Swine Flu

In addition to having a regimen for Barrett's esophagus, I also have a regimen for swine flu. So far, not that much is known about prevention of swine flu, so my swine flu regimen is based on extrapolations from other data (i.e., studies about colds & regular flus or the immune system generally) . Nothing below is proven to prevent or cure swine flu and I am not selling anything whatsoever.

The goal is to promote the immune system while inhibiting a cytokine storm. If you have any questions about why I've included a particular item in my swine flu regimen, feel free to ask because I don't plan on explaining the regimen in future blog posts.

Over the past two days, I have conducted a test run for my anti-swine flu regimen. The timing was perfect as I had just started to feel the first effects of my wife’s cold. However, after unleashing the full power of my regimen, I emerged unscathed while she is still slightly sick.

Here's the regimen:
vitamin D 5000IU
vitamin C 6 grams (500mg every half hour)
green tea 5 cups
coconut oil 2 tablespoons
selenium 50 mcgs
zinc 25 mg
resveratrol 250mg
quercetin 200mg
sulforaphane 100mg
vitamin E 30IU
whey 2 tablespoons
glutamine 4500 mg
heavy cream 2 cups
turmeric 400mg
pomegranate extract 2 tablespoons
melatonin 6 mg
cimetidine (tagamet) 800mg (in divided doses)
probiotics
magnesium
I also use a neti pot.

Vitamin D

In the last post, I mentioned placebo controlled trial showing that 1100 IUs of vitamin D3 resulted in a 77% reduction in all-cause cancer over a 3 year observation period. There is also a
mountain of epidemeological evidence that vitamin D protects against cancer (and just about everything else). However, the placebo trial is significant because it is the gold standard of evidence, making it very hard to dismiss or debunk.

However, the study has nonetheless been subject to some criticism. The most potent criticism that I have seen is that the rate of cancer in the control group was higher than government statistics would have suggested for the demographic tested. In response to this cirticism, the study authors noted that their study was randomized and the results had a p value of less than 0.005. The study authors also noted the mountain of epidemiological evidence on their side. I think that's a winning argument. Anyway, even if the government cancer statistic was used, vitamin D supplementation still reduced the rate of cancer by about a half in this study.

Whether vitamin D protects against esophageal adenocarcinoma specifically is unclear. There is a study from Italy finding that it protects against esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCCE). On the other hand, in a study conducted in a poor and polluted province in China, where almost everyone studied was actually vitamin D deficient, slightly higher, but still deficient, levels of vitamin D were associated with slightly more SCCE. Between the two study populations, I think the Italian study has more to do with me. Of course, SCCE is a different disease than adenocarcinoma anyway. For these reasons, I don't think the China study is worth worrying about at all.

Also, now there is even a good reason why vitamin D protects us from cancer.

From March through July, I took 2500IUs of vitamin D3 per day in a gel cap and my levels rose to 45 ng/ml. After my test, I increased my D to about 3000IU per day hoping get a tiny bit higher.

Supplement Philosophy

Not many supplements have done well against the placebo. Part of the problem is that there haven't been that many placebo controlled trials of supplements in humans. Another problem is that the supplements that have been tested, likely used incorrect doses or forms. That said, one cannot ignore the failure of E, C, beta carotene/A, selenium/E, and zinc against the placebo.

Also, one cannot ignore the findings of thousands of epidemiological studies finding inverse associations between cancer/other bad health outcomes and intakes of various nutrients. One way to thread the needle between the supplement studies and these nutrient studies would be to eat a healthy, whole food diet that is high in nutrients and take no supplements (aside from vitamin D, as discussed below). This approach can't be too far off the mark and might indeed be the most sensible.

However, this is not my approach. I suspect that the reason most supplement trials have failed is because they tested megadoses (and perhaps in the wrong nutrient forms). In the supplement world, more of something good is not better, after a point. In scientific lingo, this concept is known as the U-shaped dose response curve. My goal is to move myself closer to the sweet spot of the U-curve for those nutrients that are most associated with cancer prevention, specifically esophageal adenocarcinoma. To this end, I take low doses of most of my supplements, doses generally even lower than those found in most multivitamin pills. I also avoid certain nutrients that I think are better obtained solely through food (i.e., because I get enough from the many eggs I eat and because higher amounts have associated with worse health outcomes). I also base my decisions, in part, on the nutritional strengths and weaknesses of my particular diet, which can be determined using the chron-o-meter.

Vitamin D is a special situtation that warrants a separate discussion. I do take megadoses of vitamin D3, about 3000 IU per day or 7.5 x the RDA. We used to get vitamin D from the sun, but now we work inside all day, live in northern polluted cities, and generally avoid the sun. The current RDA is almost definitely too low. For instance, recently, a study showed that 1100 IUs of vitamin D3 per day resulted in a 77% reduction in risk of all cancers. I will discuss this study and vitamin D generally in the next post.