VITAMIN C
KILLS JANE BRODY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES
© Owen R. Fonorow
Recently,
[Life Extension/Townsend Letter] published my thoughts in an article entitled How to Counter the Propaganda Campaign Aimed
at Alternative Medicine. The premise
of this article was that a string of "news" reports in the mainstream
media were obviously planted. These
anonymous articles heavily favored the orthodox medical viewpoint that
vitamins, minerals and herbs have no therapeutic value over and above
the
specific nutrient deficiency disease.
This on-going, essentially one-sided story masquerades as news. It is
particularly onerous because the favored interests can well afford to
advertise.
There
is today more proof that this propaganda campaign is alive and well. On April 8, 1998, New York Times columnist
Jane Brody began a series of columns that got wide-spread attention because
they called into question the safety of vitamin C.
Of
course, if there was any danger to taking Vitamin C, that would be news. The same can be said for
many
things that aren't true.
The
problem caused by this particular salvo (a minor scientific finding, among
17,000 findings regarding vitamin C) is that many news organizations apparently
trust the New York Times. Other
newspaper and magazine editors assume that if the Times has sanctioned a story,
it must have a solid basis in fact.
And
of course, the Times story was woven around facts. Nobody is claiming Jane
Brody made these vitamin C
articles
up out of thin air.
The
reported study was conducted by the people they say conducted it.
Too
bad news editors didn't read the Associated Press version.
Here
is the bottom Line: There isn't a single
shred of hard evidence to back up the speculative health claims published by
Jane Brody in the Times, i.e. that doses of Vitamin C above the RDA may be
harmful in any way, shape or form. There is no epidemiological or other
evidence that high vitamin C plays a role in the formation of chronic disease.
If fact, the totality of evidence supports the opposite conclusion. The less you take, the worse your health
will be. Even if the known "pro-oxidant" property of Vitamin C was
measured, it does not follow by logic that Vitamin C is harmful, nor would the
serious postulated consequences necessarily follow. These fears are pure
speculation.
Of
course, this won't stop the story from being repeated in various health
magazines and journals.
Almost
out of habit, when reports of the possible health benefits of taking vitamin
supplements appear in the mainstream media, responsible sounding conservative
doctors and medical researchers are quoted who always say that we must be
careful not to jump to conclusions.
They
always seem to need more studies.
In
this case, on the basis of a single questionable 6 week study of 30 people in
1995, Jane Brody and the New York Times was prepared to scare Americans from
taking a substance that Linus Pauling, of all people,
has
tied a lack of to Heart Disease? A substance so important almost all animals
(save humans) make their own bodies in amounts that exceed the RDA by orders of
magnitude!
So
where did this story come from?
In
1995, a group of British scientists (Ian Podmore, et. al.) gave a group of 30
people 500 mg of vitamin C for 6 weeks.
That's
right, 1995.
They
then extracted and measured "markers" that are thought to indicate
DNA damage caused by oxidation and free radicals. One of these measurements
indicated more DNA damage during a 6 week period the subjects were on vitamin C
than when they were on a placebo.
Their letter about this three year old
study
was published in the April 9, 1998 issue of NATURE.
What
is not mentioned in the NATURE paper, that we subsequently learned from the
internet, is that these researchers also gave vitamin E supplements, and the
purpose of the study was not to investigate supplements.
They
were investigating a new DNA extraction method. The vitamin C and vitamin E measurements were taken to validate
their new method. (NATURE readers are
unaware of this point.)
And
the new method showed that both vitamin C and vitamin E reduced oxidation
damage by 50%! It was the
"old" method used for comparison purposes that seemed to indicate DNA
damage after vitamin C supplementation.
The
following quote, from another paper by the study authors, illustrates a problem
with the reliability of measurements of this sort:
"The extraction of DNA [by these
methods] is an area of much controversy
as several workers have suggested that cell lysis and/or extraction
with organic solvents can cause
artefactual generation of 8-OHdC. One must
therefore be careful in interpreting the results of such
measurements on the grounds of suitable
method of extraction which does not generate
in vitro artefact" [Abstract: European Standards Committee on
Oxidative DNA Damage, J. Lunec, Q.
Zheng, M. Evans, K. Herbert]
On
the basis of the comparison measurement, the British scientists reported in NATURE,
to their surprise, that in certain cases vitamin C seems to act as a "pro
oxidant." Jane Brody's article
implies from this that taking vitamin C in amounts greater than 500 mg may
cause grave long-term damage. Arthritis and cancer were specifically mentioned.
The
fact that vitamin C has pro-oxidant as well as anti-oxidant properties is well
known and not news. More than a decade ago, Linus Pauling told us:
"The ways in which ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) functions in
the human body relate first to the fact that it engages on both sides of
the universal oxidation-reduction
reaction that subtracts or adds
hydrogen atoms to a molecule. (Vitamin C) is readily oxidized to
dehydroascorbic acid by the surrender, to oxidizing agents, of the two hydrogen atoms... [shown in the figure]
This action is readily reversible, for dehydroascorbic acid
acts as a strong oxidizing agent, and by picking up two hydrogen atoms is
reduced to ascorbic acid. It is likely that the reducing power of ascorbic acid
and the oxidizing power of dehydroascorbic acid are responsible for some of the
physiological properties of the substance." [PAULING, HOW TO LIVE LONGER AND FEEL BETTER, 1986]
All
readers concerned about the safety of vitamin C should read Pauling's book.
We
asked the physician with the most clinical experience with large doses of
vitamin C (more than 20,000 patients) to comment on the incidence of cancer and
arthritis in his practice. According to
Dr. Robert Cathcart, III, MD:
"Clinically, I have seen no evidence of DNA damage. I
have seen a few
cancer patients who have taken vitamin C fairly regularly for
a number
of years but there are not many and in the large number of
patients I
have put on large doses of C there seems to be a smaller than
normal
number who have developed cancer.
I know that follow-up in a private practice is not perfect
but I have not
seen a single autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis
develop while the patient was on large doses of ascorbic
acid.
What is very remarkable is that I cannot recall a single
patient who had
a good heart before starting large doses of ascorbic acid who
ever
developed a heart attack after being on ascorbic acid. This
would seem
to be true of all of the arteriosclerotic problems. I
actually find this
hard to believe but a least in my limited experience, it is
true.
On the subject of cancer: there is a remarkable lack of new
cancer
developing in AIDS patients after they have been on the large
doses of
ascorbic acid in combination with my whole nutritional
program for
AIDS. [Robert Cathcart, III, MD, April 10, 1998]
We
should also recognize fair reporting. People who were lucky enough to get this
news from Malcolm Ritter of the Associate Press learned of skeptical comments
made by other scientists.
Dr.
Steven Zeisel of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill told the AP
that the mixed result is puzzling. The study ``is not a definitive help in our
understanding about whether vitamin C is protective or not'' at high doses, he
said.
Bruce
N. Ames of the University of California at Berkeley, said he suspects the
result may have been influenced by the study's lab procedures.
Dr.
Mark Levine of the National Institutes of Health said the volunteers' white
cells may have been saturated with vitamin C before they took supplements. If
so, it's hard to see how supplements could make any difference, he said.
Another
point escaped all major news outlets except Jack Challem's Nutrition Reporter.
According to Challem, recognized authority Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D., points out
that about half of all chemicals, natural and
synthetic,
cause DNA damage. He notes that naturally occurring compounds in alfalfa
sprouts (canavanine), broccoli (isothiocyanate), potato (solanine), celery
(psoralne), and onion (quercetin), and most fruits and vegetables cause
(single-strand) DNA damage.
Conspicuous
by its absence in the Brody article was still another important point Dr. Ames
makes: "The body's DNA repair enzymes - which are largely dependent on the
B vitamins - fix nearly all of the damage."
In
other words, Brody's article could have been titled TAKE MORE B VITAMINS WHEN TAKING HELPFUL VITAMIN C SUPPLEMENTS.
The
more sensational Brody story got more play.
Yet her article, one that might affect the health of millions, quoted a
single "scientist." Victor
"Darth Vader" Herbert , MD, JD, of the Sinai Medical School. The
world's foremost avowed enemy of vitamin C.
In
1974 Dr. Herbert successfully co-authored and published a paper about one of
his experiments in
the
Journal of the American Medical Association . [Herbert,V:Jacob E.(1974) JAMA
230:241-242] Herbert claimed that his result showed that vitamin C destroys
vitamin B12. Everyone makes mistakes,
but this result could not be reproduced, and according to Linus Pauling [How to
Live Longer, 1986] and others, the scientific community now believes that Dr.
Herbert's methods were faulty, and his conclusion false. Yet, to this day, Dr. Herbert's views enjoy
national press coverage.
According
to Balz Frei, Ph.D., director of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State
University, Covallis, other studies directly contradict the findings of the "new"
NATURE study. A balanced New York Times article would have
included the fact that the findings are old and questionable. That any damage
is usually repaired quickly. That other scientists do not necessarily agree
that this study has any importance what-so-ever.
As
Frie, Ames and others quickly went on record as criticizing the NATURE study's methodology, why didn't
Jane Brody ask any other American scientists to comment? Instead, she relied on
the avowed enemy of vitamin C for a completely one sided, highly speculative,
and yes a JUNK SCIENCE report. Why?
These
stories don't just "happen."
It
is a fact that vitamin C competes with a wide range of pharmaceuticals. We
continue to believe that the New York Times, either wittingly or unwillingly,
is being used as a tool by interests who can well afford to advertise. These
interests are willing to put the nation's health at risk. They are pleased if
the public becomes confused about the human need for vitamin C, but this was
not the primary objective of the New York Times article.
These
well publicized, but largely unfounded "negative" studies serve a
purpose that can hardly be unintended. The wide-spread publicity keeps
mainstream medical doctors away from trying alternative techniques in their
practice, and it gives those doctors who don't want to use alternative
therapies an excuse not to.
According
to a recent letter from 80 year old Stephen Sheffrey, D. D. S., a strong
pro-Vitamin C advocate:
"The ongoing effort to discredit vitamin C began in the
1940s after it was shown to have antiviral and antitoxic properties. Certain
members of the pharmaceutical-medical complex, after first promoting vitamin C
as a treatment for fevers and infections, realized that widespread use of this
non prescription substance would cancel the need for developing a lucrative
prescription antiviral drug market.
For this reason, all the scientific trials which have not
shown vitamin C to be of any benefit against viral attacks either shorted
the recommended dose or altered the
recommended treatment procedure.
Anyone who knows the vitamin C has been blatantly discredited in this manner should be ashamed to speak of ethics
in order to forestall a proper
evaluation of the vitamin's therapeutic potential.
I wonder if [the British] can point to an increase in heart
trouble along with an increase in vitamin C. I believe that just the
opposite has occurred."
For
the record, here are my personal concerns about the NATURE report.
1. The study was published as a letter to the editor to NATURE.
According to this letter, the study was run in 1995, or earlier, so the first
question is, why did a study run three years ago suddenly become major news,
especially since they couldn't get their findings published in a peer-reviewed
journal? And when were these measurements actually made?
2. The result was a secondary finding. According to the study abstract
we found on the internet:
The aim of this study was to
investigate the effect of vitamin C mg/day) and vitamin E (400 i.u./day)
supplementation in normal individuals in terms of lymphocyte levels of the
base-lesion 7, 8-di hydro 8-oxo-2-deoxyguanosine (8-oxoG)which is recognized as
a specific marker of ROS induced damage,
in vivo.
However, their conclusion
states:
Levels of 8-oxodG were
unaffected by placebo, but were significantly reduced by approximately 50% by
both vitamin C and vitamin E.
3. The extraction methods the team employed that seemed to show damage
are unknown, but since a new method was the purpose of the study (and the new
method showed great benefit to vitamin C) we must assume the older method was
measured for comparison. Only the comparison measurements showed damage.
According to the author's earlier research, the newer methods are needed
because the old methods may not be reliable.
4. It is uncertain how accurate any of these arcane "damage"
measurements are. In other words, there may in-fact be no RNA/DNA damage
what-so-ever. (As in all science, these results will have to be replicated by other researchers before
they can be taken seriously.)
5. The researchers mention a strong "anti oxidant" affect of
Vitamin C at the same time coupled with a profound "pro oxidant"
affect. (Vitamin C is already known to have both these properties. Since this
property was unknown to the authors, this property may have affected the
experiment.)
6. It does not make sense that a "6
week" study of low dose ascorbate in
humans (several weeks on placebo) could isolate DNA/RNA damage to the
vitamin C supplement. (Especially if turns out that the same "damage"
could be caused by an extra onion or two on a hamburger...)
7. Any theory of "Vitamin C causes DNA
damage" must explain that lack of any clinical or epidemiological evidence
in the great many people taking far
greater amounts of vitamin C than the RDA. In fact, these study results, if born out, may call into
question the value of these so-called
"8-oxodA markers" that are "recognized as specific for free radical induced damage."
8. One would hope that preliminary work in
guinea pigs, one of the few species that does not make its own vitamin C, had
been done before a story like this gets
publicity. (Brody mentioned mice.
Mice
make their own vitamin C so any research with mice is useless.)
9. There is nothing in the study that
indicates 500 mg has any special significance -- other than that is the amount
they chose to investigate. Yet, the
Brody article makes 500 mg into a significant "finding."
10. If a theory is postulated that vitamin C in
large amounts causes "arthritis and cancer" then it would have to
explain why this process does not appear to be present in animals.
Most animals must obtain the various
vitamins and minerals in their diet to survive. Vitamin C is an exception.
Unlike humans, most animals make their own vitamin C in their bodies in very
large amounts. This vitamin C, adjusted for body weight, averages 9,000 to
12,000 mg and goes directly into the blood stream. (We humans would have to
ingest some 18,000 to 24,000 mg by
mouth to get this much in our blood stream and tissues.)
Jane
Brody of the New York times even quoted British researcher Joseph Lunec as
saying on the basis of their findings it "would be unethical to test
higher levels" of vitamin C on people. Coincidentally, the Vitamin C
Foundation resubmitted its proposal on April 6, 1998 to the NIH to study high
doses of vitamin C on heart disease. Maybe it isn't a coincidence.
Rusty
Houge of the C For Yourself web site
has an idea. If ethics are the problem,
why not study
people
who have taken large amounts of vitamin C for years? Rusty who has taken 15,000 mg per
day
for seven years volunteered. I take
between 15,000 and 20,000 mg of vitamin C every day. I too would be glad to volunteer my blood for such a study.
Owen
R. Fonorow
PO
Box 73172
Houston,
TX 77273