Many investigators contributed to showing that lipoprotein A is what is deposited in
plaques, not just LDL, but lipoprotein A. If you have more than
20mg/dI in your blood it begins depositing plaques and atherosclerosis so the question then is what causes
lipoprotein A to stick to the wall of the artery and cause these plaques?
Well countless biochemists and other chemists are pretty smart people and they discovered
what it is in the wall of the artery that causes lipoprotein A to get stuck to the wall of the artery and form
atherosclerotic plaques and ultimately lead to heart disease, strokes and peripheral arterial disease.
The answer is there is a particular amino acid in a protein in the wall of the artery -
lysine, which is one of the twenty amino acids that binds the lipoprotein A and causes atherosclerotic plaques to
develop. I think it is a very important discovery.
Well, now, if you know that there are residues of lysine, lysyl residues, that hold the
lipoprotein A to the wall of the artery and cause hardening of the arteries, then any chemist, any physical chemist
would say at once that the thing to do is to prevent that by puffing the amino acid lysine in the blood to greater
extent than is normally.
Of course you get lysine normally in your food. Meat in particular contains a good bit of
And you need lysine to be alive, it is an essential amino acid, you have to get about a gram
a day to keep in protein balance, but you can take lysine, pure lysine, a perfectly non toxic substance in food, as
500mg tablets and that puts extra lysine molecules in the blood. They enter into competition with the lysyl
residues on the wall of artery and accordingly count to prevent the lipoproteinA from being deposited or even will
work to pull it loose and destroy the atherosclerotic plaques.
Q: Do you think the treatment of lysine and vitamin C can reverse the
I think so. Yes. Now I've got to the point where I think we can get almost complete control
of cardiovascular disease, heart attacks and strokes by the proper use of vitamin C and lysine. It can prevent
cardiovascular disease and even cure it.
If you are at risk of heart disease, or if there is a history of heart disease in your
family, if your father or other members of the family died of a heart attack or stroke or whatever, or if you have
a mild heart attack yourself then you had better be taking vitamin C and lysine.
Q When you published 'Vitamin C and the Common Cold' what did you expect that to
do to medical thinking?
When my book was published near the end of 1970, 1 thought the medical profession and ordinary people would be
pleased. They would be pleased that they no longer were suffering the miseries of the common cold and related
diseases and the physicians would be pleased in that they were no longer bothered by patients with the common cold
for which they didn't have any very good treatment anyway, but could concentrate on more serious illnesses.
So I was astonished at the reception that I got when the Professor of Medicine at Mount Sinai College of
Medicine wrote to me complaining about my statement that vitamin C, three grams a day would provide considerable
protection against the common cold.
I checked the medical literature to find what evidence there was at that time. I found four controlled trials,
recently well conducted trials, involving what I would describe now as rather small amounts of vitamin C per day of
between 200mg and a 1,000mg per day. I think that the best one of these four early trials was done by Dr Ritzel,
the physician for the school system in Basle, Switzerland.
He gave 270 schoolboys at a winter ski camp either a gram of vitamin C per day, in a capsule or a placebo. It
was a randomized double-blind, controlled trial and with each boy the nurse made sure that the boys swallowed the
capsule so that he didn't have the trouble that other investigators have of the boys, boys especially, not
swallowing the capsule.
Instead, trading them back and forth so that you, the investigators, didn't know which one had received the
vitamin C and which the placebo.
The result was 63 per cent less illness with the common cold for the boys who received the vitamin C compared to
those who received the placebo.
Well, this was a very good trial.
In a paper by a professor of medicine at the University of Helsinki, Finland about vitamin C and the common
cold, he mentioned the publication of my book and said that he had decided to check the medical literature to find
out how many studies had been carried out since 1970 on the effectiveness of vitamin C against the common cold.
He decided that he would accept only studies in which at least 1 gram a day of vitamin C was given, some of the
studies involved 2 grams, perhaps one involved 3 grams a day but mostly they were 1 gram a day of vitamin C in
which a placebo was given to half of the subjects and the studies that were randomized and double-blind so that
neither the physicians nor the subjects knew which persons were getting the vitamin C.
He found 38 clinical trials had been carried out since 1970 satisfying these requirements. 37 of the 38 trials
lead to the conclusion that vitamin C had a protective effect greater than the placebo and a number of these, a
dozen of these clinical trials had high statistical significance at 99.9 per cent confidence level and that the
result wasn't just a statistical fluctuation, a chance result.
There is no doubt now that vitamin C in large doses has value against the common cold.
My recommendation is not 1 gram a day, or 2 grams a day of vitamin C but at the first sign of a cold, take a
gram of vitamin C or 2 grams and then an hour later, if the symptoms still exist - if you're still sneezing, or
your nose is running or feel shivery, take another 1 or 2 grams of vitamin C. Keep doing that until you forget
because the symptoms have gone away and this will stop a cold in almost every person who follows the regimen.
Q: What do you feel about the major criticism that anything over 100mg of vitamin
C is a waste of money and goes down the drain because It's eliminated by the body?
The evidence shows that this is just not true. I myself, twenty years ago or more, read this statement, probably
made by Fred Stare, professor then at Harvard School of Public Health, and I decided to check. I was taking 10
grams per day of vitamin C. I collected my urine for 24 hours and analyzed it myself for the vitamin C content.
Instead of nearly 10,000mg being eliminated in the urine, 9850mg, I found only 1,500mg, 15 per cent of the dose
that I was taking during this trial, so the statement just is not true. Of course, some of the ingested ascorbate
remains in the intestinal contents and doesn't get into the blood stream. It may be as much as a third.
Some evidence indicates that perhaps as much as a third remains in the intestinal contents. Well, this does
good, protecting the lower bowel against cancer by destroying carcinogens that are present in the fecal material
and also does good because of the laxative effect of bringing water into the bowel so that the volume of the waste
material is larger.
There's also a smaller surface area which helps speed up the process of elimination of this material. The rest
of it, two thirds perhaps 6.5 grams when I was taking 10 grams a day, gets into the blood stream but only 1.5 grams
is eliminated in the urine.
So we can ask what happens to the other 5 grams? The answer I'm sure, in fact we have direct experimental
evidence for it, is that vitamin C is rapidly converted into other substances, oxidation products and these other
substances, these oxidation products have been shown to have greater value against cancer than vitamin C
So if you take large doses of vitamin C you produce large amounts of these other substances, the value of which
is still under investigation. We have been studying it for fifteen years.
Q: Why has your work on nutrients been countered? Is It ignorance, is It prestige,
is It money interests? Why Is It being suppressed?
Well I have thought about that a great deal. Most scientists in general have accepted my idea and ideas of other
pioneers. Of course I took over my ideas mainly from Irwin Stone and other early investigators of vitamin C. So
scientists have said usually "Well Linus Pauling has been right so often in the past, he's probably right about
But then an ordinary physician, has the duty of dividing his time and energy for the proper care of his
patients. He doesn't have time to read the literature, the scientific and medical literature, and think about a
question such as whether there is something new and significant that has been discovered. He has to rely on medical
and nutritional authorities and I blame them for having been lazy and biased, and not really willing to keep up
with new developments.
But why are they biased?
Well I decided, 40 or 50 years ago, that when they were trying to understand the action of drugs and also of
nutrients, they realized that you give a drug in the amount as large as possible so that its toxicity does not kill
a patient in the hope that it will save the patient's life. And there are certain drugs that have great value in
protecting against certain diseases.
There is no doubt that these drugs have great value. Doctors and investigators have worked hard to determine
what the proper dose of a drug is. Now with vitamin C for example, I am sure they said we know what vitamin C does.
It keeps people from dying from scurvy and investigators have studied human beings enough to know how much vitamin
C they need to give in order to prevent the development of scurvy.
It isn't much, just a little pinch each day so they say we know the answer with vitamins just as with drugs. And
the answers are the RDAs, 60 mg a day of vitamin C to prevent scurvy, and 2mg of a day of thiamin, vitamin B1, to
prevent beriberi and so on. What they did not do was to ask this question: here is a substance which has no known
toxicity, which can be taken in 1000 times the RDA, the amount that stops people developing scurvy, without causing
harm to a person.
Is there a possibility that very large doses of vitamin C and the B vitamins and vitamin A, beta carotene and
vitamin E, would have much additional value in improving the health of the people?
Twenty five years ago, when I became interested in vitamins, it was just that question that interested me. I
looked in the medical and nutritional literature to find out how much vitamin C a person should take in order to be
in the best health, perhaps to control diseases other than scurvy.
I couldn't find anything and the result, of course, is for 25 years I have devoted much of my life and time and
energy trying to find the answer to the. question - how much of these very powerful and important substances should
we take to be in the best of health?
Q: How would you compare your vision of orthomolecular medicine and conventional
One of my colleagues in the field of orthomolecular medicine invented the word 'toximolecular' medicine to
describe conventional medicine and this seems to me to be good in that conventional medical practice relies heavily
on drugs, all of which essentially are toxic substances.
It's hard for me to think of an example of a drug that is like the vitamins in having nearly zero toxicity. With
aspirin, some patients with severe arthritis are advised by the physician to take as much as 10 grams of aspirin a
day and it's my memory that the LD50, the amount that would kill 50 per cent of patients, is 28 grams of aspirin
and that's why many people commit suicide by taking an overdose, a whole bottle full aspirin tablets. So I think
that's a good description of conventional medicine.
I'm not against drugs when they are properly used and have said so over and over again.
We advocate for every patient with cancer taking high doses of vitamin C as an adjunct to appropriate
conventional therapy and I agree with Dr Cameron that surgery - he was a surgeon - surgery is often the best
treatment for a malignant condition if the malignant tumor can be removed and sometimes, for a few kinds of cancer,
chemotherapy is known to have much value and, for some kinds, high energy radiation has value even though
chemotherapy and high energy radiation have pretty serious side effects, are damaging to the body as a whole,
nevertheless, the benefit may outweigh the disadvantages.
Q: How do you decide how much vitamin C Is right for you and, If you take 3 grams
should It be split throughout the day?
In my opinion adults should be taking at least 2 grams a day. There is much evidence about increased health with
2 grams a day, and of course even more with 4 or 6 grams a day. Even an extra 60mg had been shown to add value in
cutting down the death rate from heart disease, cancer and other diseases. Now my feeling is as people grow older
they ought to be increasing their vitamin C and perhaps they should follow the policy that I have followed of
increasing the intake.
It can be either one chunk, one dose in the morning, or even better three doses throughout the day, increasing
the intake until a laxative effect is observed, speeding up the rate of elimination of waste material from the
bowel. So my suggestion is every person who wants to have the best of health should increase the intake of vitamin
C to somewhat less than the amount that causes significant looseness of the bowel.
Q: How do you think your opponents will remember you?
Molecular biologists will of course remember me as one of the founders of molecular biology, and chemists in
general will remember me as one of the founders of modern chemistry, changing it from a pretty descriptive to a far
more rational sort of science, and physicians will remember me as having been at least in part, responsible for the
revolution in medicine in which there is a great improvement in human health and in control of disease through the
use of vitamin C and other vitamins. This will include my opponents, although the opponents may have died off by
Excerpts from interviews with Tony Edwards for QED BBC Television, and with Patrick Holford at the Power of