From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I am not convinced by the part ", which, since oxidation is an internal process, have virtually no value—well, to the customer."

I am a novice with both rationalwiki and any realm of biological sciences, however the motivation expressed in the sentence quoted above sounds little supported to me.

See, for example. — Unsigned, by: Caminati / talk / contribs

I have to concede you have a partial point. I've scanned the literature and there is such a paucity of clinical trials almost nothing can be said with any certainty. (eg this Medscape review. Your linked article is not conclusive - Vitamin C can be anti-oxidative, pro-oxidative or enzymatic. The fact it was absorbed into the dermis suggests it would be primarily pro-oxidative (as part of the pro-collagen to collagen reaction which occurs everywhere in the body, but especially in the dermis). VOXHUMANA 15:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the immediate answer. It's likely that you can understand the mentioned scientific papers much better than me. My point was simply that the fact that oxidation is an "internal process" does not, per se, allow to deem the topical approach as ineffective. Which doesn't mean it isn't.
You are correct on that point, the only question is whether or not a given anti-oxidant can cross the skin barrier. Certainly some other chemicals can do that - dimethyl-mercury being a toxic example. VOXHUMANA 21:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)