To give some context around the history of vitamin C research, the whole idea of megadose vitamin C as an immune system booster/cure for the common cold/cure for cancer was more or less pushed by a single figure: Linus Pauling.
He was an extremely influential and successful 20th-century chemist, who earned both a Nobel Prize in Chemistry and a Nobel Peace Prize. In his late 60s, he became interested in "orthomolecular medicine" (the theory of making people thrive through some imagined perfect balance of vitamins), and became an advocate for megadose vitamin C therapy.
He used his influence to set up some respectable large-scale trials on the subject, but when they failed to find substantial effects, Pauling basically doubled-down in his beliefs, and spent the rest of his life regarded as a minor quack.
Yes, this is the context, but the study doesn't mention the Pauling protocol.
Pauling advocated doses much larger than 1 g. I'm not defending Pauling's position. I just want to point out that the study didn't examine Pauling's recommendation.
It so happens I have a copy of Vitamin C and the Common Cold (c) 1970. In Chapter 10 (page 86 of my paperback), in the section, "How to Ameliorate a Cold," he says, "At the first sign that a cold is developing, the first feeling of scratchiness of the throat, or presence of mucus in the nose, or muscle pain or general malaise, begin the treatment by swallowing one or two 500-mg tablets. Continue the treatment for several hours by taking an additional tablet or two tablets every hour."
"If the symptoms disappear quickly after the first or second dose of ascorbic acid, you may feel safe returning to your usual regimen. If, however, the symptoms are present on the second day, the regimen should be continued, with the ingestion of 4g to 10 g of ascorbic acid per day."
I often see this phenomenon when mainstream medicine designs studies to test claims by supplement advocates. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that many of these studies are intended to produce a negative result. I can't find the particular citation I have in mind at the moment, but there was a study on vitamin D for some illness, but the amount of vitamin D given was something like 400iu, the RDA (or maybe it was 800iu). The study then concluded that that dosage made no difference, which is probably is true, but idiotic. I mean, it's worth knowing that the low dose made no difference, but it doesn't justify the headline, "Vitamin D not helpful for ...." Also, I think the study used D2 (the plant form), which is not equivalent to D3, the animal form. (D2 provides some benefit if D3 is not available, but it is not the same thing.)
At the first sign of a cold i make "tea" from ground ginger and turmeric and put freshly ground black pepper in each cup. Piperin is supposed to boost curcumin uptake by a whoppin 2000 times. My sample size of one shows positive results.
Flu like symptoms call for willow bark. Works for me.
Medicinal
The leaves and bark of the willow have been mentioned in ancient texts from Assyria, Sumer and Egypt[citation needed] and in Ancient Greece the physician Hippocrates wrote about its medicinal properties in the fifth century BC.
I have never seen the book. Does it give any explanation for how and why this supposedly helps?
(Y'all can downvote away and hate on me as usual. I'm asking because I know of several "home remedy" antiviral protocols and not only is vitamin C not one of them, it runs counter to everything I know -- unless you are deficient in vitamin C in specific.)
> Does it give any explanation for how and why this supposedly helps?
Even now there’s very little understanding of how most medicine helps. The foundation of western medicine is mostly “We did this and this (unintended) result happened. Let’s test to see if we can replicate that while uncovering any side effects”
When you start looking at any texts/papers and ask “Yes that’s the result, but why? How?” you’ll find that the majority of the time there simply aren’t any of those answers.
This reminds me of the latest diabetes drugs that are now being targeted toward weight loss and addiction reduction. It's hilarious to me that they could go through drug trials to test safety and NOT find out that the drugs caused weight loss. They figured that out after people taking the drugs started reporting weight loss, and then the drug manufacturers figured out they could make boatloads on the side effect!
My own experience with vitamin C is that it is not clearly helpful for various illnesses when I tried it. However, I do take 1 g magnesium ascorbate every day just for fun.
It has been argued that the effect results, in part, from a tendency for Nobel winners to feel empowered by the award to speak on topics outside their specific area of expertise, although it is unknown whether Nobel Prize winners are more prone to this tendency than other individuals.
I moderated a list for parents of gifted kids at one time. Bright kids tend to have bright parents, so most of these people were used to being the smartest person in the room and most of them defaulted to assuming that if you disagreed with them, you were basically "just stupid."
It was really challenging at first to get people to assume the other person was also smart and likely had good reasons for having drawn different conclusions.
That was exactly my thought: The real problem is not the Nobel Prize winner going off on a wild hair. The real problem is people persisting in believing it just might make sense, never mind all evidence to the contrary, because "They won a Nobel Prize, so maybe it's just more brilliant insight beyond my understanding!"
Whenever I see this come up I always wonder if what's really going on is that the famous figure who has been rewarded with a prize that implies single-handed mastery or genius of a subject, was in fact the beneficiary of some unpretentious actual genius(es) who worked under them but didn't have the influence or connections to get the appropriate funding for the work that made their boss/advisor/PI famous.
Later in life the people responsible for their success have moved on to their own careers, and the celebrity genius now has to start over without the chemistry or medicine equivalent of The Wrecking Crew to keep them on track.
I think that's likely part of it, but I think it's also the case of "genius and insanity are 2 sides of the same coin."
Nobel prizes aren't given for being the best scientist, they're given for novel discoveries. And to make a novel discovery often means you're putting forth a theory that's probably a bit "out there" to begin with. Couple that with the fact that once you've won the Nobel prize you can convince yourself that your shit don't stink, so that when you make further wildly outlandish claims you can just convince yourself the masses just don't "get it" like how they didn't necessarily get it before you won your Nobel.
Musk is my current favorite example of this. I think he was undeniably a visionary when it came to electric cars and private space travel, but his success in those areas (in which he was heavily guided by his underlings, similar to what you point out) convinced him he can be an "unrestrained genius" in other areas, when in reality he's just a douche bag.
With all due respect, I feel very uneasy about putting that scam-artist on the same page as many people, but let alone NP-winners. Elon is just all around dumb with exorbitant amounts of money and sheer luck.
I don’t see a personality failure (which happens here — people overestimate their own knowledge in another areas. It doesn’t need a Nobel prize, just look at this site. It is a very common thing in software developers - myself often included unfortunately, in my experience) contradictory to being truly smart. For Pauling personally, I have read some of his books and they were absolutely brilliantly written. Unless we say that he didn’t in fact write them, I really wouldn’t take away his own genius behind the prize.
Normally, I would agree that PIs receive too much credit off the backs of their subordinates, but Pauling's writings were really a cut above for the time. He legitimately seemed like a brilliant scientist or made foundational contributions to chemistry.
I am failing to find the accounting of how he reportedly deduced the chemical nature of sickle cell anemia, but it is something else.
That he chased vitamin C does not make me think any less of him. Plenty of science is wrong and goes nowhere after significant effort.
No he didn't doubled-downed at all. Pauling claimed to the end of his life that Vitamin C works. Mainstream never replicated his studies. He even said that he would die from cancer probably a lot earlier then in his old age if he didn't megadose with C.
Its a shame that this story goes like it does, both for Pauling and vitamin C. To just label Pauling as a quack is mind blowingly disrespectful - he would probably get a third Nobel prize for DNA discovery unless he was prevented by US gov to attend important events. As for Vitamin C, the sole fact that all creatures on this planet produce it apart from 3 mutants is highly intriguing if nothing else.
I am personally megadosing with Vitamin C in various formats for around 15 years. I think I have only positive benefits from the start, and given that it is as harmless as water anybody can try.
The book "Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C" has good historic info if anybody is interested. Also, "Dynamic Flow" model tries to explain its workings in the body.
Without any judgement of the science, "doubling down" is by itself not a negative thing, is it?
Not as native speaker myself, just wondering why you took offense on this choice of words.
"Quack" is of course a different thing and the message of OP is clear.
The connotation of “doubling down” has about a 60/40 split where 40% of the time people hear “had faith in their ideas”, and 60% of the time they hear “had lost touch with reality and chased a bad idea”.
I believe it comes from the cultural impression of gamblers where some “know what they’re doing” and walk away winners but the majority will keep betting and betting while they keep losing and losing.
The modern megadose immune booster/cold cure bullshit comes from the company that makes Emergen-C.
The sole paper they cite was from a private study....funded by (drumroll please) a company Emergen-C set up for the sole purpose of funding the study to make it not completely obvious that it was paid-for, bunk science.
You would have to peel and eat oranges all day for the amount Pauling suggests initially. (2000-3000mg)
His recommended amount in "How to Live Longer and Feel Better" is fairly reasonable. 65-90mg a day for adults although he still believed getting the first 250mg is the most important for various health conditions.
If my recollection serves, you're unable to absorb vitamin C efficiently enough to reach serum levels found to be effective, so the treatment protocol was for vitamin C infusions.
It was a dumb comparison that people took literally. Obviously you wouldn’t eat that many oranges and yes you can get it in supplements or through IV efficiently. I have no arguments to make here, just dumb remarks on how many oranges you would need to get the recommended controversial amount.
He was an extremely influential and successful 20th-century chemist, who earned both a Nobel Prize in Chemistry and a Nobel Peace Prize. In his late 60s, he became interested in "orthomolecular medicine" (the theory of making people thrive through some imagined perfect balance of vitamins), and became an advocate for megadose vitamin C therapy.
He used his influence to set up some respectable large-scale trials on the subject, but when they failed to find substantial effects, Pauling basically doubled-down in his beliefs, and spent the rest of his life regarded as a minor quack.