*I have always been a big fan of using the whole food Vitamins and minerals, especially when it pertains to those consuming Vitamins for a long period of time. Vitamin C is clearly different than most other vitamins in that humans (and primates)lost the ability to synthesize Vitamin C, unlike most other mammals.

The question still remains about how much vitamin C do we really need and in what form. The primates take in large amounts of Vitamin C through green leafy vegetables and fruits. Primates have amazing immunity and are notoriously difficult to infect. (and many drug researchers purposely try to infect them with heaptitis and HIV)

I am still reserved about the use of synthetic Vitamin C. I know many people here have had dramatic benefit. There is no denying this. However, I still want to see a comparison between whole food vitamin C and synthetic. I just got a newsletter from Paul Yanick and apparently such a comparison has been done.

I am going to try to track down some of this research to see the amounts used in the study. I am particularly interested in the line that says that the natural whole food Vitamin C was 18 times higher in the blood 12 hours after intake than the synthetic Vitamin C.

All of my personal experience indicates the superiority of the whole food vitamin C. I have experimented with other whole food vitamin sources such as B and noticed dramatic benefit with miniscule amounts as compared to the synthetic sources. (using whole food RDA amounts as opposed to 500-2000 X the RDA)
Ultimately, however, my personal experience is irrelevant in a scientfic debate. What we really need is more data directly comparing the two.

Anyway, this newsletter is slightly biased towards Dr. Yanicks own line of product, but it is well-referenced. He is a well-respected author in alternative medicine and has a column in the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients.


"Does your Daily Nutritional Supplement Match Nature's Recipe for Good Nutrition?

ABSTRACT: The pharmaceutical and nutritional industry has successfully created the myth that synthetic vitamins and inorganic minerals in precise milligram amounts can be utilized by the cells of the body to enhance health and longevity. Synthetic means "man-made" and nothing synthetic is ever found in nature. Yet, products are labeled "Natural" when they are full of USP synthetic ingredients. Nobel Prize laureate, Dr. Albert Szent-Georgi, who discovered vitamin C, found that he could never cure scurvy with synthetic ascorbic acid itself. Yet, he reported always curing scurvy with vitamin C found in foods and concluded cell utilization requires a food matrix of nature's co-factors. Studies prove that antioxidant and nutrients derived from foods promote health and are effective in the prevention of cancer and degenerative disease.
PROBLEM: Sales for synthetic vitamins and drugs involve a 3500% profit margin while whole food supplements are only marked up 20 to 50%. Could the industry profits on sales of synthetic vitamins be blinding them to the truth of credible research that says they are harmful and even lethal? Synthetic vitamins are in the majority of today's nutritional products and are found in enriched breads and flours and other foodstuffs.


Synthetic Vitamins Can Increase Cancer Risks and Seriously Damage Your Health
Research done by Dr. Agnes Faye Morgan (University of California) reported that taking synthetic vitamins is worse than starvation.1 Animals fed synthetic vitamins had toxic reactions or died quickly of degenerative diseases compared to those fed whole foods.2-7

A study of 29,000 Finnish smokers proved that synthetic vitamins increased death rates significantly enough to stop a 10-year study prematurely.8 To the researchers' horror the risk of cancer increased by 16% and their were more heart attacks, more strokes, and an 8% higher increase in the overall death rate.

A Harvard study of 22,000 physicians reported no health benefits from synthetic vitamins while other studies report toxicity and serious side effects.9-19 In a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center study of 18,000 American men and women at risk of lung cancer took a either a placebo or supplements of synthetic vitamin A. The researchers lead by Dr. Gilbert Omenn stopped the study in January 1996 because the group on supplements had a 28% higher incidence of lung cancer. Regarding these troublesome findings, Dr. Susan Talyor Mayne of Yale University told New Scientist "I'm concerned about all of these nutrients that people go out and take in massive doses. These nutrients may have adverse effects." Other studies show that synthetic beta carotene can block antioxidant activity and the anti-cancer activity of 50 antioxidants (carotenoids) in the diet. 20-21 Researchers at the University of Leicester reported that a supplement with as little as 500 milligrams of vitamin C a day may produce free radicals which can damage DNA and cause cancer (Nature 1988;392:559)

A New England Journal of Medicine (Nov 1995) study at Boston University School of Medicine found that synthetic vitamin A given to pregnant women in medium to high doses of 10,000-20,000 IU per day, increased the risk of birth defects by 240% at the lower dosage and 400% at the higher dosage. Serious genetic damage that caused cleft lip, cleft palette, heart malformations, and nervous system damage such as hydrocephalus were linked to synthetic vitamins. This comprehensive study of 22,748 women over a period of four years reported that there was no birth defect risk noted from foods containing vitamin A in foods.

Researchers at Dartmouth Medical School ran a four-year study to see if antioxidant supplements could prevent the recurrence of adenomas of the colon after surgical removal in 864 patients. After four years of giving 25 mg of beta-carotene, 1000 mg of ascorbic acid, and 400 mg of alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E), all in synthetic forms, there were no positive effects noted and the researchers concluded that: "Current data do not support the use of antioxidant vitamin supplements for purposes of cancer prevention" (July 22, 1994 New England Journal of Medicine).

A 1994 study in the New England Journal of Medicine on elderly Americans to improve muscle weakness and physical frailty demonstrated no benefits whatsoever. A study in 1945 American Journal of Digestive Diseases" vitamin E-deficient laboratory animals that were fed tocopherols died before the control group that did not receive any vitamin supplement at all.

Agnes Fay Morgan, Ph.D., food research scientist at the University of California, reported in Science, (93: 261-262, 1941) that animals on a synthetic vitamin-enriched diet died long before the animals on an unprocessed diet became disabled. She stated that the enrichment of processed foods with synthetic vitamins may "precipitate conditions worse than the original deficiency." Other animal studies reveal untimely deaths, sterility, and serious health deficits with the use of synthetic vitamins versus whole foods in animal feeds (Scandinavian Veterinary, 30, 1940; Journal of Natural Agriculture, 1939).


Experts Say Antioxidant Needs are Increasing Dramatically
Observational data (cross-sectional analysis, migration patterns, and retrospective and prospective longitudinal cohort studies) and experimental studies (case study methods and clinical studies) report that foods reduce the risk of cancer.22 A diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables has been shown in 128 out of 156 dietary (epidemiological) studies to be protective against cancer.28 According to Jerome Block, M.D. of UCLA Medical Center they "...reduce cancer risk, clinical cancer occurrence, and/or interrupt the carcinogenic process in appropriately-defined populations."22

Since studies reveal a progressive depletion of antioxidants in our food, Americans are taking isolated supplements. Yet, as Rita Ellithorpe, MD stated "These antioxidant preparations do not match nature's recipe." Dr. Ellithorpe's research documented that whole food supplements boosted antioxidant activity 239.7% over isolated single nutrients/antioxidants and suggested that "...consumers attempting to derive antioxidant protection with pharmaceutical-like preparations or isolated or combinational antioxidants appear to be failing."27

The prolonged consumption of adverse diets (supplements), exposure to water and air pollution, and adverse lifestyle have increased cancer rates dramatically. Widespread consumption of refined flour (USP enriched) has been associated with increased cancer induction, accelerated tumor growth, and metastasis,23 while the common dietary practice of using margarines and refined oils (high in trans fatty acids) enhances tumor growth and carcinogenesis.24,25 In rats, colorectal cancer risks are only reduced with tomatoes rich in lycopene instead of isolated lycopene. These studies clearly show that isolated antioxidants are not protective against our toxic environment.26

Common food additives , preservatives , packaging and processing methods used by the food and nutritional industry have increased one's need for antioxidant protection dramatically. Indeed, studies have shown that our modern day diet accounts for 35 to 80 percent of cancers.28-32 The American Cancer Society, The American Heart Association, and the National Cancer Institute recommend 7 to 9 servings of fresh fruit, vegetables and grains to significantly reduce the risk of leading causes of deadly diseases.36 Yet, because stress and the aging process deplete digestive capacity dramatically, and mass manufacture and distribution of processed foods with poor handling, storage practices and methods of food preparation degrade the plant's critical, health-promoting nutrients, supplementation is necessary. Since food additives /synthetics are almost ubiquitous in manufactured supplements, foods and drinks, Americans are consuming organic foods. While they are richer than commercially-grown food in nutrients, many organic farms are located in highly polluted areas and/or use contaminated water to irrigate their crops. This means that significant levels of carcinogens are in organic foods from the infiltration of the soil with acid and pollutant-laden rain or from food irradiation.



Toxic Supplements May Increase Risks

Toxic or carcinogenic supplements are common in today's marketplace.33-35 For example, a 6-year survey of 196 products from 57 different companies at the University of California by Darryl See, M.D. reported that only 5 of 196 products or 2.5% were non-toxic with no activation of liver detoxification enzymes. Only 2.5% of these 196 products could enhance natural killer cell activity in the immune system or had antioxidant activity or anti-viral effects.

In 1997, Dr. Thomas O'Halloran of Nortwestern University and other university-based scientists and found that minerals "can be poisonius in high quantites." O'Hallorans's research found that getting copper to cells requires protein chaperone molecules. Despite evidence that ionic, inorganic or non-covalent minerals can be toxic or poisonous and even carcinogenic as in the case of inorganic iron, they are found in the majority of today's supplements and enriched foodstuffs.37-40


Tapping into the Wisdom of Nature

Foods are extremely complex mixtures of bioactive constituents that work together to promote health in the human body. There is a vast difference between modern diet and the diet of our Paleolithic forefathers who ate five times the amount of fiber from over 500 plants. Americans eat from less than 50 plants and rarely eat them raw and fermented, as did our ancestors. Instead, food is conserved, dried and cooked with a dramatic reduction in fermented, synbiotic nutrients/antioxidants. Thus, daily supplementation with pure, raw fermented food concentrates derived from the cleanest places on earth, is critical for our survivial. Since mold is high in fermented foods, a unique Synbioitc-Foodgrown(TM) process had to be developed that would generate copius amounts of pre-digested nutrients for instant cellular utiliztion.**


A recent 2005 JAMA article (The Journal of the American Medical Association294:3;351-8) stated that whole food is the best source for nutrition, not the synthetic, fragmented parts found in multi-vitamins. Other recent studies document that vitamin E supplements do not work as well as vitamin E found in foods (American Journal of Clinical NutritionJanuary, 2004;79(1):86-92). In a New Jersey College of Medicine study, eighteen times more vitamin C was measured in the blood after taking a Synbioitc-Foodgrown(TM) Vitamin C compared to synthetic vitamin C or ascorbic acid. A Scranton University study found 12 times more utilization of vitamin C when it was in a foodform versus synthetic.53

In summary, scientific university-based studies document that cell utilization of synbiotic-foodgrown(TM) vitamins antioxidants are better than isolated USP synthetic nutrients and may be better absorbed, retained and utilized than USP synthetic nutrition. Here are some highlights of these studies:

*


Five independent FDA scientists studied the validity of the claims that foodgrown nutrition is superior to synthetic USP vitamins. Using sophisticatd scientific methods, including the use of NASA's advanced molecular resonance technology, the evidence lead a federal judge to rule that foodgrown nutrition was better absorbed and utilized than USP nutrition.
*
University of Scranton - synbiotic-foodgrown(TM) calcium is 300% better absorbed that inorganic or isolated calcium.54
* Rita Ellithrope, MD - her research documented that whole food supplements boosted antioxidant activity 239.7% over isolated single nutrients/antioxidants and suggested that "...consumers attempting to derive antioxidant protection with pharmaceutical-like preparations or isolated or combinational antioxidants appear to be failing."27
*
University of Dublin Trinity College - synbiotic-foodgrown(TM) Vitamin C reduced colon polyps 50% in just 30 days.48-50
*
New Jersey College of Medicine - 18 times more synbiotic-foodgrown(TM) Vitamin C in the blood after twelve hours compared to synthetic isolates of Vitamin C
*
University of Scranton - 238% greater antioxidant potency of synbiotic-foodgrown(TM) selenium in the form of selenoprotein compared to isolated forms of inorganic selenium46
*
University of Scranton - 20.8% greater antioxidant potency of Co Enzyme Q10 compared to synthetic Co Q10
*
UCLA-based Hospital Medical Center showed that triglycerides were lower in subjects taking Synbiotic Chromium-peptide matrix while there was a significant rise in triglycerides in the USP chromium group.
*
A Royal Society of Chemistry study reveals synbiotic-foodgrown(TM) zinc was 75% more absorbed than the sulphate and 58% more absorbed than the gluconate forms of zinc, commonly found in today's supplements.66
*
A University of Scranton study reported a statistically significant 258% greater biological activity for the synbioitic chromium as compared with the inorganic chromium. This large difference corroborates a long-term human supplementation study which showed that changes in the body pools of chromium and, lipid and glucose parameters were equivalent when large doses of inorganic chromium or small doses of yeast chromium were given.55,67


Using Nobel Laureate research on how proteins carry information like "zip codes" to our cells,,58 a fermentation process allowed proteins to be joined to their inherent counterparts (minerals, enzymes, etc) via Nature's wisdom for rapid uptake by our cells.59 In summary, the use of synthetic USP vitamins or amino acids or vitamins jams cellular signals, stimulates false surges of energy (to the point of eventual adrenal exhaustion, autonomic nervous system imbalances, and immunosuppression). They serve no protective function in our bodies. Instead, Synbiotic-foodgrown(TM) proteins, rigged by Nature, can carry huge toxic payloads of carcinogens out of the body.60-65 ** Fast clearance by binding to toxins, pathogens or aberrant signals--offered by Nature--are in harmony with Hippocrates's famous adage, "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food."

Best of Health!
Regards,
Dr. Paul Yanick
http://www.quantumenergy.com