 |
Reply
| | (1 recommendation so far) | Message 1 of 8 in Discussion |
| From:  JuanMBArg (Original Message) | Sent: 10/21/2006 4:10 PM |
Hi all,
I wanted to ask about Vitamin C.
I was under the impression that there was little point in taking over 2 gr a day. And that taking over 500 mg at a time was also pointless, because the organism couldn't absorb more than that, and the rest would be eliminated.
And then a Dr told me to take 4 gr a day and that you could have as many as 10. And intravenous dosing I understand is much higher.
I'm now taking 1 gr at each main meal (3 gr daily).
Is there a more or less standard dosage of Vit C as antioxidant suplementation?
When should it be taken? With the meals? Before/after?
Thanks a lot!
Juan |
|
 First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
Hi Juan: I don't recommend "antioxidant" supplements at all, actually. A small amount of "vitamin C" in the form of a basic/generic iron-free multivitamin is not likely to do harm, but I prefer to take specific supplements, such as magnesium citrate. I also take very small amounts of a B complext powder and nutritional yeast with each meal. If you read the page I wrote up about diet, you will see what I do. It is more important to make sure that your physiology and biochemistry is functioning well, rather than to try and "boost" something in the hopes that it will be more beneficial than detrimental. So, for instance, I would be more concerned that you have enough stomach acid than worrying about whether you should take "mega-doses" of vitamin C, which I can't imagine being a good idea if you are following my kind of diet. Ask yourself a simple question: why am I taking vitamin C? How about eating some high quality oranges once in a while? Vitamin C is said to be a recylcer of vitamin E, and vitamin E is used to stop free radicals generated from lipid peroxidation. My solution to to avoid unsaturated fatty acids (except in trace or very small amounts) as well as avoiding oxidized cholesterol. If you do that, and also eat some antioxidant-rich foods (berries, for example), then my guess is that an orange now and then is all you really need. |
|
Reply
| |
I am enclosing an article about the theory that subclinical scurvy is the cause of atherosclerosis in humans and the other few animals that lost their ability to produce VitC:
SOURCE: http://homodiet.netfirms.com/
A THEORY OF HEART DISEASE...
Pauling Therapy Explained
Well, I don't know that there is a need for a randomized prospective, double-blind controlled trial when you get evidence of this sort, the value of large intakes of vitamin C and also of lysine for preventing the deposition of atherosclerotic plaques, and preventing death from cardiovascular disease." - Linus Pauling
You Must Unlearn What You Have Learned
[1] That atherosclerotic plaques deposit in response to injury is accepted. The confusion in the media is cause and effect. The fallacy is that cholesterol causes heart disease, but plaque build-ups are the effect of heart disease. Our understanding of the arterial healing process comes, in part, from research that led to the 1985 Nobel Prize in Medicine.
[2] Cholesterol cannot and does not cause heart disease. Human beings are well protected from scurvy by the RDA of vitamin C (now 75-90 mg), but this meager amount virtually guarantees "hardening of the arteries," i.e. the development of occlusive cardiovascular disease as scabs (atherosclerotic plaques) form on the arterial walls weakened by the vitamin deficiency.
[3] This realization is not new: G. C. Willis, MD, made the crucial observation inthe early 1950s. A Canadian doctor, he noticed that atherosclerotic plaques always formed in the same places. Usually near the heart where the blood vessels are stretched and bent. Willis suspected a vitamin C deficiency, and his experiments implicated mechanical stress caused by the heart beat.
[4] The Pauling and Rath theory relies on the Willis observations. (Note: In a heart bypass, veins from the leg are used which are without plaque.) Because plaque does not form randomly throughout the blood stream, it is unlikely that the primary cause of the lesions leading to heart disease are "poisons" circulating in the blood.
[5] We now know that plaques form over stress fractures. Visualize stepping on a garden hose 70-80 times per minute, a fate similar to the coronary arteries feeding the heart. Over time, human arteries may wear down and develop small cracks. Mechanical stress then, not cholesterol, causes heart disease. But why are humans more susceptible to this stress than other beings with heart beats? Some factor must cause the lesions in the walls of human blood vessels but not in the coronary arteries of most other animals. Pauling and Rath blame the lack of a specific protein caused by a specific vitamin deficiency. A vitamin deficiency that is impossible in most animals!
Roger J. Williams, PhD, in his 1971 book Nutrition Against Disease explained vitamin C's role in collagen:
"Vitamin C is essential for the building of collagen, the most abundant protein built in our bodies and the major component of connective tissue. This connective tissue has structural and supportive functions which are indispensable to heart tissues, to blood vessels, --in fact, to all tissues. Collagen is not only the most abundant protein in our bodies, it also occurs in larger amounts than all other proteins put together. It cannot be built without vitamin C. No heart or blood vessel or other organ could possibly perform its functions without collagen. No heart or blood vessel can be maintained in healthy condition without vitamin C."
Heart Disease *is* Chronic Scurvy
The Pauling and Rath theory postulates that the root cause of atherosclerotic plaque deposits is a vitamin C deficiency.
[6] Pauling called this condition "chronic scurvy." It is normal in humans, but it cannot happen in most other species. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is not a vitamin for most animals in the sense that it is not required in their diet. They make it in high amounts in their livers or kidneys. The sad fact is that we humans must obtain all our vitamin C from what we eat. (Unless we supplement, our diets contain less than 1/100th of what animals make, and we lose some in the gut during digestion.) According to the Pauling/Rath theory, suboptimal vitamin C results in less collagen. As collagen supplies dwindle, our blood vessels deteriorate. In an acute shortage, we die of scurvy. In a chronic shortage, humans develop atherosclerotic plaques. Pauling believed that most human beings suffer chronic scurvy.
"Vitamin C has been under investigation, reported in thousands of scientific papers, ever since it was discovered (circa) fifty years ago. Even though some physicians had observed forty or fifty years ago that amounts a hundred to a thousand times larger (than the RDA) have value in controlling various diseases,the medical profession and most scientists ignored this evidence."
Linus Pauling HOW TO LIVE LONGER AND FEEL BETTER, pg 106 paperback.
[7] A vast amount of experimental research supports the Pauling/Rath view. Careful studies with animals that do not make their own endogenous vitamin C (such animals are rare) prove that when the dietary intake of the vitamin is low, collagen production is limited, and blood vessels tend to become thinner and weaker from wear and tear; plaque deposits then form to compensate for this weakness. [Pauling/Rath, 87] Large population studies show that higher C intake results in lower incidence of cardiovascular disease and lower death rates.[Enstrom, 92]
Plaque is a Healing Response
[8] Plaque forms over injured blood vessels. If one suffers plaque deposits, it is likely he/she owes his life to this material that narrows arteries. Without plaque, the weakened blood vessels would rupture or leak causing internal bleeding and death. A slower version of scurvy, the disease long-dreaded by ancient sailors. (James Lind discovered (year 1753) that eating fruit prevents this disease. Acute scurvy can be prevented by a mere 10 mg vitamin C per day. )
The correct terminology for cardiovascular (heart) disease then is "chronic" scurvy or "sub clinical" scurvy.
[9] The human body's healing response to chronic scurvy is what medicine calls coronary heart disease (CHD), AKA cardiovascular disease (CVD), "heart disease", "atherosclerosis", "arteriosclerosis", "hardening", "plaque", "narrowing", etc. This process by itself rarely kills people, but plaque lined arteries make heart attack more likely from a blood clot or blockage. (Plaque lined arteries cannot easily dilate in response to a clot.) Currently, it is unknown what amount of vitamin C prevents the atherosclerotic plaques of chronic scurvy, but Linus Pauling often recommended 3000 mg.
***Take Our Quiz***
Lp(a): The Surrogate Healing Factor
[10] The chronic scurvy healing process begins with an important "sticky" form of cholesterol. Pauling and Rath were among the first to attach utmost importance to the blood lipid: lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a) for short. From the research that led to the 1985 Nobel prize, medical researchers learned how plaque deposits as Lp(a) binds to lysine strands that appear in the arterial walls. Lysine and proline are building blocks of the collagen super-molecule, but the Cholesterol or Lysine strands the Lp(a) Binding Sites adhered to are not normally exposed. The binding sites can adhere only after blood vessels crack or suffer a small sore or lesion. Scientists have since discovered the Lp(a) Proline Binding Sites too. Note: Mainstream medical science has known since 1989 that Lp(a) binds to form plaque, not ordinary LDL. [2, 4]
[11] Many experts believe that something circulating in the blood must cause these cracks in our blood "pipes". For many years, ordinary LDL cholesterol has been blamed because elevated levels have sometimes been correlated with heart disease. Other scientists correlated elevated homocysteine and oxidized cholesterol. Again, the confusion is cause and effect. If cholesterol causes cracks or lesions, plaque should be more randomly distributed throughout the blood stream. According to the Pauling/Rath unified theory, both elevated homocysteine and oxidized cholesterol are symptoms of scurvy.
New Oxford meta-analysis of 27 large studies (09/04/2000) shows that people with high Lp(a) are 70% more likely to have a heart attack or stroke.
Plus: Only AMA publication to mention the Pauling protocol!
[12] Before teaming with Pauling, Dr. Rath's German research team examined plaque from human aortas (blood vessels near the heart) post-mortem. They discovered that atherosclerotic plaques are composed primarily of Lp(a), not ordinary LDL cholesterol. [2, 4] Dr. Rath, realized that Lp(a) was connected somehow with vitamin C and joined the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine. Together, Pauling and Rath developed their unified theory which holds that increased Lp(a) acts as a surrogate for low vitamin C and hardens weak blood vessels. Their experiments, to test their theory, proved that low vitamin C intake will increase blood levels of Lp(a) in test animals compared to controls.
[13] An important finding is that this sticky Lp(a) (a form of cholesterol similar to LDL) has only been found in the very few animal species that do not make their own vitamin C, including humans. Today, most animals:
Make vitamin C in their livers or kidneys, in large "mega" amounts (9,000 mg to 12,000 mg adjusted for body weight - which is high by current medical standards),
do not have Lp(a) in their blood, and
rarely suffer cardiovascular disease.
Humans are almost unique among life on Earth in that we must receive our vitamin C entirely from the diet.
Genetically engineered mice: Proof of the Pauling/Rath theory?
MEDICAL PARADIGM SHIFTING Vitamins-as-Prevention to Vitamins-as-Therapy
[14] Linus Pauling the Chemist led the medical paradigm shift from vitamins-as-prevention to vitamins-as-therapy. Pauling became fascinated by vitamin C and other life-giving substances that, like drugs, have powerful physiological effects in minuscule amounts, but unlike most drugs, are completely non-toxic at very high dosages. His efforts have failed to sway most medical doctors.
[15] In 1991, armed with the knowledge of the how and why Lp(a) binds to our arteries creating plaque, Pauling invented the way to unbind, or "turn off", the sticky Lp(a) molecule: The cure for heart disease. The Pauling invention nullifies the binding effect of Lp(a) to the damaged arterial wall. The agents can be taken by mouth and act chemically as solvents that both prevent and attack existing plaque formations. Importantly, the formula attacks the root cause by stimulating the production of collagen. With collagen, blood vessels stay healthy or heal normally, so there are no cholesterol binding sites to attract Lp(a).
[16] According to one Pauling/Rath 1994 United States patent, the amino acid lysine (lysine analogs), along with vitamin C and other antioxidants (e.g. Co-Q10, vitamin E and vitamin A), can, in sufficient concentration, inhibit Lp(a) binding to exposed lysine residues. Proline residues are also exposed by lesions in blood vessels; later experiments showed that proline is a powerful binding inhibitor. Proline and lysine, with vitamin C, other amino acids and antioxidants, in oral amounts well past the amounts needed for prevention, become solvents by inhibiting the binding of Lp(a). An Lp(a) binding inhibitor, augmented with vitamin C, can stop and apparently even reverses plaque formations. (Pauling and Rath's second U. S. patent is for using binding inhibitors as solvents to melt atherosclerotic plaques during organ transplants or heart surgery. The organ or blood vessel is dipped in the Lp(a) Binding Inhibitor solution and any surface plaque melts away. Also, arginine and proline have been shown to inhibit the binding of apo(a) to the LDL cholesterol molecule, thus interfering with the formation of Lp(a).)
[17] High intakes of these substances, esp. vitamin C and lysine, are the Pauling Therapy. The Pauling Therapy treats the root-cause and our seven-year experience demonstrates that at sufficient dosage, these substances have powerful effects, and will rapidly reverse advanced heart disease.
[18] The Pauling mega-vitamin/amino acid therapy increases blood concentrations of important substances to:
Strengthen and heal blood vessels,
Lower Lp(a) blood levels and keep Lp(a) levels low, and
Inhibit the binding of Lp(a) molecules to the walls of blood vessels.
The components of the Pauling Therapy are remarkably safe. Unlike ordinary drugs, there are few known health risks. There are no known adverse side effects, other than the laxative effect of vitamin C. (We now believe that it is prudent to balance high-dosage lysine with a good B-complex vitamin, and later during maintenance, high-dose arginine.)
Pharmaceutical Cartel's Nightmare
CURE FOR NUMBER ONE KILLER IS NOT A DRUG!
national ads credit pharmaceuticals for decrease in Heart Disease mortality since 1970!?
[20] The Pauling "mega" dose ranges are based upon the degree of illness in a patient. In general, Lp(a) binding inhibitors are food substances that are non-toxic, and studies have shown they improve health as intake increases; lesser amounts will have lesser effects. According to his daughter Linda, Linus Pauling's lysine dosage recommendations were carefully considered, and were based on his knowledge of lysine blood serum levels, after intake. It is not practical to obtain these amounts in food alone; supplements are required.
[21] Vitamin C, and the amino acids lysine and proline, are the fundamental building blocks of collagen and the Pauling Therapy provides these building blocks in ample amounts. Over time, collagen must be replenished for blood vessels to remain healthy and plaque free.
[22] The reason most doctors cannot accept these arguments is that most medical schools do not teach that humans use up vitamin C while producing collagen. This fact has been established. [See HOW TO LIVE LONGER AND FEEL BETTER, Linus Pauling, 1986] One reason Linus Pauling himself consumed 18,000 mg of vitamin C daily is that the human ability to produce collagen is severely limited at the US Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of 60 mg (now 75-90 mg)
Full text of this article see: http://www.paulingtherapy.com/ |
|
Reply
| |
In the "old days," more than a few people were terribly deficient in some vitamins and minerals, but today that is much less common in almost all "advanced" nations. I doubt one could find a correlation between people who die of heart disease in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, and much lower consumption of vitamin C in similar demographic groups. I remember there was a claim that vitamin C keeps atherosclerotic plaques from "flapping up," which would then clog the artery and cause a "heart attack." My idea is to avoid the plaque buildup in the first place. |
|
Reply
| |
Hans-
Isn't is true that the less we eat polyunsaturated fats the less we need of Vitamins and Minerals? I believe I read that on Ray Peat's website, that the requirements go down when unsaturated fats go down. |
|
Reply
| |
| This would certainly make sense. My great grandparents didn't take any supplements until they were very old. They were raised on olive oil, and didn't eat any of the PUFA-rich oils until they were in their 80s or 90s, and even then only in very small amounts compared to the rest of the family. Vitamin C "recycles" vitamin E, which is used to deal with lipid peroxidation (rancid fat), and so I don't bother taking any vitamin E or C supplements now. My guess is that the electrolyte minerals are most important, in terms of making sure you get enough, regardless of diet, but you have to take them in the correct forms or else you can do more harm than good. A B vitamin supplement might be a good idea if your life is very physically active, but it would be interesting to know if studies were done on vitamin levels in people with different lifestyles. |
|
Reply
| |
Some anti VitC article from the Quackbuster Stephen Barrett, M.D.:
SOURCE: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html
The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Linus Pauling, Ph.D. (1901-1994), was the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel prizes. He received these awards for chemistry in 1954 and for peace in 1962. His death stimulated many tributes to his scientific accomplishments. His impact on the health marketplace, however, was anything but laudable.
Pauling is largely responsible for the widespread misbelief that high doses of vitamin C are effective against colds and other illnesses. In 1968, he postulated that people's needs for vitamins and other nutrients vary markedly and that to maintain good health, many people need amounts of nutrients much greater than the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs). And he speculated that megadoses of certain vitamins and minerals might well be the treatment of choice for some forms of mental illness. He termed this approach "orthomolecular," meaning "right molecule." After that, he steadily expanded the list of illnesses he believed could be influenced by "orthomolecular" therapy and the number of nutrients suitable for such use. No responsible medical or nutrition scientists share these views.
Vitamin C and the Common Cold
In 1970, Pauling announced in Vitamin C and the Common Cold that taking 1,000 mg of vitamin C daily will reduce the incidence of colds by 45% for most people but that some people need much larger amounts [1]. (The RDA for vitamin C is 60 mg.) The 1976 revision of the book, retitled Vitamin C, the Common Cold and the Flu, suggested even higher dosages [2]. A third book, Vitamin C and Cancer (1979) claims that high doses of vitamin C may be effective against cancer. Yet another book, How to Feel Better and Live Longer (1986), stated that megadoses of vitamins "can improve your general health . . . to increase your enjoyment of life and can help in controlling heart disease, cancer, and other diseases and in slowing down the process of aging." [3] Pauling himself reportedly took at least 12,000 mg daily and raised the amount to 40,000 mg if symptoms of a cold appear [4]. In 1993, after undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer, Pauling said that vitamin C had delayed the cancer's onset for twenty years. This was not a testable claim. He died of the disease in August 1994.
Scientific fact is established when the same experiment is carried out over and over again with the same results. To test the effect of vitamin C on colds, it is necessary to compare groups which get the vitamin to similar groups which get a placebo (a dummy pill which looks like the real thing). Since the common cold is a very variable illness, proper tests must involve hundreds of people for significantly long periods of time. At least 16 well-designed, double-blind studies have shown that supplementation with vitamin C does not prevent colds and at best may slightly reduce the symptoms of a cold [5]. Slight symptom reduction may occur as the result of an antihistamine-like effect, but whether this has practical value is a matter of dispute. Pauling's views are based on the same studies considered by other scientists, but his analyses are flawed.
The largest clinical trials, involving thousands of volunteers, were directed by Dr. Terence Anderson, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto [6-9]. Taken together, his studies suggest that extra vitamin C may slightly reduce the severity of colds, but it is not necessary to take the high doses suggested by Pauling to achieve this result. Nor is there anything to be gained by taking vitamin C supplements year-round in the hope of preventing colds.
Another important study was reported in 1975 by scientists at the National Institutes of Health who compared vitamin C pills with a placebo before and during colds. Although the experiment was supposed to be double-blind, half the subjects were able to guess which pill they were getting. When the results were tabulated with all subjects lumped together, the vitamin group reported fewer colds per person over a nine-month period. But among the half who hadn't guessed which pill they had been taking, no difference in the incidence or severity was found [10]. This illustrates how people who think they are doing something effective (such as taking a vitamin) can report a favorable result even when none exists.
Vitamin C and Cancer
In 1976, Pauling and Dr. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician, reported that a majority of one hundred "terminal" cancer patients treated with 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily survived three to four times longer than similar patients who did not receive vitamin C supplements [11,12]. However, Dr. William DeWys, chief of clinical investigations at the National Cancer Institute, found that the study was poorly designed because the patient groups were not comparable [13]. The vitamin C patients were Cameron's, while the other patients were under the care of other physicians. Cameron's patients were started on vitamin C when he labeled them "untreatable" by other methods, and their subsequent survival was compared to the survival of the "control" patients after they were labeled untreatable by their doctors. DeWys reasoned that if the two groups were comparable, the lengths of time from entry into the hospital to being labeled untreatable should be equivalent in both groups. However, he found that Cameron's patients were labeled untreatable much earlier in the course of their disease—which means that they entered the hospital before they were as sick as the other doctors' patients and would naturally be expected to live longer.
Nevertheless, to test whether Pauling might be correct, the Mayo Clinic conducted three double-blind studies involving a total of 367 patients with advanced cancer. The studies, reported in 1979, 1983, and 1985, found that patients given 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily did no better than those given a placebo [14-16]. Pauling criticized the first study, claiming that chemotherapeutic agents might have suppressed the patients' immune systems so that vitamin C couldn't work [17]. But his 1976 report on Cameron's work stated clearly that: "All patients are treated initially in a perfectly conventional way, by operation, use of radiotherapy, and the administration of hormones and cytotoxic substances." And during a subsequent talk at the University of Arizona, he stated that vitamin C therapy could be used along with all conventional modalities [18]. The participants in the 1983 study had not undergone conventional treatment, but Pauling dismissed its results anyway.
Science aside, it is clear that Pauling was politically aligned with the promoters of unscientific nutrition practices. He said his initial interest in vitamin C was aroused by a letter from biochemist Irwin Stone, with whom he subsequently maintained a close working relationship. Although Stone was often referred to as "Dr. Stone," his only credentials were a certificate showing completion of a two-year chemistry program, an honorary chiropractic degree from the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, and a "Ph.D." from Donsbach University, a nonaccredited correspondence school.
In a little-publicized chapter in Vitamin C and the Common Cold, Pauling attacked the health-food industry for misleading its customers. Pointing out that "synthetic" vitamin C is identical with "natural" vitamin C, he warned that higher-priced "natural" products are a "waste of money." And he added that "the words 'organically grown' are essentially meaningless—just part of the jargon used by health-food promoters in making their excess profits, often from elderly people with low incomes." But Vitamin C, the Common Cold and the Flu, issued six years later, contained none of these criticisms. This omission was not accidental. In response to a letter, Pauling informed me that, after his first book came out, he was "strongly attacked by people who were also attacking the health-food people." His critics were so "biased," he decided, that he would no longer help them attack the health-food industry while another part of their attack was directed at him [19].
The Linus Pauling Institute of Medicine, founded in 1973, is dedicated to "orthomolecular medicine." The institute's largest corporate donor has been Hoffmann-La Roche, the pharmaceutical giant that produces most of the world's vitamin C. Many of the institute's fundraising brochures have contained questionable information. They have falsely claimed, for example, that no significant progress has been made in cancer treatment in the past twenty years. This viewpoint, which is frequently expressed by promoters of unproven cancer therapies, is simply untrue.
A dispute between Pauling and Arthur Robinson, Ph.D., gives additional evidence of Pauling's defense of vitamin C megadosage was less than honest. Robinson, a former student and long-time associate of Pauling, helped found the institute and became its first president. According to an investigative report by James Lowell, Ph.D., in Nutrition Forum newsletter, Robinson's own research led him to conclude in 1978 that the high doses (5-10 grams per day) of vitamin C being recommended by Pauling might actually promote some types of cancer in mice [18]. Robinson told Lowell, for example, that animals fed quantities equivalent to Pauling's recommendations contracted skin cancer almost twice as frequently as the control group and that only doses of vitamin C that were nearly lethal had any protective effect. Shortly after reporting this to Pauling, Robinson was asked to resign from the institute, his experimental animals were killed, his scientific data were impounded, and some of the previous research results were destroyed. Pauling also declared publicly that Robinson's research was "amateurish" and inadequate. Robinson responded by suing the Institute and its trustees. In 1983, the suit was settled out of court for $575,000. In an interview quoted in Nature, Pauling said that the settlement "represented no more than compensation for loss of office and the cost of Robinson's legal fees." However, the court-approved agreement states that $425,000 of the settlement was for slander and libel.
In 1994, Robinson and two colleagues summarized the results of four mouse studies he had carried out while working at the Pauling Institute [20]. Nearly all of the mice developed skin cancers (squamous cell carcinomas) following exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Altogether, 1,846 hairless mice received a total of 38 different diets. The researchers found that (a) the rate of onset and severity of tumors could be varied as much as 20-fold by just modifying dietary balance; (b) diets with the worst balance of nutrients had the greatest inhibitory effect on cancer growth; and (c) no cures or remissions were observed (although the researchers were not looking for this). In 1999, Robinson commented:
The results of these experiments caused an argument between Linus and me, which ended our 16-year period of work together. He was not willing to accept the experimentally proved fact that vitamin C in ordinary doses accelerated the growth rate of squamous cell carcinoma in these mice.
At the time, Linus was promoting his claim that "75% of all cancer can be prevented and cured by vitamin C alone." This claim proved to be without experimental foundation and not true. . . . Vitamin C increased the rate of growth of cancer at human equivalents of 1 to 5 grams per day, but suppressed the cancer growth rate at doses on the order of 100 grams per day (near the lethal dose), as do other measures of malnutrition [21].
Other Questionable Activities
During the mid-1970s, Pauling helped lead the health-food industry's campaign for a federal law that weakened FDA protection of consumers against misleading nutrition claims. In 1977 and 1979, Pauling received awards and presented his views on vitamin C at the annual conventions of the National Nutritional Foods Association (the major trade association of health-food retailers, distributors and producers). In 1981, he accepted an award from the National Health Federation (NHF) for "services rendered in behalf of health freedom" and gave his daughter a life membership in this organization. NHF promotes the gamut of quackery. Many of its leaders have been in legal difficulty and some have even received prison sentences for various "health" activities. Pauling also spoke at a Parker School for Professional Success Seminar, a meeting where chiropractors were taught highly questionable methods of building their practices. An ad for the meeting invited chiropractors to pose with Pauling for a photograph (which presumably could be used for publicity when the chiropractors returned home).
In 1981, after learning that Pauling had donated money to NHF (for his daughter's life membership), I asked whether he knew about NHF's shady background and the fact that it was the leading antifluoridation force in the United States. I also asked whether he cared that the money might be used to help fight fluoridation. In a series of letters, he replied that he: (a) strongly supported fluoridation, (b) was aware of NHF's opposition, (c) had tried to pressure the organization to change its views, (d) had spoken out for it often and over many years, and (e) thought other issues were more important [19]. He also sent me a profluoridation statement he had issued in 1967 [22]. His claim that he had spoken out for fluoridation surprised me. Altough I have read thousands of documents related to Paulings views and activities, I had never any indication that he had publicly supported fluoridation.
In 1983, Pauling and Irwin Stone testified at a hearing on behalf of Oscar Falconi, a vitamin promoter charged by the Postal Service with making false claims for several products. Pauling supported Falconi's contentions that vitamin C was useful not only in preventing cancer, but also in curing drug addicts and destroying both viruses and bacteria. Pauling also testified in 1984 before the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance in defense of Michael Gerber, M.D., who was accused of improperly administering to patients. One was a 56-year-old woman with treatable cancer who—the Board concluded—had died as a result of Gerber's neglect while he treated her with herbs, enzymes, coffee enemas, and chelation therapy. The other patients were three-year-old twin boys with ear infections for which Gerber had prescribed 70,000 or more units of vitamin A daily and coffee enemas twice daily for several weeks. Gerber lost his license to practice medicine as a result of the hearings. He now practices in Nevada under a homeopathic license.
A flyer distributed in 1991 by the Linus Pauling Institute recommended daily doses of 6,000 to 18,000 mg of vitamin C, 400 to 1,600 IU of vitamin E, and 25,000 IU of vitamin A, plus various other vitamins and minerals. These dosages have no proven benefit and can cause troublesome side effects.
Although Pauling's megavitamin claims lacked the evidence needed for acceptance by the scientific community, they have been accepted by large numbers of people who lack the scientific expertise to evaluate them. Thanks largely to Pauling's prestige, annual vitamin C sales in the United States have been in the hundreds of millions of dollars for many years. The physical damage to people he led astray cannot be measured. |
|
Reply
| | (1 recommendation so far) | Message 8 of 8 in Discussion |
|
From the newest LEF newsletter:
Vitamin C works against cancer (but maybe not the way you thought)
Researchers from Johns Hopkins report in the September, 2007 issue of the journal Cancer Cell that vitamin C can indeed help prevent cancer as has been claimed for years by a number of scientists including Linus Pauling, but it appears to do so in a different manner than that which earlier researchers proposed. While it had been believed that the well known antioxidant property of vitamin C prevented cancer by protecting DNA from free radical damage, the latest research unveils a new mechanism: that of preventing the ability of a tumor to grow in a reduced oxygen environment.
Johns Hopkins professor of medicine and oncology Chi Dang, MD, PhD and his associates tested the ability of vitamin C as well as N-acetyl-cysteine, another antioxidant, in mice implanted with human lymphoma or liver cancer cells, both of which produce a high number of free radicals. Control groups of mice implanted with the cancers received no antioxidant supplementation.
When the researchers examined DNA from the mice that did not receive antioxidant treatment, a lack of significant damage was observed. "Clearly, if DNA damage was not in play as a cause of the cancer, then whatever the antioxidants were doing to help was also not related to DNA damage," lead author Ping Gao, PhD, said of the finding.
The team found that a protein known as hypoxia-induced factor (HIF-1), which is dependent upon free radicals, was diminished in antioxidant-treated animals. The protein enables tumors to survive in the low oxygen environment of rapidly growing tumors. "When a cell lacks oxygen, HIF-1 helps it compensate," Dr Dang explained. "HIF-1 helps an oxygen-starved cell convert sugar to energy without using oxygen and also initiates the construction of new blood vessels to bring in a fresh oxygen supply."
The finding was verified by the engineering of cancer cells to contain a variant of HIF-1 that was not dependent upon free radicals. Antioxidants proved to be powerless against these cancerous cells.
"The potential anticancer benefits of antioxidants have been the driving force for many clinical and preclinical studies," Dr Dang noted. "By uncovering the mechanism behind antioxidants, we are now better suited to maximize their therapeutic use."
"Once again, this work demonstrates the irreplaceable value of letting researchers follow their scientific noses wherever it leads them," he added. |
|
|
First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Nutrition
