We are experiencing an era that may be characterized as the most obscure scientific period in human history. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed how science can be distorted from its intellectual purpose – to serve and protect the human race within the physical and natural world.

How science is conducted during a pandemic could reveal on the one hand innovative minds that can save humanity (Fleming, 1929), but on the other hand also divulge egregious errors or appalling approaches that may not only halt society’s infrastructure itself but also threaten human interaction, relationships and even our existence.

Traveling, visiting, commuting, walking, jogging and just strolling or wandering on a river bank, a beach or a local park with your peer is the essence of human life. Stripping away this live and simple human behavior under fear and prejudice will definitely enhance our civilized extinction.

Many efforts of concerned scientists who have devoted their time and expertise to find solutions to the pandemic have been met with a resistance that can best be described as the “Semmelweis Syndrome”, since their observations conflict with the prevailing scientific and medical opinions developed under the political agenda of global vaccination.

For instance, a paper concerning mask wearing published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Zhang et al., 2020), a journal that is known to be the most influential in the natural sciences, created great controversy knowing that the process for submission and acceptance was peculiarly “cherry picked” as unexpectedly mentioned in the media (2b). This led 45 scientists (Haber et al., 2020) to request the retraction of the Zhang R et al., 2020 paper. More specifically the paper concluded as stated that “wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most-effective means to prevent interhuman transmission, and this inexpensive practice, in conjunction with simultaneous social distancing, quarantine, and contact tracing, represents the most likely fighting opportunity to stop the COVID-19 pandemic”, which as the authors and cosigners of the “Request for Retraction” pointed out was that this study was based on easily falsifiable claims and methodological design flaws.

This comes in line with a study from CDC in July 2020 which revealed that 70.6% of the 154 symptomatic participants who “always” wore a mask tested positive for the coronavirus, in comparison with 74.2% of the control group (160 symptomatic participants) who tested negative for the coronavirus and also “always” wore a mask (Fisher et al., 2020). The observations from the research comparing the two mask-wearing groups were not statistically different.

If mask wearing can help play a role in slowing down the spread of SARS-CoV-2, knowing “who-how-when-why and how long” is crucial, and public actions must rely on solid scientific evidence.

What we are trying to point out is that publishing a paper in an influential journal will definitely receive a lot of traction from the media when it serves the cause for the pandemic social-economic strategy. When examined critically, the claims from the Zhang et al. (2020), study were misleading and lacked any basis in evidence, as stated not only in the request for retraction by many distinguished scientists but also from the CDC itself – and yet it was published and widely disseminated.

Unfortunately, such scientific publicity seems to be a tactic wherein “the end justifies the means”. In a parallel fashion, the scientific community marginalizes clinical evidence and research data that supports the use of vitamin C for treating infectious diseases.

and immunity for more than 70 years because of influential papers that were published in the 70’s by prominent authors in prestigious journals (Fisher et al., 2020; Klenner, 1951; Kalokerinos et al., 1993; Carr & Maggini, 2017; Hickey & Saul, 2015; Padayatty & Levine, 2016).

Historically speaking, there was a sudden collapse of interest in the beneficial effects of vitamin C on the common cold (Hemilä, 2017). The reason was because of three decidedly salient papers in prominent medical journals (JAMA, The American Journal of Medicine) which concluded that vitamin C was ineffective for colds (Chalmers, 1975; Karlowski et al., 1975; Dykes & Meier, 1975). How such distinguished scientists had errors in their calculations and the extraction of data, gave erroneous explanations and most surprisingly have shown serious biases is unspeakable (Hemilä & Herman, 1995; Chalmers, 1996; Hemilä, 1996) and yet it is these three publications that are used as references for nutritional recommendations, and in medical textbooks on infectious diseases and nutrition, as noted in a highly remarkable paper by Dr. Hemilä (2017).

To set the record straight, there is a plethora of scientific evidence revealing the important roles of vitamin C in the human immune system (Klenner, 1951; Kalokerinos et al., 1993; Carr & Maggini, 2017; Ewer & Lewis 2011). Thus, taking vitamin C in this COVID-19 pandemic era seems to be crucial since the literature has well documented its rapid depletion during an infectious disease, and the fact that if not replenished a poor diagnosis could be observed.

Actually close to scurvy levels of vitamin C is associated with respiratory tract infections and especially pneumonia. Hence, confining a serious respiratory disease such as pneumonia with ascorbic acid must become a mandatory remedial treatment. This is supported from scientific data whereas low blood levels of ascorbic acid are consistently found in patients with viral diseases (Hemilӓ, 1997).

Unfortunately, governments and the media cannot “see the forest for the trees” while apparent` the vast majority of critically ill COVID patients given the standard treatment as recommended by international health organizations have poor outcomes when being intubated (Ohl et al., 2021). The best way forward in strenuous times is to be rational and clear-thinking. Could it be that the corona virus is a matter of boosting the innate human immune system?

The rational of this article is questioning whether academic freedom is threatened and that the continuity of humanity cannot rely on science that solely pursues research knowledge as “a return-on- investment”.

Let’s hypothesize that we were to announce a scientific breakthrough about a new molecule that may attenuate COVID-19 and name it “Ignose”, whereas its chemical structure and biological properties are unimaginable. Most importantly what if research data revealed to us that “Ignose” is able to:

  • affect the activity of TET proteins (Yin et al., 2013)
  • stimulate hematopoietic stem cells (van Gorkom et al., 2018)
  • oxidize pathogens (Mousavi et al., 2019)
  • catalyze ROS production, scavenge free radicals and maintain redox balance in the central nerves system (Li, 2016)
  • participate in the enzymatic synthesis of dopamine, carnitine and a number of neuroendocrine peptides (Michels & Frei, 2012)
  • rejuvenate mitochondria and arteries (González et al., 2010)
  • ensure quality of life especially in cancer patients (Klimant et al., 2018)
  • protect cellular components from oxidation (Carr & Maggini, 2017)
  • act as an electron donor for fifteen mammalian and three fungal enzymes (Englard & Seifter, 1986)
  • regulate hypoxia inducible factor (HIF)- 1α (Kuiper et al., 2014)
  • modulate the endothelial cell barrier and regulate the activity of NADPH oxidases (NOXs) involved in inflammatory gene response (Lykkesfeldt et al., 2014)
  • promote 1,25(OH)2D3 synthesis (Cantatore et al., 1991)
  • induce apoptosis in cancer cells selectively (Pawlowska et al., 2019)
  • attenuate the increase in oxidative stress markers (Righi et al., 2020)
  • affect replication of viruses (Hemilä, 2017)
  • alleviate & shorten the common cold (Ran et al., 2018)
  • inhibit aging (Monacelli et al., 2017)
  • recycle vitamin E (Huang, 2003)

Subsequently “Ignose” is found to pose a major functional factor for the human immune system since it has shown to:

  • enhance B and T-lymphocyte proliferation (Wu et al., 2000; Schwager & Schulze, 1997)
  • inhibit T-lymphocyte apoptosis (Campbell et al., 1999)
  • concentrate selectively in white blood cells (Thomas & Holt, 1978; Washko et al., 1993)
  • dissolve the protective capsules of some bacteria, such as pneumococci (Johnston & Martin, 1992)
  • enhance natural killer cell activity and phagocytic function (Heuser & Vojdani, 1997; Anderson et al., 1980)
  • enhance antibody production and complement activity (Bourne, 1949; Feigen et al., 1982)

Then every institution and pharmaceutical benefactor would immediately seek to patent it. Nevertheless to their surprise “Ignose” was the first designation given to ascorbic acid by the nobelist Albert Szent-Györgyi  (5).

Medical ethics have to be the principle notion in any health care practice therefore if sufficient literature on vitamin C efficacy for an infectious disease is promising for positive outcomes, prudent behaviors should prevail among health care takers (22). Vice versa, if adequate scientific evidence for anything being administered shows serious risks, again patient comprehension of this risk should be acknowledged (23).

Taking everything into consideration, could the COVID-19 scientific knowledge – which is increasingly being “manipulated” based on the political choices of those who are willing to suppress evidence of conflict (24-26) – be threatened or benefited by ascorbic acid?

 

Conclusion

Although vitamin C is the most reliable and effective molecule for immunity that nature has to offer us, it is still supressed. Its safety is undisputable and its anti-inflammatory and antiviral effectiveness is inarguable. What makes it unique is its structure and its unimaginative biochemical-physical properties.

Everyone engaged in the battle against the COVID-19 disease knows that measures that may prevent its severity and interventions that could mitigate poor outcomes, must be embraced and vitamin C seems to “fit the bill”. It is therefore understood that during these unprecedented times the use of nutraceuticals should be repurposed as therapeutic and prophylactic agents.