There has been recent interest on the blog for vitamin C. This was initiated after lullabyman noted that the missing ingredient in the recent vitamin C protocol has been duration and not dose.
[My above post was truncated so I will repost.]
I have been greatly excited recently in finally gaining understanding as to why the research from the 1970s into vitamin C has taken all these decades to gain clarity.
The original results from the url below were highly impressive. The authors of this article unequivocally believed that patients benefited from vitamin C treatment. Such an opinion is difficult to dispute when 4 of the patients had fatal tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) responses within 2 weeks of initial dosing.
(To clarify for those who are unsure, TLS occurs when there is such a massive destruction of cancer cells that the body simply cannot cope. Usually when such responses do occur they are written up as novelties in medical journals. There are not many instances in the medical literature that I am aware of in which solid tumors have resulted in TLS. In the study from the 1970s, fully 4 of 50 ( possibly a 5th patient as well) i.e. 8% experienced TLS.)
www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/NHC/studien_pdf/old/the_orthomolecular_treatment_of_cancer.pdf
Such an overwhelmingly extreme anti-tumor response in those terminal patients should have stopped all further discussion of the merits of vitamin C as a cancer therapeutic. It clearly has very large anti-cancer potential. As can be seen in the above article a wide range of different cancer types had notable responses. This is even more true when you only consider the group that had a 10 gram iv per day for 10 days slow infusion vitamin C treatment. Essentially all of these patients had relatively good responses.
Why has the last 50 years of vitamin C not been so successful?
Here's an analogy: you want to go on a diet. Your plan is to starve yourself for 10-15 minutes and then go to an all you can eat buffet. Doesn't sound like a great plan does it? This is how they applied vitamin C therapy after the initial research. Instead of infusing at a rate of perhaps 1 g/hour over many hours they chose instead to use an entirely new infusion rate of roughly 1 g/minute for 90 minutes. So basically starve the cancer cells for an hour or two and then go to the buffet.
It is hard to imagine how many of these errors of route of dosing, duration, and dosing level have been made over all these decades. Science should never allow original non-replications to be considered valid unless they duplicate the original procedure to the letter. If aspects of the treatment are clearly different, then negative claims of efficacy should be understood to be entirely without scientific merit. It is not clear to me whether a true replication of the original study has ever been done.
Understanding the importance that duration even more so than yet higher maximal dosing plays in vitamin C treatment could be a key advance in helping patients. The concern of course is that if we now have the potential to amplify vitamin C therapy then TLS would become a more pressing concern.
Those on the forum might notice that I attached a spreadsheet in my first post with different treatment approaches for vitamin C, possible combinations and others. If you like you can download this file, make additions or deletions and then upload in your responding comment.
Using such spreadsheets could be a key innovation.
{I realize that we have Russians on the forum so I will be diplomatic.} I have yet to finish reading my copy of War and Peace as I have it to be somewhat long. Sometimes words can get between us and the information that we need to have. I am afraid that for too many cancer patients this has been true. They have tried to read too many War and Peace length works on cancer and they were not able to extract the information that they needed. I think that using the spread sheet method could be a very effective method of getting the knowledge to people without all the words getting in the way. Perhaps it would be an idea to add a column that had a star rating for different ideas. Posters can try out different ideas and we can provide feedback for what helps. This will make the idea even more effective!
Here's the spreadsheet for the cancer patients from 1974. You can order different columns to see how survival related to dosing etc.
@ergin, I am now excited about E260 PMID:29038547
Erg what do you think? It's a 9 step synthesis! This is the exact thing that we have been talking about for the last 5 years and they nailed it! FerT is only active in cancer and sperm cells. This is a super strong metabolic drug. There would not need to be much of a push on glycolysis, if needed, to create an energy crisis in cancer cells.
This could be such a comfort for many on the forum that need something on their shelf if other things do not work out. This one is probably even ahead of 3-BP: it is none toxic. Yet, it has not been dosed in humans, and will not be for about a year only mice studies.
6-(4-isopropylphenyl)-2-{4-[(4-methylpiperazine-1-yl)methyl]piperidin-1-yl}imidazo[2,1-b][1,3,4]thiadiazole, (2R,3R)-2,3-dihydroxybutanedioate
Hi J,
Great postings. I can't open the ods files. My mac thinks it is a zipped archive, then makes a cpgz file and thinks it is an archive, etc. Couldn't you post it in some other format? Isn't it the open office format or what is it?
Anyway, I was thinking about this discovery of vit C having to be in the blood permanently, not only for an hour or so. 1. If they can deliver insulin continuously to diabetics, couldn't that pump be used for vit C? 2. Goats make something like 14 grams vit C per day. Do they get less cancer than humans, I wonder?
ps. I read only the Peace part of War and Peace 🙂
@jcancom were you ever able to create this file in a different format to share? I would be very interested in seeing it. Thank you.
Has anyone looked into or know about using intramuscular vitamin C injections? It seems that daily IM injections might allow prolonged exposure that reaches effective serum concentrations?
Has anyone looked into or know about using intramuscular vitamin C injections? It seems that daily IM injections might allow prolonged exposure that reaches effective serum concentrations?
Hi Tim,
No, where did you read this?
@j Why wouldn't it? It's 100% bioavailable. It's just math to determine the levels reached. I don't know the math.
it would be interesting to know, I have no idea how to do the math either 🙂
@j So I asked chatGPT the question. It is notorious for making things up, but here is the answer to the question, "How did you calculate earlier that 500 mg of IM vitamin C will result in a serum concentration of 25 µmol/L?"
And the response, "The calculation was based on the formula and assumptions given in the paper "Pharmacokinetics of Vitamin C: Insights into the oral and intravenous administration of ascorbate" by Duconge et al. (2008). Specifically, the formula used to estimate the serum concentration of vitamin C after intramuscular injection is:
Cp = Dose / (Vd * F)
where Cp is the peak serum concentration, Dose is the dose of vitamin C administered, Vd is the volume of distribution, and F is the bioavailability.
For vitamin C administered intramuscularly, Duconge et al. assumed a Vd of 0.15 L/kg and a bioavailability of 100%. Using these values, a dose of 500 mg would result in a peak serum concentration of approximately 25 µmol/L."
I haven't fact-checked this yet, so beware, lol.
As you said, it makes things up, it's totally unreliable at the moment.
