http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/hoffer.html
(Links to some of the articles in the bibliography are
there on the webpage)
© 1996
First published June 1996 in THE TOWNSEND LETTER FOR DOCTORS
AND PATIENTS
Reprinted with permission by the Author and The Townsend
Letter
I have been involved in megavitamin controversies from
1955 when with two colleagues we [1] published our paper showing that niacin
lowered total cholesterol levels. This was quickly confirmed because Dr. W. B.
Parsons, Jr[2] . It was easy to measure cholesterol levels. Dr Parsons is one
of the most knowledgeable and experienced internists in the use of niacin to
lower cholesterol levels. But after we[3] published a much more comprehensive paper
where we concluded: (1) that the addition of niacin or niacinamide in large
doses was therapeutic for acute and non deteriorated schizophrenics;
(2) was not therapeutic for chronic patients, our
involvement in controversy became massive, until today even though every study
using the same type of patients, the same methods and the same regimen, has corroborated
our findings.
The conclusions reached by Dr. E. Cameron and Linus
Pauling[4] on the beneficial effect of ascorbic acid on the outcome of terminal
cancer was just as forcefully rejected by the cancer establishment. The main
reason for the non acceptance of the Vale of Leven’s conclusions and for the
non acceptance of our psychiatric findings is very simple. We are just now beginning
to emerge from the vitamins-as-prevention paradigm into the vitamins-as-treatment
paradigm. Psychiatry is simply ten or more years behind the rest of the medical
sciences.
Machlin[5] divided the history of the vitamins into five
periods. The first phase was present from 1500 B.C. to about 1900 A.D. when it
was empirically observed that certain foods prevented some diseases. Egyptians
used liver to prevent night blindness. Central American Indians used specially
treated and cooked corn to prevent pellagra for several thousand years.
The second period started about 1890 and continued until
about 1910. During this period the relationship between the lack of certain
foods and disease became established. Thus polished rice was proven to cause
beri beri. Of course, if brown rice had remained the staple food of the
Japanese Navy there would have been no problem and no discovery of thiamin as a
vitamin. During the first period it
became recognized that altering the natural food supply would produce disease.
This lesson is still imperfectly understood by most modern societies.
The third phase from 1900 to 1948 was the golden age of
vitamin discovery, isolation and synthesis of vitamins. The fourth phase from
1933 began with the first commercial synthesis of vitamin C and continues
today. These four phases comprise the vitamin-as-prevention paradigm. This
paradigm became so firmly established that only now is it beginning to weaken
by the onslaught of new information.
The fifth phase is the recognition of health effects
beyond prevention and new biochemical functions. It is the vitamin-as-treatment
paradigm. It is beginning to enter the medical profession, has not yet been
accepted by the medical schools which remain many years behind in the teaching
of nutrition and is still tightly held by dietitians and many nutritionists,
especially those working for institutions.
The introduction of this last phase is credited by Machlin
to our paper in 1955 which showed that megadoses of nicotinic acid decreased
total cholesterol, the decrease being relatively greater the higher the initial
blood level. He wrote, “I somewhat arbitrarily started the fifth period with
the report in 1955 of the cholesterol-lowering effect of niacin, which is a
well-accepted response of the vitamin that has nothing to do with its coenzyme
role and is a clear health effect beyond preventing the deficiency disease
pellagra”. I had concluded many years ago that this early report would be one
of the most important findings which would take us into the modern paradigm. It
is the first vitamin to be approved for megadose use by FDA, for lowering
cholesterol, but it could also be used for any other indication including the
schizophrenias.
This paradigm is described by the following rules or
beliefs:
) That vitamins are catalysts and therefore are needed in
very small doses since they can be recycled almost indefinitely.
)That they are needed only to prevent deficiency disease
i.e. diseases caused by a deficiency of these vitamins. Thiamin is needed to
prevent beri beri, nicotinic acid is needed to prevent pellagra and vitamin C
is needed to prevent scurvy.
It therefore follows that any use of vitamins which
disobeys these rules is not indicated and has by many medical societies been
considered unethical practice or malpractice. If they are needed only in small
doses the use of large doses must be forbidden. If they are used only to
prevent disease, any use to treat other disease must be forbidden.
For these reasons regulatory daily requirement were
developed as a guide to society and to the professions. They are invariably
small doses based upon this paradigm and upon very little real hard evidence of
their practicality and usefulness. The prevention paradigm adherents presented
a hard and secure front against those who would break its rules by enforcing
the view that large doses were never needed, that they were potentially
dangerous (these dangers were never clearly defined and related to dose level,
and the height of sarcasm thrown against vitamins-as-treatment physicians was that
the only thing vitamins would do is to enrich the urine and the waters into
which that urine ran. Just a few months ago a physician attacked some of my
views in a popular medical journal by claiming that the waters around Victoria
must be rich in vitamin C. If I had retorted I would have added that this is
better than enriching them with antibiotics, tranquilizers, antidepressants and
the thousands of drugs which now enrich the waters. A physician friend and
colleague lost his medical licence in Saskatchewan. One of the charges against him was that he gave a patient
intravenous ascorbic acid. Another was that he diagnosed a patient
schizophrenic with the help of a test developed by Humphry Osmond and I called
the HOD[6] test. This is a very helpful perceptual test which yields
probability levels for the presence of schizophrenia.
This paradigm contains the following new rules, based upon
a good deal of evidence:
) That optimum doses should be used in both prevention and
treatment and that these doses vary from very small to very large, i.e. into
the megavitamin range. For example to prevent pellagra one needs about 10 milligrams
of nicotinic acid daily, but to prevent the symptoms of chronic pellagra from
recurring one will need close to 1000 mg daily. There is no optimum doses for
the whole population. It depends upon age, sex, type of illness, type of
stress, i.e. upon the individual. We will have to determine the optimum levels
for schizophrenics, for depressions, for the arthritides, for lupus, for cancer
and so on. This is well described by Roger Williams[7] in his classic works on
biochemical individuality. ) That
vitamins may have activity which appears to be unrelated to their properties as
vitamins. This was a very difficult concept to accept but the introduction of
the word antioxidants struck a responsive chord and many physicians who were
terribly fearful of using vitamins had no compunction against using the same
vitamins an antioxidants. This fits in with the increasingly popular view that
hyper oxidation, the formation of free radicals, is basic in the pathology of a
large number of conditions including cancer, senility and so on.
The Assault on the Vitamin-as-Prevention Paradigm This
began about 55 years ago with the report by the American pellagrologists that
chronic pellagra could not be treated except by very large doses of nicotinic
acid; they used 600 mg daily. It was also shown that dogs kept on the pellagra-
producing diet for a long time no longer responded to small doses of this
vitamin. They had become dependent and needed much larger doses.
The next assault on this paradigm arose from the classic
studies of William Kaufman[8] who reported in two books before 1950 the marked
therapeutic benefit to arthritics by giving them multigram doses of vitamin B-3
daily. But this important work was
ignored and hardly any physicians are aware it was ever done.
The next attack came from a different direction, from the
work of Drs. Wilfred and Evan Shute[9]
of Ontario who showed that large doses of vitamin E given for adequate periods
of time were very helpful in treating coronary disease, burns, and were useful
in prevention. They were not ignored. They were almost destroyed by a medical
profession which was completely unaware of the importance of their work, did
not believe vitamin E was a vitamin and knew with absolute certainty that their
work was useless. The Shute Clinic, still in existence, treated over 30,000
patients from all over North America. The agenda of the few attempts to repeat
their work was to show how useless vitamin E was. Today the major studies[10]
which have confirmed this early work still consistently refuse to acknowledge
the prior work of these great pioneers, as if the idea had sprung freshly minted
from their own foreheads when they launched the Harvard Vitamin E studies. Had
the Shutes’ findings been taken seriously in 1960, think of enormous saving of
human health, the enormous decrease in human misery and the enormous financial
saving over the past 35 years.
In the early Fifties, Dr. Fred Klenner began his work on
megadoses of vitamin C. He used doses up to 100 grams per day orally or
intravenously. In clinical reports he
recorded the excellent response he saw when it was given in large doses. He
reported, for example, that patients given vitamin C would suffer no residual
defects from their polio. A controlled study in England on 70 children, half
given vitamin C and half given placebo showed that none of the treated cases
developed any paralysis while up to 20 percent of the untreated group did[11] .
This study was not published because the Salk Vaccine had just been developed
and no one was interested in vitamins. Dr. Klenner’s work was ignored.
However, only after Linus Pauling entered the field with
his classic report to Science in 1968 did the use of megadoses of vitamins
receive major world attention. The public and a few scientists were immediately
attracted to his conclusions world wide, while the medical profession as a
block dumped all over him. Their main objection apparently was that he did not
have an M.D. Dr. Pauling became interested in vitamins about the time he had decided
to retire. He had won his second unshared Nobel Prize and was getting tired and
frustrated by the opposition to his work for peace. He had made a few powerful
enemies including Senator McCarthy of anti communist fame, and Joseph Stalin of
communist fame who considered his views on the atom directly opposed to
communist theory. At a meeting in New York in 1966, both Dr. Irwin Stone and I
met Dr. Pauling for the first time. Dr. Stone had assembled a large collection
of vitamin C papers (he hated the word vitamin C and preferred the more correct
term ascorbic acid). Dr. Stone first used the word megavitamin and the word hypoascorbemia.
He considered scurvy, not a deficiency disease, but a metabolic error. I urged
him to publish his review of ascorbic acid which he did several years later[12]
. Irwin heard Dr. Pauling state that he wished he could live another 25 years
because science was making so many interesting discoveries. Dr. Stone wrote to
him and told him he could achieve his goal if he would take vitamin C in
megadoses. Dr. Pauling tried it out, was convinced because he felt so much
better, and lived another 30 years.
The major impetus given by Linus Pauling to the megadose
concept of vitamin C stimulated by Irwin Stone has finally thrown this vitamin
into public and medical acceptance. Many years ago Linus Pauling concluded that
people taking ascorbic acid would live longer[13] . All the information we have
about ascorbic acid lead to this conclusion. It is therefore very helpful to
actually see what it can do in practice for the final test is the practical one
- does it work? In fact, it does. Dr. James Enstrom[14] , School of Public
Health, University of California at Los Angeles analyzed a ten year study of
11,348 people, aged 25 to 74. Men who consumed at least 300 mg of ascorbic acid
suffered 41 percent fewer deaths during that period compared with men who took
only 50 mg, in their food. They lived on the average 6 years longer. For women
the results were not as striking. This amount of ascorbic acid can not be
obtained from the diet alone and shows that supplements are essential. Had they
used gram doses daily, I think the results would have been more striking.
Dr. A.G. Brox[15] and colleagues at McGill University
found that two grams of ascorbic acid daily, successfully treated 7 out of 11
patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). They had all been sick
more than two months and had not responded to adrenocorticosteroids. Three had
had splenectomies. Four had failed additional treatment including the current usual
treatments. Their report had been rejected by the New England Journal of
Medicine, I think, because they were then involved in a dispute with Linus
Pauling. They had refused to advise him whether a rebuttal letter answering the
Mayo cancer and ascorbic acid studies he had submitted would be published until
he threatened them with legal action. Then they rejected it. I have one patient
now with ITP on ascorbic acid who has been well over five years, but only as
long as she remains on her ascorbic acid. If she discontinues it, her platelet
count begins to sink within a few weeks.
Linus Pauling[16] carried the orthomolecular concepts into
the field of cancer and again stirred up a hornets nest of hostility. For a
good discussion of his work see Hoffer[17] . But I am totally convinced he was correct.
His many scientific reports were very impressive. My studies with Pauling[18]
on 660 cancer patients beginning in 1978 are confirmatory.
The first major attention to megadoses of vitamins
followed our report of the effect of nicotinic acid on cholesterol, not because
we had reported it but because it was promptly confirmed by the Mayo Clinic. I
had been invited by the Mayo Foundation to give them a series of lectures on schizophrenia.
During a dinner I told their chief of psychiatry about the effect of nicotinic
acid on cholesterol. He passed it on to the chief of medicine in the presence
of his senior resident Dr. W. B. Parsons Jr[19] . Dr Parsons is one of the pre-eminant experts in the use of
megadoses of nicotinic acid. The work was then taken up by Dr. E. Boyle, then
with the National Institute of Health, and later by the Coronary Drug Study
which eventually established nicotinic acid as the treatment of choice for hypercholesterolemia.
It is also by and large the cheapest and safest.
During that time Humphry Osmond and I published our second
book, “How To Live With Schizophrenia”[20] . A California patient[21] had
recovered on orthomolecular treatment having failed the best California could
offer over four years. Her father was so grateful he decided to educate every physician
in his community. He did so by handing out copies of our book. One of them came into the hands of a
psychiatrist. Dr. Pauling and Ava visited her one afternoon, and Dr. Pauling
saw the book on her coffee table. He began to read it, borrowed it, and
finished it by morning. He went to bed still thinking of retiring and he arose
the next day determined that he would not and would enter this new field of
megavitamin therapy. He was intrigued by the large doses of vitamin B-3 we were
using with safety. This led to his
Science report[22] and to his amazing contribution to the theory of
meganutrient therapy, in the use of vitamin C for viral and other infections,
for his very recent contribution to the cholesterol problem and heart disease.
Dr. Pauling made the greatest individual contribution toward the overthrow of
the old paradigm and its replacement by the newer, more accurate, and useful
one.
Megavitamin therapy was ignored by medicine at large and
was vilified by psychiatry. Only after Dr. Pauling entered the fray did the
major profession take notice, and then it too became very hostile and critical especially
after Dr. Pauling’s first book on the common cold appeared. The National
Institute of Mental Health funded a study in New Jersey under the direction of
Dr. Wittenborn, a research psychologist. They had first approached a
psychiatrist in St. Louis, who agreed to do the study if I would be a
consultant. So the NIMH turned to New Jersey. The Wittenborn study was double
blind and was an attempt to repeat our original double blind controlled studies
started a decade before. Dr. Wittenborn in his first report found that there
was no difference between the placebo and the treated group. We had claimed
that it worked best for early or acute patients and did not by itself help the
very chronic ones. The Wittenborn[23] study was primarily on these chronic
cases. Later Dr. Wittenborn re-analyzed
his results by pulling out the early cases as we had done, and in his second
report he showed that he got the same results that we had. His first report was
greeted with shouts of enthusiasm from NIMH and later by the American
Psychiatric Association when they did their task force report on Megavitamins
and Orthomolecular Psychiatry. His second report was greeted by a cold silence
and may have cost him any further support. His second paper was never referred
to by the critics of megavitamin therapy.
The American Psychiatric Association called Humphry Osmond
and me before their Committee on Ethics because I had published the California
paper. After a vigorous half-day debate
over 20 years ago in Washington they told us they would let us have their
decision in a few weeks. We are still waiting. However, they effectively killed
interest in the use of vitamins for treating schizophrenia when they issued
their irresponsible and flawed report[24] . The APA bears major responsibility
for preventing the introduction of a treatment which would have saved millions
of patients from the ravages of chronic schizophrenia. Just as the APA was once
captured by psychoanalysis, it is now captured by tranquilizers.
Folic acid is another safe water soluble vitamin. It has
been used in doses up to 15 mg daily. There has been a report that this dose
caused gastrointestinal disturbances but in another study with the same dose
this was not seen. Most patients do not need more than 5 mg. Recently it has been
proven that women will give birth to babies with spina bifida and similar
neural tube defects (NTD) much less frequently if they take supplemental folic
acid, 1 mg per day. I generally recommend 5 mg daily. Dr. Smithells[25] in 1982 showed that giving pregnant women extra
folic acid decreased the incidence of NTD’s. Before that he had measured the
red cell folate and white cell vitamin C levels of mothers who had babies with NTD’s
and found they were lower in both. It was thus known since 1981 that a
multivitamin preparation containing folic acid would decrease the birth of
these damaged babies.
The immediate reaction to the original findings was one of
strong disbelief and hostility, and the establishment refused to advise women
to take folic acid until the requisite number of double blind experiments were
done. At last they are satisfied 11 years later, culminating with a report in
J. American Med Ass in 1989. Folic acid
provided protection for most causes of the defect. Even in women with a family
history, the frequency of babies with the defects was more than five times
greater - 18 per 1000 against 3.5 per 1000, in women who did not take the
vitamin in the first six weeks of pregnancy. How many babies could have been
saved by such a simple solution? Even
if the original findings had been wrong, what harm would it have done to have
advised them immediately about this very important finding? I was astonished in
1981 at the vehemence of the reaction by physicians and nutritionists, and I am
still astonished. The recent studies showed that folic acid decreased NTD’s by
75 percent. If all the other vitamins were used as well I am certain that
figure would be closer to 100 percent.
I can not recall in the past 40 years a single female
patient of mine on vitamins giving birth to any child with a congenital defect.
I have been able to advise them all that they not only would not harm their
developing baby by taking vitamins, but that their chances of giving birth to a
defective child would be greatly diminished. I was frequently asked this by my
patients who had been told by their doctors that they must stop all their
vitamins while pregnant. They looked upon vitamins as toxic drugs. I am still
asked the same question for the same reason today.
However, governments can learn and respond. It is now
official that pregnant women should take extra folic acid in order to prevent
spina bifida and other birth defects. The U.S. Public Health Service has issued
the following advisory: “In order to reduce the frequency of NTD’s (neural-tube
defects) and their resulting disability, the United States Public Health
Service recommends that: All women of childbearing age capable of becoming
pregnant should consume 0.4 mg of folic acid per day for the purpose of
reducing their risk of having a pregnancy affected with spina bifida or other
NTD’s”. This amount will not be provided by most diets and requires
supplementation. Apparently the US Public Health Service is considering
fortifying bread with folic acid. Folic acid is destroyed by heat but some will
survive.
In USA about 25,000 babies are born each year with spina
bifida. In Canada it has been estimated that each of these children will have
cost about $40,000 by the time they are 14 years of age. Giving women folic
acid early in their pregnancy would have avoided perhaps ¾ of these births.
Over ten years, while the cautious scientists were discussing whether folic
acid was safe enough and was effective, 250,000 children were born at a total
cost of 10 billion dollars (over ten years). Folic acid for pennies per day could
have saved the United States public 7.5 billions dollars over this ten year
period. The saving in public health dollars will be enormous. The waste in this
long delay is inexcusable, since folic acid is totally safe and could have been
given to all pregnant women over ten years ago. This is the costs of
inactivity, of the conservative stance of the profession when it comes to the
super safe vitamins.
The vitamins-as-treatment paradigm is developing very
rapidly and will absorb the vitamin-as-prevention paradigm which is no longer
needed. Vitamins are important
nutrients which will be used in optimum doses, small or large, for conditions
which are responsive whether or not they are considered to be vitamin
deficiency diseases. Only the fossilized physicians who have been the most
powerful antagonists of the newer medicine still adhere to the old, totally
inadequate paradigm. But there are still physicians who question whether
vitamin B-3 is the correct treatment for pellagra. They will still promote
their old ideas and will bolster them by manufacturing toxicities. As a rule,
when there are no toxicities, it is simple to invent them, such as vitamin C
causes kidney stones, or damages the liver, or interferes with the treatment of
diabetes and so on. Every month I hear about new toxicities which totally
surprise and delight me because they indicate how imaginative my colleagues can
be.
A. Hoffer, M.D, Ph.D.
[1] Altschul R, Hoffer A & Stephen JD: Influence of
Nicotinic Acid on Serum Cholesterol in Man. Arch Biochem Biophys 54:558-559,
1955. [Return to Paper] [2] Parsons WB Jr, Achor RWP, Berge KG, McKenzie BF
& Barker NW: Changes in Concentration of Blood Lipids Following Prolonged
Administration of Nicotinic Acid to Persons With Hypercholesterolemia:
Prelimary Observations. Proc. Mayo Clinic 31:377-390, 1956. [Return to Paper] [3]
Hoffer A, Osmond H, Callbeck MJ & Kahan I: Treatment of Schizophrenia with
Nicotinic Acid and Nicotinamide. J Clin Exper Psychopathol 18:131-158, 1957. [Return
to Paper]
[4] Cameron E & Pauling L: Cancer and Vitamin C. W. W.
Norton & Co. New York, 1979. Updated and Expanded Cancer and Vitamin C, E.
Cameron and L. Pauling, Camino Books,
Inc., P.O. Box 59026, Phila., PA 19102, 1993.
[Return to Paper]
[5] Machlin LJ: Introduction. Beyond Deficiency. New Views
on the Function and Health Effects of Vitamins. Annals, New York Academy of
Sciences 669:1-6, 1992. [Return to Paper]
[6] Hoffer A, Kelm H & Osmond H: The Hoffer-Osmond
Diagnostic Test. RE Krieger Pub Co., Huntington, New York, 1975. Available from
Behavior Science Press, Institute for Social and Educational Research, 3710
Resource Dr., Tuscaloosa, AL 35401-7059. [Return to Paper]
[7] Williams RJ: Nutrition Against Disease, Pitman
Publishing Co. New York, 1971.
Williams RJ: You Are Extraordinary. Random House, Inc. New
York, 1967.
Williams RJ: Physicians Handbook of Nutritional Science,
C. C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1975. [Return to Paper]
[8] Kaufman W: Common Forms of Niacinamide Deficiency
Disease: Aniacin Amidosis. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT 1943. Kaufman W: The Common Form of Joint
Dysfunction: Its Incidence and Treatment. E.L. Hildreth and Co., Brattelboro,
1949. [Return to Paper]
[9] Shute EV: The Heart and Vitamin E. The Shute
Foundation for Medical Research, London, Canada, 1969.
Shute WE & Taub HJ: Vitamin E for Ailing and Healthy
Hearts. Pyramid House, New York, 1969.
Shute WE: Vitamin E Book. Keats Publishing, New Canaan,
CT, 1978. [Return to Paper]
[10] Stampfer MJ, Hennekens CH, Manson J, Colditz GA,
Rosner B & Willett WC: Vitamin E consumption and the risk of coronary
disease in women. New England J. Med. 328:1444-1449, 1993.
Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Ascherio A, Giovannucci E, Colditz
GA & Willett WC:
Vitamin E consumption and the risk of coronary heart
disease in men. New England J Med 28:1450-1456, 1993. [Return to Paper]
[11] Gould, Jonathan: Private Communication to me in
London, England, in 1954. [Return to Paper]
[12] Stone I: The Healing Factor, Vitamin C Against
Disease. Grosset and Dunlap, New York, 1972. [Return to Paper]
[13] Pauling L: How To Live Longer and Feel Better. W. H.
Freeman, New York, 1986. [Return to Paper]
[14] Enstrom JE, Kanim LE & Klein MA: Vitamin C Intake
and Mortality among a Sample of the United States Population. Epidemiology
3:194-202, 1992. [Return to Paper]
[15] Brox AG, Howson-Jan KJ & Fauser AA: Treatment of
idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura with ascorbate. Br. J Haematology
70:341-344, 1988. [Return to Paper]
[16] Cameron E: Protocol for the use of vitamin C in the
treatment of cancer. Medical Hypothesis 36:190-194, 1991.
Cameron E & Campbell A: The orthomolecular treatment
of cancer II. Clinical trial of high-dose ascorbic supplements in advanced
human cancer. Chemical-Biological Interactions 9:285-315, 1974.
Cameron E & Campbell A: Innovation vs quality control:
an “unpublishable” clinical trial of supplemental ascorbate in incurable
cancer. Medical Hypothesis 36:185-189, 1991.
Campbell A, Jack T & Cameron E: Reticulum cell
sarcoma: two complete “spontanous”; regressions, in response to high-dose
ascorbic acid therapy. A report on
subsequent progress. Oncology 48:495-497, 1991. [Return to Paper]
[17] Hoffer J: Nutrients as Biologic Response Modifiers.
Adjuvant Nutrition in Cancer Treatment. Ed. P. Quillin & R. M. Williams.
1992 Symposium Proceedings, Cancer Treatment Research Foundation and American
College of Nutrition, Cancer Treatment Research Foundation, 3455 Salt Creek
Lane, Suite 200, Arlington Heights, IL 60005-1090, 1993 [Return to Paper] [18]
Hoffer A & Pauling L: Hardin Jones Biostatistical Analysis of Mortality
Data for Cohorts of Cancer Patients with a Large Fraction Surviving at the
Termination of the Study and a Comparison of Survival Times of Cancer Patients
Receiving Large Regular Oral Doses of Vitamin C and Other Nutrients with
Similar Patients not Receiving those Doses. J Orthomolecular Medicine
5:143-154, 1990.
Hoffer A & Pauling L: Hardin Jones Biostatistical
Analysis of Mortality Data for a Second Set of Cohorts of Cancer Patients with
a Large Fraction Surviving at the Termination of the Study and a Comparison of
Survival Times of Cancer Patients Receiving Large Regular Oral Doses of Vitamin
C and Other Nutrients with Similar Patients Not Receiving These Doses. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine
8:1547-167, 1993.
Hoffer A: Orthomolecular Oncology. In, Adjuvant Nutrition
in Cancer Treatment. Ed. P. Quillin & R. Michael Williams, Cancer Treatment
Research Foundation, 3455 Salt Creek Lane, Suite 200, Arlington Heights, IL 60005-1090,
1994. [Return to Paper]
[19] Parsons WB Jr: Clinical Alternatives Chap 8. In,
Coronary Heart Disease. The Dietary Sense and Nonsense. An Evaluation by
Scientists. Ed. G.V. Mann, Janus
Publishing Company, London, England, pages 119-135, 1993.
[Return to Paper]
[20] Hoffer A & Osmond H: How To Live With
Schizophrenia. University Books, New York, NY, 1966. Also published by Johnson,
London, 1966. Written by Fannie Kahan. New and Revised Edition, Citadel Press,
New York, NY, 1992. [Return to Paper]
[21] Hoffer A: Five California Schizophrenics. J
Schizophrenia 1:209-220, 1967. [Return to Paper]
[22] Pauling L: Orthomolecular Psychiatry. Science 160:265-
271, 1968.
[Return to Paper]
[23] Wittenborn JR, Weber ESP & Brown M: Niacin in the
long term treatment of schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 28:308-15, 1973.
Wittenborn JR: A Search for Responders to Niacin Supplementation. Arch Gen
Psych 31:547-552, 1974. [Return to Paper]
[24] Hoffer A & Osmond H: In Reply to The American
Psychiatric Association Task Force Report on Megavitamin and Orthomolecular
Therapy in Psychiatry. Canadian
Schizophrenia Foundation, Regina, SK, now at 16 Florence Ave., Toronto, ON,
Canada M2N 1E9. August 1976. [Return to Paper] [25] Smithells RW: Prevention of
Neural Tube Defects by Vitamin Supplements. Ed. John Dobbing, Academic Press,
New York, 53-84, 1983. [Return to
Paper]
The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients
911 Tyler Street
Port Townsend, WA
98368-6541
Subscriptions & Editorials (360)-385-6021
Advertising (360) -385-4555
24 Hour Fax ((360)-385-0699
10 Issues Yearly
1 Year (BULK) $49
1 Year (FIRST CLASS) $79
Call for other rates.
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.