PR hack Peter Griffin is at it again, this time complaining that a Waikato farmer should have been left to die by medical science, rather than allowing his family to administer the unproven Vitamin C therapy now claimed to have saved his life.
Griffin claims there was no evidence to support administering Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) to the farmer, and accused 60 Minutes of "sins of omission".
Perhaps the young Griffin should have done a little more research:
COMMENT |
Ascorbic Acid Role in Containment of the World Avian Flu Pandemic
John T. A. Ely1
Radiation Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
1 PO Box 1925, Palmerston North, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
In this Comment, the ultimate intent is to increase survival of the anticipated global flu pandemic. The apparent failure of "medicine" to provide a completely understood and logically based biochemical prevention and treatment for all influenzas (and many other viral diseases) may be an unavoidable result of the evolving complexity of the H5N1 virus. However, clinical experience cited in all accounts, including the 2003 to 2006 period, suggest that: (i) ascorbic acid is not being administered to humans infected or at risk for influenza, and (ii) ascorbic acid is (mistakenly) believed to be a vitamin ("vitamin C"). Proper use of ascorbic acid as described here could provide effective containment for the flu pandemic.
Keywords: ascorbic acid, avian flu, immunity, hyperglycemia, refined diet
1 In iv dosing, AA is always sodium ascorbate.
We welcome comments by our readers reflecting agreement or disagreement with the material published in Experimental Biology and Medicine and, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, will publish such comments. The statements and opinions contained in the articles of Experimental Biology and Medicine are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine.
Or this:
Combined inhalational and oral supplementation of ascorbic acid may prevent influenza pandemic emergency: A hypothesis
Top of Form
Dibyajyoti Banerjee, M.D., Deepak Kaul, Ph.D.
Bottom of Form
Received 9 September 2009; accepted 16 September 2009.
Abstract
Occurrence of influenza pandemics is a worldwide phenomenon and a significant cause of mortality and morbidity throughout the globe. It is due to mutations in the influenza virus genetic material creating antigenic drift of pathogenic viral proteins resulting in emergence of new influenza virus strains. Therefore, the vaccines available for prevention of influenza offer no protection against influenza pandemics caused by new virus strains. Moreover, the existing drugs used to combat influenza may be ineffective to treat influenza pandemics due to the emergence of drug resistance in the pandemic virus strain. Therefore, a working strategy must be developed to combat influenza pandemics. In this review we have addressed this problem and reviewed the published studies on ascorbic acid in the common cold and influenza and laboratory studies on the effect of ascorbic acid on influenza virus. We have also correlated the clinical and laboratory studies and developed a hypothesis to prevent influenza pandemics.
Keywords: Pandemic, Influenza, Ascorbic acid, Vitamin C, Flu
Department of Experimental Medicine and Biotechnology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-172-275-523; fax: +91-172-274-4401.
PII: S0899-9007(09)00407-9
doi:10.1016/j.nut.2009.09.015
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Or this:
Biofactors. 2007;31(1):1-15.
Suppression of influenza A virus nuclear antigen production and neuraminidase activity by a nutrient mixture containing ascorbic acid, green tea extract and amino acids.
Jariwalla RJ, Roomi MW, Gangapurkar B, Kalinovsky T, Niedzwiecki A, Rath M.
Dr. Rath Research Institute, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Abstract
Influenza, one of the oldest and most common infections, poses a serious health problem causing significant morbidity and mortality, and imposing substantial economic costs. The efficacy of current drugs is limited and improved therapies are needed. A unique nutrient mixture (NM), containing ascorbic acid, green tea extract, lysine, proline, N-acetyl cysteine, selenium among other micronutrients, has been shown to exert anti-carcinogenic and anti-atherogenic activity both in vitro and in vivo. Many of the constituents of NM have been shown to have an inhibitory effect on replication of influenza virus and HIV. This prompted us to study the effect of NM on influenza A virus multiplication in infected cells and neuraminidase activity (NA) in virus particles. Addition of NM to Vero or MDCK cells post infection resulted in dose-dependent inhibition of viral nucleoprotein (NP) production in infected cells. NM-mediated inhibition of viral NP was selective and not due to cytotoxicity towards host cells. This antiviral effect was enhanced by pretreatment of virus with the nutrient mixture. Individual components of NM, namely ascorbic acid and green tea extract, also blocked viral NP production, conferring enhanced inhibition when tested in combination. Incubation of cell-free virus with NM resulted in dose-dependent inhibition of associated NA enzyme activity. In conclusion, the nutrient mixture exerts an antiviral effect against influenza A virus by lowering viral protein production in infected cells and diminishing viral enzymatic activity in cell-free particles.
PMID: 18806304 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Griffin went to the trouble of assembling "experts" to debunk 60 Minutes, by suggesting there was no peer reviewed research supporting the use of Vitamin C to treat pneumonia. Really? Here's a peer reviewed study that says otherwise, and concludes:
"it is reasonable to use ascorbic acid to treat these patients."
This randomized, prospective study was conducted to compare outcomes in patients receiving antioxidant supplementation (α-tocopherol and ascorbate) versus those receiving standard care. The primary endpoint for analysis was pulmonary morbidity (a composite measure of ARDS and nosocomial pneumonia). Secondary endpoints included the development of multiple organ failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, and mortality.
Results
Five hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled and analyzed, 91% of whom were victims of trauma. The relative risk of pulmonary morbidity was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.60–1.1) in patients receiving antioxidant supplementation. Multiple organ failure was significantly less likely to occur in patients receiving antioxidants than in patients receiving standard care, with a relative risk of 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.19–0.96). Patients randomized to antioxidant supplementation also had a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay.
Conclusions
The early administration of antioxidant supplementation using α-tocopherol and ascorbic acid reduces the incidence of organ failure and shortens ICU length of stay in this cohort of critically ill surgical patients.
Peter Griffin is a chump, in my view. Sadly, in his chumpiness he is encouraging otherwise sensible New Zealand scientists to veer towards stupidity in their public statements.
Sorry but citing some poorly written papers in unusual journals or the hypothetical musings of medicos who should know better hardly disproves Griffin's points that the 60 minutes article was imbalanced and unscientific.
Posted by: Michael | August 22, 2010 at 08:13 PM
But Michael, that is exactly what Wishart does time and time again.
He worships a god that created us with flawed bodies and no knowledge of how to maintain them.
He resents the fact that Man has risen above his god and found cures,or at least relief, for many of the ills we suffer. Ills that he wishes could be cured by prayer alone, but knows in his heart of hearst that when it comes to the crunch, god goes mything.
So, ratther than accept his faith is misplaced and his god is myth, he grasps at the tiniest of straws to "prove" medcine is flawed.
But, as his bible says, "by their deeds ye shall know them", and has he says himself, "follow the money". See where he goes for treatment when he or a family members is ill or injured, it isn't to church, it is off to the ED.
Posted by: David | August 22, 2010 at 08:24 PM
Gee, I thought there were no studies, according to the wise ones over at SciMedia.
And David, we took our daughter to ED last Christmas, and the surgeons told us there was no hope, nothing they could do. So we prayed and got the outcome we needed.
God gave us science, he also gave us prayer. What either of these things have to do with the Vitamin C argument being discussed above I have no idea, so I presume you are just another unfocused troll.
Posted by: Ian Wishart | August 22, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Checik out www.vitamincfoundation.org for more info on vitamin C and viruses.
Posted by: Bob Sarver | August 23, 2010 at 02:09 AM
Not withstanding the story's potential shortcomings I'll take a lucky break and life over scientific puritanism and death. I have a suspicion that if/when Vitamin C can be patented by big business you'll see it suddenly acceptable as a conventional but expensive treatment.
Posted by: John Boy | August 23, 2010 at 09:12 AM
I thought the situation showed up the blinkered thinking of some in the medical profession. Even if the doctors had doubts about the use of Vit C here was golden opportunity to put it to the test. If they or the hospital were worried about being sued later they could have very easily written a simple
"agreement" and the family would not have worried. We don't learn anything if we don't try new options.
This was a win - win situation. The doctors had nothing to lose as they had already said the machines should be turned off.
We had a similar situation in our extended family -- a guy in his early fifties had a major heart attack. His wife was overseas on business . The doctors said they would keep him going on a machine until his wife got home to say goodbye. While they waited the doctors did some research and found out about a very experimental procedure from Canada. When the wife arrived they discussed it and said there was a 5% chance of success. They took it and tried. That was 9 yrs ago and he is still going strong living an active life.
From what I recall the program said the doctors / hospitals declined the invitation to appear.
Posted by: Ross | August 23, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Funny as all get out:
"Peter Griffin 2 hours ago thanks Ken, I’d wondered what had happened to the High Priest of pseudoscience… interesting cherry-picking from him once again."
So failing to do research about vitamin C and pneumonia or flu is OK for Peter, but I'm "cherrypicking" if I throw up some studies supportive of the idea?
Hack.
Posted by: Ian Wishart | August 23, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Five hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled and analyzed, 91% of whom were victims of trauma. The relative risk of pulmonary morbidity was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.60–1.1)
So the one actual study you cite is about prevention of pneumonia and it shows it doesn't work!
That about says it all.
Posted by: david winter | August 23, 2010 at 02:27 PM
Heh, if you're the high priest of "pseudoscience" Ian, then does that make Ken the high priest of trolling?
Posted by: scrubone | August 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM
So Ian,
Just for the record, do you admit than only one of the papers you picked is actually a study of what happens when you treat people for pneumonia with VitC, and that was a study on prevention, and it showed vitamin C had no measurable effect?
Posted by: david winter | August 25, 2010 at 03:56 PM
Isn't it a no-brainer?
That you see a doctor or go to hospital with the expectation that they will help help you look after your health and do what they can to make you better?
NOT TURN OFF THE LIFE SUPPORT AND KILL YOU - because they are ignorant of alternative therapies THAT WOULD DO NO HARM to try, but SO ARROGANT in their belief that 'they know best' - when their 'best' didn't work?
Remember the 'Oath of Hippocrates'?
Which includes:
"I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment, which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischevious. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel:.."
HOW IS KILLING YOUR PATIENT BY TURNING OFF LIFE SUPPORT in keeping with this 'Hippocratic Oath'?
Or should it be renamed the 'HYPOCRITIC OATH'?
Penny Bright
Posted by: Penny Bright | August 28, 2010 at 07:46 AM
You may wonder how it is possible that the medical industry ignores all those well-proven, effective, natural remedies that cost little and enable people to look after their own health. It not only for profit, which is excuse enough, but it also for depopulation.
Sick people and the elderly are useless eaters, better to get rid of them by stealth, ie drugs and vaccines. Believe it or not, that is the policy of the UN and the WHO. (World Homicide Organisation)
Posted by: Emanuel van den Bemd | August 28, 2010 at 11:42 AM
I have handled serious flu within 3 days by drinking the juice of two squeezed fresh lemons a day. My wife recovered form the flu within two days with the same but with hot water and honey.
That is one for everyone to try for themselves and stop arguing.
Posted by: Claude Moffat | August 29, 2010 at 04:54 AM
David, please read the full text article carefully. Note the very low dosages used.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1422648/?tool=pubmed
You say this study showed no benefit? Yet these low dosages achieved this:
"The treatment group had a 57% (95% CI 4–81%) lower incidence of multiple organ failure and a trend toward a reduction in 28-day mortality. These benefits translated into a reduction in resource utilization, as measured by a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Further, there were no adverse effects attributable to the antioxidants. Specifically, administration of high-dose ascorbate or α-tocopherol did not increase the risk of renal failure or coagulopathy."
If you were in intensive care, with pulmonary problems, would you really consider that this meant vitamin C didn't work?
David, have you done a thorough pubmed search, or a google scholar search to see what HAS been done with regard to the use of VIT C / ICU... and it's outcome with regard to pneumonia or total improvement with regard to survival?
Have you read the only three volume "formal" text of vitamin C written by Professor C. Alan B Clemetson?
If so given that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12643856 "We confirmed extremely low plasma levels of ascorbic acid following trauma and infection. Maximal early repletion of this vitamin requires rapid pool filling early in the post-injury period using supraphysiologic doses for 3 or more days"
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307892
"Antioxidants (vitamin C and selenium) and trace elements (zinc) become rapidly depleted in critical illness and replacement appears vital to ensure optimal cellular and microvascular function."
... when you put together the details in volume 2, chapter one of Professor Clemetson’s text, relating to vascular changes, with chapter 12 showing what happens during infection if you don't have enough vitamin C,
....along with the many medical articles which shows that ascorbate reverses microcirculatory dysfunction after the onset of sepsis, ….
.... if you were in Mr Smith's position and about to have the plug pulled, would you have wanted vitamin C administered, or not?
Research done by Otago Medical School's Margret Vissers http://www.jleukbio.org/cgi/content/full/81/5/1236 would indicate that in just such a situation of serious illness where a vitamin C deficiency could neutralise exactly the front line defence you would want ~ under Mr Smith's situation.
The latest study on the safety of intravenous vitamin C states:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011414
" Physicians should inquire about IV vitamin C use in patients with cancer, chronic, untreatable, or intractable conditions and be observant of unexpected harm, drug interactions, or benefit"
~ that such a therapy would be a safe, biologically plausible move to make, wouldn't you agree?
There are many more pubmed references than I have used here, backing up both it's safety, and the biochemical reasons for using it.
Or are you of the mind of most scientists who, in the face of a huge body of medical literature, would rather see patients die, than use intravenous vitamin C?
Posted by: Hilary Butler | August 29, 2010 at 11:13 AM
Hilary,
I actually just wanted to point out Ian was showing his normal attitude to science. Picking papers that he thinks support his idea, without making an effort to study the literature as a whole and then misrepresenting them (or at least failing to make a genuine effort to understand them).
i didn't say the quoted study showed no benefit, i said it didn't support the idea VitC is helpful in pneumonia. As you say, there is some prior plausability to VitC in helping treat pneumonia, and given the relatively low risk it worth doing some proper trials.
But it's really contemptible that you would claim that "most scientists" would rather see patients die than administer VitC. You can't really believe that can you?
Posted by: david winter | August 30, 2010 at 02:20 PM
David, these people will believe anything that involves even a hint of a conspiracy. If they can wrap a conspiracy around something, then that will automatically be the most obvious explanation to them.
Posted by: CM | August 31, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Actually, David, I was waiting for someone to "bite" on that "Contemptible" comment, because it's from a published medical article in which Dr Linus Pauling made that observation.
Anyone who has seen what has happened since the 60 minutes documentary, when other families have subsequently asked New Zealand hospitals to use Vitamin C on their seriously sick relatives... ,.... and the lengths to which hospitals gone to, to prevent being forced into using it so that they don't have to answer questions about more "Allan Smith's"
....
(which you won't know, since you Peter Griffin and CM keep your heads firmly where you won't see evidence that doesn't suit you...)
.... you'd have to suggest that Dr Linus Pauling, double nobel prize winner, might just have got it right when he said that.
Oh, and in another published medical paper, Dr Pauling also commented that of all branches of science, front line physicians did the least thinking for themselves, just doing what they were told to.
Another statement I happen to agree with.
Posted by: Hilary Butler | September 08, 2010 at 01:12 PM