Sydney, I do not see your point. We are talking here about "fraudulent titles", and you give us a remark from medical history. Remove your titles, with the exception that you are an optician. It is my recommendation to you. The other titles you use are not worth the paper they are written on... I close this subject now. Please respect this.

Your question is very interested. Natural and synthetic substances appear to be one of the most often discussed themes in connection with human nutrition by the general public (popliss et al., 2002). It has been reported in the article of natural and synthetic substances related to human health that natural and synthetic substances have a similar overall range of properties with regard to efficacy and safety, in terms of their impact on human health. However I think that natural vitamin is better and safer to use. The body can eliminate easily the excess. In addition, they are more bioavailable.

I am pleased to send you the paper about natural and synthetic substances related to human health. I think choosing natural and synthetic vitamins to treat patients depend on the sickness and the deficiency's level of the patient.

http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/74/10/1957/

Thanks for this paper. I asked the question because I wanted a discussion about "natural" and "synthetic" vitamins.

Hi, Geir, I agree, your question is very interesting! In addition to previous answer, one also should consider that natural vitamins (in fruits and vegetables) exist rather as a complex, and were much more stable and available to compare with synthetic one. For example, vitamin C is quite unstable in solution, but much more stable in it natural form (in orange, for example).

Synthetic vitamin C works, and ascorbate's efficacy has little direct relation to food intake. One example of this was the dramatic case of a dairy farmer in New Zealand, who caught swine flu and very nearly died. Intensive care specialists were all set to pull him off life support, saying there was no hope. See: http://tinyurl.com/n9wjyeu. The family demanded the doctors try high doses of Vitamin C. The patient was given 100,000 mg of vitamin C daily and his life was saved.

This is quite a controversial subject and should really be asked on a 'vitamin by vitamin' basis. Synthetic vitamins are often more stable than their natural counterparts and this generally improves their shelf life and efficacy. However, if they differ in terms of their molecular structure, the cellular metabolism of the vitamin may be affected in subtle ways.

A classic example of this is the difference between synthetic folic acid and natural folates. A high dose of synthetic folic acid (e.g. 5mg) will be well absorbed and results in high circulating levels in the plasma. However, the uptake into tissue is via a different mechanism to that of 5-MTHF - the more natural circulating form of folate - and this may cause subtle changes in folate-dependent processes such as DNA synthesis and methylation - possibly adverse changes.

As I said though, this is still highly controversial and I am unaware of any definitive data to suggest that natural forms of supplements are 'better', 'healthier' or more effective at treating/preventing deficiency for any individual vitamin.

I agree with Simon, each vitamines should be consider individually and effect of vitamins were strongly dependent from the form. For the ascorbate, did they http://tinyurl.com/n9wjyeu. really used 100 g daily? In this case they may observed not effect of ascorbate itself, but not-specific effect of one of ASC degradation products, for example, lactones..

the synthetic vitamins may had the other isomers with them , because in the synthetic procedure , we cannot always control the stereochemisty perfectly ,so sometimes there are differences in the chiral level between the artificial vitamines and the natural one which is produced by the biosynthesis . furthermore the elements in the synthetic product are different .for example if in an apple the rate of C13 and C12 of vitamine C is (1 to 1000 i made this ratio ) but in the synthesis vitamine C maybe 1 to 100 .the first one had great influences on the efficiency , because our receptor in the body could only accept certain 'formes' of molecules , the second one i had never seen the report but in the flavor industry , you could really feel the difference between the synthetic vanillin and natural ones , even they are structurally identic .

With the synthetic vitamin one should also consider the dose effect. If the applied dose will excess "natural" amount of vitamin in given cells the strong "side effect" will take place. That's why when one use synthetic vitamin, the dose should be under precise control. However, if one use natural vitamin, it is very difficult to get over.-dose, especially in the case of fruit-vegetables.

There is a lot of confusion about vitamins and the industry marketing the synthetic compounds. It appears nowadays that vitamins are real killers, at least he synthetic vitamins in usual multi-vitamin tablets seem to reduce the life expectance a lot, if I remember correctly 2-4 years (I guess just smoking is similar). It may be even much worse for smokers using vitamins to grow their tumors faster. As long as there is no medical indication I think nobody should use synthetic vitamins to reduce his/her life expectance. The potential benefit sometimes suggested for natural vitamins may come from totally different compounds in the meat or plant around the vitamins. So, I think in a few years vitamins will be considered as bad as cigarettes.

I completely agree with Robert, synthetic vitamins can really activated cell division. But this problem come mainly from un-controlled doses. And it is extremely difficult to keep only specific dose with synthetic vitamines, Perhaps, one of the reason it's rapid uptake.Even simple ascorbic acid in high dosage became as strong pro-oxidant and led to severe stress in the case of the plants, while in a low dosage effect of ascorbate was beneficial.

Interesting theoretical discussion. How it relate to problem of vitamines deficite (polydeficites) usual in different human population (not in ill patients) and with attempts to prevent this deficites especialy in a countries with different living level and different food consumption. Please Note that vit C deficites is really rare in development population at now.

I agree with Sydney about Vitamin C: this is very important compound with very important function. However, the important issue is a dose! People get vitamins not only from synthetic form, but also from food (fruit, vegetables etc). Theoretically, daily recommend amount has been calculated for "average" person and amount of molecules of vitamins should not excess amount of specific receptor in human body. In the case of amount of vitamins person get excess recommended amount, one will have side effect, ea. vitamins will act not specifically, as growth regulator etc.. That's hwy it is very important to not excess daily recommended amount.

There is a very clear information about daily-recommended amount of all vitamins. http://www.health-alternatives.com/vitamins-nutrition-chart.html

If one start to use synthetic vitamin, they should consider amount of vitamins they get with fruit/vegetable, other foods. But this task is quite difficult. -

Each vitamin should be regarded separately. There is a huge difference in safety and conecntrations of the vitamin needed by the body with highly variations. Some vitamins are safe even in high doses and prolong use while others ares not as vit. A. When you are speaken about natural and synthetic, it is almost very hard to have toxic or non safe with naturally occurring vitami, you need to extract large of raw materials while for synthetic which could be very pure and concentrated could have side effects. My answer, yes, using biological assay methods.

I completely agree with Fathi: the control of vitamins doses is very important, and it is very difficult to keep control in the case of synthetic vitamins.

If we look around, all the natural things are always superior than synthetic. May be it is a God gifted phenomenon. So is the case with vitamins.

I agree with Syed that all natural things are always superior than synthetic.

Natural Vitamins build nutritionally while synthetics do so medically. Natural vitamins build slowly but exceedingly well as NATURE always does. Synthetics can give a quick spasmodic spurt that may not be lasting. Naturals are NONTOXIC in any consumable quantity. Some synthetics may be very toxic because they are not a genuine food. Finally, Naturals are much more expensive because they are perishable and every precaution must be taken to preserve their life and integrity. Synthetics are mostly “dead”, inert, cheaper and present much less expensive handling problems. As with any inert material greater mass production creates cheaper bargain prices. All labels of truly NATURAL food concentrates should indicate the exact food source from which a vitamin is obtained!

Any medical student should learn:

1) the fat-soluble vitamins can easily be overdosed: E D K A (German students memorize this as a very similar spelling brand of supermarket); all the water-soluble just produce an expensive urine...

2) it is hard for a physician to ever see an hypovitaminosis, i.e. a patient with any lack of any vitamin, although there are few cases, but the market for vitamins is just a big kartell, which recently, a few years ago, had to pay I think at least a billion Euro of penalty.

3) during the last years it became clear that people without any proven symtoms of any hypovitaminosis or any proven levels below normal easily die much earlier than people not supplementing their nutrition with this extra-dose of deadly substances (I think many people are just addicted to the idea to help themselves eating vitamins)

4) the question above is very vague. You want to treat patients - in real medicine, there comes a diagnosis first, i.e. nowadays "evidence-based medicine" first needs the evidence to make any further decidions. Since there are several vitamins, usually never lacking all, it is rather questionable that there is any difference between synthetic or natural vitamins in terms of benefit. Of course there are some hypovitaminoses, for example people with a band-worm (I think the latin name was Dubotriocephalus latus) in the small intestine, interfering with the uptake of B12 vitamins... Unfortunately, some people eat just all vitamins, which then interfere negatively with each other (at least some of them, reducing exactly some of the B6 or B12 vitamin actions needed, I think vitamin C is such a negative vitamin...)

Overall, if anybody thinks there is any lack of vitamin this should be proven. But then the reason should be looked at, for example a (extremely rare band-worm) or any other medical condition - usually it is NOT the lack of vitamins in the normal nutrition which leads to low levels of vitamins. The best thing to do is to go to an specialist for internal medicine. All other self-treatment may just overlook a real disease.

Eating and drinking generally is driven much more by instinct rather than by science including vitamin consumption except there was nutrition-related disease.

I agree with Syed Umer ·however the fact that an overdose on Vitamin A can kill you and insufficient Vitamin B12 will damage the liver, cause pernicious anemia should more widely discussed. I previously did not know that we need sufficient Ca and Mg to absorb cholecalciferoleno matter the quantity orally consumed (Vit D).

Correctiom: "should more widely discussed." " "should be more widely discussed."

There is no difference between "natural" and "synthetic" molecule.

We discovered chemistry some time ago and we all should know the structure of matter. The complexity increases through subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, macromolecules and cristaline structures, and superstructures (organics and inorganics) forming all around us and ourselves.

Organic molecules are constituted by atoms, usually carbon, hydrogen, oxigen, nitrogen and others, bonded one to each other in determinated sequences ordered into the space formind determinated structures. This are what molecules are, the origin is not a definition on what they are, and does not determine their functionality or toxicity.

There is a tendence to consider natural as good and synthetic as bad. Well, just think about opium, cocaine or poison from a snake.

I fully agree with Guido Haenen, toxicity are related to DOSE of compounds and not with the origin and are what usually do interventions not to be adequates or even toxic. Natural sources contain the dose that we have been consuming since our origin as specie and that has built our bodies.

If we want to use molecules (natural or synthetic) out of its natural source we must take care about dose, mechanims of action and chemical environtment of its own to use properly.

I´ll give you an example, calcium in milk is accompanied by other molecules which facilitates the absorption into the body so if we want to take calcium suplements we must combine with the same or similar (because we know the mechanim of absorption) molecules if we want to reach similar absorption.

With regard to purity synthetic molecules are usually of higher purity than natural which permit us to attribute single efects to single molecules and thus to study interactions and mechanisms, and impurities are easily identified because we know where we start, reactions that have occurred and possible subproducts in the synthesis. Natural environtment is always more complex.

And about the cost, if the synthesis is not profitable it is not done so if you find a synthetic product in the market be sure that it is cheaper and/or disposable in higher amounts than natural.

Sydney, I don't really see any convincing data on your claims on reversing coronary heart disease with vitamin C. You cited a study from 1973 from Stanford University Medical School. Since I was once a medical scientist there (not working on vitamins) I was curious and checked the publication you cited. It turns out to be a rather short case report from the Department of Biology (not really sure if this is part of the Medical School, although I have respect from any Stanford findings). The 20 y.o. author had diabetes since 5 years and had tried vitamin C on himself and suggested to perform more studies to see if his findings were reproducible. I did not get into this more, but I think this is critically weak evidence for using vit C on any diabetic or any heart patient and I wonder what happened to the author, i.e. if he could continue to use vit C to reduce his insulin dose, maybe there are follow up reports which I didn't see. In those days there was no human insulin on the market yet and there may be different sources and preparations of insulin. I can only speculate and assume that there were no studies confirming this case findings.

One reason why there are so-called vitamins is, that during evolution we lost the genes to produce those substances ourselves - since they were just too abundant in normal nutrition, so it was just unnecessary to produce them ourselves and a waste of energy - it was perhaps an advantage to lose the ability to produce such substances ourselves.

The vitamin market appears to be highly questionable, since this is a big market. So, I think one should not harm people who have no proven lack of vitamins in generally recommending vitamins - since nowadays vitamins are clear to reduce the live expectance dramatically.

I totally concur with Sidney!

I think so, natural vitamins, your body has most probably come across them before, in food, or in your environment, but synthetic chemicals, are alien to it, so it will trigger synaptic charge, and trigger the same reaction as natural chemical. But when the calcium ion channels open, with stimulation of a non natural chemical, they open for to long a period than a natural chemical, that you are, lets say use to. Thus causing to much calcium influx into the ion channel, and for some people with genetic mutations it can trigger the dormant mutation to activate, but it does not know once woke up from dormant state how to stop. I know I have not mentioning Vits here, I am talking about drugs with agonistic affects on dopamine, but as you can get natural products that also act as dopamine agonist, I put a answer to your question, due to the fact you mention synthetic or natural, I would say natural extracts from plants, made into drugs, rather than Man Made synthetic compounds, safer ever time.

The thing to remember as well, is that a lot of people, get enough Vit, and minerals, through there diet alone. And then take Vits, on top, a lot could be doing them self more harm than good. Everyone should still go and see their GPs, and have a blood test, to see if they are lacking in any Vits, or Minerals, before just taking them, so that your GP, can advise you of what would be of personal benefit to you, as we are all different, and what is right for one, made harm another. Its like with stopping smoking, people don't realise that even if you stop smoking, if you eat things like Tomatoes, for instance or an Eggplant, they do contain small amounts of Nicotine. If you eat more than 12 Bananas, on after another, not that anyone would, but just using as an example. You can died, due to the potassium content, you get from Bananas. Before you take any kind of Vit, you need to find out if you do really need to, or are you getting what you need already with your diet, as to much of anything can and does do more harm than good.

Robert statements show a complete lack of understanding of the biochemical, physiological, pharmacological, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vitamins as relevant metabolic co-factors. If those inaccurate statements are the ones medical students learn, it explains their very limited understanding of nutritional sciences.

1) the fat-soluble vitamins cannot easily be overdosed- it requires huge doses taken over long periods of times.The expensive urine argument is a very weak one since Some water soluble vitamins are lost in urine, but the more you consume, the more stays in your body. Urine is what is left over after your kidneys purify your blood. If your urine contains, extra vitamin C, that vitamin C was in your blood. If the vitamin was in your blood, you absorbed it. It is the absence of water-soluble vitamins in urine that indicates vitamin deficiency. If your body excretes vitamins in your urine, that is a sign that you are well-nourished and have nutrients to spare. That is good sign. A lack of water-soluble vitamins in the urine indicates inadequacy.

So why even drink water since we are going to get rid of it through urine.

2) it should be easy for a physician to ever see an hypovitaminosis- look at the Hidden Hunger phenomenon. Hidden Hunger is a chronic lack of vitamins and minerals that often has no visible warning signs, so that people who suffer from it may not even be aware of it. Its consequences are nevertheless disastrous: hidden hunger can lead to mental impairment, poor health and productivity, or even death.

People may have an adequate supply of energy from the food they eat, but the nutritional value is insufficient to meet their needs for optimal growth and development. Hidden hunger is under-recognized, and not enough is done to combat this problem, which not only results in long-term health problems for individuals but also impacts on the health of communities. It eventually has huge economic consequences, especially for developing countries.

Suboptimal intake of some vitamins, above levels causing classic vitamin deficiency, is a risk factor for chronic diseases and common in the general population, especially the elderly. Inadequate intake of several vitamins has been linked to chronic diseases, including coronary heart disease, cancer and osteoporosis.

When I looked for Vitamin C positive effects i found about About 16,300,000 results (0.25 seconds)!

I highly recommend these readings:

http://www.stressingcancer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Triage-Theory.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/1579950/Metabolic_Correction

I love your answer, not my area of research, but just thought I would add my thoughts, on subject. But I totally agree with you, and would like to learn more, on subject as I find it very interesting. The problem is, some GPs these days, just treat us all the same, I have been told to take medication, such as Vit D, it the passed without even having test done, to see if I was still Vit D, deficient as the blood test and urine tests looked at by my GP was 12 months old. When I asked for another test to see weather I was still Vit D deficient, I was told I was refusing treatment, I had to say no I am not, I just want my levels checking again please, as it has been over 12 months, and I had lost 3 stone, changed my diet completely, plus was taking lower does of AEDs. I was right, I had the test and my levels, had returned to normal again.

In some developed countries it is forbidden to add some of the vitamins to for example corn flakes - to avoid a potential harm involved by vitamins. Recently, even the water soluble Vitamin C came into the focus of medical concerns of overdose !

It seems to double the risk of developing kidney stones.

Many serious recent studies showed that people die several years earlier due to additionally eating vitamins. One should protect innocent people better from the vitamin industry.

The 2013 study in JAMA on 23.000 men shows the 2 fold increase in kidney stones by Vit. C.

And during the last years Multi-Vitamins are observed to reduce life expectence to several years - that may escape some of the careless recommendors and salespersons of unproven, not evidence or even not diagnosis-related treatments of the healthy - but risking to lose many years of life. Why would one do that if not for the profit? Real medicine usually needs a diagnosis - not any religion. Of course, Vitamins don't seem to kill immediately, but that would be true for cigarettes, alcohol and many other "natural or plant-derived" drugs. It will be easier to see in which countries the abuse of vitamins increases which type of cancer.

Agree with the answer of Robert Eibl.

Paracelsus quoted that" "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."

Natural or synthetic drug if taken in large quantity will create problem. It is necessary now a day to study the effect of essential nutrients including vitamins after long term administration in best animal model to know the probable effects in human being.

If there was a general benefit of eating vitamins in addition to a normal diet, i.e. without any proven medical disease or need, one would expect at least no change of life expectance, or perhaps more years to live - and not a significant reduction in life expectance. Therefore vitamins are among the biggest killers.

Thanks Sam and Sydney!

Oh Robert please! There is more harm in not having the necessary nutrient co-factors that in having them in excess! Your body eliminates the excesses pretty easily as you learned in Biochemistry and Physiology courses in Med school.

In relation to Vitamin C and kidney stones: A recent widely-publicized study claimed that vitamin C supplements increased the risk of developing kidney stones by nearly a factor of two.[1] The study stated that the stones were most likely formed from calcium oxalate, which can be formed in the presence of vitamin C (ascorbate), but it did not analyze the kidney stones of participants. Instead, it relied on a different study of kidney stones where ascorbate was not tested. This type of poorly organized study does not help the medical profession or the public, but instead causes confusion.

The study followed 23,355 Swedish men for a decade. They were divided into two groups, one that did not take any supplements (22,448), and another that took supplements of vitamin C (907). The average diet for each group was tabulated, but not in much detail. Then the participants who got kidney stones in each group were tabulated, and the group that took vitamin C appeared to have a greater risk of kidney stones. The extra risk of kidney stones from ascorbate presented in the study is very low, 147 per 100,000 person-years, or only 0.15% per year.

Key points missed:

The number of kidney stones in the study participants who took ascorbate was very low (31 stones in over a decade), so the odds for statistical error in the study are fairly high.

The study was observational. It simply tabulated the intake of vitamin C and the number of kidney stones to try to find an association between them.

This method does not imply a causative factor because it was not a randomized controlled study, that is, vitamin C was not given to a group selected at random.

This type of observational study is fraught with limitations that make its conclusion unreliable.

It contradicts previous studies that have clearly shown that high dose ascorbate does not cause kidney stones.[2-6]

The study authors' conclusion that ascorbate caused the low rate of stones is likely due to a correlation between the choice of taking a vitamin C supplement with some other aspect of the participants' diet.

The study could not determine the nature of this type of correlation, because it lacked a detailed study of each patient's diet and a chemical analysis of each stone to provide a hint about the probable cause.

So we have a poorly designed study that did not determine what kind of stone was formed, or what caused the stones that were formed. These are serious flaws. Drawing conclusions from such a study can hardly be a good example of "evidence based medicine."

Different Types of Kidney Stones (Renal Calculi)

There is a considerable variety of kidney stones. Here are five well-known ones:

1. Calcium phosphate stones are common and easily dissolve in urine acidified by vitamin C.

2. Calcium oxalate stones are also common but they do not dissolve in acid urine. We will discuss this type further below.

3. Magnesium ammonium phosphate (struvite) stones are much less common, often appearing after an infection. They dissolve in urine acidified by vitamin C.

4. Uric acid stones result from a problem metabolizing purines (the chemical base of adenine, xanthine, theobromine [in chocolate] and uric acid). They may form in a condition such as gout.

5. Cystine stones result from an hereditary inability to reabsorb cystine. Most children's stones are this type, and these are rare.

The Oxalate Contradiction

The oxalate/vitamin C issue appears contradictory. Oxalate is in oxalate stones and oxalate stones are common. Ascorbate (the active ion in vitamin C) may slightly increase the body's production of oxalate. Yet, in practice, vitamin C does not increase oxalate stone formation. Vitamin C in the urine tends to bind calcium and decrease its free form. This means less chance of calcium's separating out as calcium oxalate (stones).[7] Also, the diuretic effect of vitamin C reduces urine concentration of oxalate. Fast moving rivers deposit little silt. If on a consultation, a doctor advises that you are especially prone to forming oxalate stones, read the suggestions below before abandoning the benefits of vitamin C. Once again: vitamin C increases oxalate but inhibits the union of calcium and oxalate.

Oxalate is generated by many foods in the diet, including spinach (100-200 mg oxalate per ounce of spinach), rhubarb, and beets.[8-10] Tea and coffee are thought to be the largest source of oxalate in the diet of many people, up to 150-300 mg/day.[8,11] This is considerably more than would likely be generated by an ascorbate dose of 1000 mg/day.[5,12]

The study we are discussing didn't tabulate the participants' intake of oxalate, but on average they had relatively high intakes (several cups) of tea and coffee. It is possible that those who had kidney stones had them before the study started, or got them during the study, due to a particularly high intake of oxalate. For example, the participants that took vitamin C may have been trying to stay healthy, but the subset of those who got kidney stones might also have been trying to stay healthy by drinking a lot of tea or coffee, or eating green leafy vegetables such as spinach. Or they may have been older people who got dehydrated, which is also very common among men who are active outside during the summer. Among the most important factors in kidney stones is dehydration, especially among the elderly.[13]

Summarizing:

Ascorbate in low or high doses generally does not cause significant increase in urinary oxalate.[2-6]

Ascorbate tends to prevent formation of calcium oxalate kidney stones.[3,4]

Risk factors for kidney stones include a history of hypertension, obesity, chronic dehydration, poor diet, and a low dietary intake of magnesium.

Magnesium

Kidney stones and magnesium deficiency share the same list of causes, including a diet high in sugar, alcohol, oxalates, and coffee. Magnesium has an important role in the prevention of kidney stone formation.[14] Magnesium stimulates production of calcitonin, which draws calcium out of the blood and soft tissues back into the bones, preventing some forms of arthritis and kidney stones. Magnesium suppresses parathyroid hormone, preventing it from breaking down bone. Magnesium converts vitamin D into its active form so that it can assist in calcium absorption. Magnesium is required to activate an enzyme that is necessary to form new bone. Magnesium regulates active calcium transport. All these factors help place calcium where it needs to be, and not in kidney stones.

One of magnesium's many jobs is to keep calcium in solution to prevent it from solidifying into crystals; even at times of dehydration, if there is sufficient magnesium, calcium will stay in solution. Magnesium is a pivotal treatment for kidney stones. If you don't have enough magnesium to help dissolve calcium, you will end up with various forms of calcification. This translates into stones, muscle spasms, fibrositis, fibromyalgia, and atherosclerosis (as in calcification of the arteries). Dr. George Bunce has clinically demonstrated the relationship between kidney stones and magnesium deficiency. As early as 1964, Bunce reported the benefits of administering a 420 mg dose of magnesium oxide per day to patients who had a history of frequent stone formation.[14,15] If poorly absorbed magnesium oxide works, other forms of better-absorbed magnesium will work better.

Calcium oxalate stones can effectively be prevented by getting an adequate amount of magnesium, either through foods high in magnesium (buckwheat, green vegetables, beans, nuts), or magnesium supplements. Take a magnesium supplement of at least the US RDA of 300-400 mg/day (more may be desirable in order to maintain an ideal 1:1 balance of magnesium to calcium). To prevent a laxative effect, take a supplement that is readily absorbable, such as magnesium citrate, chelate, malate, or chloride. Magnesium oxide, mentioned above, is cheap and widely available. However, magnesium oxide is only about 5% absorbed and thus acts mostly as a laxative. [14] Milk of magnesia (magnesium hydroxide) is even more of a laxative, and unsuitable for supplementation. Magnesium citrate is a good choice: easy to find, relatively inexpensive and well absorbed.

The Role of Vitamin C in Preventing and Dissolving Kidney Stones

The calcium phosphate kidney stone can only exist in a urinary tract that is not acidic. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C's most common form) acidifies the urine, thereby dissolving phosphate stones and preventing their formation.

Acidic urine will also dissolve magnesium ammonium phosphate stones, which would otherwise require surgical removal. These are the same struvite stones associated with urinary tract infections. Both the infection and the stone are easily cured with vitamin C in large doses. Both are virtually 100% preventable with daily consumption of much-greater-than-RDA amounts of ascorbic acid. A gorilla gets about 4,000 mg of vitamin C a day in its natural diet. The US RDA for humans is only 90 mg. The gorillas are unlikely to all be wrong.

The common calcium oxalate stone can form in an acidic urine whether one takes vitamin C or not. However, this type of stone can be prevented by adequate quantities of B-complex vitamins and magnesium. Any common B-complex supplement, twice daily, plus about 400 milligrams of magnesium, is usually adequate.

A Dozen Ways to Reduce Your Risk of Kidney Stones

1. Maximize fluid intake.[13] Especially drink fruit and vegetable juices. Orange, grape and carrot juices are high in citrates which inhibit both a buildup of uric acid and also stop calcium salts from forming. [16]

2. Control urine pH. Slightly acidic urine helps prevent urinary tract infections, dissolves both phosphate and struvite stones, and will not cause oxalate stones. And of course one way to make urine slightly acidic is to take vitamin C.

3. Avoid excessive oxalates by not eating (much) rhubarb, spinach, chocolate, or dark tea or coffee.

4. Lose weight. Being overweight is associated with substantially increased risk of kidney stones.[17]

5. Calcium is probably not the real culprit. Low calcium may itself cause calcium stones [18].

6. Most kidney stones are compounds of calcium and yet many Americans are calcium deficient. Instead of lowering calcium intake, reduce excess dietary phosphorous by avoiding carbonated soft drinks, especially colas. Cola soft drinks contain excessive quantities of phosphorous as phosphoric acid. This is the same acid that is used by dentists to dissolve tooth enamel before applying bonding resins.

7. Take a magnesium supplement of at least the US RDA of 300-400 mg/day. More may be desirable in order to maintain an ideal 1:1 balance of magnesium to calcium. Many people eating "modern" processed-food diets do not consume optimal quantities of magnesium.

8. Take a good B-complex vitamin supplement twice daily, which contains pyridoxine (vitamin B6). A deficiency of vitamin B6 produces kidney stones in experimental animals. Vitamin B6 deficiency is very common in humans. A vitamin B1 (thiamine) deficiency also is associated with stones. [19]

9. For uric acid/purine stones (gout), stop eating meat. Nutrition tables and textbooks indicate meats as the major dietary purine source. Natural treatment adds juice fasts and eating sour cherries. Increased vitamin C consumption helps by improving the urinary excretion of uric acid. [12]. For these stones, use buffered ascorbate "C".

10. Persons with cystine stones (only 1% of all kidney stones) should follow a low methionine diet and use buffered vitamin C.

11. Kidney stones are associated with high sugar intake, so eat less (or no) added sugar. [20]

12. Infections can cause conditions that favor stone formation, such as overly concentrated urine (from fever sweating, vomiting or diarrhea). Practice good preventive health care, and it will pay you back with interest.

References:

1. Thomas LDK, Elinder CG, Tiselius HG, Wolk A, Akesson A. (2013) Ascorbic acid supplements and kidney stone incidence among men: A prospective study. Published Online: February 4, 2013. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2296

2. Wandzilak TR, D'Andre SD, Davis PA, Williams HE (1994) Effect of high dose vitamin C on urinary oxalate levels. J Urology 151:834-837.

3. Hickey S, Saul AW. (2008) Vitamin C: The Real Story, the Remarkable and Controversial Healing Factor. Basic Health Publications ISBN-13: 9781591202233

4. Hickey S, Roberts H. (2005) Vitamin C does not cause kidney stones. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v01n07.shtml

5. Robitaille L, Mamer OA, Miller WH Jr, Levine M, Assouline S, Melnychuk D, Rousseau C, Hoffer LJ. Oxalic acid excretion after intravenous ascorbic acid administration. Metabolism. 2009 Feb;58(2):263-9. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2008.09.023.

6. Padayatty SJ, Sun AY, Chen Q, Espey MG, Drisko J, Levine M. (2010) Vitamin C: intravenous use by complementary and alternative medicine practitioners and adverse effects. PLoS One. 5(7):e11414. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011414.

7. Cheraskin E, Ringsdorf, M Jr, Sisley E (1983) The Vitamin C Connection. Bantam Books. ISBN-13: 9780553244342

8. Noonan SC, Savage GP (1999) Oxalate content of foods and its effect on humans. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 8:64-74.

9. Kawazua Y, Okimurab M, Ishiic T, Yuid S. (2003) Varietal and seasonal differences in oxalate content of spinach. Scientia Horticulturae 97:203-210

10. Proietti S, Moscatello S, Famiani F, Battistelli A. (2009) Increase of ascorbic acid content and nutritional quality in spinach leaves during physiological acclimation to low temperature. Plant Physiol Biochem. 47(8):717-23.

11. Gasinska A, Gajewska D. (2007) Tea and coffee as the main sources of oxalate in diets of patients with kidney oxalate stones. ROCZN. PZH 58(1):61-67.

12. Pauling L. (2006) How to Live Longer And Feel Better. OSU Press ISBN-13: 9780870710964

13. Manz F, Wentz A. (2005) The importance of good hydration for the prevention of chronic diseases. Nutr Rev. 63(6 Pt 2):S2-S5.

14. Dean C. (2007) The Magnesium Miracle. Ballantine Books. ISBN-13: 9780345494580

15. Bunce GE, Li BW, Price NO, Greenstreet R. (1974) Distribution of calcium and magnesium in rat kidney homogenate fractions accompanying magnesium deficiency induced nephrocalcinosis. Exp Mol Pathol. 21(1):16-28.

16. Carper J. Orange juice may prevent kidney stones, Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal, Jan 5, 1994

17. Bagga HS, Chi T, Miller J, Stoller ML. (2013) New insights into the pathogenesis of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am. 2013 Feb;40(1):1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2012.09.006.

18. L. H. Smith, et al (1974) Medical evaluation of urolithiasis. Urological Clinics of North America. 1:2, 241-260.

19. Hagler L, Herman RH, (1973) Oxalate metabolism, II. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 26(8): 882-889.

20. J. A. Thom, et al (1978) The influence of refined carbohydrate on urinary calcium excretion. British Journal of Urology, 50(7): 459-464.

Robert how many people die of taking vitamins and mineral vs those on prescription medication? Check your facts! Sydney nicely summarized it for you!

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187436

The US poison control center annual report data indicates that there have been no deaths whatsoever from vitamins in the 27 years that such reports have been available.

Download any Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers from 1983-2009 free of charge at http://www.aapcc.org/annual-reports/ The "Vitamin" category is usually near the very end of the report.

You are very confused. You need to read the articles by Ames!

Urvesh please! We have been exposed to vitamin and minerals forever if you have not noticed they are needed cofactors of metabolism and needed for life!

Sorry Micheal, you just don't seem to get it. It is not very solid to compare prescription medication (for real patients) with nutritional compounds for healthy individuals - without any benefit shown but even harmful for many, i.e. producing kidney stones and reducing lifespan?

Do you really want to avoid treatment of real patients with prescription drugs (and harming patients) and instead replace useful medicine with harming vitamins, i.e. double harm patients or healthy individuals?

So far, it is not very scientific to administer vitamins to people who have no lack in vitamins - just in the belief this would protect from any disease. A significant reduction in lifespan seems to result from tumor supporting vitamins A or bete-carotene. Promoting vitamins seems to me to promote cigarettes as natural protector against cancer disease.

Robert show me the bodies! You need to review your vitamins! Do you know that they are enzymatic cofactors needed for life? You have not read the articles by Ames! Sorry but as I can see you are very comfortable thinking inside your little impenetrable box! I cannot understand your fanatic analysis without looking at the preponderance of the evidence.

"It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he thinks he already knows"

Epictetus

If you ever come across a condition that your therapeutic phylosophy has no answer, I will always be wiiling to give you a hand.

Humour !

Just counting publications about vitamins is more than questionable to proof any benefit for treating healthy people with compounds reducing their life-span. As I mentioned earlier, anyone who suffers from any "proven" low-level of any vitamin should be checked carefully by a physician (not any non-physician) to see "why" a vitamin is low. It is usually not the lack of vitamins in the nutrition, it is, for example, a stomach disease preventing the uptake of vitamins. IN such a case the prescription of vitamins may not help, but curing the real disease.

There is not any proven benefit from giving vitamins to healthy people, not a single one - despite the many publications.

The really funny thing is that non-physicians and many natural healers just belief they would know it so much better (and especially nowadays there is very criminal commerce focusing on old people in Europe selling wrong pseudo-cures for everything spamming the older people with hundreds of letters each year and making millions) - and that giving vitamins would cure any disease or prevent from any disease.

There are many adverse health impacts of ingredients present in in synthetic/artificial vitamins/supplements. Human body for million years digest foods found in nature or natural vitamins. But synthetically obtained vitamins are compounds not found in nature, so body does not recognize these ingredients and result in unanticipated/undesired reactions.

Synthetic vitamins are all not totally useless,nevertheless similar to pharmaceutical drugs, they have their place in emergency health situations.

The majority of commercial vitamin supplements are made up of synthetic vitamins that do not perform same functions in body as vitamins found naturally in whole food. Many synthetic vitamins deplete our body of other nutrients and tax the kidneys before being excreted via urine.

Biochemistry define that vitamins do not exist as single components that act on their own but are made up of several different components – viz; enzymes, co-enzymes and co-factors– that must work together to produce their expected biologic effects.

A great ingredient chart can be refereed : http://www.nutriteam.com/natural.htm#labels

Well known fact that vitamins helps to lead longer, healthier .

But, is there a difference between natural vitamins and synthetic vitamins?

As being preferred to take natural vitamins, assuming that vitamins which are derived naturally from plants and minerals are superior. But, this is not necessarily true?

Ideally, natural vitamins are taken from original sources and retain their natural material and have no artificial colors, sweeteners, or preservatives.

Natural vitamins often have co-factors that come with them e.g., Vitamin C has a co-factor called bioflavoniods. It must be carefully extracted from natural source using no extreme heat, pressure/toxic solvents. There are no co-factors present in synthetic vitamins as they are made in a laboratory using coal tar derivatives.

Another way to look at synthetic vitamins and natural vitamins are through their molecular structures. Is there difference between synthetic and natural? There are many health authorities that believe that synthetic vitamins are ineffective, yet there are also doctors and nutritionists who claim that synthetic vitamins have same molecular structure and are therefore just as effective as natural vitamins.

Then there are even others who say that taking any vitamin – even synthetic – is better than not having the nutrients at all. After all, our cells need proper nutrients or they begin to die and our health is damaged. And in today’s busy world, many people just don’t have time to obtain all vitamins they need through eating the proper servings of fruits and vegetables. Even fruits and vegetables may not have as many nutrients as expected unless they are grown organically.

The debate about whether synthetic vitamins are as good for as natural ones is far from over. Tests have shown that synthetic vitamins may be as much as 70% less biologically active than natural vitamins. One thing it may come down to when purchasing vitamins is price. Some people say you simply cannot afford to purchase vitamins that are 100% natural. Many places today sell synthetic vitamins rather than natural vitamins because they are cheaper to produce.

If want to purchase vitamins that are natural, can try reading label to see if they are really natural. Many will contain certain things that are giveaways to the fact that they are natural like Vitamin A will contain fish oils, while synthetic will contain acetate or palmitate. Yeast is another good indicator that vitamin is natural. Look for yeast on the labels of Vitamin B-Complex, Vitamin B1 (Thiamine), Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin), Pantothenic Acid, Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine), and Niacin as an indictor to whether the vitamin is made naturally or synthetically.

If need vitamins to help have more energy, run more efficiently, and protect from disease, natural vitamins are the way to go if can afford the cost. But, if can’t, many experts will tell that synthetic vitamins contain the same molecular structure and are almost just as good for as natural vitamins. Just check with your doctor before start taking any vitamins to make sure you are taking correct vitamins as well as correct dose. Even too much of a natural vitamin can cause problems.

Rajendra got an important point! We do better with whole food nutrients !

You know what is real funny?

Sorry, Sydney, but the obvious self-marketing of non-physicians who don't seem to have any peer-reviewed articles, or any accepted scientific contribution, but only a PhD "honoris causa" (from which institution?) appears to me not very solid scientific evidence for anything.

Since the original question is overtaken by others, I don't think there is any need for further discussion - at least from my site. It is up to the reader to see different sites, including scientifically questionable ones.

PS: I just found an interesting link... didn't read it fully, but it seems to support my view in this discussion: http://www.optical.org/goc/filemanager/root/site_assets/hearings/last_12_months/sydney_bush_substantive_decision.pdf

Sorry Michael, you may have been trolled as anyone else here. Of course, people who sell Vit. C over the internet may not agree with current knowledge in Medicine. Here is just a small paragraph from above mentioned Link.

"The Committee determined that Professor Bush had demonstrated a persistent lack of insight into the matters which had brought him before the Committee. The Committee determined that the conduct of Professor Bush was fundamentally incompatible with his remaining on the register.

Consequently, the Committee determined that an order of suspension was not the

appropriate or proportionate sanction to impose. The Committee concluded that it was in the public interest that Professor Bush be made subject to an order of erasure and the Committee therefore orders that Professor Bush’s name be erased from the register of optometrists. "

Sorry to all the vitamin addicted... hope this may help.

Just to finish this up:

Sorry, Sydney, please help, if I am wrong: I could only find your two titles "Professor" and "PhD honoris causa", but both from the -not known to me (to avoid any judging word)- "Cosmopolitan University" - which I think is not accepted in the European Community as offering any legal academic titles. It looks like it to be just an online title mill selling questionable titles for maybe 5 USDollars after receiving a CV and any money. I could not find the origin of your "DOpt" (is it for Doctor of Optometry" - but again, from which institution?).

Yeah Robert Big Pharma sells very expensive medicine on pharmacies, internet ...anyplace they are attuned with your allopathic medicine sickcare, actually they finance it. So dont give me the economic issue crap! Moreover, I rather have a Honoris Causa Doctorate and the capacity to analize than a medical degree that blinds me.

Thanks to the two anti-physicians -and anti-scientists- for their further clarifications:

Michael appears not to accept Allopathie or any medical drugs prescribed by medical doctors; Sydney, also without being a medical doctor and without a real academic degree of PhD (only an awarded PhD honoris causa from an online title mill for sending in his CV...) appears to recomend to optometry patients suffering from heart disease to replace their medications prescribed from a cardiologist - just with Vit. C, which he or his insitute is now selling online. Why Not advertise it Here, for example, bothering discussions on vitamins? This picture Goes well with citing another "Professor" from another title Mill as a Leading expert for his view, althoug this potentially could Harm real heart patients. I am just Wondering from which Institute or which country he keeps the title of doctor of optometry - his own institute - but as a Former optometrist? I am wondering in which country he is registered as optometrist to be allowed to work with and potentially harm any patients.

http://www.optical.org/goc/filemanager/root/site_assets/hearings/last_12_months/sydney_bush_substantive_decision.pdf

Well, when I was a student my very poor grandmother wasted thousands of dollars for getting illegal injections of vitamins (by a non-physician) intended to cure her from pains in her knee. Of course, her pains did not disappear, money was wasted for useless vitamins, and she got kidney stones repeatedly, but only until she realized she was tricked for getting just cheap vitamins. Honestly, I don't think it is a good idea to allow a wise looking optometrist to consult or treat cardiology patients - I guess that would not be legal in most European countries. There should be a clear warning to patients, although I don't see an intention to harm patients knowingly, the damage to cardiology patients replacing their gold standard in medication to prolong their lives could be significant just due to lack or ignorance of medical knowledge and preventing patients to get the best medicine possible.

I clearly favourize law enforcement to protect patients from any wrong treatment, but especially provided by self-marketing non-physicians.

OK, some may really wonder, why I critisize a wise looking person who has his opinion - and never will change it. I just imagine the many (billions) of people suffering sooner or later from heart disease or getting a heart attack; evidence-based medicine is continuously improving its current and future gold-standards, which include a real diagnosis, followed by treatments specific for the type and grade of disease (this is in contrast to non-medical treatments, which just offer one thing to everybody). I also imagine the people who survived their first heart attack, may get rehabilitation training, and the gold-standard, which has been evolved over decades of real research and basic and apllied science. Any such standard is of course focused on prevention of the next, perhaps, deadly heart-attack or similar. Imagine now the troubled, not well educated older patient, who just neglects having had a heart attack or believes non-physicians, that all the medicine must be wrong, since there is one other thing to take instead...

I think I made my point clear: real medicine not only tries to give the patient the best possible treatment, but this of course includes prevention of disease as well. I understand, that non-physicians have no access to treat their "patients" with anything real, but one really should prevent getting people suffer and die from not getting the best medicine.

Robert allopathic medicine is great for acute conditions but very limited for chronic degenerative ones. Open your mind to other therapeutic phylosophies, you will gain a lot. Your attack on Sydney was uncalled for. He has scientifically answered all your baised, unsupported arguments.Degrees mean nothing when you fanatize instead of analize.

So, Michael, are you really saying you are or were treating any patients - without being a physician. I think Puerto Rico is part of the US, but what license is needed to practise medicine there? I think recommending unproven or proven to be wrong things to suffering patients is just killing people. And practising medicine without license should not be allowed in the US, indl. Puerto Rico.

What should be illegal is allowing you to practice medicine with your lack of knowledge of general biochemistry and physiology.

Well, I know that state attorneys in Germany try to catch some so-called nutritionist just outside Germany, but unfortunately protected by some European loopüholes in law (not UK) selling questionable compounds to usually old and sick people in Germany and recommending them to not take their heart, pain and other medications.... Well, I think it is called a crime in most countries to harm people with practising medicine without license. I am sorry to discuss anything here with people lacking both, knowledge of medicine and good scientific training, i.e. ignoring the real science and falling for their false philosophy. One thing about science is, it is originally OK to have some crude hypotheses, but promoting treatments proven to be wrong is not scientific at all. So, Micheal, are you involved in Puerto Rico in any treatment of patients without the supervision of a doctor or an ethical board of medicine and any scientific standards?

PS: I wonder why US tax payers pay so many hundreds of millions to your University in Puerto Rico... OK, there may be some nanotechnology involved. I hope the tax payers millions is not wasted for your Vit. C reviews.

I was just wondering if there is an insurance in some university areas where patients are treated knowingly wrong against medical standards - and get harmed. I am also worrying how ethical it is to use dieing cancer patients for questionable experiments just to check their metabolism of vitamin c.

There is no point talking to Robert until he reviews basic Biochemistry and physiology! Sorry but anything I will explain you will probably not understand.

Sydney and Michael,

I am glad I supported this forum for your views - I am sure no real scientist would ever follow your potential harming of patients.

Hope your societies will protect patients good enough from wrong treatments. I haven't seen which insurance any of you have to have harmed patients ask for money for their potential damages. Could you please specify the amount of your insurance for wrong treating patients.

Best wishes, Robert.

BTW, Michael, you know what is funny - you repeatedly state I was not good in biochemistry or physiology...

after my first initial two years (of totally 6) in Medical School (first two with jbasically scientific medicine, especially biochemistry, physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, and of course anatomy, i.e. the more difficult part for many later physicians...) I got offered one of the only 20 places in one of the three universities in (West-)Germany at that time to study biochemistry... I denied, since it turned out I was one of the very best (about 6.000 students) nationwide. Another reason was to start immediately working on a real experimental doctorat thesis (although there was no way to get a PhD in Germany at that time). I later got a research stipend to work as a postdoctoral scientist at Harvard University for two years... And: I wrote research grants at the US and currently even support research grants in the field of Atherosclerosis (!), so I don't really see why you repeatedly make such wrong assumptions. It would be best if you could participate in some medical lectures and avoid treating patients without being a licensed physician - not sure if patients really see you.

Sorry for you Robert, you wasted your time! When was this before Vitamins where discovered? since it is obvious you totally lack a understanding of them. The only one doing harm is you because of your very close mind! if you do not have anything intelligent to contribute I suggest you keep quiet and do yourself a favor. Sorry Gier to go out of line but had to respond to Dr. Eibl nonsense and unsubstantiated, irrelevant views.

Well, anyone here can read some of the more questionable facettes of pseudo-medical science pretended to be done by people who are far away from medical knowledge including blood vessel research and opthalmology.

"necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest"

This is from the Link I cited earlier - this was obviously a very serious decision to protect the public from harming patients for wrong statements about vit. C:

"Immediate order

The Committee considered the imposition of an immediate order. The Committee heard submissions from Ms Bruce, for the Council and from Professor Bush and noted his objections. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest that it make an immediate order of suspension.

In reaching this decision, the Committee had regard to its reasons in imposing the substantive order of erasure. It considered that these matters are very serious and in consequence such an immediate order is required. "

From: http://www.optical.org/goc/filemanager/root/site_assets/hearings/last_12_months/sydney_bush_substantive_decision.pdf

To the participants: I think that this discussion has derailed. It is good if you from now in your posts can focus on my question, and discuss other issues elsewhere. My question was: "Is there a difference between "natural" and "synthetic" vitamins when it comes to safety and efficiency?". I thank the participants for the answers to this question.

Hi Geir, in some mouse experiments, high-dose of Vit. C appeared to double the ratio of skin cancer. I think all such experiments were done with synthetic compounds which might have been extremely pure, but so-called "natural" Vit. C should have the same effect, although I just can guess, that "natural" Vitamins may just have additional problems of impurity, i.e. more potential contamination with bacteria.

BTW, Pauling's unfounded assumptions in the Vitamin field have been proved wrong. Unfortunately, still some fraudulent non-scientists, often without any Academic degrees, try to sell this pseudo-science to their victims. I generally do not see any difference between synthetic and natural vitamins except for their chemical purity - and perhaps the use of a placebo effect.

I just wonder which sort of Vit. C the "optician" expert here is selling online... probably not the natural, but the one from the big pharma industry.

Sorry, I do not need to discuss anything scientific with an optician. BTW, here is a reference of a patient obviously killing himself with high-dose Vitamin C leading to renal failure.

Anaesth Intensive Care. 2008 Jul;36(4):585-8.

Gier there are comments here that keep demostrating a complete lack of knowledge of the literature, only presenting fanatized, unsubstantiated and wrong conclusions.

High-dose intravenous vitamin C improves quality of life in cancer patients.

http://www.personalizedmedicineuniverse.com/article/S2186-4950(12)00013-2/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693571/

http://www.dietexperts.com/Cancer_Patients_Quality_of_Life.pdf

http://iv.iiarjournals.org/content/25/6/983.full.pdf

There are some important differences between synthetic and natural vitamins, related to absorption and utilization. Natural vitamins often have co-factors that come with them.

http://alternativehealthatlanta.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/synthetic-vs-natural-studies1.pdf

Paulings' misbelief was obvious 35 years ago. No serious student may fall into such unsubstantiated studies shown to be wrong. Surprisingly, mainly some fraudulent non-physicians - everybody few years - trick the uninformed non-scientific Public to sell their potentially very harming Philosophies. Nowadays it should be clear how wrong Pauling was in his pseudoscience of vitamins. One should Not Need to comment any of those Old myths proved to be so wrong decades ago.

Geir, if you plan any scientific study you should use a well defined, i. e. Reproducible preparation of the compounds; otherwise any effect or side-effect could be related to the contamination. Some Vitamins are known to Harm and kill patients; also several therapeutic effects of prescribed medications, including Chemotherapy can be ruined.

Robert you insist in vitamins killing people where you get such nonsense? You just babble nonsense! Stick to the literature. This is a science site!

Geir, I am so sorry that your question got so ruined by non-scientists like an optician and a non-physician decades behind current knowledge. If you, Geir, really plan to make a study including any "natural" or "synthetic" vitamins, you should keep a focus on matching control groups, especially with smokers or non-smokers, since it appears that smokers eating supplemental vitamins kill themselves faster than with cigarettes alone.

Robert I'm not going to waste anymore time on your ignorant babble. I just feel sorry for you and your patients. You present no data to substantiate your fanatic views and call yourself a scientist .You can't be real!

Thanks for giving Geir a Chance to Get perhaps some Input from really knowledgable current scientists. I am sure all Readers of your poor comments will also appretiate it.

To the participants: Please discuss relevant studies, and not continue with inappropriate comments. I'm interested in real research, not mudslinging....

Geir, maybe you try to specify your question to any specific vitamins you may have in mind, since vitamins are often so unrelated to each other - and natural vitamins coming from very different sources. One aspect to think about contamination of natural vitamins is their possible content of fever-inducing LPS. Any source you may use in any study should be tested for its amount.

My question was relatively open because I wanted that participants should present different views and in this regard discuss different vitamins. I hoped that the participants would post comments with references to relevant literature. It would have been valuable. However, some participants have posted comments with references to relevant literature.

Mudslinging is inappropriate behavior on ResearchGate. I'm incomprehensible to the fact that my question contributed to this. It was not particularly controversial, as I see it.