..."Millions of people could have delayed or avoided health problems such as
cataracts, cancer, blood vessel disease, aneurysms, gall stones and more had NIH
researchers properly conducted tests to determine the human need for vitamin
C....
....Despite recently published data that stands in stark contrast to the RDA and
the claim that mega-dose vitamin C supplementation is of no benefit, public
health authorities are not forthcoming about their past mistakes."...
Think time as come to take the medical authorities to task and charge them
negligence. Given the these facts have been known for years yet they continue to
use mostly ineffective, toxic and expensive drugs.
Chris Gupta
See embedded URLs and also:
Vitamin C Dosage in Disease -
Cathcart, III, M.D
Dr. Klenner and Vitamin C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE VITAMIN C FANATICS
WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
By Bill Sardi
Labeled as “health fanatics” and “vitamin whackos,” the users of mega-dose
vitamin C pills are about to be vindicated. No more hiding their vitamin C pills
from their doctors. No more condescending glances from their friends when they
say they are taking a few grams of vitamin C every day. According to newly
revealed science, the belittled mega-dose vitamin C users may be purchasing
the cheapest and most effective health insurance one can buy.
The prevalent belief is that vitamin C is an essential nutrient but excessive
amounts consumed from mega-dose vitamin pills produce expensive urine since
excesses are excreted. This flawed idea emanates from studies conducted by
researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1996. [Proceedings
Natl Acad Sci 93:14344-8, 1996] Ever since then physicians, pharmacists,
dietitians and other health practitioners have echoed the same mistaken chorus
--- you’re wasting your money by taking mega-dose vitamin C pills.
Health authorities claim mega-dose vitamin C pills are worthless
The current Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin C, 75 milligrams
for males, 90 milligrams for females, and an additional 35 mg for smokers, is
based on the amount of vitamin C needed to prevent a person from getting scurvy
and provide body stores for about 30 days, with a margin of safety. [Proceedings
Natl Academy Sciences 98: 9842-46, 2001] An NIH press release states “at 200 mg
oral intake, blood plasma had more than 80 percent maximal concentration of
vitamin C and tissues were completely saturated. Doses of 500 mg and higher are
completely excreted in urine.” [National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases, NIH Press release April 15, 1996]
A study conducted by NIH investigators emphatically states that doses of
supplemental vitamin C above 200 milligrams daily are “nearly completely
excreted in urine.” Furthermore, the concentration of ascorbic acid (the
technical name for vitamin C) in blood plasma never exceeds much more than 70-85
micromole per deciliter of blood regardless of the dosage of vitamin C consumed,
so said NIH researchers. [Biofactors 15: 71-74, 2001] (Micromole is a measure of
concentration of substances in liquids.) So NIH investigators assert 5 servings
of fresh fruits and vegetables provide about 200 milligrams of vitamin C and
that the diet should be sufficient to reach optimal blood levels. Vitamin C
pills are not required, period.
What about the half life?
This is not so, says a new book, Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C,* written
by Drs. Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts, University of Manchester graduates in
pharmacology in England. The book exposes the many flaws involved in the
establishment of the Recommended Daily Allowance for vitamin C, and the
revelations are alarming. Millions of people could have delayed or avoided
health problems such as cataracts, cancer, blood vessel disease, aneurysms, gall
stones and more had NIH researchers properly conducted tests to determine the
human need for vitamin C.
Hickey and Roberts note indisputable flaws in the RDA for vitamin C. NIH
scientists waited 12 hours before measuring the concentration of ascorbic acid
in the blood circulation to develop an RDA for 280 million people. Hickey and
Roberts show that NIH investigators failed to calculate for the half life of
vitamin C, which is about 30 minutes in humans. (The half life is the time
it takes for something to disappear from the human body.) “To be blunt,”
says Hickey, “the NIH gave a dose of vitamin C, waited until it had been
excreted, and then measured blood levels.” Then, 24 half-lives later, NIH
researchers concluded this was the saturation level.
Other flaws
It’s also obvious there weren’t enough subjects tested to develop adequate
conclusions. The NIH only studied 7 and 15 subject in the two studies they used
to develop the RDA. Also, there was the false assumption that concentrations of
vitamin C in blood plasma reflect the need for vitamin C in other tissues
throughout the body. The brain has ten times greater vitamin C concentration
than the blood plasma. A 1991 study found that 2000 mg of daily vitamin C
increased vitamin C levels by 22-32 percent in the human eye over levels
achieved by taking 148 milligrams.
RDA itself is misleading
Furthermore, the RDA itself is misleading because it is intended to set a
level of nutrient consumption that would prevent disease (scurvy) among the vast
majority (95%+) of the population. The RDA for vitamin C is established for
healthy people. Yet smokers (50 million), estrogen or birth control pill users
(13 million and 18 million),
diabetics (16 million),
pregnant females (4 million) and people taking
aspirin (inestimable millions) or other drugs, have increased need for
vitamin C and comprise more than 35 percent of the population. The current
RDA wouldn’t meet the needs of these large subpopulations. Every time the
RDA is printed on dietary supplements and food labels it should be accompanied
by an asterisk that *This RDA intake level was established for healthy people
only and it is likely more vitamin C may be needed by smokers, diabetics, senior
adults, pregnant females, and individuals taking certain medications (steroids,
estrogen, birth control pills, aspirin).
How did NIH researchers box themselves into a corner?
How did the NIH researchers so emphatically claim that mega-dose vitamin C
was worthless and then later box themselves into a corner with their own data?
What NIH researchers set out to do was further investigate the difference
between oral and intravenous absorption of vitamin C. Their report, which was
published in the March 2004 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine,
contradicted their earlier published studies.
Dr. Linus Pauling vindicated
First, the study revealed that concentrations of vitamin C in blood
plasma are six times greater when given intravenously over oral doses (885 vs
134 micromolar concentration). This caused the investigators to suggest
intravenous vitamin C may achieve concentrations that “might have antitumor
activity” and that the “role of
vitamin C in cancer treatment should be evaluated.” [Annals Internal
Medicine, April 6, Volume 140: pages 533-37, 2004] Heavens to Betsy! This
revelation validated the work of Dr. Linus Pauling who used intravenous vitamin
C to more than double the survival rates among terminal cancer patients in 1976.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci 73:3685-9, 1976] Later Dr. Pauling’s published studies using
intravenous vitamin C were discredited by Mayo Clinic researchers. The news
media missed this important story. It should have made worldwide headlines,
particularly because oncologists have not been able to significantly improve
survival times for cancer for the past few decades.
The second half of the study
Second, the comparative oral-dosing data in the Annals of Internal Medicine
study revealed a more important shocker. When 3000 milligrams was given
orally every 4 hours, concentrations were nearly three times greater (220
micromole) than what was believed to be the maximum that could be achieved
through oral consumption (70-85 micromole). What happened to the claim that
that body tightly controls blood plasma vitamin C concentrations with excesses
dumped into urine? In the researchers own words, “single one gram supplement
doses can produce transient plasma concentrations that are 2 to 3-fold higher
than those from vitamin C-rich foods (200-300 milligrams daily)!” Hold your
horses. The NIH researchers should have retracted previously published papers,
asking medical journal editors to publish erratum, and they should have called
for a re-evaluation of the RDA for vitamin C. This didn’t happen, says Hickey.
In March of 2004 another scientific paper was being published, again co-authored
by NIH researchers, which remarkably showed that 2000 milligrams of oral vitamin
C produced 143 micromole concentrations in blood plasma. The researchers
remarked that numbers rose even among subjects with already had relatively high
blood concentrations (87 micromole). Plasma concentrations rose progressively
with increasing vitamin C doses up to 1000 milligrams per day! [Archives of
Biochemistry and Biophysics, 423, 109-115, 2004] The researchers concluded that
“optimizing vitamin C intake appears warranted” given the relationship of low
vitamin C status with stroke,
coronary heart disease,
cancer and brain disease.
NIH researchers said blood plasma concentrations cannot reach beyond 70-85
micromole from oral vitamin C because amounts over 200 milligrams per day are
excreted in the urine. But the above chart, reproduced from an NIH study reveals
that oral vitamin C attained 220 micromole concentrations in blood plasma, three
times greater than what the National Institutes of Health said could not be
achieved.
The impact of a bogus RDA
These revelations are likely to have a far-reaching impact beyond the RDA.
The U.S. is deliberating approval of a worldwide trade agreement known as
CODEX which would restrict
essential nutrients in dietary supplements to certain minimums and maximums (the
so-called safe upper limit), which are based upon an obviously flawed RDA. The
CODEX vote must now be halted until this matter over the validity of the RDA for
vitamin C is clarified.
A reversal the vitamin supplement nay-sayers may never live down
Such a reversal of events is likely to awaken the polarized camps that
advocate or oppose high-dose vitamin C supplementation. For example, Quackwatch
advises consumers that among things to watch for in detecting health quackery
are claims that the RDAs are too low. Up till now, every health practitioner who
espoused mega-dose vitamin C therapy has been labeled as a quack. Now the
vitamin C advocates are likely to go on the offensive. [Twenty-Five
Ways to Spot Quacks. and Vitamin Pushers,
Stephen Barrett, M.D., Victor Herbert, M.D., J.D.]
Here is a quotation from a university-based website which describes a prevalent
attitude by scientists about vitamin supplements:
“Vitamin hucksters spend millions promoting fear that you are not getting
enough vitamins and minerals. They recommend vitamin, mineral and nutritional
supplements as ‘vitamin insurance.’ The American Dietetic Association, the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council and other major
medical societies all agree that you should get the vitamins and minerals you
need through a well-balanced diet.”
There is going be an adjustment period required for sure. How will the
vitamin C nay sayers live this down?
The greater tragedy
In retrospect, now that it is apparent the RDA for vitamin C is flawed, the
greater tragedy lies in the effect vitamin C supplementation could have upon
mortality rates. An epidemiological study published by the NIH in the year
2000 showed that adults whose blood plasma concentrations exceeded the 73.8
micromole level experienced a 57 percent reduced risk of dying from any cause
and a 62 percent reduced relative risk of dying of cancer when compared to
adults who consumed low amounts of vitamin C (28 micromole). [Am J Clinical
Nutrition 72: 139-45, 2000]
Another study found that for every 500 microgram increase in blood serum
concentration of vitamin C an 11 percent reduction in coronary heart disease and
stroke prevalence could be anticipated. [Epideminology 9: 316-21, 1998] Now that
we know that much higher blood concentrations of ascorbic acid can be achieved
through oral consumption than previously recognized, Dr. Hickey estimates 500
milligrams of vitamin C taken orally in 5 divided doses every three waking hours
daily (2500 mg total per day) could reduce the cardiovascular mortality risk by
55 percent compared to people consuming low doses of vitamin C!
Millions of Americans have been misled by health authorities and have
received errant advice in the development of their personal health regimens.
Consumers read labels on vitamin bottles which said it supplied “100 percent of
the RDA” and believe that is all they needed to stay healthy. This no longer
holds for vitamin C. Consumers are likely to be angry once these revelations are
aired in public.
Calculating the aftermath of the error
Aside from the decreased risk for cardiovascular disease and cancer, what
else would have happened had the RDA for vitamin C be set much higher, an RDA
for optimal health, like the 2500 mg per day in divided doses as suggested by
Drs. Hickey and Roberts?
Had the public responded to this knowledge in a widespread manner and begun
to consume vitamin C pill en masse, one could expect all manner of human disease
to decline. For example, the incidence of cataracts would likely drop
significantly, or at least they would be delayed by quite a few years. [J
Clinical Epidemiology 52: 1207-11, 1999; Am J Clin Nutrition 66: 911-16, 1997]
Arthritic symptoms would diminish in the population at large due to the
maintenance of collagen. [Arthritis Rheumatism 39: 648-56, 1996] Rates of skin
cancer might drop. The number of days in a year that people would be hampered
with cold symptoms might be reduced, which would likely improve productivity in
society overall. [Advances Therapy 19: 151-59, 2002] Viral eruptions such as
herpes and
SARS would be better controlled or even averted. [J Antimicrobial
Chemotherapy 52: 1049-50, 2003] Smokers might live longer and not exhibit much
of the pathology they develop. [J Am College Nutrition 22: 372-78, 2003] Rates
of gall bladder disease would drop by about 25 percent. [J Clinical Epidemiology
51: 257-65, 1998] The incidence of aortic aneurysms (bulging and possible
rupture) would be virtually eliminated. [Med Sci Monitor 10: 1-4, 2004]
A study published in the March 2004 issue of the American Journal of
Epidemiology indicates males taking high-dose vitamin C exhibit 2.68 times less
calcification in their arteries compared to males who consume low doses of
vitamin C. The risk for angina among adults who consume significant amounts of
alcohol would be cut in half. [Ann Epidemiology. 9: 358-65, 1999] One study
concluded that 3000 mg of oral vitamin C daily even increases the frequency of
sexual intercourse. [Biological Psychiatry. 2002 52:371-4, 2002]
All of these potential health benefits can only be achieved with consumption of
vitamin C at levels exceeding what the best diet provides. For taking just ¼
teaspoon of vitamin C five times a day, at an estimated cost of 25 cents per
day, Americans can achieve a level of health never achieved by large populations
groups.
Inexplicably, Linus Pauling scientists agree with current RDA
Surprisingly, researchers at the Linus Pauling Institute haven’t fully
bought into the idea yet that high-dose vitamin C may produce exceptional health
benefits. Instead, they followed along with the errant NIH recommendations.
Anita Carr, a research associate with the Linus Pauling Institute, says this
about the current RDA for vitamin C: "Based upon a preliminary review of many
studies done over the past 15 years, a number that seems to stand out right now
is about 100 milligrams per day." [Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State
University, June 2, 1998] Dr. Linus Pauling supplemented his diet with about
6000 milligrams of vitamin C daily.
Safety not an issue
Safety is not an issue when it comes to mega-dose vitamin C supplements.
Eight placebo-controlled, double-blind studies and six non-placebo controlled
clinical trials in whih up to 10,000 milligrams of vitamin C was consumed daily
for up to three years, confirm the safety of vitamin C pills in excess of the
RDA. [J Am College Nutrition 14: 124-36, 1995] Frequent allegations are made
that vitamin C supplements may increase the risk of kidney stones, but are
poorly founded. Additionally, the false notion that withdrawal from high-dose
vitamin C may cause “rebound scurvy” has also been dispelled. While vitamin C
increases the absorption of iron, it has not been shown to induce iron overload
in humans. [Nutrition Reviews 57: 71-77, 1999]
Vitamin C supplement users
The question is, do Americans consume enough vitamin C for optimal health?
Vitamin C is the most common dietary supplement consumed by American consumers.
About 45 percent of dietary supplements used by consumers contain vitamin C.
[Archives Family Medicine 9: 258-62, 2000] A 1990 report indicates the average
intake of vitamin C from supplements is about 60 milligrams, however, about 5 to
10 percent of supplement users (about 2 percent of the US population) consume
more than 1000 mg from pills. [Am J Epidemiology 132: 1091-101, 1990]
The blood plasma vitamin C concentration among vitamin C supplement users is
about 60 to 70 percent higher than adults who do not take supplements (75-80 vs.
45-50 micromole). [J Am College Nutrition 13: 22-32, 1994] A daily intake of
1000 mg is needed to maintain plasma vitamin C concentration in the range of
75-80 micromole. Only 4.2 percent of the US population 3 to 74 years of age
is likely to have plasma vitamin C levels above the 80 micromole point.
[National Health Survey, Series 11, No. 232, DHHS Publication No 83-1682, 1982]
One widely acclaimed study published in 1992 indicated that vitamin C, in
oral doses exceeding 750 milligrams per day, increased the lifespan of males by
about 6 years. [Epidemiology 3: 194-202, 1992]
For optimal health, what is overlooked is the half life of vitamin C and the
importance of divided doses that Drs. Hickey and Roberts now emphasize in order
to achieve steady blood levels. Health minded consumers owe a debt of gratitude
to Dr. Hickey and Roberts for breaking ranks among scientists who appear to be
frozen in their tracks. Despite recently published data that stands in stark
contrast to the RDA and the claim that mega-dose vitamin C supplementation is of
no benefit, public health authorities are not forthcoming about their past
mistakes. The RDA for vitamin C must be re-evaluated. Mega-dose vitamin C
supplementation should no longer be demeaned. Hickey and Roberts have confronted
the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Nutrition Board of the
Institutes of Medicine directly, with little success. Now they are taking the
issue to the public in their newly released book. Only the public’s demand for
reform is likely to overcome inaction by health authorities. Everyone needs to
read Hickey and Roberts’ book. ####
Copyright 2004 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.
*Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, Steve Hickey, Hilary Roberts, e-book and
softcover, 264 pages, referenced, 2004, available at
www.lulu.com/ascorbate
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/
List information is at:
http://tinyurl.com/2xohw