IV Vitamin C and Cancer

IV vitamin C achieves clinical success with prostate and breast cancer

(NaturalNews) IV (intravenous) vitamin C therapy has already been clinically proven to markedly improve quality of life for cancer patients, but a new landmark study has shown for the first time it can reduce inflammation and tumor markers in prostate cancer and breast cancer patients. The science behind IV vitamin C as a cancer therapy is now advancing faster than ever before, with six clinical trials currently underway worldwide, including colorectal, prostate, pancreatic and other cancers.

Dual role of IV vitamin C for cancer - Cytotoxicity and inflammation

In lab studies, high-dose vitamin C has proven to be potently cytotoxic to a wide variety of cancer cell lines as well as to boost the cytotoxicity of several common chemotherapy drugs. This has been confirmed in animal studies, where IV vitamin C decreases the growth rates of liver, ovarian, pancreatic, and glioblastoma tumors with dosages easily achievable in humans. But beyond directly poisoning cancer cells, there is another role for vitamin C to play in treating cancer: the reduction of inflammation.

Recent research has shown that greater inflammation in cancer patients is associated with poor prognosis. This may be because key features of the inflammatory environment (infiltrating leucocytes, pro-inflammatory cytokine build-up, tissue remodeling and angiogenesis) may actually facilitate cancer development. With this in mind, one of the leading alternative medicine clinics in the USA designed a trial to test the ability of IV vitamin C to reduce key inflammation markers as well as tumor markers in patients with prostate, breast and other cancers. This trial included 45 patients aged 47-85, with an average age of 68. The treatments included vitamin C infusions of 25 to 50 grams, up to three times per week. The median follow-up on patients was 7.2 years (maximum of 18 years). It should be noted that most patients had already been treated by standard therapies. The total number of vitamin C infusions given to any one patient ranged from 1 up to 102.

Inflammation markers reduced in 76 percent of cancer patients

IV vitamin C therapy was successful in reducing C Reactive Protein (CRP) levels in 76 percent of all patients in the trial. This is significant, as CRP is a well-established marker for inflammation. By the end of the trial, the average patient saw a drop in CRP levels of 80 percent (for patients who started the trials with above-normal CRP levels). In addition, for a more detailed picture, serum levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines were measured for 11 patients. Of these 11 patients, all saw large reductions in these cytokines after their treatments.

Some important trends emerged from the trial. First, patients who had more IV vitamin C treatments tended to have a better response. Second, patients who began the therapy at an earlier stage of their disease had better response compared to those with more aggressive, metastatic cancer. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, patients who saw reductions in inflammation markers usually also saw reductions in tumor markers - especially for breast and prostate cancer.

Tumor markers decreased for most prostate cancer and breast cancer patients

Most impressive with this trial was that PSA levels decreased in 77 percent of prostate cancer patients while 73 percent of breast cancer patients saw decreases in CA27.29/CA15.3 (cancer antigen) and/or CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) after their treatments.

This trial gives powerful new evidence of the benefits of IV vitamin C therapy for cancer - a therapy which has few side-effects, a well-established safety profile and which is far cheaper than conventional treatments. For more information, the last reference below links to the clinic where this trial was carried out.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22963460
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297243
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021693
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18678913
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246295
http://www.naturalnews.com/034663_IV_vitamin_c_cancer_treatment.html
http://www.riordanclinic.org/

About the author:
Ethan Evers is author of the award-winning medical thriller “The Eden Prescription,” in which natural medicine outperforms a billion-dollar chemo drug and threatens the entire $50 billion cancer drug industry. Ethan based The Eden Prescription on the latest science on natural medicine for cancer, and wrote it to show the future reality that natural medicine can bring us—and to warn of the strategies now being used by those who are trying to stop it. Ethan has a PhD in Applied Science.

The Eden Prescription is available on amazon: www.amazon.com/Eden-Prescription-cancer-what-think/dp/1439276552/
For breaking news and research updates on natural medicine for cancer, see Ethan’s Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/pages/The-Eden-Prescription/130965870291786 
For more information: www.edenprescription.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037244_vitamin_C_prostate_cancer_breast.html#ixzz26wCzdyYD

Vitamin E and prostate cancer

Vitamin E increases risk of prostate cancer? More junk science from JAMA
(NaturalNews) A "science skeptic" who routinely attacks vitamins and holistic health therapies recently reported the following in his newsletter:

Study questions vitamin E safety.

A major clinical trial has found that dietary supplementation with vitamin E appears to increase the risk of prostate cancer among apparently healthy men. [Klein EA and others. Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). JAMA 306:1549-1556, 2011] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21990298

The study, which spanned more than seven years, followed what happened to more than 35,000 men who received either 400 IU of vitamin E, vitamin E plus selenium, selenium, or a placebo. The group that received vitamin E alone had a 17% higher incidence of prostate cancer. The researchers warned:

"The observed . . . increase in prostate cancer incidence demonstrates the potential for seemingly innocuous yet biologically active substances such as vitamins to cause harm. The lack of benefit from dietary supplementation with vitamin E or other agents with respect to preventing common health conditions and cancers or improving overall survival, and their potential harm, underscore the need for consumers to be skeptical of health claims for unregulated over-the-counter products in the absence of strong evidence of benefit demonstrated in clinical trials."

I sent this report to my colleague, Randy Ice, of Vintage Medical in Temecula, California. Randy is no stranger to Big Pharma's junk science and came back with an answer that, for me, represents the type of rigorous thinking we all should be doing when it comes to analyzing mainstream media. The rest of this article is all Randy.

Let's start with the statistical sleight of hand these goofballs use to come up with "17% increased risk." This requires an understanding of "relative risk" versus "absolute risk" and why they always report the former and never the later:

Out of 35,000 men randomly divided into placebo, selenium, vitamin E or selenium plus vitamin E, there were 521 cases of PCA that developed over three years. The absolute risk of developing PCA is only 0.005% per year. That's not a very high ABSOLUTE risk to begin with!

The PAC rates in each of the 4 groups were:

Placebo: 113
Vitamin E: 147 (17% RELATIVE risk increase)
Selenium: 143 (non-significant)
Vitamin E + Selenium: 118 (non-significant)

So, if you take 400 iu's of alpha tocopherol, there is a statistical relative risk increase of "17%." However if you take selenium, or vitamin E plus selenium, there is NO statistical difference.

Why wasn't that reported?? Why would vitamin E alone increase risk while vitamin E taken with selenium not increase risk? This makes no sense at all.

However, they didn't report the negative findings and only sensationalized a finding that has "statistical significance" but NO clinical significance. Here's why.

Fun with statistics

If you take 147 - 113 cases, it equals 34 more cases of PCA in the vitamin E group than the placebo group. 34/35000 total subjects =0.001% ABSOLUTE increased risk. In other words, the actual risk of developing PCA is 1 out of 1000 more in those who took Vitamin E instead of a placebo.

34/113 = 17% - the "relative risk" increase, which is what is reported. If you were to tell men vitamin E increases your risk of PCA by a factor of 1 in 1000, who would care?

But if you report a 17% increase, that's pretty scary!

This is the same statistical garbage used by Big Pharma to "prove" many of their worthless drugs "work" when in reality they only benefit 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, as is the case of statin drugs. Unfortunately, the ignorant, compliant and complacent Big Media reporters have no clue and dutifully quote this junk science. I already have clients calling me telling me their urologist told them to stop taking Vitamin E.

What they also did not report was the difference in SURVIVAL between these four groups, or if there were any differences in the aggressiveness of the PCA in any of them. What if the selenium or Vitamin E groups had lower
Gleason scores on biopsy? That would be an obvious benefit. This is exactly what you find with testosterone. Lower levels lead to higher Gleason scores and a more aggressive cancer.

Undoubtedly there are no differences in mortality in any group, as PCA has only a 3%/year mortality. Since the mortality rate of everyone is about 1.5%/year, it's pretty obvious this is a condition that is better off left alone or treated with some low tech, inexpensive natural methods.

Never forget that the CDC has reported on deaths from vitamins, minerals and herbs ever year and for the last 20 years that number is ZERO! Over 100,000 deaths occur every year in the USA alone from drug adverse reactions and is probably close to half a million or more worldwide.

So, is taking Vitamin E more dangerous than taking a pharmaceutical?

Finally, the use of only one form of vitamin E and not all four forms (alpha, gamma, beta, delta) combined with all four forms of tocotrienols is another limiting factor to this study, combined with the fact that 400 iu's is a very low dose (the selenium dose used in this study is also ridiculously low). Recent cardiovascular studies show one obtains the most benefit from 2000 - 2500 iu's/day of all four forms of tocopherols and tocotrienols, with gamma tocopherol having the most powerful anti-cancer effect.

Big Media conveniently leaves out the fact that 1000's of other studies of vitamin E have shown multiple cardiovascular and antioxidant benefits. These kind of vitamin "hit" pieces that are poorly designed and have an underlying agenda to "prove" they're dangerous are being instigated by Big Pharma's minions to implement European style restrictions in accessibility to vitamins, minerals and herbs. The ultimate goal is to gain control over the supplement industry such that a doctor's prescription will be required to obtain them in any dosage above some bureaucrat determined minuscule amount that has no benefit whosoever. The competition will hence be eliminated for Big Pharma.

Welcome to the NWO and Codex Alimentarus!

About the author:
Get the free mini-course taken by more than 10,000 people, Three Soul Stirring Questions That Reveal your Deepest Goals.

Learn more about Mike's down-to-earth life coaching that comes with a lifetime membership to the iNLP Center online school and receive a free life coaching strategy session.

Mike Bundrant is the host of Mental Health Exposed, a Natural News Radio program, and the co-founder of the iNLP Center.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033911_vitamin_E_prostate_cancer.html#ixzz1yv8qlAXW