April 18, 1998

Mr. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger

The New York Times

229 West 43 Street

New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Sulzberger:

We are still waiting for the New York times to substantiate its speculative Jane Brody story about Vitamin C. I have before me another version, as published in the New York Herald Tribune under the by-line Jane E. Brody, New Your Times Service titled VITAMIN C DOSAGE RISKS?

In the third paragraph, Brody reports "a daily 500-milligram supplement of vitamin C had pro-oxidant as well as antioxidant effects on DNA, which houses the genes. " What is missing is perspective. Can Jane Brody compare this purported DNA damage with eating an extra hamburger a day, for instance?

According to Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D., of the University of California, Berkeley, about half of all chemicals, natural and sythetic, cause DNA damage. He notes that naturally occurring compounds in alfalfa sprouts (canavanine), broccoli (isothiocyanate), potato (solanine), celery (psoralne), and onion (quercetin), and most fruits and vegetables caused DNA damage. Since the letter to Nature Brody based her story on was not peer-reviewed, how do we know that people in the study didn't eat more celery and onion the 1 or 2 weeks they were given the Vitamin C supplement?

What is conspicuous by its absence in the Brody article was an other important point Dr. Ames makes: "The body's DNA repair enzymes - which are largely dependent on the B vitamins - fix nearly all of the damage." In other words, Brody's article should have been titled TAKE MORE B VITAMINS WHEN TAKING HELPFUL VITAMIN C SUPPLEMENTS.

In the fourth paragraph, Brody quotes warnings issued for decades by American physician Victor Herbert. Herbert points to his own laboratory findings. But why should we believe Dr. Herbert? Everybody makes mistakes, but in 1974 Herbert made a whopper. He was able to publish findings he thought detrimental to vitamin C in the Journal of the American Medical Association. These findings could not be duplicated and his study methods were shown to be faulty. If a respectable scientist had made such a "mistake", I can't imagine the New York Times would still be quoting that scientist as an "authority". Was Jane Brody aware of the Herbert study in JAMA when she wrote this article? (She should be aware of Herbert's history now, if she reads her email.)

Brody mentions a Canadian study that seems to show the same results as the Lunec study. She mentions that these earlier studies included live mice. I hope Ms. Brody knows that mice make vitamin C in their bodies, so I am very interested in the specifics of these experiments. Please provide the citation in the scientific literature.

Next, Brody fails to point out that the particular measurement at issue was not the primary objective of the study, and that there are 18 other markers of DNA damage. We have asked the New York Times and Ms. Jane E. Brody to specify the measurement method for the 8-oxoA reading that has caused all this commotion. How can others try to even repeat the experiment without knowing the method, and if it is subject to the difficulties these clinicians themselves have written about.

Setting aside the issue of importance of the Canadian results (largely based on Lunec's answer to the hamburger question…) there is another sense of proportion missing. There are now, I have been corrected, more than 17,000 published papers and reports on vitamin C. The totality of scientific evidence supports the view that relatively high levels of vitamin C are good for health and relatively low levels are bad for health. On the other side stands Victor Herbert and a handful of British and Canadian researchers , along with the New York Times. What is going on?

According to Balz Frei, Ph.D., director of the Lunis Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, Covallis, other studies directly contradict the findings of the NATURE study. A balanced New York Times article would have included the fact that these findings are questionable. That this damage is usually repaired quickly. That other scientists do not necessarily agree that this study has any importance what-so-ever. Frie, Ames and others quickly went on record as criticizing the NATURE study's methodology. The AP quoted these scientists, and others. Why didn't Jane Brody ask any other American scientists to comment? Instead, she relied on the avowed enemy of vitamin C for a completely one sided, highly speculative, and yes JUNK SCIENCE report.

The Foundation renews its call for the facts, and if Brody's speculative article can not be substantiated, then your readers benefit only from a complete retraction. If we had to select a single response at this point, it would be the response of Dr. Balz Frei, new director of the Linus Pauling Institute. Mr. Sulzberger, please respond. I find it difficult to believe that New York Times doesn't care about this.

Yours truly,

Owen R. Fonorow Letter #4

Cc: Jane Brody http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/nytime4.htm

PO Box 73172

Houston, Texas 77273

1-888-443-3634 Toll Free in the USA

1-281-443-3634 Everywhere

FAX: 1-630-416-1309 Temporary

http://www.vitaminCfoundation.org Next Letter | Foundation Home Page