Week 66 – Oxygenation, Vitamin C & Anti-oxidants

A couple of weeks back I attended the monthly meeting at my local cancer association. This is a kind of a cross between a support group and a general information session.

The speaker for the evening was to talk on “integrative medicine”, and I didn’t really know what to expect. Well, it turned out that he was a trained medical doctor, but also a homeopath, and the term “integrative” means that they try to integrate both conventional medicine and other treatments.

As the session went on, I found that I was getting really annoyed and cross with the presenter. I argued with him a few times, and after a while I decided to leave, as otherwise I was going to have a stand-up slanging match, and spoil the session for everyone else. I felt he was behaving as a charlatan, and this to a group of people with serious problems and serious concerns. Let me give you a few examples:

>>> He mentioned that he was giving one of his patients either oxygen treatment or ozone treatment – I can’t recall which it was. I know that there is absolutely no benefit to be obtained from these so-called treatments, and they can also be downright dangerous. To give the impression that this is accepted medicine is downright dishonest.

Those who support oxygenation claim that toxins damage the oxidative metabolism of normal cells which then regress into anaerobic metabolism, resulting in cancer. Hydrogen Peroxide and ozone are the substances recommended. The original claims were made over 50 years ago, and are extremely simplistic approaches to complex problems. There are no reputable published studies to support any of the claims made for these substances.

>>> He made an unsupported statement that the “majority” of drugs and medicines prescribed by doctors today have not been properly tested, and in fact are simply sold by pharmaceutical companies on the basis of dubious theories. He may in fact have been referring to the practice of using some medicines for purposes for which they have not been tested or certified (“off-prescription” usage) but this was not how I understood him. It seemed to me that he made the statement in order to justify the fact that many homeopathic remedies have not been subjected to proper testing, and without published results.

>>> I know that vitamin C is important in one’s diet. However, he perpetuated a belief that vitamin C in very large doses could cure or avoid all manner of ills.

In 1970 Linus Pauling claimed that taking 1000mg of vitamin C every day would reduce the incidence of the common cold by something like half. In 1976 he recommended even higher dosages, and by 1986 had expanded the benefits to include protection against heart disease, cancer and other diseases of aging.

I quote from a reputable source: “At least 16 well-designed, double-blind studies have shown that supplementation with vitamin C does not prevent colds and at best may slightly reduce the symptoms of a cold.”

His claims that high doses of vitamin C could delay the onset of cancer are equally misleading and unproven, and I will not detail them here.

To refer to Linus Pauling as a Nobel prize winner is misleading, in that it leads one to think that it was for his work on vitamin C that he was so honoured. In fact, Pauling’s first Nobel was awarded in 1954 for chemistry, and the second in 1962 for peace. There is no doubt that he was an intelligent person. His interest in vitamin C only developed later in life, and he continued to produce ever more radical statements. He died of prostate cancer at the age of 93.

>>> Another area which disturbed me was his insistence that antioxidants can greatly assist in preventing heart disease, cancer and other conditions associated with aging.

So far, the results of clinical trials have been mostly negative. There is epidemiological evidence indicating that greater antioxidant intake is associated with lower risk of disease. There is some argument for additional supplementation of vitamin E. However, once again it appears that the major benefits are obtained by consuming a balanced diet with emphasis on antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables and whole grains.

I could bring out some other areas which annoyed me, but I think the above is sufficient to get my point across.

The presenter had access to a large amount of information which he slotted into his presentation: Facts, figures and statements, as well as highly technical arguments. And much of what he said was above reproach, and good advice. As with the AIDS-denialists, it is difficult for the layman to understand what is being said, never mind question the details and supporting information. The result is that people go home with reinforcement of “popular” misconceptions.

And this is what I object to: Any cancer organization should be seen as providing up-to-date and reliable information. It should not allow itself to be used as conduit for questionable ‘cures’ and quacks.

The audience consisted of a wide variety of people with one thing in common: They are cancer patients. Some are in remission, as I am, and grateful for it, but keen to learn more about it, and what they can do to prevent recurrence. Others are recovering from surgery, or on radiation or chemotherapy, and not sure what is going to happen to them. One or two have very serious problems for which they have been told there is not much further that can be done. All of these people are under stress, and some will be clutching at straws.

There is much to be said for being optimistic.

But I really object to the presentation of ideas which are downright misleading. It may lead to people rejecting what their more conventional doctors say or recommend. Or it may lead to people putting their faith in a questionable therapy, and delaying the correct treatment until it really is too late.