22 replies to this topic

[SoulTech]

I just read this article about how the NIH and Mayo Clinic have deceptively skewed and ignored years of vitamin C research. It makes me worry that I can't trust them anymore.

Here: http://www.medicalne...icles/12154.php

[Blue]

There have been at least two recent, long-term, placebo controlled studies finding no effects from vitamin C doses of 500 mg on cancer or CVD prevention:

CONTEXT: Many individuals take vitamins in the hopes of preventing chronic diseases such as cancer, and vitamins E and C are among the most common individual supplements. A large-scale randomized trial suggested that vitamin E may reduce risk of prostate cancer; however, few trials have been powered to address this relationship. No previous trial in men at usual risk has examined vitamin C alone in the prevention of cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether long-term vitamin E or C supplementation decreases risk of prostate and total cancer events among men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Physicians' Health Study II is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled factorial trial of vitamins E and C that began in 1997 and continued until its scheduled completion on August 31, 2007. A total of 14,641 male physicians in the United States initially aged 50 years or older, including 1307 men with a history of prior cancer at randomization, were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Individual supplements of 400 IU of vitamin E every other day and 500 mg of vitamin C daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prostate and total cancer. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 8.0 years, there were 1008 confirmed incident cases of prostate cancer and 1943 total cancers. Compared with placebo, vitamin E had no effect on the incidence of prostate cancer (active and placebo vitamin E groups, 9.1 and 9.5 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio  , 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.09; P = .58) or total cancer (active and placebo vitamin E groups, 17.8 and 17.3 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-1.13; P = .41). There was also no significant effect of vitamin C on total cancer (active and placebo vitamin C groups, 17.6 and 17.5 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92-1.10; P = .86) or prostate cancer (active and placebo vitamin C groups, 9.4 and 9.2 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90-1.15; P = .80). Neither vitamin E nor vitamin C had a significant effect on colorectal, lung, or other site-specific cancers. Adjustment for adherence and exclusion of the first 4 or 6 years of follow-up did not alter the results. Stratification by various cancer risk factors demonstrated no significant modification of the effect of vitamin E on prostate cancer risk or either agent on total cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, long-term trial of male physicians, neither vitamin E nor C supplementation reduced the risk of prostate or total cancer. These data provide no support for the use of these supplements for the prevention of cancer in middle-aged and older men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00270647.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19066368


CONTEXT: Basic research and observational studies suggest vitamin E or vitamin C may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, few long-term trials have evaluated men at initially low risk of cardiovascular disease, and no previous trial in men has examined vitamin C alone in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether long-term vitamin E or vitamin C supplementation decreases the risk of major cardiovascular events among men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Physicians' Health Study II was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled factorial trial of vitamin E and vitamin C that began in 1997 and continued until its scheduled completion on August 31, 2007. There were 14,641 US male physicians enrolled, who were initially aged 50 years or older, including 754 men (5.1%) with prevalent cardiovascular disease at randomization. INTERVENTION: Individual supplements of 400 IU of vitamin E every other day and 500 mg of vitamin C daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A composite end point of major cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular disease death). RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 8 years, there were 1245 confirmed major cardiovascular events. Compared with placebo, vitamin E had no effect on the incidence of major cardiovascular events (both active and placebo vitamin E groups, 10.9 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio  , 1.01 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.90-1.13]; P = .86), as well as total myocardial infarction (HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.75-1.07]; P = .22), total stroke (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.89-1.29]; P = .45), and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.90-1.28]; P = .43). There also was no significant effect of vitamin C on major cardiovascular events (active and placebo vitamin E groups, 10.8 and 10.9 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.11]; P = .91), as well as total myocardial infarction (HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.87-1.24]; P = .65), total stroke (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74-1.07]; P = .21), and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.21]; P = .86). Neither vitamin E (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.97-1.18]; P = .15) nor vitamin C (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.97-1.18]; P = .16) had a significant effect on total mortality but vitamin E was associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.04-2.91]; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, long-term trial of male physicians, neither vitamin E nor vitamin C supplementation reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events. These data provide no support for the use of these supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in middle-aged and older men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00270647.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18997197

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggested that a diet high in fruits and vegetables, both of which are rich with antioxidants, may prevent cancer development. However, findings from randomized trials of the association between antioxidant use and cancer risk have been mostly negative. METHODS: From 8171 women who were randomly assigned in the Women's Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study, a double-blind, placebo-controlled 2 x 2 x 2 factorial trial of vitamin C (500 mg of ascorbic acid daily), natural-source vitamin E (600 IU of alpha-tocopherol every other day), and beta carotene (50 mg every other day), 7627 women who were free of cancer before random assignment were selected for this study. Diagnoses and deaths from cancer at a specific site were confirmed by use of hospital reports and the National Death Index. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess hazard ratios (represented as relative risks [RRs]) of common cancers associated with use of antioxidants, either individually or in combination. Subgroup analyses were conducted to determine if duration of use modified the association of supplement use with cancer risk. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: During an average 9.4 years of treatment, 624 women developed incident invasive cancer and 176 women died from cancer. There were no statistically significant effects of use of any antioxidant on total cancer incidence. Compared with the placebo group, the RRs were 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.30) in the vitamin C group, 0.93 (95% CI = 0.79 to 1.09) in the vitamin E group, and 1.00 (95% CI = 0.85 to 1.17) in the beta carotene group. Similarly, no effects of these antioxidants were observed on cancer mortality. Compared with the placebo group, the RRs were 1.28 (95% CI = 0.95 to 1.73) in the vitamin C group, 0.87 (95% CI = 0.65 to 1.17) in the vitamin E group, and 0.84 (95% CI = 0.62 to 1.13) in the beta carotene group. Duration and combined use of the three antioxidants also had no effect on cancer incidence and cancer death. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with vitamin C, vitamin E, or beta carotene offers no overall benefits in the primary prevention of total cancer incidence or cancer mortality.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19116389

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have largely failed to support an effect of antioxidant vitamins on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Few trials have examined interactions among antioxidants, and, to our knowledge, no previous trial has examined the individual effect of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) on CVD. METHODS: The Women's Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study tested the effects of ascorbic acid (500 mg/d), vitamin E (600 IU every other day), and beta carotene (50 mg every other day) on the combined outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or CVD death among 8171 female health professionals at increased risk in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design. Participants were 40 years or older with a history of CVD or 3 or more CVD risk factors and were followed up for a mean duration of 9.4 years, from 1995-1996 to 2005. RESULTS: A total of 1450 women experienced 1 or more CVD outcomes. There was no overall effect of ascorbic acid (relative risk [RR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.13 [P = .71]), vitamin E (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.04 [P = .23]), or beta carotene (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.13 [P = .71]) on the primary combined end point or on the individual secondary outcomes of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or CVD death. A marginally significant reduction in the primary outcome with active vitamin E was observed among the prespecified subgroup of women with prior CVD (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79-1.00 [P = .04]; P value for interaction, .07). There were no significant interactions between agents for the primary end point, but those randomized to both active ascorbic acid and vitamin E experienced fewer strokes (P value for interaction, .03). CONCLUSION: There were no overall effects of ascorbic acid, vitamin E, or beta carotene on cardiovascular events among women at high risk for CVD.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17698683

Edited by Blue, 22 October 2009 - 04:54 PM.

[kismet]

How's this related to pubmed if I may ask? Pubmed.gov is a page used to access the MEDLINE database. Indexing via MEDLINE, searchable via pubmed, is not an endorsement. Even quack-friendly journals are indexed (ok, maybe not JPANDS but certainly Med Hypotheses) -- quack journals which sometimes propagate long refuted hypotheses e.g. that oral vitamin C does anything whatsoever for cancer.

A counter-question, how do we know we can trust your judgment or your source if you don't get basic facts right, like for instance with whom am I disagreeing to begin with? (addressing pubmed and mayo clinic as the same type of "insitution" is a gross category error for at least one of them)

That's the real story, Linus Pauling was wrong all along: http://scienceblogs....s_pauling_b.php

Edited by kismet, 22 October 2009 - 05:28 PM.

[pamojja]

That's the real story, Linus Pauling was wrong all along: http://scienceblogs....s_pauling_b.php

Oh, boy. I'm so glad I tried Pauling's recommendations before I encountered ImmInst forum. I probably would have been scared and woundn't have benefited by having my walking distance doubled due to a serious claudatio intermittens in the short span of a few months.


Beside such a rapid decrease of Atherosclerosis, as an unintended side effect his recommended treatment stopped my hayfever I experienced since many years, and moreover I got rid of a terrible chest pain, suffered already for 3 years, for which ordinary medicine wouldn't have anything against.

I know, for you this only means "Cum hoc ergo propter Hoc, confirmation bias, placebo etc" as you told me in an other thread. However, my recovered wellbeing being more then I hoped for, and won't take statins and aspirin instead as advised by you.

Luckily, the evidence of vitamin C amazing properties - and not claims which have prejudiced been put in his mouth - can be put at test by each one self with the flu season coming up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ites/entrez?db=

RESULTS: Overall, reported flu and cold symptoms in the test group decreased 85% compared with the control group after the administration of megadose Vitamin C. CONCLUSION: Vitamin C in megadoses administered before or after the appearance of cold and flu symptoms relieved and prevented the symptoms in the test population compared with the control group.

kind regards..

Edited by pamojja, 22 October 2009 - 07:15 PM.

[SoulTech]

A counter-question, how do we know we can trust your judgment or your source if you don't get basic facts right, like for instance with whom am I disagreeing to begin with? (addressing pubmed and mayo clinic as the same type of "insitution" is a gross category error for at least one of them)

I just saw that Pubmed was a service of NIH and associated the two - I now see how that they aren't exactly the same. Not nearly as muddled thinking, however, as casting doubt on a source because you question the intellect of someone who has linked to it (as you have just done).

[kismet]

I just saw that Pubmed was a service of NIH and associated the two - I now see how that they aren't exactly the same. Not nearly as muddled thinking, however, as casting doubt on a source because you question the intellect of someone who has linked to it (as you have just done).

Well, it was not exactly an ad hominem. I did not question your ability to reason, just your reasoning, i.e. your failure to use your ability to reason to arrive at a complete picture.
I did not try to question the credibility of your source, because it goes without saying that the site lacks credibility. It is a non-peer reviewed, secondary source on the interweb. I'm waiting for primary sources to back those lofty claims. Oh, wait Blue just presented a summary of those, didn't he? Nevertheless you can still present the conflicting evidence, but you must explain why it is to be trusted over op. cit. studies.

Edited by kismet, 23 October 2009 - 06:39 PM.

[pamojja]

Oh, wait Blue just presented a summary of those, didn't he? Nevertheless you can still present the conflicting evidence, but you must explain why it is to be trusted over op. cit. studies.

NOTE: Linus Pauling specifically recommended high, generally equal
oral doses of vitamin C and the amino acid lysine between 5,000 and
6,000 mg in his Unified Theory lecture (available on video). Anything
less, by definition, is not the Linus Pauling Therapy.

Paulings himself used 18 grams per day, above conflicting evidence is in fact only confirming Pauling, and opposite claims could only been made if nothing of the original work by Pauling has ever been read.

Pauling Therapy Summary


Therapeutic:

Vitamin C (6,000 to 18,000 mg)
Lysine (5,000 to 6,000 mg)


Pauling Therapy Enhancements:

Proline (250 to 2,000 mg)
Coenzyme Q10 (100 to 300 mg)
Magnesium (150 to 1,500 mg)


Preventives:

Vitamin C (3,000 to 10,000 mg)
Lysine (2,000 to 4,000 mg)


Follow Pauling's other heart and cardiovascular recommendations:

Vitamin E - 800 to 3,200 IU
Vitamin A - 20,000 to 40,000 IU
Super B-Complex - 1 or 2
Daily multiple vitamin and mineral
Drink plenty of water


Additional Enhancements:

Eliminate trans fatty acids from the diet
Introduce unprocessed Omega-3 and Omega-6 oils
Eat salt, but only unrefined salt
Reduce manganese intake
Eliminate ordinary sugar and refined carbohydrates
Supplement with vitamin K
Avoid supplemental calcium
Supplement with the amino acids taurine, arginine and
carnitine (1 to 3 grams)
Supplement with vitamin D3 (2,000 IU), especially in
the winter months
Supplement with melatonin (3 to 6 mg) before bedtime

For me it seems to work with much less E, the least possible A (with the multi; due to decreased absorption of D3 if taken together as suggested in newer findings). And don't use any melatonin.

Edited by pamojja, 23 October 2009 - 08:41 PM.

[SoulTech]

I just saw that Pubmed was a service of NIH and associated the two - I now see how that they aren't exactly the same. Not nearly as muddled thinking, however, as casting doubt on a source because you question the intellect of someone who has linked to it (as you have just done).

Well, it was not exactly an ad hominem. I did not question your ability to reason, just your reasoning, i.e. your failure to use your ability to reason to arrive at a complete picture.
I did not try to question the credibility of your source, because it goes without saying that the site lacks credibility. It is a non-peer reviewed, secondary source on the interweb. I'm waiting for primary sources to back those lofty claims. Oh, wait Blue just presented a summary of those, didn't he? Nevertheless you can still present the conflicting evidence, but you must explain why it is to be trusted over op. cit. studies.

Okay, no offense taken. As for credibility, the site doesn't present the results of some independent study but explains how the NIH and Mayo Clinic responded to studies (i.e. refusing to answer inquiries about the obvious error in the NIH study of measuring blood levels after the body was given time to excrete vitamin C). I'm not sure if you've read it, since as pamojja pointed out, the studies Blue presented have nothing to do with the author's claims; the usage of low dose experiments to supposedly refute high dose effects was in fact one of the topics she touched on.

Her presentation of events is certainly not infallible or exempt from investigation, but it definitely arouses my suspicion.

[SoulTech]

For me it seems to work with much less E, the least possible A (with the multi; due to decreased absorption of D3 if taken together as suggested in newer findings). And don't use any melatonin.

Are you saying "don't use any melatonin" in the imperative sense, or that you personally don't use it? Taking that much would make me groggy - I take about .75 mg, occasionally; I haven't found any reason not to.

[pamojja]

Are you saying "don't use any melatonin" in the imperative sense, or that you personally don't use it? Taking that much would make me groggy - I take about .75 mg, occasionally; I haven't found any reason not to.

Just didn't see any reason for adding it yet. I've been overly conscious of possible bad effects of any person in 'white' or any pill due to very bad experiences from my birth onward. Being confronted with my debilitating condition and having to do something about I started with very low doses of what Pauling recommends and thereby also delayed my improvement for months. 3, 6 grams of vitamin C a day just didn't do anything in my case..

So you could be very right and I might just have overseen its importance till now, because it also said: ".. If you are over 40 years of age and have difficulty sleeping, your pineal gland may not be making enough melatonin. Take 3 to 6 mg of melatonin just before bed to improve sleep. ..." Since having no difficulty whatsoever sleeping I thought my own melatonin would be ok. I'll look further into it. Thanks for asking and suggesting a lower dose of melatonin.

Edited by pamojja, 24 October 2009 - 10:13 AM.

[pamojja]

For me it seems to work with much less E, the least possible A ...

However, I also go an extra mile to get as much as possible vitamin, specially A, trough nutrition,

[kismet]

I was just reading two interesting papers reporting from the PHS II. Anyone who's interested in recent results from very large clinical trials (ATBC, SELECT, PHS II, WACS & more) will find the discussion rather interesting. VitE and VitC failed for the (primary) prevention of cancer (or CVD) alone or in combination in the PHS II, WACS; and vit E in the SELECT, while the ATBC did not show effects on *total* cancer mortality either. This was one of the few well-powered vitamin C trials on cancer and it was conclusively negative.
A very interesting result was seen in the Chinese trial; low dose supplementation (RDA'ish) decreased mortality and cancer incidence in a - probably - undernourished population (but it was not a vitamin C sutdy, Se+VitE+beta carotene).

JAMA. 2009 Jan 7;301(1):52-62. Epub 2008 Dec 9.
Vitamins E and C in the prevention of prostate and total cancer in men: the Physicians' Health Study II randomized controlled trial. Gaziano et al.
http://jama.ama-assn...REF-JOC80129-20

Sesso HD, Buring JE, Christen WG; et al. Vitamins E and C in the prevention of cardiovascular disease in men: the Physicians' Health Study II randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;300(18):2123-2133.
http://jama.ama-assn...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

Paulings himself used 18 grams per day, above conflicting evidence is in fact only confirming Pauling, and opposite claims could only been made if nothing of the original work by Pauling has ever been read.
Where are the primary references?

How come you know the vitamin C is doing anything if you change a gazillion other variables in the Pauling regimen?

Edited by kismet, 24 October 2009 - 02:39 PM.

[pamojja]

http://jama.ama-assn...REF-JOC80129-20

http://jama.ama-assn...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

Both links given were with 500mg vit C and therefore don't to justice to Pauling's recommended doses of at least 3000 mg again (and that only for prevention) - but I already know that for some reason you'll continue your mission of discrediting anything related to high dosage Orthomolecular medicine with studies missing the point.

Paulings himself used 18 grams per day, above conflicting evidence is in fact only confirming Pauling, and opposite claims could only been made if nothing of the original work by Pauling has ever been read.
Where are the primary references?

If you google for Linus Pauling or look for the Linus Pauling entry at wikipedia you can find his original works.

How come you know the vitamin C is doing anything if you change a gazillion other variables in the Pauling regimen?

Every substance entering the human body meets a gazilion of other variables. However, all I changed out of healthy skepticism was gradually increasing all prescribed ingredients from time to time. And leaving a single one out which isn't one of the essentials. That's not 'gazilions' but does justice to the different variables encountered in every body.

The essential with Pauling remain vitamin C an l-Lysin. Though I don't agree in this, since I consider many of his 'therapy enhancements' just as effective against plaque; like D3 and K2.

However, only by titrating to my bowel tolerance of vitamin C I got a more accurate picture of my bodies actual need, and therefore could dose more appropriate to that. Which, should be needless to say, is different for everyone.

Edited by pamojja, 24 October 2009 - 05:08 PM.

[kismet]

Both links given were with 500mg vit C and therefore don't to justice to Pauling's recommended doses of at least 3000 mg again (and that only for prevention) - but I already know that for some reason you'll continue your mission of discrediting anything related to high dosage Orthomolecular medicine with studies missing the point.

It's not a good idea to start a post with a baseless assertion like that, but if you really think that is my mission than why did you not provide any primary sources yourself to prove me wrong? (see below)

If you google for Linus Pauling or look for the Linus Pauling entry at wikipedia you can find his original works.

Well, I at least did go to the trouble of posting primary sources (and/or meta-analyses thereof). As always extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which you should provide if a. you're interested in meaningful dialogue (which requires both parties to do some work, not just me) and b. if you go against well-established and -backend consensus. I thought that's clear.

Every substance entering the human body meets a gazilion of other variables. However, all I changed out of healthy skepticism was gradually increasing all prescribed ingredients from time to time. And leaving a single one out which isn't one of the essentials. That's not 'gazilions' but does justice to the different variables encountered in every body.

I did miss one issue when I described what you (think you've) witnessed. Placebo, confirmation bias, post hoc and, we shouldn't forget the good old, regression to the mean. So what did you do to minimise those cognitive biases and issues other than titrating every substance on its own? How long did you wait between increasing each dose, how did you start out, in which order did you add the substances and why? How did you assess the improvements or lack thereof, i.e. which blood or functional tests did you do?

The essential with Pauling remain vitamin C an l-Lysin. Though I don't agree in this, since I consider many of his 'therapy enhancements' just as effective against plaque; like D3 and K2.

Why are those the essentials, is there any evidence to that effect? And how do you personally know it's not the D, the K, the lysine, the improved diet, exercise or another variable? Is your answer "IDK, I'm just guessing" or am I misinterpreting what you just said?

However, only by titrating to my bowel tolerance of vitamin C I got a more accurate picture of my bodies actual need, and therefore could dose more appropriate to that. Which, should be needless to say, is different for everyone.

Not that I put much trust into evolutionary speculation but an interesting question comes to mind: why do you think your body needs more vitamin C than it can naturally tolerate or even any values in the viccinity of bowel tolerance? (IAC "need" is the wrong word, because diet cannot provide those amounts, so no one ever got that much vitamin C. Maybe you mean "therapeutic need")

Edited by kismet, 24 October 2009 - 06:15 PM.

[pamojja]

.. - but I already know that for some reason you'll continue your mission of discrediting anything related to high dosage Orthomolecular medicine with studies missing the point.

It's not a good idea to start a post with a baseless assertion like that, but if you really think that is my mission than why did you not provide any primary sources yourself to prove me wrong?

I believe you're on your mission because of what you wrote, or rather not wrote to substantiate your outrageous claims in this thread:
http://www.imminst.o...ing-t33604.html

While I did give sources to show how wrong your claims where, it was you who just left the discussion with: 'I give up now. Maybe I'll dedicate to your *** more when I find some time-.. (where the *** was censored by a moderator)

There is no need to prove you wrong if the studies you post in support of your views don't support you.

Every substance entering the human body meets a gazilion of other variables. However, all I changed out of healthy skepticism was gradually increasing all prescribed ingredients from time to time. And leaving a single one out which isn't one of the essentials. That's not 'gazilions' but does justice to the different variables encountered in every body.

I did miss one issue when I described what you (think you've) witnessed. Placebo, confirmation bias, post hoc and, we shouldn't forget the good old, regression to the mean. So what did you do to minimise those cognitive biases and issues other than titrating every substance on its own?

I didn't do a scientific study and I never gave that impression. I just said someone with serious arteriosclerosis might miss real improvement if he wouldn't do his own thinking and follow your suggestions (of the other thread) that vitamins are harmful and useless, or (in this thread) that Pauling would have been wrong all along without anything substantial in support of your claims.

If you google for Linus Pauling or look for the Linus Pauling entry at wikipedia you can find his original works.

Well, I at least did go to the trouble of posting primary sources (and/or meta-analyses thereof). As always extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which you should provide if a. you're interested in meaningful dialogue (which requires both parties to do some work, not just me) and b. if you go against well-established and -backend consensus. I thought that's clear.

lol, you should first follow your own consensus. Why you simply went quiet in the other thread?

... issues other than titrating every substance on its own?

Please read again. I wrote I increased all ingredients gradially and only in respect to vitamin C I talked about titrating.

The essential with Pauling remain vitamin C an l-Lysin. Though I don't agree in this, since I consider many of his 'therapy enhancements' just as effective against plaque; like D3 and K2.

Why are those the essentials, is there any evidence to that effect? And how do you personally know it's not the D, the K, the lysine, the improved diet, exercise or another variable? Is your answer "IDK, I'm just guessing" or am I misinterpreting what you just said?

Again, I'm not responding to this thread to prove anything in regard to Pauling. I just make the point how claims that it would be fact 'that Pauling was wrong all along' might make one miss its benefits. And how there isn't anything in support of this alleged 'fact'.

Maybe you mean "therapeutic need")

I'm using 'Paulings Therapy' for a PAD. So I thought this would be clear.

Regards..

[SoulTech]

Bickering aside, the two studies you linked to were in fact 500 mg studies. Don't you see that this has nothing to do with my original inquiry? I already stated such in regard to Blue's post when he pasted his 500 mg studies. The article was about how NIH and MayoClinic have acted just plainly stupid by, among many things, pretending to discredit high dose effects using low dose trials - ignoring the whole distinction that was previously made.

My inquiry was not about the efficacy of vit. c megadosing per se, but whether these organizations make trustworthy statements and recommendations.

[kismet]

Bickering aside, the two studies you linked to were in fact 500 mg studies. Don't you see that this has nothing to do with my original inquiry? I already stated such in regard to Blue's post when he pasted his 500 mg studies. The article was about how NIH and MayoClinic have acted just plainly stupid by, among many things, pretending to discredit high dose effects using low dose trials - ignoring the whole distinction that was previously made.

No, I do not, because those are the best, actually the only good studies we have. If the best we have sucks it is still the best we have and we need to base our choices on existing evidence not speculation. Just because those studies have short-comings does not mean Pauling is necessarily right. His studies are small and methodologically flawed and no one bothered to dig them up so we could discuss them (which I'm still willing to do). While preclinical work clearly shows that only i.v. doses can reach cytotoxic concentrations in vivo and other mechanisms of cancer prevention are even more obscure ("how does vit C work?")

I believe you're on your mission because of what you wrote, or rather not wrote to substantiate your outrageous claims in this thread:
http://www.imminst.o...ing-t33604.html

While I did give sources to show how wrong your claims where, it was you who just left the discussion with: 'I give up now. Maybe I'll dedicate to your *** more when I find some time-.. (where the *** was censored by a moderator)

There is no need to prove you wrong if the studies you post in support of your views don't support you.

You provided *secondary* sources which were biased, because awfully conflicted, like LEF or some other non-peer reviewed work on the internetz. I requested and still request scholarly primary sources. IAC I did go through the presented arguments in my mind, but did not yet write back, because the topic has been discussed to death on this forum; but I've also stated clearly that ("I give up now but...") I will write back to explain some of the claims and criticism if I have enough time (or motivation).
Furthermore, I do not see any reason why you cannot repeat what you said on the German forum here (not necessarily in this thread, although we can have it split), as I generally prefer to discuss on the general forums which are accessible to a wider audience (another reason why I didn't want to waste too much time explaining that stuff on the German forum, with a target audience between 2-5 people).
Furthermore, most of the time no one even provided a concise or coherent summary of your secondary sources (at least on the second page someone posted bullet points). I refuse to waste time on reading secondary sources of unkown quality if people are not even willing to provide a short and coherent summary of the key points in their own words (that's why "read wikipedia or read XY" won't get us very far).

There's no need for censorship. I will call you out on your paranoia (or more accurately paranoid behaviour) on this forum the same I did on the German forum if I feel you display such behaviour. It's neither personal nor insulting, merely descriptive.

I didn't do a scientific study and I never gave that impression. I just said someone with serious arteriosclerosis might miss real improvement if he wouldn't do his own thinking and follow your suggestions (of the other thread) that vitamins are harmful and useless, or (in this thread) that Pauling would have been wrong all along without anything substantial in support of your claims.

Please don't claim I said something which I clearly didn't. I never said "[supplemental] vitamins are useless or harmful". I said most are and later went on to explain it in more detail; in particular multvitamins, in particular megadoses of vitamin E or A and some others, but there are exceptions (and I gave at least five examples).

lol, you should first follow your own consensus. Why you simply went quiet in the other thread?

See above.

Again, I'm not responding to this thread to prove anything in regard to Pauling. I just make the point how claims that it would be fact 'that Pauling was wrong all along' might make one miss its benefits. And how there isn't anything in support of this alleged 'fact'.

Please let's not play the "I don't need to prove anything" game. This thread is about Pauling and vitamin C. The question whether Pauling was right is central to this thread; either you (we) address the issue or we're just talking off-topic or not having any discussion. I'd sincerely want to discuss his studies, but it is only possible if you (or other proponents) provide primary sources and explain your reasoning and address Blue's and my criticism. I've already explained why I believe the sources I posted, the 500mg studies and ORAC's blog post discussing the preclinical evidence and Pauling's outrageaus claims (or lies), are important. The preclinical evidence is pretty clear-cut on high doses as are RCTs on moderate doses (500mg).

At the time, Linus was promoting his claim that "75% of all cancer can be prevented and cured by vitamin C alone." This claim proved to be without experimental foundation and not true. . . . Vitamin C increased the rate of growth of cancer at human equivalents of 1 to 5 grams per day, but suppressed the cancer growth rate at doses on the order of 100 grams per day (near the lethal dose), as do other measures of malnutrition [21]

Edited by kismet, 25 October 2009 - 11:33 PM.

[pamojja]

Bickering aside, the two studies you linked to were in fact 500 mg studies. Don't you see that this has nothing to do with my original inquiry?

No, I do not, because those are the best, actually the only good studies we have.

I thinks the best in term of treatment is still the one I gave in the 4th post of this thread because it seems till now the only one using vitamin C doses coming close to what Pauling acctually recomments: 6 grams on the first day of the onset of a flu and 3 grams thereafter on the following days. Where te flu symtoms in the test group decreased 85% compared to the test group!

However, 1g every hour on the first day isn't really as effective with serious viral infections as for example using 8g every 20 minutes for the first 2-3 hours right on the onset, as many who actually use vitamin C against flu would recommend today.

If the best we have sucks it is still the best we have and we need to base our choices on existing evidence not speculation.

... nor intentionally ignoring studies going against your views ;-)

Just because those studies have short-comings does not mean Pauling is necessarily right.

Likewise, just because there haven't been double-blind studies to test Pauling's claims doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong.

Beside, that's not really the point of this thread:

My inquiry was not about the efficacy of vit. c megadosing per se, but whether these organizations make trustworthy statements and recommendations.

For which you loose not even one word, because you have already made up you're mind whom to trust (dispite not being able to give any evidence in support of your view):

That's the real story, Linus Pauling was wrong all along: http://scienceblogs....s_pauling_b.php

[pamojja]

I believe you're on your mission because of what you wrote, or rather not wrote to substantiate your outrageous claims in this thread:
http://www.imminst.o...ing-t33604.html

While I did give sources to show how wrong your claims where, it was you who just left the discussion with: 'I give up now. Maybe I'll dedicate to your *** more when I find some time..

You provided *secondary* sources which were biased, because awfully conflicted, like LEF or some other non-peer reviewed work on the internetz.

What's the difference when you're only able to link to a blog entry of someone named Orac (which begins with relating how his mother-in-law passed away from breast cancer) as the only reference in this thread etc.?

I requested and still request scholarly primary sources.

Please provide what you're expecting from others first.

IAC I did go through the presented arguments in my mind, but did not yet write back, because the topic has been discussed to death on this forum; but I've also stated clearly that ("I give up now but...") I will write back to explain some of the claims and criticism if I have enough time (or motivation).
Furthermore, I do not see any reason why you cannot repeat what you said on the German forum here (not necessarily in this thread, although we can have it split), as I generally prefer to discuss on the general forums which are accessible to a wider audience (another reason why I didn't want to waste too much time explaining that stuff on the German forum, with a target audience between 2-5 people).

Though 868 views of this other thread till now isn't exactly 2-5 people..

I can of course repeat what it were about again, though probably would be to the dismay of SoulTech who explicitly didn't wanted this to become about the trustworthiness of Pauling, but of such organizations like MayoClinic.

Could you first also link to the discussions where this has been talked to death, so we don't need to repeat unnecessarily?

Furthermore, most of the time no one even provided a concise or coherent summary of your secondary sources (at least on the second page someone posted bullet points). I refuse to waste time on reading secondary sources of unkown quality if people are not even willing to provide a short and coherent summary of the key points in their own words (that's why "read wikipedia or read XY" won't get us very far).

Again, if you abided to your own standard you would be much more credible.

Your 'scholarly primary' sources were SELECT and Cochrane.

And you explicitly advised me to use the prescribed Statin Simvastatin and Aspirin if there would be an indication (though) my indication already had ceased due to using Orthomolecularia)

[pamojja]

And this were the 'secondary, awfully conflicted' sources which were given against your claims and advises:

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 27, 2007
23 YEARS OF DOCUMENTED VITAMIN SAFETY

(OMNS, Feb 27, 2007) Over a twenty-three year period, vitamins have been connected with the deaths of a total of ten people in the United States. Poison control statistics confirm that more Americans die each year from eating soap than from taking vitamins.

Where are the bodies?
A 23-year review of US poison control center annual reports (1) tells a remarkable and largely ignored story: vitamins are extraordinarily safe.

Annual deaths alleged from vitamins:

2005: zero
2004: two
2003: two
2002: one
2001: zero
2000: zero
1999: zero
1998: zero
1997: zero
1996: zero
1995: zero
1994: zero
1993: one
1992: zero
1991: two
1990: one
1989: zero
1988: zero
1987: one
1986: zero
1985: zero
1984: zero
1983: zero

The zeros are not due to a lack of reporting. The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), which maintains the USA’s national database of information from 61 poison control centers, has noted that vitamins are among the 16 most reported substances. Even including intentional and accidental misuse, the number of alleged vitamin fatalities is strikingly low, averaging less than one death per year for more than two decades. In 16 of those 23 years, AAPCC reports that there was not one single death due to vitamins.

These statistics specifically include vitamin A, niacin (B-3), pyridoxine (B-6), other B-complex, C, D, E, "other" vitamin(s), such as vitamin K, and multiple vitamins without iron. Minerals, which are chemically and nutritionally different from vitamins, have an excellent safety record as well, but not quite as good as vitamins. On the average, one or two fatalities per year are typically attributed to iron poisoning from gross overdosing on supplemental iron. Deaths attributed to other supplemental minerals are very rare. Even iron, although not as safe as vitamins, accounts for fewer deaths than do laundry and dishwashing detergents.

http://orthomolecula...mns/index.shtml

The 10 most frequent causes for fatal poisoning :

2007 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers:

Number	-	% of all exposures in category	-	Substance
377	-	0.250	-	Sedative/hypnotics/antipsychotics
331	-	0.990	-	Opioids
220	-	0.250	-	Antidepressants
208	-	0.270	-	Acetaminophen in combination
203	-	0.240	-	Cardiovascular drugs
188	-	0.410	-	Stimulants and street drugs
170	-	0.230	-	Alcohols
140	-	0.190	-	Acetaminophen only
99	-	0.230	-	Anticonvulsants
80	-	0.200	-	Fumes/gases/vapors
80	-	0.740	-	Cyclic antidepressants
70	-	0.270	-	Muscle relaxants
69	-	0.090	-	Antihistamines
63	-	0.350	-	Aspirin alone
45	-	0.120	-	Chemicals
44	-	0.230	-	Unknown drug
44	-	0.040	-	Other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
36	-	0.280	-	Oral hypoglycemics
28	-	0.200	-	Automotive/aircraft/boat products
21	-	0.080	-	Miscellaneous drugs
21	-	0.040	-	Antihistamine/decongestant, without phenylpropanolamine
20	-	0.050	-	Hormones and hormone antagonists
20	-	0.300	-	Anticoagulants
16	-	0.150	-	Diuretics

Meta-analysis Cochrane:

Conclusion

In today's Western world, a large percentage of the population fails to ingest optimal potencies of many essential nutrients. As you will read in part two of this report, a shocking majority (93-96%) of people who don't supplement with vitamin E are deficient in vitamin E.

This negative report attacking supplements is fatally flawed because it:
* Omitted 91% of the studies that measured the effects of these vitamins on human subjects including all studies for which there was no mortality!
* Included studies that used doses far below or far above what health conscious people actually supplement with.
* Chose to bias the reporting of the results by emphasizing one type of statistical model that showed a significant effect rather than another statistical model that did not show a significant effect.
* Failed to account for the 14 mechanisms involved in aging and premature death. For example, it is absurd to think that taking 1,333 IU to 200,000 IU of vitamin A is going to have meaningful impact when there are more than one hundred individual components to a science-based death reduction program.

The final shocker is that this meta-analysis report attacking vitamin A, beta-carotene and vitamin E is not new. It was in fact published last year and drew a lot of criticism for the obvious flaws it contains. Perhaps the reason this story was quickly removed from media websites on the day it appeared is that the broadcasters realized they were not relaying 'news', but instead regurgitating anti-supplement propaganda.

Needless to say, even this brief exposure was a public relations score for pharmaceutical interests, as millions of people worldwide may be frightened away from supplements that could reduce their future need for expensive prescription drugs.

Meta-analysis High dose vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. John Hopkins University.:

(transl. from German)
1. Already the selection of the initial material shows tendencies ...

2. .. and culminates in that the most test persons where already sick to begin with (and therefore would show a higher mortality rate).

3. It wasn't explicitly asked for vitamin E intake and related mortality, but for total mortality (inclusive murder, accitant deaths)

4. The comparison wasn't between the usual dosage recommentation (ca. 10 IU, according to DGE) and the higher modern recommentation (400 IU) - but the highter recommendation (400 IU) with thereapeutic doses (upto 2000 IU).

5. In spite of all these preparations it still didn't showed definite negativ results with higher vitamin E intake (above 400 IU.) This representation only succeeded after all study results have been recalculated 'fitting' with a special formula developed specially by Miller et al (quadratic-linear dose response).

5. Despite all manipulations merely a higher risk of 0.5 % could be described for dosages above 400 IU - but who is taking that much?

Not even the special formula by Miller was able to give definite negativ results for supplements upto 400 IU. If the data of the original studies would be taken, than no definite negativ effects show even for doses upto 2000 IU. This whole analysis isn't worth the paper.

Meta-analysis JAMA

Professor Balz Frei, Linus Pauling Institut Oregon State University

The "meta-analysis" published in JAMA, which is a statistical analysis of previously published data, looked at 815 antioxidant trials but included only 68 of them in its analysis, and two of the studies excluded – which were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the prominent British medical journal Lancet – found substantial benefits and reduced mortality from intake of antioxidant supplements.
If these two large studies had been included, none of the reported effects on increased mortality would have been significant, with the exception of the effects of beta carotene. And the research showing a higher incidence of lung cancer in smokers who take supplements of beta carotene or vitamin A is old news, that's been known for many years. Very high doses of vitamin A are known to have multiple adverse health effects

[pamojja]

Response to SELECT Study Published December 9, 2008 in JAMA

If these two large studies had been included, none of the reported effects on increased mortality would have been significant, with the exception of the effects of beta carotene. And the research showing a higher incidence of lung cancer in smokers who take supplements of beta carotene or vitamin A is old news, that's been known for many years. Very high doses of vitamin A are known to have multiple adverse health effects

An other feature of these 'scholarly' meta-analyses is that they give relative mortality rates and not the absolute rates, as one finds them in the actual studies. But this tiny difference is important to recognize how such high percentages of mortality rates came about:

(freely translated from the German thread)

If we look at the world-famous ATBC-study, which showed that beta-carotene raises the risk of lung cancer, this is how it looks:
http://annonc.oxford...2/185/MDH051TB2

Treatment: 14 560 patients
Placebo: 14 573 patients

No. of lung cancers
Treatment: 474
Placebo: 402

The relative difference in this case is 18%, but the absolute is smaller than 1%


.. an other example:
Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation

20536 patients
All-cause mortality (1446 [14.1%] vitamin-allocated vs 1389 [13.5%] placebo-allocated (absolute)
Conclusion: No significant differences

Later you find this result in the already mentioned Cochrane- analysis calculated.
And here they talk about a '4% higher mortality within the vitamin group'
by taking the relative and not absolute difference between 1446 and 1389 they arrived at 4%

Everyone is invited to point out any shortcomings of above reviews.

[Elus]

Vitamin C is one of the most abundant water soluble anti-oxidants in the human body. This means that it sacrifices itself by coming in contact with free radicals BEFORE they have a chance to do any damage to tissues and genetic material inside the cell (Such as doing damage to DNA, thus causing mutations and all sorts of nasty malformed proteins). The free radical theory of aging postulates that free radicals are behind the aging process, so it angers me that the NIH would conceal research about this important substance, especially when it might be an important factor in delaying senescence.

-Just my 2 cents.

Edited by Elus Efelier, 27 October 2009 - 10:44 PM.

[pamojja]

As for credibility, the site doesn't present the results of some independent study but explains how the NIH and Mayo Clinic responded to studies (i.e. refusing to answer inquiries about the obvious error in the NIH study of measuring blood levels after the body was given time to excrete vitamin C). I'm not sure if you've read it, since as pamojja pointed out, the studies Blue presented have nothing to do with the author's claims; the usage of low dose experiments to supposedly refute high dose effects was in fact one of the topics she touched on.

Her presentation of events is certainly not infallible or exempt from investigation, but it definitely arouses my suspicion.

Some more about Mayo Clinic trials of vitamin C against cancer and Pauling:

Vitamin C: A Case History of an Alternative Cancer Therapy

regards..