Vit C and Cancer (Blog)

In this Piece, I will examine the controversy of Vitamin C in oncology (Part A) and conclude with the human body’s physiological need of Vitamin C and Holistic Oncology (Part B).

Part A

Vitamin C in Oncology: Controversy based on Flawed Methodology

During the 1970s, the evidence showed that Vitamin C positively impacted terminal cancer patients. (Source)  These terminal cancer patients treated with vitamin C lived 4 times longer and sometimes 20 times longer. (Source)
But studies in the 1980s found no such benefit and mainstream oncologists attributed this negative result to case-selection bias. However, in the 1990s, it was ascertained that the negative results of the 80s was based on oral vitamin C. (Source)  Whereas the successes in the 1970s were based on  Vitamin C given intravenously. (Source) Since the 1990s,  the evidence has shown that regression, remission, and cure have been achieved in individual cases of advanced kidney cancer, bladder cancer, and lymphoma (Source).

Putting this controversy to the Test

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic decided to put vitamin C to the test by comparing two cohorts. However, the survival curves for both groups of patients were essentially identical. (Source)  The, the evidence showed that there was a systematic bias in terms of which historic controls were chosen to compare with the treatment group (Source).

In this perspective, the eminent two times Nobel laureate Professor Linus Pauling argued that the prior chemotherapy in nearly all the Mayo Clinic study patients had negated the effect of the vitamin C, because vitamin C works by boosting the immune system, so if the immune system is first destroyed by chemo or radiation, adding more vitamin C can’t prosper. (Source) In effect, Pauling was right, in the original vitamin C study that showed remarkable benefit, only 4 out of the 100 patients had ever received chemo.

To resolve this issue, the Mayo Clinic scientists performed another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study  on patients with advanced cancer, but this time, those who had no prior chemotherapy. They diligently showed that the vitamin C group failed to prosper.   The cancer in the vitamin C group progressed just as rapidly, and the patients on the placebo sugar pills lived just as long. (Source)

 The limitations of the Mayo Clinic’s Analysis

Because the prestigious Mayo studies were taken as definitive, the medical community concluded that vitamin C was useless if not harmful, as the sugar placebo cancer group actually did better than the vitamin C group. (Source)

The issue is based on the type of vitamin C that was used. While Science had proven that IVs of vitamin C are much more effective than oral vitamin C,  the Mayo Clinic scientists still tested the above mentioned hypothesis with oral vitamin C.

In the original study, Pauling and his researchers started out infusing 10 grams of vitamin C a day intravenously, (Source)whereas in both of the Mayo studies designed to replicate the protocol, the researchers just gave people vitamin C supplements to take orally. Patients were sent home to swallow 20 capsules a day. They got the same dose of 10 grams. (Source)

However, the Mayo scientists should have known that oral, liposomal, food and oral vitamin C  are substantially different in terms of bio-assimilation. (Source) In effect, the hard evidence shows that vitamin C concentration in our bloodstream is regulated by our vitamin C transport mechanism, according to which the body stops its absorption one there is around 200 mg of Vitamin C in the bloodstream. (Source)  Eating 200 mg fruits to taken 2,500 mg of vitamin C pills has very different physiological effects, therein, the level in the bloodstream only goes up 3 mg per liter or quart of blood (Source) while intravenous injection that bypass the intestinal absorption system are 100 to 200 times that level. (Source A and Source B)

The Standard of Care in Integrative Oncology

IV vitamin C therapy is a common practice in integrative oncology, in one study,  86 percent of 172 practitioners used this technique. (Source) This eans that thousands of cancer patients have been treated with this type of Vitamin C.

Use with chemo and  radiation.

This section under construction

Prooxidant versus antioxidant.

Part B

Holistic Oncology

Holistic oncology respects the body’s Vitamin C physiologyby using the best fruits and vegetables that have flavonoid rich vitamin C. A single serving of fruits and vegetables may have about 50 mg each, so just five servings of fruits and veggies a day is sufficient for prevention. (Source)

Because vitamin C is reabsorbed in our kidneys back into our bloodstream to maintain our vitamin C blood levels around 70 or 80 micromoles per liter, which is what we reach at a vitamin C intake of about 200 mg a day, there is no need to supplement or even give high vitamin C foods all day. 200 mg is also the optimal dose for stroke prevention. (Source) Even if we take ten times as much in vitamin C in foods, like  2,000 mg a day, our body will just urinate and poop out the excess to keep our blood levels in that narrow range of 70 to 80 micromoles per liter. Antioxidant supplements don’t even protect from cardiovascular events like heart attacks. (Source)

On the other hand, when there are serious diseases and medical conditions like cancer,  pneumonia and sepsis, we do recommend mega-doses of Vitamin C, but in the right ratio with other elements and via key superfoods and lyposomal vitamin C. While the body’s 200 mg of vitamin C is its natural threshold, when there is a serious disease, the body will absorb more than 200 mg. There are different ways to tweak that threshold for the good of the body. At the HM Institute, we have  different protocols that readers can be coached on.


As mammals, we should be able to produce our own vitamin C as mice and so many other vertebrate animals. We are only missing a key enzyme that would allow us to do this. This evolutionary design compels us to choose wisely our foods so that we get way more quality vitamin C that the mere 15 mg that the Government recommends, in particular for the prevention of scurvy.

The original studies of the 1970s proved beyond any reasonable doubt that IV vitamin C was effective against cancer. (Source)Instead of corroborating these findings via clinical trials using the same IV methodology the Mayo scientists willingly used supplements on patients whose immune system were devastated with chemotherapy. When they were criticized for their flawed results, they tested their hypothesis on patients who did not have chemo, but still with vitamin C supplementation. By not testing IV vitamin C, the Mayo scientists confirm either their their incompetence and or bath faith with regard this issue. This story sounds like the anti-cancer Vitamin B 17 apricot kernel one that involved another prestigious cancer research clinic, Sloan Kettering. Just recently, its main cancer director had to resign because he has failed to disclose the millions of dollars he received from the cancer industry.

Pr. J.

Article under construction

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

error: Content is protected !!