QUICKLINKS AND VIEW OPITONS
Niacin may increase lifespan, Abram Hoffer, MD and Linus Pauling, PhD live to 92 and 93
Saturday, December 27, 2014 11:20 am Email this article
Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD took large doses of niacin for 57 years (1952 - 2009) and lived to be 92-years-old.
Linus Pauling, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, also took large doses of niacin and lived to be 93-years-old.
In this audio clip, Dr. Hoffer talks about a woman who is 111-years-old who had been taking niacin for 41 years, and who attributes her longevity to niacin.
Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD is the person who discovered that niacin raises HDL levels.
Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD also notes that niacin does not just lower cholesterol levels, but it normalizes cholesterol levels.
That is, niacin lowers cholesterol levels when it is high, and raises cholesterol levels when it is low.
Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD also discovered that niacin, along with other nutrients and changes, can cure schizophrenia in many cases.
Some more info about Linus Pauling.
He is the only person to win 2 Nobel Prizes by himself.
Dr. Hoffer talks about taking large doses of niacin for 50 years.
So which would you rather take?
A statin like atorvastatin (Lipitor)?
Like Rob Reiner’s mother said in the movie “When Harry Met Sally”, when Sally faked an orgasm in a restaurant…
“I’ll have what she’s having.”
Articles on the same subject can be found here:
On Aug 08, 2011 at 10:34 am DPS wrote:
. . . . .
Great video. I have just recently discovered your videos and I enjoy most of them.
With regard to niacin and longevity, I would like direct your attention to "The Coronary Drug Project" which was conducted between 1966 and 1975. See the abstract at PubMed for an article entitled "Fifteen year mortality in Coronary Drug Project patients: long-term benefit with niacin." at:
Is this worthy of another video?
On Aug 08, 2011 at 11:20 am DPS wrote:
. . . . .
I mis-spelled my email address in the previous posting.
On Aug 08, 2011 at 12:07 pm Larry Hobbs wrote:
. . . . .
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate it.
Thanks for the info and link to the The Coronary Drug Project.
I am familiar with The Coronary Drug Project where the 15-year follow-up showed an 11% decrease in mortality in those given niacin.
A study was recently stopped -- the AIM-HIGH study -- because it found no benefit in those given a statin plus extended release niacin once a day at bedtime.
In fact, they found a slightly higher risk of ischemic stroke in those given a statin plus niacin vs those given a statin alone.
Some people blamed this on niacin.
I think this is idiotic.
It's all driven by drug money.
There was no "Niacin Only" group.
They have NOT released the data from the study yet, so I have not been able to analyze it, but I will once it comes out, however...
Previous studies have found that LOW cholesterol levels are associated with an INCREASED risk of stroke.
Previous studies have also taken people who were already on a statin and had very low cholesterol levels of roughly 150, and then added a second cholesterol drug hoping to further reduce the risk of heart attacks.
However, the study found NO benefit to doing this, and, in fact, in those given a second drug to further reduce their cholesterol levels to ridiculously low levels, there was an INCREASED risk in a number of cancers, although they avoided talking about this.
Niacin NORMALIZES cholesterol levels.
Abram Hoffer, MD PhD was the one who discovered that niacin raises HDL levels.
However, he also found that when he gave niacin to someone with abnormally LOW cholesterol levels, that the niacin RAISED their cholesterol levels to NORMAL levels.
In other words, niacin NORMALIZES cholesterol levels.
Most people think that niacin LOWERS cholesterol levels (and raises HDL levels), but what it really does is NORMALIZE cholesterol levels, which is exactly what we want.
You don't want them too high, and you don't want them too low.
However, most people, including most doctors and most researchers, have been fooled into believing that you should try to get your cholesterol levels as low as possible.
This is NONSENSE.
A study called the "Honolulu Heart Program" found that the one-fourth of older people with lowest cholesterol levels which, on average, were roughly 150 mg/dL (149 to be exact), were 66% MORE LIKELY TO DIE over a 20-year period than the one-fourth of people with an average cholesterol level of roughly 200 mg/dL (199 to be exact).
To state this in the opposite way, they found that those with cholesterol levels of roughly 200 were 40% LESS LIKELY to die than those with cholesterol levels of roughly 150.
The one-fourth of people with an average cholesterol level of roughly 180 mg/dL (178 to be exact) were 19% MORE LIKELY TO DIE over a 20-year period than the one-fourth of people with an average cholesterol level of roughly 200 mg/dL (199 to be exact).
The one-fourth of people with an average cholesterol level of roughly 230 mg/dL (231 to be exact) were 5% MORE LIKELY TO DIE over a 20-year period than the one-fourth of people with an average cholesterol level of roughly 200 mg/dL (199 to be exact).
The point of this being that having a cholesterol level of roughly 200 was associated with the LOWEST risk of dying over a 20-year period, and having cholesterol levels below this were associated with an INCREASED risk of dying.
See the study here:
So drug companies and the researchers who are paid by drug companies, and the national guidelines on cholesterol that are put out by the National Cholesterol Education Program, that was developed by 9 people, 8 of which had been paid by the drug companies, who have brainwashed the world into believing that you should take their drugs to get your cholesterol levels as low as possible, are speaking NONSENSE.
It's not about truth. It's about selling more drugs.
There is a video on WebMD where Henry Black, MD, the President of the American Society of Hypertension, is "interviewing" Harry Weintraub, MD, a "lipid expert".
Dr. Weintraub says that some very smart people believe that we don't need ANY LDL in our body except in the liver.
This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Are these guys that dumb to believe this or are they being paid so much money by the drug companies that they have convinced themselves that it must be true because of the tremendous financial incentives that they are given?
I think the latter is true.
It is a result of being paid lots of money by the drug companies.
I will NEVER believe another word either one of them says, nor will I believe what the Hypertension Society says, nor the National Cholesterol Education Program, nor the Diabetes Society, nor the American Psychiatric Association, nor any other medical society that is funded by the drug companies, or who put out guidelines where the committee that develops them are paid by the drug companies.
It's all the same nonsense.
Researchers are paid by the drug companies, and the drug companies will ONLY hire researchers who say things that will help them to sell more drugs.
So I already know what the next thousand drug studies are going to say.
The next thousand drug studies will all say "these drugs are safe and effective and more people should use them".
I no longer look at these drug researchers as scientists, but instead as salesmen for the drug companies.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for researchers to remain independent while they are being paid tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars per year from the drug companies.
It is IMPOSSIBLE.
This is the same type of nonsense as people believing that you should get your blood pressure as low as possible.
It is idiotic thinking.
Anyway, once the study results are published for the AIM-HIGH study that gave a statin plus extended-release niacin, I will analyze and report on them.
On Aug 08, 2011 at 12:36 pm DPS wrote:
. . . . .
Thanks for the detailed repsonse. Here are a few other links to abstracts that you or your readers my find interesting about niacin and longevity and perhaps more importantly, keeping your memory in old age. One good thing is that some of these studies only discuss high HDL and do not mention niacin.
Low Levels Of Good Cholesterol Linked To Memory Loss, Dementia Risk - Science Daily, 6/30/08 - "Researchers defined low HDL as less than 40 mg/dL ... At age 60, participants with low HDL had a 53 percent increased risk of memory loss compared to the high HDL group" - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080630162411.htm
Gene Tied To Longevity Also Preserves Ability To Think Clearly - Science Daily, 12/26/06 - "Centenarians were three times likelier to possess CETP VV compared with a control group representative of the general population and also had significantly larger HDL and LDL lipoproteins than people in the control group ... Researchers believe that larger cholesterol particles are less likely to lodge themselves in blood vessels" -
Could niacin do the same thing? See:
Effects of extended-release niacin on lipoprotein particle size, distribution, and inflammatory markers in patients with coronary artery disease - Am J Cardiol. 2006 Sep 15;98(6):743-5 - "Addition of niacin resulted in a 32% increase in large-particle HDL (p <0.001), an 8% decrease in small-particle HDL (p = 0.0032), an 82% increase in large-particle LDL (p = 0.09), and a 12% decrease in small-particle LDL (p = 0.008)" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16950175?dopt=AbstractPlus
Just for the record, both regular niacin (sometimes referred to as immmediate release or IR) and extended-release niacin (also called sustained release or SR) have about the same effects on the amount of HDL, LDL, TG. see
A comparison of the efficacy and toxic effects of sustained- vs immediate-release niacin in hypercholesterolemic patients - JAMA. 1994 Mar 2;271(9):672-7 - "None of the patients taking IR niacin developed hepatotoxic effects, while 12 (52%) of the 23 patients taking SR niacin did. CONCLUSION--The SR form of niacin is hepatotoxic and should be restricted from use. The IR niacin is preferred for the management of hypercholesterolemia but can also cause significant adverse effects and should be given only to patients who can be carefully monitored by experienced health professionals."
On Aug 08, 2011 at 12:40 pm DPS wrote:
. . . . .
More on HDL and longevity:
Relation Between High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Survival to Age 85 Years in Men (from the VA Normative Aging Study) - Am J Cardiol. 2011 Feb 4 - "We categorized initial HDL cholesterol into <40 mg/dl (reference group), 40 to 49 mg/dl, or ?50 mg/dl ... Treating HDL cholesterol as a continuous predictor, we also determined the HR for each 10-mg/dl increment in HDL cholesterol. Fully adjusted HR (95% confidence interval) for survival to 85 years of age for participants with an initial HDL cholesterol level ?50 mg/dl compared to the reference was 0.72 (0.53 to 0.98). Each 10-mg/dl increment in HDL cholesterol was associated with a 14% (HR 0.86, 0.78 to 0.96) decrease in risk of mortality before 85 years of age. In conclusion, after adjusting for other factors associated with longevity, higher HDL cholesterol levels were significantly associated with survival to 85 years of age" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296318?dopt=Abstract
On Aug 08, 2011 at 1:02 pm Larry Hobbs wrote:
. . . . .
Thank you for all the additional studies.
Good stuff. Thanks.
Regarding the idea that sustained release niacin is toxic to the liver, but immediate-release is not...
In a great book called "Coronary Heart Disease : The Dietary Sense and Nonsense, An evaluation by scientists" (1993), which as based on a meeting that was held by some scientists to talk about the Diet/Heart hypothesis of heart disease, and cholesterol drugs including niacin, they said that...
Sustained-release niacin should be used at HALF THE DOSE as immediate-release niacin.
They said the liver problems with sustained-release niacin that showed up in the late 1980's was due to the fact that doctors had not gone back and read the old literature, and were giving the same dose of sustained-release niacin as they were immeidate-release niacin which is what caused the problem.
The 1994 JAMA article that you reference above (JAMA,1994 Mar 2;271(9):672-7), does NOT seem to be aware of this, and instead claims, as you quoted them, that "The [sustained-release] form of niacin is hepatoxic [toxic to the liver] and should be restricted from use."
Either the people writing this article are unaware that sustained-release niacin should be given at half the dose of immeidate-release niacin, or...
I also have to consider the possibility that the authors of this article had financial ties to the drug companies and are simply saying the the drug companies want them to say to try and eliminate the competition (niacin).
On Aug 08, 2011 at 1:05 pm Larry Hobbs wrote:
. . . . .
Here are a few links to articles about the book "Coronary Heart Disease : The Dietary Sense and Nonsense, An evaluation by scientists" (1993).
I have many more videos I should post from this book, including what they have to say about niacin, but I have not done this yet.
The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) is an expensive fraud says George Mann, ScD, MD
The Diet-Heart business is based on dishonesty says George Mann, ScD, MD
Scientists afraid to speak out that the Diet-Heart hypothesis is wrong says George Mann, ScD, MD
Diet is NOT effective for treating coronary heart disease says George Mann, ScD, MD
On Aug 08, 2011 at 1:48 pm DPS wrote:
. . . . .
Thank you for all the information. I am not interested in niacin from the standpoint of lowering cholestrol. I am interested in longevity and longevity with my memories intact. It seems that niacin may be useful and I am willing to pay the price. Incidently, amazon.com has niacin capsules for $0.07 per gram. Twenty-one cents a day is a reasonable risk for me. See http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=aps&field;-keywords=niacin&x=0&y=0
With regard to statins and lowering cholestrol, I do not agree with the lipid theory of cardovascular disease. I belong to the Linus Pauling's school of thought. It is known as the "unified theory" and it is nicely summarized at:
One thing that impressed me is that Pauling received a US patent for a method of cleaning out hearts before they are transplanted (after they have been harvested). The method involves vitamin C and lysine. Why don't we hear about it? Here is a link to the full text of two of Pauling's US patents. The pdf version (accessible on each page) have very nice illustrations/drawing.
Prevention and treatment of occlusive cardiovascular disease with ascorbate
Use of ascorbate and tranexamic acid solution for organ and blood vessel
On Aug 08, 2011 at 2:06 pm Larry Hobbs wrote:
. . . . .
Niacin's effect on some marker such as cholesterol is irrelevant.
This is true for ALL cholesterol drugs.
This is also true for ALL blood pressure drugs... and diabetes drugs.
The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not they reduce the risk of death.
This is another way that the drug companies fool people, is to get them to focus on how much a drug lowers their cholesterol or lowers their blood pressure or lowers their blood sugar.
And if a drug lowers cholesterol or blood pressure or blood sugar, they say, "See how effective our drug is at lowering [whatever]. Obviously, it must be good for you."
This is NOT necessarily true.
They also fool people into thinking these drugs are beneficial by only reporting some of the data, but avoid reporting on the TOTAL risk of death, which is the ONLY thing that matters.
It has been known for 23+ years that cholesterol drugs lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, but
- INCREASE the risk of cancer,
- INCREASE the risk of suicide,
- INCREASE the risk of accidental death (probably due to depression),
- INCREASE the risk of violent death (probably due to depression),
- and statins specifically...
- INCREASE the risk of congestive heart failure, and
- may also INCREASE the risk of dying from Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, etc
Anytime I see a study that ONLY reports on how much a drug lowers the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, or any other subset of death other than the TOTAL risk of death, I know that they are hiding something.
On Aug 08, 2011 at 2:10 pm Larry Hobbs wrote:
. . . . .
Thanks for the link to the summary of Linus Pauling Unified Theory of cardiovascular disease.
If you prefer to read the original article by Pauling and Mathis Rath, MD, it is posted here:
A Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular Disease Leading the Way to the Abolition of This Disease as a Cause for Human Mortality
By Matthias Rath M.D. and Linus Pauling Ph.D
The paper is posted as a PDF here:
On Aug 08, 2011 at 2:22 pm Larry Hobbs wrote:
. . . . .
Thanks for the link to the patents by Pauling.
On Aug 09, 2011 at 1:49 am DPS wrote:
. . . . .
Thank you for the links to the links to http://www.orthomed.org I ap.ologize if I have taken my comments too far from the topic of niacin and life span.
Hofer was truly a pioneer in the field of the use of high doses of vitamin B3. At first, his statements about niacin and life span are almost laughable. However, there is quite a bit of science about the effects of niacin on Hdl and cholesterol particle size. In my mind, these support Hofer's claims about life span.
Here are 2 links to graphs showing the effects of dosing on lipidproteins.
Effect of Niacin on Lipoproteins
Efficacy of extended-release niacin
Both size and quantity do matter.
On Aug 09, 2011 at 1:05 pm Larry Hobbs wrote:
. . . . .
In a speech he gave, Dr. Hoffer noted that he gave large doses of niacin and vitamin C and many other supplements to cancer patients, and, on average, they lived considerably longer than cancer patients given typical medical treatments.
I assume Dr. Hoffer talks about this in his book on niacin called "Feel Better, Live Longer with Vitamin B-3: Nutrient Deficiency and Dependency".
Also see this YouTube video of Linus Pauling talking about Dr. Hoffer treating 300 cancer patients.
Linus Pauling on Abram Hoffer's cancer research (1993)
Please feel free to share your comments about this article.
© Copyright 2003-2014 - Larry Hobbs - All Rights Reserved.