Tilbage |
Aarhus Privatklinik
for Holistisk Medicin |
|
|
|
|
The result of a Danish Vitamin C study,
sponsored by Fight Against Cancer, and
published in the Dutch periodical Cancer,
Causes, Control 14:695-704 (2003), was
released to the Danish TV and press media
December 22, 2003 with the sensationalistic
news headline: “the incidence of breast
cancer in post-menopausal women increases
with increasing intake of Vitamin C”. In
spite of the melodramatic manner in which
the announcement was made, a careful reading
of the study’s own data shows, that the
interpretation is essentially untrue and
scientifically untenable.
This is shown in all clearness with one of
the results from the study, which the press
release was careful not to mention. They got
the evidently absurd result, that the risk
for breast cancer is doubled (2.06), when
Vitamin C is ingested through fruit and
vegetables in the diet, whereas the risk is
slightly greater than statistical
insignificance (1.00), when it is
ingested as a supplement (1.06).
From a biological perspective this is
nonsense. The body does not distinguish
between dietary-Vitamin C and
supplemental-Vitamin C. It is biologically
the same substance. If high levels of
Vitamin C were generally carcinogenic, as
the Danish researchers amazingly would have
us believe, it would be more consistent from
their point of view to advise against
ingesting too much of the vitamin in fruit
and vegetables.
When a team of scientists get a result,
which deviates so strongly from prior
research on a subject, not to mention common
sense, one could imagine, that the research
team would seriously question the design of
their experiment or the way they got their
numbers. This was absolutely not the case
with Fight Against Cancer’s senior
researcher Anne Tjønnelund, who was not
reserved, but rather bombastic in
pronouncements to the press about her
groundbreaking study: ”....The study is
the first of its type, which shows that
women after menopause have an increased risk
for getting breast cancer, if they ingest
high doses of Vitamin C from the diet or in
the form of supplements and natural medicine.”
Scientifically speaking, her study cannot
support such an interpretation. To attribute
a causal effect to Vitamin C for breast
cancer from marginally elevated values of
Vitamin C ingested per day, and calculated
from questionaires filled out by
unsupervised study subjects before the
period of observations began, is not only
invalid in terms of the ordinary rules of
scientific research, but also emphasizes how
estranged from reality much of the academic,
drug-oriented research industry has become.
An important organization like Fight
Against Cancer ought to have
reconsidered, before they so sent out so
serious a misinformation as a Christmas
present to the Danish people, because there
is massive and growing documentation, that
high dose Vitamin C (2-100 gram) is one of
the most important weapons we have in the
fight against cancer.
Research results over the last 40 years have
shown that Vitamin C:
• prevents many forms for cancer
• inhibits tumor growth in animal studies
• improves the effect with many forms of
chemotherapy
• is cytotoxic for cancer cells in
sufficiently elevated concentrations
• is practically speaking without side
effects at even the highest intravenous
concentrations
• enhances the immune response (activation
of killer cell, lymphocyte formation)
• is the only nutrient which has been
repeatedly shown to increase life expectancy,
when taken in doses that exceed the
recommended daily requirement (100 mg).
What did the study itself measure?
The Danish study was a case-control
investigation, where 24,697 menopausal women
were observed over 4.7 years with a view to
analyzing the relation between vitamin
ingestion (A, C, E) and the development of
breast cancer. Every time there was a
subject in the database, who developed
breast cancer, a control person was selected
of the same age. All together 418 cases of
breast cancer were registered in relation to
394 kontrols. The reason there were fewer
controls was, that the control subjects did
not always take supplements. Therefore the
research team had to use the same control
for several breast cancer cases.
For the results of a scientific study to
prove causation, it is normally one of the
criteria , that there are two clearly
defined groups, similiar to each other in
all important ways except exposure to the
alleged harmful agent. The one group is
exposed and the other is not. This is called
randomization. In this study that
condition is not met, because both breast
cancer cases and controls are exposed to
vitamin C ingestion through diet and
supplement.
This is one of the reasons that case-control
studies are known to be extremely vulnerable
for confounders; that is, decisive factors
that influence the outcome . You can adjust
for confounders that are known, but you
cannot adjust for those that are unknown.
According to experts in statistics, the
relative risk for case-control studies must
be at least greater than 3 before one can
claim to have compensated for hidden
confounders.
In the Danish study the relative risk is
2,06 per 100 mg for dietary-vitamin C; 1.06,
if vitamin C is ingested as a supplement;
and 1.10 with the two calculated together.
The strength of the association between
exposure (vitamin C) and the adverse outcome
(breast cancer) is therefore weak. If the
relative risk had been 1.00, breast cancer
would be no more likely to occur with or
without the alleged harmful cause. It is
therefore a question of such marginally
small statistical measurements, that it
would not have taken much to get a
completely different result.
Does the study make biological sense?
The research result is unimportant in terms
of known biological mechansims, but is
emphasized as being important, ”...the
first of its type”. Actually, the
interpretation of the result represents a
misuse of statistics.
Imagine, for example, that women predisposed
to breast cancer because of genetic
vulnerability, smoking, pesticides in food
and water together with other forms of
chemical pollution and free radical stress
(just to mention several confounders not
measured in the study), begin to include
more fruit and vegetables in their diet as
well as vitamin C as a supplement. Later,
they develop cancer anyway.
Senior researcher Anne Tjønneluund would
argue, that increased ingestion of vitamin C
has increased the risk for breast cancer. A
more intelligible explanation would be, that
the risk for breast cancer has increased
with increasing ingestion of toxic
pesticides. Vitamin C- containing fruit and
vegetables can be very polluted depending on
where they are grown. Apart from this,
pesticides are filled with estrogen-like
chemicals , which are known to cause cancer,
especially in the female breast, where
diverse toxins accumulate in fat cells that
are found close to milk-producing cells.
It is much more probable and logical from
the biological knowledge we have today, that
vitamin C has helped the breast cancer cases
to prevent og fight the disease. Vitamin C
is known to stimulate the immune system,
detoxify cancer causing chemicals together
as well as protect our DNA fra mutations
injuries. Both chemo- and radiation therapy
cause cancer. High dose vitamin C protects
the patient against these side effects and
at the same time enhances their cytotoxic
effect. Undersigned would be glad to
document this for interested colleagues.
What is the conclusion?
The true relation between vitamin C and
cancer has been turned on its head. The
leadership of Fight Against Cancer
has chosen to ignore a vast body of research
results, which show high dose vitamin C’s
importance as a life-prolonging, cancer
cell-destroying, immune-enhancing cancer
agent. Instead a pseudo-scientific
conclusion has been passed off in the mass
media as a warning to an unsuspecting
public. Their press statement is not only
misinformation of the worst type, but is
potentially to the detriment of Danish women,
who might take the study’s results seriously
and avoid taking vitamin C.
One can only hope that Fight Against
Cancer gets new people in the
organization, who are more receptive to to
the enormous information, that is, for
instance, to be found on the internet and in
the development of holistic science over the
past decades. For a more truthful
information than that which is presently
found on Fight Against Cancer’s
website, it is recommended that interested
individuals investigate the relation between
vitamin C and cancer on the following
websites:
http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/
http://www.orthomed.com/
http://www.garynull.com/documents/vitaminc.htm
http://www.cforyourself.com/Conditions/Cancer/cancer.html#CancerProject
|
|
|
Læge, Bruce
Phillip Kyle Stavtrup, 2. Feb 2004 |
|
|
|
|
Tilbage
|
|
|