Electronic letters to:
|
|
eLetters: Electronic letters published:
-
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Linus Pauling and the role of vitamin C in diseases other than scurvy
- Harri Hemilä (5 May 2006)
-
Vitamin C and cancer
- R.M. Preshaw (3 April 2006)
-
A Glimmer Of Hope - Nothing Trivial I Would Say
- Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich (29 March 2006)
|
|
|||
|
Harri Hemilä Associate professor
Send letter to journal:
harri.hemila{at}helsinki.fi Harri Hemilä
|
Padayatty et al. (1) reported apparent benefit of vitamin C for three cancer patients and motivated their case series by Pauling and Cameron's papers in the 1970s. Before initiating his work on cancer, Pauling carried out a meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled trials on vitamin C and the common cold and concluded that vitamin C supplementation reduces common cold incidence and morbidity (2,3). Pauling put the greatest weight on the Ritzel trial with schoolchildren in a skiing school in the Swiss Alps (4), which used the highest dose, 1 g/day, and found the greatest benefit. The first large trial was carried out in Canada and found 30% (P = 0.001) reduction in "total days confined to house" because of sickness in the vitamin C group (5). Many other trials found benefit of vitamin C; however, two influential and frequently cited reviews concluded that vitamin C is useless for colds (6,7). Nevertheless, these two reviews presented data inconsistent with the original study reports and there were even errors in calculations making them untrustworthy (3). A recent Cochrane review calculated that regular vitamin C supplementation shortened colds in adults by 8% and in children by 14% (8). Although vitamin C had no preventive effect on the general population, it reduced common cold incidence by 50% in six trials with physically stressed participants (3,8). Four of them were carried out with marathon runners, the fifth with Canadian soldiers in winter exercise (9) and the sixth was the Ritzel trial (4). Thus, it seems that Pauling did not make a misjudgment when trusting Ritzel’s randomized placebo- controlled trial, but his error was in extrapolating the findings to the general population (3). Goodwin and Tangum (10) provided several examples to support the conclusion that there has been systematic bias against the concept that vitamins might be beneficial in levels higher than the minimum required to avoid classic deficiency diseases. Also, bias against vitamin C was documented by Richards (11,12) who compared the attitudes and arguments of physicians to three putative cancer medicines: 5-fluorouracil, interferon, and vitamin C. It seems that Pauling’s conclusions were dismissed because of the fundamental divergence with the traditional notion that the only purpose of vitamin C is to prevent scurvy (3) and not because of experimental findings. Evidently, carefully planned trials should be carried out to evaluate the potential role of high-dose therapeutic vitamin C on the common cold and cancer. References 1. Padayatty SJ, Riordan HD, Hewitt SM, Katz A, Hoffer LJ, Levine M. Intravenously administered vitamin C as cancer therapy: three cases. Can Med Assoc J 2006;174:937-42. 2. Pauling L. The significance of the evidence about ascorbic acid and the common cold. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1971;68:2678-81. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/68/11/2678 3. Hemilä H. Do vitamins C and E affect respiratory infections? [PhD Thesis] University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 2006. pp. 11-3, 35-50, 61-6. http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/laa/kansa/vk/hemila/ 4. Ritzel G. Critical analysis of the role of vitamin C in the treatment of the common cold [in German]. Helv Med Acta 1961;28:63-8. 5. Anderson TW, Reid DBW, Beaton GH. Vitamin C and the common cold: a double-blind trial. Can Med Assoc J 1972;107:503-8 [correction: 1973;108:133]. 6. Chalmers TC. Effects of ascorbic acid on the common cold: an evaluation of the evidence. Am J Med 1975;58:532-6. 7. Dykes MHM, Meier P. Ascorbic acid and the common cold: evaluation of its efficacy and toxicity. JAMA 1975;231:1073-9. 8. Douglas RM, Hemilä H. Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold PLoS Med 2005;2:e168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020168 9. Sabiston BH, Radomski MW. Health Problems and Vitamin C in Canadian Northern Military Operations. DCIEM Report no. 74-R-1012. Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine; Downsview, Ontario, Canada. 1974. 10 pp. 10. Goodwin JS, Tangum MR. Battling quackery: attitudes about micronutrient supplements in American Academic medicine. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:2187-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.20.2187 11. Richards E. The politics of therapeutic evaluation: the vitamin C and cancer controversy. Soc Stud Sci 1988;18:653-701. 12. Segerstråle U. Vitamin C and cancer – medicine or politics [book review]. Science 1992;255:613-5. Conflict of Interest:None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
R.M. Preshaw Lady Minto Gulf Islands Hospital, Saltspring Island BC
Send letter to journal:
preshaw7{at}telus.net R.M. Preshaw
|
Patient 1 in the paper by Padayatty et al (Intravenously administered vitamin C as cancer therapy: three cases CMAJ 2006 174: 937-42) is considered so valuable that it has now been published for the third time (previously recorded in Riordan et al J Orthomol Med 1998: 13: 72-3 and Riordan et al PR Health Sci J 2004: 23: 115-8). Despite repetitive publication, it still does not meet the criteria for "Best Case Series" as detailed by Dr Jeffrey White of the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine(OCCAM)of the National Cancer Institute (http://www3.cancer.gov/occam/bestcase.html). The criteria which are not met include biopsy by any technique of recurrent tumor. The authors do not emphasise that the "Best Case Series" was planned so that the National Cancer Institute can decide whether to further pursue these approaches to cancer treatment with prospective, controlled clinical trials. Padayatty et al are simply wrong when they state that "accretion of more cases meeting NCI Best Case Series guidelines may indicate whether vitamin C or other factors contribute to such remissions." But I forgot. Maybe there was no editor at CMAJ the week this manuscript was reviewed. RM Preshaw MD Conflict of Interest:None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich Private Practice
Send letter to journal:
drhhnehrlich{at}westnet.com.au Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich
|
This paper is without fault, a refreshing change from the usual politically correct, Big Pharma-beholden ramblings with an agenda. It is not known who first proposed the use of Vitamin C in cancer treatment. It was recognised though, in the early fifties, that all "tumour carriers" showed adrenal insufficiency as well as a deficiency in Vitamin C.1 Pauling and Hoffer, co-founders of Orthomolecular Medicine, have long believed that Vitamin C could be a valuable tool in cancer treatment. Pauling maintained that Vitamin C should be used as an adjunct to other therapies, he showed that 10 g oral intake was enough to significantly prolong the lives of terminal cancer patients. Recent studies and clinical observation have shown that the use of Vitamin C ought to be standard procedure in cancer, as a typical study published by Abram Hoffer and Linus Pauling in 1993 indicated.2 The outcome of the study was that a significant difference of survival times was noted between the two groups. One group was following conventional treatment with the vitamin regimen consisting of Vitamin C and other nutrients, the other group received no nutrients in addition to those from their food. There are examples of persons with far advanced and properly documented cancers whose prognoses were dismal and who seemed to recover from cancer on the basis of taking Vitamin C. Recent work by Riordan, Levine, Hoffer, A. and others have given rise to a new enthusiasm. In fact, the earlier expectations of Orthomolecular Medicine look set to be surpassed. By its simple mechanism of producing H2O2 to destroy cancer cells, Ascorbic Acid has great promise. Once before, this was sensed by Pauling many years ago. The Mayo Clinic, unable to allow an outsider like Pauling to go directly to the people and tell them how to treat illnesses, they repeated Pauling's experiments in strict "secrecy", although they changed the rules in order to come up with a solid condemnation. One would think that we are all in this together. Cancer is a terrible killer, the very word scares the daylight out of most. Yet, the battle against this natural remedy, which happens to be an orphan "drug", continues. After all, it is rather "implausible" that Ascorbic Acid could be a major key. Vitamin C treatment of cancer has resulted in complete recoveries from documented cancers. Not all of these can be spontaneous remissions. The next step ought to be to determine why Vitamin C does not seem to be effective in all people and against all cancers. Common sense would make that mandatory. There is always time to raise the price of Ascorbic Acid to astronomical heights later. References: 1 Herberger,The treatment of inoperable cancer, 1965 John Wright & Sons, Bristol 2 Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine III, 1993 Conflict of Interest:None declared |
|||