Madam, – In John Gibbons's column (Opinion, July 23rd), arguing the case for real science as the weapon to purge our "cognitive delusions" he cites as an example my statement in the Optimum Nutrition Biblethat says that AZT, is "potentially harmful and proving less effective than vitamin C". He then goes on to say: "That's one serious claim. Supporting evidence? Nil."
If Mr Gibbons had read the book, which references the supporting science, he would have seen the book goes on to say, “These ‘in vitro’ trials on human T-cells show that vitamin C suppresses the HIV virus in both chronically and latently infected cells, while AZT has no significant effect. It is a tragedy that this simple, non-toxic treatment hasn’t been further tested.”
The scientific reference is given, as are other published studies that support vitamin C’s profound anti-viral effect. The anti-HIV effect of vitamin C has been consistently confirmed by other scientists, and a small scale trial found significant increase in the immune cell (CD4+) count of patients with advanced Aids given high dose vitamin C (see www.patrickholford.com/hiv).
Readers might also be interested to know that research published last year has shown that high dose vitamin C, in combination with other nutrients, demonstrated “antiviral properties comparable to those of conventional drugs (eg Tamiflu)” in cells infected with avian flu. Both vitamin C and Tamiflu suppress viruses by inhibiting an enzyme called neuramidase that the virus needs to survive.
The reason I am calling for more research into high dose vitamin C is that, unlike AZT and Tamiflu, vitamin C has no harmful side-effects. However, unlike these drugs, vitamin C is not patentable and hence funding further research is not profitable.
The “cognitive delusion” in this case is the belief that high dose vitamin C couldn’t possibly be as effective as a drug. That’s not what the science shows.
– Yours, etc,
PATRICK HOLFORD, Holford Associates, London SW15 6TZ, England.