Tell your
friends about Vitamin Lady and watch the Product Credits in roll in!
vitamin c antioxidant, vitamin c immunity, vitamin c linus pauling, vitamin c stress, c plus e, things that deplete c, vitamin c lead, vitamin lady writes about vitamin c
VITAMIN C: ANTIOXIDANT
SERIES by Lynn Hinderliter CN, LDN
Most of us are familiar with Vitamin C, because of the work
done on it originally by Dr. Linus Pauling: he was convinced of its value both
as a suppresser of the common cold, and a defense against cancer. Certainly much
modern research tends to support his position: G. Block reported in the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1991, that there have been about 90
epidemiologic studies , and the vast majority of them have found statistically
significant protective effects, particularly in cancers of the esophagus, mouth,
stomach, and pancreas, also in cancers of the lung, breast, cervix and rectum.
Those of us who use vitamin C regularly to protect ourselves against the onset
of cold season hardly need to read any studies about it - we KNOW!
Just recently a study was published that seemed more to be a
scare tactic than anything else: in fact, the Council for Responsible Nutrition
is quoted as saying that the language of the press release is calculated to
cause concern and yet the amount of information provided does not clearly
justify that concern. Other researchers object that this is only a preliminary
study, the first ever report of any negative effects from Vitamin C, flying in
the face of years of significant positive results in every variety of study.
It was a very small study, and only 30% of the participants took Vitamin C, in
unknown amounts ranging from 30 to 1000mg. No information was forthcoming about
the number of participants who actually were taking 500mg or more, nor any
measurements of the variability in the rates of any artery hardening. I
personally think this will turn out to be a no-show, and it certainly hasn't
affected the amount of Vitamin C I take each day! Another riveting fact about
this study is that it is in direct opposition to a study published in Circulation
(the American Heart Association's own journal) which found there to be a
significant reduction in carotid artery thickness/hardening in
people 55 or older who took 1,000 mg of Vitamin C a day. Go figure, as
they say!
The Vitamin C foundation points out that this may very well be
GOOD news! None of the information in the study purported to show any
obstruction or occlusion in the arteries, just a thickening of the walls.
Elderly people tend to suffer inappropriate thinning of the blood vessel walls
as they age, and what this study may in fact be showing is a PROTECTIVE effect
from Vitamin C due to its influence on collagen production.
Check out the entire story at http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/tale.html
An interesting fact about vitamin C is that almost all other
living things have the ability to manufacture it in their bodies: man has lost
the capability, leading chemist Irwin Stone, who has studied Vitamin C since
1934, to refer to this as a genetic flaw. He felt that where other creatures
have the ability to create the vitamin when the onset of illness makes it
necessary, (goats, who weigh about the same as some humans, produce
between 2.2 and 13.3 grams per day) humans have to supplement extra quantities
sometimes in doses as high as 10 grams - in fact, in acute cases, holistic
practitioners advocate giving vitamin C intravenously and I have heard of
amounts as high as 75 grams being used with success. Obviously, this can only be
done under the care of a physician, since while the ease of excretion makes
Vitamin C toxicity unlikely, very high amounts can cause some problems - mostly
diarrhea. Some people use this symptom as a guide to how much vitamin C their
body needs, referring to it as "bowel tolerance", and cutting back a
little on their dose when they reach that point. Interestingly, a James Enstrom,
PhD, recently published a paper in Epidemiology showing a link between
Vitamin C supplementation and increased life span.
A new book in 2004 by leading Vitamin C
experts, pharmacologists Drs. Hickey and Roberts, is bringing new light to bear
on the reprehensible behaviour and flawed science attached to the Government's
Vitamin C recommendations - and attacks, I would add!
Hickey and Roberts point out that the original study setting
Vitamin C levels was performed on a mere 15 subjects, and healthy ones under no
health or psychic stress, at that. It absolutely does not take into
consideration the vastly higher levels of C required by the millions with
special considerations, such as smokers, diabetics, hormone users (birth
control, HRT) . It is merely the level which would prevent scurvy in the
majority of subjects!
Drs. Hickey and Roberts also take issue with the manner in
which the NIH determines tissue levels of C:
Some of the functions of vitamin C are: the promotion of
healing, formation of collagen, which makes it important in periodontal disease,
resistance to infection and enhancement of the immune system, strengthening of
blood vessels, tissue growth and repair, the proper functioning of the adrenal
glands, protection against the effects of pollution. These are very basic and
essential things it does, and an inadequate supply can be costly. A recent study
(Jan 00) published in the Lancet and performed by the Boston Univ. School
of Medicine, and the Linus Pauling Inst., showed that a dose of 500 mg per day
can drop blood pressure in those with mild to moderate hypertension by 9.1
percent, a figure comparable to prescription drugs. Unfortunately, many common
things we encounter in this day and age deplete Vitamin C: these include alcohol
consumption and smoking, antibiotic use, use of antihistamines and aspirin,
also barbiturates, cortisone , the use of oral contraceptives and estrogen, and
sulfonamides and prednisone. Stress is another things that can deplete vitamin C
levels, and very few of us are not subject to that!
Recently, some very interesting research has been done that
suggests a symbiotic link between Vitamin C & Vitamin E; i.e. that
when they are both present together in sufficient quantities, they do a more
thorough job of scavenging the damaging free radicals, as well as supporting
each other's revival cycles, whereby E & C are not destroyed by their
activity, but return to fight again.
I sometimes have parents ask me what they can do nutritionally
to help with high levels of lead in the blood, and am happy to be able to tell
them that studies at the San Francisco Vet Affairs Med Center and the University
of California San Francisco show that not only are low levels of Vitamin C in
the blood linked to high levels of lead, but that increasing Vitamin C intake
can help control even dangerously high levels of lead.
I personally do not doubt at all that supplementing with extra
vitamin C may be one of the most important steps an individual can take towards
protecting their health, and certainly never fail to take it myself.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON VITAMIN C THAN YOU
PROBABLY EVER WANTED, KEEP READING!
Dr Mercola weighs in on the latest Vitamin C Attack!
More On the Concern Over Vitamin C
“High doses of Vitamin C could increase the risk of cancer, scientists
warn today….”
So begins the June 15th 2001 UK Daily Mail front-page report, outlining the
work of Dr Ian Blair, resident researcher at the University of Pennsylvania
Pharmacology Unit. The Mail headline appears to be in direct conflict with Dr
Blair's own statement: "Absolutely, for God's sake, don't say Vitamin C
causes cancer." (Yahoo News, Thursday June 14th, 2001)
But of course, The Mail and others have shamelessly done exactly that. To the
less discerning reader, the story raises worrisome questions as to the wisdom
of high-level Vitamin C supplementation. If these worldwide headlines have
served any useful purpose at all, it has been to confirm the
moral/intellectual void currently reigning in today's mass media 'news'
departments.
At a more fundamental level, why is Dr Blair conducting tests on the efficacy
of Vitamin C at all?
We are about to discover that certain parties have a very definite interest in
casting aspersions upon Vitamin C.
Yet again, we are being taught what to think about a certain subject, but not
how. To our knowledge, the information you are about to read has not been
included in any of the latest, and now worldwide 'Vitamin C Cancer Scare'
headlines generated by Dr Blair's findings.
A golden rule Dr Blair postulates that high consumption of Vitamin C (a most
beneficial adjunct in non-toxic cancer recovery treatment) might actually
cause human tissue degeneration, which in turn could lead to a heightened risk
of contracting cancer.
And it is here that we arrive at our first golden rule: when it comes to
assessing the veracity of any scientific claim, we must always read between
the lines we must search for what the report does not say. We must
especially be on the look-out for those hoary old chestnuts, otherwise known
as vested interests. A University of Manchester research methodology handbook
contains the following valuable advice:
"Science and research must be studied in the context of all the
interested parties involved. The questions center on determining the relative
weight of the various allies in the 'fact-creating' process - e.g. funding
bodies, businesses, departments of state, professions and other scientists.
In analyzing scientific debates, one should always ask what social,
institutional, political and philosophical interests lie behind often
apparently 'neutral' and 'technical' knowledge claims." (University of
Manchester Institute of Science & Technology (UMIST) research methodology
course handout, 1994) (emphasis mine)
On the matter of the 'fact creation' process, renowned author John Le Carre
recently stated:
"Big Pharma [the industry in general] is engaged in the deliberate
seduction of the medical profession, country by country, worldwide. It is
spending a fortune on influencing, hiring and purchasing academic judgment to
a point where, in a few years' time, if Big Pharma continues unchecked on its
present happy path, unbought medical opinion will be hard to find." (The
Nation, New York, Interview with John Le Carre, 9th April 2001)
Bought?
With the above in mind, lets put Dr Blair's University of Pennsylvania under
the spotlight and see what encouragement Dr Blair might have had in taking his
extraordinary position and apparently misquoted position against Vitamin C. We
must ask the following questions: what Big Pharma influences might there be
supporting the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center (UPCC) and its mother
ship, the University of Pennsylvania Health Service?
What is the relative weight of the funding bodies? If industry sponsorship is
taking place, are UPHS personnel free to exercise unbiased critical thinking?
Or are there grounds to suspect that UPHS been 'bought' - that somewhere along
the line, vested interests have 'purchased academic judgment'?
Before tackling the Vitamin C issue itself, the following UPHS general
statistics are very revealing.
Certain Alliances
In May 2000, Dr Ian Blair's employers at UPCC received a $26 million, five
year Core Grant from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) - the largest and
most influential conventional cancer treatment institution in the world. In
fact, UPCC has been continuously funded by the NCI Core Grant mechanism since
the grant was created by the National Cancer Act in the early 1970's.
Currently, UPCC is awash with more than $100 million in cancer research
funding: $37 million is from the National Cancer Institute; $43 million from
closely affiliated organizations, such as the National Institutes of Health,
the organization which actually funded Dr Blair's Vitamin C research; another
$12 million from foundational support such as the American Cancer Society and
the Leukemia Society; and between $8 and $10 million from various
pharmaceutical companies.
Earlier, in June of 1999, UPCC received a $4.5 million gift from the William
H. Gates Foundation to research conventional treatments for non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma.
Aside from the Bill and Melinda Gates connection, OncoLink, the University of
Pennsylvania Cancer Center,[28] is sponsored very generously by the following
corporations: Amgen, the world's largest independent biotechnology company;
Aventis, Ortho Biotech, Inc., Varian, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica, AstraZeneca,
Pharmacia Upjohn and Pfizer. These corporations are very big indeed, and their
names represent no mean sponsorship committee.
More Alliances
In March 2001, UPHS announced a strategic alliance with Siemens Medical
Systems, Inc. Under the terms of the purchasing agreement, UPHS will make an
initial discounted purchase of cardiology, radiology and radiation oncology
equipment from Siemens, who will also service and maintain the biomedical
equipment already in place at designated UPHS sites over the life of the
agreement.
In the year 2000, Siemens Medical Solutions, based in Iselin, New Jersey,
reported new orders of $5.65 billion, sales of $5.44 billion and employs
27,000 worldwide. "This is the kind of alliance that will be critical in
our continuing financial recovery and to assure our position as a leading
national health system," said Robert D. Martin, Ph.D., Chief Executive
Officer of UPHS.
A good relationship with Siemens may well be critical to UPHS' financial
recovery, but does this kind of dependent alliance foster the aforementioned
necessary climate for critical thinking?
What if there are privately held UPHS reservations over the Siemens equipment,
methodology or ethos? Who will break rank first? Will anyone? What kind of
commercially gagged framework are the UPHS staff now locked into with Siemens?
Yet More Corporate Alliances
On April 26, 2001, UPCC announced a business partnership with Integral PET
Associates, the nation's leading operator of fixed-site Positron Emission
Tomography (PET) cancer scanners. A patient receiving a PET scan today is
injected with a radiopharmaceutical, such as flurodeoxyglucose (FDG), about 45
minutes before the scan, which takes about two hours.
The radiopharmaceutical tracer emits signals which are then picked up by the
PET scanner. A computer reassembles the signals into recognizable images to
determine if a cancer has spread, if a particular treatment is effective, or
if a patient is disease-free. IPA will now be seeking to supply major
hospitals throughout Pennsylvania with this very expensive equipment.
Installing and operating a PET scanner typically costs around $1,600,000 in
up-front capital costs, plus an additional $800,000 in yearly staff and
operational costs.
A short visit to the UPHS website at www.med.upenn.edu will not only confirm
all of the above information, but will also confirm that these alliances
represent only a small percentage of the long-standing conventional
'friendships' UPHS has fostered with Big Pharma over the years. Given the
strictly conventional source of sponsorship monies received at UPHS, what
chance will the following statements have of being 'allowed' to feature on the
UPHS cancer information page?
"...as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me
that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much,
much more harm than good." - Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the
American Chemical Society
"Doctors are too busy to dig into the statistics of cancer treatments,
they assume that what they are taught at school or what is demonstrated in the
pages of briefing journals is the best treatment. They cannot afford to
suspect that these treatments are only the best for the pharmaceutical
companies that influence their 'institutions of higher learning'." Paul
Winter, The Cancell Home Page.
"To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The
actual clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the
cancer industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the
land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the
politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will continue
to do so unless you wake up to this reality." - Lee Cowden MD
"Almost every patient treated with IL2 (a current conventional cancer
treatment) suffered fever, malaise, nausea or vomiting, diarrhea, sharp drops
in blood pressure, skin rashes, breathing difficulties, liver abnormalities
and irregularities in blood chemistry.
Rosenberg himself details a number of horrifying case histories, and one in
particular where the administration of IL2 had precipitated amongst other
things, vomiting, swollen joints, lung fluid and 'vascular leak syndrome'
where blood would ooze through the vessel walls and collect under the
skin." Steven Rosenberg, The Transformed Cell, 1992. (IL2 is still used
today.)
"Dr Linus Pauling, often known as the 'Father of Vitamin C' and twice
awarded the Nobel Prize, declared that large intakes of up to 10g of the
vitamin each day aids anti-cancer activity within the body. Pauling was
largely derided for making these declarations, but today, large doses of
Vitamin C are used by many practitioners for cancer patients in nutritional
therapy, who believe Pauling was right and that the popular nutrient is
indispensable to the body in its fight to regain health from cancer."
Phillip Day, Cancer, Why We're Still Dying to Know The Truth, Credence
Publications, 2001.
"Do not let either the medical authorities or the politicians mislead
you. Find out what the facts are, and make your own decisions about how to
live a happy life and how to work for a better world." Linus Pauling
http://www.cforyourself.com
The above remarks are representative of a vast library of well-sourced
contrary information which sensibly questions the validity and efficacy of
conventional cancer treatments based on a huge amount of clinical research and
data. Naturally, with all these expensive and patented treatments available to
fight cancer, the cancer rates should be going down. They are not. They are
increasing.
Staggering Amounts
UPHS is totally locked into the conventional cancer framework - a framework
which today, rightly stands accused of achieving no measurable success at all
in its approach to the treatment of cancer, immense success in causing
widespread, unnecessary death through its application of lethal and highly
toxic pharma-radiation treatments, and even greater success in rewarding
itself absolutely staggering amounts of money in the whole grisly process.
That these cancer corporations have become incredibly wealthy through their
'chemo 'til we drop' approach is a fact which Messrs Siemens, Zeneca, Upjohn,
Glaxo, Rhone Poulenc cannot deny.
Common Sense
Pauling was right. We have been seriously misled. Taking the Siemens
$multi-million technology as an example, it may well detect certain forms of
cancer, but upon detecting it, what happens? Quite simply, a bewildered,
obedient, grateful and unsuspecting cancer sufferer is then immediately
directed towards the door marked 'iatrogenic (doctor-induced) illness and
probable death.'
Closer examination clearly reveals that the conventional path is fraught with
toxic danger. But the CEO of UPHS has made it quite clear that 'the Siemens
alliance [one of so many] is critical to the financial security of UPHS'. Glad
someone has their priorities straight.
This is why we will hear no publicly dissenting voices from UPHS as to the
horrific realities associated with 20th and 21st Century conventional cancer
treatments. The corporate big boys' riches must continue to flow.. and a
handsome proportion of it into the coffers of the very dependent UPHS, of
course, 'to assist in their financial recovery'.
So Why the Slur on Vitamin C?
As has already been stated, conventional cancer treatment represents a
$multi-billion a year industry. These vast profits are fiercely protected by
the industry giants. But their treatments in no way address the underlying
causes of cancer.
Cancer is a nutritional/toxic/environmental condition, which, in a great
number of instances, can be successfully reversed through the application of a
sound nutritional approach and common-sense lifestyle changes. Linus Pauling,
dubbed the father of Vitamin C, sensibly promoted the benefits of consuming
high doses Vitamin C in the prevention of and battle against cancer.
Half-Truths and Lies
So why aren't we hearing about these natural treatment successes? Why aren't
they being heralded across the world? The answer is money.
Despite the multitudinous successes in cancer regression through nutrition,
and through extensive application of vital elements such as Vitamin C, Vitamin
B17, pancreatic enzymes and other co-factors, Big Pharma is doing all it can
to silence these success stories. To have it become widely known that cancer
can be successfully treated without toxic and profitable pharmaceuticals would
be catastrophic for its business.
Who would continue to purchase these products? What would the Siemens, Glaxo
and Upjohn shareholders have to say about that? To their shame, vested
interests are keeping well-proven, non-toxic cancer treatments from the public
domain. This is why, under 'cancer treatments' the UPHS website says this of
vitamin B17:
"Several patients displayed symptoms of cyanide poisoning, including
muscle weakness and impaired reflexes, or had life-threatening levels of
cyanide in their blood. (Laetrile can release cyanide, which is a highly toxic
chemical.) The researchers concluded that Laetrile is not effective as a
cancer treatment and is harmful in some cases."
But now read this contrary extract from a radio talk show, featured in Phillip
Day's Cancer, Why We Are Still Dying To Know The Truth:
Radio host Laurie Lee: "So this is verified, that laetrile [B17] can have
this positive effect?" Dr Ralph Moss: "We were finding this and yet,
we in Public Affairs were told to issue statements to the exact opposite of
what we were finding scientifically."
At the time, Ralph Moss was former Assistant Director of Public Relations at
Memorial Sloan Kettering, NY, a leading American conventional cancer research
facility.
Of course Laetrile, or Vitamin B17, is not approved by the FDA, but not
because it isn't beneficial it is, as the links provided at the bottom of
this report will demonstrate. No, Vitamin B17 has not approved by the FDA
simply because the FDA have been leaned on.
That's the way it goes in the self-preserving, self-serving, conventional
cancer business. To put it bluntly, biddable FDA officials are only a phone
call and a golfing lunch away from the NCI and the NIH. A classic example of
these conflicts of interests and double standards can be appreciated when one
learns that sodium fluoride is also not approved by the FDA due to its
toxicity, and yet drug giant Proctor and Gamble and others can market the
stuff in their toothpastes with complete impunity.
The UPHS statement on Laetrile is a fabrication. Such is the wealth of
evidence overturning the conventional stance on Laetrile and Vitamin C, that
one can only assume the UPHS statement falls into the following category:
False Scientific Research Endangering the Public
Doctors are fabricating research results to win grants and advance their
careers, but the medical establishment is failing to protect the public from
the menace of these scientific frauds, a committee of medical editors said
yesterday. Eighty cases of fraudulent research have been detected in the past
four years, and 30 have been investigated in the past year. In some cases,
institutions have covered up wrongdoing to protect reputations..
The Nub of It
In an effort to subvert this mass-awakening to the horrors of conventional
cancer treatments, a devious attack on all genuinely beneficial, natural (and
therefore un-patentable) anti-cancer products is now being waged by a rather
worried conventional cancer establishment The ever-so-gentle slur on our most
vital of vitamins, namely Vitamin C, will soon be extended to a wide range of
essential minerals and vitamins.
This is just the beginning of the subtle, but concerted attack. The latest
conventional legislation surrounding the codifying and banning of efficacious
natural treatments is being instituted, purely because there is no money in it
for Big Pharma. It is profit before human health, but couched in
respectable-looking, 'sciency' reports. And this veneer of respectability is
fooling the unsuspecting minions lower down the UPHS research chain.
Naive
The two UPHS officials I spoke to regarding Dr Blair's Vitamin C report were
extremely pleasant, open and helpful and displayed no intention to supply
misleading information. But both persons were entirely locked into their
superiors' way of thinking.
Media Relations officer Olivia Fermano was curious as to my interest into who
funded the Vitamin C report. When I pointed out that if Dr Blair's funding
could be traced to a pharmaceutical company producing conventional cancer
treatments, then the results would have to be very seriously questioned, Ms
Fermano was genuinely supportive.
"My goodness! That is a good question. I will be right back to you."
Her word-for-word courteous reply, some two minutes later was as follows:
"You had me genuinely worried for a few minutes there, sir. But I am
pleased to tell you that our funding came directly from the National
Institutes for Health itself. I am so relieved." Ho Hum.
Similarly, Dr Garret Fitzgerald, chair of UPHS Center for Cancer Pharmacy
Department stated: "The evidence supporting Vitamin C as a useful adjunct
in cancer treatment ranges from scant to non-existent. Linus Pauling's work
was framed around a tenuous hypothesis only."
Whilst the courtesy displayed by Ms Fermano and Dr Fitzgerald is commendable,
their naivety is the result of them both working in a commercially cocooned
workplace, purposefully insulated from the many success stories attributed to
non-toxic, metabolic cancer treatments, and from the amazing health benefits
accrued from consuming a lot more Vitamin C than the FDA's recommended daily
intake of a miserable 60 mg barely enough to keep one out of rags and
scurvy.
Long live Vitamin C and let's have even more of it! For a more in-depth study
of the conventional cancer industry, and of the very good news concerning
alternative cancer treatments, readers are encouraged to visit
www.credence.org and take the cancer tour.
The above was extracted form the following health letter:
http://credence.org/Eclub/200601c.htm
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
This is a terrific followup to the article that I posted on vitamin C a few
weeks ago. It reviews some of the politics involved with this issue.
It was written by Phillip Day, who has written a number of interesting books.
Phillip was kind enough to send me a few of his books
Cancer, Why We are Still Dying to Know the Truth
World Without AIDS
Health Wars
My schedule has not provided time to read these yet, but I have been quite
impressed with his content and I am looking forward to reviewing them as we
both seem to be on the same page.
Phillip was even kind enough to mention me a few times in his last book.
Before my article, here is a response to the
Univ. of Pennsylvania attack on Vitamin C: it comes from the Vitamin C
Foundation. (www.vitamincfoundation.org/rebuttal.html)
COMMENT FROM LINUS PAULING INSTITUTE:
Let us remember that this study is a test tube experiment. The study does not
describe biochemistry or biology, and its relevance to reactions occurring in
cells and tissues of the human body is unknown. Many reactions of vitamin C
occur in vitro (in the test tube) that will not and cannot occur in vivo (in
the living organism).
Why?
Because the physiological environment of the cell and the body contains
thousands of substances that also react with vitamin C and rancid fats thus
derailing the chemistry observed in a test tube system.
Rancid fats don't just wait around in vivo to bump into a vitamin C molecule,
but instead are very rapidly reduced to harmless "alcohols" by a
number of enzymes.
Thus, the reaction rate of rancid fats with these enzymes compared to the
reaction rate of the rancid fats with vitamin C is of crucial importance and
this was not measured in the Science study.
From what we know from the study, incubations were done for two hours, an
eternity in biochemical terms. Enzymatic reactions as those indicated above to
reduce rancid fats to harmless alcohols that do not react with vitamin C
usually take a fraction of a second, not two hours!
It is interesting to note that vitamin C effectively inhibits the formation of
rancid fats in the first place. Thus, when your blood is exposed to oxidizing
conditions, vitamin C forms the first line of antioxidant defense, and no
lipid rancid fats are formed.
Rancid fats begin to form only after vitamin C has been exhausted. Thus, in
these experiments rancid fats and vitamin C did not exist simultaneously in
blood, and thus never had the opportunity to react with each other.
What's more, the Science study used a concentration of rancid fats which in
biochemical terms was "a ton." Studies have shown that, in blood,
rancid fats exist in concentrations which are 10,000-fold lower than what was
used in the Science experiment. Again, this casts serious doubt on the
relevance of these results for living organisms.
To conclude from this study that vitamin C causes cancer would be as
preposterous as to say that we have found a cure for cancer based on a simple
test tube experiment.
In fact, many animal studies and cell culture experiments have demonstrated
anticancer effects of vitamin C, and the vitamin has been used therapeutically
in human cancer patients with some apparent benefit.
Abstracted from Linus Pauling Institute Release
Vitamin C Attacks Continue
Who is behind these attacks
Linus Pauling Institute Attacks Vitamin C!
Again we are faced with a major media attack before any paper is published.
According to Ralph Moss in his book Antioxidants Against Cancer, the authors
of the last "Vitamin C Causes DNA Damage" paper retracted their
findings. This retraction was never reported.
As the threat to the economic well being of Medicine and major Pharmaceutical
companies (from vitamin C) increases, so do the groundless attacks designed to
scare people from taking Vitamin C.
If you doubt the impact of vitamin C on medical profits, consider that after
Linus Pauling wrote his book on vitamin C in 1970, mortality from heart
disease decreased 30-40% in the USA. From around 741,000 deaths per year
(National Center for Health Statistics, Pauling 86, p 164) to less than
500,000 deaths per year. This was an enormous economic loss for the segments
of our society that make money from heart disease.
Vitamin C Foundation,
I've already figured out what is wrong with the researcher's work, and I'm a
rank amateur at this.
The researcher dropped vitamin C into lipid hyperoxide to see if it would
produce genotoxic materials.
Lipid hyperoxide is formed by free radical damage on lipids.
People who take vitamin C DO NOT FORM lipid hyperoxide because vitamin C is a
free-radical scavenger.
In addition, lipid hyperoxide does a huge amount of bodily damage itself (such
as heart disease plaques, I believe), and anything that combines with it
would, under normal circumstances, be considered a good thing.
Thus what this researcher did was to take a reaction out of context using a
scenario that cannot occur, and blamed vitamin C for forming potentially
harmful compounds from a particularly nasty one. Typical bogus research.
Jon Campbell
Can you imagine how Science mag. would have responded if the said test-tube
experiment had produced a group of anti-cancer, tumor-inhibiting compounds? Of
course, they would have said "this needs further study and corroboration
with animal or clinical tests before we can publish such a claim". Since
the claim goes against Vitamin C, they put out the red carpet. It really is a
transparent lie they have woven, fully understandable when you consider that
50% of the pages of Science mag. are composed of advertisements for the
bio-tech and pharm industry. Reminds me when they were issuing all sorts of
articles "proving" how save and efficient nuclear energy was.
James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Knowledge of Health, Inc.
457 West Allen Avenue #117 San Dimas, California 91773
Telephone: 909.861.3454 Fax: 909.861.3442 Email: Bsardi@aol.com
For Immediate Release 6.16.2001 Contact: Bill Sardi 909.861.3454
NEWS MEDIA AND TEST-TUBE
RESEARCHERS OVERLOOKED
FAVORABLE HUMAN STUDIES
ON VITAMIN C
SAN DIMAS, CA- Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania Center for Cancer
Pharmacology and the news media overlooked five separate human studies that
disproved high-dose vitamin C causes DNA damage and instead chose to make
headlines out of a sole test-tube study that concluded that a 200-milligram
dose of vitamin C could potentially cause cancer.
While millions of Americans who take vitamin C supplements were beginning to
question whether high-dose vitamin C is safe, Ian A. Blair, the lead
researcher in the study published in June 15 issue of Science magazine, was
unavailable for comment and is travelling outside the country, leaving an air
of uncertainty in the public's mind regarding vitamin C.
Usually test-tube studies precede animal or human studies, and results in the
laboratory often do not coincide with those found in living systems. In this
case, human studies had already been performed and have, as expected, not
confirmed the notion that vitamin C is toxic to living cells or DNA.
Even though researchers are a bit puzzled as to why vitamin C supplements do
not always reduce the risk for cancer, there are no studies that confirm that
vitamin C supplement users are at greater risk for cancer.
Report overlooked contrary data
The report in Science was submitted in early February and approved for
publication in May of 2001, and included other published references dated as
late as the year 2000. Four of the five human studies that do not confirm that
vitamin C causes DNA damage were published in 2000, and could have been cited
by the authors of the report in Science, but were overlooked.
The five overlooked studies
For example, researchers at Johns Hopkins University could not find evidence
of a "significant main effect or interaction effect on oxidative DNA
damage in non-smoking adults" with 500 milligrams/day of vitamin C
supplementation. [Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Prevention 2000
July;9:647-52]
Another study, conducted by researchers in Germany found that 1000 mg. of
vitamin C consumed by smokers and non-smokers for 7 days did not produce DNA
damage as measured by the number of micronuclei in blood lymphocytes. [Free
Radical Research 2001 March;34:209-19]
In yet another study conducted by Immunosciences Laboratory in California,
twenty healthy volunteers were divided into four groups and given either
placebo or daily doses of 500, 1,000 or 5,000 mg of ascorbic acid for a period
of 2 weeks. This study concluded that "ascorbic acid is an antioxidant
and that doses up to 5,000 mg neither induce mutagenic lesions nor have
negative effects on natural killer cell activity, apoptosis, or cell
cycle." [Cancer Detection Prevention 2000;24: 508-23]
In London researchers measured the effects of 260 milligrams/day of vitamin C
and vitamin C + iron in humans and concluded that there was "no
compelling evidence for a pro-oxidant effect of ascorbate supple- mentation,
in the presence or absence of iron, on DNA base damage." [Biochemistry
Biophysical Research Communications 2000 November 2;277:535-40]
In Ireland, researchers gave 1000 mg. of vitamin C to volunteers for 42 days
and concluded that "supplementation with vitamin C decreased
significantly hydrogen-peroxide-induced DNA damage in peripheral blood
lymphocytes." [British Journal Nutrition 2000 August;84:195-202]
News media also remiss
The news media was also remiss in not checking whether there was any contrary
data on this topic, and did not interview other scientific sources, such as
the Linus Pauling Foundation, the Vitamin C Foundation, the National
Nutritional Foods Association or the Council for Responsible Nutrition.
Reuters Health and the Associated Press health reporters ran the story without
checking on the validity of the report in Science. No explanation has been
given for this oversight, even though science reporters for both organizations
are well versed on medical topics. A cub reporter could have uncovered the
five contrary human studies in a 30-minute search on Medline.
Similar erroneous report in 1998
Recently researchers have been exploring the dual nature of vitamin C. Is
vitamin C a pro-oxidant or rusting agent, or is it an antioxidant, a cellular
preservative? In 1998 Nature Magazine published a similar report to the
University of Pennsylvania study. Researchers then claimed that high-dose
vitamin C had "rusting" properties in living cells and that 500
milligrams of vitamin C was found to oxidize guanine, one of the four bases
that make up DNA. But the researchers overlooked that high-dose vitamin C also
increased the level of guanine, another of the nucleic acids in DNA. The
researchers failed to point out their paradoxical results and the news media
made headlines out of the story then, as they are doing now. No corrections
were ever published. The mistaken impression left on the public then was that
high-dose vitamin C is potentially dangerous.
It remains unclear whether the researchers at the University of Pennsylvania
Center for Cancer Pharmacology will clear the air on their report, which
received worldwide headlines. ####
June 14, 2001
TO: Will Dunham, health reporter for
REUTERS, Washington DC
will.dunham@reuters.com
FROM: Bill Sardi
Knowledge of Health, Inc.
Independent health journalist
Diamond Bar, California
Bsardi@aol.com
I have questions regarding your recent report which alleges that vitamin C
supplements beyond 200 milligrams per day may promote DNA damage that could
cause cancer.
1. Were you aware this is not a new story, and that researchers can create DNA
damage in test tubes, but not in living systems, with many essential nutrients
or food factors found in the diet?
2. Why didn't your report carry interviews with those who have a differing
opinion? Interviews could have been conducted with the Vitamin C Foundation,
or the National Nutritional Foods Assn., or the Council for Responsible
Nutrition? Did you seek to obtain balanced information?
3. Why did Reuters select this report from Science Magazine, and why did it
run with the headlines "Vitamin C Found To Promote Cancer-Causing
Agents?" rather than "Researchers study dual role of vitamin C in
cancer???"
4. What do you think the impact of your report will be on the public at large,
since many people take vitamin C supplements in doses that exceed what your
article suggests as safe?
5. Are you aware of reports which show that consumption of vitamin C beyond
300 milligrams per day causes a major reduction in the risk of cataracts, and
beyond 500 milligrams per day reduces the risk of hypertension? These dosages
would generally required supplements rather than foods.
6. Are you aware that, in July of 2000, researchers found that supplementation
of diet with vitamin C (500 mg/day) had no significant main effect or
interaction effect on oxidative DNA damage as measured by urinary 8-OHdG in
nonsmoking adults. [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000 Jul;9(7):647-52] In
other words, high-dose vitamin C did not produce any measurable DNA damage.
The very issue of whether vitamin C promotes DNA damage was undertaken in 1998
by researchers at the International Antioxidant Research Centre, Department of
Pharmacology, King's College, London, United Kingdom. [Biochem Biophys Res
Commun 1998 May 8;246(1):293-8] They reported on the effects of
co-supplementing healthy volunteers with iron (14 mg/day ferrous sulphate) and
vitamin C (either 60 mg/day or 260 mg/day as ascorbic acid) on levels of
oxidative DNA damage in white blood cells. The subjects were divided into two
groups: one group of 20 volunteers with a higher mean initial level of plasma
vitamin C (71.9 +/- 14.0 mumol/l) and a second group of 18 volunteers with a
lower mean level (50.4 +/- 25.8 mumol/l). In the first group there was a
significant rise in several oxidative DNA base damage products and in total
oxidative DNA damage in DNA extracted from white blood cells, but not in
8-hydroxyguanine, after 6 weeks of supplementation. However, after 12 weeks
levels returned approximately to normal. In the group with the lower initial
level of plasma ascorbate, presupplemental levels of oxidative DNA damage were
higher and decreased on supplementation with iron and ascorbate.
A recent study, reported in the January issue of Cancer Epidemiology
Biomarkers, indicates, among 711,891 men and women in the United States,
followed from 1982 thru 1996, regular use of vitamin C supplements, even
long-term use, was not associated with colorectal cancer mortality. The
combined-sex rate ratios were 0.89 for 10 or more years of vitamin C use, a
slight reduction in the risk for cancer. In subgroup analyses, use of vitamin
C supplements for 10 or more years was associated with decreased risk of
colorectal cancer mortality before age 65 years, 52% relative reduced risk,
and 60% reduced risk reduced risk for rectal cancer mortality. [Cancer
Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001 Jan;10(1):17-23]
In India researchers used high-dose vitamin C in animals exposed to cigarette
smoke and found that vitamin C supplementation increased resistance to lipid
peroxidation and "this study seems to suggest that an intake of a mega
dose of vitamin C can protect the liver from oxidant damage caused by
cigarette smoke." [J Appl Toxicol 1997 Sep-Oct;17(5):289-95]
In 1999 researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle
reported that supplement use in 697 incident prostate cancer cases (ages
40-64) identified from the Puget Sound Surveillance, Epidemiology and End
Results program registry. Adjusted odds ratios vitamin C, 0.77 (range 0.57 -
1.04), about a 23% relative reduced risk. The researchers said: "Overall,
these results suggest that multivitamin use is not associated with prostate
cancer risk." [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999 Oct;8(10):887-92]
Any cub reporter could have found these reports in just 30 minutes on Medline.
Why weren't reports like these incorporated into your report? In light of
these scientific studies, would you call your report fair and balanced?
Shame on the Linus Pauling Institute
The latest attack quotes so-called authorities at the Linus Pauling Institute.
If these quotes are accurate, the institute now uses Pauling's name, but lacks
his spirit. Dr. Frei has not read Pauling's HOW TO LIVE LONGER AND FEEL
BETTER, else he would not make such inaccurate statements using Pauling's
name. We would ask any contributor to check with the Pauling Institute,
re-read HOW TO LIVE LONGER AND FEEL BETTER, and reconsider giving the
institute any more money until Dr. Frei leaves his post.
REUTERS NEWS REPORT Thursday June 14 3:11 PM ET
Vitamin C Found to Promote Cancer-Causing Agents
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vitamin C, an essential nutrient found in fruits and vegetables and taken in large doses by many people as a dietary supplement, is a double-edged sword, providing benefits but also inducing the production of compounds associated with cancer, researchers said on Thursday.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania added vitamin C, also known as ascorbic acid, to solutions of a degraded version of an important fatty acid found in blood, and found that it triggered the production of DNA-damaging agents known to cause mutations associated with a variety of cancers.Lead researcher Ian Blair of the university's Center for Cancer Pharmacology cautioned that the study was conducted in a test tube and not with living human cells or in actual people.
``Absolutely for God's sake don't say vitamin C causes cancer,'' Blair said in a telephone interview.``
The key finding is that vitamin C can do good things and bad things. And we've figured out what the bad ones are. In terms of the impact, I think it just redirects people's attention to
the fact that you can't replace a good diet with magic bullets such as vitamin C.''The value of vitamin C has been the subject of a long and heated debate in the scientific community. One of the leading scientists of the 20th century, Linus Pauling, who died at age 93 in 1994, championed it as a tool for fighting cancer.But skeptics argued that numerous studies have found that vitamin C produced no benefit in combating cancer, and that taking supplements actually could have negative consequences. The new study appears to add weight to those concerns.
CAUTION URGED ON DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
``Far more caution should be taken in the use of dietary supplements -- and an insistence on real proof that there's a benefit before undertaking any of them,'' said Dr. Arthur Grollman, director of the Laboratory for Chemical Biology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.``The real, serious implication is that it (vitamin C) could contribute to DNA damage that could cause cancer,'' added Grollman, an expert in cancer causes who was not involved in the study. ``It just adds more evidence that there could be a
significant risk to ascorbic acid.''Blair said the study, which appears in the journal Science, may explain why vitamin C has shown little effectiveness at preventing cancer in clinical trials.
Vitamin C is a water-soluble vitamin that is important for bone and connective tissue growth, wound repair and the function of blood vessels. It is abundant in citrus fruits, green peppers, tomatoes, cabbage and potatoes. The recommended U.S. adult dietary allowance for vitamin C is 60 milligrams daily. Most supplements contain many times that amount.Dr. Garret FitzGerald, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Experimental Therapeutics, pointed to evidence of a benefit from an overall healthy diet
rather than taking supplements on any particular nutrient.``We have very clear evidence that eating a diet rich in vegetables and fruits is a healthy thing in terms of it being associated with a reduced incidence of cancer and, indeed, heart disease, for that matter,'' FitzGerald said.
``On the one hand, I would say to people there's no evidence to stop taking vitamin C on the basis of these observations at this point in time. On the other hand, I'd say consider very carefully what the evidence is for taking vitamin C, which is nonexistent. The better part of valor is: save your money.''
VITAMIN C IS AN ANTIOXIDANT
Vitamin C acts as an antioxidant protecting against damage by ``free
radicals'' -- highly reactive ions produced by the breakdown of oxygen in
cells. In addition to damaging DNA directly, free radicals also can act
indirectly.They begin by converting linoleic acid, the major polyunsaturated
fatty acid in human blood plasma and the key polyunsaturated fatty acid in
certain cooking oils, into another compound called a lipid hydroperoxide.When
certain metal ions are present as catalysts, the compound degrades into
DNA-damaging agents called genotoxins, which cause mutations that have been
found in human tumors. Blair said he had a hunch that vitamin C might be
capable of changing lipid hydroperoxides into genotoxins. He added vitamin C
to test tube solutions of lipid hydroperoxides, using concentrations
comparable to those found in the human body if a person were taking 200
milligrams a day.The study found that vitamin C was more than twice as
efficient as transition metal ions at inducing the formation of genotoxins,
including a particularly potent variety.
Read About the Role of Vitamin C in Heart Disease
Knowledge of Health, Inc.
457 West Allen #117 San Dimas, California 91773
Phone: 909.861.3454 Fax: 909.861.3442 E-mail: Bsardi@aol.com
For Immediate Release Contact: Bill Sardi 909.861.3454
Who is Behind The Negative News Reports On Vitamin C?
The news media features a report published in Science magazine that high-dose
vitamin C in a test-tube causes DNA damage that could lead to cancer. It's not
news, since test-tube studies do not correlate with tests conducted in living
systems and the dual role of vitamin C as both a pro-oxidant (rusting agent)
and anti-oxidant (cell preservative) has been published in scientific journals
for some time now. But it's a heralded news story that Reuters Health and the
Associated Press embellish with sensational headlines. Instead of saying
"Dual nature of vitamin C in cancer explored," the headlines read
"Vitamin C Found to Promote Cancer- Causing Agents." It's yellow
journalist at its worst, since a quick search on Medline reveals that
high-dose vitamin C did not reveal any toxic by-products in human studies. The
toxic effect is only observed in test tubes.
The lead university researcher, Ian Blair of the University of Pennsylvania
Center for Cancer Pharmacology, is conveniently outside the country, so he
can't easily respond to questions. Ian Blair, covers his story by saying
"Absolutely, for God's sake, don't say vitamin C causes cancer." But
the headlines read otherwise.
The University of Pennsylvania is the originator of Oncolink, a prestigious
online resource of cancer information. But who sponsors Oncolink? Hidden
behind the whole affair are Oncolink's sponsors --- the pharmaceutical
companies. AstraZeneca, Amgen, Ortho Biotech, Pharmacia, Pfizer and Janssen
Pharmaceuticals. Are the drug companies using a major university as their
shill to spread misinformation about vitamins?
It is becoming more obvious that misinformation about vitamins, minerals and
herbal products is being planted in the news media and published in medical
journals in a calculated fashion. The reason is that more and more Americans
are taking health care into their own hands and relying less and less on
doctors and drugs to cure their ills. The big secret is that the biological
action of virtually every prescription drug can be duplicated with nutritional
supplements at far less cost and with fewer side effects. The only way to
counter the growing demand for natural remedies is to confuse the public with
misinformation.
And the misinformation campaign is working. The natural products industry
reports their growth has leveled off. Vitamin C sales were off by 19.2 percent
last year according to a report in Natural Foods Merchandiser. In the past
months dubious negative reports have been published on garlic, St. John's wort,
and products containing ephedra. A characteristic of all these reports is
their emphatic conclusion that all previous research which confirmed the
validity of these natural remedies is to be discarded because the latest
scientific report reached a contrary conclusion.
Last year the news media made a front- page headline story out of a
presentation on vitamin C at the American Heart Association meeting. The study
wasn't even published and hadn't undergone peer review, but the news agencies
were quick to release a factitious story that high-dose vitamin C could clog
arteries in the neck (the carotids). Vitamin C does not clog arteries, but it
does strengthen and thicken the walls of arteries via its ability to promote
collagen formation.
How do these non-news stories get front-page coverage? It's simple. Public
relations agencies have bragged at seminars how they can take a presentation
at a medical meeting and get it aired on television and published in
newspapers. These publicity agencies do the dirty work of planting
misinformation in the news media. It's propaganda, not news.
The natural products industry is mounting its own public information campaign,
to counter negative news stories, and has hired their own agency, Hill &
Knowlton of Washington, D.C., to air its side of the story.
There are simply no standards of journalism being upheld here. Bad science
gets front-page coverage regardless of whether it is true or not. Journalists
aren't checking on the validity of medical reports, and they aren't
interviewing opposing views. In the case of the recent vitamin C report,
reporters did not interview the National Nutritional Foods Association, the
Council for Responsible Nutrition, the Vitamin C Foundation, nor the American
Healthcare Products Association.
But how long can the public be fooled? Why are the pharmaceutical companies so
afraid of a simple vitamin? It's because high doses of vitamin C virtually
eradicate the risk of developing cataracts, eliminate the need for blood
pressure medication, reduce the need for anti-allergy drugs, reduce the risk
of gall stones, and produce many other health benefits. The drug companies
can't invent and patent a molecule as efficacious as vitamin C. ####
TO: Owen Fonorow
VITAMIN C FOUNDATION
FROM: Bill Sardi
I just E-mailed this inquiry to Ian A. Blair, the lead researcher of the
now infamous vitamin C report in Science Magazine.
June 15, 2001
TO: Ian A. Blair
Center for Cancer Pharmacology
University of Pennsylvania
ian@spirit.gcrc.upenn.edu
FROM: Bill Sardi
Health reporters, Nutrition Science News
Bsardi@aol.com
Phone: 909.861.3454
Diamond Bar, California USA
Unfortunately your paper in SCIENCE regarding ascorbic acid and DNA damage was
published while you were out of the country and unavailable for quick comment.
Of course, it is disappointing that the news media made such headlines out of
research that does not appear to be new. The issue of whether vitamin C is a
pro-oxidant or anti-oxidant has been debated for some time now. The fact that
your paper concluded from a test-tube study that vitamin C concentrations
equivalent to a 200 mg. dosage in humans could be genotoxic is not confirmed
by epidemiological or human studies which your paper did not cite.
The submission date on your paper was February 2001, and your paper cited
other references as late year 2000. The following reports, which includes
reports up to the year 2000, encompassing a review of human studies with
vitamin C and DNA damage, do not confirm your findings, and should have been
included in your paper, am I correct?
I was wondering why your paper did not cite these references and why you did
not inform the news media that your findings were not confirmed by human nor
epidemiological studies? Your comments to the news media left the door open
that it is possible for vitamin C to promote cancer. The references below are
for your review, with the total abstracts following. Don't you think you
should clear this matter up by clarifying the conclusion from your paper in
light of other contrary research studies conducted outside of test tubes?
For example, researchers at Johns Hopkins University could not find evidence
of a "significant main effect or interaction effect on oxidative DNA
damage as measured by urinary 8-OHdG in non-smoking adults" with 500
milligrams/day of vitamin C supplementation. [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2000 Jul;9(7):647-52]
Another study, conducted by researchers in Germany found that 1000 mg. of
vitamin C consumed by smokers and non-smokers for 7 days did not produce DNA
damage as measured by the number of micronuclei in blood lymphocytes. [Free
Radic Res 2001 Mar;34(3):209-19]
In yet another study conducted by Immunosciences Laboratory, twenty healthy
volunteers were divided into four groups and given either placebo or daily
doses of 500, 1,000 or 5,000 mg of ascorbic acid for a period of 2 weeks. This
study concluded that "ascorbic acid is an antioxidant and that doses up
to 5,000 mg neither induce mutagenic lesions nor have negative effects on NK
cell activity, apoptosis, or cell cycle." [Cancer Detect Prev
2000;24(6):508-23]
In London researchers measured the effects of 260 milligrams/day of vitamin C
and vitamin C + iron in humans and concluded that there was "no
compelling evidence for a pro-oxidant effect of ascorbate supplementation, in
the presence or absence of iron, on DNA base damage measured by GC-MS." [Biochem
Biophys Res Commun 2000 Nov 2;277(3):535-40]
In Ireland, researchers gave 1000 mg. of vitamin C to volunteers for 42 days
and concluded that "supplementation with vitamin C decreased
significantly H2O2-induced DNA damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes."
[Br J Nutr 2000 Aug;84(2):195-202]
I await your comment.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000 Jul;9(7):647-52
The effects of vitamin C and vitamin E on oxidative DNA damage: results
from a randomized controlled trial.
Huang HY, Helzlsouer KJ, Appel LJ.
Department of Epidemiology, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Maryland 21205-2223, USA.
Oxidative DNA damage may be important in mutagenic, carcinogenic, and aging
processes. Although it is plausible that antioxidant vitamins may reduce
oxidative DNA damage, evidence from human studies has been sparse and
inconsistent. We determined the short-term effects of vitamin C (500 mg/day)
and vitamin E (400 IU d-alpha-tocopheryl acetate/day) supplements on oxidative
DNA damage in a double-masked, placebo-controlled, 2x2 factorial trial in 184
nonsmoking adults. Mean duration of supplementation was 2 months. Oxidative
DNA damage was measured by 24-h urinary excretion of
8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG). At baseline, urinary 8-OHdG (mean +/-
SE; ng/mg creatinine) was associated with race (15.6 +/- 0.8 in African
Americans versus 20.3 +/- 1.2 in Caucasians, P = 0.001), prior antioxidant
supplement use (18.6 +/- 0.8 in users versus 13.8 +/- 1.5 in non-users, P =
0.007), and regular exercise (19.2 +/- 1.1 in exercisers versus 16.6 +/- 0.9
in non-exercisers, P = 0.04). Fruit and vegetable intake and serum ascorbic
acid were inversely associated with urinary 8-OHdG (P-trend = 0.02 and 0.016,
respectively). The benefits of fruit and vegetable intake became evident with
the consumption being at least three servings/day. At the end of
supplementation, change from baseline in urinary 8-OHdG (mean +/- SE; ng/mg
creatinine) was -0.6 +/- 1.4 (P = 0.61), 0.6 +/- 1.1 (P = 0.59), 0.5 +/- 1.0
(P = 0.61), and 1.6 +/- 1.4 (P = 0.27) in the placebo, vitamin C alone,
vitamin E alone, and combined vitamins C and E groups, respectively. In
overall and subgroup analyses, there was no significant main effect or
interaction effect of the supplements on urinary 8-OHdG. In conclusion,
supplementation of diet with vitamin C (500 mg/day) and vitamin E (400 IU
d-alpha-tocopheryl acetate/day) had no significant main effect or interaction
effect on oxidative DNA damage as measured by urinary 8-OHdG in nonsmoking
adults. However, several aspects of a healthy lifestyle were associated with
lower oxidative DNA damage.
Free Radic Res 2001 Mar;34(3):209-19
Protective Effects of Vitamins C and E on the Number of Micronuclei in
Lymphocytes in Smokers and their Role in Ascorbate Free Radical Formation in
Plasma.
Schneider M, Diemer K, Engelhart K, Zankl H, Trommer WE, Biesalski HK.
Fachbereich Biologie / Abteilung Humanbiologie der Universitaet Kaiserslautern,
Germany.
Cigarette smoke is widely believed to increase free radical concentrations
causing subsequent oxidative processes that lead to DNA damage and hence, to
several diseases including lung cancer and atherosclerosis. Vitamin C is a
reducing agent that can terminate free-radical-driven oxidation by being
converted to a resonance-stabilized free radical. To investigate whether
short-term supplementation with the antioxidants vitamin C and E decreases
free-radical-driven oxidation and thus decreases DNA damage in smokers, we
determined the frequency of micronuclei in lymphocytes in 24 subjects and
monitored the electron paramagnetic resonance signal of ascorbate free radical
formation in plasma. Further parameters comprised sister-chromatid exchanges
and thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances. Twelve smokers and twelve
non-smokers took 1000 mg ascorbic acid daily for 7 days and then 1000 mg
ascorbic acid and 335.5 mg RRR-alpha-tocopherol daily for the next 7 days.
Baseline concentrations of both vitamins C and E were lower and baseline
numbers of micronuclei were higher (p < 0.0001) in smokers than in
non-smokers. After 7 days of vitamins C and E, DNA damage as monitored by the
number of micronulei was decreased in both, smokers and non-smokers, but it
was more decreased in smokers as indicated by fewer micronuclei in peripheral
lymphocytes (p < 0.05). Concomitantly, the plasma concentrations of vitamin
C (p < 0.001) as well as the ascorbate free radical (p < 0.05) were
increased. The corresponding values in non-smokers, however, did not change.
Our findings show that increased ascorbate free radical formation in plasma
after short-term supplementation with vitamins C and E can decrease the number
of micronuclei in blood lymphocytes and thus DNA damage in smokers.
Cancer Detect Prev 2000;24(6):508-23
New evidence for antioxidant properties of vitamin C.
Vojdani A, Bazargan M, Vojdani E, Wright J.
Immunosciences Lab, Inc, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, USA.
This study was designed to examine the effect of 500 to 5,000 mg of ascorbic
acid on DNA adducts, natural killer (NK) cell activity, programmed cell death,
and cell cycle analysis of human peripheral blood leukocytes. According to our
hypothesis, if ascorbic acid is a pro-oxidant, doses between 500 and 5,000 mg
should enhance DNA adduct formation, decrease immune function, change the cell
cycle progression, and increase the rate of apoptosis. Twenty healthy
volunteers were divided into four groups and given either placebo or daily
doses of 500, 1,000 or 5,000 mg of ascorbic acid for a period of 2 weeks. On
days 0, 1, 7, 15, and 21, blood was drawn from them, and the leukocytes were
separated and examined for intracellular levels of ascorbic acid, the level of
8-hydroxyguanosine, NK cell activity, cell cycle progression, and apoptosis.
Depending on the subjects, between a 0% and a 40% increase in cellular
absorption of ascorbic acid was observed when daily doses of 500 mg were used.
At doses greater than 500 mg, this cellular absorption was not increased
further, and all doses produced equivalent increases in ascorbic acid on days
1 to 15. This increase in cellular concentration of ascorbic acid resulted in
no statistically meaningful changes in the level of 8-hydroxyguanosine,
increased NK cytotoxic activity, a reduced percentage of cells undergoing
apoptosis, and switched cell cycle phases from S and G2/M to G0/G1. After a
period of 1 week, with no placebo or vitamin washout, ascorbic acid levels
along with functional assays returned to the baseline and became equivalent to
placebos. In comparison with baseline values, no change (not more than daily
assays variation) was seen in ascorbate concentrations or other assays during
oral placebo treatment. We concluded that ascorbic acid is an antioxidant and
that doses up to 5,000 mg neither induce mutagenic lesions nor have negative
effects on NK cell activity, apoptosis, or cell cycle.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2000 Nov 2;277(3):535-40
Potential problems of ascorbate and iron supplementation: pro-oxidant effect
in vivo?
Proteggente AR, Rehman A, Halliwell B, Rice-Evans CA.
Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases, GKT School of Biomedical Sciences,
King's College London, St. Thomas' Street, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom.
The comparison was undertaken between the effects of ascorbate versus
ascorbate plus iron supplementation on DNA damage. Twenty healthy subjects
with initial levels of plasma ascorbate of 67.2 +/- 23.3 micromol/l were
randomly assigned to and cycled through one of three supplementation regimes:
placebo, 260 mg/d ascorbate, 260 mg/d ascorbate plus 14 mg/d iron for 6 weeks
separated by 8-week washout periods. Supplementation did not cause a rise in
total oxidative DNA damage measured by GC-MS. However, a significant decrease
occurred in levels of 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine by ascorbate supplementation
and 5-hydroxymethyl uracil by both ascorbate and ascorbate plus iron
supplementation, relative to the pre-supplemental levels but not to the
placebo group. In addition, levels of 5-hydroxymethyl hydantoin and 5-hydroxy
cytosine increased significantly, only relative to pre-supplementation, by
ascorbate plus iron treatment. No compelling evidence for a pro-oxidant effect
of ascorbate supplementation, in the presence or absence of iron, on DNA base
damage was observed. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
Br J Nutr 2000 Aug;84(2):195-202
The effect of vitamin C or vitamin E supplementation on basal and
H2O2-induced DNA damage in human lymphocytes.
Brennan LA, Morris GM, Wasson GR, Hannigan BM, Barnett YA.
Cancer and Ageing Research Group, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of
Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.
There is a wealth of epidemiological information on antioxidants and their
possible prevention of disease progression but very little of the research on
antioxidants has involved intervention studies. In this study, the potential
protective effect of vitamin C or E supplementation in vivo against endogenous
and H2O2-induced DNA damage levels in lymphocytes was assessed. The
supplementation involved fourteen healthy male and female non-smokers mean age
25-53 (SD 1.82) years, who were asked to supplement an otherwise unchanged
diet with 1000 mg vitamin C daily for 42 d or 800 mg vitamin E daily for 42 d.
DNA damage in H2O2-treated peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) and untreated
PBL before and after supplementation, and during a 6-week washout period was
assessed using an ELISA. At each sampling time-point, the red cell concentrate
activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase and glutathione peroxidase were
also determined. Supplementation with vitamin C or vitamin E decreased
significantly H2O2-induced DNA damage in PBL, but had no effect on endogenous
levels of DNA damage. The activities of the antioxidant enzymes superoxide
dismutase and glutathione peroxidase were suppressed during the
supplementation period. These supplementation regimens may be used to limit
the possible adverse effects of reactive oxygen species (including those
produced during the course of an immune response) on lymphocytes in vivo, and
so help to maintain their functional capacity.
Keywords:
vitamin c antioxidant, vitamin c immunity, vitamin c linus pauling,
vitamin c stress, c plus e, things that deplete c, vitamin c lead, the
vitamin lady writes about importance vitamin c
The
Vitamin C Foundation. (http://www.vitamincfoundation.org)
Vitamin
C content of Fruits
(http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_fruit_vitamin_c.htm)
A
Vitamin C Flush - calibrating your level (http://www.perque.com/pdfs/Pt_Ascorbate_Slush_FIN.pdf)
*Product is shipping with 24 business hours on all in stock product. Back
ordered items generally ship with 5 to 7 business days. If your order will
not be shipped for longer than 10 business days, we will notify you by email.
**See our
Shipping Policy for
heavy items.
Prices subject to change without notice.
