Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

someone_actually_ t1_j97bjv0 wrote

Reply to comment by basmwklz in Pharmacological vitamin C inhibits mTOR signaling and tumor growth by degrading Rictor and inducing HMOX1 expression (Feb 2023) by basmwklz

Linus Pauling must be feeling vindicated

16

Xw5838 t1_j981yy0 wrote

Just like William Colby with bacterial immunotherapy before it even had a name. Ignored then vindicated.

And back in the 70's Pauling found that intravenous Vitamin C significantly extended the lifespans of cancer patients in studies.

The Mayo Clinic in a fake attempt to "replicate" the findings only used the pill version of Vitamin C in their own study to the tune of around 10 grams. The results were negative and they crowed that Vitamin C doesn't work. And that was that.

Other researchers though who properly replicated the findings got positive results.

Now the science behind it is that Vitamin C produces Hydrogen Peroxide in cancer cells which basically shreds them via oxidation because they don't have as much catalase in them like normal cells which neutralizes the H202.

As for why doctors don't prescribe it to all cancer patients. It's obvious. Vitamin C can't be patented. So there's no money in it.

7

discretion t1_j98x25t wrote

This can't be true, can it? Oncologists everywhere are so beholden to pharmaceutical companies that they won't prescribe vitamin C intravenously? This sounds like a thing I would've heard of by now, a vast global conspiracy to deny cancer patients across the globe a simple and cheap cure.

11

SaltZookeepergame691 t1_j9a94us wrote

No, it is not true. There are some elements of truth (eg, the patentability of vitamin C [and any unpatentable agent] does hinder research, but that ignores that a lot of research is done/funded by not-for-profit/governmental agencies around the world), but it is not a 'global conspiracy' to suppress a miracle cure.

I think it's also worth pointing out that enthusiasm in medicine in general is pretty tempered because with vitamin C we've been here quite a lot before. Eg, IV doses were heavily promoted by some fringe medics as being a revolutionary cure (ie, reducing death by nearly 90%) in sepsis ICU patients, but we now know that risk of death is at the very least not decreased and in is often increased by high doses. I think IV vitamin C is a difficult sell to funders, when there are many such potential avenues to investigate. There is some promising preclinical evidence, eg in this study, and it may be that there will be a new wave of trials as that evidence accumulates to convince people.

7

Daaru_ t1_j99rwsw wrote

It's like the plot of Dallas Buyers' Club, if any research suggests that something expensive is better then it will be used regardless of how efficacious it is. It's not black and white like a conspiracy and instead varying shades of grey. Vitamin C gave mixed results without toxicity instead of chemotherapy drugs giving mostly positive results with toxicity being a common side effect, so the latter is more medically sound for treating the issue for doctors. You learn pretty quickly that many doctors accept harmful side effects if the issue is treated at the expense of the patients.

1

rdizzy1223 t1_j9amn5n wrote

If I have cancer I will also gladly accept harmful side effects if the issue is treated, at the expense of myself. You'd have to be a dolt not to.

1

vipw t1_j9ecjbh wrote

In a palliative setting, it makes a lot of sense to use treatments with fewer side effects even if the effectiveness is worse.

The cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs have truly horrible side effects.

1