Fwd: Editorial Toxic Vitamins- by Abram Hoffer, MD,PhD

[Guest guest]

22 Jan 2004 00:42:01 -0000

 

Editorial " Toxic " Vitamins- by Abram Hoffer, MD,PhD

" IAHF.COM "

 

IAHF Webmaster: Breaking News, Whats New, Orthomolecular

 

IAHF List: The following editorial is from the Journal of Orthomolecular

Medicine, Vol. 18, Third and Fourth Quarters, 2003 from their Special Issue on

The Safety and Efficacy of Vitamins.

 

I urge you to purchase this Special Issue from the Journal of Orthomolecular

Medicine via http://www.orthomed.org/jom/jom.htm

I will also be scanning/transcribing an article from it by Alan Gaby, MD titled

" Safe Upper Limits " for Nutritional Supplements: One Giant Step Backward. We

must flood Gaby's article especially in to ever national delegate at the Codex

Alimentarius Commission's Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary

Use- and get it to John Hathcock, PhD at CRN- a man who is trying to pull a fast

one on all of us.

 

Hathcock would have us believe that the so called " Safe Upper Levels " are

" scientific " and a " victory " . Dr.Gaby disagrees. He calls them a " giant step

backward. "

 

I feel strongly that health freedom fighters world wide should purchase this

Special Issue of JOM and make legislators in your countries aware of its

contents. As the dietary supplement industry comes under increasing global

attack, this Special Issue of JOM will be a weapon we MUST utilize in our fight

back. Due to the time constraints inherent in scanning and transcribing, I will

not have time to do more than just this editorial, and Gaby's article, but I

can't emphasize the value of this Journal enough and urge more of you to

and to make the MDs in your area aware of it.

 

Note that you must scroll down to get to the page breaks and keep reading.

 

 

Editorial

 

" Toxic " Vitamins

 

The safety of vitamins has been clearly demonstrated by the toxicological

literature and further by the experience of orthomolecular physicians over the

past forty years. Why then, is the public subjected to periodic outbursts of

information about how toxic vitamins are? We do not have similar outbursts

against the use of drugs even though vitamins have a zero death rate while drugs

in the United States alone kill 106,000 patients in hospitals annually.

 

The Food Standard Agency (FSA) in England released a press statement early in

May, 2003, entitled " New FSA advice on safety of high doses of vitamins and

minerals. " Why they titled their statement " new " puzzles me since this is the

sort of advice we have been getting from various government agencies for the

past 50 years.

 

The toxicological facts about vitamins gathered over the past 60 years do not

support their advice. It is advice which follows from the vitamins-as-prevention

paradigm established over 100 years ago and rejects the extensive research over

the past 50 years that established the vitamin-as-treat- ment paradigm. The

press release was dutifully copied and reprinted in the mass media with very

little, if any; critical examination of the claims made in the FSA statement.

The headlines in the National Post, Canada, May 13, 2003, ran: " Searching for a

Magic Bullet; " The Globe and Mail, Canada, May 31, 2003, went under the heading

" Too Much of a Good Thing? " ; the BBC News, May 7, 2003, harked a " Warning Over

Vitamin Doses " ; and The Times, England, May 8, 2003, warned " Vitamins Can Damage

Your Health " and so on. An EMedicine report on " Vitamin Toxicity " by Mark

Rosenbloom carries the same information.

 

The FSA recommends that while most vitamins are safe a few have to be taken with

great caution. The FSA states it is an independent food safety watchdog but

later on adds they are accountable to Parliament through Ministers of Health. A

board that is appointed and is supposed to have a wide range of relevant skills

and experience lead it. The readers of this issue will be able to deduce on

their own what skills are represented on the board. In my opinion they did not

include any relevant clinicians experienced in using vitamins as supplements:

There are not enough clinicians so experienced in Great Britain to form such a

board. (Orthomolecular medicine in Great Britain has been thoroughly rejected

for years.

 

A paradigm is a system of thought or ideas based on observations, hypotheses and

theories. It is an attempt to coordinate the acceptable observations about a

topic which makes some sense to its practitioners. Paradigms are evanescent

since newer observations will make older paradigms out of date and mostly wrong.

But replacing one paradigm by a newer and better on does not happen smoothly. It

occurs in quantum leaps. The old paradigm is taught and studied and defended

vigorously by scientists in that area. It will be changed with great difficulty

because it has a large body of adherents who will protect its main hypotheses to

the end. When there is sufficient new information and enough adherents to the

new information there may be a shift to the new paradigm, which in turn will be

replaced. Paradigms are very useful and serve science well but as they become

well established they prevent new inform~ tion from being gathered and from

being published in the literature, which is part of

that paradigm.

 

In the field of vitamin use and theory the first paradigm is called the

vitamin-as- prevention (VAP) paradigm. It was introduced after many years

against the opposition of the medical establishment. Here is an example. In

1916, the U.S.A. Department of Agriculture announced that Dr. J. Goldberger had

discovered the cause of pellagra; it was caused by a diet deficient in

something. Around the same time two U.S.A. physicians, from the establishment

announced that they had discovered the

 

(P. 124)

 

Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

 

Vol.18, Nos. 3 & 4, 2003

 

 

 

cause of pellagra; it was caused by the bite of the stable fly. As late as 1950

I read in a medical textbook that it is alleged that niacin cures pellagra. The

principles of VAP paradigm are (1) that vitamins are needed only in very small

amounts, as declared by the recommended daily doses in common use; (2) that they

are used only to prevent certain classical deficiency diseases. Thiamine

prevents beri beri, vitamin C prevents scurvy, vitamin D prevents rickets, and

vitamin B3 prevents pellagra. If these principles are gospel truth it follows

(1) that large doses, above the recommended vitamin doses are not to be used,

are contraindicated, may be dangerous even though the evidence for this is non-

existent, and indicates that the clinician is probably not fit to practice

medicine. Several of my colleagues lost their licence because they used large

doses of vitamin C; (2) that giving any vitamins to patients with diseases not

known to be vitamin deficiency diseases is

contraindicated. The VAP paradigm is accepted by almost every nutritionist,

physician, government agency and food board such as FSA. The statement issued by

the FSA is a typical statement from adherents to this paradigm. The modern

paradigm is the vitamins- as-treatment paradigm (VAT), which is defined by a

different set of principles. These are: (1) that vitamins are therapeutic for a

large number of conditions not considered to be vitamin deficiency diseases; (2)

optimum doses are used which vary in quantity but are much larger than those

recom- mended by the original paradigm and by the recommended daily

requirements. The best example of the V AT paradigm in practice is the use of

niacin, which is used in 3 to 9 grams dosages daily to lower total cholesterol,

to elevate high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and to lower elevated

triglycerides. This unexpected property of niacin was reported in 1955 (footnote

1) and marks the beginning of the new VAT paradigm.

 

There were several pioneers ahead of us. The first pioneers were Drs. Evan Shute

and WIlfrid Shute (footnote 2) from Ontario who found, that vitamin E was very

useful in treating and preventing heart disease. Their work was vilified,

ignored and suppressed. At about the same time Dr W Kaufman (footnote 3)

reported that niacinamide was very helpful for the arthritides and for many of

the conditions associated with aging. His work was totally ignored. Then Dr.

Fred Klenner, (footnote 4) North Carolina, found that very large dose of vitamin

C were very therapeutic for large number of conditions including cancer, viral

and bacterial infections, multip1e sclerosis and more. His work was totally

ignored by medicine but is enjoying a renaissance especially for his treatment

program for multiple sclerosis and his use of large doses of vitamin C for

cancer. Our niacin cholesterol work was not ignored due to a series of talks I

gave the Mayo Research Foundation in 1955. During the last

farewell dinner I told Dr: Howard Rome about our work. He passed it on to the

Chief of Medicine. His senior resident, Dr William Parsons, (footnote 5) became

interested and as a result of this interest our work was quickly confirmed.

Coming from the Mayo Clinic it carried much more weight and of course it was

easy to confirm whether cholesterol was lowered or not. Other pioneers included

Dr: Irwin Stone, (footnote 6) Dr: Linus Pauling (footnote 7) and recently Dr:

Bruce Ames.(footnote 8) Information about drugs released to the public in the

Compendium, in letters to doctors, in advertisements and in press releases is

usually accurate. The FDA in the United States and the FDD in Canada vet

efficacy information. Side effects and toxicity information is vetted by the

manufacturers of the drugs, the companies that hold the patents. There is no

doubt that the descriptions in the compendiums do not appear until their

proprietors have rigorously examined them. Vitamins have no proprietors.

They are not patentable. Efficacy claims are vetted by the same agencies as

those vetting drugs but descriptions of efficacy and toxicity are not. This is

why descriptions in the Compendiums have to be read very carefully because they

carry information which is wrong or out of date. We need someone or some agency

to do for the nutrients what drug companies do for their drugs. Unfortunately,

university departments of nutrition, and the companies that sell the vitamins

have not undertaken this role. This special issue of the Journal of

Orthomolecular Medicine is a first attempt to correct the record. Clinicians and

scientists who are familiar with vitamins, and with the literature and with long

experience in having used them in treatment, will discuss the vitamins that are

commonly used in the VAT range.

 

At the beginning of this editorial I posed the question, “Why are we subjected

to periodic outbursts of information as to how toxic vitamins are?” I think the

reason is fairly obvious. The attack on the safety of vitamins is really an

attack on the efficacy of these nutrients. If the critics really conceded that

the vitamins have therapeutic properties they would not be attacking their

efficacy. It is an indirect method of downgrading the value of orthomolecular

medicine. That means that the protestations we all make about the uninformed

criticisms of the critics will have little effect. We must emphasize the

therapeutic value of vitamins when used properly. We must continue to study

their therapeutic properties as the drug companies do with their drugs, repeat

the message that they are valuable. We cannot advertise, but we can publish. My

complaint about my colleagues is that having published a paper once or twice

reporting the advantages of vitamins, they are content to sit back

and do nothing more. This must stop.

 

I urge you all to do the following: (1)research and publish your studies in

orthomolecular medicine and psychiatry; (2) continue to protest the false claims

made by the opposition. Use all the media you have access to. The Journal of

Orthomolecular Medicine will consider all manuscripts. The web site,

International Bulletin Board for Orthomolecular Medicine (IBBOM) can become a

very valuable world wide medium. Please use it.

http://www.orthoeurope.com/IBBOM/index.php

-Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D., FRCP©

 

References

 

1 Altschul R, Hoffer A, Stephen JD: Influence of nicotinic acid on serum

cholesterol in man.

Arch Biochem Biophys, 1955; 54: 558-559

 

2 Shute WE: Vitamin E. Keats Publishing, New Canaan CT 1978

 

3. Kaufman W: The Common Form of Niacinamide Deficiency Disease.

Aniacinamidosis. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT 1943

 

4. Klenner FR: Massive doses of vitamin C and the viral diseases. Southern Med

Surg, 1951; 113: 101-107

 

5. Parsoms WB Jr. Cholesterol Content without diet. The Niacin Solution. Lilac

Press, Scottsdale, AR. 1998, Revised 2003

 

6. Stone I: The Healing Factor: Vitamin C Against Disease. Grosset and Dunlop,

New York, 1967.

 

7. Pauling, L: Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Science 1968; 160:265-271

 

8. Ames BN, Elson-Schwab I, Silver EA: High Dose vitamin therapy stimulates

variant enzymes with decreased coenzyme binding affinity (increased Km):

relevance to genetic disease and polmorphisms. Am J. Clin. Nutr, 2002;

75:616-658

 

P 125

For Health Freedom,

John C. Hammell, President

International Advocates for Health Freedom

556 Boundary Bay Road

Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA

http://www.iahf.com

jham

800-333-2553 N.America

360-945-0352 World

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the " Signing Bonus " Sweepstakes