The origin and arguments on vitamin supplements of Dr. Linus Pauling
https://frankwaterloo.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/the-origin-and-arguments-on-vitamin-supplements-of-dr-linus-paulin/
Frank Jan. 6, 2016, in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada For a long time, world widely, Dr. Linus Pauling's advocacy of vitamin supplements has been questioned. Today, Jan. 6, 2016, I found Alex Riley Dec. 8, 2016’s Article: Why vitamin pills do not work, and may be bad for you, I was touched and felt that there is need to learn more about vitamin supplements, and search some articles as follow. When referring to the origin of vitamin supplements, I have to mention the most notable man Dr. Abram Hoffer, M.D. Ph.D. – as a psychiatrist of Canada Vancouver based, he personally experienced the process that Canadian doctors were trying to use high-dose vitamins in the treatment of mental illness and achieved a definite therapeutic effect at the time that was no any related medication available. Dr. Abram Hoffer, MD once wrote book Vitamin B-3 and Schizophrenia: Discovery, Recovery, Controversy. I once copied this full book in self-paid. In the book, Dr. Abram Hoffer introduced the reason that he lifelong engaged into the exploration of psychiatric treatment: in early last century, the Canadian mental hospital patients living conditions are extremely tragic in hospital, only when the time of their families’ visiting, hospital gave them a little better clothes. Dec. 21 2011, in article Chinese Medicine – A Promising Therapeutic Approach, I indicate that: “Talking about the restoration of physical balance, we must make clear the physiological effect of nutritional ingredients in Chinese drugs.” “A good example is Orthomolecular medicine (OM). It was coined by Linus Paulin who was enlightened from the successful practice of Canadian doctors who cured mental illness by megadose Vitamin B3 after read the paper of <The Vitamin B-3 Therapy: A Promising Treatment for Schizophrenia – and its high relevance to the field of alcoholism> that wrote by Bill Wilson, a Canadian Physician, in December 1965, that was A communication to A.A.’s Physicians, not for public quotation or use.” In 2003, I specially made a copy of Bill Wilson’s report from: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health， CAMH Library 33 Russell Street, 2nd floor， Toronto，ON，M5S 2S1 Information Desk: 416.535.8501 x6988 The cover is as follow. (A.A. – Alcoholics Anonymous). 
“The OM was originally intended to treat the “mental disease by the provision of the optimal molecular environment of the mind, especially the optimal concentrations of substances normally present in the human body.” OM currently is called as diet supplements that have developed many products, such as, Vitamins, minerals and so on.” “Linus Paulin who published the Nature of the chemical bond in 1939. Later he did many pioneering works in understanding the nature of life from atomic structure, binding mode between atoms, nucleic acids and proteins. Whether from chemical, biological, and medical, he has laid a solid theoretical foundation.” “Vitamin B-3 has wide range of physiological improvement functions. Its therapeutic process for psychotic is to restore damaged brain rather than as that of antipsychotic drugs control the abnormal secretions in the brain. Naturally, OM treats the diseases in a Holistic way.” “Although, for decades, some people have been eagerly trying to deny the curative effect of OM, however, the physiological improvement function is coming clearer in both clinic and academic. Now it gains extensively application world widely. Vitamin C was the one of OM, which was Linus Pauling strongly recommended, also was strongly opposed by others. following are some of new researches on Vitamin C.” “1. Vitamin C Saves Lives! After Linus Pauling wrote his book on vitamin C in 1970, mortality from heart disease decreased 30-40% in the USA. From around 741,000 deaths per year to less than 500,000 deaths by 1986 – U. S. Bureau of National Health Statistics 1986.” “2. Vitamin C may be useful to treat cancer after all.” “3. Study shows vitamin C’s cancer-fighting properties.” “4. Vitamin C beneficial in cancer treatment – study.” “5. How Vitamin C Stops Cancer.” “In TCM, there are variety of nutritional constituents that are far more than that of in OM, which come from more than 10 thousands of plants, minerals and animals, such as, Ginseng, Gypsum and Placenta. They are certainly playing a significant role in the diseases treatment, but their unique contribution seems to have been ignored both clinically and academically.” “The reason may come from the TCM itself because that it never distinguishes the medicinal and nutritional, even without the concepts and terms, they were generally called as medicine. In western medicine, Chinese medicine generally called as alternative or diet supplements. I think that there is necessary to make a definition, such as, those with the effect of killing pathogenic agents should be called as medicinal, and those without the effect of killing pathogenic directly but with the role of physiological improvement should be called as nutritional, include those in Western medicine. A clear concept with a exact term will not only help clear describing, but also conducive to efficient thinking. The determination of a definition is difficult that need to be discussed carefully because of the ingredient of many single herbs is compound that contains both medicinal and nutritional. Even if a single constituent also has a dual role, such as, some peptide is nutritional but also an antibiotic. The nutritionals in Chinese drugs is a promising medical potential to be an attractive research direction.” Follow is links of some article about vitamin supplements and Dr. Linus Paulin Follow is article of Dr. A. Hoffer that introduced about Dr. Linus Paulin Linus Pauling Honours the Canadian Schizophrenia Foundation By A. HofferAbram Hoffer, M.D. Ph.D. http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1987/pdf/1987-v02n03-p183.pdf [About A. Hoffer, M.D. Ph.D. – Abram Hoffer (November 11, 1917 – May 27, 2009) was a Canadian biochemist, physician, and psychiatrist known for his “adrenochrome hypothesis” of schizoaffective disorders. According to Hoffer, megavitamin therapy and other nutritional interventions are potentially effective treatments for schizophrenia and other diseases.[citation needed] Hoffer was also involved in studies of LSD as an experimental therapy for alcoholism and the discovery that high-dose niacin can be used to treat high cholesterol and other dyslipidemias. Hoffer’s ideas about megavitamin therapy to treat mental illness are not accepted by the medical community.]
Linus Pauling Honours the Canadian Schizophrenia Foundation at its Sixteenth Annual International Conference and BenGurion Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, May 20th and 21, 1987, at Beer Sheva, Israel. On Friday evening, May 15, 1987, Dr. Linus Pauling presented his views relating the use of optimum doses of vitamins to good health. Vitamin C was given special attention. Dr. Pauling now takes 18 grams per day of Vitamin C, or 300 times the RDA. The lecture is available on audio tape from Kennedy Recordings RR5, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5P 4B7. This lecture represented a small portion of the information available from his book, How to Live Longer and Feel Better. Dr. Pauling was introduced by Mr. D.C. (Ben) Webster, Chairman, Helix Investments Ltd. He said: “I would like to offer a very warm welcome to Dr. Linus Pauling and say how happy and privileged we are to have him address us this evening. By the crowd here tonight, I would certainly say that Dr. Pauling’s preeminence precedes him. “Dr. Pauling’s own accomplishments have led to: Two Nobel Prizes, one in chemistry in 1954, and one for peace in 1962, and 40 honorary degrees from colleges and universities in the USA and abroad. Furthermore, when the structure of DNA was discovered, Dr. Pauling was actively engaged in his own investigations and, according to his peers, could have received a third Nobel Prize! He missed a crucial meeting in the U.K. because the U.S. government would not release his passport. “Linus Pauling has been ever-willing to take on new challenges for the benefit of humanity as a whole, and has not been afraid to support unpopular causes. Such was the case with his early identification of the danger in the spread of nuclear testing and contamination, and is the case with his active work over the last two decades in support of the nutritional approach towards alleviation of disease, particularly Vitamin C. “There is today enormous medical opposition to the idea that disease has an important nutritional component, a resistance which, as a layman is most difficult to understand. Medical and health care groups, including their journals and organized associations, not only do not support high nutrition as a serious means toward better health, but are often antagonistic toward those who make forays into the area, generally dismissing them with the label “unscientific,” when they wish to be kind. This antagonism is given tacit support by the drug companies as they have very little to gain from the understanding and treatment of disease through such low-cost and unpatentable remedies as do-it-yourself mega nutrition. “But such opposition does not disturb Dr. Pauling. He has spent the last 20 years of his enormously productive life developing and publicizing his ideas in the field, and I would predict he has another 20 years to go! As long as he stays on his Vitamin C. “His recent book, How to Live Longer and Feel Better, is quite possibly the most important publication to date in the field of nutrition and disease. It is well footnoted and indexed and contains an enormous amount of relevant information. “Of interest to Canadians is that 23 years ago, Dr. Pauling was catalyzed towards his interest in nutrition and disease by two pioneering Canadian medical men: Dr. Abram Hoffer and Dr. Humphry Osmond. They were pioneering not only because Abe Hoffer came from a very small town in Saskatchewan (named after his forebears), what else but Hoffer, Saskatchewan. Also Dr. Osmond was a pioneer as well as he practised in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. They were pioneering, he and Dr. Osmond together, from their clinical experience with their patients, and their subsequent research and double-blind studies, realized that nutrition had a pivotal effect on mental illness. On the basis of their early work, and his own investigation, Dr. Pauling coined the term “Orthomolecular psychiatry” to isolate and designate this field of endeavour. “It is very exciting to have Dr. Pauling here today who is, in fact, on his way to Israel for the commemoration of the chair in Orthomolecular psychiatry at Ben-Gurion Medical School in Beer Sheva. “As a footnote, Dr. Pauling will be speaking tomorrow on the subject of Vitamin C and cancer at the conference of the CSF here at the Park Plaza. You are welcome to join us for the conference, hear Dr. Pauling, and to listen to the other scientists and doctors who will be conducting seminars and giving speeches. “It gives me great pleasure to introduce Dr. Pauling.” After the lecture I concluded this session by thanking Dr. Pauling on behalf of the CSF. Then I quoted from a presentation he had made in the fall of 1962 at a Manfred Sakel meeting (L.C. Page and Co., Farrar Strauss and Geroux, New York, 1966. Ed Max Rinkel). He said, “The ethical principle of minimizing human suffering requires we all work together in overcoming the causes of suffering…I believe that the time will come, perhaps in 10 or 20 years when, if enough effort is made, there will be obtained some significant understanding of the nature of the groups of diseases we classify as schizophrenia and of other mental diseases comparable to that which now exists for a few diseases that are called molecular diseases.” Then I concluded, “…your work, your willingness to become involved is of inestimable value in changing medicine so that, to use your words, we can all conform to your ethical principle of minimizing human suffering.” At Ben-Gurion Medical school Dr. Linus Pauling was present at the dedication of the Hoffer-Vickar Chair of Psychiatry — A Unit of Orthomolecular Research. This chair was given by Edward and Marion Vickar of Winnipeg, Manitoba. anitoba. The following morning Dr. Pauling participated in the seminar on Orthomolecular psychiatry chaired by Prof. R.H. Belmaker; again there was an overflow crowd who came to the desert city to hear Dr. Pauling. We dose up on antioxidants as if they are the elixir of life. At best, they are probably ineffective. At worse, they may just send you to an early grave. 8 December 2016 For Linus Pauling, it all started to go wrong when he changed his breakfast routine. In 1964, at the age of 65, he started adding vitamin C to his orange juice in the morning. It was like adding sugar to Coca Cola, and he believed – wholeheartedly, sometimes vehemently – that it was a good thing. Before this, his breakfasts were nothing to write about. Just that they happened early every morning before going to work at California Institute of Technology, even on weekends. He was indefatigable, and his work was fruitful. At the age of 30, for instance, he proposed a third fundamental way that atoms are held together in molecules, melding ideas from both chemistry and quantum mechanics. Twenty years later, his work into how proteins (the building blocks of all life) are structured helped Francis Crick and James Watson decode the structure of DNA (the code of said building blocks) in 1953. The next year, Pauling was awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his insights into how molecules are held together. As Nick Lane, a biochemist from University College London, writes in his 2001 book Oxygen, “Pauling… was a colossus of 20th Century science, whose work laid the foundations of modern chemistry.”
Linus Pauling was one of our most influential scientists, yet his belief in the power of antioxidants may have set us down a dangerous path (Credit: Getty Images) But then came the vitamin C days. In his 1970 bestselling book, How To Live Longer and Feel Better, Pauling argued that such supplementation could cure the common cold. He consumed 18,000 milligrams (18 grams) of the stuff per day, 50 times the recommended daily allowance. In the book’s second edition, he added flu to the list of easy fixes. When HIV spread in the US during the 1980s, he claimed that vitamin C could cure that, too. In 1992, his ideas were featured on the cover of Time Magazine under the headline: “The Real Power of Vitamins”. They were touted as treatments for cardiovascular diseases, cataracts, and even cancer. “Even more provocative are glimmerings that vitamins can stave off the normal ravages of ageing,” the article claimed. Sales in multivitamins and other dietary supplements boomed, as did Pauling’s fame. But his academic reputation went the other way. Over the years, vitamin C, and many other dietary supplements, have found little backing from scientific study. In fact, with every spoonful of supplement he added to his orange juice, Pauling was more likely harming rather than helping his body. His ideas have not just proven to be wrong, but ultimately dangerous.
Antioxidants were meant to delay the ravages of ageing, but there’s little evidence that supplements bring any noticeable benefits (Credit: Getty Images) Pauling was basing his theories on the fact that vitamin C is an antioxidant, a breed of molecules that includes vitamin E, beta-carotene, and folic acid. Their benefits are thought to arise from the fact that they neutralise highly reactive molecules called free-radicals. In 1954, Rebeca Gerschman then at the University of Rochester, New York, first identified these molecules as a possible danger – ideas expanded upon by Denham Harman, from the Donner Laboratory of Medical Physics at UC Berkeley in 1956, who argued that free radicals can lead to cellular deterioration, disease and, ultimately, ageing. Throughout the 20th Century, scientists steadily built on his ideas and they soon became widely accepted. Here’s how it works. The process starts with mitochondria, those tiny combustion engines that sit within our cells. Inside their internal membranes food and oxygen are converted into water, carbon dioxide, and energy. This is respiration, a mechanism that fuels all complex life. ‘Leaky watermills’ But it isn’t so simple. In addition to food and oxygen, a continuous flow of negatively charged particles called electrons is also required. Like a subcellular stream downhill powering a series of watermills, this flow is maintained across four proteins, each embedded in the internal membrane of the mitochondria, powering the production of the end product: energy. This reaction fuels everything we do, but it is an imperfect process. There is some leakage of electrons from three of the cellular watermills, each able to react with oxygen molecules nearby. The result is a free radical, a radically reactive molecule with a free electron. Oxygen is the breath of life, but it also holds the potential to make us old, decrepit, and then dead
In order to regain stability, free radicals wreak havoc on the structures around them, ripping electrons from vital molecules such as DNA and proteins in order to balance its own charge. Although inconceivably small in scale, the production of free radicals, Harman and many others posited, would gradually take its toll on our entire bodies, causing mutations that can lead to ageing and age-related diseases such as cancer. In short, oxygen is the breath of life, but it also holds the potential to make us old, decrepit, and then dead.
Clinical trials are the only ways to reveal the effects of a drug – and investigations into antioxidants have produced some shocking results (Credit: Alamy) Shortly after free radicals were linked to ageing and disease, they were seen as enemies that should be purged from our bodies. In 1972, for example, Harman wrote, “Decreasing [free radicals] in an organism might be expected to result in a decreased rate of biological degradation with an accompanying increase in the years of useful, healthy life. It is hoped that [this theory] will lead to fruitful experiments directed toward increasing the healthy human lifespan.” He was talking about antioxidants, molecules that accept electrons from free radicals thereby diffusing the threat. And the experiments he hoped for were sown, nurtured, and replicated over the next few decades. But they bore little fruit. The results were the largely the same: an excess of antioxidants didn’t quell the ravages of ageing, nor stop the onset of disease
In the 1970s and into the 80s, for example, many mice – our go-to laboratory animal – were prescribed a variety of supplementary antioxidants in their diet or via an injection straight into the bloodstream. Some were even genetically modified so that the genes coding for certain antioxidants were more active than non-modified lab mice. Although different in method, the results were the largely the same: an excess of antioxidants didn’t quell the ravages of ageing, nor stop the onset of disease. “They never really proved that they were extending lifespan, or improving it,” says Antonio Enriquez from the Spanish National Centre for Cardiovascular Research in Madrid. “Mice don’t care for [supplements] very much.”
Far from protecting us from disease, one study found that vitamin supplements increased the incidence of lung cancer among smokers (Credit: Alamy) What about humans? Unlike our smaller mammalian kin, scientists can’t take members of society into labs and monitor their health over their lifetime, while controlling for any extraneous factors that could bias the results at the end. But what they can do is set up long-term clinical trials. The premise is pretty simple. First, find a group of people similar in age, location, and lifestyle. Second, split them into two subgroups. One half receives the supplement you’re interested in testing, while the other receives a blank – a sugar pill, a placebo. Third, and crucially to avoid unintentional bias, no one knows who was given which until after the trial; not even those administering the treatment. The incidence of lung cancer increased by 16% in the group given vitamin supplements
Known as a double-blind control trial, this is the gold standard of pharmaceutical research. Since the 1970s, there have been many trials like this trying to figure out what antioxidant supplementation does for our health and survival. The results are far from heartening. In 1994, for example, one trial followed the lives of 29,133 Finish people in their 50s. All smoked, but only some were given beta-carotene supplements. Within this group, the incidence of lung cancer increased by 16%. A similar result was found in postmenopausal women in the U.S. After 10 years of taking folic acid (a variety of B vitamin) every day their risk of breast cancer increased by 20% relative to those women who didn’t take the supplement. It gets worse. One study of more than 1,000 heavy smokers published in 1996 had to be terminated nearly two years early. After just four years of beta-carotene and vitamin A supplementation, there was a 28% increase in lung cancer rates and a 17% increase in those who died. These aren’t trivial numbers. Compared to placebo, 20 more people were dying every year when taking these two supplements. Over the four years of the trial, that equates to 80 more deaths. As the authors wrote at the time, “The present findings provide ample grounds to discourage use of supplemental beta-carotene and the combination of beta-carotene and vitamin A.” Fatal ideas Of course, these notable studies don’t tell the full story. There are some studies that do show benefits of taking antioxidants, especially when the population sampled doesn’t have access to a healthy diet. But, according a review from 2012 that noted the conclusions of 27 clinical trials assessing the efficacy of a variety of antioxidants, the weight of evidence does not fall in its favour. Just seven studies reported that supplementation led to some sort of health benefit from antioxidant supplements, including reduced risk of coronary heart disease and pancreatic cancer. Ten studies didn’t see any benefit at all – it was as if all patients were given the sugar pill also (but, of course, they weren’t). That left another 10 studies that found many patients to be in a measurably worse state after being administered antioxidants than before, including an increased incidence of diseases such as lung and breast cancer. The idea that antioxidant supplements are a miracle cure is completely redundant – Antonio Enriquez
“The idea that antioxidant [supplementation] is a miracle cure is completely redundant,” says Enriquez. Linus Pauling was largely unaware of the fact that his own ideas could be fatal. In 1994, before the publication of many of the large-scale clinical trials, he died of prostate cancer. Vitamin C certainly wasn’t the cure-all that he cantankerously claimed it was up until his last breath. But did it contribute to a heightened risk?
Dosing up on vitamin C does not even help us fight the common cold (Credit: Alamy) We’ll never know for sure. But given that multiple studies have linked excess antioxidants to cancer, it certainly isn’t out of the question. A study published in 2007 from the US National Cancer Institute, for instance, found that men that took multivitamins were twice as likely to die from prostate cancer compared to those who didn’t. And in 2011, a similar study on 35,533 healthy men found that vitamin E and selenium supplementation increased prostate cancer by 17%. Ever since Harman proposed his great theory of free radicals and ageing, the neat separation of antioxidants and free radicals (oxidants) has been deteriorating. It has aged. Antioxidant is only a name, not a fixed definition of nature. Take vitamin C, Pauling’s preferred supplement. At the correct dose, vitamin C neutralises highly charged free radicals by accepting their free electron. It’s a molecular martyr, taking the hit upon itself to protect the cellular neighbourhood. But by accepting an electron, the vitamin C becomes a free radical itself, able to damage cell membranes, proteins and DNA. As the food chemist William Porter wrote in 1993, “[vitamin C] is truly a two-headed Janus, a Dr Jekyll-Mr Hyde, an oxymoron of antioxidants.” Thankfully, in normal circumstances, the enzyme vitamin C reductase can return vitamin C’s antioxidant persona. But what if there’s so much vitamin C that it simply can’t keep up with supply? Although such simplifying of complex biochemistry is in itself problematic, the clinical trials above provide some possible outcomes. Divide and conquer Antioxidants have a dark side. And, with increasing evidence that free radicals themselves are essential for our health, even their good side isn’t always helpful. Without free radicals, cells would continue to grow and divide uncontrollably
We now know that free radicals are often used as molecular messengers that send signals from one region of the cell to another. In this role, they have been shown to modulate when a cell grows, when it divides in two, and when it dies. At every stage of a cell’s life, free radicals are vital. Without them, cells would continue to grow and divide uncontrollably. There’s a word for this: cancer. We would also be more prone to infections from outside. When under stress from an unwanted bacterium or virus, free radicals are naturally produced in higher numbers, acting as silent klaxons to our immune system. In response, those cells at the vanguard of our immune defense – macrophages and lymphocytes – start to divide and scout out the problem. If it is a bacterium, they will engulf it like Pac-Man eating a blue ghost. It is trapped, but it is not yet dead. To change that, free radicals are once again called into action. Inside the immune cell, they are used for what they are infamous for: to damage and to kill. The intruder is torn apart. From start to finish, a healthy immune response depends on free radicals being there for us, within us. As geneticists Joao Pedro Magalhaes and George Church wrote in 2006: “In the same way that fire is dangerous and nonetheless humans learned how to use it, it now appears that cells evolved mechanisms to control and use [free radicals].” Put another way, freeing ourselves of free radicals with antioxidants is not a good idea. “You would leave the body helpless against some infections,” says Enriquez.
Few would dispute that a balanced diet is essential for good health, but most of us don’t need supplements to meet our nutritional needs (Credit: Getty Images) Thankfully, your body has systems in place to keep a your inner biochemistry as stable as possible. For antioxidants, this generally involves filtering any excess out of the bloodstream into urine for disposal. “They go in the toilet,” says Cleva Villanueva from Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, in an email. “We’re very good at balancing things out so that the affect [of supplementation] is moderate whatever you do, which we should be grateful for,” says Lane. Our bodies have been selected to balance the risk of oxygen ever since the first microbes started to breathe this toxic gas. We can’t change billions of years of evolution with a simple pill. No one would deny that vitamin C is vital to a healthy lifestyle, as are all antioxidants, but unless you are following doctor’s orders, these supplements are rarely going to be the answer for a longer life when a healthy diet is also an option. “Administration of antioxidants is justified only when it is evident that there is a real deficiency of a specific antioxidant,” says Villanueva. “The best option is to get antioxidants from food because it contains a mixture of antioxidants that work together.” “Diets rich in fruits and vegetables have been shown generally to be good for you,” says Lane. “Not invariably, but generally that’s agreed to be the case.” Although often attributed to antioxidants, the benefits of such a diet, he says, might also hail from a healthy balance of pro-oxidants and other compounds whose roles aren’t yet fully understood. After decades of unlocking the baroque biochemistry of free radicals and antioxidants, hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and millions of pounds spent on clinical trials, the best conclusion that 21st Century science has to offer is also found within a child’s classroom – eat your five-a-day. Alex Riley 亞歷克斯·萊利 http://www.bbc.com/ukchina/simp/vert-fut-38529250 自從萊納斯·鮑林（Linus Pauling）改變早餐習慣以來，方向就跑偏了。1964年，65歲的鮑林開始在早餐的橙汁中加入維生素C。這就像在可口可樂裡面加糖一樣，但他卻對這麼做的好處深信不疑。 在此之前，他的早餐平淡無奇，吃完之後就會趕往加州理工學院上班，就連周末也不例外。他工作勤奮，碩果纍纍。 例如，他30歲就融合化學與量子力學兩門學科的知識，提出了原子結合成分子的第三種基本方式。20年後，他對蛋白質（所有生命的組成模塊）結構的研究幫助弗朗西斯·克里克（Francis Crick）和詹姆斯·沃森（James Watson）在1953年解開了DNA的結構密碼（上述生命組成模塊的密碼）。 第二年，鮑林因為在分子結合方式領域的研究而獲得諾貝爾化學獎。倫敦大學學院生物科學家尼克·萊恩（Nick Lane）在他2001年出版的《氧》（Oxygen）一書中寫道：”鮑林是20世紀的科學巨人，他的成果為現代化學奠定了基礎。”
 萊納斯·鮑林是最具影響力的科學家之一，但他對抗氧化劑的深信不疑卻把我們引上了一條危險的道路
回過頭來接着說他服用維生素C的那段日子。在他1970年的暢銷書《怎麼才能活得更長，感覺更好》（How To Live Longer and Feel Better）中，鮑林認為這種補劑可以治癒普通感冒。他每天攝入1.8萬毫克（18克）維生素C，達到普通人每日推薦攝入量的50倍。 在那本書的第二版中，他還將流感加入了維生素可以輕易治癒的疾病名單。當艾滋病上世紀80年代在美國傳播時，他甚至聲稱維生素C也能治癒艾滋病。 1992年，他的觀點登上了《時代》周刊的封面，標題是：《維生素的真正力量》（The Real Power of Vitamins）。他認為這種物質可以治療心血管病、白內障甚至癌症。”更令人振奮的是，有跡象顯示維生素還能延緩正常的衰老。”那篇文章寫道。 得益於鮑林的卓越聲譽，多維元素片和其他膳食補充劑的銷量激增。 但他的學術聲譽卻受到了損害。多年以來，維生素C和其他膳食補充劑的作用幾乎沒有得到科學研究的支撐。事實上，鮑林向橙汁中加入膳食補充劑的做法可謂弊大於利。他的想法不僅已經被證偽，甚至會最終危害人體健康。
 有人認為抗氧化劑可以延緩衰老，但沒有太多證據顯示這些補充劑能夠帶來任何顯著益處
鮑林的理論基礎在於：維生素C是一種抗氧化劑，這個家族的成員還包括維生素E、β-胡蘿蔔素和葉酸。他之所以認為這些物質有好處，是因為它們能中和高度活躍的自由基分子。 1954年，當時還任職於紐約羅徹斯特大學的麗貝卡·歌詩曼（Rebeca Gerschman）首次發現這些分子可能危害人體健康——美國加州大學伯克利分校唐納醫學物理實驗室的德納姆·哈曼（Denham Harman）在1956年進一步闡述了這種理論，他認為自由基可以導致細胞退化和疾病，最終引發衰老。 整個20世紀，科學家逐步完善了他的理論，使之成為一種普遍接受的學說。 這種理論的大致內容如下：整個過程始於線粒體，也就是那些存在於我們細胞中的微型內燃機。在它們的內膜內部，食物和氧被轉化成水、二氧化碳和能量。這就是呼吸作用，正是這種機制為所有複雜生命體供給了能量。 泄露的水車 但實際情況遠不止這麼簡單。除了食物和氧之外，還需要源源不斷地流入負荷粒子，也就是電子。就像一段自上而下推動一系列水車轉動的亞細胞流一樣，這種流體需要在4種蛋白質中不斷維持，每一種蛋白質都嵌入在線粒體的內膜中，促進最終產品的生產：能量。 這種反應正是我們做一切事情的能量基礎，但這個過程卻並不完美。有3個細胞水車會發生一定程度的電子泄露，每一個電子都會與附近的氧分子發生反應。反應的結果便是自由基，這是一種帶有自由電子且極易發生反應的分子。 為了重新獲得穩定，自由基會在周圍的結構中肆虐，從DNA和蛋白質等至關重要的分子上奪取電子，從而平衡自己的電荷。雖然規模很小，但哈曼等人認為，由此產生的自由基會逐步損害我們的整個身體，引發突變，從而導致衰老以及癌症等與衰老有關的疾病。 簡而言之，氧是維持生命不可或缺的物質，但它也有可能導致我們衰老和死亡。
 臨床試驗是揭示藥物效果的唯一方式——而對抗氧化劑的調查則讓我們看到了一些令人震驚的結果
當科學研究在自由基與衰老和疾病之間建立聯繫後不久，它們便被視作健康的敵人，應該從身體中徹底清除。例如，哈曼1972年寫道：”生物體內自由基的減少或許有望減慢生化降解速度，同時延長我們的健康壽命。（這項理論）還有望催生各種富有成效的實驗，從而延長人類的健康壽命。” 他談論的正是抗氧化劑，這種分子可以接受來自自由基的電子，從而減輕自由基產生的威脅。隨後幾十年，科學家按照他的理論進行了許多實驗，但卻幾乎沒有看到任何效果。 例如，在上世紀70年代和80年代初，很多科學家在老鼠的食物中加入了各種抗氧化劑，或者直接向其血液中注射這種物質。有科學家甚至對老鼠進行了轉基因培育，使之能夠對某些抗氧化劑表現得更加活躍。 儘管採用了不同方式，但結果卻基本相同：增加抗氧化劑並沒有延緩衰老，也沒有阻止疾病發生。 “他們從未真正證明抗氧化劑能延長壽命或改善生活質量。”西班牙國家心血管研究中心的安東尼奧·恩里克斯（Antonio Enriquez）說，”老鼠對這種補充劑反應不大。”
 一項研究發現，維生素補充劑不僅無法預防疾病，甚至還會增加煙民患肺癌的幾率
人類又是什麼情況呢？與老鼠不同，科學家無法把真人放進實驗室，監測他們一生的健康狀況，同樣也無法控制可能導致最終結果產生偏差的外界因素。但仍然可以展開長期的臨床試驗。 前提很簡單。首先找到一群年齡、地點、生活狀態相似的人。然後將其分成兩組，一組服用研究人員選定的補充劑，另外一組則服用純糖丸製作的安慰劑。第三點尤為重要，那就是避免出現無意識的偏見，所以在實驗結束之前，沒有人知道每個人服用的具體是補充劑還是安慰劑——甚至連試驗負責人也不例外。 這種所謂的雙盲實驗是藥學研究中的黃金標準。自從20世紀70年代以來，已經進行了很多類似的實驗，試圖搞清楚抗氧化劑究竟會對我們的健康和生存產生何種影響。結果並不樂觀。 例如，1994年的一項試驗對29,133名50多歲的芬蘭人進行了追蹤。他們都是煙民，但攝入β-胡蘿蔔素的一組志願者患肺癌的概率卻增加了16%。 美國科研人員對絕經後的婦女進行的臨床試驗也得出了類似的結論。在連續10年每天服用葉酸（一種B族維生素）後，她們的乳腺癌發病率較沒有服用這種補充劑的人增加了20%。 更糟糕的是，一項1996年發表的針對1,000多名重度吸煙者進行的研究不得不提前2年結束。在受試者服用短短4年的β-胡蘿蔔素和維生素A補充劑後，肺癌患病率就增加了28%，死亡率增加了17%。 這些數據的差異非常驚人。與服用安慰劑的人群相比，攝入這兩種補充劑的一組受測者每年死亡的人數多出20人。經過4年臨床試驗後，死亡的總人數多出80人。該研究的作者當時寫道：”試驗結果提供了充分的理由阻止人們攝入β-胡蘿蔔素以及β-胡蘿蔔素和維生素A的組合。” 致命理念 當然，這些著名的研究並不能反映事情的全貌。還有一些研究表明，服用抗氧化劑的確有一定的好處，尤其是對那些飲食不健康的人群。 但2012年的一份評估報告顯示，綜合27項臨床試驗結果來看，抗氧化劑的效果並不理想。 只有7項實驗顯示抗氧化劑有益健康，包括降低冠心病和胰腺癌的患病風險。還有10項研究沒有發現任何益處。另有10項實驗發現很多病人在服用抗氧化劑之後的情況明顯惡化，包括肺癌和乳腺癌等疾病的患病風險增加。 “抗氧化劑是靈丹妙藥的想法純屬多餘。”恩里克斯說。萊納斯·鮑林幾乎沒有意識到，他的這種想法本身就有可能致命。1994年，在很多大規模臨床試驗發布之前，他本人已經死於前列腺癌。維生素C顯然不是他所說的靈丹妙藥，但他一直到臨死前都不肯承認。不過，真的是因為這些抗氧化劑才增加了患病風險嗎？
 服用維生素C甚至不能幫助我們對抗普通感冒
我們永遠無法知道確切答案。但由於眾多研究都在過量服用抗氧化劑與癌症之間建立了相關性，所以這顯然並不是不可能做到的事情。例如，美國國家癌症研究所2007年的一項研究發現，服用多種維生素的男性因前列腺癌死亡的風險達到其他男性的兩倍。2011年對35,533名健康男性進行的一項類似研究也發現，維生素E和硒補充劑會將前列腺癌的患病風險提升17%。 自從哈曼提出了關於自由基和衰老的偉大理論後，抗氧化劑和自由基（氧化劑）之間的差異已經非常明確。整套理論都已成熟。 抗氧化劑只是一個名稱，並非確切的性質界定。以鮑林喜歡的維生素C為例，按照正確計量，維生素C可以通過接收自由電子來中和活躍度極高的自由基。它是一種分子殉道者，通過犧牲自己來保護附近的細胞。 但接受了電子之後，維生素C自己就變成了自由基，可以破壞細胞膜、蛋白質和DNA。食品化學家威廉·波特（William Porter）1993年寫道：”（維生素C）其實是個兩面派。” 幸好在正常環境中，維生素C還原酶可以恢復它的抗氧化性。但如果維生素C過量，又會發生什麼情況？儘管簡化這一複雜的生物化學過程本身就有問題，但上述臨床實驗的確提供了一些可能的結果。 各個擊破 抗氧化劑也有陰暗面，而且越來越多的證據顯示，自由基本身也對人體健康至關重要，就連抗氧化劑的益處也未必總能給我們帶來幫助。 我們現在知道，自由基經常充當分子信使的角色，負責將信號從細胞的一個區域傳送到另一個區域。正是因為具備這種職責，所以它們需要在細胞增長、分裂和死亡時進行調節。在細胞生命的每個階段，自由基都扮演了至關重要的角色。 沒有自由基，細胞就會不受控制地生長和分裂，醫學上有一個專用名詞來描述這種狀況：癌症。 我們也更容易受到外部感染的影響。當面臨有害的細菌或病毒施加的壓力時，自由基的數量會自然增加，充當我們免疫系統的靜音警報。為了應對這種情況，免疫系統中的先鋒細胞——巨噬細胞和淋巴細胞——就會開始分裂，偵查身體出現的問題。如果是細菌，它們就會像《吃豆人》遊戲一樣吞噬這些不速之客。 此時，細菌已經被困，但尚未死亡。為了改變這一狀況，自由基就會再次行動。在免疫細胞內部，自由基便會發揮它臭名昭著的破壞和殺戮功能。這時，入侵者就會被徹底清除。 從開始到最後，健康的免疫系統都是依靠體內的自由基作出反應的。遺傳學家若昂·佩德羅·馬加良斯（Joao Pedro Magalhaes）和喬治·丘奇（Goerge Church）在2006年寫道：”火也很危險，但人類還是學會了如何用火。與之相同，細胞已經進化出各種機制來控制和利用自由基。” 換句話說，使用抗氧化劑消滅體內的自由基不是個好主意。”這會導致身體在面對某些感染時陷入無助。”恩里克斯說。
 很少有人否認均衡飲食對健康的重要性，但多數人都不需要通過補充劑來滿足身體的營養需求
人體擁有各種各樣的系統，能夠儘可能保持內部生物化學環境的穩定。具體到抗氧化劑，人體通常會將血液中過量的抗氧化劑通過尿液排出體外。”它們都跑到馬桶里去了。”墨西哥國立理工學院的克萊瓦·維拉努埃瓦（Cleva Villanueva）說。 “人體很擅長保持平衡，所以（補充劑的）作用是調節你的行為，你應該對此心懷感激。”萊恩說。自從第一批微生物開始吸收氧氣以來，便開始了漫長的進化之旅，而如今的人類已經可以平衡氧氣帶來的風險。我們不可能僅憑一粒藥丸就改變數十億年來的進化成果。 沒有人否認維生素C對健康的重要作用，所有抗氧化劑均是如此。但除非得到醫生的建議，否則在可以獲得健康飲食的情況下，這些補充劑幾乎不會延長你的生命。”只有當真的缺乏某種抗氧化劑時，才應該主動攝入。”維拉努埃瓦說，”最好的選擇是通過食物獲取抗氧化劑，因為其中包含了可以相互配合的多種抗氧化劑。” “總的來說，多吃水果和蔬菜都有益於健康。”萊恩說，”雖然這並不是絕對的，但通常如此。”儘管其中的好處往往會歸功於抗氧化劑，但他表示，這種飲食方式帶來的好處或許也源自促氧化劑和其他化合物的均衡攝入，而這些物質的作用尚未完全被人類所了解。 人類對自由基和抗氧化劑的複雜生物化學作用展開了幾十年的研究，期間有數十萬志願者參與，相關臨床研究投入的資金也高達數百萬英鎊，但21世紀的最新科研成果給出的結論卻與你小時候在課堂上學到的知識並無二致—— 每天吃5份水果或蔬菜。 請訪問 BBC Future 閱讀 英文原文。
| 
