Fw: The real story of vitamin C and cancer

[Guest guest]

Feature: The real story of vitamin C and cancer

http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/feature-real-story-vitamin-c-and-cancer

What was all the fuss about?

Tuesday 5th August saw worldwide media headlines claiming that intravenous

vitamin C is the new wonder drug for destroying cancer cells. 

An apparently new study has been released from researchers at the US National

Institutes of Health (NIH) showing that high-dose injections of vitamin C, known

too as ascorbate or ascorbic acid, reduced tumour weight and growth rate by

about 50 percent in mouse models of brain, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers.  The

study has been published in the August 5, 2008, issue of the Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences and these researchers have traced ascorbate's

anti-cancer effect to the formation of hydrogen peroxide in the extracellular

fluid surrounding the tumours, but leaving normal cells unaffected.

If you missed the original story in the papers on Tuesday then click on the

following links for a selection of the coverage:

Vitamin C injections slow tumor growth in mice

http://www.physorg.com/news137087844.html

 

Vitamin C jab to beat cancer

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/55461/Vitamin-C-jab-to-beat-cancer

Vitamin C may be useful to treat cancer after all

http://health.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20080807-81154.html

Vitamin C shows promise as cancer treatment

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=91603

Exciting stuff and hopeful too for the millions of cancer sufferers out there,

but is it new and is it the full story?  We would have to say 'no' to both

questions.

 

The Real Story of Vitamin C and Cancer

Dr Steve Hickey and Dr Hiliary Roberts of the ANH Scientific Expert Committee,

and authors of three books on vitamin C ('Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C',

'The Cancer Breakthrough' and 'Cancer: Nutrition and Survival')  have prepared a

considered response documenting the real story.

For people who have followed this matter, the media’s sudden interest comes as

something of a surprise: the evidence that vitamin C is a selective anticancer

agent has been known for decades. This story is important, as it illustrates how

the head-in-the-sand conventional view (that nutritional supplements are

useless) can lead to restrictive legislation, reduced health, and limited

approaches to the treatment of disease.

Dr Mark Levine, the study's lead author, claims that the " NIH's unique

translational environment, where researchers can pursue intellectual high-risk,

out-of-the-box thinking with high potential payoff, enabled us to pursue this

work. "

However, the recent NIH study, while interesting, adds little to the studies it

replicates. More interesting is the lack of historical perspective, which may

detract from the people, such as Hugh Riordan, Abram Hoffer, or Linus Pauling,

who deserve the credit for carrying out original research, despite conventional

medicine actively suppressing their work. The groundbreaking work of doctors

such as those in the British Society for Ecological Medicine, who have risked

their careers to provide vitamin C based treatments for cancer and other

conditions should be recognised. These pioneering doctors are often well aware

of the scientific evidence and should not be described as “complementary” or

“alternative”. Perhaps, one day, the media will realise the true story of

vitamin C and cancer, and patients will have the opportunity to benefit.

Of note is the emphasis that intravenous vitamin C is the only form that's

effective at fighting cancer.  Dr Mark Levine claims that " When you eat foods

containing more than 200 milligrams of vitamin C a day — for example, 2 oranges

and a serving of broccoli — your body prevents blood levels of ascorbate from

exceeding a narrow range. "   Dr Hickey and Dr Roberts show that his statement is

false, corroborated by the NIH’s own data and is an artefact of the way the NIH

group interpret their experiments.

You will be heartened to find out when you read their full response, that oral

doses of vitamin C are effective and in fact are often preferable when

consistently high blood levels need to be maintained.  Intravenous application

has its place, but will give a high spike of vitamin C that then tails off

dramatically and is therefore difficult to maintain.  What wasn't made clear in

the study or the news stories is that cancer patients generally require massive

intakes of vitamin C, resulting in steady high blood levels, which tumour

tissues absorb, and which then generate the hydrogen peroxide that kills the

cancer cells.

The ANH is committed to defending our collective right to take supplements and

to use natural remedies over new-to-nature molecules (drugs), if we so choose.

Over the last century, we have benefited from a large increase in life

expectancy and freedom from many diseases. Much of that benefit has arisen

directly from nutrition.  We need access to supplements, which provide the

possibility of disease prevention without significant risk. If this basic right

is removed by Codex Alimentarius, or similar legislation—for example, the

draconian regulatory measures that the natural health sector is facing in

Europe—even pioneering doctors will find it difficult to progress the

nutritional treatment of disease. The health of most of us will suffer. We will

get more illnesses, more often, and options for medical treatment of major

killers, such as cancer, heart disease, and stroke, will decline.

 

Download the full response: The Real Story of Vitamin C and Cancer.

http://www.anhcampaign.org080807_RealStoryOfVitaminCandCancer2_Hickey.pdf

Please forward this as widely as you can.