Prevent lung cancer with this common vitamin

Lung cancer remains the No. 1 cancer killer in the U.S. today. But you would never know it between all the pink ribbon promotions and colonoscopy contortions exerted for the number two and three cancers. Indeed, research on lung cancer in U.S. has all but succumbed to the cloud of smoke created by the government’s single-minded focus on breast and colon cancer.

I did learn of an excellent, new story out of China, however, that I want to share with you. It found that maintaining higher levels of one of the most common nutrients on the planet seems to lower your risk of lung cancer. (More on this forward-thinking study in just a moment.)

Sadly, the U.S. government-industrial-medical complex continues to neglect and ignore lung cancer victims. In fact, experts at the National Cancer Institute recently discredited a new safe, effective, non-invasive screening procedure for lung cancer that would save at least 12,000 lives each year. And Medicare won’t reimburse for this screening test. Although most lung cancer victims are actually diagnosed and treated while they are on Medicare.

According to a government Medicare Committee, the agency remains reluctant about lung cancer screening because of all the problems with other cancer screening procedures, such as colonoscopies and prostate cancer tests!

See the irony?

The mainstream keeps pushing old, inappropriate cancer screenings. And Medicare drags it feet on the new, effective lung cancer test…because of problems with these other cancer screenings.

But if there is anything the mainstream ignores more than lung cancer, it’s research on the benefits of nutrients for preventing and treating cancers. In fact, we have to look halfway around the world to China for real progress on this problem.

Researchers from the Department of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, recently wrapped up a meta-analysis of 21 studies involving 8,938 lung cancer cases.

They found a dramatic association between higher intake of vitamin C and lower risk of lung cancer. In fact, for every 100 mg/day of vitamin C, there was a 7 percent decrease in lung cancer risk. So, a 1,000 mg daily dose of vitamin C would decrease lung cancer risk by a whopping 70 percent.

It doesn’t surprise me to find such strong research coming out of Shanghai.

When I worked with Nobel laureate Baruch Blumberg and others on cancer research in China during the late 1980s, I was very impressed with cancer practice and research in Shanghai. Even back then, I had the impression that cancer diagnosis and treatment in that city was the most advanced in the entire country.

The cancer doctors were fully aware of the latest advances from the west and were somehow able to implement them. And when it came to nutrition and cancer, they were advanced well beyond the U.S.–in both practice and research.

I found this situation in Shanghai to be in sharp contrast to Beijing, the national capital. Despite the concentration of wealth and influence, doctors and researchers in Beijing were reluctant to accept western medical advances. Apparently, they had to appear “politically correct” in favor of Chinese practices versus western practices. They seemed intimidated and constantly posturing. But in Shanghai, they were just focused on solving the problem.

This reminds of the way the federal government in Washington D.C. holds sway– with intimidation, extortion and political correctness–over the rest of the country, where the rest of us just focus on solving the real problems.

One big problem is the ridiculous federal government RDAs for vitamins. The RDA for vitamin C is only 90 mg/day. That ridiculous level would not even register above the bottom “click” in the new China study. And anyone who took only the government’s RDA would be in the very lowest vitamin C intake group, according to this new Chinese study.

The U.S. government’s RDA has caught up with what the British Royal Navy knew in the 1700s. That is, how to prevent scurvy from an outright vitamin C deficiency. But it will do about as much to help with the lung cancer problem as the rest of the government approach.

The optimal intake of vitamin C appears to be about 500 mg at a time. Since vitamin C is water-soluble, you excrete doses larger than 500 mg in the urine before it can enter the tissues and cells. So, taking anything above 500 mg at a time is a waste of effort.

Of course, vitamin C in Nature is a different story.

For example, citrus fruits contain vitamin C in the juice and pulp. They also contain bioflavonoids. Together in this food matrix, vitamin C and bioflavonoids serve to slow absorption. This process allows vitamin C levels to build up and remain in the blood over time. Ultimately, it results in higher levels in blood and tissues.

Ironically, the FDA requirements don’t allow anyone to market nutritional supplements as a way to “prevent, cure or treat” disease–regardless of what the scientific evidence shows. Of course, following the government RDAs will almost guarantee that you don’t get a high enough dose to prevent, cure or treat disease.

There is, sad to say, much more to the story regarding the government-medical-industrial complex’s complete disregard for vitamin C–and for lung cancer. I’ll delve deeper into these topics in the upcoming December issue of my Insiders’ Cures newsletter, so stay tuned! (And if you’re not already a subscriber, now is the perfect time to become one to make sure you don’t miss this important information.)


  1. Medscape Education Clinical Briefs, “Critical Medicare Committee Skeptical of Lung Cancer Screening, September 4, 2014;
  1. Science Reports, August 22, 2014