Add as bookmark

Letters to the Editor Issue 152

by Letters(more info)

listed in letters to the editor, originally published in issue 152 - November 2008

Most Cancer Patients Eating Wrong: Hot Dogs Promote Cancer; Vitamins Prevent Cancer

75% of all Americans do not even eat five servings a day of fruits or vegetables. That is bad enough. It is even worse with cancer patients. A study of over 9,000 survivors of six different types of cancer showed that only 15% to 19% were meeting the '5-A-Day' recommendation. That means that 81% to 85% were not. The researchers commented that these findings indicate that even a cancer diagnosis may fail to improve fruit and vegetable consumption.[1]

Better nutrition helps cancer patients live longer. This may seem too obvious to state, but its significance is still hidden from the people who most need to know it: the cancer patients themselves. Another study found that "The majority of new patients with cancer presenting to a medical oncologist are at risk of malnutrition or malnourished."[2] Specifically, 66% of patients were either at risk for malnutrition or malnourished. In other words, two out of three new cancer patients are eating wrong. Perhaps very wrong.

The best solution is prevention, and prevention has to start long before cancer. In fact, it starts before birth. A recent review looked at 45 years of research on the protective effect of prenatal vitamin supplementation on the frequency of childhood cancer. It concluded that "maternal ingestion of prenatal multivitamins is associated with a decreased risk for paediatric brain tumours, neuroblastoma, and leukaemia."[3] Vitamin supplements reduced the chance of a brain tumour by 27 percent. Vitamins lowered children's leukaemia risk by 39 percent. Risk of neuroblastoma was cut in half. Clearly, prenatal vitamin supplements are very important cancer fighters.

Prevention must then be continued throughout childhood. To illustrate how extraordinarily important vitamin supplements are, consider this: Children who eat hot dogs once a week actually double their risk of a brain tumour. Kids eating more than twelve hot dogs a month have nearly ten times the risk of leukaemia as children who eat none.[4] However, hot-dog-eating children taking supplemental vitamins were shown to have a reduced risk of cancer.[5]

Although this research was done over 14 years ago, remarkably little has been said of it in the news media. Howard Straus of the Gerson Institute comments: "When children die from small toy parts, the toys are instantly recalled. When the connection between hot dogs, ham and lunch meat is manifest, and it has been documented numerous times, silence."[6]

But hot dogs? Just how important a factor are hot dogs?

Americans eat an estimated 20 billion hot dogs per year. According to the American Meat Institute's "National Hot Dog and Sausage Council," on a single July 4 day alone, Americans eat "150 million hot dogs, enough to stretch from DC to LA over five times. During Hot Dog Season, Memorial Day to Labour Day, Americans typically consume 7 billion hot dogs or 818 hot dogs consumed every second during that period."[7] That is a lot of exposure.

What are hot dog eaters exposed to? Hot dogs and other 'cured' meat products typically contain chemical additives such as sodium nitrite, a colour and anti-bacterial preservative that has long been suspected as promoting cancer.[8, 9] Now there is a controversial television commercial that spotlights the risks to children. You can watch the commercial at or

The good news is that vitamins such as vitamin C help counteract harmful byproducts (nitrosamines) of heating and eating nitrites. Perhaps this is why nutritionally-oriented physicians have for so long been advocating vitamin supplements along with a no-junk-food diet for children. In addition to cancer prevention, vitamins are part of the cancer cure. Abram Hoffer MD has had considerable success using high doses of vitamins as supportive therapy for over 1,500 cancer patients. He writes that such treatment "has increased the longevity from 5.7 months to approximately 100 months, which is very substantial, and half of the patients are still alive."[10] Vitamin supplements dramatically reduce side effects of cancer therapy, and yet vitamins do not otherwise interfere with conventional cancer treatments such as radiation or chemotherapy.[11] This makes nutritional therapy perfect for adjunctive cancer treatment, and a very good idea for cancer prevention.

People fighting cancer, or wanting to prevent it, need to eat better. That means far more vitamins, and far fewer hot dogs.


[1] Blanchard CM, Courneya KS, Stein K; American Cancer Society's SCS-II. Cancer survivors' adherence to lifestyle behaviour recommendations and associations with health-related quality of life: results from the American Cancer Society's SCS-II. J Clin Oncol. 26(13): 2198-204. 2008 May 1.
[2] Read JA, Choy SB, Beale P and Clarke SJ. An evaluation of the prevalence of malnutrition in cancer patients attending the outpatient oncology clinic. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, Volume 2 Issue 2, Pages 80 - 86. Published Online: 10 May 2006.
[3] Goh YI, Bollano E, Einarson TR, Koren G. Prenatal multivitamin supplementation and rates of pediatric cancers: a meta-analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 81(5): 685-91. Epub 2007 Feb 21. 2007 May .
[4] Peters JM, Preston-Martin S, London SJ, Bowman JD, Buckley JD, Thomas DC. Processed meats and risk of childhood leukemia. Cancer Causes Control. 5(2):195-202.) 1994 Mar.
[5] Sarasua S, Savitz DA. Cured and broiled meat consumption in relation to childhood cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 5(2):141-8.) 1994 Mar.
[6] Straus H. Letter to the editor.
[10] and See also:
[11] Hoffer A. High doses of antioxidants including vitamin C do not decrease the efficacy of chemotherapy.

Further Information

Video of Linus Pauling discussing Hoffer's nutritional cancer treatment:
Hoffer A and Pauling L. Healing Cancer: Complementary Vitamin & Drug Treatments. CCNM Press. ISBN-10: 1897025114; ISBN-13: 978-1897025116. 2004.
List of publications by Abram Hoffer, MD: See also:
The work of Robert F. Cathcart III, MD:
The Vitamin C Foundation:

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information:
For free access to peer-reviewed nutrition therapy journal articles:

Chemotherapy Doesn't Work, So Blame Vitamin C

When Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center announces that vitamin C may interfere with chemotherapy, the news media trumpet it far and wide. But before cancer patients throw away their vitamin C supplements, they need to know rest of the story.

Most of the media dutifully reported the researchers' claim that the equivalent of 2,000 mg of vitamin C "blunted the effectiveness of the chemotherapy drugs." But only some of the media included a study author's incredible statement that "If you take an oral dose even as low as 100 milligrams a day" even "that could be harmful" during chemotherapy[1].

100 mg "could be harmful"? That's the amount of vitamin C in a few glasses of orange juice. Something is very wrong here.

First of all, this research involved mice with implanted cancerous tumours; it was not a trial on cancer patients. A mouse study is a long way from a human clinical trial. This obvious difference was conceded by the study authors. However, there is a more subtle, and probably much more important factor they did not consider: all mice make their own vitamin C. Indeed, mice make quite a lot. Adjusted for body weight, mice synthesize the human body weight equivalent of approximately 10,000 milligrams of vitamin C each day.[2] Incredibly, sick mice make even more. Mice given transplanted tumours become sick mice.

Secondly, previous research has demonstrated that mice with cancer respond well to high-dose vitamin C therapy. One study found, "With an increase in the amount of ascorbic acid there is a highly significant decrease in the first-order rate constant for appearance of the first spontaneous mammary tumour. . . Striking differences were observed between the 0.076% ascorbic acid and the control groups, which synthesize the vitamin."[3] Another study concluded that: "A pronounced effect of vitamin C in decreasing the incidence and delaying the onset of malignant lesions was observed with high statistical significance. By 20 weeks, approximately five times as many mice had developed serious lesions in the zero-ascorbate as in the high-ascorbate group."[4] Interestingly enough, when this research was first publicized, the media discounted these findings saying that mouse studies were not particularly applicable to people.

Thirdly, a mouse's ability to make vitamin C, and a great deal of it, is an overlooked confounding factor that may well render the entire experiment invalid. If the Sloan-Kettering team had tried their experiment on Guinea pigs, their results might have been very different. Guinea pigs are more like human beings in that they cannot make their own vitamin C. As controls for comparison, the researchers also treated "no-added-vitamin C" mouse cancers with chemotherapy. Chemo worked just fine on those mice, by the researchers own admission. And each of those mice was internally synthesizing a body weight equivalent of 10,000 mg/day of vitamin C, even though given none supplementally.

So how come 10,000 mg of vitamin C does not interfere with chemo treatment, and 2,000 mg - or even 100 mg – supposedly does?

A sweeping recommendation warning cancer patients to not take supplemental vitamin C, not even 100 mg, is irresponsible. It is impossible to justify caution about taking 100 mg of vitamin C daily when your animal subjects made the equivalent of one hundred times that amount, and chemotherapy in them was still reported as effective. You cannot have it both ways. If a synthesized 10,000 mg of C does not interfere, there can be no real "interference" or "blunting" from a supplemental 2,000 mg. And most certainly not from 100 mg.

The study did report tumour shrinkage, in both groups of mice receiving chemo. That is not surprising. Chemotherapy's claimed success is based on tumour shrinkage. But tumour shrinkage, encouraging though it is, is not a reliable indicator of long-term cancer survival. As cancer research critic Philip Day puts it, many patients are "cured but dead" after five years, hardly a long-term survival. Day, noting that this is not because oncologists are not trying, explains the chemotherapy quandary: "You can be insincere, or you can be sincerely wrong."[5]

The Sloan-Kettering study team seems to have missed the essential point that vitamin C is not just an antioxidant. Inside cancer tumours, it also acts as a prooxidant, killing malignant cells. Comments Dr. Steve Hickey, of Manchester, UK: "Essentially, the paper seems to be rather misguided and shows a lack of understanding of the dual nature of vitamin C in tumours. Chemotherapy has been shown by over 40 years of clinical trials not to work in the majority of tumours, and its use is counterproductive."

Chemotherapy drugs have come and gone; the five year survival rate for cancer treated with chemo has remained virtually unchanged for decades. Unfortunately, just over 2% of all cancers respond to chemotherapy. Specifically, one scientific review concluded, "The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA . . . chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required."[6]

Perhaps this new, very well-publicized study results from an ever-growing realization that chemotherapy is largely ineffective, and the search is on for the reason why. Vitamin C should not be made the scapegoat.

Vitamin C, in doses well over 100 mg/day, is known to help prevent cancer.[7] Nearly 30 years ago, a review concluded that "Many factors involved in host resistance to neoplasia are significantly dependent upon the availability of ascorbate."[8] Beginning in the 1970s, many well-designed studies show that very large doses of vitamin C improve both quality and length of life for cancer patients since they invariably are "significantly depleted of ascorbic acid." When given intravenous vitamin C, "The mean survival time is more than 4.2 times as great for the ascorbate subjects . . . This simple and safe form of medication is of definite value in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer."[9] Additional clinical trials have confirmed this over the past several decades.[10]

Even more importantly, recent research indicates that in high doses, vitamin C is selectively toxic to cancer cells. That means vitamin C can function very much like chemotherapy is supposed to, but without the severe side effects of chemotherapy. "A regimen of daily pharmacologic ascorbate treatment significantly decreased growth rates of ovarian, pancreatic, and glioblastoma tumours established in mice. Similar pharmacologic concentrations were readily achieved in humans given ascorbate intravenously."[11]

"Cautioning" the public to avoid taking any supplemental amount of vitamin C will decrease host resistance to cancer, increase the incidence of this dreaded disease, and shorten survival times. A cynic might say it will also create a larger market for chemotherapy.

Is vitamin C a commercial competitor for chemo? To answer this, one needs to consider what appears to be serious conflict of interest at Sloan-Kettering. Bristol-Myers-Squibb makes chemotherapeutic drugs. According to a DEF 14A SEC filing of March 22, 2006, the Chairman of the Board of Bristol-Myers-Squibb is also a director of the Coca-Cola Company, and Honorary Chairman of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. ( A previous Bristol-Myers-Squibb Chairman of the Board was a director of the New York Times Company. He was also Vice Chairman of the Board of Overseers and the Board of Managers of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Chairman of the Board of Managers of Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research. ( Some sources say that there are even more Bristol-Myers-Squibb directors who have or held positions on the board at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.[12]

Positive endorsements for vitamin C as a cancer fighter are not in the interests of any pharmaceutical company. Scaring the public away from vitamin C might be profitable. It appears that Sloan-Kettering is biased. So are media reports that attack vitamins.

If the Sloan-Kettering study authors' recommendations to not take 2,000 mg, or even 100 mg, of vitamin C are followed, there will definitely be an increase in the number of people that need chemotherapy.


[1] Doheny K. Vitamin C and chemotherapy: bad combo? Supplementing with vitamin C may reduce effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs, study shows. WebMD Health News.
[2] Chatterjee IB, Majumder AK, Nandi BK, Subramanian N. Synthesis and some major functions of vitamin C in animals. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 258:24-47. 1975 Sep 30.
[3] Pauling L, Nixon JC, Stitt F et al. Effect of dietary ascorbic acid on the incidence of spontaneous mammary tumours in RIII mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 82(15): 5185-9. 1985 Aug .
[4] Pauling L. Effect of ascorbic acid on incidence of spontaneous mammary tumours and UV-light-induced skin tumours in mice. Am J Clin Nutr. 54(6 Suppl):1252S-1255S. Read the full paper free of charge at 1991 Dec.
[5] Day P. in the documentary film Food Matters, See also: Day P. Cancer: why we're still dying to know the truth. Credence Publications ISBN-10: 0953501248; SBN-13: 978-0953501243. 1999.
[6] Morgan G, Ward R, Barton M. The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol).16(8): 549-60. 2004 Dec.
[7] Enstrom JE, Kanim LE, Klein MA. Vitamin C intake and mortality among a sample of the United States population. Epidemiology. 3(3):194-202. 1992 May.
[8] Cameron E, Pauling L, Leibovitz B. Ascorbic acid and cancer: a review. Cancer Res. 39(3): 663-81. 1979 Mar.
[9] Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: Prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.73(10): 3685-9. 1976 Oct. Read the original paper at
[10] Murata A, Morishige F, and Yamaguchi H. Prolongation of survival times of terminal cancer patients by administration of large doses of ascorbate. International Journal of Vitamin and Nutrition Research Suppl., 23, p. 103-113. 1982. And: Null G, Robins H, Tanenbaum, M, and Jennings P. Vitamin C and the treatment of cancer: abstracts and commentary from the scientific literature. The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, 1997. April/May. And: Vitamin C and cancer revisited. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.105(32):11037-8. 2008 Aug 12. Also: Riordan HD, Riordan NH, Jackson JA et al. Intravenous vitamin C as a chemotherapy agent: a report on clinical cases. Puerto Rico Health Sciences J  23(2): 115-118. June 2004.
[11] Chen Q, Espey MG, Sun AY et al. Pharmacologic doses of ascorbate act as a prooxidant and decrease growth of aggressive tumour xenografts in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.;105(32):11105-9. 2008 Aug 12. See also: Chen Q, Espey MG, Sun AY et al. Ascorbate in pharmacologic concentrations selectively generates ascorbate radical and hydrogen peroxide in extracellular fluid in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.104(21): 8749-54. 2007 May 22. And: Chen Q, Espey MG, Krishna MC et al. Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells: action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 102(38):13604-9. 2005 Sep 20. And: Padayatty et al. Intravenously administered vitamin C as cancer therapy: three cases. Canadian Medical Association Journal 174(7), March 28, p 937-942. 2006.! cgi/reprint/174/7/937. Also: Riordan NH et al. Intravenous ascorbate as a tumour cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agent. Medical Hypotheses. 44(3). p 207-213, March 1995.
[12] Moss R. Questioning Chemotherapy. Equinox Press, ISBN-10: 188102525X; ISBN-13: 978-1881025252. 1995. See also: The Cancer Industry. Equinox Press, ISBN-10: 1881025098; ISBN-13: 978-1881025092. 1996.

Further Information

Cameron E. and Pauling L. Cancer and vitamin C, revised edition. Philadelphia: Camino Books, 1993.
Hickey S and Roberts H. Cancer: nutrition and survival. Lulu Press, ISBN: 141166339X. 2005.
Hoffer A. Healing cancer: complementary vitamin and drug treatments. Ontario: CCNM Press, ISBN-10: 1897025114; ISBN-13: 978-1897025116. 2004.

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information:
For free access to an online archive of peer-reviewed, full-text nutrition therapy papers: or

Antibiotics Put 142,000 Into Emergency Rooms Each Year: US Centers for Disease Control Waits 60 Years to Study the Problem

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has just released "the first report ever done on adverse reactions to antibiotics in the United States" on 13 Aug, 2008.[1] This is "the first report ever"? How is that possible? Antibiotics have been widely used since the 1940s. It is astounding that it has taken CDC so long to seriously study the side effects of these drugs. It is now apparent that there have been decades of an undeserved presumption of safety.

Antibiotics can put you in the emergency room. Common antibiotics, the ones most frequently prescribed and regarded as safest, cause for nearly half of emergencies due to antibiotics. And, incredibly enough, people in the prime of life – not babies – are especially at risk. The study authors reported that "Persons aged 15-44 years accounted for an estimated 41.2 percent of emergency department visits. Infants accounted for only an estimated 6.3 percent of ED visits." They also found that nearly 80% of antibiotic-caused "adverse events" were allergic reactions. Overdoses and mistakes, by patients and by physicians, make up the rest.

Allergic reactions to antibiotics may be very serious, including life-threatening anaphylactic shock. Searching the US National Library of Medicine's "Medline" database[2] for "antibiotic allergic reaction" will bring up over 9,700 mentions in scientific papers. A search for "antibiotic anaphylactic shock" brings up over 1,100. Many papers on this severe danger were actually published before 1960.[3] Given this amount of accumulated information, one might wonder why CDC took so long to seriously study the problem.

Overuse of antibiotics leads to antibiotic resistance. At its website, CDC currently states that antibiotic resistance "can cause significant danger and suffering for people who have common infections that once were easily treatable with antibiotics. . . Some resistant infections can cause death."[4]

In the USA alone, "over 3 million pounds of antibiotics are used every year on humans . . . enough to give every man, woman and child 10 teaspoons of pure antibiotics per year," write Null, Dean, Feldman, and Rasio.[5] "Almost half of patients with upper respiratory tract infections in the U.S. still receive antibiotics from their doctor" even though "the CDC warns that 90% of upper respiratory infections, including children's ear infections, are viral, and antibiotics don't treat viral infection. More than 40% of about 50 million prescriptions for antibiotics each year in physicians' offices were inappropriate."

Additionally, every year, a staggering 25 million pounds of antibiotics are administered to farm animals, most given in an attempt to prevent illness. Seepage from feedlots results in low concentrations of antibiotics in our waterways and food. This increases human antibiotic resistance.[6]

Antibiotic resistance and antibiotic allergic reactions continue to be major public health problems. Both dangers are directly related to the huge amount of antibiotics we consume. One immediate way to decrease the incidence of side effects from antibiotics is to use antibiotics less often. Reducing use "by even a small percentage could significantly reduce the immediate and direct risks of drug-related adverse events," the CDC study authors said.

Alternative, non-drug treatments can also be an answer. Robert F Cathcart MD observed that high doses of vitamin C substantially reduce the dosage of antibiotics needed to treat patients. Vitamin C also specifically counters allergic reactions. Dr Cathcart, a practising allergist with decades of experience, said: "Patients seemed not to develop their first allergic reaction to penicillin when they had taken bowel tolerance vitamin C for several doses. Among the several thousand patients given penicillin, two cases of brief rash were seen in patients who had taken their first dose of penicillin along with their first dose of vitamin C . . . Many patients find the effect of ascorbate more satisfactory than immunizations or antihistamines and decongestants."[7]

Back in the 1950s, physicians such as William J McCormick MD[8] and Frederick Robert Klenner MD[9] found that very high doses of vitamin C can be safely and effectively used, by itself, as an antibiotic as well as an antiviral and antihistamine. Dr McCormick wrote that vitamin C is known to "contribute to the development of antibodies and the neutralization of toxins in the building of natural immunity to infectious diseases. There is a very potent chemotherapeutic action of ascorbic acid when given in massive repeated doses, 500 to 1,000 mg (hourly), preferably intravenously or intramuscularly. When thus administered the effect in acute infectious processes is favorably comparable to that of the sulfonamides or the mycelial antibiotics, but with the great advantage of complete freedom from toxic or allergic reactions."[10]

Using more vitamin C means needing fewer antibiotics. Using vitamin C along with antibiotics reduces their side effects. Orthomolecular (nutritional) physicians have been reporting this for years.[11]

The CDC has a long and lamentable history of ignoring dangerous antibiotic side effects. And still today, CDC demonstrates a striking disinterest in nutritional alternatives to drugs. At their website, there is not a single word about the value of vitamin C in reducing the need for antibiotics, or for reducing antibiotic side effects.

A cynic might speculate that drug companies have heavy influence at the US Centers for Disease Control.
Whatever the reason, patients are the losers.


[1] Shehab N, Patel PR, Srinivasan A, Budnitz DS. Emergency department visits for antibiotic-associated adverse events. Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Sep 15; 47(6):735-43.
[3] Some examples include:
Arrigo G, D'Angelo A. Achromycin and anaphylactic shock. Riv Patol Clin. 1959 Oct;14:719-22.
Harvey HP, Solomon HJ. Acute anaphylactic shock due to para-aminosalicylic acid. Am Rev Tuberc. 1958 Mar;77(3):492-5.
Lythcott GI. Anaphylaxis to viomycin. Am Rev Tuberc. 1957 Jan;75(1):135-8.
Farber JE, Ross J, Stephens G. Antibiotic anaphylaxis. Calif Med. 1954 Jul;81(1):9-11.
Farber JE, Ross J. Antibiotic anaphylaxis; a note on the treatment and prevention of severe reactions to penicillin, streptomycin and dihydrostreptomycin. Med Times. 1952 Jan; 80(1):28-30.
Patterson DB. Anaphylactic shock from chloromycetin. Northwest Med. 1950 May;49(5):352-3.
[4] Accessed September 22, 2008.
[5] Null G, Dean C, Feldman M, Rasio D. Death by medicine. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 2005. Vol 20, No 1, p 21-34. Also at See also: Rabin R. Caution about overuse of antibiotics. Newsday. Sept. 18, 2003.
[6] Egger WA. Antibiotic resistance: unnatural selection in the office and on the farm. Wisconson Medical Journal. Aug. 2002.
[7] Cathcart RF. Vitamin C, titration to bowel tolerance, anascorbemia, and acute induced scurvy. Medical Hypothesis, 1981. 7:1359-1376. or
[8] Saul AW. The pioneering work of William J. McCormick, M.D. J Orthomolecular Med, 2003. Vol 18, No 2, p 93-96.
[9] Klenner FR. The use of vitamin C as an antibiotic. Journal of Applied Nutrition, 1953. 6:274-278. and
[10] McCormick WJ. Ascorbic acid as a chemotherapeutic agent. Archives of Pediatrics NY, 1952. Vol. 69, No. 4, April, p 151-155.
[11] Read full text, peer-reviewed nutritional research papers, free of charge:

Further Information:

Dr R Klenner's work, summarized as "The Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C," is posted in its entirety at
The complete text of Irwin Stone's book on high-dose vitamin C therapy, "The Healing Factor," is posted for free reading at

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information:


  1. No Article Comments available

Post Your Comments:

About Letters


  • Super Patch Wellbeing

    Super Patches – a most revolutionary advance in wellbeing strategies in the history of medicine

  • nutrition and cancer

    by Sandra Goodman PhD The latest scientific research regarding Nutrition and Cancer. Full details at

  • Liposomal Nutrients

    Optimum system for nutrient delivery to cells - fully bioavailable vitamins absorbed and metabolised

  • Flower essences online

    Fine quality flower essences international ranges to help promote vitality and emotional well-being.

  • mycology research MRL

    MRL markets mushroom products food grade US & Netherlands GMP standards. Health Professional Videos

top of the page