If you watched the 60 Minutes item Living Proof on Wednesday night, you’ll no doubt agree that King Country farmer Alan Smith is lucky to be alive.
Acutely affected by the H1N1 virus, Smith lay in intensive care close to death, an ECMO machine battling to keep his fluid-filled lungs functioning. As Mike McRoberts says in the introduction to the 60 Minutes piece by veteran reporter Melanie Reid, Smith came back from the dead.
But what saved his life?
Well, if the 60 Minutes piece is to be believed, large doses of vitamin C administered to Smith intravenously at the behest of his desperate family pulled him back from the brink of death. The family had to battle doctors to allow the treatment to proceed and even had to enlist top-flight constitutional lawyer Mai Chen to apply the legal blowtorch to the hospital treating Smith to allow the treatment to continue.
Smith’s lungs began to clear as the vitamin C was administered though his family admits this may have had something to do with the fact that at the same time, Smith was put in the prone position – that is, he was rolled onto his stomach in the hope that this would help clear his lungs.
Where did the family come across the idea of administering vitamin C intravenously? What does the peer-reviewed literature say about this sort of treatment for pneumonia-like symptoms? Could Smith’s family have actually risked harming him by giving him large doses of vitamin C? None of that is clear from the piece, because 60 Minutes didn’t interview anyone with a medical or scientific background equipped to answer these questions. No one from the two hospitals that treated Smith would comment on how he was treated but it is clear from the case notes flashed across the screen that the doctors treating his thought intravenous shots of vitamin C was a wacky idea and would do him no good.
The upshot is that we have an apparent “miracle” on our hands – that’s definitely how 60 Minutes promoted the piece:
So was it a one-off miracle? Or has the family stumbled on a miracle cure?
Or how about option three – no one knows what led to Smith’s recovery and there’s certainly no evidence it was vitamin C. Not that you’d get that sort of equivocation from 60 Minutes, who obviously didn’t want to let pesky experts get in the way of a powerful story about a good kiwi family standing up to a cold medical bureaucracy. At the Science Media Centre, we asked experts to watch the piece and provide feedback on it.
Professor John Fraser, Head of School of Medical Sciences, University of Auckland told the SMC:
It is disappointing that the journalist did not attempt to seek expert advice on the reasons why the consultants were unwilling to administer high dose vitamin C. There is certainly no evidence from the medical literature that this treatment works particularly in severe cases of pneumonia. The consultants were quite right to resist the use of an unproven treatment, and to their credit they did acquiesce to accommodate the family’s wishes because they felt it would do no harm. In this remarkable case the patient did survive but there is no evidence that this was due to the vitamin C. This is a wonderful story of personal survival and it is sad that it has been used to discredit those professionals who were just trying to provide their best for a very sick patient. If the vitamin C had killed him, then the story would have been different. That is the risk of using an unproven treatment.
None of this point of view was reflected in the 60 Minutes piece, though any number of independent experts like Professor Fraser would have happily provided it if asked.
The evidence on intravenous vitamin C
At the very least, 60 Minutes could have added a bit of background about intravenous vitamin C treatments and the lack of empirical research suggesting such treatment is effective. I haven’t been able to find a single study looking at intravenous use of vitamin C to treat people in Smith’s condition. There are instead assorted case studies of patients treated in this way – but almost always for types of cancer and there have been some studies looking at vitamin C administered to mice and rats. This paper published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine ten years ago suggests: “Some cancer patients have had complete remissions after highdose intravenous vitamin C infusions”.
A study by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2008 showed “high-dose injections of vitamin C reduced tumour weight and growth rate by about 50 percent in mouse models of brain, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers”. The paper caused some heated debate among scientists as this letter from molecular biologist Professor Piet Borst to PNAS illustrates:
It is possible that ’the promise of ascorbic acid in the treatment of advanced cancer may lie in combination with cytotoxic agents’. As long as this has not been tested, we should try to avoid a new hype of vitamin C as cancer treatment by pointing out, especially in PNAS, the limitations of the available data.
There simply isn’t enough peer-reviewed literature to see this treatment endorsed by the medical profession other than those offering alternative therapies yet isolated cases of cancer sufferers going into remission following treatment with intravenous vitamin C keep the media spotlight on this supposed miracle cure. Check out another such story that screened in the US on ABC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCBRMFBVzi0
The reality is that Smith’s being placed in the prone position is just as likely to have been responsible for his recovery than the administering of large doses of vitamin C or anything else for that matter. We simply don’t know and the 60 Minutes piece suggests you should be willing to defy the advice of medical experts and demand alternative therapies for yourself or loved-ones who are seriously ill. How irresponsible is that?
PETER GRIFFIN 
Alison, while I think you are doing a great job, there is evidence that caterpillar ovary cells, hard to find as they may be, are used in the parmaceutical industry:
” Protein Sciences extracts genes from the dead flu virus and inserts it in a virus that feeds on a tropical caterpillar known as an armyworm. The virus is then exposed to ovary cells harvested from a single caterpillar and reproduced in large quantities. Ovary cells are used because they remain stable as they are cultured in a laboratory. ” source http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahgs1cipLGGY
Frankly, what if these therapeutic organic chemicals are being growth in such cells. What’s wrong with that? Diabetics used to be kept alive with insulin harvested from dead animals, before the wonders of genetic engineering came along.
Erwin, with respect to your LD50 figures for ethylene glycol, so what? Have you drunk any Italian wine recently? You’re still alive aren’t you? LD50 is only a part of the story – you have to look at the dose and at how the body deals with the chemical in question. For example, the LD50 for rats of pure ethanol (drinking alcohol) is about 7000 mg per kg of body weight. For a 60-70kg teenager that LD50 level equates to about one 750ml bottle of 80 proof (40% pure) alcohol – such as gin or bourbon or vodka. Drink it in a short period of time and you will be very sick and may not wake up. Drink the same amount of alcohol with a mixer at the rate of a glass an evening and it will do you no harm at all because the human body is well able to break down alcohol in small doses. The LD50 is not very relevant – what is relevant is the actual amount of the dose, as Alison notes above, and how the body deals with the chemical in question.
Alison says:
“vaccines are injected intramuscularly & not into the bloodstream. The miniscule – & we are talking miniscule here – quantity of Al in a vaccine is probably less likely to make it to the brain than that consumed with food, which will make it into the bloodstream reasonably quickly & thence to various other places round the body (including the brain if it can pass the blood-brain barrier). Thus if the minute amount from a vaccine should make it to the brain, it’s hardly going to make a difference.”
Ever heard of blood capillaries Alison, or the fact that babies’ blood-brain barrier is wide open?
My friend Dr med Gerhard Buchwald’s son suffered severe brain damage as a result of a smallpox vaccination he was given at 18 months. The smallpox vaccine was scratched into his arm, yet his brain was partly destroyed. How come? .
Countless children have suffered severe brain damage as a result of DPT vaccination alone, which is why the US government (under pressure from vaccine manufacturers who didn’t like compensation claims) established the US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Since 1988, up to 2008, nearly $2 billion dollars have been paid out to parents of vacicine injured children, so something that is not good and that medical science doesn’t seem to understand is obviously happening inside chlldren after they have been injected. But, never mind, it’s just anecdotal evidence, so let’s keep injecting babies and children regardless!
“cell lines that have been grown in culture for multiple generations are not cells ‘from’ dog kidneys, foetuses or anything else. They are derived from those sources.”
If this is true, why are cells derived from the cervical cancer of a woman called Henrietta Lacks called He-la cells? It’s because if one were to examine the DNA, one would find that the DNA is that of an African American woman called Henrietta Lacks.
If one were to examine the DNA of cells derived from dog or monkey kidneys, one would be able to determine that they are dog or monkey kidney cells. In other words, they are “chips from the old block, so your argument obviously doesn’t hold water.
If you want to inject dog kidney and hamster and caterpillar ovary material into your anatomy, go right ahead. As far as I am concerned, it’s a case of over – or rather into – my dead body!
possum, the point is that the stuff in vaccines, while not exactly of the same, but a similar composition as antifreeze, is more toxic than antifreeze.
Mythbuster,
I have (had) a reply, but Alison’s reply has overtaken mine, and now your’s and possum’s!
Suffice to say, these claims are easy to clarify, which illustrates how dubious they are. (The sources of his extended cut’n’paste are pretty dubious too.)
I suspect his interests lie with justifying for himself his religious/ideological basis for opposing vaccines. (He elaborated on earlier on this site.) It’s a bit like a debating a creationist opposing evolution who offers “proofs†evolution is “wrongâ€: you can’t really convince them of anything, because in the end their ideas are founded on beliefs not evidence. Having said that, there is an argument that those that are listening in (aka ‘lurkers’) might learn a few things, but I suspect this thread has gone on too long for any to still be left! (?)
Possum – thanks for that. I might look a bit more deeply into that one. The reason I commented on the ovaries is that there’s generally not a lot of direct correspondence between larval & adult tissues in insects that undergo complete metamorphosis, like butterflies & moths & beetles. TIssues of the pupa & adult form from imaginal cells. This has really piqued my curiosity & I’ll have to have a dig through the journals tomorrow once I’m back on my own computer & have full library access 🙂
the stuff in vaccines, while not exactly of the same, but a similar composition as antifreeze, is more toxic than antifreeze – in which case, you’ll be giving up toothpaste? There’s likely to be more polyethylene glycol in a squeeze of toothpaste than there is in a vaccine!
Just shows you what a criminal outfit the FDA which is supposed to protect us from the food and the drug mafia is.
Did you know that there is enough ratpoison in the average tube of fluoridated toothpaste to kill two small children if they were to ingest its contents? And the FDA lets us and our children brush our teeth with this neurotoxic and carcinogenic poison! 😦
FDA = Federal Death Agency .
“I’ll have to have a dig through the journals tomorrow”
Gosh, you gave me the impression that there wasn’t anything you don’t already know, Alison!
America’s Newest Drug Addicts: How Legal Drugs are Destroying America…
Posted By Dr. Mercola | September 20 2010 | 3,175 views
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/20/wyeth-paid-writers-to-promote-hormone-therapy.aspx
And you people are concerned about IVC use??? You’re all as nuts as most members of the medical profession!!!
EA: rudeness, insults & ad hominem attacks are no substitute for reasoned science-based arguments.
>possum, the point is that the stuff in vaccines, while not exactly of the same, but a similar composition as antifreeze, is more toxic than antifreeze
Erwin, the point is that you don’t understand what “toxic” means. LD50 is the dosage that will kill, on average, half the animals exposed to that dose. It does NOT mean that half the LD50 dose will kill 25% of the animals. The alcohol example shows that small doses of poison have no adverse impact at all, even though large doses can kill. What may be toxic in large doses may even be therapeutic in smal doses, such as Vitamin A. Any doscussion of toxicity must include reference ot the amount of substance involved. Almost anything is toxic in large enough quanties, including oxygen and water.
Erwinalber
What makes you assume that everyone here supports hormone replacement therapy? I thought we were discussing Intravenous vitamin C and (thanks to your changing the subject) vaccines? I’m starting to observe a pattern here. When people counter your arguments with sensible arguments you respond by:
1) Personal attacks on other posters
2) Generic attacks on groups of people/conspiracy theories
3) Abruptly changing the subject
You last message manages to do all three!
Auckland Health Board lies over Vitamin C
By Keith Stewart
18-Sep-2010 10:46
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Auckland-Health-Board-lies-over-Vitamin-C/tabid/452/articleID/16219/Default.aspx
Erwin – the article by Keith Stewart is a massive misrepresenttation, based on a selective quote that ignored the overall context of the statement by the Chied Medical Officer. Intravenous vitamin C is approved for, and usually effective for, treating low levels of vitamin C in a patient. That’s the only thing.
Firstly that’s rather old news (it’s dated 18th Sep 2010), why is this being brought up now?
Secondly, you need to know specifically Wilsher is referring to we she says the high-does treatment is neither safe or effective. The article doesn’t make this clear. As possum points out it’s likely a straight-forward switching of of targets and as a result a straight-forward misrepresentation of what Wilsher was saying. (Note I’m not saying the misrepresentation was intentional)
As possum was writing, the vitamin treatment was approved for vitamin C deficiency in otherwise normal individuals.
Alber – while I’m writing: You have written a number of straight-forward factual errors on your Facebook page. Not misplaced opinions, note, non-factual statements. in order to comment on your Facebook page (e.g. to correct your errors), do people have to “join” via asking to be accepted as a “friend” (a form of moderation I guess) or is it open to pubic comment? (I’d only comment if it’s open to public comment.)
Correction: that should be “… specifically what Wilsher is referring to when she says…†Excuse the typos.
FWIW, Alber’s comment above is another cut’n’paste from his Facebook page. A pity he doesn’t direct people to read the responses here in some ways.
High doses of vitamin C assist with pneumonia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2099400/
Vitamin C has strong viralcidal properties:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7321921/
If you can find any evidence of a prone positioning alleviating the symptoms of viral induced complete white-out pneumonia please post.
Otherwise we will have to assume that the evidence based intervention, IV vit C, did the job.
This website is full of quackery and false posters.smiths multiple problems were the result of acute scurvy.to say there is no evidence for vit c in flu treatment is gross ignorance or culpable lying.Since a doctor said this his license ahiuld be suspended until he studies the 1100 medical references and the 300 double blind controlled studies on vit c.as he appears to be a quack like the doctors who almost killed mr smith with their acute stupidity.this website is crap crap crap.
So, in your opinion, the family should have let the hospital unplug the man so he could die in peace.
As I understand it, that was the next step suggested by the doctors — not turning him over…
Where are the peer-reviewed studies? Where are the double-blind trials?
There is PLENTY of anecdotal evidence that vitamin C MAY have beneficial effects in MANY different scenarios. Why do people, who claim to understand the scientific method, continue to dismiss the possibility that vitamin C may hold value when, by their own admission, the requisite STUDIES HAVE NOT BEEN DONE?
/rant
I’m really surprised the pharmaceutical giants allowed 60 minutes to present that story, I’m sure some heads rolled after that story aired. Hard to put the lid back on that.
It’s my belief that if there were a million studies proving the efficacy of vitamin c as a healing agent, the pharmaceutical nazis would do there best to squash it..
The history of treatment is that very often treatment success with a wide range of micro-nutrients and natural support precedes scientific evidence. To this day there is little scientific evidence supporting many treatments which have been in use for a long time before the whole notion of peer-reviewed scientific literature was even considered. Those in the scientific, evidence-based mind-set (the right one I might add) suffer from incredible myopia sometimes. Just because there is no peer reviewed evidence doesn’t mean a single thing. Peer-reviewed evidence showing it DOESN’T work or that it is dangerous is important, but as long as that is not present then there is zero reason to not use something. There is no such evidence for Vit C. The notion that this 60 minutes story is irresponsible is such a ferfy. If anything the medical profession should be thinking that maybe there IS something in Vit C and we know it is non-toxic and anecdotal experience is widespread, so maybe we can try it before we switch off life support next time. Before we state confidently that there is nothing else in the whole world of treatment that can save this person. Turning someone prone I am sure is a more intuitive thing without large volumes of peer-reviewed data yet they do it.
Klenner treated over 600 polio patients with 100% success using IV Vit C. There hasn’t been a single case of anyone ever suffering toxicity from high levels of Vit C. The point to this story is that the doctors stated that in their 100+ years of experience there was absolutely nothing more that could be done so switch off everything and just let him die. And that includes turning the patient to prone, which they did after their statement of finality.
What people/ MDs forget is the fact that high dose Vit C is using the word “Vit” this is NOT MEDICALLY correct.
Its ascorbic acid…which in HIGH doses ( supported by an Adelaide Prof) releases HYDROGEN PEROXIDE ( O3)which is an “OXIDATIVE agent”…that your own body produces…to fight Viruses…inc your mouths/ guts ..
the medico like to mislead the public that its simply a Vit…..the O3 is supported by science…
All these years later, my acquaintance with the Vitamin C research of Dr Anitra Carr (Univ of Otago) motivated me to check out videos about Allan Smith’s miracle recovery. Earlier today I had described the various forms of scientific investigation to a friend, namely anecdotal, observational, and double-blind testing. As journalist Melanie Reid interviewed hospital officials and doctors, I had a realization. The difference between a scientist and a bureaucrat is _curiosity_. If I were a hospital administrator and had an unusual incident such as Allan Smith’s happen on my watch, I wouldn’t scoff at a dubious treatment; I would get very curious. I wouldn’t bifurcate the world into novice advocates vs experts. I would stir up trouble till I had a budget to find out what had happened. Out of this puzzle, I realized that science first and foremost is about curiosity. Scientific medicine is the consequence of curiosity, not of censorship.