Tag: vitamin C

Be prepared for the next Corona epidemic

Claus Hancke

The population is not

May 29, 2020

The Corona is spreading more slowly now, and, here in Denmark, Covid-19 is gradually infecting fewer and fewer people and we are more aware of protecting ourselves against it.

There have been good effects from keeping our distance and from maintaining good hygiene in which we have all been well instructed.

Much to the surprise of the Danish Serum Institute, less than 2% of the Danish population has had the disease, and only a few of these individuals may have obtained immunity to SARS-CoV-2, which the virus is called.
This means that more than 98% have not been infected and are completely without immunity. So forget about herd immunity.

The Danish population is just as vulnerable it was were in March when it all started.

Let’s try to summarize what we know and what we can do about it.

What do we know now?
SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus responsible for the current Covid-19 pandemic, is characterized in that it – like the influenza virus – triggers a reaction with the release of a number of signaling molecules such as interleukins, interferons, and lymphokines.

When this release is powerful, it is called a “cytokine storm”, and with Covid-19, it is so powerful that immune cells begin to damage the tissues where the process is taking place, and, in this case, it is primarily the lung tissue that is damaged.

During the cytokine storm, a violent inflammatory response and increased release of free oxygen radicals are created, which further damages the lung tissue due to the subsequent inflammatory microcoagulation seen in the pulmonary vessels. Adding too much oxygen at this stage will only aggravate the situation, which several anesthesiologists have experienced when Covid-19 patients’ conditions worsen when they are put on a respirator.

What can we do about it
Thus, it is primarily about attenuating the fatal cytokine storm.
Here vitamin D, magnesium, selenium, and vitamin C are particularly important as they specifically inhibit this cytokine storm and the subsequent inflammatory microcoagulation in the pulmonary vessels.
If the level of these essential substances in the body is high enough then you will have a subdued cytokine storm and thus attenuated symptoms, as seen during influenza infection. Fresh extract of Coneflower (Echinacea) has also been documented in several scientific studies to effectively inhibit this cytokine storm.

It should be obvious to protect ourselves by promoting such harmless and inexpensive remedies, but unfortunately in the medical and pharmaceutical world, one tends to stare blindly at the most expensive solutions.
Medical professionals were first intrigued by the antiviral drug Remdesivir, which could shorten the disease period of Covid-19 from 15 to 11 days. This fascination has now been replaced by a new one, another drug, an experimental cancer drug, Bemcentinib that may prevent viruses from entering the cells. A phase II trial is underway for 120 people, and we hope we will be able to get the result in a few months.

Well, it is excellent that medical professionals try to find a medicine that can help in this situation, but is it absolutely necessary to find a new, expensive medicine with side effects, when there are other far cheaper options without side effects?

The long awaited vaccine
While all this is going on, the pharmaceutical industry is working full speed on a vaccine. A vaccine against an RNA virus is very difficult to make, and using a vaccine is especially problematic because viruses constantly mutate and thereby often change the immune response.

No vaccine has ever been safety-tested, in the same way that medicine is tested, and this is a bit problematic because in recent years, the industry has started to add substances whose purpose is to stimulate the immune system for effective antibody formation. And stimulating antibody formation is good enough, too, but the safety of these substances has never been investigated. In Denmark, the use of mercury (thimerosal or thiomersal) in childhood vaccines was stopped from 1992 and in influenza vaccines from 2004, with the exception of the vaccine in 2009, which was an embarrassing exception. The toxic mercury should never be used again for human use – neither in the teeth, for that matter.

But in recent years aluminum has been added in the form of nanoparticles as well as squalene emulsions. These adjuvants have not been safety tested. It has just been noted (WHO has noted) that the number of side effects is not greater than is usually seen with vaccination. Aluminum is a neurotoxin, but it has been used in vaccines in the form of various aluminum salts since 1930, so in that form it probably isn’t particularly harmful. The problem is that nanoparticles are now being used that cannot be stopped by a cell membrane. They can penetrate all tissues.
It cannot be ruled out that it is safe to use these additives. It’s just never been investigated.

It should be a simple task to make a study with each of these ingredients against a real placebo such as brine.
We have many excellent vaccines, so let’s not be vaccine deniers. Let’s welcome a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine when it arrives, and then just hope it is properly safety tested. Of course, this hope becomes a requirement if we are to be mandatory vaccinated.

Of course, the Coronavirus will return
When and how bad we do not know, but it will come.
As mentioned in the Vitamin C newsletter, one of Europe’s experts in Covid-19, Professor Christian Drosten from the University of Berlin, has stated that the second wave could be tougher than the current one.
And since more than 98% of the Danish population is without immunity against it, we should not sit with our hands in our laps and wait for a vaccine.

We need to be proactive.
We need to make sure that we have enough of the nutrients that can reduce the risk of our getting sick, and especially the nutrients that can dampen the cytokine storms, so that we get a mild course of illness if we get sick anyway.

Especially old people and people who eat only very little, who may also be weakened by chronic disease, will do well by supplementing the diet in order to be well equipped with an optimally functioning immune system as the next virus threat approaches.

An appropriate daily dose for a normal-weight adult will typically be:

  • Vitamin A: 1-2 mg
  • Vitamin B6: 4-5 mg
  • Vitamin C: 2-3,000 mg
  • Vitamin D3: 75-100 µg
  • Selenium: 100-200 µg
  • Zinc: 20-30 mg
  • Magnesium: 200-300 mg

Note: The low dose is for those weighing less than 70 kg (155 pounds / 11 stones).

If you start now, you will be prepared in the fall. This is an obvious strategy for the country’s nursing homes.

This is the fifth and final Covid-19 newsletter.

Unfortunately, the five newsletters are necessary as this knowledge and scientific back-up are neglected in the public counseling of the population.

Take care of yourself and others,

Claus Hancke, MD,
Specialist in general medicine

Refs:

  • McGonagle D et al. (2020) Immune mechanisms of pulmonary intravascular coagulopathy in COVID-19 pneumonia. Lancet May 7, 2020:1-9
  • Zhang Y, Leung D, Richers B, et al. (2012) Vitamin D Inhibits Monocyte/Macrophage Proinflammatory Cytokine Production by Targeting MAPK Phosphatase-1. Journal of Immunology. 2012;188(5):2127-2135.
  • Alberto Boretti, Bimal Krishna Banik (2020) Intravenous vitamin C for reduction of cytokines storm in acute respiratory distress syndrome PharmaNutrition.
    2020 Jun;12:100190. Published online 2020 Apr 21.
  • Sharma M, Anderson A et al.(2009) Induction of multiple pro-inflammatory cytokines by respiratory viruses and reversal by standardized Echinacea, a potent antiviral herbal extract. Antiviral Research, 2009;83(2):165-170.
  • Cannell JJ, Zasloff M, Garland CF et al. (2008) On the epidemiology of influenza.
    Virol J. 2008;5:29.
  • Gorton HC, Jarvis K (1999) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing and relieving the symptoms of virus-induced respiratory infections. J Manip Physiol Ther, 22:8, 530-533
  • Hemilä H (2003) Vitamin C and SARS coronavirus Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Volume 52, Issue 6, December 2003, Pages 1049–1050
  • WHO Global advisory committee on vaccine safety 2020 (ikke ændret siden 2006). https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/adjuvants/squalene/Jun_2006/en/

Vitamin C slows cancer growth

Claus Hancke

August 13. 2008

More than 30 years of experience have shown the anti-cancer effect of vitamin C in both test tubes, animal tests and human trials.

Nevertheless, the Danish Cancer Society (Kræftens Bekæmpelse) does not consider it acceptable to apply yet.

Well-known effect on humans
As early as 1936, a young registrar at the Blegdam Hospital in Copenhagen published in the danish scientific journal “Ugeskrift for Læger” an experiment on two leukemia patients in which the disease improved on treatment with vitamin C (1). The young registrar was later to become the renowned professor of pediatrics, Preben Plum.

Forty years ago, researchers first found that vitamin C selectively kills cancer cells in tumors (2), and already 7 years later, Nobel laureate Linus Pauling and Scottish surgeon Ewan Cameron were able to publish a study in which they found an unprecedented survival time for cancer patients treated with vitamin C (3), and they could reproduce the results a few years later (4).

The Mayo Clinic in the USA quickly put a lid on the debate with a study on cancer patients with very small doses of vitamin C given as tablets, where, as you know, you can not consume very much until you get diarrhea; – the body’s natural “overflow valve”.

In 1982, Japanese researchers were able to reproduce Pauling and Cameron’s unusually long survival for cancer patients on Vitamin C (5).

Since then, numerous both animal and human trials have been published to treat cancer with vitamin C.

The new breakthrough
A few years ago, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States began to look at the old experiments extra carefully and found it relevant to retest them, and in 2006 they published a large-scale laboratory experiment that showed that when exposing cancer cells to vitamin C in the high doses that can be obtained by intravenous administration, it causes increased cell death in the cancer cells, that is without damaging the normal cells (6).

This prompted the NIH to move on, and last week we heard about their latest publication (7), where they had shown significant tumor size shrinkage in mice with implanted cancerous tumors treated with intravenous vitamin C.

The new skepticism
Now one would think that this news was received with enthusiasm and optimism in an organization like the Danish Cancer Society, whose main goal is probably best described in the name of the association; -but no.

We see in today’s newspaper BT that Anja Olsen from the Danish Cancer Society, who actually researches in diet and lifestyle’s significance for cancer, is absolutely not thrilled.

She tells BT: “It is ethically on the edge to treat with vitamin C. New treatments must be approved according to completely fixed rules, which means, among other things, that research must be carried out based on humans. “Until this is done, we do not know if it works, just as we can not rule out side effects,” she says.

Of course, it is easy for a researcher in the Danish Cancer Society to demand more research. That is what the Danish Cancer Society does. And how easy it is to spend more time on research when you have no illness yourself. But here “the film breaks off”.

The Danish Cancer Society (DCS) must wake up
For researchers far from patients and for administrators behind closed doors, of course, it is difficult to imagine; but as any general practitioner knows, the time factor for a cancer patient is of completely different dimensions than for the healthy.

The patient who has terminal supplements because “further treatment is hopeless” does not have a time frame of several years before it turns out whether a treatment works or not. He can not say “let’s wait and see”, because then he will never see.

He is looking for a way to prolong life and gain a little extra time. Shouldn’t he have that opportunity? And is it not better that he chooses a treatment which rests on evidence than anything else?

In addition, we have a treatment that has been free of side effects for 10-15 years of use, and a treatment that has numerous both animal experiments and human experiments as evidence.

Wake up DCS and stop moralizing. It can not be justified.

Denmark has a top position in cancer incidence and a bottom position in cancer treatment.

More clinics
A side-effect-free cancer treatment that selectively hits cancer cells without damaging normal cells at the same time is the ideal cancer treatment.

Once it seeps into the public health service and the Danish Cancer Society how good a palliative and life-prolonging treatment Vitamin C can be, then we must hope that large outpatient clinics will be established so that this treatment in the future can be offered for free to cancer patients in Denmark.

The Vitality Council.

References:
1. Plum P. Thomsen S. (1936) Remission under forløbet af akut aleukæmisk leukæmi iagttaget i to tilfælde under behandling med ascorbinsyre. Ugeskr. Læger (98):1062-67.
2. Benade L. Howard T. Burk D. (1969) Synergistic killing of Ehrlich ascites carcinoma cells by ascorbate and 3-amino-1, 2, 4, -triazole, Oncology, 23, 33–43.
3. Cameron E. Pauling L. (1976) Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: Prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 73, 3685–3689 .
4. Cameron E. Pauling L. (1978) Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: Reevaluation of prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 75, 4538–4542 .
5. Murata A. Morishige F. Yamaguchi H. (1982) Prolongation of survival times of terminal cancer patients by administration of large doses of ascorbate, International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research, Supplement, 23, 101-113.
6. Chen et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 20.Sep.2005;102:13604-9
7. NIH News (2008) Vitamin C Injections Slow Tumor Growth in Mice, Embargoed for Release, Monday, August 4,

Vitamin C inhibits cancer. But How?

Claus Hancke

September 18, 2007

New research sparks new theories about how vitamin C inhibits cancerous growth.

A great deal of research indicates that vitamin C has a considerable inhibitory effect on the growth of cancer cells.

The biochemical effect of high-dose treatment with vitamin C is reasonably understood; vitamin C acts as a pro-oxidant on cancer cells at such doses. This causes increased free radical strain on the cancer cells and thereby acts as a poison to the cancer.

In moderate doses, the kind of doses which we can get through our diets, vitamin C is an antioxidant. But even at these doses, vitamin C has shown an inhibitory effect on the growth of cancer cells.

It was therefore believed that vitamin C blocks the free radicals which cause the cancer forming mutations in the cells, and that the reason for its protective effects is that it protects the cells’ DNA.

This is presumably not the whole truth.

Many years ago a famous professor by the name of Warburg was among the first to maintain that cancer cells grow in oxygen poor tissue. Today this is common knowledge, but there lacks knowledge on how this occurs. Ten years ago Gregg Semenza of John Hopkins University found that cancer cells are dependent on a protein called HIF-1 (hypoxia induced factor), which helps the cells by compensating for lacking oxygen in the surrounding tissue and thus allows cancer cells to convert sugar to energy without oxygen. HIF-1 also catalyses the creation of new blood vessels so that hungry cancer cells can get fresh supplies of nutrients and oxygen. If a cancer grows aggressively, it quickly uses up its oxygen supply and becomes entirely dependent on HIF-1. The HIF-1 protein is dependent on the presence of free radicals, which are also necessary for many other processes in the body. A powerful antioxidant like vitamin C eliminates the surplus of free radicals, which causes HIF-1 to become ineffective and thus inhibits cancer growth.

This new theory is based on a study done by a research group at the centre of oncology at John Hopkins University in conjunction with Dean Felsher of Stanford.

They set out to study antioxidants’ roles in cancer growth and found, to their great surprise, that antioxidants destabilise the protein on which cancer cells are dependent. As professor Chi Dang from John Hopkins University wisely stated, “By uncovering the mechanism behind anti-oxidants, we are now better suited to maximize their therapeutic use.”

By: Claus Hancke, MD

Reference

HIF-Dependent Antitumorigenic Effect of Antioxidants In Vivo. Cancer Cell, Volume 12, Issue 3, 11 September 2007, Pages 230-238Ping Gao, Huafeng Zhang, Ramani Dinavahi, Feng Li, Yan Xiang, Venu Raman, Zaver M. Bhujwalla, Dean W. Felsher, Linzhao Cheng, Jonathan Pevsner et al.

www.cancercell.org

New slander against antioxidants

Niels Hertz

March 13, 2007

A new article maintains that antioxidants cause death, but the article is based on a comparison of results from incomparable studies.

Once again a scientific article has created a commotion regarding antioxidants. It claims that they cause death. This has been heard, and disproved, before. Because of the common uncertainty regarding this subject, we are nonetheless forced to take a stand regarding this claim.

The man behind this claim is a Serbian professor from a university located in the town of Nis. One of the co-authors is a Danish physician who has, among other things, declared antioxidants to be poisonous and cancer causing on Danish TV. He even suggested that they are poisonous in the amounts found in vegetables.

The study is a so called Meta analysis. It combines as many old studies on antioxidants as possible and extracts a kind of average from their results. Small four week studies are blended up with larger studies which have gone on for up to 12 years. Studies where very small doses were used are blended up with studies on mega doses, studies using one antioxidant are blended up with studies on combinations of antioxidants (e.g. vitamin E, vitamin C, and selenium), and so on. Among the studies used, there are at least eight different combination treatments using vitamin E. This enormous mess alone causes the study to be somewhat questionable. One cannot calculate an average between apples and oranges.

This is not even the worst part. In an attempt to prove that vitamin E increases risk of death (the articles primary claim), the ignored studies where selenium was used together with vitamin E. The selenium studies often showed reduced mortality and lowered cancer risk. This was not good for the Meta analysis authors, it disturbed their theory. They eliminated 11 essential studies on vitamin E and selenium from the analysis.

Selenium was ignored, but that wasn’t enough. The still couldn’t prove that vitamin E is harmful. The numbers wouldn’t work. To solve this, the article uses the fact that the antioxidant beta-carotene, the yellow colouring in carrots, increases death rates in smokers. This is commonly accepted (although not completely certain). In two of the largest studies conducted on antioxidants, a very slightly increased death rate was found due to a combination of beta-carotene and vitamin E.

More peculiarities
Common sense lends to the conclusion that beta-carotene is the villain in these studies. This was known in advance. Combinations of vitamin E with e.g. vitamin C and/or selenium do not increase mortality. More likely the opposite is true. In the large and very thorough French SU.VI.MAX study, death rates in men fell by over a third when they received vitamin E and vitamin C as well as selenium (besides zinc and beta-carotene!). This introduced a new era because this was the first time in our part of the world that a large array of antioxidants was used in study; which is what most people recommend. The antioxidants in our food are an orchestra, not solo instruments. They must play together to work. In a Chinese study from Linxian the same thing was found: lower mortality after supplements of vitamins E and C, selenium, beta-carotene, and vitamin A.

But the article in question maintains that vitamin E causes death. The claim is built, along with the discussed “manoeuvres,” on the two aforementioned studies, because the other vitamin E studies are insignificantly small in comparison. In these studies vitamin E was used with beta-carotene, and vitamin E was blamed in the Meta analysis for the poor results.

This is like claiming that mineral water is deadly if someone dies after drinking water mixed with arsenic. This conclusion is insane. The arsenic is deadly, not the water. Even though A+B is dangerous, it can naturally not be claimed that both A and B are dangerous alone.

There are other peculiarities in the article. Among other things, in at least two of the studies used, mortality was calculated many years after the end of the study. This is comparable to blaming a traffic accident for back pain when the pain became apparent eight years after the traffic accident. This type of measure was apparently necessary to get the desired results.

It is very easy to make these arguments in a scientific journal. If not for the press, it would be ignored. The article is based on a comparison of a number of incomparable articles, and this makes it hardly worth the effort it takes to make it better. It has also been exposed to sharp criticism. It has been clearly dismissed by two unrelated statisticians and by a professor of nutrition at Harvard University, Meir Stampfer. Stampfer is world renown and among the leading figures in nutrition studies encompassing over 300,000 people. He says that he will continue taking his vitamin supplements, unfazed by the article. But he adds that the article can lead to misinterpretation of the information that we have.

This is unfortunately an all too real possibility. Not in the least because the analysis’s authors insistently do the same.

By: Niels Hertz MD

 

References
1. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL et al. Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention trials. JAMA 2007;297:842-857.
2. Virtamo J et al. ATBC Study Group. Incidence of cancer and mortality following alpha-tocoferol and beta carotene supplementation: A postintervention follow up. JAMA 2003;290:476-485.
3. Lee IM et al. Vitamin E in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer. The Women’s Health Study. A randomized, controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:56-65.

jama.ama-assn.org

Smokers should get more vitamin C and E

Claus Hancke

April 1, 2006

Far too many people get too little vitamin E. The problem is especially large in smokers and can partially be solved by a supplement of vitamin C.

What do you do if you get too little vitamin E? Here is a suggestion: take more vitamin C.

Smokers have this problem more than any other group. They use vitamin E much faster than non-smokers. This is because tobacco smoke oxidizes and destroys the vitamin, which causes it to fail in the fight to protect the unsaturated fats of the body’s cells. Smokers therefore have a greater need for vitamin E than non-smokers. Because they have a greater need, it is easier for them to receive too little.

This is where vitamin C comes in. Vitamin C is easier to get a hold of than vitamin E. Because vitamin C is an antioxidant it can protect the vitamin E from oxidization by the free radicals of the tobacco smoke. This has long been believed, but, until recently, remained unproven in people. There has lately been a small scientific breakthrough in this field.

The study was done as a cooperative effort between a number of American universities and one Canadian university. 11 smokers and 13 non-smokers were given supplements of 50 mg vitamin E containing deuterium. By measuring the amount of deuterium in the blood the researchers were able to determine how fast the vitamin E disappeared from the smoker’s blood (plasma) and compare that to the changes in vitamin E levels in the non-smokers.

It disappeared, as expected, fastest in the smokers. In the course of 25 hours half of the marked vitamin E had disappeared. In the non-smokers this took 42 hours. But, when the smokers were given 500 mg vitamin C morning and evening, it took 34 hours for half of the marked vitamin E to disappear. The vitamin C protected the vitamin E reserves in the smokers, but did not bring them to the level of those in the non-smokers.

Far too few get enough
One can therefore see a normalising of vitamin E in smokers with the help of vitamin C. This is of course only true if the smokers receive enough vitamin E in the first place, which can be said of far too few.

To conclude the summary of this research is should be mentioned that only 8% of men and 2.4% of women receive the recommended 12 mg vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) per day. This is highly likely no better in the U.K. The first and most important recommendation made is that smokers received the recommended amounts (for smokers) of both vitamins C and E (125 mg vit. C and 15 mg vit. E). The second recommendation is that more research be undertaken regarding whether other antioxidants can protect against the degradation of vitamin E. This is important.

But is it true that one needs 12 mg vitamin E per day? Yes it is! An earlier study has shown that the bodily tissue of healthy, young people uses about 5 mg vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) per day.

Because one on average only absorbs about one third of ones food intake in the intestine, should one take a little bit more than the aforementioned 12 mg. But if one eats an especially light diet more should be taken. If breakfast is only cornflakes and low fat milk, taking a vitamin E supplement won’t do much good. Only a tenth of it will be absorbed.

Even young, healthy smokers should receive more vitamin E than others. Older people have an even greater need and it is apparent that most people don’t get enough.

By: Vitality Council

References
1. Bruno R S et al. Human vitamin E requirements assessed with the use of apples fortified with deuterium-labeled α-tocopheryl acetate. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;83:299-304
2. Bruno R S et al. α-Tocopherol acetate disappearance is faster i9n cigarette smokers and is inversely related to their ascorbic acid status- Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:95.103.
3. Bruno R S et al. Faster plasma vitamin E disappearance in smokers is normalized by vitamin C supplementation. Free Radical Biology & Medicine 2006;40:689-97

Vitamin C against atherosclerosis (hardened arteries)

Claus Hancke

March 23, 2006

So far a British research study is showing that C vitamin fights inflammation. Therefore it is very possible that it also fights hardened arteries and blodclots.

If one compares peoples’ eating habits with their risk of blood clots in the heart, one gets the impression that vitamin C prevents blood clots. So far it has been hard to prove through randomised trails that vitamin C supplements protect high risk patients from blood clots. This is how it has been up to now, even though one can claim that many of the studies have been lacking.

Whatever the objections, it is widely believed that the debate over.

It is currently said that vitamin C does not protect against atherosclerosis, but is it true? A recent summary could indicate that the debate is long from over. It shows that vitamin C counteracts inflammation, which is to say infection-like reactions. There is also widespread agreement that atherosclerosis is due to inflammation. Does vitamin C therefore protect against atherosclerosis?

In order to understand the problem it is necessary to take a little detour in this discussion:
Until 20-30 years ago, atherosclerosis was believed to be a process which was roughly due to the depositing of cholesterol in the walls of the blood vessels followed by the build up of calcium. Today it is understood the vessel walls are composed of living cells, and that both the build up of cholesterol and the thickening of the vessel walls are related to inflammation. The same is true for the bursting of the surface against the blood stream, with the emptying of cholesterol and cell products, which causes the platelets (etc.) to clump together, causing a blood clot.

Inflammation appears, curiously enough, to be a part of the sales success of the cholesterol lowering medications, the so called statins. It cannot be denied that they save lives, but is it because they lower the blood’s cholesterol level?

Vitamin C lowers CRP
Here there is doubt. Statins do not only lower cholesterol, but also reduce inflammation. This can be directly measured by a simple blood test (CRP) which hundreds of thousands of Danes get taken when their doctors what to know if they have infection in their bodies. The two effects of statins, the lowering of CRP and the reduction of cholesterol, are not necessarily related, but the risk of blood clots in the heart is more related to CRP than to cholesterol levels. In a study where statins were shown to reduce the risk of heart disease by ca. 30%, their favourable effect was statistically shown to be related to CRP levels, regardless of the cholesterol level! It looks like CRP is more important than cholesterol!

With this we can return to vitamin C. Does vitamin C reduce CRP, just like statins?

In a couple of small randomised studies it was examined whether or not this is the case. In both studies the daily dose of vitamin C was about 500 mg. In the first (with smokers as the participants) CRP was markedly reduced, in the second nothing happened. The contradictory results have now been explained by a study with 3258 reasonably cardio-vascular healthy men between the ages of 60-79.

The primary result was that the more vitamin C that the men had in their blood (serum), the lower their CRP. The quarter of the participants who had the highest level of vitamin C in their blood (with or without consideration of supplements), had the lowest CRP values. The difference was overwhelmingly statistically certain. Concurrently, other measurements indicated that the likelihood for “irritability” of the vessel walls (endothelial dysfunction) was also the lowest in the highest vitamin C group. There is common agreement that this “irritability” mirrors a tendency for atherosclerosis.

Vitamin C is therefore believed to lower CRP, which is an important indicator for inflammation, and therefore the risk of dying of a blood clot. The debate rages on!

By: Vitality Council

References:
1. Ridker et al. C-reactive protein levels and outcomes after statin therapy. N Engl J Med 2005;352:20-8
2. Ridker PM, C-reactive protein levels and outcomes after statin therapy. N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 6;352(1):20-8
3. Libby P. Inflammation and cardiovascular disease mechanisms. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;83(Suppl):456S-60S
4. Goya S et al. Associations of vitamin C status, fruit and vegetable intakes, and markers of inflammation and hemostasis. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;83:567-74
5. Ishwarlal J et al. Is vitamin C an anti-inflammatory agent? Am J Clin Nutr 2006;83:525-6
6. Mora S Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER)–can C-reactive protein be used to target statin therapy in primary prevention?Am J Cardiol. 2006 Jan 16;97(2A):33A-41A. Epub 2005 Dec 1.
7. Bruunsgaard H, Long-term combined supplementations with alpha-tocopherol and vitamin C have no detectable anti-inflammatory effects in healthy men. J Nutr. 2003 Apr;133(4):1170-3.
8. Block G Plasma C-reactive protein concentrations in active and passive smokers: influence of antioxidant supplementation. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Apr;23(2):141-7.

content.nejm.org
www.ajcn.org
www.nutrition.org

High Dose Intravenous Vitamin C Fights Cancer

Claus Hancke

September 28, 2005

This was the New York Times’ headline two weeks ago.

The United States National Institute of Health (NIH) has publicized a laboratory study (1) which shows that when cancer cells are exposed to high doses of vitamin C, which can only be achieved though intravenous injection, the cancer cells die without the normal cells being effected.

The NIH pronounced,”These findings give plausibility to i.v. ascorbic acid in cancer treatment.” They rightly add that much separates laboratory studies from human treatment.

Meanwhile this study is an affirmation of similar results of many earlier studies. In 2004 researchers indicated that “the role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should be re-examined” because intravenous doses of vitamin C can give concentrations which have anti-tumour effects (2)

In 1993 a study showed that vitamin C is deadly or cytotoxic to fast growing malignant cells while being non-toxic to non-malignant cells. Supplementary studies showed that ascorbate’s effects on cell growth are due to its direct lethal effect on cancer cells contrary to a cytostatic effect (3).

Earlier it had been proven that vitamin C has a growth inhibiting effect on cancer cells, but only in large concentrations. The addition of the antioxidant catalase to the growth media completely suppressed this growth inhibiting effect.

The authors of this study believed that this indicates that an overproduction of hydrogen peroxide in involved in the mechanisms responsible for vitamin C’s inhibitory effect of tumour cell growth (4).

The authors of the more recent study lean towards this hypothesis from 1989, which is that high dose vitamin C’s toxic effect on cancer cells is due to subsequent high concentrations of peroxide. Normal cells have an intact antioxidant defence in the form of catalase. This is lacking in cancer cells. This is why vitamin C harms cancer cells and not normal cells, which is exactly the finding of the 2005 study.

Vitamin C’s potential in cancer treatment was also shown in two large studies from 1994, where large doses of ascorbic acid had strong cytotoxic (cell poisonous) effects on a wide range of cancer cell types grown in test tubes (5).

The authors of the second 1994 study also argue that ascorbic acids acts as a pro-oxidant in cancer cells, and they recommend the use of ascorbic acid in the treatment of neuroblastoma (6).

So far so good; but remember that researchers from the NIH mention that there is much separating laboratory studies and the treatment of people.

Vitamin C is meanwhile so non-toxic that some have already undertaken large studies on people.

As early as 1936, a young Danish doctor published an article in the Danish medical weekly “Ugeskrift for Læger” outlining a study where vitamin C was used in the treatment of two leukaemia patients where both showed improvement. This young doctor, named Preben Plum later became a renowned professor or paediatrics.

40 years later a study including 1,100 patients suffering from terminal cancer showed that those who were treated with i.v. vitamin C lived considerably longer than those who were not treated (7).

Ten years ago Riordan et. al. showed that ascorbic acid levels in the plasma can reach levels toxic to tumour cells if given intravenously. The authors believe that ascorbic acid’s cytotoxic properties should qualify it to be considered as a chemotherapeutic drug.

These few examples of a large amount of vitamin C studies fit together like pieces of a puzzle.

This has awakened considerable interest in the media and could strengthen the scientific foundation of clinics where i.v. vitamin C treatment for cancer is already used.

By: Vitality Council

References:
1. Chen et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 20. Sept. 2005;102:13604-9.
2. Annals of Internal Medicine 2004;140: 533-37.
3. P.Y. Leung, et al. Cytotoxic Effect of Ascorbate and its Derivatives on Cultured Malignant and Nonmalignant Cell Lines, Anticancer Research, 13(2), March-April 1993, p. 475-480.
4. V. Noto, et al., Effects of Sodium Ascorbate (Vitamin C) and 2-methyl-1,4-Naphthoquinone Treatment on Human Tumor Cell Growth in Vitro. I. Synergism of Combined Vitamin C and K3 Action, Cancer, 63(5), March 2, 1989, p. 901-906.
5. M. A. Medina, et al. Ascorbic Acid is Cytotoxic for Pediatric Tumor Cells Cultured in Vitro, Biochem Mol Biol Int, 34(5), November 1994, p. 871-874.
6. S.L. Baader, et al., Uptake and Cytotoxicity of Ascorbic Acid and Dehydroascorbic Acid in Neuroblastoma (SK-N-SH) and Neuroectodermal (SK-N-LO) Cells, Anticancer, 14(1A), January-February 1994 p. 221-227.
7. Cameroun, Proc Natl Acad Sci 1976;73:3685-9.
8. N.H. Riordan, et. al. Intravenous Ascorbate as a Tumor Cytotoxic Chemotherapeutic Agent, Medical Hypotheses, 44(3), March 1995, p. 207-213.

www.nih.gov
www.pnas.org
www.annals.org
www.iiar-anticancer.org/research/research_index.htm
www.cancer.org/docroot/home/index.asp
www.med.unibs.it/biblioteca/pubmed2/biomol6.htm
www.sciencedirect.com
www.cancer.gov
www.nytimes.com
www.iom.dk

On-time “Delivery” with Vitamin C

Claus Hancke

June 28, 2005

Vitamin C is necessary for the creation and maintenance of connective tissue. Therefore, it protects pregnant women against damage to the fetus membrane so that the uterine fluid in which the fetus floats does not leave the uterus prematurely. The typical Danish diet contains much too little Vitamin C for pregnant women.

It is well-known that pregnant women should take folic acid – even before the conception of the fetus – to prevent the birth of children with Spina Bifida. Now it seems that Vitamin C is important for the pregnant in another area: It protects against premature birth.

This is evident from a study conducted at the National Institute of Perinatology (the study of diseases in the child at the end of pregnancy and the first week of life) in Mexico City.

110 healthy pregnant women, average age 27, participated in the trial, which lasted from mid-pregnancy (week 20) ​​until delivery. It was a randomised trial, where every other woman received a daily supplement of 100 mg of vitamin C, while the rest had to settle for the vitamins in their diet.

The Mexican women did not have a greater preference for fruit and vegetables than the Danish women. In their diet, they received an average of approximately 65 mg of vitamin C daily. This corresponds to Danish conditions. However, half of them received a larger supplement than the normal 60-70 mg found in vitamin pills in this country.

The women were examined at four-week intervals until they gave birth. The primary purpose was to investigate whether vitamin C protected against premature rupture of membranes. This was determined using the accepted definition, which states that if the membranes break more than two hours before the first contractions (dilation contractions), they break prematurely.

In an ideal birth, the water breaks only when the cervix is ​​fully dilated, allowing the woman to begin pushing. This is called timely water breaking. However, if the water breaks while the cervix is ​​dilating, it is called premature water breaking. In both cases, contractions occur before the water breaks. This is normal and appropriate.

Premature water breaking, i.e. water breaking before the onset of labor, is problematic, but of course especially when it takes a long time for labor to begin. The longer the interval, the greater the risk of infection of the mother and – especially – the child as a result of invading bacteria. Therefore, traditionally, the goal is to have the labor completed within 24 hours of the water breaking. It is therefore also very appropriate that water breaking itself usually initiates labor, even though this may mean premature labor.

The 100 mg of vitamin C was not superfluous. No less than one in four (24.5%) of the women who did not receive the supplement experienced premature rupture of membranes. The same happened to only about 8% of those who did.

How can this be explained? The authors refer to the well-known importance of vitamin C in the formation of connective tissue fibers, collagen. Collagen is the most abundant protein in the body. It is essential for the strength of all supporting tissue.

The Mexican study suggests that it is also crucial for the strength of the amniotic membranes and thus for the normal course of birth. Or to put it another way: vitamin C ensures that it is not weak amniotic membranes, but rather the development of the child that determines the time of birth. Premature rupture of membranes is estimated to be the cause of 40% of all premature births.

In total, the women received an average of 165 mg of vitamin C per day. Whether this is optimal is unknown. But it is certain that, regardless of vitamin pills, many Danish pregnant women receive significantly less than the lucky half of the women in Mexico City.

By: Vitality Council

Reference:
Casanueva E, Ripoll C, Tolentino M, Morales RM, Pfeffer F, Vilchis P, Vadillo-Ortega F Vitamin C supplementation to prevent premature rupture of the chorioamniotic membranes: a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Apr;81(4):859-63.

No Danger from Vitamin E and C

Niels Hertz

May 23, 2005

Many of the worlds reknown scientist state that vitamin E and C are safe to take, even in high dosages. At the same time, the theory that the two vitamins prevent chronic illnesses, is still very much alive.

A number of world-leading researchers in vitamin E and vitamin C have concluded that the two antioxidants are completely safe over a very wide dose range. Thus, they reject claims to the opposite which are expressed in particular to the public, and to a lesser degree to the scientific community.

The article draws attention to the hypothesis that antioxidants reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s, certain types of cancer, calcification of the coronary arteries of the heart, etc. – is still very viable. Although obvious deficiency diseases are rare in the Western world, low intake can accelerate more indicators of aging. This may at least be due in part to inadequate protection against free oxygen radicals.

The researchers reviewed 24 major “safety observations” of vitamin E, including all major studies from recent years. None of them found any harmful effects.

The same applied to 29 similar studies on vitamin C, where a few trials, however, showed increased excretion of oxalic acid – suspected of forming kidney stones – in the urine. In the authors’ opinion, this can be attributed to an analytical error, which is due to some vitamin C being converted to oxalic acid as a result of the measurement method.

The article cites the latest official recommendations from the US Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), which state the following safety values for vitamins E and C:

………………….Vitamin E (mg)……Vitamin C (mg)
RDA men…….….15…………..….…….90
RDA women…..15……………………..75
UL…………..………1,000…………………2,000

RDA stands for Recommended Dietary Allowance.
Vitamin E means natural vitamin E. The 15 mg corresponds to 33 units.
The RDA for vitamin C should be increased by 35 mg for smokers, i.e. to 125 mg for men and 110 mg for women.
UL stands for “tolerable upper intake level” and is the highest intake that, according to the FNB, can be consumed with “reasonable certainty that this will not cause harm”.

The recommended intakes are higher than previously, reflecting increasing recognition – also from official sources – of the importance of antioxidants.

It is no exaggeration to say that the 14 researchers behind the article are among the leading scientists. Their names are known to anyone with a scientific interest in antioxidants. Together, they are responsible for at least 1,500 scientific papers.

However, no one surpasses biochemist Lester Packer, who has been a professor at the University of Southern California for over 40 years and is undisputedly the world’s most recognized expert in the field. Packer has published more than 70 books, including one for non-specialists, and over 700 scientific articles.

He is president of the International Society for Research on Free Radicals, vice-president of UNESCO’s International Society for Molecular and Cell Biology, and editor of a large number of major scientific journals. He has received countless scientific awards and sits at the head of the table at almost every major scientific congress on antioxidants.

Now Packer and his colleagues have produced the most thorough rebuttal to date of the attacks on vitamins E and C, which, especially in Denmark, have frightened – and possibly thereby harmed – a large part of the population.

By: Niels Hertz, MD.

Reference:
Hathcock JN et al. Vitamins E and C are safe across a broad range of intakes. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:736-45.

www.ajcn.org
www.iom.dk

Depressed Due to Vitamin Deficiency?

Claus Hancke

April 11, 2005

Several reports show a connection between depression and Vitamin E deficiency. There is a similar relation between depression and lack of Vitamin C and selenium. So far this gives food for thought.

Could it be that lack of vitamin E plays a role in depression? Something in that direction according to a preliminary Australian survey.

Researchers at the University of Wollongong in Australia wanted to investigate whether there was anything to be gained from the numerous reports of vitamin E deficiency in depressed people. They first examined the blood levels of vitamin E in 49 depressed patients. On average, they found a value of 4.7 mmol/l. This is far below the normal range of 12-42.

The immediate explanation could be that the depressed people had a poor diet. But a systematic survey revealed nothing to that effect. They ate like everyone else.

Here’s the thing. If we are to believe the Australians, it must either be that depressives need more vitamin E than others – or that they absorb it less well from the intestine.

Perhaps we should place more reliance on other, larger studies. They have also found low levels of vitamin E in the blood of depressed people, but have found a natural explanation to varying degrees: In a study of more than 400 depressed people in Rotterdam, it turned out that the depressed people ate too little or had an inadequate diet.

Vitamin C and selenium
However, the studies are interesting for other reasons. Something similar has been found when it comes to both selenium and vitamin C. Both are, like vitamin E, antioxidants. The American vitamin C researcher Mark Levine discovered, for example, during experiments with students who were kept on a diet with extremely small amounts of vitamin C, that they invariably became irritable and tired. As soon as they were given more vitamin C again, their mood improved.

Similar results have been found in previous studies with selenium. In an English study, people with depression were given either selenium (100 micrograms/day) or placebo pills. Improvements in mood – and especially a decrease in anxiety – were observed as the selenium content in the blood increased day by day. A similar correlation has been seen in alcoholics and dialysis patients, where selenium deficiency is common.

In other words, there is suspicion from several quarters about some connection between depression and a lack of antioxidants. For now, there is probably mostly speculation, but one can at least say that there is no reason to risk an antioxidant deficiency if your mood is struggling.

By: Vitality Council

References:
1. Owen AJ et al. Low plasma vitamin E levels in major depression: Diet or disease? Eur J Clin Nutr 2005;59:304-6.
2. Tiemeier H et al. Vitamin E and depressive symptoms are not related. The Rotterdam Study. J Affect Disord 2002;72:79-83.
3. Maes M et al. Lower seriúm vitamin E concentration in major depression. Another marker of lowered antioxidant defense in that disease. J Affect Disord 2000;58:241-6.
4. Benton D et al. The impact of selenium supplementation on mood. Biol Psychiatry 1991;29:1092-8.

www.nature.com/ejcn/index.html
www.sciencedirect.com
www.iom.dk