>> .. and the
>>exogenous liver metabolite, ascorbate ion, persists
>>in being relegated to trace nutrient status with the
>>other vitamins as the so-called "vitamin C".
>
>I'm not shure if i just don't understand this english sentence..
>... what is relegated? the ascorbate ion?
>                       the nutrient status?

Yes, that sentence was convoluted. The point is that
orthodox vitamin theory, dating back since 1912, somewhat
arbitrarily classified the antiscorbutic factor, now
known as ascorbate, with the other "vitamines". Well,
it was discovered that they were not amines at all,
so the name was changed to vitamins. But ascorbate,
dubbed vitamin C, was seen as just another trace
nutrient needed only to prevent scurvy. This has
been known to be false since ascorbate plays a
much broader role in metabolism.

>
>or if Alexs states here that vitamins are obsolete from now on
>or just vitamin C is obsolete?

Again, the concept of ascorbate being a mere trace
vitamin is obsolete, not its utility.
>
refer to