Vitamin K, a group of three related substances, is the last of the fat-soluble vitamins, completing the family that also includes vitamins A, D, E, and F. This nutrient, both found in nature and made in the body, helps Phylloquinone, the natural vitamin K found in alfalfa and other foods, was discovered in Denmark and labeled vitamin K for the Danish word Koagulation. Food-source phylloquinone is termed K1, while the menaquinone produced by our intestinal bacteria is labeled vitamin K2. A synthetic compound with the basic structure of the quinones is menadione, or vitamin K3. It has twice the activity of the natural Ks and is used therapeutically in people who may not use natural vitamin K well, such as those with decreased bile acid secretion.
All vitamin K variants are fat soluble and stable to heat. Alkalis, strong acids, radiation, and oxidizing agents can destroy vitamin K. It is absorbed from the upper small intestine with the help of bile or bile salts and pancreatic juices and then carried to the liver for the synthesis of prothrombin, a key blood-clotting factor. High intake (as with supplementation) of vitamin E or calcium may reduce vitamin K absorption. Vitamin K is stored in small amounts; most is excreted after therapeutic doses.
Yogurt, kefir, and acidophilus milk may help to increase the functioning of the intestinal bacterial flora and therefore contribute to vitamin K production. Antibiotics that reduce these bacteria will diminish vitamin K synthesis in the colon. Rancid oils and fats, X-rays, radiation, aspirin, air pollution, and freezing of foods all destroy vitamin K, and mineral oil binds with K and rapidly eliminates it from the intestines.
Sources: Vitamin K is found in both plant and animal sources in nature. Good supplies are found in the dark leafy greens, most green plants, alfalfa, and kelp. Blackstrap molasses and the polyunsaturated oils, such as safflower, also contain some vitamin K. In animal-source foods, K is found in liver, milk, yogurt, egg yolks, and fish liver oils. The best source for humans is that made by the intestinal bacteria. It is important for the production of many nutrients that we keep our "friendly" colon bacteria active and doing their job; to aid this process we should minimize our use of oral antibiotics, avoid excess sugars and processed foods, and occasionally evaluate and treat any abnormal organisms interfering in our colon, such as yeasts or parasites.
Functions: Vitamin K is necessary for normal blood clotting. It is required for the synthesis of prothrombin and other proteins (Factors IX, VII, and X) involved in blood coagulation. Vitamin K also helps prothrombin convert to thrombin with the aid of potassium and calcium; thrombin is the important factor needed for the conversion of fibrinogen to the active fibrin clot.
Coumarin, which comes from sweet clover, acts as an anticoagulant (decreases blood clotting) by competing with vitamin K at its active sites. Coumarin or synthetic dicumarol is used medically primarily as an oral anticoagulant to decrease prothrombin. The salicylates, such as aspirin, increase the need for vitamin K.
Uses: Vitamin K is used commonly by physicians in the treatment of clinical problems. It should not be taken routinely without the ability to monitor its effects on blood clotting. Currently, its most regular application in Western medicine is to inject newborns with vitamin K to prevent hemorrhage and other minor bleeding problems. Vitamin K is not transferred from the mother, nor are there colon bacteria to make it in newborns since the gastrointestinal tract is usually sterile for a few days after birth. The production of vitamin K and, therefore, prothrombin usually begins by the fourth day of life, giving babies their ability to clot blood when necessary.
Vitamin K is also sometimes given by injection to women prior to labor (a deficiency can occur during pregnancy) or to patients before or after surgery to prevent hemorrhage. Higher doses of vitamin K than are needed by the body do not cause excessive blood clotting, so this is not a concern. Additional K is given at times to women with heavy menstrual flow, to help relieve menstrual pain, or to reduce the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. It is also used to promote blood clotting in people with liver disease, jaundice, or malabsorption problems. Those people who bruise easily or whose blood clots slowly after injury sometimes benefit from supplemental vitamin K, as do some sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis, where K may reduce irritation in the synovial linings of the joints.
An occasional use of vitamin K that can be lifesaving is the treatment of people who have taken too much of the anticoagulant Coumadin. People with strokes, heart attacks, thrombophlebitis, or pulmonary embolism or who are at risk of having problems related to abnormal blood clotting may receive this type of anticoagulant therapy. As I described previously, the coumarol medications reduce blood clotting by competing with vitamin K sites and reducing prothrombin formation. If bleeding problems occur in patients on Coumadin therapy, an injection of vitamin K may help correct it rapidly. Vitamin K is also used at times as a preservative in foods; it helps control fermentation. If vitamin K deficiency is suspected, it is usually wise to consume more foods high in this vitamin before using supplements.
Deficiency and toxicity: Toxicity rarely occurs from vitamin K from its natural sources—that is, from foods or from production by the intestinal bacteria—but toxic side effects are more likely from the synthetic vitamin K used in medical treatment. Natural vitamins K1 and K2 are easily stored or eliminated, whereas menadione, or K3, can build up in the blood and cause some toxicity. Hemolytic anemia, a reduction in red blood cells due to destruction, is a possible problem. This usually increases the bilirubin, one of the breakdown products of hemoglobin in the blood, more of a problem in infants, who have a harder time handling high levels of bilirubin. Symptoms of adult toxicity may include flushing, sweating, or a feeling of chest constriction; however, problems arising from vitamin K use are rare.
Deficiency of vitamin K is also uncommon. It is more likely with poor intestinal absorption, with low dietary intake or decreased production in the intestines, or when the liver is not able to use vitamin K (which may be caused by either a genetic condition or liver disease). Deficiency of vitamin K is also more common in sprue or celiac disease (intestinal malabsorption problems), in colitis, in ileitis, or after bowel surgery. I mentioned that for a few days the newborn baby is at risk of bleeding because of lack of vitamin K; vitamin K deficiency may also be a problem in the elderly, when the diet is poor or when antibiotic use or other factors decrease intestinal bacterial production.
The problems that may occur from vitamin K deficiency involve abnormal bleeding, as in nosebleeds and internal hemorrhage, which can be severe if it occurs in the brain or internal organs. Miscarriage may occur secondary to bleeding problems from vitamin K deficiency in pregnancy. Fortunately, this is uncommon.
Requirements: There is no official RDA for vitamin K (there may be one soon), as there is usually sufficient supply from foods and intestinal bacteria. An average diet will usually provide at least 75–150 mcg., which is the suggested minimum, though 300 mcg. daily may be optimal. Absorption may vary from person to person, estimated from 20–60 percent of intake. Overall, suggested needs are about 2 mcg. per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight.
Newborns need about 1–5 mg. daily to prevent bleeding. Usually a 10 mg. injection is given at birth. Vitamin K is not available over the counter and must be given by prescription; for those who wish to consume more vitamin K, alfalfa tablets are a good source.
6.16.2007
Vitamin D
Vitamin D(Calciferol) refers to several related fat-soluble vitamin variants, all of which are sterol (cholesterol-like) substances. D2, or activated ergo-calciferol, is the major synthetic form of provitamin D; D3, or cholecalciferol, is found in animals, mainly in fish liver oils. These are converted in the liver and kidneys to 25-hydroxycholecalciferol, and 1, 25-dihydroxylcholecalciferol, the major circulating active forms of vitamin D.
Vitamin D is also known as the "sunshine" vitamin because it is actually manufactured in the human skin when in contact with the ultraviolet light in the sun’s rays. The sunlight interacts with 7-dehydrocholesterol to form cholecalciferol, which is then transferred to the liver or kidneys and converted to active vitamin D. Wintertime, clouds, smog, and darkly pigmented skin reduce the body’s production of the "sunshine" vitamin.
This fat-soluble vitamin, when ingested, is absorbed through the intestinal walls with other fats with the aid of bile. Mineral oil binds vitamin D in the gut and reduces its absorption. From the blood, calciferol is taken mainly to the liver, where it is utilized or stored. Vitamin D is also stored in the skin, brain, spleen, and bones. Vitamin D intake must be more finely tuned in regard to the right therapeutic level than most other vitamins, and it is considered by many authorities to be the most potentially toxic vitamin. Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity can easily occur when vitamin D is taken in large amounts or with excessive sun exposure. (It is possible that part of sun poisoning symptoms are due to vitamin D toxicity.)
Sources: Provitamin D is found mainly in animal foods. D3, or "natural" vitamin D, is found in fish liver oil, which is the traditional source of both A and D. Cod liver oil is a commonly used source. Egg yolks, butter, and liver have some D, as do the oily fish, such as mackerel, salmon, sardines, and herring. Most homogenized milk and some breakfast cereals are "fortified" with synthetic vitamin D to give children, particularly, sufficient amounts. The plant foods are fairly low in D, with mushrooms and dark leafy greens containing some. Strict vegetarians who do not get adequate exposure to sunlight need to be concerned about getting their 400 IUs of vitamin D daily.
Functions: Vitamin D helps to regulate calcium metabolism and normal calcification of the bones in the body as well as influencing our utilization of the mineral phosphorus. Calcium and phosphorus together with other minerals make up our bones. Vitamin D3 helps increase the absorption of calcium from the gut, decreases excretion from the kidneys, stimulates resorption of calcium and phosphorus from bone, helps put them into teeth, and helps to maintain normal blood levels of calcium and phosphorus. With these functions, vitamin D is closely tied to the work of the parathyroid glands. Vitamin D is most important in regulating calcium metabolism in the body. Even with adequate calcium and phosphorus intake, if our vitamin D intake is low, we will have poor calcification of our bones; whereas, with good vitamin D intake, we will have better calcification even with low calcium and phosphorus intake. This function is especially important in menopausal women, for whom many doctors prescribe straight calcium without vitamin D, which is not likely to do much good unless they are sunbathing, an activity that doctors no longer recommend. Actually, taking calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D all together is probably ideal for best bone health. Phosphorus is usually readily available in adequate amounts in most diets.
Because of its regulation of calcium and phosphorus metabolism, vitamin D is very important to growth in children, especially to healthy bones and teeth. It is also helpful in maintaining the nervous system, heart function, and for normal blood clotting—all of which are affected by calcium levels.
Vitamin D works together with parathyroid hormone for calcium metabolism. Functionally, vitamin D is actually more like a hormone than a vitamin; it is produced in one part of the body (the skin) and released into the blood to affect other tissues (the bones). There is a feedback system with the parathyroid to produce active vitamin D3 when the body needs it, and this "vitamin" is closely related structurally to the body hormones estrogen and cortisone.
Again, vitamin D regulates bone formation. If D is low, blood levels of calcium and phosphorus decrease, and the body pulls these minerals from the bones. This creates demineralized, weak bones, a condition called osteomalacia (loss of bone mineral), or adult rickets. Osteoporosis involves loss of bone mass (minerals and proteins together). The decreased level of calcium in the blood also affects the heart and nervous system.
Uses: Vitamin D works best with adequate calcium and phosphorus intake. It is supplied primarily to prevent or to cure rickets, the vitamin D deficiency disease. It also is used to maintain healthy bones and dentition, as D is helpful in preventing tooth decay and gum problems. Calciferol supplementation may be used to aid the healing of fractures, osteoporosis, and other bone problems.
Taking vitamin D with vitamin A has been shown in some studies to reduce the incidence of colds. It has also been used in the treatment of diabetes, cataracts, visual problems, allergies, sciatica pain, and skin problems. Some success in treating myopia (nearsightedness) and conjunctivitis has been had with high doses of vitamin D. Vitamins A and D together have helped muscle spasms, especially when related to anxiety states. A and D have been used in the treatment of asthma and arthritis as well. Menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes and depression have been helped by the use of calcium and vitamin D together. However, other than the use in menopause, these other applications of vitamin D are not very common in recent years. Medically, high vitamin D supplementation is used to treat hypocalcemia (low blood calcium) secondary to such problems as hypoparathyroidism, which may occur after thyroid surgery.
Deficiency and toxicity: There are some toxicity problems related to hypervitaminosis D. These usually occur with high doses of more than 1,000–1,500 IUs daily for a month or longer in adults, more than 400 IUs in infants, or more than 600 IUs daily in children. These are not exact numbers, of course, and may vary between individuals, time of year, and specific needs; however, it is wise to be careful with supplemental vitamin D. I personally think the combination 1,000 IU D/25,000 IU A formulas are potential trouble if taken at all regularly. However, if some people have poor fat digestion and assimilation, they may handle higher amounts of oral vitamin D.
Excessive thirst, diarrhea, nausea, weakness, and headaches are the milder symptoms of vitamin D toxicity. There are also increased levels of calcium and phosphorus in the blood and urine, and abnormal calcification of soft tissues may occur. There is some suggestion that excess vitamin D speeds the atherosclerosis process. Most symptoms decrease and clear up after excessive doses of vitamin D are discontinued. Toxic doses of vitamin D can be made by the skin through prolonged sun exposure, especially before the body has adapted through pigmentation (tanning), which protects the deeper layers where the vitamin D is synthesized. I have personally wondered if the weakness, nausea, dizziness, or headaches from sun exposure may be related to vitamin D toxicity.
Most people do not take very large amounts of supplemental vitamin D but make sufficient amounts through the skin from exposure to the sun. There is more concern with toxicity from the fortified vitamin D, especially in milk. This synthetic, irradiated ergocalciferol (D2) has decreased the incidence of rickets, but it may be contributing to calcification of the arteries, or atherosclerosis, from infancy through old age. The added 400 IUs per quart of milk is about 15 times the amount normally found in milk and may increase the amount of calcium in the circulation, which could be a problem.
Deficiency of vitamin D has not been a major problem of late. Older people are more prone to vitamin D deficiency (a blood level can be measured) since their skin production is lower, their digestion and absorption may be diminished, and their liver function may be reduced. Vitamin D may be deficient in people with gastrointestinal disease, such as ulcerative colitis. The sun’s action on the skin to produce vitamin D is inhibited by pollution, clouds, clothing, window glass, skin pigmentation, and sunscreens. The occurrence of several of these factors together may make the development of the symptoms of rickets more likely.
The decreased absorption of calcium, along with the retention of phosphorus that usually accompanies it, leads to poor mineralization of bone and the inability of the bones to handle stress. This problem, called osteomalacia, is manifested by poor calcification and soft bones. Vitamin D deficiency in the elderly increases general bone loss and osteoporosis. Supplementing this vitamin improves calcium absorption and reduces bone loss. In children, the bone disorder from vitamin D deficiency is rickets. It is characterized by soft skull bones and fragility of other bones, with bowing of the legs, spinal curvature, and an increase in the size of the joints, such as the wrists, ankles, and knees. Muscular development may be diminished as well. Because of low calcium availability, the teeth may have poor structure, and there may be muscle spasms from a problem called tetany, which also causes tingling and weakness of the areas affected. Nearsightedness and loss of hearing may also develop from vitamin D deficiency because of the vitamin’s influence on the eye muscles and from loss of calcium in the ear bones. Furthermore, one of the current theories of multiple sclerosis is that it may be influenced by low vitamin D levels in puberty.
Requirements: Vitamin D is best utilized with vitamin A. Most of our calciferol needs are met with some vitamin D in foods and regular sunlight exposure. If we live in smoggy cities or where tall buildings block the sunlight, we may need more vitamin D. Those who have darkly pigmented skin, work nights, or cover their bodies with lots of clothes, as do members of some religious orders, probably need more vitamin D than the avid sunbather. In winter, we usually require more D from supplements or from our foods.
The RDA for vitamin D is 400 IUs, or roughly 10 mcg., per day. Infants and growing children probably need more vitamin D relative to body size than do adults. During pregnancy and lactation, more D is needed than the 400 IUs. Therapeutic doses for problems treated with vitamin D are about 1,000–1,500 IUs maximum per day, though some doctors may prescribe even more, mainly of the natural vitamin D3. In general, however, it is wise for adults to limit any supplemented vitamin D to the 400 IUs per day commonly found in multivitamins and to limit use of vitamin-D-fortified milk for a variety of reasons.
Vitamin D is also known as the "sunshine" vitamin because it is actually manufactured in the human skin when in contact with the ultraviolet light in the sun’s rays. The sunlight interacts with 7-dehydrocholesterol to form cholecalciferol, which is then transferred to the liver or kidneys and converted to active vitamin D. Wintertime, clouds, smog, and darkly pigmented skin reduce the body’s production of the "sunshine" vitamin.
This fat-soluble vitamin, when ingested, is absorbed through the intestinal walls with other fats with the aid of bile. Mineral oil binds vitamin D in the gut and reduces its absorption. From the blood, calciferol is taken mainly to the liver, where it is utilized or stored. Vitamin D is also stored in the skin, brain, spleen, and bones. Vitamin D intake must be more finely tuned in regard to the right therapeutic level than most other vitamins, and it is considered by many authorities to be the most potentially toxic vitamin. Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity can easily occur when vitamin D is taken in large amounts or with excessive sun exposure. (It is possible that part of sun poisoning symptoms are due to vitamin D toxicity.)
Sources: Provitamin D is found mainly in animal foods. D3, or "natural" vitamin D, is found in fish liver oil, which is the traditional source of both A and D. Cod liver oil is a commonly used source. Egg yolks, butter, and liver have some D, as do the oily fish, such as mackerel, salmon, sardines, and herring. Most homogenized milk and some breakfast cereals are "fortified" with synthetic vitamin D to give children, particularly, sufficient amounts. The plant foods are fairly low in D, with mushrooms and dark leafy greens containing some. Strict vegetarians who do not get adequate exposure to sunlight need to be concerned about getting their 400 IUs of vitamin D daily.
Functions: Vitamin D helps to regulate calcium metabolism and normal calcification of the bones in the body as well as influencing our utilization of the mineral phosphorus. Calcium and phosphorus together with other minerals make up our bones. Vitamin D3 helps increase the absorption of calcium from the gut, decreases excretion from the kidneys, stimulates resorption of calcium and phosphorus from bone, helps put them into teeth, and helps to maintain normal blood levels of calcium and phosphorus. With these functions, vitamin D is closely tied to the work of the parathyroid glands. Vitamin D is most important in regulating calcium metabolism in the body. Even with adequate calcium and phosphorus intake, if our vitamin D intake is low, we will have poor calcification of our bones; whereas, with good vitamin D intake, we will have better calcification even with low calcium and phosphorus intake. This function is especially important in menopausal women, for whom many doctors prescribe straight calcium without vitamin D, which is not likely to do much good unless they are sunbathing, an activity that doctors no longer recommend. Actually, taking calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D all together is probably ideal for best bone health. Phosphorus is usually readily available in adequate amounts in most diets.
Because of its regulation of calcium and phosphorus metabolism, vitamin D is very important to growth in children, especially to healthy bones and teeth. It is also helpful in maintaining the nervous system, heart function, and for normal blood clotting—all of which are affected by calcium levels.
Vitamin D works together with parathyroid hormone for calcium metabolism. Functionally, vitamin D is actually more like a hormone than a vitamin; it is produced in one part of the body (the skin) and released into the blood to affect other tissues (the bones). There is a feedback system with the parathyroid to produce active vitamin D3 when the body needs it, and this "vitamin" is closely related structurally to the body hormones estrogen and cortisone.
Again, vitamin D regulates bone formation. If D is low, blood levels of calcium and phosphorus decrease, and the body pulls these minerals from the bones. This creates demineralized, weak bones, a condition called osteomalacia (loss of bone mineral), or adult rickets. Osteoporosis involves loss of bone mass (minerals and proteins together). The decreased level of calcium in the blood also affects the heart and nervous system.
Uses: Vitamin D works best with adequate calcium and phosphorus intake. It is supplied primarily to prevent or to cure rickets, the vitamin D deficiency disease. It also is used to maintain healthy bones and dentition, as D is helpful in preventing tooth decay and gum problems. Calciferol supplementation may be used to aid the healing of fractures, osteoporosis, and other bone problems.
Taking vitamin D with vitamin A has been shown in some studies to reduce the incidence of colds. It has also been used in the treatment of diabetes, cataracts, visual problems, allergies, sciatica pain, and skin problems. Some success in treating myopia (nearsightedness) and conjunctivitis has been had with high doses of vitamin D. Vitamins A and D together have helped muscle spasms, especially when related to anxiety states. A and D have been used in the treatment of asthma and arthritis as well. Menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes and depression have been helped by the use of calcium and vitamin D together. However, other than the use in menopause, these other applications of vitamin D are not very common in recent years. Medically, high vitamin D supplementation is used to treat hypocalcemia (low blood calcium) secondary to such problems as hypoparathyroidism, which may occur after thyroid surgery.
Deficiency and toxicity: There are some toxicity problems related to hypervitaminosis D. These usually occur with high doses of more than 1,000–1,500 IUs daily for a month or longer in adults, more than 400 IUs in infants, or more than 600 IUs daily in children. These are not exact numbers, of course, and may vary between individuals, time of year, and specific needs; however, it is wise to be careful with supplemental vitamin D. I personally think the combination 1,000 IU D/25,000 IU A formulas are potential trouble if taken at all regularly. However, if some people have poor fat digestion and assimilation, they may handle higher amounts of oral vitamin D.
Excessive thirst, diarrhea, nausea, weakness, and headaches are the milder symptoms of vitamin D toxicity. There are also increased levels of calcium and phosphorus in the blood and urine, and abnormal calcification of soft tissues may occur. There is some suggestion that excess vitamin D speeds the atherosclerosis process. Most symptoms decrease and clear up after excessive doses of vitamin D are discontinued. Toxic doses of vitamin D can be made by the skin through prolonged sun exposure, especially before the body has adapted through pigmentation (tanning), which protects the deeper layers where the vitamin D is synthesized. I have personally wondered if the weakness, nausea, dizziness, or headaches from sun exposure may be related to vitamin D toxicity.
Most people do not take very large amounts of supplemental vitamin D but make sufficient amounts through the skin from exposure to the sun. There is more concern with toxicity from the fortified vitamin D, especially in milk. This synthetic, irradiated ergocalciferol (D2) has decreased the incidence of rickets, but it may be contributing to calcification of the arteries, or atherosclerosis, from infancy through old age. The added 400 IUs per quart of milk is about 15 times the amount normally found in milk and may increase the amount of calcium in the circulation, which could be a problem.
Deficiency of vitamin D has not been a major problem of late. Older people are more prone to vitamin D deficiency (a blood level can be measured) since their skin production is lower, their digestion and absorption may be diminished, and their liver function may be reduced. Vitamin D may be deficient in people with gastrointestinal disease, such as ulcerative colitis. The sun’s action on the skin to produce vitamin D is inhibited by pollution, clouds, clothing, window glass, skin pigmentation, and sunscreens. The occurrence of several of these factors together may make the development of the symptoms of rickets more likely.
The decreased absorption of calcium, along with the retention of phosphorus that usually accompanies it, leads to poor mineralization of bone and the inability of the bones to handle stress. This problem, called osteomalacia, is manifested by poor calcification and soft bones. Vitamin D deficiency in the elderly increases general bone loss and osteoporosis. Supplementing this vitamin improves calcium absorption and reduces bone loss. In children, the bone disorder from vitamin D deficiency is rickets. It is characterized by soft skull bones and fragility of other bones, with bowing of the legs, spinal curvature, and an increase in the size of the joints, such as the wrists, ankles, and knees. Muscular development may be diminished as well. Because of low calcium availability, the teeth may have poor structure, and there may be muscle spasms from a problem called tetany, which also causes tingling and weakness of the areas affected. Nearsightedness and loss of hearing may also develop from vitamin D deficiency because of the vitamin’s influence on the eye muscles and from loss of calcium in the ear bones. Furthermore, one of the current theories of multiple sclerosis is that it may be influenced by low vitamin D levels in puberty.
Requirements: Vitamin D is best utilized with vitamin A. Most of our calciferol needs are met with some vitamin D in foods and regular sunlight exposure. If we live in smoggy cities or where tall buildings block the sunlight, we may need more vitamin D. Those who have darkly pigmented skin, work nights, or cover their bodies with lots of clothes, as do members of some religious orders, probably need more vitamin D than the avid sunbather. In winter, we usually require more D from supplements or from our foods.
The RDA for vitamin D is 400 IUs, or roughly 10 mcg., per day. Infants and growing children probably need more vitamin D relative to body size than do adults. During pregnancy and lactation, more D is needed than the 400 IUs. Therapeutic doses for problems treated with vitamin D are about 1,000–1,500 IUs maximum per day, though some doctors may prescribe even more, mainly of the natural vitamin D3. In general, however, it is wise for adults to limit any supplemented vitamin D to the 400 IUs per day commonly found in multivitamins and to limit use of vitamin-D-fortified milk for a variety of reasons.
Vitamin E is my elixir of youth
I have taken vitamin E supplements every day for about 30 years, mainly for my varicose veins - and I look 20 years younger than I am. When I had meningococcal septicaemia, I was not expected to survive. I was told that I had very serious blood poisoning and had a sample taken every other day. I am sure it was the vitamin E in my system that saved me. I was 70 years of age then. I am 77 now, but look 57 - no wrinkles or grey hairs. I am a natural blonde with healthy shiny hair and very good skin. I think vitamin E has kept me young and healthy as I have nothing wrong with me except osteoarthritis. I have had both knees replaced, and I now have no more pains or aches in my body, but I try not to take any drugs as I am allergic to most of them. So, I depend on many supplements, which I take regularly. - Geraldine Roe, Tunbridge Wells, Kent
WDDTY replies: To keep those supplements legal, please lend your support to The Alliance For Natural Health (www.alliance-natural-health.org), which has mounted a legal challenge to the EU Food Supplements Directive.
WDDTY replies: To keep those supplements legal, please lend your support to The Alliance For Natural Health (www.alliance-natural-health.org), which has mounted a legal challenge to the EU Food Supplements Directive.
Eye disease not helped by vitamin E
Macular degeneration - the major causes of blindness in the West - is not helped by a daily regime of vitamin E, new research claims.
The findings, prepared by the University of Melbourne, go against other studies showing that antioxidants could slow the progress of the disease.
In this study, researchers gave 1193 healthy volunteers either a placebo or 500 IU of vitamin E every day for four years. Macular degeneration, or age-related maculopathy (AMD), occurred in 8.6 per cent of the vitamin E group vs 8.1 per cent of those given a placebo.
However, another study found that physicians who took either vitamin E or multivitamins had 13 or 10 per cent reductions, respectively, in the risk of AMD, while a new study testing a range of antioxidants found a slowing down of the disease, but only in those who had already developed AMD.
Perhaps, said the Melbourne researchers, people need to take vitamin E for longer, or perhaps the benefits are only seen in specific groups, such as smokers (BMJ, 2002; 325: 11-4).
The findings, prepared by the University of Melbourne, go against other studies showing that antioxidants could slow the progress of the disease.
In this study, researchers gave 1193 healthy volunteers either a placebo or 500 IU of vitamin E every day for four years. Macular degeneration, or age-related maculopathy (AMD), occurred in 8.6 per cent of the vitamin E group vs 8.1 per cent of those given a placebo.
However, another study found that physicians who took either vitamin E or multivitamins had 13 or 10 per cent reductions, respectively, in the risk of AMD, while a new study testing a range of antioxidants found a slowing down of the disease, but only in those who had already developed AMD.
Perhaps, said the Melbourne researchers, people need to take vitamin E for longer, or perhaps the benefits are only seen in specific groups, such as smokers (BMJ, 2002; 325: 11-4).
Vitamin E Protects Against Heart Disease
Thank you for your telephone calls about the two Harvard studies presented to the American Heart Association's annual scientific session in New Orleans yesterday. Yes, I am very happy that the data confirms my study conducted in 1974 and published in 1976. I smile a lot these days thanks to the recent confirmations of my research on cancer prevention, cholesterol irrelevance, and the trans-fats in margarine making it inferior to butter.Forgive me for the "form letter" response, but I can't find the time to get back to each of you with a personal letter. Here are the major points of all three vitamin E studies.
1. All three studies found that vitamin E supplements (the amount of vitamin E in the diet is not sufficient to produce a significant protective effect) dramatically and significantly reduce the incidence of heart disease.
2. The protective effect of vitamin E supplements is greater than obtained by reducing dietary cholesterol, dietary fat, blood cholesterol, and other currently popular approaches.
3. That length of time of supplementation is critical, and that at least two years of supplementation is required before substantial benefit can be measured.ResultsStampfer's group at Harvard found that women who took more than 100 IU of vitamin E daily for more than two years had a 46% lower risk of heart disease. [2]Rimm's group at Harvard found that men who used took more than 100 IU of vitamin E daily (time period not specified) had a 37% lower risk of heart disease. [3]My study showed that those who took even more vitamin E over longer time produced even greater results. The amount of heart disease in any age group decreased proportionably with the length of time that vitamin E had been taken. In fact, the length of time was more important than dosage after a minimum of 400 IU daily was taken.In all instances where persons consumed 400 IU or more daily of vitamin E for more than ten years , their rate of heart disease was significantly lower than normal (3 per hundred, compared to 32 per hundred). Those who took 1,200 IU or more of vitamin E daily for four or more years reduced the incidence of heart disease from 32 per hundred to 10 per hundred persons.The participants in this study were more likely to also consume significant amounts of other antioxidant nutrients which would enhance the synergistic effect.
Study DetailsPasswater 1 Stampfer 2 Rimm 3Number of persons 17,894 87,245 51,529Sex M & F F MAges 50-90Subject group Prev. readers Nurses Health ProsStudy period retrospective 8 years 5 yearsYr. study begun 1974 1984 1987Yr. study presented 1976 1992 1992Corrected for Age & Sex Possible bias self selection participation particip.Dr. Meir Stampfer will be sending me more details of the Harvard studies, and I will send them on to you when they become available. In the meantime, the New York Times article may be of help. By the way, I have also enclosed the newspaper reports of my 1974 study.
1. All three studies found that vitamin E supplements (the amount of vitamin E in the diet is not sufficient to produce a significant protective effect) dramatically and significantly reduce the incidence of heart disease.
2. The protective effect of vitamin E supplements is greater than obtained by reducing dietary cholesterol, dietary fat, blood cholesterol, and other currently popular approaches.
3. That length of time of supplementation is critical, and that at least two years of supplementation is required before substantial benefit can be measured.ResultsStampfer's group at Harvard found that women who took more than 100 IU of vitamin E daily for more than two years had a 46% lower risk of heart disease. [2]Rimm's group at Harvard found that men who used took more than 100 IU of vitamin E daily (time period not specified) had a 37% lower risk of heart disease. [3]My study showed that those who took even more vitamin E over longer time produced even greater results. The amount of heart disease in any age group decreased proportionably with the length of time that vitamin E had been taken. In fact, the length of time was more important than dosage after a minimum of 400 IU daily was taken.In all instances where persons consumed 400 IU or more daily of vitamin E for more than ten years , their rate of heart disease was significantly lower than normal (3 per hundred, compared to 32 per hundred). Those who took 1,200 IU or more of vitamin E daily for four or more years reduced the incidence of heart disease from 32 per hundred to 10 per hundred persons.The participants in this study were more likely to also consume significant amounts of other antioxidant nutrients which would enhance the synergistic effect.
Study DetailsPasswater 1 Stampfer 2 Rimm 3Number of persons 17,894 87,245 51,529Sex M & F F MAges 50-90Subject group Prev. readers Nurses Health ProsStudy period retrospective 8 years 5 yearsYr. study begun 1974 1984 1987Yr. study presented 1976 1992 1992Corrected for Age & Sex Possible bias self selection participation particip.Dr. Meir Stampfer will be sending me more details of the Harvard studies, and I will send them on to you when they become available. In the meantime, the New York Times article may be of help. By the way, I have also enclosed the newspaper reports of my 1974 study.
The Vitamin E-Beta Carotene
Recently, a now-famous beta carotene-cancer study from Finland hit the front pages of many newspapers and magazines. The newspaper articles warned that beta carotene might cause cancer and that people should not be so willing to take nutritional supplements because they may be dangerous. These newspaper reports and magazine articles were based on a study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine on April 14, 1994. The study was entitled "The Effect of Vitamin E and Beta Carotene on the Incidence of Lung Cancer and Other Cancers in Male Smokers." Although carried out in Finland, the study was co-sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and paid for largely with your tax dollars.
In this study, more than 29,000 middle-aged men, who smoked over a pack a day for an average of 36 years each, were divided into four groups and followed for five to eight years. One group received daily dosages of 20mg (or 33,000 units) of synthetic beta carotene. A second group received 50mg of synthetic vitamin E, in the form of dl-alpha tocopherol acetate. A third group received both of these supplements. And, finally, a fourth group received a placebo.
The results of the study indicated a significant 18% increase in incidence of lung cancer in the participants receiving beta carotene. Although, fewer cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed among those who received vitamin E than those who did not, this point was not emphasized in the news accounts.
What were the flaws in the study? There were many. The study used only 1/8th to 1/40th the dosage of Vitamin E shown by more than 20 previous studies to lower the risk of lung cancer in smokers. It used only 1/10th the dosage of beta-carotene recommended by other experts for the prevention of lung cancer in smokers. It used as subjects people from Finland despite the fact that both the British Medical Journal and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition consider Finland one of the worst countries in the world for cancer/nutrition studies since: (1) Finns have one of the world's highest rates of per capita alcohol consumption by smokers, and alcohol interferes with the utilization of Vitamin E and beta carotene, and (2) Finland has an extremely low level of the essential mineral selenium in the soil, and selenium works together with vitamin E in promoting cancer prevention.
A previous, much less publicized recent study, carried out in China with National Cancer Institute cooperation, included 50 micrograms of selenium, along with 30 mg of vitamin E and 15mg of beta carotene. This study involved 30,000 people over the age of 40, who were either healthy or suffered from the premalignant lesion, esophageal dysplasia. Those who received the combination of these three nutrients had a significantly lower risk of dying from cancer and other diseases.
Other criticisms of the study include the fact that the study started immediately after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which occurred in 1986, and Finland was one of the first areas to receive heavy fallout. This variable increases cancer risk and makes the jobs of these low levels of antioxidants more difficult. The form of vitamin E was the less potent synthetic dl-alpha tocopherol rather than the physiologic d-alpha tocopherol form. And all of the supplements were colored with quiniline yellow, a substance with known carcinogenic properties.
The authors themselves were careful to point out that no other studies have ever shown any harm from taking beta carotene, whereas many studies have shown beneficial effects. In addition, there are no known mechanisms for toxic effects of beta carotene. There overall conclusion was: "In spite of its formal statistical significance, therefore, this finding may well be due to chance."
You would never know this from the media circus accounts of the study. The universal message, received by many of my patients and the general population, was that vitamins, particularly beta carotene, cause cancer. I hope that this information clears up some of the confusion.
In this study, more than 29,000 middle-aged men, who smoked over a pack a day for an average of 36 years each, were divided into four groups and followed for five to eight years. One group received daily dosages of 20mg (or 33,000 units) of synthetic beta carotene. A second group received 50mg of synthetic vitamin E, in the form of dl-alpha tocopherol acetate. A third group received both of these supplements. And, finally, a fourth group received a placebo.
The results of the study indicated a significant 18% increase in incidence of lung cancer in the participants receiving beta carotene. Although, fewer cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed among those who received vitamin E than those who did not, this point was not emphasized in the news accounts.
What were the flaws in the study? There were many. The study used only 1/8th to 1/40th the dosage of Vitamin E shown by more than 20 previous studies to lower the risk of lung cancer in smokers. It used only 1/10th the dosage of beta-carotene recommended by other experts for the prevention of lung cancer in smokers. It used as subjects people from Finland despite the fact that both the British Medical Journal and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition consider Finland one of the worst countries in the world for cancer/nutrition studies since: (1) Finns have one of the world's highest rates of per capita alcohol consumption by smokers, and alcohol interferes with the utilization of Vitamin E and beta carotene, and (2) Finland has an extremely low level of the essential mineral selenium in the soil, and selenium works together with vitamin E in promoting cancer prevention.
A previous, much less publicized recent study, carried out in China with National Cancer Institute cooperation, included 50 micrograms of selenium, along with 30 mg of vitamin E and 15mg of beta carotene. This study involved 30,000 people over the age of 40, who were either healthy or suffered from the premalignant lesion, esophageal dysplasia. Those who received the combination of these three nutrients had a significantly lower risk of dying from cancer and other diseases.
Other criticisms of the study include the fact that the study started immediately after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which occurred in 1986, and Finland was one of the first areas to receive heavy fallout. This variable increases cancer risk and makes the jobs of these low levels of antioxidants more difficult. The form of vitamin E was the less potent synthetic dl-alpha tocopherol rather than the physiologic d-alpha tocopherol form. And all of the supplements were colored with quiniline yellow, a substance with known carcinogenic properties.
The authors themselves were careful to point out that no other studies have ever shown any harm from taking beta carotene, whereas many studies have shown beneficial effects. In addition, there are no known mechanisms for toxic effects of beta carotene. There overall conclusion was: "In spite of its formal statistical significance, therefore, this finding may well be due to chance."
You would never know this from the media circus accounts of the study. The universal message, received by many of my patients and the general population, was that vitamins, particularly beta carotene, cause cancer. I hope that this information clears up some of the confusion.
VITAMIN E
'People still take dangerous vitamin E', said a headline in a recent medical journal. Dangerous? Of course, they're referring to the recent major studies that concluded that beta-carotene and vitamin E supplements increased your risk of dying. In other words, they're killers. This is strong stuff, and it was something that the world's press devoured. But, as we've pointed out in previous E-news alerts, it wasn't the whole story. The increase in cancer from beta-carotene is restricted to people who smoke or are heavy drinkers. For the rest, beta-carotene reduces the risk of colon cancer. As to the vitamin E, it's important to understand the form in which it was tested. The trials that produced negative outcomes used synthetic D,L-alpha-tocopherol, and different outcomes would have been reached had the researchers tested it in its natural form. But cardiologists had already damned vitamin E when they discovered that it interfered with Zocor (simvastin), given to patients with coronary artery disease. But, again, it was only part of the story. These adverse effects occurred only in those patients with low HDL cholesterol, and normal LDL-cholesterol, levels. For every other patient, there's plenty of evidence that suggests that the supplement, at 800 IU a day, prevents the increase in large particle HDL. The press also ignored the other observations made by researchers that selenium supplements helps the statins work more effectively, and that a regime of 4000 mg of fish oil a day raises levels of 'good' cholesterol without any drug therapy.
* Just how dangerous is vitamin E, and all the other nutritional supplements come to that? And what are the benefits they offer? All the answers can be found in the WDDTY Good Supplements Guide, and a copy can be winging its way to you if you click here: http://www.wddty.co.uk/shop/details.asp?product=373
* Just how dangerous is vitamin E, and all the other nutritional supplements come to that? And what are the benefits they offer? All the answers can be found in the WDDTY Good Supplements Guide, and a copy can be winging its way to you if you click here: http://www.wddty.co.uk/shop/details.asp?product=373
Vitamin C
Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid) is a very important essential nutrient—that is, we must obtain it from diet. It is found only in the fruit and vegetable foods and is highest in fresh, uncooked foods. Vitamin C is one of the least stable vitamins, and cooking can destroy much of this water-soluble vitamin from foods.
In recent years, the C of this much-publicized vitamin has also stood for controversy. With Linus Pauling and others claiming that vitamin C has the potential to prevent and treat the common cold, flus, and cancer, all of which plague our society, concern has arisen in the medical establishment about these claims and the megadose requirements needed to achieve the hoped-for results. Some studies suggest that these claims have some validity; however, there is more personal testimony from avid users of ascorbic acid than there is irrefutable evidence. There has also been some recent research that disproves the claims about treatment and prevention of colds and cancer with vitamin C. However, in most cases, studies showing vitamin C to be ineffective used lower dosages than Dr. Pauling recommended. Overall, vitamin C research is heavily weighted to the positive side for its use in the treatment of many conditions, including the common cold.
C also stands for citrus, where this vitamin is found. It could also stand for collagen, the protein "cement" that is formed with ascorbic acid as a required cofactor. Many foods contain vitamin C, and many important functions are mediated by it as well.
Vitamin C is a weak acid and is stable in weak acids. Alkalis, such as baking soda, however, destroy ascorbic acid. It is also easily oxidized in air and sensitive to heat and light. Since it is contained in the watery part of fruits and vegetables, it is easily lost during cooking in water. Loss is minimized when vegetables such as broccoli or Brussels sprouts are cooked over water in a double boiler instead of directly in water. The mineral copper, in the water or in the cookware, diminishes vitamin C content of foods.
Ascorbic acid was not isolated from lemons until 1932, though the scourge of scurvy, the vitamin C deficiency disease, has been present for thousands of years. It was first written about circa 1500 B.C. and then described by Aristotle in 450 B.C. as a syndrome characterized by lack of energy, gum inflammation, tooth decay, and bleeding problems. In the 1700s, high percentages of sailors with the British navy and other fleets died from scurvy, until James Lind discovered that the juice of lemons could cure and also prevent this devastating and deadly disease. The ships then carried British West Indies limes for the sailors to consume daily to maintain health, and thus these sailors became known as "limeys." Other cultures of the world discovered their own sources of vitamin C. Powdered rose hips, acerola cherries, or spruce needles were consumed regularly, usually as teas, to prevent the scurvy disease.
In earlier times, humans consumed large amounts of vitamin C in their fresh and wholesome native diet, as apes (another species that does not make vitamin C) still do. Most other animals, except guinea pigs, produce ascorbic acid in the liver from glucose, and in relative amounts much higher than we get from our diets today. For this reason, Dr. Pauling and others feel that our bodies need somewhere between 2,000 and 9,000 mg. of vitamin C daily. These amounts seem a little high to me, given the basic food values of vitamin C. Some authorities feel we need 600–1,200 mg. daily based on extrapolations from the historical herbivore, early-human diet. These levels can be obtained today by eating sufficient fresh food; a diet that includes foods with high levels of vitamin C can provide several grams or more per day.
In recent years, the C of this much-publicized vitamin has also stood for controversy. With Linus Pauling and others claiming that vitamin C has the potential to prevent and treat the common cold, flus, and cancer, all of which plague our society, concern has arisen in the medical establishment about these claims and the megadose requirements needed to achieve the hoped-for results. Some studies suggest that these claims have some validity; however, there is more personal testimony from avid users of ascorbic acid than there is irrefutable evidence. There has also been some recent research that disproves the claims about treatment and prevention of colds and cancer with vitamin C. However, in most cases, studies showing vitamin C to be ineffective used lower dosages than Dr. Pauling recommended. Overall, vitamin C research is heavily weighted to the positive side for its use in the treatment of many conditions, including the common cold.
C also stands for citrus, where this vitamin is found. It could also stand for collagen, the protein "cement" that is formed with ascorbic acid as a required cofactor. Many foods contain vitamin C, and many important functions are mediated by it as well.
Vitamin C is a weak acid and is stable in weak acids. Alkalis, such as baking soda, however, destroy ascorbic acid. It is also easily oxidized in air and sensitive to heat and light. Since it is contained in the watery part of fruits and vegetables, it is easily lost during cooking in water. Loss is minimized when vegetables such as broccoli or Brussels sprouts are cooked over water in a double boiler instead of directly in water. The mineral copper, in the water or in the cookware, diminishes vitamin C content of foods.
Ascorbic acid was not isolated from lemons until 1932, though the scourge of scurvy, the vitamin C deficiency disease, has been present for thousands of years. It was first written about circa 1500 B.C. and then described by Aristotle in 450 B.C. as a syndrome characterized by lack of energy, gum inflammation, tooth decay, and bleeding problems. In the 1700s, high percentages of sailors with the British navy and other fleets died from scurvy, until James Lind discovered that the juice of lemons could cure and also prevent this devastating and deadly disease. The ships then carried British West Indies limes for the sailors to consume daily to maintain health, and thus these sailors became known as "limeys." Other cultures of the world discovered their own sources of vitamin C. Powdered rose hips, acerola cherries, or spruce needles were consumed regularly, usually as teas, to prevent the scurvy disease.
In earlier times, humans consumed large amounts of vitamin C in their fresh and wholesome native diet, as apes (another species that does not make vitamin C) still do. Most other animals, except guinea pigs, produce ascorbic acid in the liver from glucose, and in relative amounts much higher than we get from our diets today. For this reason, Dr. Pauling and others feel that our bodies need somewhere between 2,000 and 9,000 mg. of vitamin C daily. These amounts seem a little high to me, given the basic food values of vitamin C. Some authorities feel we need 600–1,200 mg. daily based on extrapolations from the historical herbivore, early-human diet. These levels can be obtained today by eating sufficient fresh food; a diet that includes foods with high levels of vitamin C can provide several grams or more per day.
Ascorbic acid is readily absorbed from the intestines, ideally about 80–90 percent of that ingested. It is used by the body in about two hours and then usually out of the blood within three to four hours. For this reason, it is suggested that vitamin C supplements be taken at four-hour intervals rather than once a day; or it may be taken as time-released ascorbic acid. Vitamin C is used up even more rapidly under stressful conditions, with alcohol use, and with smoking. Vitamin C blood levels of smokers are much lower than those of nonsmokers given the same intakes. Other situations and substances that reduce absorption or increase utilization include fever, viral illness, antibiotics, cortisone, aspirin and other pain medicines, environmental toxins such as DDT, petroleum products, or carbon monoxide, and exposure to heavy metals such as lead, mercury, or cadmium. Sulfa antibiotics increase elimination of vitamin C from the body by two to three times.
Some ascorbic acid is stored in the body, where it seems to concentrate in the organs of higher metabolic activity. These include the adrenal glands (about 30 mg.), pituitary, brain, eyes, ovaries, and testes. A total of about 30 mg. per pound of body weight. We likely need at least 200 mg. a day in our diet to maintain body stores—much more if we smoke, drink alcohol, are under stress, have allergies, are elderly, or have diabetes.
Vitamin C is a very complex and important vitamin. The recommended amounts vary more widely than those for any other nutrient, ranging from 100–80 or 100 grams daily, depending on the condition. C is also the most commonly supplemented vitamin among the general public, because of either the popular press or its good effect, or because of the other common C—the "cold."
Sources: The best-known sources of vitamin C are the citrus fruits—oranges, lemons, limes, tangerines, and grapefruits. The fruits with the highest natural concentrations are citrus fruits, rose hips, and acerola cherries, followed by papayas, cantaloupes, and strawberries. Good vegetable sources include red and green peppers (the best), broccoli, Brussels sprouts, tomatoes, asparagus, parsley, dark leafy greens, cabbage, and sauerkraut. There is not much available in the whole grains, seeds, and beans; however, when these are sprouted, their vitamin C content shoots up. Sprouts, then, are good foods for winter and early spring, when other fresh fruits and vegetables are not as available. Animal foods contain almost no vitamin C; though fish, if eaten raw, has enough to prevent deficiency symptoms.
Natural vitamin C supplements are usually made from rose hips, acerola cherries, peppers, or citrus fruits. Vitamin C can be synthesized from corn syrup, which is high in dextrose, much as it is made from glucose in most other animals’ bodies. Synthetic ascorbic acid, though it can be concentrated for higher doses than natural extracts, is still usually made from food sources. Sago palm is another fairly new source of vitamin C supplements. It is used primarily as a lower allergenic source than the corn-extracted ascorbic acid.
Functions: One important function of vitamin C is in the formation and maintenance of collagen, the basis of connective tissue, which is found in skin, ligaments, cartilage, vertebral discs, joint linings, capillary walls, and the bones and teeth. Collagen, and thus vitamin C, is needed to give support and shape to the body, to help wounds heal, and to maintain healthy blood vessels. Specifically, ascorbic acid works as a coenzyme to convert proline and lysine to hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine, both important to the collagen structure.
Vitamin C also aids the metabolism of tyrosine, folic acid, and tryptophan. Tryptophan is converted in the presence of ascorbic acid to 5-hydroxytryptophan, which forms serotonin, an important brain chemical. Vitamin C also helps folic acid convert to its active form, tetrahydrofolic acid, and tyrosine needs ascorbic acid to form the neurotransmitter substances dopamine and epinephrine. Vitamin C stimulates adrenal function and the release of norepinephrine and epinephrine (adrenaline), our stress hormones; however, prolonged stress depletes vitamin C in the adrenals and decreases the blood levels. Ascorbic acid also helps thyroid hormone production, and it aids in cholesterol metabolism, increasing its elimination and thereby assisting in lowering blood cholesterol.
Vitamin C is an antioxidant vitamin. By this function, it helps prevent oxidation of water-soluble molecules that could otherwise create free radicals, which may generate cellular injury and disease. Vitamin C also indirectly protects the fat-soluble vitamins A and E as well as some of the B vitamins, such as riboflavin, thiamine, folic acid, and pantothenic acid, from oxidation. Ascorbic acid acts as a detoxifier and may reduce the side effects of drugs such as cortisone, aspirin, and insulin; it may also reduce the toxicity of the heavy metals lead, mercury, and arsenic.
Vitamin C is being shown through continued research to stimulate the immune system; through this function, along with its antioxidant function, it may help in the prevention and treatment of infections and other diseases. Ascorbic acid may activate neutrophils, the most prevalent white blood cells that work on the frontline defense in more hand-to-hand combat than other white blood cells. It also seems to increase production of lymphocytes, the white cells important in antibody production and in coordinating the cellular immune functions. In this way also, C may be helpful against bacterial, viral, and fungal diseases. In higher amounts, ascorbic acid may actually increase interferon production and thus activate the immune response to viruses; it may also decrease the production of histamine, thereby reducing immediate allergy potential. Further research must be done for more definitive knowledge about vitamin C’s actions in the prevention and treatment of disease.
Uses: There are a great many clinical and nutritional uses for ascorbic acid in its variety of available supplements. C for the common cold is indeed used very widely; its use in the treatment of cancer is more controversial, probably because of the seriousness of the disease and the political environment within the medical system—anything nutritional or alternative in regard to cancer therapy is looked upon with skepticism by orthodox physicians. For the prevention of cancer, there is reason for more optimism about the usefulness of vitamin C (as well as the other antioxidant nutrients—vitamin E, selenium, beta-carotene, and zinc) because of its effect in preventing the formation of free radicals (caused mainly by the oxidation of fats), which play a role in the genesis of disease.
Given the functions of vitamin C alone, it has a wide range of clinical uses. For the prevention and treatment of the common cold and flu syndrome, vitamin C produces a positive immunological response to help fight bacteria and viruses. Its support of the adrenal function and role in the production of adrenal hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine can help the body handle infections and stress of all kinds. Because of this adrenal-augmenting response, as well as thyroid support provided by stimulating production of thyroxine (T4) hormone, vitamin C may help with problems of fatigue and slow metabolism. It also helps counteract the side effects of cortisone drug therapy and may counteract the decreased cellular immunity experienced during the course of treatment with these commonly used immune-suppressive drugs.
Because of ascorbic acid’s role in immunity, its antioxidant effect, the adrenal support it provides, and probably its ability to make tissues healthy through its formation and maintenance of collagen, vitamin C is used to treat a wide range of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections and inflammatory problems of all kinds. I have used vitamin C successfully in many viral conditions, including colds, flus, hepatitis, Herpes simplex infections, mononucleosis, measles, and shingles. Recently, vitamin C has been shown in some studies to enhance the production and activity of interferon, an antiviral substance produced by our bodies. To affect these conditions, the vitamin C dosage is usually fairly high, at least 5–10 grams per day, but it is possible that much smaller doses are as effective. Vitamin C is also used to treat problems due to general inflammation from microorganisms, irritants, and/or decreased resistance; these problems may include cystitis, bronchitis, prostatitis, bursitis, arthritis (both osteo- and rheumatoid), and some chronic skin problems (dermatitis). With arthritis, there is some suggestion that increased ascorbic acid may improve the integrity of membranes in joints. In gouty arthritis, vitamin C improves the elimination of uric acid (the irritant) through the kidneys. Ascorbic acid has also been helpful for relief of back pain and pain from inflamed vertebral discs, as well as the inflammatory pain that is sometimes associated with rigorous exercise. In asthma, vitamin C may relieve the bronchospasm caused by noxious stimuli or when this tight-chest feeling is experienced during exercise.
Vitamin C’s vital function in helping produce and maintain healthy collagen allows it to support the body cells and tissues and bring more rapid healing to injured or aging tissues. Therefore, it is used by many physicians for problems of rapid aging, burns, fracture healing, bedsores and other skin ulcers and to speed wound healing after in-jury or surgery. Peptic ulcers also appear to heal more rapidly with vitamin C therapy. The pre- and postsurgical use of vitamin C supplementation can have great benefits. With its collagen function, adrenal support, and immune response support, it helps the body defend against infection, supports tissue health and healing, and improves the ability to handle the stress of surgery. Vitamin A and zinc are the other important pre- and postsurgical nutrients shown by research to reduce hospitalization time and increase healing rates, thereby preventing a number of potential complications.
Vitamin C is also used to aid those withdrawing from drug addictions, addictions to such substances as narcotics and alcohol, as well as nicotine, caffeine, and even sugar—three very common addictions and abuses. High-level ascorbic acid may decrease withdrawal symptoms from these substances and increase the appetite and feeling of well-being. For this reason, it may be helpful in some depression and other mental problems associated with detoxification during withdrawal. Vitamin C also may reduce the effects of pollution, likely through its antioxidant effect, its detoxifying help, and its adrenal and immune support; specifically, it may participate in protecting us from smog, carbon monoxide, lead, mercury, and cadmium.
Vitamin C is a natural laxative and may help with constipation problems. In fact, the main side effect of too much vitamin C intake is diarrhea. For iron-deficiency anemia, vitamin C helps the absorption of iron (especially the nonheme or vegetable-source iron) from the gastrointestinal tract. In diabetes, it is commonly used to improve the utilization of blood sugar and thereby reduce it, but there is no clear evidence that regular vitamin C usage alone can prevent diabetes. There are some preliminary reports that ascorbic acid may help prevent cataract formation (probably through its antioxidant effect) and may be helpful in the prevention and treatment of glaucoma, as well as certain cases of male infertility caused from the clumping together of sperm, which decreases sperm function.
Vitamin C has a probable role in the prevention and treatment of atherosclerosis and, thereby, in reducing the risks of heart disease and its devastating results. It has been shown to reduce platelet aggregation, a factor important in reducing the formation of plaque and clots. Ascorbic acid has a triglyceride- and cholesterol-reducing effect and, more important, may help to raise the "good" HDL. This action needs further investigation, though the research is supportive so far. I haven’t even mentioned the prevention of scurvy, which really takes very little vitamin C, about 10 mg. per day. This disease used to be a big concern and was often fatal unless the victim ate some citrus or other fresh fruit and vegetables containing a small amount of vitamin C.
I do not really want to approach the cancer and vitamin C issue; it deserves a book by itself. However, if we closely analyze the functions (antioxidant, immune support, interferon, tissue health and healing) that vitamin C performs in the body, along with the still mysterious influences of higher-dose ascorbic acid intake, we can see how vitamin C may have a positive influence in fighting and preventing cancer, our greatest twentieth-century medical dilemma.
Deficiency and toxicity: For most purposes, vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, in its many forms of use is nontoxic. It is not stored appreciably in our body, and most excess amounts are eliminated rapidly through the urine. However, amounts over 10 grams per day that some people use and some doctors prescribe are associated with some side effects, though none that are serious. Diarrhea is the most common and usually is the first sign that the body’s tissue fluids have been saturated with ascorbic acid. Most people will not experience this with under 5–10 grams per day, the amount that is felt to correlate with the body’s need and use. Other side effects include nausea, dysuria (burning with urination), and skin sensitivities (sometimes sensitivity to touch or just a mild irritation). Hemolysis (breakage) of red blood cells may also occur with very high amounts of vitamin C. With any of these symptoms, it is wise to decrease intake.
There is some concern that higher levels of vitamin C intake may cause kidney stones, specifically calcium oxalate stones, because of increased oxalic acid clearance through the kidneys due to vitamin C metabolism. This is a rare case, if it does exist, and I personally have not seen, nor do I know any doctors who have seen, kidney stone occurrence with people taking vitamin C. Only people who are prone to form kidney stones or gout should give this any thought. If there is concern, supplementing magnesium in amounts between half and equaling that of calcium intake (which should be done anyway with calcium supplementation) would reduce that risk, at least for calcium-based stones. I usually suggest using a buffered vitamin C preparation with calcium and magnesium, which alleviates this concern.
As far as deficiency problems go, the once fairly common disease called scurvy is very rare these days. However, early symptoms of scurvy or vitamin C deficiency are more likely in formula-fed infants with little or no C intake or in teenagers or the elderly who do not eat any fresh fruits and vegetables. Smokers with poor diets and people with inflammatory bowel disease more often have lower vitamin C blood levels. Other people commonly found to be low in ascorbic acid include alcoholics, psychiatric patients, and patients with fatigue.
The symptoms of scurvy are produced primarily by the effects of the lack of ascorbic acid on collagen formation, causing reduced health of the tissues. The first signs of depletion may be related to vitamin C’s other functions as well, where deficiency could lead to poor resistance to infection and very slow wound healing. Easy bruising and tiny hemorrhages, called petechiae, in the skin, general weakness, loss of appetite, and poor digestion may also occur. With worse deficiency, nosebleeds, sore and bleeding gums, anemia, joint tenderness and swelling, mouth ulcers, loose teeth, and shortness of breath could be experienced. During growth periods, there could be reduced growth, especially of the bones. The decrease in collagen may lead to bone brittleness, making the bones more fragile. The progression and health of the teeth and gums are also affected. In breastfeeding women, lactation may be reduced. With the elderly, vitamin C deficiency could enhance symptoms of senility. The bleeding that comes from capillary wall fragility may lead to clotting and increased risk of strokes and heart attacks.
An important note is that many medical problems have been found to be associated with low blood levels of vitamin C. These problems include various infections, colds, depression, high blood pressure, arthritis, vascular fragility, allergies, ulcers, and cholesterol gallstones.
Most of these symptoms and problems can be easily avoided with minimal supplementation of vitamin C or a diet well supplied with fresh fruits and vegetables. Since the average diet has much less vitamin C than that of our ancestors, it is important for us to be aware of our ascorbic acid intake.
Requirements: The RDA for adults is considered to be 60 mg. We need only about 10–20 mg. to prevent scurvy, and there is more than that in one portion of most fruits or vegetables. Infants need 35 mg.; about 50 mg. between ages one and fourteen and 60 mg. afterward are the suggested minimums. During pregnancy, 80 mg. are required; 100 mg. are needed during lactation. Realistically, between 100–150 mg. daily is a minimum dosage for most people.
Vitamin C needs, however, are increased with all kinds of stress, both internal (emotional) and external (environmental). Smoking decreases vitamin C levels and increases minimum needs. Birth control pills, estrogen for menopause, cortisone use, and aspirin also increase ascorbic acid requirements. Both nicotine and estrogen seem to increase copper blood levels, and copper inactivates vitamin C. In general, though, absorption of vitamin C from the intestines is good. Vitamin C (as ascorbic acid) taken with iron helps the absorption of iron (and many minerals) and is important in treating anemia, but the iron decreases absorption of the ascorbic acid. Overall, it is probably best to take vitamin C as it is found in nature, along with the vitamin P constituents (discovered later)—the bioflavonoids, rutin, and hesperidin. These may have a synergistic influence on the functions of vitamin C, although there is no conclusive research on humans to support this theory.
Vitamin C is the most commonly consumed nutrient supplement and is available in tablets, both fast-acting and time-released, in chewable tablets, in powders and effervescents, and in liquid form. It is available as ascorbic acid, L-ascorbic acid, and various mineral ascorbate salts, such as sodium or calcium ascorbate. One of my favorite formulas, which was developed by Stephen Levine at Nutricology in San Leandro, California, is a buffered powder made from sago palm that contains 2,350 mg. of vitamin C per teaspoon, along with 450 mg. of calcium, 250 mg. of magnesium, and 99 mg. of potassium. It gets into the body quickly and is very easy on and often soothing to the stomach and intestinal lining. The potassium-magnesium combination can often be helpful for fatigue, and this formula is a good vehicle for fulfilling calcium needs.
Vitamin C works rapidly, so the total amount we take over the day should be divided into multiple doses (four to six) or taken as a time-released tablet a couple of times a day. When increasing or decreasing vitamin C intake, it is best to do so slowly because our body systems become accustomed to certain levels. Some nutritionists describe a problem of rebound scurvy in infants, especially when a high amount is taken by the mother during pregnancy but then the infant gets very little after birth and so suffers some deficiency symptoms. I have seen nothing confirming this in the literature. Overall, though, it is probably wise to reduce vitamin C intake slowly after taking high amounts, rather than to drop abruptly.
My basic suggestion for vitamin C use is about 2–4 grams per day with a typical active and healthy city lifestyle. Based on previous levels in our native diets, Linus Pauling feels that the optimum daily levels of vitamin C are between 2,500 and 10,000 mg. Clearly, requirements for vitamin C vary and may be higher according to state of health, age (needs increase with years), weight, activity and energy levels, and general metabolism. Stress, illness, and injuries further increase the requirements for ascorbic acid. Many authorities suggest that we take at least 500 mg. of vitamin C daily to meet basic body needs.
During times of specific illnesses, especially viral infections, doctors who use megadose vitamin C treatment suggest at least 20–40 grams daily, some of it intravenously. Vitamin C has been used safely and effectively in dosages of 10 grams or more dripped slowly (over 30–60 minutes) into the blood to reach optimum tissue levels before excretion, so as to bathe the cells in vitamin C. Some doctors prescribe what is called "bowel tolerance" daily intake of vitamin C—that is, increasing the oral dose until diarrhea results and then cutting back. This level can vary greatly from a few grams to 100 grams or more. The claim is that our body knows what we need and will respond by changing the water balance in the colon when we have had enough. Physician Robert Cathcart has used vitamin C this way in his practice for years to treat many problems, with claimed good success; yet, I do not have the experience to make an adequate conclusion. This practice does, however, add further mystery to the vitamin C controversy. More research is definitely needed regarding ascorbic acid, and new discoveries will likely be made.
Breast Health Tip #10: Antioxidants
BREAST HEALTH TIP #10: Antioxidants Taking supplemental antioxidants, like selenium, can lower your risk of breast cancer by as much as 50%. Oxygen free radicals are tiny unstable molecules of oxygen normally created as by-products of cellular metabolism. We need them to drive all the chemical reactions in our body. But, if there are too many of them, they can cause biological devastation by attacking cell membranes and DNA. The damage they cause initiates and fuels chronic degenerative diseases like atherosclerosis, heart disease, strokes, emphysema, diabetes, arthritis, senility, accelerate aging and cancer, including breast cancer. Pollution, pesticides, smoking, alcohol, and grilled red meat are just a few of the things that pour excess oxygen free radicals into our body, so avoiding them will help to decrease your oxygen free radical load.
Another good way to combat excess oxygen free radicals is with substances called antioxidants. Antioxidants neutralize oxygen free radicals. Our body makes its own antioxidants, but usually it isn't enough to keep with the large number of oxygen radicals that are constantly bombarding us. So we need to get additional antioxidants from outside sources. Fresh organic fruits and vegetables contain large amounts of diverse and powerful antioxidants. Not surprisingly, research shows that women that eat a diet rich in them have a significantly lower risk of breast cancer.
TUFT UNIVERSITY FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WITH THE HIGHEST ANTIOXIDANTS
BlueberriesBlackberriesGarlicKaleStrawberriesSpinachBrussels sproutsPlumsBroccoliBeetsOrangesRed grapesRed pepperCherriesKiwi
But in this age of widespread pollution, toxins, and stressful lifestyles that fuel the production of oxygen free radicals, most of us we need more antioxidant protection than what we can get from our food. That's why research shows taking an additional antioxidant supplement, like the mineral selenium, can be of great benefit in lowering the risk of several different kinds of cancer, including cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.
One of the reasons selenium is so effective in lowering the risk of cancer is that it causes our body make its own powerful antioxidant -- an enzyme called "glutathione peroxidase." Selenium makes up a fundamental part of the structure of this enzyme. Without it, the enzyme can�t work.
Selenium also helps to fight cancer in several other ways. Research shows it is able to prevent cancer cells from growing, causes cancer cells to die, foils the formation of blood vessels needed for cancer to grow, and enhances the immune system, especially natural killer cell and T-cell function. It also has anti-inflammatory effects.
With all these anti-cancer effects, it�s easy to understand why there is a growing mountain of evidence that taking supplemental selenium can be of enormous help for preventing and treating cancer. In a double blinded, randomized, prospective study published in 1996, patients were given 200 micrograms (mcg) of supplemental selenium everyday. After 6 years, the patients taking selenium had half the deaths from cancer compared to the patients who weren�t taking the additional selenium. In other words, during this study, the number of people who died of cancer in the group taking selenium was 52% lower than the number of people who died of cancer in the group that wasn�t taking it. The subjects taking selenium also had 35% less new cancers diagnosed. So taking selenium not only lowers the risk of developing cancer, it also appears to lengthen the life of those with cancer. Since that time, numerous studies have confirmed these same impressive statistics. The conclusion of the vast majority of studies looking at the relationship between selenium and cancer, is that taking supplemental selenium, or eating a selenium-rich diet, reduces your risk of most types of cancer, including breast cancer, by as much as 50% and improves your chances of survival if you have cancer.
Another good way to combat excess oxygen free radicals is with substances called antioxidants. Antioxidants neutralize oxygen free radicals. Our body makes its own antioxidants, but usually it isn't enough to keep with the large number of oxygen radicals that are constantly bombarding us. So we need to get additional antioxidants from outside sources. Fresh organic fruits and vegetables contain large amounts of diverse and powerful antioxidants. Not surprisingly, research shows that women that eat a diet rich in them have a significantly lower risk of breast cancer.
TUFT UNIVERSITY FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WITH THE HIGHEST ANTIOXIDANTS
BlueberriesBlackberriesGarlicKaleStrawberriesSpinachBrussels sproutsPlumsBroccoliBeetsOrangesRed grapesRed pepperCherriesKiwi
But in this age of widespread pollution, toxins, and stressful lifestyles that fuel the production of oxygen free radicals, most of us we need more antioxidant protection than what we can get from our food. That's why research shows taking an additional antioxidant supplement, like the mineral selenium, can be of great benefit in lowering the risk of several different kinds of cancer, including cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.
One of the reasons selenium is so effective in lowering the risk of cancer is that it causes our body make its own powerful antioxidant -- an enzyme called "glutathione peroxidase." Selenium makes up a fundamental part of the structure of this enzyme. Without it, the enzyme can�t work.
Selenium also helps to fight cancer in several other ways. Research shows it is able to prevent cancer cells from growing, causes cancer cells to die, foils the formation of blood vessels needed for cancer to grow, and enhances the immune system, especially natural killer cell and T-cell function. It also has anti-inflammatory effects.
With all these anti-cancer effects, it�s easy to understand why there is a growing mountain of evidence that taking supplemental selenium can be of enormous help for preventing and treating cancer. In a double blinded, randomized, prospective study published in 1996, patients were given 200 micrograms (mcg) of supplemental selenium everyday. After 6 years, the patients taking selenium had half the deaths from cancer compared to the patients who weren�t taking the additional selenium. In other words, during this study, the number of people who died of cancer in the group taking selenium was 52% lower than the number of people who died of cancer in the group that wasn�t taking it. The subjects taking selenium also had 35% less new cancers diagnosed. So taking selenium not only lowers the risk of developing cancer, it also appears to lengthen the life of those with cancer. Since that time, numerous studies have confirmed these same impressive statistics. The conclusion of the vast majority of studies looking at the relationship between selenium and cancer, is that taking supplemental selenium, or eating a selenium-rich diet, reduces your risk of most types of cancer, including breast cancer, by as much as 50% and improves your chances of survival if you have cancer.
SELENIUM SOURCES
Our main source of selenium comes from the plants we eat. Selenium is naturally found in soil and is absorbed by plants as they grow. But the amount of selenium in soil varies considerably from region to region. If there's not much selenium in the soil, there won't be much in the plants growing in that soil. Research shows that the amount of selenium in the soil and the rate of cancer at that location, are inversely proportional. This means the areas of the world with the highest selenium levels in the soil have the lowest rates of cancer, and those with the lowest amount of selenium are found to have the highest rates of cancer.
The best food source of selenium is Brazil Nuts. Just one ounce of Brazil Nuts a day gives you 1200% of the daily recommended allowances. Other foods high in selenium include garlic, onions, green leafy vegetables, mushrooms and whole grains, especially whole wheat. You can also take selenium in supplement form. The recommended dose is about 200 micrograms a da
Our main source of selenium comes from the plants we eat. Selenium is naturally found in soil and is absorbed by plants as they grow. But the amount of selenium in soil varies considerably from region to region. If there's not much selenium in the soil, there won't be much in the plants growing in that soil. Research shows that the amount of selenium in the soil and the rate of cancer at that location, are inversely proportional. This means the areas of the world with the highest selenium levels in the soil have the lowest rates of cancer, and those with the lowest amount of selenium are found to have the highest rates of cancer.
The best food source of selenium is Brazil Nuts. Just one ounce of Brazil Nuts a day gives you 1200% of the daily recommended allowances. Other foods high in selenium include garlic, onions, green leafy vegetables, mushrooms and whole grains, especially whole wheat. You can also take selenium in supplement form. The recommended dose is about 200 micrograms a da
Alternative Approaches to Prostate Cancer
The complementary approach to the management and treatment of prostate cancer is quite different from the conventional approach and perhaps more beneficial for some patients. In this article I will discuss the prostate gland, describe the nature of prostate cancer including how it is diagnosed and classified, discuss conventional treatment approaches and the controversies associated with the conventional treatments, and finally, outline some alternative treatments we utilize.
Before beginning this outline, let me first give you my conclusion. All prostate cancer patients should use alternative cancer therapies. In general, they should be used prior to beginning conventional treatment. When the prostate cancer patient is receiving conventional treatment, he should also incorporate alternative therapies in order to reduce the side effects of conventional treatment, improve the results, and possibly allow the patient to be able to discontinue the conventional treatments.
The prostate gland-that’s prostate, not prostrate, is found only in males and is normally about the size of a walnut in men. It is located below the bladder and in front of the rectum. Urine formed in the kidneys passes to the bladder in tubelike structures called ureters. From the bladder, urine passes to the outside through another tubelike structure called the urethra. The urethra passes through the middle of the prostate and the part of the urethra located in the prostate is called the prostatic urethra. When a portion of the prostate enlarges, it may impinge upon the flow of urine. This condition when it is benign, that is not cancerous, is called BPH or benign prostatic hyperplasia. The other major conditions involving the prostate are prostatitis and prostate cancer, which will be the subject of this series.
Just how much of a problem is prostate cancer? It is a major health problem for many reasons. The American Cancer Society estimates that in the United States one in six men will eventually be diagnosed with prostate cancer--that’s one in six men. In 1995 in the United States, 244,000 men will be diagnosed and 40,400 will die from the disease, making it the second leading cancer killer in men, behind lung cancer. More men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer than women with breast cancer, although the number of deaths of each will be about the same. Prostate cancer in men is quite analogous to breast cancer in women.
In spite of this high incidence, the problem is even greater because with prostate cancer, one must distinguish between clinical and microscopic cancer. Much of the prostate cancer that occurs in men is never diagnosed because many men with prostate cancer die of other causes, never knowing they ever had it. For example, a recent study involving careful pathological examinations of the prostate glands during the autopsies of men killed in accidents revealed some alarming figures. The incidence of microscopic prostate cancer was 80% in men between the ages 70 and 80 years old, 40% in men between 50 and 60 years old, 34% in men between 40 and 50 years old, and 27% in men between 30 and 40 years old. To me these statistics were truly amazing. Keep in mind, however, that these statistics refer to microscopic prostate cancer and not to clinical prostate cancer, which is diagnosed while the person is alive.
How Does a Doctor Diagnose Prostate Cancer?Several years ago, the major way of diagnosing relatively early prostate cancer was through a digital rectal examination, in which the physician inserts a gloved finger into the rectum and feels a hard nodule on the prostate. A biopsy of the nodule would confirm the diagnosis. Sometimes the diagnosis would be made of advanced prostate cancer when the patient presented to the doctor with bone pain and further workup revealed that he had prostate cancer with spread to the bone or bone metastases already. Today, however, the diagnosis of prostate cancer is being made much earlier most of the time because of a simple blood test called the prostate specific antigen or PSA. Next week I’ll discuss the pros and cons of the PSA, another procedure called the transrectal ultrasound of the prostate, the pros and cons of biopsy of the prostate and the staging and grading of prostate cancer.
Diagnosis, Staging and Grading of Prostate CancerThe widespread use of the Prostate Specific Antigen or PSA test has resulted in more frequent and earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer. The PSA is a protein produced by both benign and malignant prostate cells. In general, its value will relate to the presence of prostate disease and to some extent the type of prostate disease. Values of 0 to 4 are considered normal. Values between 4 and 10 are usually BPH or prostatitis, but may also be prostate cancer. Values of 10 to 20 are highly suspicious for cancer and values above 20 are most likely cancer. However, there is tremendous overlap and 30 per cent of prostate cancer patients have normal PSA’s. The presence of an elevated PSA usually results in a urologist recommending a prostate biopsy or series of needle biopsies.
The controversy surrounding routine PSA screening of middle aged or elderly men has to do with what I mentioned previously about the usual course of prostate cancer. Many men die of another disease never knowing they had a prostate problem. If prostate cancer is found in some of these men as a result of an elevated PSA, they may be urged into unnecessary and dangerous treatments that may actually shorten their lives or at least reduce quality of life. If, however, the PSA is used to alert the physician and patient that lifestyle changes and other complementary prevention and treatment steps need to be taken, the PSA can be very useful, in my opinion.
The presence of prostate cancer on biopsy usually results in a search to determine if the cancer is confined to the prostate gland or has spread beyond it. An ultrasound of the prostate gland or other imaging procedures may help to answer this important question. The type of conventional treatment recommended is dependent on the location of the cancer, which is described by the stage of the disease. Prostate cancer has 4 stages. In Stage A, the prostate cancer is confined to the prostate gland and their is no palpable hard swelling on the physician’s digital rectal examination. Stage is A is usually discovered when a biopsy is done because of an elevated PSA, in spite of no prostate nodule on physical examination or when the surgical specimen for BPH turns out to have some cancerous cells. In Stage B, the cancer is also confined to the prostate gland, but there is also a palpable nodule on rectal examination. In Stage C, the cancer has spread beyond the prostate capsule to one or more neighboring structures like the seminal vesicles. Finally, in Stage D, the cancer has spread or metastasized to more distant structures, such as lymph nodes, the bones, the lungs or the liver.
Generally, the more the cancer has spread the worse the prognosis and the less likely the disease will be controlled. In contrast to the staging of the disease, which refers to the location of the cancer, the grading of prostate cancer relates to how the cancer cells look under the microscope. The higher the grade, the more abnormal the appearance of the cells and the more likely a poor prognosis. The conventional treatment for stages A or B is usually either a radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation. These procedures are both highly invasive and result in significant complications and adverse reactions. For stage C or D, the appropriate conventional treatment is some type of anti-hormonal therapy, which reduces the effects of the male hormone testosterone because the removal of the effects of testosterone usually results in improvement of the patient, although this effect is generally only temporary.
Conventional Treatment of Prostate CancerAs I implied last time, for stages A and B of prostate cancer, when the cancer is confined to the prostate gland, a radical prostatectomy is most often recommended by urologists. This surgery involves the removal of the entire prostate gland and capsule and surrounding structures, such as the seminal vesicles. The surgery results in considerable pain post-operatively, as well as many complications. Most patients will be permanently sexually impotent following the surgery and 5 to 30% will suffer from some degree of urinary incontinence. Recovery time, which is rarely complete, takes at least 6 months.
Although a high cure rate is claimed by the urologists, especially for stage A, the question becomes what would be the survival rate of these patients if they had no procedure whatsoever? The answer is not clear. It is difficult to evaluate the effects of conventional treatment for prostate cancer for the following reasons. 1) It is usually a slow growing disease and therefore it takes many years to evaluate treatment results. 2) The disease is often dormant for years and may never manifest itself during the life of the patient, who may die from an entirely unrelated cause. 3) Today the diagnosis is made more often and earlier because of the PSA test, which was introduced only a few years ago, prostate ultrasound procedures and multiple biopsies. 4) Both radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation, the two most recommended procedures have many side effects and result frequently in a poor quality of life after the procedures. And 5) 25 to 50% of clinically diagnosed stages A, B and C actually turn out to be stage D after the procedure is done. Surgery or radiation are useless for stage D. All of this has led the well known urologist from Sloan-Kettering, Dr. Willet F. Whitmore to ask the question: " Is cure possible in those for whom it is necessary and is cure necessary in those for whom it is possible?"
External beam radiation is usually recommended for stage A and B when the patient is elderly or frail or would be a poor surgical risk. During and following this treatment at least 30 to 50% of patients experience inflammation of the bladder or rectum with diarrhea and other bowel symptoms, urinary retention and swelling of the penis and scrotum. Long term effects include sexual impotence in 40 to 75 per cent and a continuation of the acute side effects in less than 10 per cent of the patients. The problems with surgery and radiation have led to alternative conventional approaches.
The conventional treatment usually recommended for stage A or B prostate cancer is usually either a radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation. The appropriate conventional treatment for stage C or D is usually an anti-hormonal treatment. As early as 1941, Dr. Huggins found that when the supply of the male hormone testosterone available to the prostate is reduced or eliminated, prostate cancer would regress, often dramatically. This was done either by surgically removing the testes of the patient, which greatly reduced available testosterone, or by giving synthetic estrogen drugs, such as DES. This latter treatment would inhibit the pituitary from secreting hormones necessary for production of testosterone from the testes. Because of the significant cardiovascular side effects associated with synthetic estrogen drugs, new drugs have been developed to accomplish the same thing. The most commonly used in the United States is Lupron or Leuprolide, which is given as a long acting injection once a month.
Although Lupron is effective for reducing testosterone, some testosterone is still present because the adrenal glands produce the hormone DHEA, which can be converted to testosterone. In order to further reduce testosterone effects, another drug is frequently given. This drug is called flutamide or Eulexin. Two capsules are taken orally every 8 hours. This drug prevents testosterone from combining with its protein receptor, thus effectively stopping any residual effect from testosterone on the prostate cancer. This combined treatment is called either the complete hormonal blockade or combined hormonal blockade. It is abbreviated CHB. This method of treatment was championed in the early 1980's by Dr. Ferdinand LaBrie, a physician in Canada. During the early 80's I occasionally sent a patient to Canada for this treatment because it wasn’t available in the United States. However, in 1989, the FDA approved the use of this approach here in the United States.
The combined hormonal blockade treatment has a number of side effects, including hot flashes, nausea, anemia, and complete sexual impotency. However, if the treatment is stopped sexual potency may return. The major problem with this treatment is the fact that it is usually temporary. Prostate cancer eventually escapes the inhibition by testosterone deficiency in a few years. When it does, the disease is hard to treat and the patient often does not recover.
Because of the characteristics of prostate cancer that I’ve described previously related to its tendency to be slow growing and often not be fatal as well as the harshness of the available treatments of radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation, some physicians have taken the position that a reasonable alternative to therapy is "watchful waiting." In other words, once early prostate cancer is diagnosed with a biopsy, rather than operating or giving external beam radiation, the patient is simply followed and observed. Treatment is only given if symptoms develop or if the patient shows evidence of spreading of the cancer. In one study carried out in Sweden, this method was used. The survival rate was no worse than in studies in which prostate cancer patients received immediate treatment.
Another approach, which is generally supported by a prostate cancer support group known as PAACT, is to administer the combined hormonal treatment early to prostate cancer patients in stages A and B, rather than in just C and D. At the end of 6 months to a year, the patient goes off the hormonal therapy and his PSA’s and clinical examination are watched closely. If their is no evidence of cancer, the patient is left alone. If their is evidence of cancer progression, then several options are considered including radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation, brachytherapy, which involves inserting radioactive implants into the prostate, and cryosurgery, a type of freezing of the prostate. Whether or not this approach of using combined hormonal blockade in the early stages of prostate cancer turns out to be useful, remains to be seen.
I give my patients the opportunity to choose a different path to "watchful waiting". I suggest that they use an elevated PSA or a positive biopsy for prostate cancer as an opportunity to go on an alternative cancer therapy program. The patient is told that something is out of balance in his body and needs to be changed. The nature of prostate cancer, the various tests, the various conventional approaches to prostate cancer and the various options related to alternative cancer therapy for prostate cancer are discussed with him. A variety of videotapes and books are suggested for the patient to review. Then we come to an agreement as to what would be reasonable for him to do.
Alternative Therapy Program for Prostate CancerThe elements of an alternative cancer therapy are outlined to the patient and include: our avoid list, dietary changes, oral nutritional supplements, possible hormonal balancing, possible intravenous vitamin and mineral drips, an exercise program, fresh air and some sunlight exposure, stress management training if necessary, detoxification, possibly homeopathy, and possibly various other immune enhancing activities, such as chiropractic, massage, acupuncture or dental treatment. Certain medications, such as hydrazine sulfate are considered. If their is evidence the program isn’t working, the combined hormonal blockade therapy may be added to the alternative program. In my patients who have combined the two, the positive effects of the combined program seems to last longer than the conventional combined hormonal blockade alone.
I’ll go into a little more detail on a few of the components. Regarding the avoid list, the patient is asked to reduce or eliminate as much as possible: exposure to tobacco-either active or passive, caffeine, alcohol, refined sugar and starch, hydrogenated fats, impure water-including unfiltered chlorinated or fluoridated water, artificial chemicals including pesticides, preservatives and artificial sweeteners and amalgam mercury fillings.
The dietary program stresses organic whole foods with an emphasis on plants including fresh fruits and vegetables, and whole grains, some nuts and seeds, fresh organic vegetable and fruit juices and modest amounts of animal proteins, including fish, organic eggs and chicken.
Dietary Supplements in the Treatment of Prostate CancerThe oral supplements include vitamins, minerals, enzymes, essential fatty acids, herbs, amino acids, accessory food factors and special therapeutic foods. The vitamins we emphasize are high doses of vitamin C, antioxidants A and E, vitamin D, the B3 vitamin niacinamide, and modest amounts of other B vitamins. I consider amydalin or Laetrile to fall into the category of B vitamins and recommend it for all cancer patients. It is available in a number of foods and in tablet form from other countries. Patients are usually able to get their own supply.
Although all minerals are important, the mineral supplements we emphasize because of their strong anti-cancer properties are selenium, calcium and magnesium. Modest amounts of zinc are recommended and balanced with copper. A wide range of trace minerals, preferably in colloidal form are also prescribed. Enzymes help to digest food when taken with meals. When ingested in between meals, they have many therapeutic functions including anti-inflammatory activities and anti-cancer activities. They seem to help prevent metastases. Pancreatic enzymes and some plant based enzymes, such as bromelain from pineapple, are used. Enzymes may be given as rectal retention enemas as well.
Oral herbs include the use of a mixture suggested by the late Canadian cancer nurse, Rene Caisse, called Essiac. The brand name that we have been using is FlorEssence. Another herbal mixture we’ve used extensively is a purple mixture called Vitae Elixxir. We try to balance the essential fatty acids with flaxseed oil to increase omega three fatty acids and primrose oil to supply gamma linolenic acid, both of which have strong anti-cancer activities. We also recommend various flavonoids, coenzyme Q10 and pycnogenol. Among the specialized therapeutic foods we consider are: shark or bovine cartilage, soybean preparations, maitake mushrooms and others. Our intravenous programs consist of large doses of vitamin C, minerals, a few other vitamins and amygdalin or Laetrile. Exercise, detoxification and homeopathy are individualized. Next week I’ll conclude this series with a few case histories.
Some Examples of Prostate Cancer Patients Using Alternative TherapiesThe first patient CS is using our program along with combined hormonal blockade. He was first seen in our office in Oct 93 at the age of 74 years old. At the end of 1991, a hard prostate nodule was felt on rectal examination. He was given 35 external beam radiation treatments in late ‘91 and early ‘92. However, by Nov 92, his PSA began to rise and biopsy revealed residual cancer in both lobes of the prostate. A CT scan showed enlarged lymph nodes, suggesting CA spread to them. In July 1993, he was started on complete hormonal blockade, after his PSA reached 53. Within a few months, his PSA was down to zero. In Oct ‘93, he started our program, which included amydalin, shark cartilage, coenzyme Q10, vitamin C and other oral nutrients. He also began IV infusions of vitamin C, minerals and amygdalin. Now, two years after starting our program, he feels great and his PSA is normal.
Another patient EH has been receiving our alternative treatment program instead of combined hormonal blockade. Here is his story. He had a nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in 1988 and was well until 1993, when his PSA began to rise. He was given external beam radiation--37 treatments, but soon after completion, his PSA began to rise again. Either combined hormonal blockade or removal of his testes was offered as treatment. Instead he chose our program in Oct ‘94 and had felt great since that time. His PSA has decreased and he seems to be stable.
Two other patients LG and SR have chosen our treatment program instead of conventional treatment. They are being monitored closely. SR is a 67 year old married, vigorous, retired letter carrier. In Feb ‘95, he was diagnosed with a stage II prostate cancer. Two urologists recommended a radical prostatectomy. Instead he started an intensive program of amygdalin, FlorEssence, shark cartilage, selenium, Vitamin C, CoQ10, Vitamin E, niacinamide and others. He is also receiving IV infusions of C, minerals and amygdalin. On this program, so far, he appears to be doing great. The same is true for LG, a 60 year old engineer, for whom surgery was recommended, but declined by the patient. He has been on our program since May ‘94 and has had a reduction of symptoms and improvement of his PSA. These are just a few examples of prostate cancer patients who are benefitting from alternative treatments.
Before beginning this outline, let me first give you my conclusion. All prostate cancer patients should use alternative cancer therapies. In general, they should be used prior to beginning conventional treatment. When the prostate cancer patient is receiving conventional treatment, he should also incorporate alternative therapies in order to reduce the side effects of conventional treatment, improve the results, and possibly allow the patient to be able to discontinue the conventional treatments.
The prostate gland-that’s prostate, not prostrate, is found only in males and is normally about the size of a walnut in men. It is located below the bladder and in front of the rectum. Urine formed in the kidneys passes to the bladder in tubelike structures called ureters. From the bladder, urine passes to the outside through another tubelike structure called the urethra. The urethra passes through the middle of the prostate and the part of the urethra located in the prostate is called the prostatic urethra. When a portion of the prostate enlarges, it may impinge upon the flow of urine. This condition when it is benign, that is not cancerous, is called BPH or benign prostatic hyperplasia. The other major conditions involving the prostate are prostatitis and prostate cancer, which will be the subject of this series.
Just how much of a problem is prostate cancer? It is a major health problem for many reasons. The American Cancer Society estimates that in the United States one in six men will eventually be diagnosed with prostate cancer--that’s one in six men. In 1995 in the United States, 244,000 men will be diagnosed and 40,400 will die from the disease, making it the second leading cancer killer in men, behind lung cancer. More men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer than women with breast cancer, although the number of deaths of each will be about the same. Prostate cancer in men is quite analogous to breast cancer in women.
In spite of this high incidence, the problem is even greater because with prostate cancer, one must distinguish between clinical and microscopic cancer. Much of the prostate cancer that occurs in men is never diagnosed because many men with prostate cancer die of other causes, never knowing they ever had it. For example, a recent study involving careful pathological examinations of the prostate glands during the autopsies of men killed in accidents revealed some alarming figures. The incidence of microscopic prostate cancer was 80% in men between the ages 70 and 80 years old, 40% in men between 50 and 60 years old, 34% in men between 40 and 50 years old, and 27% in men between 30 and 40 years old. To me these statistics were truly amazing. Keep in mind, however, that these statistics refer to microscopic prostate cancer and not to clinical prostate cancer, which is diagnosed while the person is alive.
How Does a Doctor Diagnose Prostate Cancer?Several years ago, the major way of diagnosing relatively early prostate cancer was through a digital rectal examination, in which the physician inserts a gloved finger into the rectum and feels a hard nodule on the prostate. A biopsy of the nodule would confirm the diagnosis. Sometimes the diagnosis would be made of advanced prostate cancer when the patient presented to the doctor with bone pain and further workup revealed that he had prostate cancer with spread to the bone or bone metastases already. Today, however, the diagnosis of prostate cancer is being made much earlier most of the time because of a simple blood test called the prostate specific antigen or PSA. Next week I’ll discuss the pros and cons of the PSA, another procedure called the transrectal ultrasound of the prostate, the pros and cons of biopsy of the prostate and the staging and grading of prostate cancer.
Diagnosis, Staging and Grading of Prostate CancerThe widespread use of the Prostate Specific Antigen or PSA test has resulted in more frequent and earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer. The PSA is a protein produced by both benign and malignant prostate cells. In general, its value will relate to the presence of prostate disease and to some extent the type of prostate disease. Values of 0 to 4 are considered normal. Values between 4 and 10 are usually BPH or prostatitis, but may also be prostate cancer. Values of 10 to 20 are highly suspicious for cancer and values above 20 are most likely cancer. However, there is tremendous overlap and 30 per cent of prostate cancer patients have normal PSA’s. The presence of an elevated PSA usually results in a urologist recommending a prostate biopsy or series of needle biopsies.
The controversy surrounding routine PSA screening of middle aged or elderly men has to do with what I mentioned previously about the usual course of prostate cancer. Many men die of another disease never knowing they had a prostate problem. If prostate cancer is found in some of these men as a result of an elevated PSA, they may be urged into unnecessary and dangerous treatments that may actually shorten their lives or at least reduce quality of life. If, however, the PSA is used to alert the physician and patient that lifestyle changes and other complementary prevention and treatment steps need to be taken, the PSA can be very useful, in my opinion.
The presence of prostate cancer on biopsy usually results in a search to determine if the cancer is confined to the prostate gland or has spread beyond it. An ultrasound of the prostate gland or other imaging procedures may help to answer this important question. The type of conventional treatment recommended is dependent on the location of the cancer, which is described by the stage of the disease. Prostate cancer has 4 stages. In Stage A, the prostate cancer is confined to the prostate gland and their is no palpable hard swelling on the physician’s digital rectal examination. Stage is A is usually discovered when a biopsy is done because of an elevated PSA, in spite of no prostate nodule on physical examination or when the surgical specimen for BPH turns out to have some cancerous cells. In Stage B, the cancer is also confined to the prostate gland, but there is also a palpable nodule on rectal examination. In Stage C, the cancer has spread beyond the prostate capsule to one or more neighboring structures like the seminal vesicles. Finally, in Stage D, the cancer has spread or metastasized to more distant structures, such as lymph nodes, the bones, the lungs or the liver.
Generally, the more the cancer has spread the worse the prognosis and the less likely the disease will be controlled. In contrast to the staging of the disease, which refers to the location of the cancer, the grading of prostate cancer relates to how the cancer cells look under the microscope. The higher the grade, the more abnormal the appearance of the cells and the more likely a poor prognosis. The conventional treatment for stages A or B is usually either a radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation. These procedures are both highly invasive and result in significant complications and adverse reactions. For stage C or D, the appropriate conventional treatment is some type of anti-hormonal therapy, which reduces the effects of the male hormone testosterone because the removal of the effects of testosterone usually results in improvement of the patient, although this effect is generally only temporary.
Conventional Treatment of Prostate CancerAs I implied last time, for stages A and B of prostate cancer, when the cancer is confined to the prostate gland, a radical prostatectomy is most often recommended by urologists. This surgery involves the removal of the entire prostate gland and capsule and surrounding structures, such as the seminal vesicles. The surgery results in considerable pain post-operatively, as well as many complications. Most patients will be permanently sexually impotent following the surgery and 5 to 30% will suffer from some degree of urinary incontinence. Recovery time, which is rarely complete, takes at least 6 months.
Although a high cure rate is claimed by the urologists, especially for stage A, the question becomes what would be the survival rate of these patients if they had no procedure whatsoever? The answer is not clear. It is difficult to evaluate the effects of conventional treatment for prostate cancer for the following reasons. 1) It is usually a slow growing disease and therefore it takes many years to evaluate treatment results. 2) The disease is often dormant for years and may never manifest itself during the life of the patient, who may die from an entirely unrelated cause. 3) Today the diagnosis is made more often and earlier because of the PSA test, which was introduced only a few years ago, prostate ultrasound procedures and multiple biopsies. 4) Both radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation, the two most recommended procedures have many side effects and result frequently in a poor quality of life after the procedures. And 5) 25 to 50% of clinically diagnosed stages A, B and C actually turn out to be stage D after the procedure is done. Surgery or radiation are useless for stage D. All of this has led the well known urologist from Sloan-Kettering, Dr. Willet F. Whitmore to ask the question: " Is cure possible in those for whom it is necessary and is cure necessary in those for whom it is possible?"
External beam radiation is usually recommended for stage A and B when the patient is elderly or frail or would be a poor surgical risk. During and following this treatment at least 30 to 50% of patients experience inflammation of the bladder or rectum with diarrhea and other bowel symptoms, urinary retention and swelling of the penis and scrotum. Long term effects include sexual impotence in 40 to 75 per cent and a continuation of the acute side effects in less than 10 per cent of the patients. The problems with surgery and radiation have led to alternative conventional approaches.
The conventional treatment usually recommended for stage A or B prostate cancer is usually either a radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation. The appropriate conventional treatment for stage C or D is usually an anti-hormonal treatment. As early as 1941, Dr. Huggins found that when the supply of the male hormone testosterone available to the prostate is reduced or eliminated, prostate cancer would regress, often dramatically. This was done either by surgically removing the testes of the patient, which greatly reduced available testosterone, or by giving synthetic estrogen drugs, such as DES. This latter treatment would inhibit the pituitary from secreting hormones necessary for production of testosterone from the testes. Because of the significant cardiovascular side effects associated with synthetic estrogen drugs, new drugs have been developed to accomplish the same thing. The most commonly used in the United States is Lupron or Leuprolide, which is given as a long acting injection once a month.
Although Lupron is effective for reducing testosterone, some testosterone is still present because the adrenal glands produce the hormone DHEA, which can be converted to testosterone. In order to further reduce testosterone effects, another drug is frequently given. This drug is called flutamide or Eulexin. Two capsules are taken orally every 8 hours. This drug prevents testosterone from combining with its protein receptor, thus effectively stopping any residual effect from testosterone on the prostate cancer. This combined treatment is called either the complete hormonal blockade or combined hormonal blockade. It is abbreviated CHB. This method of treatment was championed in the early 1980's by Dr. Ferdinand LaBrie, a physician in Canada. During the early 80's I occasionally sent a patient to Canada for this treatment because it wasn’t available in the United States. However, in 1989, the FDA approved the use of this approach here in the United States.
The combined hormonal blockade treatment has a number of side effects, including hot flashes, nausea, anemia, and complete sexual impotency. However, if the treatment is stopped sexual potency may return. The major problem with this treatment is the fact that it is usually temporary. Prostate cancer eventually escapes the inhibition by testosterone deficiency in a few years. When it does, the disease is hard to treat and the patient often does not recover.
Because of the characteristics of prostate cancer that I’ve described previously related to its tendency to be slow growing and often not be fatal as well as the harshness of the available treatments of radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation, some physicians have taken the position that a reasonable alternative to therapy is "watchful waiting." In other words, once early prostate cancer is diagnosed with a biopsy, rather than operating or giving external beam radiation, the patient is simply followed and observed. Treatment is only given if symptoms develop or if the patient shows evidence of spreading of the cancer. In one study carried out in Sweden, this method was used. The survival rate was no worse than in studies in which prostate cancer patients received immediate treatment.
Another approach, which is generally supported by a prostate cancer support group known as PAACT, is to administer the combined hormonal treatment early to prostate cancer patients in stages A and B, rather than in just C and D. At the end of 6 months to a year, the patient goes off the hormonal therapy and his PSA’s and clinical examination are watched closely. If their is no evidence of cancer, the patient is left alone. If their is evidence of cancer progression, then several options are considered including radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation, brachytherapy, which involves inserting radioactive implants into the prostate, and cryosurgery, a type of freezing of the prostate. Whether or not this approach of using combined hormonal blockade in the early stages of prostate cancer turns out to be useful, remains to be seen.
I give my patients the opportunity to choose a different path to "watchful waiting". I suggest that they use an elevated PSA or a positive biopsy for prostate cancer as an opportunity to go on an alternative cancer therapy program. The patient is told that something is out of balance in his body and needs to be changed. The nature of prostate cancer, the various tests, the various conventional approaches to prostate cancer and the various options related to alternative cancer therapy for prostate cancer are discussed with him. A variety of videotapes and books are suggested for the patient to review. Then we come to an agreement as to what would be reasonable for him to do.
Alternative Therapy Program for Prostate CancerThe elements of an alternative cancer therapy are outlined to the patient and include: our avoid list, dietary changes, oral nutritional supplements, possible hormonal balancing, possible intravenous vitamin and mineral drips, an exercise program, fresh air and some sunlight exposure, stress management training if necessary, detoxification, possibly homeopathy, and possibly various other immune enhancing activities, such as chiropractic, massage, acupuncture or dental treatment. Certain medications, such as hydrazine sulfate are considered. If their is evidence the program isn’t working, the combined hormonal blockade therapy may be added to the alternative program. In my patients who have combined the two, the positive effects of the combined program seems to last longer than the conventional combined hormonal blockade alone.
I’ll go into a little more detail on a few of the components. Regarding the avoid list, the patient is asked to reduce or eliminate as much as possible: exposure to tobacco-either active or passive, caffeine, alcohol, refined sugar and starch, hydrogenated fats, impure water-including unfiltered chlorinated or fluoridated water, artificial chemicals including pesticides, preservatives and artificial sweeteners and amalgam mercury fillings.
The dietary program stresses organic whole foods with an emphasis on plants including fresh fruits and vegetables, and whole grains, some nuts and seeds, fresh organic vegetable and fruit juices and modest amounts of animal proteins, including fish, organic eggs and chicken.
Dietary Supplements in the Treatment of Prostate CancerThe oral supplements include vitamins, minerals, enzymes, essential fatty acids, herbs, amino acids, accessory food factors and special therapeutic foods. The vitamins we emphasize are high doses of vitamin C, antioxidants A and E, vitamin D, the B3 vitamin niacinamide, and modest amounts of other B vitamins. I consider amydalin or Laetrile to fall into the category of B vitamins and recommend it for all cancer patients. It is available in a number of foods and in tablet form from other countries. Patients are usually able to get their own supply.
Although all minerals are important, the mineral supplements we emphasize because of their strong anti-cancer properties are selenium, calcium and magnesium. Modest amounts of zinc are recommended and balanced with copper. A wide range of trace minerals, preferably in colloidal form are also prescribed. Enzymes help to digest food when taken with meals. When ingested in between meals, they have many therapeutic functions including anti-inflammatory activities and anti-cancer activities. They seem to help prevent metastases. Pancreatic enzymes and some plant based enzymes, such as bromelain from pineapple, are used. Enzymes may be given as rectal retention enemas as well.
Oral herbs include the use of a mixture suggested by the late Canadian cancer nurse, Rene Caisse, called Essiac. The brand name that we have been using is FlorEssence. Another herbal mixture we’ve used extensively is a purple mixture called Vitae Elixxir. We try to balance the essential fatty acids with flaxseed oil to increase omega three fatty acids and primrose oil to supply gamma linolenic acid, both of which have strong anti-cancer activities. We also recommend various flavonoids, coenzyme Q10 and pycnogenol. Among the specialized therapeutic foods we consider are: shark or bovine cartilage, soybean preparations, maitake mushrooms and others. Our intravenous programs consist of large doses of vitamin C, minerals, a few other vitamins and amygdalin or Laetrile. Exercise, detoxification and homeopathy are individualized. Next week I’ll conclude this series with a few case histories.
Some Examples of Prostate Cancer Patients Using Alternative TherapiesThe first patient CS is using our program along with combined hormonal blockade. He was first seen in our office in Oct 93 at the age of 74 years old. At the end of 1991, a hard prostate nodule was felt on rectal examination. He was given 35 external beam radiation treatments in late ‘91 and early ‘92. However, by Nov 92, his PSA began to rise and biopsy revealed residual cancer in both lobes of the prostate. A CT scan showed enlarged lymph nodes, suggesting CA spread to them. In July 1993, he was started on complete hormonal blockade, after his PSA reached 53. Within a few months, his PSA was down to zero. In Oct ‘93, he started our program, which included amydalin, shark cartilage, coenzyme Q10, vitamin C and other oral nutrients. He also began IV infusions of vitamin C, minerals and amygdalin. Now, two years after starting our program, he feels great and his PSA is normal.
Another patient EH has been receiving our alternative treatment program instead of combined hormonal blockade. Here is his story. He had a nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in 1988 and was well until 1993, when his PSA began to rise. He was given external beam radiation--37 treatments, but soon after completion, his PSA began to rise again. Either combined hormonal blockade or removal of his testes was offered as treatment. Instead he chose our program in Oct ‘94 and had felt great since that time. His PSA has decreased and he seems to be stable.
Two other patients LG and SR have chosen our treatment program instead of conventional treatment. They are being monitored closely. SR is a 67 year old married, vigorous, retired letter carrier. In Feb ‘95, he was diagnosed with a stage II prostate cancer. Two urologists recommended a radical prostatectomy. Instead he started an intensive program of amygdalin, FlorEssence, shark cartilage, selenium, Vitamin C, CoQ10, Vitamin E, niacinamide and others. He is also receiving IV infusions of C, minerals and amygdalin. On this program, so far, he appears to be doing great. The same is true for LG, a 60 year old engineer, for whom surgery was recommended, but declined by the patient. He has been on our program since May ‘94 and has had a reduction of symptoms and improvement of his PSA. These are just a few examples of prostate cancer patients who are benefitting from alternative treatments.
About Vaccine Choices
Vaccine ChoicesWhat options are available to parents in their choice about vaccines? First, parents may decide they want less than the total range of recommended vaccines. It comes as a surprise to some parents that they can choose to have one or some vaccines and refuse others. You are responsible for your child’s health. You are in control. If a child suffers a dramatic and tragic reaction to a vaccine, it is the parents who must cope with it. The doctors may be sympathetic, but they are personally uninvolved. They view it merely as a casualty in the war against disease, if they admit any culpability at all.
When would a parent choose to give some vaccines and not others? Simply stated, some vaccines apparently represent a more dangerous threat to the body than others. This is inferred from the types of immediate, short-term reactions that we can observe. We assume that those vaccines with the most dramatic short-term toxicity also pose a more dangerous risk for long-term reactions, though this has not been proven because no one has studied the long-term effects of vaccines.
Given that the long-term risks are unknown, parents usually make choices about individual vaccines based on the history of short-term reactions they have caused. The pertussis, measles, and rubella vaccines tend to cause more significant observable reactions than others, though hepatitis and polio vaccines can also cause serious illness. The most commonly avoided vaccine is pertussis because by now, after more than sixty years of medical reports of horrific reactions (deaths, epilepsy, and retardation) from the whole-cell pertussis vaccine, public fear of the vaccine has mounted. The fact that many other countries have abandoned the pertussis vaccine has strengthened the resolve of many parents to also refuse the vaccine. These parents have held their ground, and many physicians, though they may not take the same position, admit that a parent’s concern about possible reactions may be justified, despite the consistent denial of the American vaccine industry.
Parents can pick and choose from the list of vaccines based on their own individual family’s needs and their own research. They may decide that some diseases pose enough danger to their child to risk the adverse effects of the vaccine. Even a parent who has rejected most vaccines because of their potential adverse effects may choose to give one or a few individual vaccines. Typically, tetanus is a disease that concerns many parents. Since the vaccine causes less immediate severe reactions than others, because the vaccine always works to prevent tetanus, and because tetanus represents a life-threatening situation when it does occur, parents who refuse other vaccines sometimes opt to get the tetanus shots for their child. A parent’s concern may be greater for a very active child, especially around horses, since both these factors increase the risk of wounds and exposure to tetanus. Other families may be considering travel to areas of the world (Asia or Africa) where polio still exists, and they will consider giving that vaccine even if they realize that polio does not occur in their own part of the world.
Typically, parents will avoid and refuse specific vaccines for two reasons. Either they fear serious vaccine reactions because of a vaccine’s history, or the disease causes so little concern that the vaccine does not seem necessary to them. Other diseases represent a greater threat, and parents may feel more secure giving the vaccine than risking the disease in their child. When parents make an informed choice, they will be taking responsibility for their own child’s health care, doing their best to ensure that child’s safety and future. An informed choice requires information.
Adverse Effects of VaccinesAll of the vaccines have significant adverse effects. These can be separated into two groups: (a) immediate or short-term reactions that occur soon after giving a vaccine, and (b) delayed or long-term reactions. Immediate reactions include fevers, allergic responses, deafness, convulsions, paralysis, central nervous system disease resulting in temporary or permanent disabilities, and death. Delayed reactions may be more insidious and less obvious. They can also result in persistent conditions that include epilepsy, mental retardation, learning disabilities, and immune system dysfunction.
Adverse events resulting from vaccines may be due to the bacterial toxin or virus component of the vaccine, or to the chemicals used in the preparation and preserving of the solution. These chemicals include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, and a variety of other known toxic materials.
Vaccine reactions are notoriously under-reported. Many factors contribute to the reluctance of physicians to report a vaccine reaction, not the least of which is outright denial. Self-protection and self-reassurance are other psychological motives. Physicians do not want to admit that they have caused a problem. They like to think that their interventions are helpful, not harmful. They have also been assured and instructed by the vaccine industry that certain reactions that parents regularly observe, such as brain damage and death, cannot be attributed to the vaccines. A whole range of bizarre and pathological behaviors that infants display after they receive vaccines must have another cause, they argue. It would have occurred anyway, regardless of the shot.
Short-term reactionsImmediate or short-term reactions following vaccine administration have been consistently reported in the medical literature since vaccines have been in common use. Reports of these reactions have caused rebellion within the populations of various countries, and governments have responsed in various ways.
In 1975, Japanese parents refused to give their children the pertussis vaccine after widespread publication of two deaths following vaccination. The Japanese government changed its policy in response to this protest, and delayed the recommended age for vaccination until two years. During the late nineteenth century, individuals in the United States protested that mandatory smallpox vaccination infringed upon their constitutional right of personal liberty. The issue was brought to trial and, in 1905, the Supreme Court upheld the rule that state police power included the need to protect its citizens from diseases. All cases since then have resulted in the same conclusion based on this precedent. When European countries began suspecting that the pertussis vaccine was dangerous, they eliminated it from the recommended schedule of childhood vaccinations. When parents in the United States have refused to administer this vaccine to their children, however, their children have been taken into protective custody by the state.
The Vaccine Safety Committee, established by the Institutes of Medicine, has ruled that the evidence proves, or favors, a causal relation between vaccines and the following adverse effects:
anaphylaxis (a sudden, potentially life-threatening systemic allergic response) caused by several vaccines
polio and death caused by the polio vaccine
thrombocytopenia (a decrease in the number of platelets, the cells involved in blood clotting) caused by the measles vaccine
death caused by the measles vaccine
acute arthritis caused by the rubella vaccine
acute encephalopathy after DTP
shock and unusual shock-like states after DTP
chronic arthritis after rubella vaccine
Guillain-Barré syndrome after DT and polio vaccines. Despite the other thousands of reports from countries around the world - from distraught parents whose children died within hours of a shot, to physicians convinced that a vaccine resulted in meningitis, or deafness, or sudden onset of central nervous system disorders - the committee refused to recognize a causal relation between these events and the recently administered vaccines. Most types of adverse reactions reported in the medical literature and through the adverse event reporting systems were not recognized by the Vaccine Safety Committee as having a causal relationship to the vaccines. The list of conditions that have a suspected link to vaccines includes 44 different types of reactions—conditions with literally hundreds of reported cases, conditions such as meningitis and diabetes following mumps vaccine, and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) after measles vaccine. Other types of reactions, such as deaths from the pertussis vaccines, are denied. Despite the controversies, the conclusions of the Vaccine Safety Committee are now used as guidelines in the award of compensations for vaccine-injured children.
Long-Term ReactionsDeep controversy also surrounds the issue of delayed or long-term reactions, because these do not have a clear causal link to vaccines. In vaccine-industry jargon, they are not "temporally related" - that is the definition of a delayed reaction. For example, how do we know that the increased number of ear infections in a population of vaccinated children, or in any individual child, was caused by the vaccine? No one has studied this question. How do we know that the rise in attention disorders in school-age children has a relationship to vaccines? It would seem to be a logical conclusion, but no one has studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. Parents must make judgments in this area based on the experience of other parents and practitioners whose children and patients have not been vaccinated.
In general, such parents and practitioners agree that their children are healthier, and suffer fewer recurrent infections, than their vaccinated counterparts. This may help reassure parents who choose not to vaccinate, but it obviously carries no scientific weight.
Critics of vaccinations have asserted that vaccines are capable of causing recurrent infections in children because they weaken the immune system. They say that the dramatic rise in ear infections, allergies, and asthma in children can be attributed (at least in part) to the damaging effects of vaccines. The incidence of asthma, the most serious and life-threatening of these conditions, has steadily increased in the modern era since the introduction of vaccines. Just during the period 1980 through 1989 the prevalence rate of self-reported asthma in the United States increased 38 percent, and the death rate for asthma increased 46 percent (Centers for Disease Control, 1992). Just in the five years from 1985 through 1990, projected estimates for asthma’s medical costs increased 53 percent. The total estimated cost of asthma rose from $4.5 billion to $6.2 billion, or 1 percent of all US health-care costs (Weiss et al., 1992). This dramatic increase has been attributed to increased exposure to environmental pollutants, and to the toxic effect of asthma medications themselves, but the increasing burden on the immune system caused by vaccines could also be responsible.
One of the most compelling arguments that points to vaccines as a cause of immune system dysfunction is the dramatic improvement that occurs in these cases following homeopathic treatment of the vaccine adverse effects. When a homeopathic doctor sees a child with recurrent infections, respiratory symptoms, or nervous system disorders which began after a vaccine, a common treatment protocol includes the prescription of a homeopathic preparation of the vaccine itself. This serves to antidote the adverse effect of the vaccine. Dramatic recoveries have been recorded in the homeopathic literature, including cases of immediate febrile reactions after vaccines and long-term illness patterns that resolved subsequent to the homeopathic treatment (Smits, 1995; Schaffer, 1995; Moskowitz, 1991; Moskowitz 1983).
The Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Committee identifies various autoimmune phenomena as well-documented adverse effects of vaccines. Many of these autoimmune responses to vaccines result in permanent, chronic disease conditions. The committee’s report acknowledges the repeated incidence of specific autoimmune diseases triggered by vaccines that attack nerves and cause destruction of the nerve sheath (myelin). These demyelinating diseases, such as multiple sclerosis and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), have plagued the vaccine industry. Reports of their occurrence following vaccination continue to pour in from around the world. In their attempt to explain the repeated occurrence of demyelinating autoimmune diseases that occur as reactions to vaccines, the committee members admit that,
It is biologically plausible that injection of an inactivated virus, bacterium, or live attenuated virus might induce in the susceptible host an autoimmune response by deregulation of the immune response, by nonspecific activation of the T cells directed against myelin proteins, or by autoimmuniity triggered by sequence similarities of proteins in the vaccine to host proteins such as those of myelin (Institute of Medicine, 1994).
If autoimmune processes and immunosuppression caused by vaccines can destroy myelin (GBS) or joints (rheumatoid arthritis), then perhaps other destructive diseases also may have their origin in vaccination. This is the concern of various authors who identify cancer (Murphy, 1993) or AIDS (Curtis, 1992) as possible results of vaccination. Many critics have suggested taking a much more cautious approach to vaccine campaigns until we know more about these possible long-lasting devastating effects.
Several studies have examined the effect of vaccines on subsequent illness patterns in children to investigate whether vaccines can suppress immune system functions. One study examined the incidence of acute illnesses in the 30 day period following vaccine compared to the incidence in the same children for the 30 day period prior to a vaccine. This study showed a significant and dramatic increase in nonbacterial fevers, diarrhea and cough in the month following DTP vaccine (Jaber et al., 1988). Children had a higher incidence of illness after DTP compared to their health before the shot.
The ability of pertussis and DTP vaccines to stimulate the onset of paralytic polio provides further evidence that vaccines can promote serious disease processes and immune system dysfunction. Paralytic polio has occurred frequently following vaccination. This phenomenon was first reported in 1909. Scattered cases were reported over the next 40 years. Then, during the polio epidemics of the 1950s, series of cases of polio following pertussis-vaccine injections were reported around the world, in Australia (McCloskey, 1950; McCloskey, 1952), the United Kingdom (Hill & Knowelden, 1949; Medical Research Council, 1956), and the United States (Korn et al., 1952; Greenberg et al., 1952).
During a recent polio epidemic in Oman the problem of paralytic polio infection’s onset soon after DTP vaccination occurred again. In this epidemic, 70 children 5 to 24 months old contracted paralytic polio during the period 1988-1989. When compared to a control group of children without polio, it was found that a significantly higher percentage of these children had received a DTP shot within 30 days of the onset of polio (43 percent of polio victims compared to 28 percent of controls) (Sutter et al., 1992). The mechanism of this provoking effect of vaccination on polio onset has never been adequately explained, but it seems clear that an immune-suppressing effect of vaccines must be responsible.
Animal studies have also shown immune-suppressive effects of vaccines. For example, mice showed an increased susceptibility to infection following pertussis vaccine (Abernathy & Spink, 1956). Laboratory studies in humans have revealed evidence of immune system suppression as well. After measles vaccination certain lymphocyte functions essential in fighting pathogenic organisms are depressed (Hirsch et al., 1981), and the number of lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell that fights disease, decreases (Nicholson et al., 1992). Similarly, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine has been reported to have a temporary suppressive effect on the function of neutrophils, another white blood cell (Toraldo et al., 1992).
The possible long-term neurologic effects of the vaccines have been well-documented by Dr. Harris Coulter in his book Vaccination, Social Violence, and Criminality: The Assault on the American Brain. He delineates a hydra-headed syndrome of brain insult and injury possibly caused by vaccines. These effects include allergies, autism, dyslexia, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, and antisocial syndromes, all attributable to the assault of vaccines on the body. He postulates that vaccines have a damaging effect on the developing myelination process of the nervous system in children. This assault causes an allergic encephalitis (inflammation or infection of the brain) with widespread effects. That is, the allergic response initiated by a vaccine injected into the body is capable of causing encephalitis and brain damage, because the physical development of nerves is disrupted.
Legal Requirements and ExemptionsThe United States government takes the vaccine campaign very seriously. Parents who make an informed choice about vaccines for their children must contend with compulsory vaccine laws. Conscientious objection to these laws is not handled liberally by the courts. In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that an individual could not refuse the smallpox vaccine on constitutional grounds of infringement on personal liberty. The court found that an individual’s personal liberty must give way to the state’s protection of other citizens’ health (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11, 25; 1905).
Since that time, various state courts have ruled that compulsory immunization statutes cannot be stricken down on constitutional grounds. Every state has a compulsory vaccination law, though the specific requirements for individual vaccines vary from state to state. This means that parents or legal guardians who decide not to give the vaccines will need to seek a legal exemption from vaccines. These come in three varieties: medical, religious, and philosophical. Not all states have philosophical exemptions, so parents in those states must seek either a religious or medical exemption.
Usually the issue of a child’s unvaccinated status will arise upon registration for school or day care. Schools require an immunization record, and parents must have proof that their child has been vaccinated, signed by a health care provider. Schools become involved in the vaccination campaign because state and local governments receive federal funding for immunization programs. The federal Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 262 requires that participating governments must have a "... plan to assure that children begin and complete their immunizations on schedule ..." and "a plan to systematically immunize susceptible children at school entry through vigorous enforcement of school immunization laws" (42 C.F.R. § 5lb.204). Specific exemption clauses are included within each state’s immunization law. When the exemption is accepted by the school or the health department, the issue is resolved. If a request for exemption is denied, then parents may appeal that decision. Parents who continue to have difficulty with school and governmental authorities may need to seek legal counsel.
Many attorneys and individuals are working to ensure freedom of choice in the area of child vaccination. One organization in particular, Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT), has been instrumental in the passage of legislation that protects children and their parents (see Appendix B: Resources). If a parent makes the choice to avoid a required vaccine, then support for that decision is available.
Options for Legal Exemption from Vaccines
Use the philosophical belief exemption, if available in your state.Nineteen states provide the option of personal or philosophical belief exemptions. This means that parents need not justify their preference for avoiding vaccines except to say that they are philosophically opposed to their children receiving them. Parents residing in states that provide a philosophical exemption must sign a form or write a letter that says immunization is contrary to their beliefs. Some states provide a waiver statement on the school district immunization record forms included with registration materials. Other states require a written statement from the parents. Parents need only request the immunization exemption form at their school district office when enrolling their child in school, or present the school district a simple letter.
Find a doctor willing to write a medical exemption.
Develop a personal legal case for religious exemption, with the help of an attorney.
Parents seeking a religious exemption need to submit a letter to the school stating their desire for a waiver of vaccines based on their religious belief. The wording of such a letter is important, and should conform to the wording of the statute governing exemptions. It should also state the parents’ sincere beliefs, related in such a way that they can be interpreted by the court as religious. The wording of the immunization law can be obtained from the state health-department’s immunization office.
Parents seeking such an exemption should contact an attorney who specializes in immunization law. They must construct a solid legal case based on their individual situation, their state law, and their own beliefs. Since religious belief can be interpreted broadly, a wide range of personal beliefs and philosophies will qualify parents for a religious exemption. The case that is constructed in the letter must conform to the legal arguments that will be used in litigation if the school and state government authorities reject the parents’ petition for exemption. A well-constructed case and an attorney’s arguments will usually prevent litigation. The small cost of involving an attorney early in this process will help prevent the major expense of going to court later.
Alternative VaccinesConventional vaccines prepared by modern vaccine manufacturers represent only one form of disease-specific prevention. Vaccines and preventive medicines are also available to parents in homeopathic form. There is a long history within homeopathic medicine of attempting to prevent specific diseases, especially during epidemics.
The medicines used in homeopathic form consist of two classes. One class includes those substances obtained from the natural world of plants, minerals, and animal products. The second class, called nosodes, includes substances derived from disease products, tissue samples, mucus, pus from discharges, or pure cultures of microorganisms. Nosodes correspond to the specific diseases associated with the individual bacteria or virus, or the infectious material sample taken from a patient. Both of these classes have been used to prevent disease. Examples of this include Lathyrus sativa (a plant) for polio and Pertussin (a preparation of the bacteria Bordetella pertussis) for whooping cough.
A medicine that has proven effective for a specific epidemic of a disease in the community can be used as the preventive for other cases of that disease, though homeopaths tend to use those medicines that have proven themselves in the past. As a general rule, homeopaths utilize the nosode of the infectious organism to prevent disease. Nosodes are named with the Latin terms for the infection or organism, Morbillinum for measles, Diphtherinum for diphtheria.
This method of homeopathic prophylaxis has been formulated into strategies and rules of two types - short-term prevention during epidemics and long-term prevention.
Experience with the use of nosodes during epidemics has led to a level of confidence and optimism about the protective effect of this method. Since the mid-nineteenth century, homeopaths have attempted to prevent or limit the spread of disease during epidemics, with some success. Most of the experience with this approach occurred during the era preceding the availability of vaccines. Homeopaths reported a decrease in the severity and frequency of disease in those patients who received the nosode preventively.
The method of homeopathic prophylaxis has never been rigorously tested. Nonetheless, there is some evidence suggesting that homeopathic medicines do act to prevent diseases during epidemics. One study observed the occurrence of meningitis in a group of children who received a homeopathic preventive (Meningococcinum 10c in a single dose) during a 1974 epidemic in Brazil. Of the 18,640 children given the homeopathic nosode, 4 developed meningitis (0.02 percent), compared to 32 cases in the 6,340 unvaccinated children (0.5 percent). This represents a significant difference in a controlled study, although the control group was not randomized (Castro & Nogueira, 1975). Eisfelder reported an uncontrolled study of 50,000 children who received Lathyrus, a homeopathic preparation used to treat paralysis, in varying potencies during the polio epidemic of the 1950s. Only one of these children developed (non-paralytic) polio. The general population had a significantly higher rate of polio than 1 in 50,000 (Eisfelder, 1961).
These studies do not prove the effectiveness of homeopathic prophylaxis in epidemics, but many homeopathic practitioners have been convinced by their own experience with this form of disease prevention. The practice of using homeopathic preparations to prevent disease during epidemic exposure may be effective. The medicines cause no adverse effects, and, in the absence of any other form of prevention, there was no reason not to use them. In an epidemic of a serious disease their use is still warranted, though there are valid reasons to allow children to undergo the milder childhood occurrence of measles, mumps and chickenpox to acquire lifelong immunity.
Alternative vaccines in homeopathic form are also available for long-term prevention. Several protocols exist for the administration of homeopathic nosodes or the corresponding remedies for the prevention of whooping cough, meningitis, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, and other diseases during childhood. There exists significant controversy within the homeopathic profession about the appropriateness of using these preparations for long-term prevention. This controversy involves the areas of effectiveness, safety, and ethics.
No long-term studies have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of this form of prevention. There is no reason to assume that these vaccines continue to act preventively years after administration, unless immunity is shown through an objective test or clinical studies.
Homeopathic preparations have not been shown to raise antibody levels. Smits tested the titre of antibodies to diphtheria, polio and tetanus in ten children before and one month after giving homeopathic preparations of these three vaccines (DTPol 30K and 200K). He found no rise in antibody levels (Smits, 1995). He speculates that protection afforded by a homeopathic remedy acts on a "deeper" level than that of antibodies. Other homeopaths have stated similar opinions. Golden says, "unlike conventional vaccines, the Homoeopathic alternative does not rely on antibody formation." He postulates that "Homoeopathic remedies reduce the patient’s sensitivity to the dynamic stimulus of the virus or bacteria, thus lessening the patient’s predisposition to being overcome by this stimulus" (Golden, 1994).
If homeopathic remedies do not produce an increase in antibody levels, then the only way to measure the effectiveness of homeopathic prophylaxis is through clinical results. This is a formidable undertaking. The cost of long-term studies using homeopathic prophylaxis would be prohibitive, given the present resources available. Ethical problems could also prevent such studies from occurring; it is doubtful that ethics committees would allow children to be deprived of the commonly administered and approved allopathic vaccines. Moskowitz has suggested that the sizable population of unvaccinated children whose parents have refused vaccines, could provide a control group to assess the long-term negative effects of vaccines (Moskowitz, 1985). Perhaps this population could also serve as a test group for homeopathic prophylaxis.
Parents need to understand that there is no evidence to support the use of these homeopathic preparations for long-term prevention. There is nothing in the literature that shows homeopathic prophylaxis provides lasting immunity from specific diseases
When would a parent choose to give some vaccines and not others? Simply stated, some vaccines apparently represent a more dangerous threat to the body than others. This is inferred from the types of immediate, short-term reactions that we can observe. We assume that those vaccines with the most dramatic short-term toxicity also pose a more dangerous risk for long-term reactions, though this has not been proven because no one has studied the long-term effects of vaccines.
Given that the long-term risks are unknown, parents usually make choices about individual vaccines based on the history of short-term reactions they have caused. The pertussis, measles, and rubella vaccines tend to cause more significant observable reactions than others, though hepatitis and polio vaccines can also cause serious illness. The most commonly avoided vaccine is pertussis because by now, after more than sixty years of medical reports of horrific reactions (deaths, epilepsy, and retardation) from the whole-cell pertussis vaccine, public fear of the vaccine has mounted. The fact that many other countries have abandoned the pertussis vaccine has strengthened the resolve of many parents to also refuse the vaccine. These parents have held their ground, and many physicians, though they may not take the same position, admit that a parent’s concern about possible reactions may be justified, despite the consistent denial of the American vaccine industry.
Parents can pick and choose from the list of vaccines based on their own individual family’s needs and their own research. They may decide that some diseases pose enough danger to their child to risk the adverse effects of the vaccine. Even a parent who has rejected most vaccines because of their potential adverse effects may choose to give one or a few individual vaccines. Typically, tetanus is a disease that concerns many parents. Since the vaccine causes less immediate severe reactions than others, because the vaccine always works to prevent tetanus, and because tetanus represents a life-threatening situation when it does occur, parents who refuse other vaccines sometimes opt to get the tetanus shots for their child. A parent’s concern may be greater for a very active child, especially around horses, since both these factors increase the risk of wounds and exposure to tetanus. Other families may be considering travel to areas of the world (Asia or Africa) where polio still exists, and they will consider giving that vaccine even if they realize that polio does not occur in their own part of the world.
Typically, parents will avoid and refuse specific vaccines for two reasons. Either they fear serious vaccine reactions because of a vaccine’s history, or the disease causes so little concern that the vaccine does not seem necessary to them. Other diseases represent a greater threat, and parents may feel more secure giving the vaccine than risking the disease in their child. When parents make an informed choice, they will be taking responsibility for their own child’s health care, doing their best to ensure that child’s safety and future. An informed choice requires information.
Adverse Effects of VaccinesAll of the vaccines have significant adverse effects. These can be separated into two groups: (a) immediate or short-term reactions that occur soon after giving a vaccine, and (b) delayed or long-term reactions. Immediate reactions include fevers, allergic responses, deafness, convulsions, paralysis, central nervous system disease resulting in temporary or permanent disabilities, and death. Delayed reactions may be more insidious and less obvious. They can also result in persistent conditions that include epilepsy, mental retardation, learning disabilities, and immune system dysfunction.
Adverse events resulting from vaccines may be due to the bacterial toxin or virus component of the vaccine, or to the chemicals used in the preparation and preserving of the solution. These chemicals include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, and a variety of other known toxic materials.
Vaccine reactions are notoriously under-reported. Many factors contribute to the reluctance of physicians to report a vaccine reaction, not the least of which is outright denial. Self-protection and self-reassurance are other psychological motives. Physicians do not want to admit that they have caused a problem. They like to think that their interventions are helpful, not harmful. They have also been assured and instructed by the vaccine industry that certain reactions that parents regularly observe, such as brain damage and death, cannot be attributed to the vaccines. A whole range of bizarre and pathological behaviors that infants display after they receive vaccines must have another cause, they argue. It would have occurred anyway, regardless of the shot.
Short-term reactionsImmediate or short-term reactions following vaccine administration have been consistently reported in the medical literature since vaccines have been in common use. Reports of these reactions have caused rebellion within the populations of various countries, and governments have responsed in various ways.
In 1975, Japanese parents refused to give their children the pertussis vaccine after widespread publication of two deaths following vaccination. The Japanese government changed its policy in response to this protest, and delayed the recommended age for vaccination until two years. During the late nineteenth century, individuals in the United States protested that mandatory smallpox vaccination infringed upon their constitutional right of personal liberty. The issue was brought to trial and, in 1905, the Supreme Court upheld the rule that state police power included the need to protect its citizens from diseases. All cases since then have resulted in the same conclusion based on this precedent. When European countries began suspecting that the pertussis vaccine was dangerous, they eliminated it from the recommended schedule of childhood vaccinations. When parents in the United States have refused to administer this vaccine to their children, however, their children have been taken into protective custody by the state.
The Vaccine Safety Committee, established by the Institutes of Medicine, has ruled that the evidence proves, or favors, a causal relation between vaccines and the following adverse effects:
anaphylaxis (a sudden, potentially life-threatening systemic allergic response) caused by several vaccines
polio and death caused by the polio vaccine
thrombocytopenia (a decrease in the number of platelets, the cells involved in blood clotting) caused by the measles vaccine
death caused by the measles vaccine
acute arthritis caused by the rubella vaccine
acute encephalopathy after DTP
shock and unusual shock-like states after DTP
chronic arthritis after rubella vaccine
Guillain-Barré syndrome after DT and polio vaccines. Despite the other thousands of reports from countries around the world - from distraught parents whose children died within hours of a shot, to physicians convinced that a vaccine resulted in meningitis, or deafness, or sudden onset of central nervous system disorders - the committee refused to recognize a causal relation between these events and the recently administered vaccines. Most types of adverse reactions reported in the medical literature and through the adverse event reporting systems were not recognized by the Vaccine Safety Committee as having a causal relationship to the vaccines. The list of conditions that have a suspected link to vaccines includes 44 different types of reactions—conditions with literally hundreds of reported cases, conditions such as meningitis and diabetes following mumps vaccine, and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) after measles vaccine. Other types of reactions, such as deaths from the pertussis vaccines, are denied. Despite the controversies, the conclusions of the Vaccine Safety Committee are now used as guidelines in the award of compensations for vaccine-injured children.
Long-Term ReactionsDeep controversy also surrounds the issue of delayed or long-term reactions, because these do not have a clear causal link to vaccines. In vaccine-industry jargon, they are not "temporally related" - that is the definition of a delayed reaction. For example, how do we know that the increased number of ear infections in a population of vaccinated children, or in any individual child, was caused by the vaccine? No one has studied this question. How do we know that the rise in attention disorders in school-age children has a relationship to vaccines? It would seem to be a logical conclusion, but no one has studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. Parents must make judgments in this area based on the experience of other parents and practitioners whose children and patients have not been vaccinated.
In general, such parents and practitioners agree that their children are healthier, and suffer fewer recurrent infections, than their vaccinated counterparts. This may help reassure parents who choose not to vaccinate, but it obviously carries no scientific weight.
Critics of vaccinations have asserted that vaccines are capable of causing recurrent infections in children because they weaken the immune system. They say that the dramatic rise in ear infections, allergies, and asthma in children can be attributed (at least in part) to the damaging effects of vaccines. The incidence of asthma, the most serious and life-threatening of these conditions, has steadily increased in the modern era since the introduction of vaccines. Just during the period 1980 through 1989 the prevalence rate of self-reported asthma in the United States increased 38 percent, and the death rate for asthma increased 46 percent (Centers for Disease Control, 1992). Just in the five years from 1985 through 1990, projected estimates for asthma’s medical costs increased 53 percent. The total estimated cost of asthma rose from $4.5 billion to $6.2 billion, or 1 percent of all US health-care costs (Weiss et al., 1992). This dramatic increase has been attributed to increased exposure to environmental pollutants, and to the toxic effect of asthma medications themselves, but the increasing burden on the immune system caused by vaccines could also be responsible.
One of the most compelling arguments that points to vaccines as a cause of immune system dysfunction is the dramatic improvement that occurs in these cases following homeopathic treatment of the vaccine adverse effects. When a homeopathic doctor sees a child with recurrent infections, respiratory symptoms, or nervous system disorders which began after a vaccine, a common treatment protocol includes the prescription of a homeopathic preparation of the vaccine itself. This serves to antidote the adverse effect of the vaccine. Dramatic recoveries have been recorded in the homeopathic literature, including cases of immediate febrile reactions after vaccines and long-term illness patterns that resolved subsequent to the homeopathic treatment (Smits, 1995; Schaffer, 1995; Moskowitz, 1991; Moskowitz 1983).
The Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Committee identifies various autoimmune phenomena as well-documented adverse effects of vaccines. Many of these autoimmune responses to vaccines result in permanent, chronic disease conditions. The committee’s report acknowledges the repeated incidence of specific autoimmune diseases triggered by vaccines that attack nerves and cause destruction of the nerve sheath (myelin). These demyelinating diseases, such as multiple sclerosis and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), have plagued the vaccine industry. Reports of their occurrence following vaccination continue to pour in from around the world. In their attempt to explain the repeated occurrence of demyelinating autoimmune diseases that occur as reactions to vaccines, the committee members admit that,
It is biologically plausible that injection of an inactivated virus, bacterium, or live attenuated virus might induce in the susceptible host an autoimmune response by deregulation of the immune response, by nonspecific activation of the T cells directed against myelin proteins, or by autoimmuniity triggered by sequence similarities of proteins in the vaccine to host proteins such as those of myelin (Institute of Medicine, 1994).
If autoimmune processes and immunosuppression caused by vaccines can destroy myelin (GBS) or joints (rheumatoid arthritis), then perhaps other destructive diseases also may have their origin in vaccination. This is the concern of various authors who identify cancer (Murphy, 1993) or AIDS (Curtis, 1992) as possible results of vaccination. Many critics have suggested taking a much more cautious approach to vaccine campaigns until we know more about these possible long-lasting devastating effects.
Several studies have examined the effect of vaccines on subsequent illness patterns in children to investigate whether vaccines can suppress immune system functions. One study examined the incidence of acute illnesses in the 30 day period following vaccine compared to the incidence in the same children for the 30 day period prior to a vaccine. This study showed a significant and dramatic increase in nonbacterial fevers, diarrhea and cough in the month following DTP vaccine (Jaber et al., 1988). Children had a higher incidence of illness after DTP compared to their health before the shot.
The ability of pertussis and DTP vaccines to stimulate the onset of paralytic polio provides further evidence that vaccines can promote serious disease processes and immune system dysfunction. Paralytic polio has occurred frequently following vaccination. This phenomenon was first reported in 1909. Scattered cases were reported over the next 40 years. Then, during the polio epidemics of the 1950s, series of cases of polio following pertussis-vaccine injections were reported around the world, in Australia (McCloskey, 1950; McCloskey, 1952), the United Kingdom (Hill & Knowelden, 1949; Medical Research Council, 1956), and the United States (Korn et al., 1952; Greenberg et al., 1952).
During a recent polio epidemic in Oman the problem of paralytic polio infection’s onset soon after DTP vaccination occurred again. In this epidemic, 70 children 5 to 24 months old contracted paralytic polio during the period 1988-1989. When compared to a control group of children without polio, it was found that a significantly higher percentage of these children had received a DTP shot within 30 days of the onset of polio (43 percent of polio victims compared to 28 percent of controls) (Sutter et al., 1992). The mechanism of this provoking effect of vaccination on polio onset has never been adequately explained, but it seems clear that an immune-suppressing effect of vaccines must be responsible.
Animal studies have also shown immune-suppressive effects of vaccines. For example, mice showed an increased susceptibility to infection following pertussis vaccine (Abernathy & Spink, 1956). Laboratory studies in humans have revealed evidence of immune system suppression as well. After measles vaccination certain lymphocyte functions essential in fighting pathogenic organisms are depressed (Hirsch et al., 1981), and the number of lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell that fights disease, decreases (Nicholson et al., 1992). Similarly, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine has been reported to have a temporary suppressive effect on the function of neutrophils, another white blood cell (Toraldo et al., 1992).
The possible long-term neurologic effects of the vaccines have been well-documented by Dr. Harris Coulter in his book Vaccination, Social Violence, and Criminality: The Assault on the American Brain. He delineates a hydra-headed syndrome of brain insult and injury possibly caused by vaccines. These effects include allergies, autism, dyslexia, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, and antisocial syndromes, all attributable to the assault of vaccines on the body. He postulates that vaccines have a damaging effect on the developing myelination process of the nervous system in children. This assault causes an allergic encephalitis (inflammation or infection of the brain) with widespread effects. That is, the allergic response initiated by a vaccine injected into the body is capable of causing encephalitis and brain damage, because the physical development of nerves is disrupted.
Legal Requirements and ExemptionsThe United States government takes the vaccine campaign very seriously. Parents who make an informed choice about vaccines for their children must contend with compulsory vaccine laws. Conscientious objection to these laws is not handled liberally by the courts. In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that an individual could not refuse the smallpox vaccine on constitutional grounds of infringement on personal liberty. The court found that an individual’s personal liberty must give way to the state’s protection of other citizens’ health (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11, 25; 1905).
Since that time, various state courts have ruled that compulsory immunization statutes cannot be stricken down on constitutional grounds. Every state has a compulsory vaccination law, though the specific requirements for individual vaccines vary from state to state. This means that parents or legal guardians who decide not to give the vaccines will need to seek a legal exemption from vaccines. These come in three varieties: medical, religious, and philosophical. Not all states have philosophical exemptions, so parents in those states must seek either a religious or medical exemption.
Usually the issue of a child’s unvaccinated status will arise upon registration for school or day care. Schools require an immunization record, and parents must have proof that their child has been vaccinated, signed by a health care provider. Schools become involved in the vaccination campaign because state and local governments receive federal funding for immunization programs. The federal Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 262 requires that participating governments must have a "... plan to assure that children begin and complete their immunizations on schedule ..." and "a plan to systematically immunize susceptible children at school entry through vigorous enforcement of school immunization laws" (42 C.F.R. § 5lb.204). Specific exemption clauses are included within each state’s immunization law. When the exemption is accepted by the school or the health department, the issue is resolved. If a request for exemption is denied, then parents may appeal that decision. Parents who continue to have difficulty with school and governmental authorities may need to seek legal counsel.
Many attorneys and individuals are working to ensure freedom of choice in the area of child vaccination. One organization in particular, Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT), has been instrumental in the passage of legislation that protects children and their parents (see Appendix B: Resources). If a parent makes the choice to avoid a required vaccine, then support for that decision is available.
Options for Legal Exemption from Vaccines
Use the philosophical belief exemption, if available in your state.Nineteen states provide the option of personal or philosophical belief exemptions. This means that parents need not justify their preference for avoiding vaccines except to say that they are philosophically opposed to their children receiving them. Parents residing in states that provide a philosophical exemption must sign a form or write a letter that says immunization is contrary to their beliefs. Some states provide a waiver statement on the school district immunization record forms included with registration materials. Other states require a written statement from the parents. Parents need only request the immunization exemption form at their school district office when enrolling their child in school, or present the school district a simple letter.
Find a doctor willing to write a medical exemption.
Develop a personal legal case for religious exemption, with the help of an attorney.
Parents seeking a religious exemption need to submit a letter to the school stating their desire for a waiver of vaccines based on their religious belief. The wording of such a letter is important, and should conform to the wording of the statute governing exemptions. It should also state the parents’ sincere beliefs, related in such a way that they can be interpreted by the court as religious. The wording of the immunization law can be obtained from the state health-department’s immunization office.
Parents seeking such an exemption should contact an attorney who specializes in immunization law. They must construct a solid legal case based on their individual situation, their state law, and their own beliefs. Since religious belief can be interpreted broadly, a wide range of personal beliefs and philosophies will qualify parents for a religious exemption. The case that is constructed in the letter must conform to the legal arguments that will be used in litigation if the school and state government authorities reject the parents’ petition for exemption. A well-constructed case and an attorney’s arguments will usually prevent litigation. The small cost of involving an attorney early in this process will help prevent the major expense of going to court later.
Alternative VaccinesConventional vaccines prepared by modern vaccine manufacturers represent only one form of disease-specific prevention. Vaccines and preventive medicines are also available to parents in homeopathic form. There is a long history within homeopathic medicine of attempting to prevent specific diseases, especially during epidemics.
The medicines used in homeopathic form consist of two classes. One class includes those substances obtained from the natural world of plants, minerals, and animal products. The second class, called nosodes, includes substances derived from disease products, tissue samples, mucus, pus from discharges, or pure cultures of microorganisms. Nosodes correspond to the specific diseases associated with the individual bacteria or virus, or the infectious material sample taken from a patient. Both of these classes have been used to prevent disease. Examples of this include Lathyrus sativa (a plant) for polio and Pertussin (a preparation of the bacteria Bordetella pertussis) for whooping cough.
A medicine that has proven effective for a specific epidemic of a disease in the community can be used as the preventive for other cases of that disease, though homeopaths tend to use those medicines that have proven themselves in the past. As a general rule, homeopaths utilize the nosode of the infectious organism to prevent disease. Nosodes are named with the Latin terms for the infection or organism, Morbillinum for measles, Diphtherinum for diphtheria.
This method of homeopathic prophylaxis has been formulated into strategies and rules of two types - short-term prevention during epidemics and long-term prevention.
Experience with the use of nosodes during epidemics has led to a level of confidence and optimism about the protective effect of this method. Since the mid-nineteenth century, homeopaths have attempted to prevent or limit the spread of disease during epidemics, with some success. Most of the experience with this approach occurred during the era preceding the availability of vaccines. Homeopaths reported a decrease in the severity and frequency of disease in those patients who received the nosode preventively.
The method of homeopathic prophylaxis has never been rigorously tested. Nonetheless, there is some evidence suggesting that homeopathic medicines do act to prevent diseases during epidemics. One study observed the occurrence of meningitis in a group of children who received a homeopathic preventive (Meningococcinum 10c in a single dose) during a 1974 epidemic in Brazil. Of the 18,640 children given the homeopathic nosode, 4 developed meningitis (0.02 percent), compared to 32 cases in the 6,340 unvaccinated children (0.5 percent). This represents a significant difference in a controlled study, although the control group was not randomized (Castro & Nogueira, 1975). Eisfelder reported an uncontrolled study of 50,000 children who received Lathyrus, a homeopathic preparation used to treat paralysis, in varying potencies during the polio epidemic of the 1950s. Only one of these children developed (non-paralytic) polio. The general population had a significantly higher rate of polio than 1 in 50,000 (Eisfelder, 1961).
These studies do not prove the effectiveness of homeopathic prophylaxis in epidemics, but many homeopathic practitioners have been convinced by their own experience with this form of disease prevention. The practice of using homeopathic preparations to prevent disease during epidemic exposure may be effective. The medicines cause no adverse effects, and, in the absence of any other form of prevention, there was no reason not to use them. In an epidemic of a serious disease their use is still warranted, though there are valid reasons to allow children to undergo the milder childhood occurrence of measles, mumps and chickenpox to acquire lifelong immunity.
Alternative vaccines in homeopathic form are also available for long-term prevention. Several protocols exist for the administration of homeopathic nosodes or the corresponding remedies for the prevention of whooping cough, meningitis, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, and other diseases during childhood. There exists significant controversy within the homeopathic profession about the appropriateness of using these preparations for long-term prevention. This controversy involves the areas of effectiveness, safety, and ethics.
No long-term studies have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of this form of prevention. There is no reason to assume that these vaccines continue to act preventively years after administration, unless immunity is shown through an objective test or clinical studies.
Homeopathic preparations have not been shown to raise antibody levels. Smits tested the titre of antibodies to diphtheria, polio and tetanus in ten children before and one month after giving homeopathic preparations of these three vaccines (DTPol 30K and 200K). He found no rise in antibody levels (Smits, 1995). He speculates that protection afforded by a homeopathic remedy acts on a "deeper" level than that of antibodies. Other homeopaths have stated similar opinions. Golden says, "unlike conventional vaccines, the Homoeopathic alternative does not rely on antibody formation." He postulates that "Homoeopathic remedies reduce the patient’s sensitivity to the dynamic stimulus of the virus or bacteria, thus lessening the patient’s predisposition to being overcome by this stimulus" (Golden, 1994).
If homeopathic remedies do not produce an increase in antibody levels, then the only way to measure the effectiveness of homeopathic prophylaxis is through clinical results. This is a formidable undertaking. The cost of long-term studies using homeopathic prophylaxis would be prohibitive, given the present resources available. Ethical problems could also prevent such studies from occurring; it is doubtful that ethics committees would allow children to be deprived of the commonly administered and approved allopathic vaccines. Moskowitz has suggested that the sizable population of unvaccinated children whose parents have refused vaccines, could provide a control group to assess the long-term negative effects of vaccines (Moskowitz, 1985). Perhaps this population could also serve as a test group for homeopathic prophylaxis.
Parents need to understand that there is no evidence to support the use of these homeopathic preparations for long-term prevention. There is nothing in the literature that shows homeopathic prophylaxis provides lasting immunity from specific diseases
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)