On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:52:54 -0500, James Silverton wrote:

> Phred wrote on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:48:00 GMT:
>
>> In article >,
>> in a previous thread which I have lost, hence this new one
>> "cybercat" > quoted:
>>>>>> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>>>>>> Andy wrote:
>>>>>>>> The most important point that folks constantly fail to
>>>>>>>> realize
>> is
>>>>>>>> that synthetic vitamins are useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How does your body know whether a molecule of vitamin C
>>>>>>> was made by a plant or in a factory? They both have
>>>>>>> all of the same atoms in all of the same place.
>
>> I don't know about vitamins as such, but IICR organic
>> chemistry from 50 years ago, compounds that exist in two
>> optically active forms (Dextro and Levo) are often (always?)
>> biased to one form in natural biological systems but are made
>> in equal amounts in lab processes unless such are designed to
>> produce the separate forms.
>
>> The two mirror forms of racemic compounds are known as
>> enantiomers and have identical properties except for the
>> rotation of plane polarised light. However, the racemate [the
>> 1:1 mixture] often has different properties to the pure
>> enantiomers (different melting points and solubilities are
>> very common). In the present context it's worth noting that
>> pharmaceuticals may be available as a racemate or as the pure
>> enantiomer, which might have different potencies.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racemic_mixture>
>
>> Enantiomers of each other often show different chemical
>> reactions with other substances that are also enantiomers.
>> Since many molecules in the body of living beings are
>> enantiomers themselves, there is often a marked difference in
>> the effects of two enantiomers on living beings. In drugs, for
>> example, the working substance is often one of two
>> enantiomers, while the other one is responsible for adverse
>> effects. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiomer>
>
>> It worth noting that virtually all active forms of amino acids
>> are of the L-form (d-serine being a notable exception) and
>> most biologically relevant sugars are of the D-form.
>> Typically, the alternative form is inactive and sometimes even
>> toxic to living things.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality>
>
>> [All of which goes to show that my memory has not yet
>> completely failed; and suggests that Andy may have had a good
>> point when talking about synthetic vitamins.]
>
> All that is true and interesting but we should not get distracted from
> the fact that truly generic drugs possess the same handedness as the
> originals. The only real difference can be in the formulation of pills
> which may dissolve at different rates.
>
> I don't have any particular liking for multivitamins and have doubts
> about their efficacy and even what they are supposed to achieve. The
> same applies to plant extracts like Echinacea whose content of the named
> active principle can vary over a vast range.

it seems to me that the FDA should have weighed in on this, but damned if i
can find it. (googling [natural vs synthetic vitamins] turns up mostly
arguments from parties with an obvious vested interest in saying synthetics
are the tool of the devil.) does anyone know?

your pal,
blake