Regarding: Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, July 31 2023
The Toxic Nutrient Triad
A little: good. Just a little more: bad
Commentary by Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD
RE: https://orthomolecular.activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&chash=6883966fd8f918a4aa29be29d2c386fb.293&s=3064177888cc043abc5e6c8477662354&fbclid=IwAR2_9AauYnQP1eVtbuLQvAOqc300ZPW1rve1Ek32V8X8-XJGwuZri0vj_ZU
I first refuted the orthomolecular view on copper in my book, “The Copper Revolution” in chapter 75, which I will copy and start with here:
Chapter 75: Orthomolecular opinion on Copper Toxicity
Excess Copper as a Factor in Human Diseases
Carl C. Pfeiffer, Ph.D., M.D.1 and Richard Mailloux, B.S.1
http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1987/pdf/1987-v02n03-p171.pdf
Presumably, this is a paper from 1987, the days before the internet. There is bias all over this paper. The author blames most copper toxicity in the general population on copper mining, which is preposterous. He likely got that from the government’s toxicological report that says something similar. Interestingly, he mentions Klevay’s work, (who wrote excellent scientific papers on copper deficiency causing heart disease) but dismisses it as “of limited importance”, by assuming copper deficiency is rare. This is circular reasoning. Heart disease is not rare, as it is the leading cause of death.
He then states that copper deficiency is rarely diagnosed, but copper excess is common in patients. Yes, but what is the bias of the people making those determinations? If doctors believe copper deficiency is rare, then they will rarely diagnose it. If they believe copper excess is common, likewise. Hence, bias.
I am not disputing their findings. I’m disputing their meaning, given the larger context.
What is high? The only way to claim what is high is to compare to average. But if the average is deficient, then they have simply found a level that is “above deficient” which may also be deficient!
Furthermore, correlation is not causation. Yes, copper rises in the blood when it’s time to heal or create. Pregnant mothers have 100% more copper in the blood. Copper is the healing mechanism, not a toxic agent. Their bias, and lack of familiarity with what copper does, is what determines which way they interpret correlational data.
Let’s examine “copper in the blood” for a second:
“The normal range for total copper in the blood is 85 to 180 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL).” Let’s say 133 mcg, the average.
“An adult will have approximately 1.2-1.5 gallons (or 10 units) of blood in their body”, Let’s say 1.35 gallons.
How many dL per gallon? 37.8541. X 1.35 gallons = 51 dl
51 dl x 133 mcg/dl = 6,780 mcg, or 6.7 mg of copper in the total blood volume of the average human.
This is just under 10% of the total body average of 72 mg of copper in the average person’s body.
Measuring copper in the blood is not the same as measuring copper in the body. Copper levels in the blood can increase dramatically in response to pregnancy, hormones, and sickness. It does not mean a person is copper toxic. But that’s how they interpret the data, based on their bias, and lack of knowledge of what copper does.
They would also need to provide a mechanism of action on how high copper is toxic. They have none, as they admit, saying “Regardless of the mechanisms involved…”
“Regardless of the mechanisms involved, the correlation between hypercupremia and schizophrenia is well documented.”
The idea that high copper causes schizophrenia, has since been discredited. This is also from the orthomolecular guys, who are high vitamin C advocates. The current editor is Andrew Saul, who learned from Abram Hoffman, who I mentioned earlier had an anti copper bias. We are reading it here. I watched Andrew Saul’s Masterclass on Vitamins and Minerals. There was not one positive word on copper. Nothing negative, either. Like it just did not exist. I thought it was very strange at the time. Now I’m learning probably why they have the bias.
Finally, they get to potential causes:
“Intoxication
The most common route of copper intoxication appears to be through the ingestion of contaminated drinking water.”
Again, this would be an indication of high fluoride, not high copper. Again, the average person has 2600 mg of neurotoxic fluoride, and 72 mg of nerve healing copper. Why blame nerve healing copper instead of neurotoxic fluoride? That makes no sense.
They theorize that copper supplements containing 2 mg of copper contribute to “copper intoxication”, and that smoking increases copper as well. This is only an idea, not a fact or proof. I have already refuted it. That is low copper.
Again, they never gave anyone copper supplements, and then caused any disease.
All of their “case studies” show people who were given drugs that increased copper in the blood. It is the drugs, not copper, that cause problems. Copper increases in the blood, in my opinion, as the body attempts to detox the drugs. Why then, would “copper lowering” Vitamin C and Zinc help to solve the problem? Vitamin C and zinc are also good detoxifiers. The problem was toxicity, drug toxicity, not copper toxicity. Copper, as I have shown, is a detoxer, especially as copper and zinc help make SOD, which helps detoxify everything.
Example. One case study, a woman took Hydrochlorothiazide.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/hydrochlorothiazide-oral-tablet#side-effects
Two of the side effects are effects of copper deficiency.
–tingling in your hands, legs, and feet
–photosensitivity (a condition where your skin is more sensitive to the sun)
Copper rising in the blood is the body’s attempt to heal these symptoms of copper deficiency, which are nerve damage, and sun sensitivity.
Not once in their entire 11-page paper did they prove that copper caused any toxicity.
Of course, it is easy for me to say this now. I have access to the internet. They did not.
=====end Chapter 75=====
Second, I refuted the orthomolecular view on copper toxicity a second time refuting both Pfeiffer again and Hoffer, who founded the Orthomolecular newsletter, in my essay here:
I will now refute them a third time with the rest of this essay.
The first part of Levy’s paper outlines the dangers of excess calcium. We agree.
What he fails to understand is how copper helps to manage excess calcium. Copper helps to keep calcium out of the soft tissues, and put it into the bones. Copper is well known now and recognized to help prevent osteoporosis.
From the NIH:
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Copper-HealthProfessional/
“Copper deficiency is uncommon in humans [2]. Based on studies in animals and humans, the effects of copper deficiency include anemia, hypopigmentation, hypercholesterolemia, connective tissue disorders, osteoporosis and other bone defects, abnormal lipid metabolism, ataxia, and increased risk of infection [1,17,18].”
We have found there are at least 8 ways that copper helps to build stronger bones:
- Copper itself concentrates in the bones, especially the bone marrow, where copper goes to help create more red and white blood cells.
- Copper helps to retain magnesium in the body, (boron also does this) and magnesium is needed to keep calcium in solution and out of the soft tissues, and puts calcium back into the bones.
- Copper helps build collagen (along with zinc, and Vitamin C). The bones contain more collagen than calcium, and the calcium needs to be deposited into the collagen matrix.
Copper and the synthesis of elastin and collagen
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6110524/
- As Levy notes, we need the sex hormones estrogen and testosterone for proper calcium metabolism. Copper helps to make more of these sex hormones in both men and women.
- Copper and Vitamin A move inversely in the liver. Vitamin A excess is known to be another cause of osteoporosis.
Modification of vitamin A metabolism in rats fed a copper-deficient diet
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3679695/
Is vitamin A consumption a risk factor for osteoporotic fracture?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/is-vitamin-a-consumption-a-risk-factor-for-osteoporotic-fracture/814D000B8E1E2FDA91F25436B16D98DD
“Severe vitamin A toxicity is known to have adverse effects on skeletal health.”
- Copper is needed to make melatonin for the color of the skin and hair, and to tan. The body makes Vitamin D from sun exposure, and so, copper helps to raise Vitamin D levels naturally. I would suppose that natural production of Vitamin D is good for the bones, even though artificial supplementation with Vitamin D has been shown to cause osteoporosis.
- It has been shown through experimentation that broken bones heal faster with copper.
- It has been shown that copper will help reverse calcified arteries, in many ways. Copper lowers cholesterol, helping to turn it into sex hormones. Copper is needed to make collagen, and arteries need collagen to be stronger, not patches of calcium and cholesterol to repair them. Copper prevents aneurysms, or burst arteries. Copper reverses heart disease and 80 biomarkers of heart disease associated with copper deficiency. Since copper reduces calcified arteries, and puts calcium into bones…
Heart failure improvement from a supplement containing copper (2006)
(Klevay)
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/27/1/117/608121
“Copper deficiency is the only nutritional insult that elevates cholesterol, blood pressure, homocysteine, and uric acid, has adverse effects on electrocardiograms and arteries, impairs glucose tolerance, and promotes thrombosis and oxidative damage. More than 80 anatomical, chemical, and physiological similarities between animals deficient in copper and people with ischaemic heart disease have been identified. 6,7 Copper deficiency in animals can induce cardiac enlargement,8 pleural effusion,9 and heart failure10 that are reversible with copper supplementation.”
This is amazing. Over 80 similarities? That is very compelling research. I think lists of 10-15 things are compelling. 80?
Next, Levy discusses both iron and copper simultaneously.
He first blames copper for causing oxidative stress. He fails to understand that copper is needed to make superoxide dismutase and many other antioxidant enzymes in the body, all of which reduce oxidative stress. His article does not mention one single copper-containing or copper-dependent enzyme.
He also fails to understand that excess iron blocks copper, and that copper is the fix for excess iron.
He fails to mention that people who take their favorite, Vitamin C, can absorb up to 300% more iron from food. This is so well known, that many people hesitate to take our advice to take Vitamin C, out of fear that it will raise their iron levels too high.
He writes: “It was clearly shown that the simultaneous administration of vitamin C and copper led directly to increased systemic oxidative stress and kidney cell injury. [9]”
I already refuted this recent study in my essay here: https://revealingfraud.com/2023/07/health/can-vitamin-c-and-copper-cause-kidney-damage/
In sum, it was not the “simultaneous administration of Vitamin C and copper” that led to kidney stress, it was the human equivalent of 10,000 mg of Vitamin C and 100 mg of copper, or, in other words, sudden massive doses of each! Furthermore, this was only in animals that did not get any opportunity to adjust to the higher levels of copper. These animals, mice and rats, if given an adjustment period, can easily sustain intakes of copper at human equivalent doses of up to 5000 mg a day to 10,000 mg a day.
Next, he writes: “Very little of these metals gets excreted, and so very little new intake is needed for them to perform these various metabolic functions.”
This is flat-out wrong. At 1 mg of copper a day, about half is excreted. At 10 mg of copper a day, after a month long adjustment period, from 90% to 110% of copper intake is excreted. The fact that it is so easily excreted makes copper, and the many copper-containing detoxification and antioxidant enzymes, “turn on” to cause this excretion, making copper a perfect detoxifying agent for the body.
Next, we get to a difference of opinion: “A copper deficiency anemia is quite rare, but the iron deficiency anemia is much more common. [12,13]”
I will admit that copper deficiency anemia is rarely diagnosed. My contention is that the common diagnosis that it’s from low iron, is simply wrong. And for many reasons.
- Copper supplementation results in higher than normal red blood cell counts. This implies that the entire population is both borderline anemic, and in the form of it being that copper deficient anemia. Why would a severely anemic person not be copper deficient anemic like the rest of the population?
- When the government did some studies on copper to determine RDA levels, they tested 0.58 mg on ten women, and 80% of those women suddenly developed copper deficiency symptoms. This was so bad, they terminated the experiment and said it would be unethical to replicate it. And yet, in several other government studies, they determined that 80% of people get only 0.6 mg of copper a day OR LESS, which is that same level that is so low as to be dangerous! The remainder of the population may get 3 mg of copper in a supplement pill, but it is entirely blocked by iron, in fact, it’s blocked by iron so well, that they suffer from high iron problems, copper deficiency, and early death. So there is literally no population or even sub population of people in the US who are getting sufficient copper, as copper is not added to the food supply, as iron is added to cereals.
Next, Levy dismisses attempting to understand copper enzymes. How fun when he is literally scorning knowledge he does not have! It’s almost as if he knows that anyone who does understand the copper enzymes, would destroy his entire case, which I have already done.
Levy: “Too much supplementation guidance comes from researchers that have found that agent X has some effect on enzyme or protein Y, without any regard for the general health of the research subject or the stability of serial blood examinations over time. Taking a “deep dive” on trying to understand as much as possible about a supplement is fine, but the “macro” study should always be given much greater regard than the “micro” study, especially when such “micro” studies are taking place in animals or test tubes, and extrapolations are being made as to what supplement is good for the entire human body.”
“In another study, both men and guinea pigs were supplemented with vitamin C. The supplementation increased ceruloplasmin (copper-carrying protein) levels in the men while decreasing them in the guinea pigs. The authors concluded that vitamin C has an antagonistic effect on copper metabolism in guinea pigs but not in humans. [15] A cell study concluded only that vitamin C exerts both positive and negative regulatory functions in copper metabolism, while stating that the mechanism is unclear. [16]”
I understand that animal studies are sometimes inapplicable for humans. But he already did just that, in claiming that mice given huge amounts of Vitamin C and copper is proof that copper is toxic. And that is not applicable. Other studies show that rats can take 10,000 mg of copper prove that copper is safe. In fact, humans have tolerated up to 20,000 mg, and at that level only 15% die, and 85% survive both the copper and the intrusive medical interventions like stomach pumping that can destroy the stomach and cause bleeding to death.
Some case reports show humans have survived up to 100,000 mg of copper!
But let’s get back to the guinea pigs for a moment. They don’t make Vitamin C. As humans do not. Vitamin C lowers copper in the guinea pigs, but some researchers claim this does not happen in humans? Maybe it does, and the researchers are wrong, as I will assert next.
Here’s my claims. Copper is needed for the nerves in at least 20 different ways, ranging from restoring the myelin sheath, to detoxifying nerve toxins, to boosting ATP for the nerves, boosting neurotransmitter production, and copper itself acts as an electrolyte and neurotransmitter. So, in my personal experience, copper makes humans smarter. Many in our group, say the same thing.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/thecopperrevolution
In historical research, they said copper improves human insight or wisdom. Of course, and modern science shows why.
It stands to reason then, if Vitamin C lowers copper, then when humans and guinea pigs do not make Vitamin C, this is not an evolutionary flaw, but a feature that would lead to our increased intelligence. This then begs the question:
Are guinea pigs smart animals? Yes. They are the smartest rodents.
“Guinea pigs are known for being emotionally intelligent which shows how clever these animals are. In the wild, guinea pigs can sense emotions and will stay in tune with the rest of the herd. They have the ability to sense feelings and emotional changes and constantly stay alert. “
“Yes! Guinea Pigs are highly sensitive and perceptive animals. Guinea pigs can learn their own name, learn tricks and display high emotional intelligence and empathy. With guinea pigs having higher intelligence, it is important to encourage variety in their everyday lives and to prevent boredom.”
Are guinea pigs the smartest rodent?
“A study was carried out in order to test which rodent was the smartest. It is detailed in the Journal of Animal Cognition. They concluded that guinea pigs are smarter than other rodents in many different ways. Guinea pigs were able to grasp new learning quicker plus they were also able to apply it to new situations.”
So now we see the problem. Humans who take excess Vitamin C, and who think copper is toxic, are literally harming their own intelligence, which explains the poor quality of this article that I’m refuting.
I will quote Levy’s next paragraph in full, and you can see his bias on full display:
“When trying to make any sense of the advisability of copper supplementation after reviewing the studies above, consider that the ability of vitamin C, at least in rats, to reduce the plasma and tissue concentrations is a good outcome. Based on the ease with which added copper can worsen oxidative stress, the ability of vitamin C to minimize its presence in the body can easily be considered a good outcome, without just assuming that a chronic lowering impact on copper presence in the body is not desirable. Linus Pauling started taking 3 grams a day of vitamin C as soon as he learned of it in the 1960s, gradually increasing the amount until he was taking 18 grams a day the last years of his life. Dr. Pauling died at age 93, and he was clear enough of mind to be giving lectures/speeches up to the last few months of his life. If Dr. Pauling was suffering from a vitamin C-induced deficiency of copper in his body, there was no clinical evidence that harm was being done. Quite the contrary, the loss of the ability of the human liver to make mega-gram doses of vitamin C daily and release it directly into the bloodstream argues that any copper-lowering effects of vitamin C are completely desirable, and that most of the human population is dealing with some degree of copper toxicity already that is no longer being alleviated by the missing endogenous production of vitamin C in the genetically-defective human liver.”
There are many points to unpack.
First let’s consider his oxidative stress theory. Not even the medical establishment, that promotes this idea, believes in it nor do they ever act on it. And if they did, and if Levy did, they would advise taking copper, because copper actually lowers oxidative stress by helping to make copper-containing antioxidants like SOD and metallothioneins. Oops, I just mentioned those pesky copper enzymes that totally refute his entire argument. But consider further. People on their deathbeds often are said to be the ones suffering from oxidative stress. Do hospitals give other well known antioxidants in this situation such as Vitamin C? No, they do not. If they don’t believe their own theory, why should I? Next, athletes should be the ones suffering from oxidative stress, and they do not. Their bodies adapt, and their bodies make a lot more antioxidants to adapt. Next, 60% or more of the human body is composed of oxygen. They expect us to consider oxygen as a toxin? Absurd. The theory of oxidative stress was created by the lying World Health Organization as a way to explain the damages caused by mercury in vaccines. This way, they can blame oxygen, rather than mercury. Mercury, by the way, depletes copper and thus, depletes copper-containing antioxidants.
Yes, we should not just be “assuming” that lowering copper in the body is not desirable. I believe that’s why I wrote a 500 plus page book on the subject, because this is not an assumption, but a very long drawn out conclusion based on a lot of research and personal experimentation.
OUR BEST SELLING BOOK: “The Copper Revolution: Healing with Minerals,” January 10, 2022, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09Q6D3R7B
Did Linus Pauling suffer from low copper? I think so. He had hair as white as could be. Copper is needed to make melatonin, needed for hair color and skin color. Do these people not know that? Oh, and did I mention another pesky copper enzyme that refutes his entire argument? I sure did. I’m using my copper enhanced intuition and I think I better take a moment to source this claim:
Physiological factors that regulate skin pigmentation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2793097/
“Enzymatic components of melanosomes include tyrosinase (TYR), a critical copper-dependent enzyme required for melanin synthesis”
(Side note. Most times, things are so well established, that I don’t have to hunt down sources from my book or my further notes, and I can just use google, and it pops right on up.)
Linus Pauling also died from prostate cancer. I have an entire chapter on how copper fights cancer, which I will also quote in full, since this appears to be a very important argument. Yes, Linus Pauling likely did lower his copper from taking excessive Vitamin C!
Chapter 47: Cancer
I believe I have the largest list of natural cancer cures in the world. Over 90.
https://revealingfraud.com/2020/08/health/90-cancer-cures/
Upon my first search for “copper deficiency cancer”, the modern medical establishment considers copper to be a cause of cancer, since copper is needed for new blood vessel growth, and cancer tumors need blood to grow. It is not disputed that copper helps new blood vessels to grow. However, this causality is shaky at best, because the blood is a source of healing. I can also see that dirty blood is a source of toxicity if normal channels of toxin removal are blocked up. (Clean your colon, people!)
The other argument they make is that cancer tissues are high in copper, and that the blood is high in copper in people with cancer. Then, they assume copper is the cause. But correlation is not causation.
They have failed to consider whether the body has put copper into the blood, and into cancer tissues, on purpose, as an attempt to heal the cancer.
Did they even stop to consider their theory, that blood causes cancer? Let’s do a thought experiment. What tissues are highest in blood? OK, the heart. Heart cancer is nearly unheard of. It exists but is rare. What about blood vessel cancer? Again, unheard of. What about capillaries, they carry a lot of blood. Fingertips are high in capillaries. Did anyone hear of fingertip cancer? Not me. What I’m saying is that common sense thought experiments refute their idea that blood is a cause of cancer.
Upon my first impression, knowing what I do about copper, I know it has many anti-cancer properties. Copper is a powerful detoxer of fluoride, which is a cancer agent.
Copper makes SOD, which helps to detox nearly everything else, including many other cancer-causing chemical compounds. It is said that cancer is the body’s way of building a wall around toxins that are not being eliminated.
It has also been said that cancer is fungal. Copper is an antifungal. Fungus tends to grow in dead or toxic tissues. So it is not either/or, is cancer “toxic” or “fungus”, it is both. In fact, antifungal use is one of the main commercial uses of copper sulfate.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/cuso4tech.html#uses
“Copper sulfate is used as a fungicide, algaecide, root killer, and herbicide in both agriculture and non-agricultural settings.”
One of the best antidotes to dead tissues, is fast-growing tissues, such as cancer. Another cure would be simply new growth of normal tissue. Copper helps tissues grow.
The issue here is one of theory vs. reality. Does giving people copper cause cancer? They have tried this. No, it does not.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/cuso4gen.html
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has not published a cancer rating for copper sulfate. This is due to a lack of evidence linking copper or copper salts to cancer development in animals that can normally regulate copper in their bodies.”
Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222312/
“Also, there is little convincing evidence that copper is causally associated with the development of cancer in humans.”
In my prior research, I remember they gave rats extremely high doses of copper. None died of cancer. None of the people reported to take suicidally high doses of copper ever die from cancer either, it’s usually acute liver and kidney failure.
A search for “cancer patients taking copper sulfate” yielded:
The use of copper sulfate in the treatment of esophageal cancer
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626443/
“The incidence of complete regression of the tumor came up to 43.3%, partial one to 53.3%, stabilization to 3.3%.”
SULPHATE OF COPPER IN THE TREATMENT OF CANCER
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)20351-1/fulltext
Influence of Ascorbic Acid, Zinc, Iron, Sucrose and Fructose on Copper Status
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-0537-8_3
“Numerous physiological functions for Cu have been firmly established (Danks, 1988) and roles for Cu in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (Kopp et al., 1983) and cancer (Beach et al., 1982; Greene et al., 1987) have been proposed. Although it is unequivocal that Cu is an essential nutrient, the dietary Cu requirement for humans is still under investigation.”
The many “faces” of copper in medicine and treatment
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113679/
“Copper(II) complexes containing Schiff bases derived from S-benzylidene thiocarbamates and saccharinate showed anticancer properties (Katwal et al. 2013). These complexes have been active against the leukemic cell line HL-60 and the activities being higher than the Doxorubicin. Isatin-Schiff base copper(II) complexes possessed pro-apoptotic activity. Copper complex with mixed ligands such as: phenanthroline or 2,2′-bipyridine and acetylacetonate or glycinate are known as cassiopeinas. They exhibit significant antineoplastic activity in vitro and in vivo, against variety of tumor cell lines (Ferreza et al. 2010).”
So, once again, they are lying about copper causing cancer. This has never been seen. In fact, copper cures cancer, and this has been shown.
What is interesting is that they are claiming that copper causes the disease that it helps to cure. Well. Is that true? I don’t think so. What do you think?
Copper and Zinc are needed to make the copper/zinc enzyme, superoxide-dismutase, or SOD.
SOD helps cure cancer.
“–Helps Fight Cancer
Recent research shows that there’s a significant association of low extracellular superoxide dismutase expression with reduced cancer patient survival. This suggests that low SOD levels promote an internal environment that favors cancer progression.
A study published in Free Radical Biology & Medicine indicates that high levels of SOD inhibit tumor growth and metastasis, indicating its role as a tumor suppressor.”
You now know more about how copper cures cancer than most oncologists.
====end Chapter 47 on Cancer=====
Furthermore, cancer is a metabolic disease. Copper fixes the metabolism by helping to make ATP.
Cancer is caused by carcinogens, or cancer causing toxins. This is true, by the definition of the word and concept, “carcinogen”. Copper is a major detoxifier in the body by helping to make a wide variety of copper dependent detoxing enzymes.
Back to Levy. Levy claims that humans have lost the ability to make Vitamin C. There is no proof we ever lost this ability. It could be a design function that led to our higher copper levels and higher intelligence.
Next, Levy writes: “The consistent relationship between elevated copper levels and carcinogenesis should cause grave concern for health seekers who regularly supplement copper.”
I took statistics in college. “Association is no proof of causation”. Blood levels of copper and tissue levels of copper mean utterly nothing. I have 19 sources that all claim that high blood copper happens in copper deficiency. Why? How? Why is this counter-intuitive? Well, if copper heals the body, which it does, does it not stand to reason that if the body needs healing, the body will mobilize copper from out of long-term storage in the bone marrow, and into the blood, so as to mobilize that copper to the tissues that need it? Of course it will.
These people who claim that copper is toxic, have absolutely zero proof of their claims.
We know they have zero proof for their claims, because the government has explicitly stated that there are no such studies on determining the upper limit for copper, no studies on humans taking over 10 mg of copper, and that there should be such studies done.
“RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COPPER…
Define the adverse effects of chronic high copper consumption for establishing upper intake levels and to evaluate the health effects of copper supplements.”
Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/10026/chapter/9#248
Finally, one such study was done, and they showed that 20 mg of copper caused no harm.
We, also in our group of 31,000 people consistently show people healing from even more copper than that.
Levy, like other advocates of copper toxicity, have “associations” and “relationships”. It’s as dumb as blaming firemen for causing fires, on the sole basis that firemen are present when there are fires.
And the advocates of copper toxicity are literally dumb, because they have run away from taking copper, and are actively depleting their own copper with high Vitamin C intakes!
Levy quotes studies showing that “lowering copper” improves outcomes in some cancers. But it is impossible to lower copper in isolation. All copper chelators also end up chelating other toxic substances that are likely carcinogens. There are also studies showing that copper kills cancers, as I quoted above. Claiming copper is toxic, based on such things as “lowering copper”, which is impossible to do without these co variables, is just more stupid reasoning that proves nothing.
Again, high copper intakes have been extensively studied to determine if copper is a carcinogen or cancer causing agent. It is not.
Again, Levy only as these associations. Well, of course. But these associations are easily explained, with a far better explanation. If you were an intelligent body, and if you knew that copper can help make copper-containing detoxification enzymes, wouldn’t you mobilize copper so it could get to the cancer to remove the carcinogens? Of course you would. But you are smarter than people who have depleted their own copper and can no longer reason correctly.
Next, Levy’s obtuseness is on display: “Furthermore, such “micro” data should never be used, intentionally or unwittingly, to strike fear into the hearts of potential supplementers of a clearly beneficial agent, such as vitamin C.”
He could have easily written the same sentence, concluding with “copper”. In other words, his own micro data that copper shows up with cancer (and is no proof of any causation), and is even refuted when he acknowledges that copper can kill cancer, should NOT be used to scare people away from copper. We call this obtuseness “hypocrisy” and the ultimate mark of evil.
Levy continues: “It has been long-established now in “macro” studies that individuals who maintain the highest blood levels of vitamin C live the longest. [36,37] In the face of such data, if vitamin C truly does work to lower copper levels in the body, then that would appear that such an effect is highly desirable and the only long-term effect of chronic high doses of vitamin C on copper levels would be keeping them less elevated, but never causing widespread deficiencies. Furthermore, such data also supports the concept that truly copper-deficient individuals, except under the most extraordinary of circumstances, do not exist. The clear-cut conclusion is simply this: never supplement copper.”
Levy fails to understand synergy or even minor complexity. His statements here only make sense if you were to only consider Vitamin C as a “copper blocker”. He fails to understand that Vitamin C and copper do many of the same things, and that there is plenty of overlap between them, and that Vitamin C does far more than merely lowering copper.
Both are needed to make collagen.
Both are powerful detox agents, both detox a wide variety of toxins and poisons.
Both are said to boost immunity.
Both are antioxidants, and/or copper helps to create powerful antioxidant enzymes.
Both help stop bleeding.
Both are good for infections.
Both are good for wound healing.
Both are good for healing anemia.
Both are good for heart disease, cancer, and arthritis.
Both reduce inflammation.
Both lower blood pressure.
Both reduce gout.
I am sure this list is woefully incomplete, as is Levy’s thinking.
A more complete list of at least 200 things that copper does can be found in chapters 1-20 in my book available online: https://revealingfraud.com/2022/04/health/the-copper-revolution-healing-with-minerals/
It is my contention that Vitamin C lowers copper by way of helping to use it up, in the sense of both of these are needed simultaneously to do things like build collagen. He fails to understand that the body adapts, and will absorb a greater percentage of copper from food as copper gets used up for things the body needs.
Levy’s failure in lateral thinking, and failure to consider alternative data and explantions, is evidence that even mild copper deficiency can have dramatically negative impacts on thinking ability, specifically, his.
The last part of Levy’s article focuses on the harms of excess iron. Yes, well, excess iron blocks copper and causes copper deficiency.
High iron causes nerve damage, heart disease, lung disease, cancer, anemia and infections. All signs of low copper.
cc to Levy and Saul at:
(Author of this article, Dr. Thomas Levy can be contacted at televymd@yahoo.com) Comments and media contact: drsaul@doctoryourself.com