Intravenous Vitamin C: The Current Science

drisko-susser

Jeanne Drisko with Murray Susser. Both Drisko and Susser are past presidents of the American College for Advancement in Medicine.

[Part 2 of 2]

At her public lecture, “Intravenous Vitamin C: Does it Work?” delivered at the Linus Pauling Institute’s Diet and Optimum Health Conference in September 2017, Dr. Jeanne Drisko of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, provided an overview of current research on the potential impact of intravenous vitamin C in treating disease.

She began this portion of her talk by reflecting on the factors that have continued to propel her own scientific interest in the topic, despite the headwinds generated by critics of the work. For one, Drisko has taken heart in the fact that intravenous vitamin C is used in many clinics around the world. Indeed, at a 2006 integrative medicine conference, Drisko and colleague Mark Levine took a survey of participants and found that some 8,000 patients had received intravenous vitamin C from doctors attending the meeting. Because Drisko maintains contacts in both conventional and alternative medical circles, she knows that naturopaths have been using intravenous vitamin C as well.

Drisko then pointed out that one barrier to more widespread acceptance of vitamin C as a cancer treatment is that, conventionally, it does not make sense to administer it in tandem with chemotherapy, since vitamin C is known to be an antioxidant and chemotherapy is a prooxidant. That said, Levine and Drisko’s colleague in Kansas, Qi Chen, have found that when vitamin C is given intravenously, it actually works as a prooxidant because it produces hydrogen peroxide. As such, it actually becomes a very good compliment to chemotherapy. Moreover, studies conducted by Drisko and others have found no evidence of conflict arising as a result of vitamin C dosages given alongside chemotherapy. On the contrary, researchers have reported a synergistic relationship in many cases.

In explaining why this is so, Drisko noted that when vitamin C is injected into a vein, it takes on the form of an ascorbyl radical, which she described as a “very promiscuous and active molecule that likes to interact with transition metals” like copper and iron. These interactions lead to the formation of hydrogen peroxide, which is quickly turned into water and oxygen by the enzymes glutathione peroxidase and catalase, such that levels of hydrogen peroxide in the bloodstream are promptly rendered as unmeasurable.

1992i.012a

However, when vitamin C gets into the extracellular fluid it also becomes hydrogen peroxide. The difference in this case is that glutathione peroxidase and catalase do not intervene and the hydrogen peroxide is not broken down into water and oxygen. Instead, the hydrogen peroxide diffuses throughout the extracellular fluid, bathing the cells.

While the presence of hydrogen peroxide in the cells might seem unsafe, Levine’s cell culture tests have found that hydrogen peroxide caused harm only to cancer cells. In reporting his results, Levine explained that the glutathione peroxidase and catalase enzymes are not as efficient in attacking cancer cells because they direct their activity towards reproduction rather than other processes. The fact that glutathione peroxidase and catalase are not active in the extracellular fluid renders vitamin C as a pro-drug and hydrogen peroxide as an actual drug.


Drisko’s research portfolio on the use of intravenous vitamin C includes the first randomized controlled trial involving ovarian cancer patients, work that was published in 2014. The trial studied two groups of patients: one group received standard care, which included carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for six cycles. The other group received this same care along with 75 to 100 gram doses of intravenous vitamin C.

The trial made clear that this form and dosage of vitamin C therapy is safe to administer. It also yielded a statistically significant improvement in how certain types of patients felt during their cancer treatment. Drisko called this a “feel good effect” which she believes is neurological. This same impact, however, was not observed in patients suffering from more advanced stage three and stage four cancers. Drisko is currently following up on these results by looking at the role that vitamin C might play in brain chemistry.

While her work has generated positive results, Drisko is also aware that vitamin C should not be used in all cases. Importantly, vitamin C is known to be potentially harmful when given in large doses under certain conditions. One such case is in individuals suffering from a deficiency of Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase, or G6PD. On its own, G6PD can cause anemia, but when combined with high levels of vitamin C it leads to hemolysis, or the destruction of red blood cells. As a matter of standard protocol, Drisko checks her own patients for G6PD deficiencies, but she knows of others who have been unaware of this biological conflict and who have had to send patients to the emergency room.

Drisko will likewise opt against administering intravenous vitamin C when a patient reports a history of oxalate kidney stones, which can form as a result of excessive vitamin C intake. For individuals who have gone ten years or more since their last instance of oxalate kidney stones, Drisko administers vitamin C, but she does so cautiously, monitoring kidney functions and liver enzymes throughout the process.


Another barrier to studying intravenous vitamin C is that it is a difficult substance to measure since it is processed by the body so quickly. To get around this difficulty, Drisko developed a finger stick method that emerged from her interactions with a diabetic ovarian cancer patient. Over the course of these interactions, Drisko found cause to contact a glucometer manufacturer who told her that, because vitamin C and glucose molecules are so similar, the glucometer would indicate levels of both. Making use of this similarity, Drisko started taking finger stick glucose readings both before and right after her patients received their doses, and using this process she is now able to ascertain a rough estimate of how much vitamin C has been absorbed by the body.


QiChen

Qi Chen

In attempting to achieve greater certainty about appropriate dosage levels of vitamin C to administer, Qi Chen and Mark Levine have conducted experiments wherein they give intravenous vitamin C to mice and rats with tumors. This work is a follow-up to Levine’s original studies in the 1990s, which showed that vitamin C given orally could not be absorbed above a 10 millimolar concentration. In their more recent invesigations, Levine and Chen have found that blood concentration levels of 20 to 30 millimolar can be achieved as a result of intravenous application. They also found that the tumors in their mice studies would take up the vitamin C and that hydrogen peroxide formed in the tumors and subcutaneous tissue, but not in the blood.

Drisko gives her patients two to three infusions of vitamin C per week in advanced cases. Ideally, the vitamin C would be administered as the fluid loading dose for chemotherapeutic drugs, but it is often difficult to carry out both vitamin C and chemotherapy treatments on the same day because patients are already burdened by a busy treatment schedule and the facilities providing the two types of treatments are often not in the same location. (A new dosing device that attaches to the hip, developed by Channing J. Paller at Johns Hopkins, could help to get around some of these barriers.) Drisko’s treatment schedule uses a “stair-step” methodology wherein doses ranging from 0 to 100 grams are able to achieve 20 millimolar blood concentrations.

The appropriate duration of vitamin C treatment for cancer is still an open question. What is known is that it takes at least a couple of months before effects start to show. This stands in stark contrast to chemotherapy, which makes a much quicker impact.


Drisko concluded her talk by sharing the hopeful story of a woman who had participated in her ovarian cancer trial. This patient had been part of the group that had received the standard chemotherapy treatment only. She had subsequently relapsed very quickly and was believed to have only months to live. In her conversations with Drisko, the patient expressed a strong desire to live long enough to give her grandson a present at Christmas, and she requested that Drisko give her vitamin C in addition to her chemotherapy, since she was no longer part of the trial.

Initial CT-PET images showed that the woman was suffering from an accumulation of fluid, or ascites, full of cancer cells that were pushing against her organs. At the start of her intravenous vitamin C treatment in 2004, a second CT-PET scan showed both the malignant ascites as well as a residual tumor that could not be removed surgically.

Subsequent scans after Drisko began her treatment showed gradual improvement. In 2007, the pictures included fewer ascites and the tumor was somewhat smaller, trends that continued to be seen in 2012. By 2014, calcification appeared in the tumor and around the fluid, with further calcification showing in 2015. In essence, what the scans were revealing was an eight-year process of “turning her cancer into a scar.” While this is only a single example, it is a powerful one, and may prove to be harbinger of medical breakthroughs to come.

Advertisements

Intravenous Vitamin C: The Historical Progression

jDrisko

Jeanne Drisko

[Part 1 of 2]

Jeanne Drisko, MD, Director of Integrative Medicine at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, was a featured speaker during the public session of the Linus Pauling Institute’s Diet and Optimum Health Conference, held September 13-16, 2017.  She delivered a public lecture titled “Intravenous vitamin C and cancer treatment: Does it work?” Dr. Maret Traber, a principal investigator at LPI, introduced Drisko, describing her as a “leading expert on intravenous vitamin C.”

Drisko began her talk by tracing the history of vitamin C research, noting the ways in which previous studies had made her own research possible. The first person Drisko spoke of was Nobel laureate Albert Szent-Gyӧrgyi (1893-1986), who isolated ascorbic acid while working at Cambridge University and the Mayo Foundation between 1927 and 1930. Drisko then pointed out that, in the 1940s, vitamin C was used widely in clinical settings to treat pertussis, or whooping cough, along with other bacterial and viral infections. Importantly, these treatments were not administered orally. At the time, pharmaceutical preparations of vitamin C were not of a quality that could be administered intravenously, so they was injected into the muscles.

The use of vaccines was also on the rise during this period and Drisko pointed out that the development of the polio vaccine was particularly connected to the clinical fate of vitamin C. Albert Sabin (1906-1993), who had developed an oral polio vaccine, also carried out trials on the effects of vitamin C injections on primates. Sabin found no benefit and suggested that focus turn toward vaccines instead. It was at this point, Drisko explained, that the use of vitamin C injections went “underground,” drifting well outside of the medical mainstream.

One individual who remained interested in the promise of vitamin C was Frederick Klenner (1907-1984), who began using intravenous ascorbic acid at his North Carolina clinic in the 1940s. Drisko described Klenner as keeping “vitamin C use alive,” by administering both muscular and intravenous injections, while the broader medical community turned elsewhere. In particular, Klenner used vitamin C to treat children suffering from polio and found that even advanced cases could be approached successfully. During this time, Klenner also trained other practitioners in the methods that he was pioneering at his clinic.


1976i2

Ewan Cameron, Ava Helen and Linus Pauling. Glasgow, Scotland, October 1976.

Next, Drisko turned to Linus Pauling. To begin, Drisko noted that since Pauling was already well known, his interest in oral vitamin C was written off by many who were familiar with his prior work. Others, however, did look to Pauling as an authority, and among them was the Scottish surgeon Ewan Cameron (1922-1991), who contacted Pauling after reading some of his papers in the early 1970s. In his initial correspondence, Cameron informed Pauling that he had been giving about ten grams of vitamin C to cancer patients and had observed that they tended to live longer. As a result of their shared interest, Pauling and Cameron decided to collaborate on a series of papers investigating the potential clinical import of large doses of vitamin C.

As they delved deeper into this work, Pauling became convinced of the need to carry out more rigorous trials. Lacking the funds to do so, he instead turned to the National Institutes of Health. Fatefully for Pauling, Charles Moertel (1927-1994), an oncologist at the Mayo Clinic who was eager to debunk the effectiveness of vitamin C, agreed to lead the NIH investigation. Specifically, Moertel carried out a double-blind placebo-controlled trial in which ten grams of vitamin C were administered orally, and he found no benefit. (He was not aware that Cameron had been injecting vitamin C intravenously.) Moertel published his results in the New England Journal of Medicine and the press picked it up. Once the negative conclusion had been widely circulated, subsequent mainstream interest in the medical application of vitamin C suffered a near fatal blow.


levine

Mark Levine

Research on intravenous vitamin C began to re-emerge during the 1990s, led in part by NIH scientist Mark Levine. Levine’s nutrition experiments were novel, and did not emerge from the types of medical training that he could have been expected to received. For context, Drisko described her own education, wherein courses on nutrition were optional and held on Saturday mornings. She attended them because she was interested, but she also went along with the convention of the time; one emphasizing that nutrition was of lesser importance relative to other aspects of medical practice.

Levine, on the other hand, did not follow this line and decided to study vitamin C in depth. In the trials that he carried out at the National Institutes of Health, Levine tracked patients deprived of vitamin C and showed that they had indeed become vitamin C deficient. He followed this by administering oral doses of vitamin C, which demonstrated repletion. At the end of his trial, Levine also administered one gram of vitamin C intravenously. He was not allowed to administer a higher dose to his subjects, due to fears of toxicity, but it was his guess that ten gram doses would yield peak blood levels of vitamin C.

Ultimately, Levine demonstrated that oral vitamin C was not capable of yielding maximal vitamin C blood levels, because the body does not absorb oral doses well and excretes it very quickly. Intravenous administration, on the other hand, bypassed these metabolic processes, leading to higher blood levels. With Levine’s work in mind, Drisko summarized the difference between Cameron’s research and Moertel’s Mayo Clinic trial: “Cameron gave a drug and the Mayo Clinic gave a vitamin.”


riordan

Hugh Riordan

Drisko’s mentor, Hugh Riordan (1932-2005), was another individual responsible for keeping vitamin C research alive. The founder of what is now known as the Riordan Clinic in Wichita, Kansas, Riordan belonged to a group of orthomolecular physicians who saw vitamins as providing restoration of a healthy baseline in all humans.

After Levine published his paper on vitamin C absorption, Riordan went to visit him in Maryland to convince him to continue following this path of inquiry. The two ultimately collaborated on several case studies and welcomed others into their fold, a progression that helped incubate today’s group of researchers investigating the use of intravenous vitamin C.

As of 2016, the intravenous vitamin C group included Qi Chen, who works on basic research at the University of Kansas with Drisko; John Hoffer at McGill University, who explores the effects of high doses of vitamin C on cancer; Garry Buettner and Joseph Cullen at the University of Iowa, who looks at the redox capacity of vitamin C in patients undergoing radiation therapy; and Ramesh Natarajan at Virginia Commonwealth University, who is researching the use of vitamin C in the treatment of sepsis.

Drisko noted that there are differences in the lines of research followed within the current group. On the one hand, her cancer trials use megadoses of vitamin C at 75 to 100 grams. Natarajan, on the other hand, only uses 4 or 5 grams in the ICU for sepsis.  For Drisko, these differences emphasize that there is still a lot of research to be done to understand exactly what is going on.


At present, attitudes toward vitamin C within the medical community can be mostly lumped into two categories. One is comprised of “early adopters,” as Drisko defines herself, who continue to carry out research to refine vitamin C treatments. The other consists of those who adhere more closely to the conclusions of the Moertel study, and who thus believe that claims supporting the effectiveness of vitamin C have been disproven. The distance between these two groups was characterized by Drisko as a “gulf of disapproval.”

However, current trends suggest that the gulf is being bridged. While some state medical boards still restrict the therapeutic use of vitamin C, Drisko and others have succeeded in garnering increasing levels of support from both colleagues and institutions. Shifts in funding opportunities are also beginning to emerge: though Drisko was unable to secure federal dollars for her work on ovarian cancer, the Gateway for Cancer Research non-profit stepped in to provide crucial support. With evidence of the efficacy of the treatment building from a growing number of trials, the possibility of obtaining federal grants is becoming more realistic. Likewise, drug companies are now looking at ways to patent vitamin C therapy, and some vitamin C treatment patients have succeeded in receiving reimbursement from their insurance companies.

Next week, we will provide an overview of the science underlying this renewal in optimism about the potential to fight disease with intravenous ascorbic acid.

Vitamin C and Heart Disease: An Open Question

lp-a-chalkboard

A note on LDL cholesterol and Lipoprotein (a) written by Pauling on his office chalkboard.

[An analysis of Linus Pauling’s research on vitamin C and heart disease, part 4 of 4]

In June 1992, Linus Pauling visited the Texas Heart Institute, after which he accepted an offer to write an editorial for the organization’s journal. He completed his short piece, “Can Vitamins Help Control Heart Disease and Strokes?” in March 1993, a little over a year before he passed away.

The Texas Heart Institute article turned out to be Pauling’s final public statement of consequence on the question of ascorbic acid and cardiovascular health. In his text, he argued once again that, although physicians had long known that arterial lesions cause heart disease, they had not yet accepted the evidence that lesions are brought about by low levels of vitamin C in the blood. This consensus had been maintained despite a widely accepted understanding that vitamin C is necessary to repair bodily tissues via collagen production.

Unfortunately for Pauling, the research required to clearly to shift scientific opinion was not forthcoming. Pauling realized that a major study needed to be funded to show a strong relationship between intake of larger doses of nutritional supplements (especially vitamin C) and even greater preventative or therapeutic health benefits for victims of cardiovascular disease. As the idea’s chief proponent, Pauling would have seemed to be a primary figure in attracting grant funds for such a study. However, in part because of the intense controversy over Pauling’s previous work with vitamin C and the common cold, and vitamin C and cancer, Pauling’s reputation had been badly marred within the medical mainstream, and research dollars had become very difficult for Pauling to source.

Partly as a result, his and Matthias Rath’s work stressing the importance of vitamin C as a key factor in combating heart disease was perhaps a case of too little, too late. Though the tandem had succeeded in establishing a general sense of the potential importance of vitamin C in heart disease prevention, the circumstances surrounding their work were not ripe enough for the duo to develop a more complete and lasting understanding of the types and levels of nutrients needed to ensure optimum heart health.


1993i.22

Linus Pauling giving an interview at Deer Flat Ranch, September 1993.

Other material considerations further compounded the problem. For one, at precisely the same time that the cardiovascular work was gaining traction, the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine was in the depths of dire financial straits. Furthermore, Linus Pauling was now nearly 93 years old and in declining health. As he battled with the cancer diagnosis that would ultimately claim his life, Pauling realized that could no longer go on assisting Rath. Meanwhile, Rath’s relationship with others in the Institute had fallen into turmoil, and the Linus Pauling Heart Foundation, which Rath directed, was withering on a vine of financial insolvency.

Rath was ultimately asked to leave the Institute amidst a period of legal disarray, partly a result of his having never signed the Institute’s mandatory employee patent agreement. In the wake of his departure from the Institute, and following the death of Linus Pauling in August 1994, the Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular Disease largely slipped into obscurity, though some echo of it has remained in the public consciousness.


In the years that followed Pauling’s death, the Institute’s cardiovascular program continued to investigate the role that nutrients like vitamin C, E, and B6 might play in limiting oxidative damage brought about by low density lipoproteins (LDL) in individuals suffering from atherosclerosis. Similar work is on-going today in multiple laboratories.

At present, the scientific understanding of the importance of vitamin C in preventing or treating heart disease remains somewhat mixed. Although vitamin C does not appear to directly lower blood cholesterol levels, evidence exists that it does significantly lower low density lipoprotein and Lp (a) levels, which in turn helps to protect arteries from blockage by these cholesterol-carrying molecules.

Total blood cholesterol may also lessen with increased vitamin C intake due to the fact that vitamin C is an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, meaning that if vitamin C levels are high, the body manufactures less cholesterol. Additionally, vitamin C’s benefits to the body as both a primary collagen producer and as an antioxidant contribute to what most studies agree to be a significant, though still not fully understood, protective effect against heart disease when taken in doses of 400 to 2,000 mg daily. As in Pauling’s era, this level of supplementation is far above the current Recommended Daily Allowance for adult men and women, which is 60 mg per day.

Likewise, the interaction between lysine and vitamin C that many of Pauling’s case study patients found to be highly therapeutic – with anecdotal reports of actual reversal of atherosclerosis in certain patients – has not been investigated further. And so it is that, more than twenty years after his death, Linus Pauling’s ideas on the impact that nutritional supplementation might make on heart health remain just as tantalizing and out of reach as they were when Pauling was alive and active.

The Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular Disease

vitc-stroke-pamphlet

[An examination of Pauling’s research on vitamin C and heart disease, part 3 of 4.]

In early 1991, Dr. Howard Bachrach of Southold, New York informed Linus Pauling of experimental results indicating that lipoprotein (a) [commonly abbreviated as Lp(a)] binding to arterial walls could be suppressed through the use of supplemental lysine. In the weeks that followed, Bachrach continued to exchange information with Pauling and his colleague at the Linus Pauling Institute of Medicine, Matthias Rath, in hopes of determining if lysine, vitamin C, or some combination of the two might not only prohibit but actually reverse plaque accretion in vitamin C-deficient guinea pigs.

A breakthrough came about on February 28, 1991 – Linus Pauling’s 90th birthday – when Rath reported to his colleagues his finding that Lp(a), as synthesized in the liver, was in fact regulated in an unknown way by the amount of vitamin C present in the body.

Lp(a) was understood by Rath and Pauling to form from low density lipoprotein (LDL) and Apoliprotein A-1 [abbrevied apo(a)] in the liver in amounts largely determined by the rate of synthesis of apo(a). This rate of synthesis was increased by low vitamin C concentrations in the blood. Rath and Pauling published the finding in Medical Science Research, arguing that plaque formation was not caused by LDL cholesterol, as previously thought, but lipoprotein (a) instead. Crucially, high doses of vitamin C was identified by the authors as being central to reducing these dangerous lipoprotein (a) levels.


This discovery formed the basis for what Pauling and Rath would eventually call their Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular Disease. Fundamental to this framework was Pauling and Rath’s belief that cardiovascular disease was a degenerative disease caused by vitamin C deficiency. The theory also put forth that humans’ inability to synthesize their own vitamin C drove the disease, though it was also aggravated by genetic defects and exogenous risk factors, such as free radicals introduced by cigarette smoke or oxidatively modified triglyceride-rich lipoproteins exerting a noxious effect on the vascular wall.

Further, lipoprotein (a) was put forth as an evolutionary surrogate for vitamin C in animals – like primates and guinea pigs – that no longer produced their own ascorbic acid. This collection of species shows much higher levels of Lp(a) in the blood, a characterstic seen by Pauling and Rath as serving as an ad hoc biological mechanism used by the body to repair damaged tissues through deposit on weakening arterial walls. Too much Lp(a), however, leads to plaque formation, causing angina, heart attack, and stroke. A lack of vitamin C thus leads indirectly to the deterioration of arteries.

From there, the researchers argued that this problem could be easily fixed if only the recommended doses of vitamin C were increased to levels many times larger than those prescribed by the federal government. Were the body enabled to make use of supplemental vitamin C to produce collagen – as all animals that synthesize vitamin C internally do – humans would be much more efficient at repairing damaged arterial walls. Indeed, vitamin C could function not only to strengthen arterial walls, but also to reduce the amount of Lp(a) being produced by the body and consequently – as a co-factor in the hydroxylation reaction that converts cholesterol to bile acids – lowering the amount of free cholesterol in the blood as well.


vitc-plaque

Published in the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine Newsletter, March 1992.

To Pauling and Rath, the logic supported their theory was clear. Critics, however, demanded large clinical studies to support the claims, and this was research that the Institute, which was struggling mightily for funds, did not have the resources to pursue.

It was at this point that other interested researchers took up the torch. One of them, Dr. James Enstrom at UCLA, led a 1992 study of over 11,000 human subjects. Enstrom’s work indicated that those individuals who regularly took supplements of vitamin C at federally recommended levels enjoyed significantly lower rates of heart disease than did those not subscribing to a supplementation routine. This data led Enstrom’s team to wonder – in tandem with Pauling and Rath – whether larger doses would achieve an even greater protective effect.

In 1993, hoping to add additional support to the hypothesis, Pauling published three case studies in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. Each study focused on individuals who had suffered from severe cardiovascular disease and undergone surgical procedures, including heart bypass. The individuals in question had read Pauling’s papers with Rath and had decided to try adding lysine and vitamin C to their diet. In certain cases, members of the study group had already been taking fairly high doses of vitamin C and then added lysine.

The 1993 data clearly were not anything like controlled studies and were reported on anecdotally by Pauling. Further, the amounts of lysine and vitamin C ingested varied significantly between individuals, but was generally in the range of between 3 to 6 grams per day of each supplement. Many within the study group reported rapid relief and positive responses.

Though far from authoritative, the published case studies did help to bolster Pauling and Rath’s position, attracting increased interest in the work. However, the duo also received plenty of letters, some filled with irritation, from people who had incorporated supplementation and saw no positive change. Some correspondents, in fact, were getting worse.

Pauling, Rath, and Lipoprotein(a)

rath

[An examination of Pauling’s research on vitamin C and heart disease. Part 2 of 4.]

In 1989, a young medical doctor by the name of Matthias Rath began working at the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine. Rath had come from Germany, where he and his colleagues had uncovered evidence that the cause of plaque development in atherosclerosis (the hardening of arteries brought about by cholesterol deposits) was not a direct result of the presence of Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL), as had been previously thought. Rather, the Rath group found that LDL was synthesized in the liver into a new substance called lipoprotein (a), which binds to and carries cholesterol to sites throughout the bloodstream, building up on arterial walls in the process.

In moving to the Pauling Institute, Rath brought with him a specific interest in the potential relationship between vitamin C and lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). He hoped that, in collaborating with Linus Pauling, he might be able to more fully explain the preventative effects of vitamin C on cardiovascular disease that had been observed in vitamin C-deficient animal models.

However, within the field, there existed significant skepticism as to whether vitamin C could actually affect Lp (a) levels in the blood, since these levels were not known to be modifiable by diet or drugs; – rather, the operating assumption was that the levels were genetically determined. Furthermore, concerns were raised that high doses of vitamin C might lead to an increased zinc-to-copper ratio in the blood, the end result being hypercholesterolemia and a concurrent increase in the risk of stroke or heart attack.

Skeptics also argued that an intense regimen of vitamin supplementation might spur the development of kidney stones, due to the acidification of urine in patients unable to take sodium ascorbate for health reasons. Additional fears were expressed that large doses of vitamin C, vitamin E, and other nutrients that act as blood thinners might interact dangerously with blood-thinning medications taken by many heart patients already.


Unsurprisingly, Rath and Pauling were hopeful that a solution could be found that would put to rest all of the naysaying. In this, the duo was driven by a belief that an optimum amount of vitamin C and other vitamins would mitigate any negative complications while simultaneously preventing a majority of heart disease.

By February 1990, Rath and Pauling were preparing to run experiments using vitamin C-deficient guinea pigs with induced atherosclerosis. These trials, according to Pauling, were devised by Rath and based on the idea that lipoprotein (a) synthesis in a small number of animals might be correlate with the inability to synthesize vitamin C. Pauling remained involved mostly as an eager and interested advisor and patron for Rath’s work on the subject.

In terms of their business arrangement, Pauling made it clear early on that Rath should not be held to the regular patent agreement for LPISM employees (25% royalties to the inventor, 75% to the Institute). Since Rath had developed the idea and foundational work outside LPISM, Pauling suggested a 50/50 split on the profits.

In addition to his scientific work, Rath was also a peace activist, an outspoken opponent of international corporate exploitation, and an advocate for the control of nuclear weapons, and as such he had followed Pauling’s political exploits with great personal interest for many years. Perhaps because of these shared qualities and the growing connection between the two, Rath refused the favorable 50/50 deal that Pauling had recommended. Instead, Rath communicated to Pauling that he believed the Institute should receive any and all profits, leaving Pauling to infer that Rath required no royalties for what he viewed, in principle, as an effort to decrease the amount of suffering endured by people with heart disease. In the end, Rath never signed the Institute’s patent agreement at all.


The first major paper to emerge out of Rath and Pauling’s collaboration was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in December 1990 and titled “Immunological Evidence for the Accumulation of Lipoprotein(a) in the Atherosclerotic Lesion of the Hypoascorbemic Guinea Pig.” The publication reported on Rath’s study and showed that vitamin C protected arteries from fatty build-up at an intake of what would be about 5 grams a day in humans, as adjusted for weight. This dose stood in stark contrast to the much smaller Recommended Daily Allowance at that time, which was 50 mg.

With this paper, it appeared that Pauling had finally acquired a critical piece of evidence that he had been searching for ever since writing Vitamin C and the Common Cold in 1970: experimental proof that a widespread lack of vitamin C in the human diet was resulting in negative health consequences that ranged far beyond scurvy. Likewise, for Pauling, the Rath studies were a clear indication that the federally recommended dose, though sufficient to prevent scurvy, was by no means optimal. Rather, at 50 mg per day, humans were living in a state of chronic vitamin C deprivation and were suffering from a wide range of maladies as a result.


pauling-heart-foundation

From 1990 on, the connection between vitamin C and heart disease took center stage in Pauling’s life. Invigorated, he and Rath both saw the topic as a key new focus for research at the Institute, and a program that would pair well with growing national interest in orthomolecular medicine and in controlling health through diet.

To promote this vision, The Linus Pauling Heart Foundation was established as a non-profit agency that aimed specifically to raise money to support the clinical trials needed to determine the exact value of different doses of vitamins needed to prevent cardiovascular disease. In addition to the vitamin C work, the Foundation also sought to  generate funds that would support investigations into alternative heart therapies that used proline, lysine, and niacin.

Once it was established, Pauling named Rath as president of the Foundation, which operated separately from the Institute, but with some financial backing. To draw support for the Foundation’s work, Pauling made regular appearances on media outlets in the San Francisco Bay Area. Likewise, over the course of the next two years, he issued a steady stream of press releases arguing in favor of the use of vitamin C, vitamin B3, nicotinic acid, and lysine to prevent and even reverse the onset of cardiovascular disease. In these, Pauling also alluded to the notion that Lp(a) might be implicated not only in heart disease, but also in diabetes and cancer. No specific optimal vitamin intake was ever detailed in the news releases. Instead, readers were encouraged to make donations to the Foundation so that research to better understand the role that vitamins play in controlling heart disease might more rapidly progress.

Vitamin C and Cardiovascular Disease: The Roots of Controversy

lp-caricature-1992

Caricature of Linus Pauling created by Eleanor Mill and published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 1992.

[Part 1 of 4]

“People are not dying from too much fatty food, they’re dying from too little vitamin C.”

-Linus Pauling, Vitamin C and Heart Disease, 1977

Health-conscious readers of a certain age have likely experienced a frustrating back and forth in food trends over the past several decades, and especially in the 1980s and 1990s. First eggs were said to be bad for you because they are high in cholesterol, then it was learned that they didn’t increase cholesterol in the blood. Likewise, butter was believed to be a health risk because of its high levels of saturated fats, however, butter (especially from grass fed animals, and especially as opposed to margarine) is now argued to be a valuable source of vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids. Chocolate and red meat, too, were decried for being too fatty or, in the case of chocolate, also too sugary. Yet today, both are viewed as useful and even valuable sources of nutrition, so long as they are consumed in moderation.

These swings in consensus swept across the United States beginning in the 1970s largely in response to rising concerns over cardiovascular disease, or CVD. CVD includes a range of maladies such as angina, or heart attack, and many occur in conjunction with atherosclerosis, or the build-up of fatty plaques on arterial walls.

Today, CVD remains the leading cause of death in the United States, claiming over 600,000 lives every year. As health professionals have sought to provide guidance on balanced eating, ideas have flip-flopped on the potential dangers of many foods because, over time, it has become increasingly clear that cutting these foods out of one’s diet altogether had little to no impact on rates of CVD.

Linus Pauling was arguing in support of this point of view long before the data had been gathered to confirm it. Pauling believed that the trend toward removing eggs, red meat, and whole milk from American diets was an ill-advised scheme that restricted valuable sources of protein and nutrients from individuals who often could not afford substitutes for these staple foods. In Pauling’s view, it should have been clear to physicians and other health professionals that these dietary sources of cholesterol could not significantly impact total cholesterol levels in the blood, because cholesterol is synthesized, to a great extent, within the body due to its importance in the maintenance of cell membranes.

The real problem behind heart disease, then, was not a high-cholesterol diet. The problem behind heart disease, Pauling argued, was a widespread failure to ingest a substance that could limit the body’s natural production of life-threatening cholesterol: Vitamin C.


As early as the late 1950s and early 1960s, researchers were uncovering evidence that high vitamin C intake reduced cholesterol in vitamin C-deficient guinea pigs, rats, and rabbits. Perhaps most notably, in the 1950s a Canadian group of researchers led by Dr. G.C. Willis found that above-average cholesterol intake did not result in plaque deposits in non-human subjects’ arteries so long as the diet was paired with a high-dose vitamin C regimen.

Intrigued, Linus Pauling began a search for other champions of this view, and in 1972 he wrote to Dr. Donald Harrison at the Stanford Medical School of Cardiology inquiring into additional research that was being conducted on the interplay between vitamin C and a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease. Harrison responded that, although the results were not yet published, he had found lower levels of cholesterol in the livers of guinea pigs that had been fed non-trivial doses of vitamin C.

By 1976 many had come to accept that vitamin C played some role in the regulation of cholesterol metabolism and thus in the progression, or lack thereof, of atherosclerosis and CVD. In addition to Harrison’s studies at Stanford, preliminary work conducted by researchers at Pennsylvania State University found that ascorbic acid and ascorbic acid sulfate (two forms of vitamin C) significantly reduced atherosclerosis caused by cholesterol plaques in rabbits.

However, at about this time, other research projects had suggested the opposite, and indicated that increased intake of vitamin C might in fact increase the risk of heart disease by inhibiting the absorption of copper in the intestinal tract. As a result of this inhibited absorption, the ratio of zinc to copper in the blood would stray from what is ideal and ultimately result in hypercholesterolemia: an imbalance in zinc and copper metabolism that is implicated in coronary heart disease.

These findings created a scenario in which the Pauling camp was squared off against many physicians over the confusing and opposing views that large doses of vitamin C both reduced and increased one’s risk of cardiovascular disease.


Throughout the 1970s, Pauling’s broad argument in favor of the fundamental importance of vitamin C to optimum human health was based on the idea that when primates lost the gene for vitamin C synthesis about forty million years ago, systematic physiological imbalances arose that continue to carry negative health consequences for humans today.

Pauling was quick to point out that all animals require vitamin C to live and that most synthesize it naturally. Yet humans – primates who do not synthesize their vitamin C naturally – typically obtain far less of it in their diet (when adjusted for body weight) than do other primates and non-synthesizing animals like guinea pigs. In addition, animals of this sort, when fed moderate to low levels of vitamin C, showed increased risk for development of arterial plaques of cholesterol.

What was less clear was whether or not this same effect was occurring in humans. Physicians opposed to Pauling’s view based their arguments on the idea that humans are physiologically different in important ways from the animals used to model the effects of vitamin C deficiency in the laboratory. Pauling scoffed at this notion and firmly believed that vitamin C deficiency in humans was the true cause of CVD. But even he could not fully explain exactly why vitamin C should be directly related to heart disease.

Over a decade later, in 1989, when a scientist named Matthias Rath came to the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine, Pauling would finally find what he believed to be the key to explaining how and why vitamin C was so important to the well-being of the human heart.

Vitamin C and Cancer: Rays of Hope

 

1992i.012

[Part 4 of 4]

Ridiculed by the medical profession for two decades, the tide began to shift for vitamin C and cancer starting in 1992. That year, the New York Academy of Sciences voted to discuss high-dose vitamins and nutrients at its annual meeting, devoting several sessions to the antioxidant properties of vitamin C and its potential value at higher-than-dietary amounts in preventing lung, stomach, colon, and rectal cancers.

Oddly, throughout the proceedings, one prominent name had been missing from the conversation, a point noted by a professor from Alabama who finally spoke up, saying,

For three days I have been listening to talks about the value of large intakes of vitamin C and other natural substances, and I have not heard a single mention of the name Linus Pauling. Has not the time come when we should admit that Linus Pauling was right all along?


Since 1996 the Linus Pauling Institute, relocated from California, has continued work on cancer from it’s new home at Oregon State University. Basing these contemporary orthomolecular studies on the hard sciences of cellular biology, molecular biology, and organic chemistry, the Institute continues to explore the cutting edge of health and nutrition research.

Working under Dr. Balz Frei, the current director of the Institute, as well as former LPI principal investigator Dr. Roderick Dashwood (now director of the Center for Epigenetics and Disease Prevention at Texas A&M University), OSU student Matt Kaiser has spent time analyzing the benefits of vitamin C treatment for colorectal cancer, which remains the third leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The Pauling Blog has interviewed Kaiser in the past, and we met with him again recently to gain a better sense of trends in the community of researchers interested in vitamin C and cancer.


1992i.012a

One primary question that begs further exploration is, why didn’t earlier studies find evidence of the value of vitamin C?

As it turns out, the problem appears to have been primarily located in the way that vitamin C was being administered. The 1979 Mayo studies to which Pauling so strongly objected had assumed that, since vitamin C was filtered out of the body after a certain point of blood saturation, higher doses need not be examined. This assumption – that excess vitamin C could not be absorbed and was simply excreted in the urine – was one of the most basic issues of contention that Pauling was never able to get past with the medical community. However, it now appears that the assumption applies only if vitamin C is taken as an oral supplement, a breakthrough that was first identified by Mark Levine, a Senior Investigator at the National Institutes of Health.

Matt Kaiser explains

Mark Levine realized in the 1990s that the way drugs are distributed and function in the body [pharmacokinetics] can drastically change the amount of vitamin C entering blood plasma. Eating vitamin C you can only get about 250 micromolar [a measure of vitamin C, or ascorbate— to use its chemical name— that can be concentrated in the blood stream]. With intravenous injection, the levels are much larger: 200 times. One millimole is a thousand micromoles, so 30 millimolar [of ascorbate in blood plasma] is a huge difference!

At these high pharmacological— or even super physiological— doses, Levine found that cancer cell populations dropped significantly. To understand why, it is important to know a bit about how cancer works.

Human DNA can wrap up tight (heterochromatin) or unwind into a loose, more open configuration (euchromatin). When it is wrapped up tight, the genetic information on the DNA cannot be expressed. This is because transcription, which is the process by which a cell reads and expresses the genetic code, requires access to DNA.

There are very specific times when DNA should be wrapped tight to maintain optimum health, and other times when one’s body needs to be able to use the instructions for cellular function that are contained in DNA. When DNA needs to be unwound, molecules called histone acetyltransferases (HATs) help to unwind it. When it needs to be wound up tight, the process is aided by histone deacetylases (HDACs).

HDAC overexpression is a hallmark of cancer cells, and hyperactive HDAC cells lead to messy, knotted DNA winding. This biological circumstance hinders the cell from reading important instructions found in DNA, which in turn prevents the production of important tumor suppressor proteins. At the same time, it leaves certain sections of the genetic code open that should not be expressed.

“Basically,” says Kaiser, “You remove the break from the car, and then you also step on the gas. And that’s cancer.”


kaiser

Matthew Kaiser.

The prevailing theory of how vitamin C acts on tumors is that it functions as a “prodrug,” meaning that it stimulates biochemical processes that allow something else to kill the cancer cell, rather than acting on it directly. In this case, the active agent is hydrogen peroxide, which is produced in saturated tissues by excess vitamin C. “Vitamin C acts as the Trojan horse that allows hydrogen peroxide to enter the tumor site,” Kaiser explains. “You can’t inject it straight in; your body will react too strongly. Hydrogen peroxide is a reactive oxygen species…it tears cells apart.”

However, since working on the project, Kaiser has found that this consensus on how vitamin C fights cancer isn’t necessarily the whole story. Pharmacological levels of ascorbate appear to selectively reduce the presence of proteins that regulate reactive oxygen species, like hydrogen peroxide, in cancerous cells. Some of these same proteins also happen to promote cell growth, which is not something that one would wish for cancer cells to do. In addition to producing hydrogen peroxide, ascorbate actually inhibits the runaway HDAC production that makes cancer cells so dangerous.

“What makes it really hard, really complicated,” Kaiser laments, “is that this might not work the same way for different types of cancer cells in different locations. There’s still so much to understand about how vitamin C is having this protective effect…That’s what’s lacking and that’s why we need studies like this.”


doh

And indeed, more studies are coming. In keeping with it’s mission to extend and promote what it calls “healthspan,” LPI hosts a bi-annual Diet and Optimum Health Conference, bringing together experts from around the world to talk about topics in orthomolecular medicine, among other fields. This year the conference, which was held at OSU in September, featured several speakers discussing vitamin C and cancer. One of them was Dr. Mark Levine, the NIH scientist who first showed the value of intravenous ascorbate.

Margreet Vissers and Anita Carr, of the University of Otago in New Zealand, also described their own advances on the subject. Vissers found in her studies that levels of 50 micromolar ascorbate in blood plasma (average dietary levels are between 40 and 80) had little to no protective effect against cancer. Doubling the amount to 100 micromolar, however, boosted a patient to the lowest level of the protective range. It would seem, then, that Pauling was right to suggest that mega doses might be important for optimum health.

Vissers also explained that, in animal models, ascorbate injected intravenously will peak after about twenty hours in both healthy tissue and in tumors. However, unlike the healthy tissue, tumor tissues hold onto the vitamin C and do not return to a natural baseline. This detail is important because it allows high doses of ascorbate to build up in tumor tissue, and these doses disproportionately kill cancer cells instead of healthy tissues for reasons that are still not fully understood.

Conversely, the dangers of using vitamin C, even in high intravenous doses, appear to be small. While some people harbor an enzymatic deficiency that can cause a severe negative reaction, most individuals simply cannot overdose on vitamin C. Even in the blood plasma, vitamin C usually reaches a saturation point and is filtered from the body.

At the LPI conference, Dr. Carr pointed out that this form of treatment also dramatically improves the quality of life of cancer patients as compared to chemotherapy. For one, vitamin C treatments involve significantly less pain, mental and physical fatigue, nausea and insomnia. As of March 2015, three clinical trials involving pharmacological levels of ascorbate have been conducted, all of them showing that it is well tolerated by patients and reduces chemotherapy-related toxicity.

Additionally, vitamin C at high doses is known to aid cognitive function, and these positive benefits work together to aid in social satisfaction for the patient. As Pauling pointed out in the 1970s, it is not only the disease that the doctor should be concerned about treating, but the patient as well.


1989i.48

Pauling in 1989 – an extraordinary life. Photo by Paolo M. Sutter.

So is Linus Pauling vindicated when it comes to vitamin C and cancer? The answer is complicated.

On the one hand, it would appear that vitamin C can serve as an important preventative and treatment for cancer. However, the method that Pauling advocated— taking large supplemental doses orally— is pretty clearly not an effective form of application. Rather, contemporary research indicates that the levels of ascorbate that are required to slow or stop tumor growth are far greater than that which can be achieved naturally by ingesting vitamin C; they can be accomplished only by intravenous injections of ascorbate. Furthermore, it is likely that this form of treatment will not replace, but instead will augment, existing protocols including chemotherapy.

But the broader trend is optimistic and, one might argue, validating. And with the Linus Pauling Institute and many others around the world continuing to investigate the potential for vitamin C and other nutrients to help people live longer and feel better, exciting new studies on optimum diet and effective treatments for diseases like cancer would appear to be on the near horizon.