--On 8 September 2007 21:31:19 -0500 Jodi <[email protected]> wrote:
for therapeutic doses of any essential natural substance that we are
dangerously lacking, I think supplementation that is (if not natural),
as close-to-natural as possible and high quality, should surely be
touted as the next best thing.
Yes that makes good sense to me Jodi. But why not natural in such cases?
Is it hard to ingest in sufficient quantity?
To me it suggests the question of 'uptake of vitamin C.' not merely 'it
uses up a lot' in fighting cancer, because, that wasn't observed as far as
I know, and is merely conjecture.
Conjecture is fine, but only alongside all logical possibilities. I don't
think any were considered.
The possibility of compromised uptake, being a symptom of conditions in
which cancer spreads has to be considered. Because after treatment, even if
successful, they would be in the same boat.
Clearly it's role is implicated. Yet as nearly all people have low copper
for instance, then we could ascribe the cause of cancer to copper. But
vitamin C supplements compromise copper uptake. Perhaps low copper status
the body purges itself of serum Vitamin C. These are just two factors. The
studies didn't compare copper status and outcome.
Ok, if the effect of the therapy was to cure, we have better evidence, but
I have questioned the reported results, and in that I am not original, nor
a the time of their publication. I think a prize therefore was premature
for such work.
And what have we learnt since about the mode of action of vitamin C in
killing cancer cells? There is no evidence at all, in spite of many studies.
Back to the original study and Vitamin C as a cure:
The vitamin C patients were reported to have a mean survival time 300 days
longer than that of the controls.
Pauling and Cameron's method attempted to reconstruct what happened to the
control group by examining their medical records, which is open to in
selecting controls.
The vitamin C and control groups had not been properly matched by stage of
their disease, functional ability, weight loss, and sites of metastasis,
all of which are important judging the stage of the disease.
Cameron's patients had already began getting vitamin C when Cameron judged
them "untreatable" and their subsequent survival was compared to that of
the control patients from the time they had been labeled "untreatable."
if the two groups were comparable, the average time from the initial
diagnosis to "untreatable" status should be similar for both groups. But
they were not.
20% of the patients in the control group had died within a few days of
being labeled untreatable, whereas none of Cameron's patients had died.
This, too, suggested that Cameron's patients had had less advanced disease
when they were labeled untreatable.
Three prospectively randomized, placebo-controlled studies (the Mayo
studies) involving 367 patients documented no consistent benefit from
vitamin C among cancer patients with advanced disease. Moreover, high doses
of vitamin C can have significant adverse effects. High oral doses can
cause diarrhoea. High intravenous dosage has been reported to cause kidney
failure due to clogging of the kidney tubules by oxalate crystals
JOhn.
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
