and I fully support you in having

it. I have no beef with you or anyone else on this group. I

reiterate that my effort was to be of help and assist in enhancing

the line of thinking that's already here for the use of vitamin c

that's it. If you don't want to utilize the information I have

provided ignore it. As I said before I cannot prove to you that your

head is not your arm. I cannot show you any research, credentials or

documentation to demonstrate this. Its just a simple fact; your head

is NOT your arm, a tire is NOT a car and ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin

C.

 

DMM

 

 

Gettingwell, " Alobar " <alobar@b...> wrote:

>

> -

> " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

> <Gettingwell>

> Monday, September 09, 2002 7:55 AM

> Re: This is an excellent example of

> intellectual absurdity by one DMM

>

>

> > For individuals or small groups to decide to re-define

> > > what Vitamin C is composed of is (imo) a semantic nightmare.

> > > Nomenclature is important.

> >

> >

> > ======This is exactly why we are even having this ridiculous

> > conversation Vitamin C is Vitamin C ascorbic acid is ascorbic acid

> > and they are NOT the same substance. You are correct at some

point

> > someone decided they would be called equivalents and they are not.

> I

> > agree this IS a nomenclature NIGHTMARE. I am not trying to

> re-define

> > it I am clarifying the real definition. An example of this is

when

> > the fda defines vitamin c they define it as ascorbic acid but this

> is

> > a regulatory agency not a bastian of science. When a biologist or

> > biophysiologist looks at vitamin C he looks at the substance that

> > comes from food that is a complex of substances. Even ascorbic

> acid

> > with bioflavanoids is NOT vitamin C just as a tire and a steering

> > wheel do not constitute a car.

> >

> > DMM

>

> But who are you to redefine it? What research have you

done?

> What credentials do you have? Ascorbic Acid is (to the best of my

> knowledge) accepted as being the same as Vitamin C. You obviously

> feel differently. But that does not make everyone else wrong. I

do

> feel other ancillary factors (bioflavanoids, a good mineral balance,

> etc.) are also needed in one's diet. But I still do not see why one

> needs to change the basic definitions.

>

> Alobar

[Guest guest]

-

" Dr. Michael Marasco " <mmarasco

 

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 7:50 PM

Re: This is an excellent example of

intellectual absurdity by one DMM

 

 

> Alobar,

>

> You may see it a stubbornly as you wish.

> I am just a private practitioner working with clients daily.

> I don't have any impressive grants or degrees for you.

> Just my life's experience in doing research and working with

clients.

> I repeat I AM NOT REDEFINING THE NOMENCLATURE. THE NOMENCLATURE IS

> WHAT IT IS.

 

Please show me how vitamic C was ever defined as anything

other than Acorbic acid. You say this is a redefinition. Point

out to me how & where it was defined otherwise previously.

 

 

 

> You my friend are the one who has accepted

> the " redefinition " not I. I am not trying to redifine it I am

> simply unwilling to allow it to be redefined and sit idly by.

> Because honest people like the ones on this group for instance are

> told that vitamin c is ascorbic acid and it is only in the world of

> the fda where a tire is defined as a car. If you have no interest

in

> the truth of this matter let's just say that you will allow

yourself

> to be sheep like, you will call vitamin c ascorbic acid and we'll

> just call it a day. It is a waste of your time, my time and the

> viewers of this group list to continue this silly banter.

 

It does seem like silly banter when I ask you to back up your

claims & you do not. I fully admit I could be wrong as I am not a

chemist or a health practitioner. But I have read quite a bit &

your assertions just do not agree with what I have read.

 

 

> If you

> find a line of logic that equates a tire with a car then so be it.

> You are entitled to your opinion and I fully support you in having

> it.

 

No I do not. But to stretch your analogy a bit, it seems to

me that you are trying to sy that a car is not a car unless it has

four wheel drive or an automatic transmission. It appears to me

that it is you who are attempting to re-define what a car is.

 

 

> I have no beef with you or anyone else on this group. I

> reiterate that my effort was to be of help and assist in enhancing

> the line of thinking that's already here for the use of vitamin c

> that's it. If you don't want to utilize the information I have

> provided ignore it. As I said before I cannot prove to you that

your

> head is not your arm. I cannot show you any research, credentials

or

> documentation to demonstrate this. Its just a simple fact; your

head

> is NOT your arm, a tire is NOT a car and ascorbic acid is NOT

vitamin

> C.

 

To use your example, I can show documents which demonstrate

that an arm is not a head. Simply making a statement & saying it is

true does not prove that statement. As you have nothing to offer in

the way of explanation or proof, it is perhaps best we drop this

matter as we do seem to be getting nowhere.

 

Alobar