nutrition education

1534 The American Journal ofClinical Nutrition 32: JULY 1979, pp. 1534-1540. Printed in U.S.A.

Pangamic acid (‘ ‘vitamin B15’ 8)1

Victor Herbert,2 M.D., J.D.

A cover story in the March 13, 1978 issue

of New York Magazine (1) lauded B15 “as apossible cure for everything short of a transit

strike.” The article, according to a note onthe masthead page of New York Magazineon April 3 “made it impossible to find thevitamin on any dealer’s shelf in the metro-

politan area for a full week.”“Vitamin B15” is the latest rage in health

food stores in the United States (1). Numer-

ous articles have appeared in lay publicationsand on radio and television extolling thissubstance. Yet, according to the Food and

Drug Administration (2), vitamin B15 is “notan identifiable substance . . . not a vitaminnor a provitamin . . . no accepted scientificevidence establishing any nutritional proper-ties of the substance or any deficiency . . . inman or animal . . . no medical, nutritional, or

other usefulness for these substances has been

established.”

Background

In 1943, Ernst Krebs, Sr. and Jr., appliedfor a patent for material similar to that pre-viously discovered by Krebs, Sr., and isolated

from apricot kernels, which they named“pangamic acid” (3). Krebs, Sr. and Jr., then

trade-named such material vitamin B15, justas Krebs, Jr. trade-named amygdalin, anotherchemical also isolated (in 1830) from apricotkernels (4, 5), first as “laetrile” and subse-

quently as “vitamin B17.” The B15 patentclaimed pangamate is “a preparation for theimmunization of toxic products present in the

human or animal system” which has “theproperty ofdetoxifying toxic products formed

in the human system” . . . “This invention

relates to a preparation for relief and immu-nity to persons afflicted with asthma andallied diseases . . . affections of the skin, res-piratory tract, painful nerve and joint affec-

tions, and even cell proliferation . . . eczema. . . arthritis, neuritis . . .“ Not a sliver of data

is present in the patent application (3) tosupport any of these snake-oil panacea claimsit suggests.

Two decades ago, pangamic acid was pro-moted for horses (1, 6), but it has been heavily

promoted for humans since publication of areview by the stepson of Ernst Krebs, Jr. inWorld Review of Nutrition and Dietetics (7).Without citing supporting evidence from any

country’s national nutrition policy body, thereview alleged that “pangamic acid has beenwidely studied and accepted in many coun-

tries as a necessary food factor with importantphysiological actions.” It dated the history ofpangamic acid from 195 1 and did not men-

tion the earlier work by Krebs, Sr. or thepangamic acid patent sought in 1943 byKrebs, Sr. and Jr. (3), in which they claimed

pangamate had the property of providingrelief for everything from eczema to cancer.The review also failed to note the back-

grounds of the American creators and pro-moters of pangamate or their difficulties withthe health authorities and the law in connec-

tion with it, and in connection with theirconcurrent promotion of laetrile (4, 8). The

review acknowledged that “this work wasfunded in part by a grant from the Mc-Naughton Foundation.” The author was for-merly a Research Associate at the Mc-Naughton Foundation3 in Mill Valley, Cali-

1 Supported in part by the Veterans Administration

Medical Research Program and in part by United StatesPublic Health Service Research Grant AM 20526.

2 Director, Hematology and Nutrition Laboratory,

Bronx Veterans Administration Hospital and Professorof Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brook-lyn, New York. Author reserves the right to republish.

.1 As indicated elsewhere (4, 8), Andrew McNaughton

appears to be a laetrile factory owner with two criminal

convictions, and Krebs appears to be a medical school

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/32/7/1534/4692179by University of Glasgow useron 04 April 2018

PANGAMIC ACID (VITAMIN B5) 1535

flunk-out with at least one criminal conviction. They

appear to interact closely in promoting B,5 and B17.

fornia (9), and had previously published re-lated material in that capacity (9). TheMcNaughton Foundation publishes laybooklets which promote pangamate (B15) andlaetrile (B17) as if they were vitamins. Amongtheir booklets sold to the public at healthfood conventions are the “Physician’s Hand-book of Vitamin B17 Therapy,” published 18October 1973 ($2.00), and “Vitamin B17, Vi-tamin B15 and Vitamin B13,” published 12June 1975 ($ 1 .50). The latter booklet states

on page 17, “A review, ‘Pangamic Acid (Vi-tamin B15)’ will shortly be published by Dr.Peter Stacpoole in The American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition and lists over 125 referencesto studies on pangamic acid, most of themclinical.” In fact, The American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition rejected the review as in-adequately scientific for the following rca-sons:

The title of the review declared pangamate

a vitamin (with no qualifying quotationmarks). The review did not cite the position

of either the Canadian or United States foodand drug authorities that not only was thereno evidence pangamate was a vitamin, but

also no acceptable scientific proof it had anytherapeutic benefit or was safe for human use(2, 6, 7). In the review, none of the biochem-ical data gave any description of biochemicalor chemical reactions that take place physio-logically. Data on absorption, blood levels,urine levels, excretion, degradation, etc., ofpangamic acid were not provided. The usualtoxicological studies were not described. No

dose response data were provided. The cmi-cal data were not obtained under controlled

conditions. There was not a critical evalua-tion of the literature, which might help thereader assess the various claims of differentinvestigators. It was not convincing that theclaims had any foundation in fact. Most ofthe claims were conclusory statements cx-tracted from uncontrolled anecdotal obser-vations published in Russia. What was pro-vided were general statements with no con-trolled data. No negative or contradicting

data were cited. Although no amount of un-controlled or anecdotal studies nor the num-ber of papers published determine whetheror not a substance is a vitamin or whether ithas physiological functions, the author tookall of these deficient studies and attempted to

derive meaningful positive information fromquantity instead of quality, appearing not to

heed the humorous but valid scientific dic-

tum, “Garbage in, garbage out.” The poorlydesigned studies with conclusions not derivedfrom the data, studies lacking adequate con-trols, could not produce meaningful positiveinformation.

Chemistry

Krebs et al. (10) and a number of Russianworkers cited by Stacpoole (7), used the termpangamic acid to describe a product, claimedisolated from various plant sources, and alsoobtained by laboratory synthesis, which had

the empiric formula C10H1908N, d-glucono-dimethyl aminoacetic acid (an ester of d-glu-conic acid and dimethylglycine (glycine is

aminoacetic acid)), molecular weight 28 1 dal-tons, has an unstable ester bond, and does

not crystallize (1 1). The synthetic Russianpreparation of calcium pangamate crystal-

lizes with a water molecule and has a molec-ular weight of 618.7 and four methyl groups

(from its two pangamate monomers) (1 1). Itis described as a mixture consisting of no lessthan 70% of the calcium salt of gluconic acid

ester and dimethylglycine, no more than 25%calcium gluconate, and no more than 6%calcium chloride (1 1), (which can be a poison( 15)). It is slightly hygroscopic and must bestored dry and sealed to retain stability (1 1).It is a white powder, soluble 1 : 1 in water,

relatively stable in acid, and resists heat to100 C when dry (1 1). It has a characteristic

weak amine odor and a slightly bitterish taste(1 1). The Merck Index, 8th edition, 1968 (5),notes pangamic acid as a mixture of sodiumgluconate, glycine, and diisopropylaminedichioroacetate. The 9th edition of the MerckIndex (12) gives the structure as D-gluconicacid 6-bis (1-methylethyl) amino acetate. Theeditor of the Merck Index indicated to thisreviewer that “pangamic acid” and “vitaminB15” will be deleted from the 10th edition,since they were deceived into listing it. Prod-ucts marketed as B15 or pangamic acid, or

calcium pangamate could contain any or allof the above materials, plus other materials,since there is no standard of identity for theproduct. The term pangamic acid appears tobe used indiscriminately regardless of whichof various adducts are on the ester linkage.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/32/7/1534/4692179by University of Glasgow useron 04 April 2018

1536 HERBERT

Those B15 products containing the chlorideion may be synthetic, and for them the des-

ignation “derived from natural sources” ismeaningless. The Russian preparation is alsosynthetic, as appear to be the Americanequivalents of it.

The Food and Drug Administration has

repeatedly seized i� tablets that include mix-tures of calcium gluconate and dimethyl gly-cine marketed under various names such ascalcium pangamate, Aangamik and Caldia-mate, and default decrees have ordered their

destruction. The chemical composition variesfrom product to product4 and its various pro-moters and vendors designate its chemistrydifferently from year to year and from articleto article, hence the FDA statement that it is

“not an identifiable substance” (2, 5-7).Krebs appears to have been selling a product

containing calcium gluconate, because testi-

mony in his probation revocation case (4)

included that “. . . there were three probation-ary searches . . . on each occasion there wereempty barrels of calcium gluconate . . . thesewere all 200 pound drums . . . sales rec-

ords . . . 1975 . . . $10,310 passed from Mr.Bradford to Mr. Krebs for the B15.”

Because oflack ofany proofthat pangamicacid is either a definite chemical entity, safefor human use, or of any therapeutic benefit,its distribution in Canada is prohibited by

that country’s Food and Drug Directorate(6). The pangamic acid (vitamin B15) sold byone corporation for chemical and investiga-tional use proved to be a mixture of diisopro-pylammonium dichloroacetate, sodium glu-conate, and glycine (6). Correspondence in1978 with their successor organization hasnot revealed what is packed under the pan-gamic acid (vitamin B15) label of the materialpurchased in 1978 from them. In the courseof our correspondence with them, they at-tempted unsuccessfully to get additional spec-ifications or analysis from their Europeansupplier, and then discontinued sales.

Pharmacology

The gluconic acid, glycine, and acetate insome of the formulations are essentially inert.

One pharmacologically active agent is diiso-propylamine, which has been studied byKraushaar and others (12, 13). This amineacts on smooth muscle to lower blood pres-sure and decrease body temperature (13).Acute toxic doses cause death in rodents by

cyanosis and respiratory failure (13). The ma-terial is nutritionally worthless and may beone of the “toxicants occurring naturally in

foods,” others of which are described in thebook of that name published by the NationalAcademy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,1973 (15). It is pertinent that the term “pan-

gamic acid” (Gr. pan = universal; gamic =

seed) was coined to describe the claim thatthe substance is frequently found in seeds,which is also the case for cyanide (15). Stac-

poole et al. (14) reported on certain acutemetabolic effects ofdichloroacetate, and state“the efficacy and safety of chronic dichlo-roacetate administration are unknown.”Their findings made a case for its use in theshort-term treatment of acute life-threateninglactic acidosis, hitherto often fatal. One can,

of course, legitimately use poisons to savelives in acute emergencies (such as the use ofnitroprusside in acute hypertensive emergen-cies). However, question has been raised as

to whether dichloroacetate offers anythingover bicarbonate in treatment of lactic aci-dosis (16). Additionally, the substance has

been shown to inhibit the pyruvate trans-porter in rat liver mitochondria in vitro,which would be an undesirable effect if re-

producible in humans (16, 17). Adverse ef-fects noted by Stacpoole et al. (14) includedmild sedation and increased serum uric acidlevels in diabetic patients. Crabb and Harrissuggest that dichioroacetate (DCA) may pro-duce oxalic acid stone formation and renaldysfunction, because DCA converts to gly-oxylate which is a precursor of oxalate (17a).

Aliphatic halogenated hydrocarbons haverecently begun to cause concern regarding

4 Claimant’s Answer to Government’s Written Inter-rogatories (Interrogatory No. 2) in U.S. v. Aangamik 15

Calcium Pangamate, etc. (Consolidated Cases Nos. 77C

662, etc., U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. Ill., E. Div.) states the

seized calcium pangamate was a blended mixture of N,

N-dimethylglycine hydrochloride, calcium gluconate, di-

calcium phosphate, stearic acid, and avicel. Claimant’s

Answer to Interrogatory no. 9 stated there are about 20

mg of dimethyhglycine in 100 g of meat eaten by man,

but did not state whether any of it was free (as in

claimant’s product) rather than bound, or whether any

of it was dimethylglycine hydrochloride (as in claimant’s

product). In his order of December 5, 1978 denying

defense motion for rehearing in U.S.A. v. . . “B�7 (so-

dium pangamate) 50 mg . . .“, Civil Action no. 76-1860,

U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of N.J., Judge Curtis Meanor stated:

“the chemical composition of the articles under seizure

is 64% calcium gluconate, 16% glycine, and 20% of the

salt formed from di-isopropylamine and dichloroacetic

acid.”

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/32/7/1534/4692179by University of Glasgow useron 04 April 2018

PANGAMIC ACID (VITAMIN B5) 1537

their carcinogenic potential because of theease with which they can form free radicals(18). The potential of dichloroacetate for car-

cinogenesis therefore requires evaluation. Werecently found it mutagenic by Ames test

(19). It should be noted that toxic cataractsfrequently appear months or years afterchemical or drug exposure (20), and the con-nection to prior drug or chemical exposure

may not be made in the absence of adequatealertness. A year ago this reviewer requestedinformation from Stacpoole on possible mu-tagenicity and cataract production by DCA.Subsequent to our preliminary report on

DCA mutagenicity (19), Stacpoole et al an-nounced the suspension of chronic oral ad-ministration to patients on the basis of serious

toxicity to animals and at least one human(20a). There was dose-related hind limb pa-ralysis, germinal epithelial degeneration ofthe testis and vacuolation of the myelinatedtracts of the cerebrum in rats and dogs. Dogsalso showed severe ocular lesions includingirreversible lenticular opacities. A man de-

veloped polyneuropathy. DCA may be moretoxic orally than parenterally (20a), as is thecase for laetrile (4).

The d-gluconodimethyl aminoacetate for-

mulation has been reported to have neuro-muscular blocking activity in rabbits and

chickens and to produce hypotension in dogs(21). Russian calcium pangamate of this for-mulation is contaminated with up to 6% cal-cium chloride (I 1), and all calcium panga-mate ofsimilar formulation should be consid-ered contaminated with calcium chloride un-til proved otherwise. It is possible that con-tamination with dichloroacetate may also oc-cur, and this possibility should be evaluatedin each preparation.

Some formulations of pangamic acid con-tam methyl groups, but these are not labile.Furthermore, there is no published data thatthe large promoted doses of such formula-tions normally are found in the diet,4 concen-trate in human tissues, or play a salutary

physiologic role not due to folate or cholinepresent in the diet (and not carried out withless energy loss by choline and methionine).

None of the formulations of pangamate ap-pear from available data to be lipotropic, orto be methylating or transmethylating agents.

One-carbon compounds can be oxidationproducts of some of the formulations, andthose products can then enter the one-carbon

pool, as do similar oxidation products ofmany substances. The Krebs patent “N-sub-

stituted glycine esters of gluconic acid” (22)states “a particular object is to provide syn-thetic compounds . . . which are more effec-tive methyl donors than known methyl do-nors such as methionine and choline,” but nodata are presented to support the claim thatany of the “pangamates” in the patent islabile. Indeed, the diisopropylamino productcannot be a methyl donor because its methylgroups are on C, and only methyl groups on

an N or an S can serve as methylating agents,and then only when there is no need for anadded energy source. This is not the case fordimethylglycine, a product of choline catab-olism, which is synthetically attached in an

ester linkage to gluconic acid in some pan-gamate formulations. Its methyl groups, likethose of sarcosine, are not labile, and so mustbe removed by oxidation and only then canenter the one-carbon unit pool (23, 24). It was

established in 1946 that dimethylglycine wasnot lipotropic (24). It enters one-carbon me-tabolism at the oxidation level of formalde-hyde, and worsens methyl depletion of rats

on diets creating methyl deficiency who aregiven nicotinamide supplements, resulting in

renal cortical necrosis in mature females and

damaged growth and development of fetalrats (24a). Alkali-metal (Na, K, NH4) salts of

dimethylglycine are claimed to chelate alka-line earth metals (Mg, Ca), thereby rendering

absorbable certain sulfated polysaccharidesclaimed to be lipemia-clearing (24b). Thesafety and efficacy of such claimed effectrequires evaluation before use (see Adden-dum).

Dimethylglycine (N-methylsarcosine), atertiary amine, reacts with nitrites (which areformed de novo in the intestine) (25) to formboth the potent carcinogen, dimethylnitrosa-mine, and the weaker carcinogen, nitrososar-

cosine (26). Nitrites that effect this reactionoccur in human saliva (27), and nitrososar-cosine induces cancer of the oral pharyngealcavity and esophagus in the rat (27). Thus,

dimethylglycine ingested in concentrated freeform in a tablet appears much more likelycarcinogenic than the same amount bound in100 g of meat4, since only the former is pre-sented to the oral cavity and esophagus inhigh concentration, and the dimethylglycinein human muscle as a catabolic product of

choline is not presented at all to the oral

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/32/7/1534/4692179by University of Glasgow useron 04 April 2018

1538 HERBERT

cavity and esophagus. Additionally, whatpurveyors of pangamate” and B15 appear to

be selling is not dimethylglycine, but di-methylglycine hydrochloride, of different

composition and reactivity.Hundreds of compounds found in seeds

and plants have chemical and pharmacolog-ical effects. This does not make them nutri-ents or physiological. Many are poisons (15),as is DCA (20a), described by Krebs in theJune 1978 issue of the laetrile industry mag-azine “Choice” as a “sister compound” of B15(19).

Clinical use

The allegations of long-term medicinalvalue for pangamic acid in cancer, alcohol-ism, hepatitis, heart disease, allergies, diabe-

tes, schizophrenia, glaucoma, retarding aging,

purifying air, and increasing respiratory abil-ity by providing “instant oxygen” are anec-

dotal and testimonial stories rather than stud-ies, and lack comparison for effectiveness in

controlled studies to other treatments or to“the doing of nothing” (6, 28, 29). A numberof these stories, either totally uncontrolled or

lacking the crucial choline control, originatein Russia. The authors often claim spectacu-lar results from pangamic acid or vitamin B15without identifying which of the many chem-icals and chemical combinations which go bythat name they are using, without distinguish-

ing drug effect from placebo effect, and with-out reporting any evaluation of patients forshort-term or long-term toxic effects. TheFood and Drug Administration regards theproducts as illegal whether used as a food oras a drug, and has made a number of seizures

ofthem (2, 30). On June 12, 1978, in the NewJersey seizure case, Newark District CourtJudge Curtis Meanor upheld the Food andDrug Administration contention that B15 isessentially an untested “food additive” thatis not generally recognized by scientific cx-perts as safe for human consumption andcannot be sold legally on the market (30).Pangamate has been prohibited in Canadafor more than a decade (6). Because of thesefacts, any physician who prescribes it shouldfirst secure an Investigational New Drugnumber for it, describing which of the manydifferent chemical mixtures called “panga-mate” is the one to be used, should submithis proposal to a Human Studies Committee,and should get informed consent from his

patients after informing them that it is not avitamin, has no known nutrient value, no

known value in the long-term treatment of

any diseases, its safety has not been estab-lished, and it may be mutagenic. The claimthat “B15” supplies calories is deceptive andmisleading. Carbohydrates and proteins sup-ply 4 cal/g and fats supply 9 calories per g,so the most a 50 mg tablet of “B15” couldsupply, regardless of its ingredients, is less

than half a calorie.As noted elsewhere (4, 29), there are four

basic scientific canons for evaluating medicalinformation:

1) Does it go beyond “personal observa-

tion” to stand the test ofscrutiny and criticismby other scientists, i.e., is it a study or a story?Is it science or anecdote?

2) Was it compared for effectiveness indouble blind controlled studies to other treat-ments and to suggestibility or to the “doingof nothing,” i.e., to a placebo? What is thenatural history of the disorder in the absence

of therapy? Was the observed result of causeand effect, placebo effect or coincidence dueto the natural history of the disorder?

3) Has it been proved safe? Safe comparedto what? Is the nskjustified? What is the risk:

benefit ratio? (Note that if there is no benefit,the risk:benefit ratio is infinity, which is nottolerable.)

4) The burden of proof is on those whopropose doing or giving something, especially

if it involves a remedy or procedure not wellestablished in medical practice.

Valid weapons against disease are forgedin the crucible of these canons. After threedecades, B15 has yet to successfully meet anyof these basic scientific challenges.

Conclusion

Pangamic acid, pangamate, and B15 aresynonyms for an alleged entity that in fact isa number of different products of variablecomposition which do not constitute a defi-nite chemical entity. The label originally de-scribed what may have been partly Na or Cad-gluconodimethyl aminoacetate. However,the label more often describes a productwhich is one part sodium (or calcium) glu-conate, one part glycine (or dimethyl glycine);often also one part diisopropylamine dichlo-roacetate. Often still other synthetic mixtures

are sold as B15 and calcium pangamate. Pan-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/32/7/1534/4692179by University of Glasgow useron 04 April 2018

PANGAMIC ACID (VITAMIN B15) 1539

gamic acid is trade-named vitamin B15 but ithas no known nutritional worth, has no vi-tamin properties, and no such vitamin exists.In fact, pangamic acid can be said not toexist, since there is no standard of chemicalidentity for products sold under that label.There is no proof that it has any therapeutic

benefit or is safe for human use, and it maybe mutagenic. All of the B15 and pangamateproducts being sold, including those in healthfood stores, appear to be at least partly syn-

thetic. The use of pangamate may violate theprimary ethical rule of medicine-above all,

do no harm (31, 32).In the Middle Ages, anecdotal claims of

efficacy and safety of nostrums were auto-matically accepted, and it was for science todisprove them. This required science to provea negative, often difficult or impossible to do.The Age of Reason began with recognitionthat to protect the public health and safetyrequired adopting the rule that it is for theproponent to prove his claim, rather than for

science to disprove it, and that nostrumsshould be considered inefficacious and unsafeuntil proved efficacious and safe. With lae-trile and pangamic acid, we are in danger ofreturning to the age when anecdote substi-

tuted for science. Both products appear tomeet the criteria that define a quack remedy(4, 29, 33-37), and both appear to be moretoxic on oral than parenteral administration(4, 20a).

Because of its usual content of dichioroac-etate or dimethylglycine hydrochloride, per-

sons buying pangamate in the erroneous be-lief they are purchasing nutrition may bepurchasing mutagenesis or other unknownharms.

The United States Food and Drug Admin-istration “Statement on Pangamic Acid”,

dated August 18, 1978, concludes:“FDA considers ‘vitamin B15’ to be a food

additive for which no evidence of safety hasbeen offered. It therefore is illegal for thesubstance to be sold as a dietary supplement.No new drug application for “Pangamic

Acid” has been submitted or approved by

FDA and the substance legally cannot bemarketed as a drug.” U

References

1. NOBILE, P. Will vitamin B,5 cure what ails you? NewYork Magazine 11(11): 38, 1978 (March 13).

2. Notices of judgment: Pangamic 15, calcium gluco-

nate and dimethyl glycine tablets and calcium pan-

gamate tablets. FDA Consumer 1 1(8): 36, 1977 (Oc-

tober); FDA Talk Paper T78-27. Pangamic Acid,

March 31, 1978. FDA Drug Bull. 8: 38, Dec. 1978-

Jan. 1979.

3. KREBS, E. T., AND E. T. KREBS, JR. United States

Patent no. 2,464,240, issued 1949, applied for No-

vember20, 1943.

4. HERBERT, V. Laetrile: the cult of cyanide. Am. J.

Clin. Nutr. 32: 1121, 1979.

5. Merck Index (8th ed), 1968. Rahway, NJ: Merck

& Co., Inc.6. FRENCH, W. N., AND L. LEVI. Pangamic acid (vi-

tamin Bis, Pangametin, Sopangamine): Its composi-

tion and determination in pharmacological dosage

forms. Canad. Med. Assoc. J. 94: 1 185, 1966.

7. STACPOOLE, P. W. Pangamic acid (vitamin B15).

World Rev. Nutr. Dietet. 27: 145, 1977.

8. Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research:

Proceedings ofthe July 12, 1977 hearings on banning

of the drug haetrile from interstate commerce by

FDA. Washington, D.C.: United States GovernmentPrinting Office, 420 pp.

9. STACPOOLE, P. W. Review of the pharmacologic andtherapeutic effects of diisopropylammonium di.

chloroacetate (DIPA). J. Chin. Pharmacol. 9: 282,

1969.

10. KREBS, E. T., SR., E. T. KREBS, JR., H. H. BEARD, R.

MALIN, A. T. HARRIS AND C. L. BARTLETt. Pan-gamic acid sodium: a newly isolated crystalline wa-

ter-soluble factor. A preliminary report. Int. Red.Med. 163: 18, 1951.

1 1. BUKIN, V. N. Calcium pangamate (vitamin B15). A.

N. Bakh Institute of Biochemistry, Academy of Sci-ences of the U.S.S.R. (45 page manuscript sent inJune 1978 by U.S.S.R. Ministry of Health to V.Herbert, in response to request to Russian ambas-sador to the U.N. for Russian view of pangamate.

Forwarded by V. Herbert to Food and Drug Admin-istration and available from the F.D.A. V. N. Bukin

and I. N. Garkina hold United States Patent no.

3,907,869 (Sept. 1975).), for “Method of ProducingCalcium Pangamate” (“vitamin B15”), “consisting in

esterification of gluconic acid or the lactone thereof

with dimethylglycine hydrochloride in an aqueous

medium in the presence of hydrogen chloride or

sulfuric acid at a temperature of from 30#{176}to 70#{176}C.

The esterification product is concentrated and neu-trahized with calcium carbonate to obtain aLmost

non-hygroscopic calcium pangamate in a high yield

(up to 80%).

12. Merck Index 9th (ed), 1976. Rahway, NJ: Merck

& Co. Inc.13. KRAUSHAAR, V. A. E., R. W. SCHUNK, AND H. F.

THYM. Zur Pharmakologie des Diisopropylamine.Arzneimittel Forsch. 13: 109, 1963.

14. STACPOOLE, P. W., G. W. MOORE AND D. W. K0RN-

HAUSER. Metabolic effects of dichloroacetate in pa-tients with diabetes mellitus and hyperhipoproteine-

mia. New Engl. J. Med. 298: 526, 1978.15. Committee on Food Protection: Toxicants Occurring

Naturally in Foods (2nd ed). Food and NutritionBoard, National Research Council. Washington,D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1973.

16. COHEN, R. D., AND R. A. ILES. Dichloroacetate andthe treatment of lactic acidosis. New EngI. J. Med.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/32/7/1534/4692179by University of Glasgow useron 04 April 2018

1540 HERBERT

298: 1364, 1978.

17. HALESTRAP, P. The mitochondrial pyruvate carrier:Kinetics and specificity for substrates and inhibitors.

Biochem. J. 148: 85, 1975.

l7a. CRABB, D. W., AND R. A. HARRIS. Metabolic effects

ofdichloroacetate. New Engl. J. Med. 299: 255, 1978.

1 8. WITHEY, J. R. Mutagenic, carcinogenic and terato-

genic hazards arising from human exposure to plastic

additives. In: Origins of Human Cancer. Book A.

Incidence of Cancer in Humans, edited by H. H.Hiatt, J. D. Watson, and J. A. Winsten. New York:

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1977.

19. HERBERT, V., A. GARDNER AND N. COLMAN. Muta-

genicity of dichloroacetate (DCA), an ingredient ofthe “cancer cure” pangamic acid (“vitamin B15”).

Blood 52 (Suppl. I): 252, 1978; HERBERT, V., A.

GARDNER AND N. COLMAN. Evidence for possible

lack of safety for human consumption of dichloroac-

etate, a “sister compound” and frequent ingredient

ofthe non-vitamin “B15” (pangamate), Chin. Res. 27:

55la, 1979.

20. HARKNESS, D. R., AND S. ROTH. Clinical evaluation

of cyanate in sickle cell anemia. Prog. Hematol. 9:

157, 1975.

20a. STACPOOLE, P. W., G. W. MOORE, AND D. M.KORNHAUSER. Toxicity of chronic dichloroacetate.

New Engl. J. Med. 300: 372, 1979.

21. MARSHALL, F. N., R. H. ADAMSON AND J. P. LONG.Some pharmacologic properties of pangamic acid

(vitamin B15). Proc. Soc. Exptl. Biol. Med. 107: 420,

1961.

22. KREBS, E. T., AND E. T. KREBS, JR. N-substituted

glycine esters of gluconic acid. United States Patent

no. 2,710,876, patented June 14, 1955.

23. WHITE, A., P. HANDLER AND E. L. SMITH. Principlesof Biochemistry. New York: McGraw Hill, 1973.

24. JUKES, T. H. Pangamic acid and “vitamin B15.” Nutr.

Notes 14: 13, 1978.

24a. WOODARD, J. C. Effects of deficiencies in labile

methyl groups on the growth and development of

fetal rats. J. Nutr. 100: 1215, 1970.

24b. WINDSOR, E. Orally-active therapeutic composi-tions and process for using same. U. S. Patent

3,088,863; patented May 7, 1963. Patent assigned to

Riker Laboratories, Inc.

25. TANNENBAUM, S. R., D. Fm, V. R. YOUNG, P. D.LAND AND W. R. BRUCE. Nitrite and nitrate are

formed by endogenous synthesis in the human intes-

tine. Science 200: 1487, 1978.

26. FRIEDMAN, M. A. Reaction of sodium nitrite with

dimethyhglycine produces nitrososarcosine. Bull. En-vironm. Contamin. Toxicol. 13: 226, 1975.

27. HARTMAN, P. H. Nitrates and nitrites in the human

diet. Science 202: 260, 1978.

28. Vitamin B15. Med. Lett. 20: 44, 1978.29. How to evaluate medical information. Harvard Med.

School Health Lett. 3: 6, 1978.

30. HOPKINS, H. Debunking pangamic acid. FDA Con-

sumer 12: 15, 1978.

3 1. HERBERT, V. Medical, legal, and ethical considera-

tions in the use of drugs having undesirable side

effects. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 28: 550, 1975.

32. HERBERT, V. Acquiring new information while re-

taming old ethics. Science 198: 690, 1977; reprinted

in Jurimetrics J. 18: 215, 1978 (published by the

American Bar Association).

33. BRUCH, H. The allure of food cults and nutrition

quackery. J. Am. Dietetic Assoc. 57: 316, 1970.

34. HERBERT, V. The health hustlers: how to spot a foodquack. In: The Health Robbers, edited by S. Barrett

and G. Knight. Philadelphia: Stickley, 1976, pp. 99-

123.

35. BARRETF, S., AND G. KNIGHT. The Health Robbers.Philadelphia: Stickley, 1976.

36. HERBERT, V. The nutritionally and metabolicallydestructive “nutritional and metabolic antineoplastic

diet” of laetrile proponents. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32:

96, 1979.

37. JANSSEN, W. F. Cancer quackery: past and present.

FDA Consumer 1 1: 27, 1977.

Addendum

Regarding the patent of dimethylglycine to enhanceabsorption ofheparin (24b), the Manager of ProfessionalServices of the corporation to which the patent is as-signed informed this reviewer by letter dated 2 May 1979that, “We never carried out any long term animal studieswith this particular agent, and therefore I am unable toanswer your question about toxicity. Also, dimethyl-glycine was never tested in humans. We never marketedany products of this type since the extent of absorption(of heparin)never reached levels greater than five percentof the administered dose.”

Despite the U.S. government position that pangamateis illegal, worthless, and possibly unsafe, in 1979 it wasstill being vigorously promoted and sold in every “healthfood” store in the United States visited by this reviewer,including those of the multimilhion-dollar General Nu-trition Center chain. Mr. Paul Sage, of the Bureau ofEnforcement of the FDA, informed this reviewer thatthe FDA lacked enough personnel to seize pangamatefrom these thousands of stores, and was doing its best tofight the huge and lucrative pangamate industry bybringing court cases against producers. However, whilethe cases grind through the courts, the producers ofpangamate such as Aangamik (4) continue to promoteand sell, and others spring up and do likewise. Wherethere is money to be made, there are those who willmake it.

With respect to the misleading health claims, thegovernment has no power to stop them, unless they arestated on the labeling of the product (34), and themultibilhion dollar nutrition cultism industry (4, 33-35)and its pangamate arm are too legally sophisticated todo that. The claims are made in nutrition cultism hitera-ture sold in “health food” stores and elsewhere, which isprotected “free speech” (34). Many “health food” storeswere selling in 1979 the General Health and NutritionCenters, Inc. vitamins and minerals placemat whichmisleadingl7 claims pangamic acid as a vitamin whichfacilitates ‘ cell oxidation and respiration, metabolism(protein, fat, sugar), glandular and nervous system stim-ulation,” whose “deficiency symptoms” are “heart dis-ease, nervous and glandular disorders,” and whose “ther-apeutic applications are “alcoholism, asthma, atheroscle-rosis, cholesterol (high), emphysema, heart disease, head-aches, insomnia, poor circulation, premature aging, rheu-matism, shortness of breath.”

Parenthetically, victims havejust brought the first civilsuit against the author and publisher of a nutritioncultism book sold in “health food” stores and elsewherewhich made a misleading nutrition claim which they sayled them astray and thereby caused the death of theirchild (4). The misleading claim was that large doses ofpotassium can help against colic.

On June 18, 1979 the United States Supreme Courtruled 9-0 against laetrile in Rutherford v USA (4). Manyof the same interests promote both laetrihe and B15 (4).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/32/7/1534/4692179by University of Glasgow useron 04 April 2018