This sounds like pseudoscience. Your search results also look like either pseudoscience (a "Vitamin C foundation" with 90s style marquee text and Google hit cou

This sounds like pseudoscience. Your search results also look like either pseudoscience (a "Vitamin C foundation" with 90s style marquee text and Google hit counts for "vitamin c ebola" to bolster its case), or real science that just happens to tangentially mention vitamin C (such as http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S18.full http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S18.f... on the use of blood transfusion from recovered patients for treating ebola). You also manage to embed the "no true Scotsman" fallacy into your very short argument; "no viral infection has been demonstrated to be resistant to the proper dosing of vitamin C" is trivially true if you just say that any failed treatment simply wasn't using a "proper dosing of vitamin C".