GMOs good for health

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

it is moreover this main aspect which demonstrates that the theory of evolution is as fantastical as recreating life by synthetic chemistry and not even a simple cell whose own complexity has nothing to envy to the complexity of our organism We have never succeeded in creating by synthesis a simple (there is nothing simple) DNA and even before.

PS: Nature does not create anything, it fulfills its function like any created product.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

NATURAL OR SYNTHETIC VITAMIN C?

In nature, and this is an enigma, all the “natural” amino acids which constitute living beings deviate polarized light to the right, noted (+) therefore dextrorotatory. Ascorbic acid has two asymmetric carbon atoms and has no plane of symmetry, it occurs as two pairs of enantiomers, diastereoisomers between them. One pair of enantiomers is known as ascorbic acid while the other is known as isoascorbic acid.

(2R) -2 - [(1S) -1,2-dihydroxyethyl] -4,5-dihydroxyfuran-3-one or L - (+) - ascorbic acid, CAS number 50-81-7, natural form and known as the name of Vitamin C.
(2S) -2 - [(1R) -1,2-dihydroxyethyl] -4,5-dihydroxyfuran-3-one or D - (-) - ascorbic acid, CAS number 10504-35-5.
(2R) -2 - [(1R) -1,2-dihydroxyethyl] -4,5-dihydroxyfuran-3-one or D-isoascorbic acid, CAS number 89-65-6.
(2S) -2 - [(1S) -1,2-dihydroxyethyl] -4,5-dihydroxyfuran-3-one or L-isoascorbic acid, CAS number 26094-91-7.

L-ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) (1a); D-ascorbic acid (1b); L-isoascorbic acid (2a); D-isoascorbic acid (2b)
molecules

Do not confuse the notations d and D, l and L! The stereodescriptors used to describe stereoisomers are based on conventions. They are independent of the rotary power.

Thus, a D configuration compound can be dextrorotatory (d) or levorotatory (l). Only polarimetry makes it possible to determine the sign of the rotatory power of a substance. Moreover, there is no relationship between the optical activity (+) or (-) and the (R) or (S) configuration of an asymmetric carbon*. Vitamin C or (+)-L-ascorbic acid which is of L configuration and deflects light to the right (+) is therefore optically active in a dextrorotatory fashion. In this case, one can easily grasp that there is no link between the D or L configurations and the direction of the rotary power (+) or (-). The IUPAC nomenclature rules thus encourage the notation (+) and (-) rather than (d) and (l), which avoids any ambiguity.

*An asymmetric carbon is a carbon atom bonded to four different substituents. L-ascorbic acid found in fruits and vegetables has two asymmetric carbon atoms in its structure.

Clinical trials have shown no difference in effectiveness between synthetic Vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) and natural Vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid). The two molecules being strictly identical on the chemical level (deviation of the polarized light to the right (+)).

L-ascorbic acid is the only one to be assimilated correctly by our body and has no side effects. The D-ascorbic acid, L-isoascorbic acid, D-isoascorbic acid forms are ineffective and possibly toxic at high doses.

Vitamin C tablets extracted from natural sources, however, may contain other beneficial substances, including flavonoids. However, the most important factor in the therapeutic effectiveness of Vitamin C is the dose. Provided it is taken in the same doses, extracted Vitamin C, i.e. extracted from fruits or vegetables, is therefore as effective as synthetic Vitamin C, but ten times more expensive:
– Around 500 euros per kilo. Thus a year of Vitamin C “Acerola” at 6 grams per day will cost more than a thousand euros.
– In synthetic Vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) this amounts to approximately 100 euros per year. In addition, flavonoids can be taken separately, in the form of fruit or grapefruit seed extract for example.

In conclusion:
Whether Vitamin C is of 100% natural origin or 100% synthesized (L-ascorbic acid), in both cases the molecule is totally identical and useful for the body.

Already posted on 06/11/19, I'm reposting the article. The circle is complete.

The corresponding scientific study with some caveats like:

Unlike most mammals, humans cannot synthesize vitamin C (ascorbate) due to mutation of the terminal biosynthetic enzyme [1]. Thus, the micronutrient must be obtained from dietary sources in order to prevent hypovitaminosis C and scurvy, a potentially fatal deficiency disease [1]. Vitamin C was first isolated from fruits and vegetables and the adrenal glands of animals in the early 1930s and was chemically synthesized in 1933 [2]. Although synthetic and food-derived vitamin C are chemically identical, fruits and vegetables contain many nutrients and phytochemicals, for example flavonoids, which can affect the bioavailability of dietary vitamin C. Flavonoids can act as antioxidants by direct scavenging of free radicals [3] and/or chelation of redox active metal ions [4]. Thus, it has been proposed that dietary flavonoids can "spare" vitamin C and thus increase its bioavailability. *

conclusions
Our pharmacokinetic study showed comparable plasma absorption of synthetic and kiwifruit-derived vitamin C and improved urinary excretion of kiwifruit-derived vitamin C, although the approximately 10% increase in total excretion is unlikely to be significant. be physiologically significant. It is interesting to note that in our subjects with > 50 µmol/L at saturation of basal plasma ascorbate, approximately 50% to 60% of ingested ascorbate was not taken into account by urinary excretion, despite complete plasma absorption. This indicates possible tissue uptake even in individuals whose plasma ascorbate status is assumed to be 'healthy' or 'optimal'.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847741/

* Which echoes with:

Vitamin C tablets extracted from natural sources, however, may contain other beneficial substances, including flavonoids.

From the first article.

[Moindreffor]

You stay in the foam of things (in the slightest intellectual effort), too bad. No depth in your "analyzes" ... In short, finished for me, I leave you alone.

he said at the end of his arguments

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

You stay in the foam of things (in the slightest intellectual effort), too bad. No depth in your "analyzes" ... In short, finished for me, I leave you alone.

he said at the end of his arguments

The arguments, they exist, with you we talk to a wall but I don't want to repeat everything in a loop ad vitam and since I don't want your monologue to drag on, I cut it short (as with Janic, by the way ).

[Moindreffor]

obamot

We may talk about biochemistry, puffing out our chests to say that man is capable of equaling nature — starting from the simplistic principle that synthetic molecules are allegedly strictly identical to natural ones — but to date, the man has never succeeded in creating the slightest living cell from what we know of the “initial bricks of life”. Never.

it is moreover this main aspect which demonstrates that the theory of evolution is as fantastical as recreating life by synthetic chemistry and not even a simple cell whose own complexity has nothing to envy to the complexity of our organism We have never succeeded in creating by synthesis a simple (there is nothing simple) DNA and even before.

PS: Nature does not create anything, it fulfills its function like any created product.

to say that nature creates nothing, it's very beautiful, but it's rhetoric, you're playing on the word create, a plant makes nectar, that's how it works, yes, but starting from nothing, we there is something after so there is creation

in this case, man does not create anything either, he puts molecules in contact under the right conditions, which assemble, he does not intervene himself, the chemical reactions take place by themselves

it's easy to make a mistake of scale and to say that we are incapable
if Man was not able to do something identical to nature, it is because we could tell the difference, so sort natural molecules among molecules identical to nature, what Man or nature is unable to do, a plant does not reject a molecule identical to nature, our taste is fooled by synthetic vanillin, you have already spoken of the R and L molecules, but R or L we know how to sort, therefore not identical

and therefore it is not because man knows how to make the bricks that he knows how to make the building, not yet, but science evolves every day, so not today but maybe tomorrow, is that a good or a bad thing to each his own convictions, what I blame you for is more your attitude than your words, we have the right to disagree but by posing as the knowledgeable and we the idiots, you do not allow any debate contradictory, you pose as a dictator of knowledge

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

our taste is deceived by synthetic vanillin

No. Yours maybe, but I can tell the difference without tasting, just with my sense of smell. You're on repeat, we talked about it in 2019 and you were already showing your psycho-rigid side and your veneration for certain idols. Basically you haven't evolved at all and reality escapes you as it escapes Janic who worships other idols...

[Moindreffor]

You stay in the foam of things (in the slightest intellectual effort), too bad. No depth in your "analyzes" ... In short, finished for me, I leave you alone.

he said at the end of his arguments

The arguments, they exist but with you we talk to a wall but I don't want to repeat everything in a loop ad vitam and since I don't want your monologue to drag on, I cut it short (as with Janic, by the way ).

it's a shame because like every time we take a step towards you, we find the beginning of an agreement on a bit of a subject, you have to balance everything, you might think that it pisses you off sometimes having to admit that you may not be 100% right

if Janic or Obamot brought me real arguments, I could hear them, but since most of the time it's insults first and then bad faith, we have to continue, the theses they defend find mainly fertile ground in France, because here we prefer doubt to certainty, and it is by exploiting doubt that they exist, removing doubt and their world collapses

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

When I read "doctors heal, only God heals", sorry, but for me it's an insurmountable dead end...

[Moindreffor]

our taste is deceived by synthetic vanillin

No. Yours maybe, but I can tell the difference without tasting, just with my sense of smell. You're on repeat, we talked about it in 2019 and you were already showing your psycho-rigid side and your veneration for certain idols. Basically you haven't evolved at all and reality escapes you as it escapes Janic who worships other idols...

excuse me I did not know that you were a "nose", then you also have to broaden your mind, it is obvious that a vanilla aroma composed of several shades can be differentiated, but basically for everyone that will, and indeed it does

I don't worship anything at all, because I'm not a believer, it's crazy how you want to paint your opponents with your own faults, I take things as they are, after are they good bad..., but I am not a believer

science has done good things and bad things, but above all it has done what it has been asked to do...

[Moindreffor]

When I read "doctors heal, only God heals", sorry, but for me it's an insurmountable dead end...

we agree, because once again in this remark there is belief, and therefore any reference to a belief is for me an obstacle to constructive reflection