DON'T BE FOOLED.
Check the label of high-priced products which claim to be a Natural
"Vitamin-C-Complex."
These products contain ordinary vitamin C (ascorbic acid), probably made in
China.
The Position of the
Vitamin C Foundation on Natural Vitamin C and so-called Vitamin C-complex
Copyright 2006 by Owen R. Fonorow and The Vitamin C Foundation Permission to
copy and redistribute in exact original form granted. Publications must include
this copyright notice. Permission granted in all languages.
There are a surprising number of well-intentioned people among the alternative
medical community who now believe that ascorbic acid isn't the real vitamin C.
The dietary substances which causes scurvy when missing and cures scurvy when
present is by definition vitamin C. Linus Pauling was unequivocal in his belief
that the ascorbate fraction of ascorbic acid (called the ascorbate ion) is
vitamin C. Referring to scurvy in his landmark Vitamin C and the Common Cold
(1970), Pauling stated, "Ascorbic acid is an essential food for human beings.
People who receive no ascorbic acid (vitamin C) become sick and die."
There is a growing school of thought among an unlikely foe of Pauling - the
natural purists who proclaim that only vitamins gleaned from plants are the real
vitamins. The views of these alternative healers, as summarized by authors
Thomas S. Cowan, MD and Sally Fallon in their recent book The Fourfold Path to
Healing (2004) is that the real vitamin C is "actually a complex of nutrients
that includes bio-flavonoids, rutin, tyrosine, copper and other substances known
and unknown." (Cowan and others 2004 p. 21)
Ascorbic acid, which has been vitamin C since at least 1937, has only a
supporting role, according to Cowan and Fallon, who write that ascorbic acid is
only present in plants "as a preservative for this complex, serving to keep it
together in the plant tissue, preserving its integrity, freshness and color."
(Cowan and others 2004 p. 21)
Cowan and Fallon even go so far as to say in this book that "ascorbic acid is
not a food for us; that which it preserves is our food." (Cowan and others 2004
p. 21) Too much "synthetic" ascorbic acid is harmful, the naturalists assert,
especially when not accompanied by the vitamin C-complex.
If the naturalists are right about the C-complex being the "real" vitamin C,
then Linus Pauling was wrong in his reviews and analyses of more than 60 years
of vitamin C science. There is massive scientific support for Linus Pauling's
position that ascorbic acid is vitamin C. No scientific basis has been found for
the existence of the C-complex or that such a complex can cure scurvy without
ascorbic acid present. This assertion is proven every day in hospitals around
the world. Comatose patients are kept alive using ascorbic acid only. There are
no hospitals keeping patients on a feeding tube alive with a vitamin C-complex.
Those who are making the case for the C-complex and other so-called "natural"
vitamins, are highly respected among the alternative community. Their stature
prompted Berkley Bedell's National Foundation for Alternative Medicine (NFAM) to
turn down funding of a study of the Linus Pauling's vitamin C and lysine therapy
for cardiovascular disease. NFAM told the Vitamin C Foundation that they
rejected the study because of the fear that ascorbic acid form of vitamin C
might prove harmful to the study participants.
The following treatise represents the position of The Vitamin C Foundation on
the true nature of vitamin C. The ascorbate ion, the fraction commonly found in
ascorbic acid, or one of the salts, e.g., sodium ascorbate or calcium ascorbate,
is vitamin C. This is the substance that when missing in the diet causes death
by scurvy. There is no scientific debate about this fact. The scientific
literature is so voluminous that few would be capable of digesting it. Part of
the problem is that today's dietitians and orthodox nutritionists are taught to
ignore much of the early research and medical doctors are not well versed in
vitamin C either. Apparently this knowledge vacuum has opened the door to the
emotionally appealing idea of a "natural" vitamin C-complex.
The Perfect Food Theory versus The
Orthomolecular Theory
The basis for Cowan's, Fallon's, and other naturalist's arguments is that
plant-derived "natural" vitamins, and vitamin complexes which are obtained from
foods, are more wholesome and generally better for us than individual synthetic
vitamins. The naturalists argue that food complexes are preferable because
groups of these substances usually appear together in healthful foods, and
because individual vitamins do not work alone in the body to sustain health.
There are at least two theoretical reasons why plant food may provide perfect
nutrition for humans and other animals: Either perfect foods evolved from a
mutual dependency between the plants and the animals that eat them, or these
perfect plant foods were created by divine intervention. Either way, plants and
their contents are the model naturalists look to for the best guidance as to
what constitutes proper human nutrition. This theory might be called the Theory
of Divine Food Creation in Plants or the Perfect Food Theory.
The naturalists are not wrong that animals evolved to eat particular foods. It
seems likely that animals and plants evolved together, and in such a way that
any plants which the surviving animals generally ingest does provide some
guidance as to the nutrition that the animal requires. To obtain information
about the foods that are best for humans, this theory requires the study of our
ancestor's diets -- what they ate, not necessarily why they ate it.
On the other side in the Pauling camp, orthomolecular nutritionists, or
orthomolecularists, might argue that during the course of evolution, immovable
plants had different survival issues from the evolving animals, which ate the
plants. Orthomolecularists' view foods, from the perspective of what they
contain -- which molecules are required to sustain life, and which ones must be
obtained in food.
Linus Pauling and other biochemists explain that there is no difference between
a so-called "synthetic" and a "natural" vitamin molecule. Biologically
identical, or bio-identical, molecules are indistinguishable from those
synthesized by plants or animals. In the blood serum, the origin of
bio-identical molecules is thought to be of little significance. Receptors on
the surface of animal cells control the uptake of individual molecules
regardless of how or why these molecules appear in the blood stream. Any
complexes of molecules present in food generally disassociate during digestion.
The theory that animal biochemistry and DNA, perhaps more than plant biology,
provides the better guide for optimal nutrition, might be called The Molecular
Theory of Vitamin Evolution in Animals, or simply The Orthomolecular Theory.
The Myth of the Vitamin C-complex
"This was the first proof that ascorbic acid was identical with vitamin C, and
that the substance's activity was not due to an impurity." - Albert
Szent-Gyorgyi, Nobel Lecture, Oxidation, Energy Transfer, and Vitamins, December
11, 1937.
Mainly because of the words "natural" and "vitamin complex," adherents to the
naturalist view have gained many followers, and their views are often repeated
by respected nutritional authorities. It is understandable why naturalists
distrust modern medical science with its orientation towards potentially
dangerous prescription drugs, but this is no reason to ignore science
altogether.
There is no scientific debate whether there is such a thing as a vitamin
C-complex. Such a thing as a matter of human nutrition does not exist. The
argument for ascorbic acid as vitamin C carries as much weight as any argument
in any field of science. Its sugar-like molecular structure was first isolated
by Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, and the chemical shorthand is C6H8O6. Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi
received the Nobel prize for this discovery.
No one who is engaged in conventional medical research believes there is a
C-complex, nor are there any peer-reviewed papers accessible in the Medline
medical database that support the idea that there is a C-complex, much less that
it is the real vitamin C.
It is known that animals generally do not require vitamin C in their diets.
Almost all mammals, and virtually all animals, synthesize ascorbic acid in the
liver or kidney. While most animals synthesize ascorbic acid, there is no
scientific evidence that any animal synthesizes the ill-defined C-complex within
its body.
The previously mentioned book entitled Fourfold Path to Healing (2004), by
Thomas Cowan, MD, with Sally Fallon and Jaimen McMillan, is remarkable for the
number of false or unsupported assertions these authors make concerning vitamin
C. Every sentence in the vitamin C section on pages 20 and 21 is either
unsupported, or contains misleading or false information which they present as
fact. The message these authors are trying to convey is that the natural vitamin
C-Complex not only exists, but it is required, lest consumers risk clogged
arteries and DNA damage.
Cowan et. al. begin their Vitamin C section on page 20 with the intriguing
sentence, "Several recent studies have shown that taking synthetic vitamins can
actually be harmful, thus challenging a practice suggested in virtually all
other books written about health and nutrition over the past 40 years." (page
20) Unfortunately, one reason for their different advice is that they are wrong.
The two studies cited made headlines, but both "studies" have been debunked
scientifically by the Vitamin C Foundation. (See the Vitamin C Foundation
on-line forum for our rebuttal to these two media reports, and for the complete
description of the errors about vitamin C that have been published on pages 20
and 21 of The FourFold Path to Healing.)........
http://vitamincfoundation.org/NaturalC.htm