![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Moderator: ofonorow
VanCanada wrote:at minute77 second30:
vit C is key as an antioxidant. But...Dr. Mark Obrenovich wrote:If someone is on chemotherapy and their chemotherapy mechanism of action is oxidative stress induced cytotoxicity then if you take too much vitamin C while having your chemo you could actually raise the therapeutic threshold of the dose... and require more of the chemotherapy to do its prospective effectiveness by taking too much vitamin C.
Patrick Quillin wrote:Don't Take Your Vitamin C; Unless...
......A couple hundred thousand years ago, humans lost the ability to convert blood sugar (glucose) into vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Some scientists have called this evolutionary shift a figurative "fall from the Garden of Eden". All but a few creatures on earth produced their own vitamin C in massive quantities, with higher internal production when the creature gets sick. For instance, a 150 pound goat makes about 10,000 milligrams daily of vitamin C. Meanwhile, the Recommended Dietary Allowance for a 156 pound reference human is 60 milligrams per day.
......Vitamin C is one of the more utilitarian nutrients in the human body, by assisting in the construction of connective tissue (the glue that keeps the body together), regulating the levels of fats in the blood, assisting in iron absorption, aiding in the sythesis of various brain chemicals for thought, and protecting against the damaging effects of free radicals. In a study done at the University of California at Los Angeles, men who took supplements of 300 mg daily of vitamin C (5 times the RDA) live an average of 6 years longer than men who did not take supplements of vitamin C. Mark Levine, MD, researcher with the National Institutes of Health, finds evidence that 250 mg per day might be a more rational and healthy RDA for vitamin C.
Patrick Quillin wrote:......Meanwhile, oncologists worry about the possibility that vitamin C might inhibit the free radical activity of chemotherapy and radiation in destroying cancer cells. While it might seem logical that an antioxidant (like vitamin C) might reduce the effectiveness of a pro-oxidant (like chemo and radiation), the opposite has been found in animal and human studies: antioxidants protect the healthy tissue of the patient while allowing the cancer tissue to become more vulnerable to the damaging effects of chemo and radiation.
......In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vitamin C always augmented tumor kill and never protected the cancer cells when scientists added various chemo and radiation therapies to cancer cells growing in a dish. In 2 major human cancer studies, adding vitamin C and other antioxidants to chemo and radiation improved patient survival, quality of life, and tumor kill.
......Then an unpublished research project from Sloan Kettering Cancer Hospital in New York found that cancer cells are "gluttons" for vitamin C, absorbing more than their fair share. The researchers concluded, though they never proved, that cancer patients should avoid vitamin C supplements while undergoing chemo and radiation. Dr. David Golde, author of the study even speculated: "The cancer cell wants vitamin C because it wants antioxidant protection." If cancer cells are looking for protection, then why is vitamin C the only antioxidant that they absorb? What about the 20,000 bioflavonoids (like quercetin), the 800 carotenoids (like beta carotene), vitamin E, lipoic acid, glutathione, and other antioxidants in the human body? Why do cancer cells only absorb vitamin C and not the others? The researchers admitted that vitamin C was being selectively absorbed by tumor cells because cancer cells are "sugar feeders" and think they are absorbing their preferred fuel, glucose (which is nearly identical in structure to vitamin C), when in fact they are absorbing vitamin C, an "Elvis impersonator" of sorts.
......Now let me weave all of this seemingly confusing data together to help make sense for the cancer patient. Any antioxidant can become a pro-oxidant in a given chemical soup. That is why Nature always gives us droves of different antioxidants to play "hot potato" with unpaired electrons until their destructive energy is dissipated. No food has just one antioxidant. No human cell wants just one antioxidant. Antioxidants can become pro-oxidants when in isolation, which is exactly what happens to cancer cells when they selectively absorb only vitamin C, hoping to get some fuel for growth. What really happens is the vitamin C quickly becomes a pro-oxidant, targeting its destruction exclusively for the cancer cells. Dozens of very well trained physicians have been giving high doses of intravenous vitamin C (10 to 100 grams daily) to thousands of cancer patients for decades with no side effects, and usually improved outcome. Intravenous vitamin C seems to have selective anti-cancer activity, according to an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Apr.6, 2004, p.533), authored by several doctors including researchers at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hugh Riordan has reported improved outcome in poor prognostic cancer patients who have been put in remission through use of high dose IV vitamin C.
Patrick Quillin wrote:......Vitamin C supplements can be helpful in slowing cancer, while making medical therapy more of a selective toxin against the cancer and protecting healthy host tissue. Vitamin C protects against heart disease, lengthens life span, and more...when taken in conjunction with a wide assortment of other antioxidants along with a good diet.
......A number of bright researchers have taken a tiny bit of knowledge out of context (vitamin C thickens artery walls, is selectively absorbed by tumors, can become pro-oxidant), then ASSUMED a sequence of unproven conclusions, without consulting the "prior art" in this field. Don't take your vitamin C supplements -- unless you want to live longer.
majkinetor wrote:This is interesting:
Physicians are advised to recommend that individuals increase their consumption of vitamin C rich foods as a means of reducing risk of H. pylori infection and as a possible means of mitigating the effects of infection in those with gastric disease who test positive tor H. priori. However, patients should be further advised to eliminate high-dose vitamin (intake while being treated with LAM triple therapy, to avoid any potential interference with the efficacy of the medication. It is known that low gastric pH is protective of H. pylori, which is why proton pump inhibitors to achieve neutral gastric pH are combined with antibiotics. From this preliminary research, prudent would suggest thai ascorbic acid (and perhaps other organic acids capable of lowering intragastric pH) should be avoided during and H. pylori therapy. Related research indicates that coadministration of probiotic flora to restore gut ecology can enhance clinical outcomes.
---
LAM ( lansoprazole , amoxycillin and metronidazole ) are reported above. However, research with amoxicillin, metronidazole, bismuth and omeprazole here (which was out after the book was written) concludes that Vitamin C is beneficial as addition to the treatment.
You mean we're not all going to wake up tomorrow to these headlinesgofanu wrote:Of course, all this suggests that H pylori might be treated with vitamin C, as might some negative effects of smoking. That would of course require a total rethink of "their" views about vitamin C, would scuttle the drug treatment $$ of H Pylori, and shoot hell out of the anti tobacco industry.
FRM
In other words, treatment with 5gm/day can cure H Pylori, and "if you do not get the results you expect, you did not use enough or continue long enough." Dr F Klenner
Administration of vitamin C, in a 5 g/day dosage during 28 days is neither effective for H. pylori eradication nor quantitatively alters the bacteria load in the stomach of infected patient
H. pylori synthesizes large amount of urease, which is found in its cytosol. The cytosolic urease is released into the gastric juice upon spontaneous autolysis of a subpopulation of H. pylori and subsequently it is adsorbed onto the surface of intact bacteria. The urease catalyses the hydrolysis of urea present in the gastric juice, to yield carbonic acid and ammonia. Thus H. pylori makes a cloud of ammonia on its surface to neutralize the gastric acid which enables it to colonize the gastric epithelium.[15,16] Once successfully colonized, H. pylori resides below the gastric mucus layer which has a higher pH than gastric lumen.[17,18] So in chronic infection, the role played by urease, in survival of the bacteria seems less important. However, besides protecting from acid, urease also aids in colonization by providing ammonia for bacterial protein synthesis
As far as I know acidic gastric environment is detrimental to h pylori
DHAA's pharmacokinetics is nothing like reduced vitamin c which comprises 99% of all vitamin c supplements. When you talk about DHAA you're talking about something most people can't even buy. That's why DHAA should never be referred to as vitamin c, not ever.
You don't refer to FeO2 as "iron", for heaven's sake, nor do you typically call it "oxidized iron" (that's a bar of iron with a thin layer of oxide), instead you refer to FeO2 as "iron-oxide" or "rust". Similarly we should insist that DHAA *never* be called "vitamin c" at any time, neither should it ever be called "oxidized vitamin c" (which can be a tablet of AA where the outside has turned yellow).
We should insist then on the medical community using the full name for DHAA, "dehydroascrobic acid", or "vitamin-c-oxide", or something entirely different preferably that sounds nothing like "vitamin c" (I have my own opinions what to call it, but they wouldn't be helpful).
ofonorow wrote:Bravo! You are so right, and I personally have never focused on this important distinction. (perhaps because unlike rust, DHAA can be reduced back to vitamin C, correct?) Anyway, if you want to turn this post into a short article, I would like to try to help get this published in the Townsend Letter as a letter to the editor. What do you think?DHAA's pharmacokinetics is nothing like reduced vitamin c which comprises 99% of all vitamin c supplements. When you talk about DHAA you're talking about something most people can't even buy. That's why DHAA should never be referred to as vitamin c, not ever.
You don't refer to FeO2 as "iron", for heaven's sake, nor do you typically call it "oxidized iron" (that's a bar of iron with a thin layer of oxide), instead you refer to FeO2 as "iron-oxide" or "rust". Similarly we should insist that DHAA *never* be called "vitamin c" at any time, neither should it ever be called "oxidized vitamin c" (which can be a tablet of AA where the outside has turned yellow).
We should insist then on the medical community using the full name for DHAA, "dehydroascrobic acid", or "vitamin-c-oxide", or something entirely different preferably that sounds nothing like "vitamin c" (I have my own opinions what to call it, but they wouldn't be helpful).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests