X-Message-Number: 16801
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 22:20:53 -0400
From: Kitty Antonik <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #16753 & #16755, Mike Darwin (Vit C)
References: <>

> Message #16761
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:25:36 -0400
> From: fair4us <>
> Subject: Re: Cryonet #16753 &  #16755, Mike Darwin Etc.
> --=====================_40253669==_.ALT
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> Olaf Henny thinks that there is no difference between LEF's and Mike
> Darwin's positions on Vitamin C.  I think Olaf overlooked that Mike was
> discussing both Vitamin C supplementation by a living person, and use of
> the substance in cryopreservation.  LEF's article cited in my prior post
> tries to rebut a recent scientific study regarding the former.  Mike seems
> to side with that study.
> In my prior post, I was hoping to elicit from Mike or whomever, further
> insight regarding that issue.  If Vitamin C megadoses indeed produce artery
> thickening and rampant radicals, I am personally concerned, but need to be
> convinced.  I, too, have been appreciative and in awe of Saul & Bill's
> efforts over the years as enumerated by Mike, and have purchased vitamins
> from LEF.  One "serving" of LEF's Life Extension Mix has 2605 mg of Vitamin
> C, over 10 times the maximum recommended by Mike, and I have further
> supplemented by as much as 5000 mg/day.  How soon am I going to die?
>  >So, if Fair4us wants to be fair, he should point the finger at me, not at
>  >Bill, Saul, or LEF.
> Not my intention to point fingers.  All of you have done and are still
> doing great things for cryonics.  I'd just like to hear more about the
> Vitamin C megadose issue, and if the studies are not clear, I'd hope
> somebody follows through in clearing the issues up.
> --=====================_40253669==_.ALT
>  Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


In regard to the current Vitamin C controversy, I recommend that you
read the numerous reviews of the June 15, 20001 Science article that
take issue with its procedures and conclusions.  In addition, reading
original abstracts of peer-reviewed journal articles will provide the
writers' own words (PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).  One of the
best Internet places to start this research, and others on related
life-extension nutrition subjects, is newsgroups such as
sci.life-extension and sci.med.nutrition, NOT CryoNet. Also, additional
discussion and frequent cross-posting occurs on The LEF Forums where
substantiation by accepted scientific methods is required for proof,
rather than mere anecdotes.  The former, which includes analysis of peer
reviewed articles and reproducibility of results, is held as the proper
means for advancing knowledge. Whereas, the latter (anecdotes) are
merely "interesting", although they have often (historically) been the
starting point for true scientific studies, when they were sufficiently
numerous and "believable".  

The biochemistry of the body is not nearly as simple as the
microelectronics of a computer (;>)) but can be fairly understandable to
the seriously interested layperson - one who is not satisfied with the
synopsis of the nightly news, a Web report, or an anecdote - who is
willing to read, read some more, and then ask questions (of
knowledgeable parties) to clarify understanding.  (Henry Hazlitt's out
of print but occasionally available, "Thinking as a Science" is heartily
recommended as a tool for improved use of the most important faculty -
the mind.)

Good Researching and More Life,
**Kitty Antonik
MoreLife for us all - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16801