What your doctor isn't telling you?

Stephen Sheffrey examines a half century's worth of medical evidence and concludes that vitamin C is vastly underrated: it's been shown to effectively treat dozens of afflictions when taken in high doses, yet the medical community has largely ignored it. Sheffrey is a medical professional himself and provides enough detail to be convincing, yet not so much that the reader is confused or overwhelmed. If Sheffrey is right, and he appears to be, then this is an important book, and most of us would do well to consider taking small amounts of C daily, and larger amounts if we suffer from some affliction.

While Sheffrey's evidence, culled from the medical literature, is persuasive enough, there is equally compelling evidence that he omits: Sheffrey mentions that primates (including humans) and guinea pigs are the only mammals that can't make their own C, but he fails to explain that animals who do make their own make the equivalent of an average of 5 grams (5000 mg) a day (equivalent for a 70kg man). This is well in excess of the 60mg/day Recommended Daily Allowance, which is sufficient only to prevent scurvy. If humans were eating the diet of raw fruits and vegetables enjoyed by our ancestors and our closest animal cousins (the other primates), then we'd be getting a few grams of C a day. But instead the food we eat is largely cooked, processed, and low in fruits and vegetables....

Perhaps the most interesting chapter explores the controversy about whether C can cure the common cold. Double-Nobel laureate Linus Pauling claimed in 1970 that the common cold could be prevented if one took 4-10g of C at the onset, and continued with 4-10g/day for three days. (This 4-10g/day is in addition to any daily amount the person already takes.) The medical establishment attempted to discredit this idea by conducting their own research, and thus now everyone "knows" that Pauling was wrong, but in fact no one has ever conducted a large long-term trial using the amounts that Pauling recommended! The researchers used much smaller doses, so it was not surprising that they found no benefit in taking C.

Sheffrey's review of the medical literature (some studies, but mostly doctors' reports) showed that C had inactivated the toxins of diphtheria and tetanus, and was effective at treating habitual abortion, nausea from pregnancy (25mg), food poisoning, CO poisoning, pesticide poisoning, barbiturate overdose, polio, herpes, whooping cough, pneumonia, mononucleosis, measles, arthritis, strokes, heart disease, back pain, scarlet fever, Parkinson's disease, encephalitis, hepatitis (p.104-106), AIDS (p. 136, 50-200+g/day), migraines, schizophrenia, shingles, severe burns, acne, poison oak (but not poison ivy), scorpion stings, and snake & spider bites (inc. black widow spider). C has also been suspected as possibly beneficial in treating Meniere's syndrome, asthma, allergies, bone loss, involuntary movements, ileitis and other gut disorders, megaloblastic anemia, cataracts, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Here's a typical entry:

"Before and after photos by Greer demonstrate the benefits of high C in preventing the enlargement of the spleen of a patient with polycythemia vera plus leukemia and cirrhosis of the liver. The patient took up to 42 grams a day to keep his spleen from attaining the size of a basketball. It was firm and normal while the intake was high but ballooned out to resemble a lopsided pregnancy whenever the dose was discontinued."

So why is C not more commonly used? Sheffrey says it's because the medical community can't make any money off of it. Drug companies can't patent it, so they have no reason to fund studies, and as a result C has not been investigated to the extent it should have been. Doctors then have little interest in C because of the limited number of studies supporting use, and besides, they've been trained to treat illness with drugs and surgery, not vitamins. They would also lose business if patients could self-medicate rather than paying for an office visit to get a prescription for a drug. Whether the reader agrees with this explanation or not, the fact remains that for SOME reason the medical establishment has been avoiding a promising form of treatment for a host of maladies.

While the author is a medical professional and he easily provides enough detail to earn the reader's trust, the text is missing a few features which would enhance its credibility and usefulness. The most obvious omission is a proper bibliography, though Sheffrey does cite author and date within the text. The book is also lacks an index of any sort, and that combined with the absence of subheadings make it difficult to find specific material.

Rating: