That's interesting. I was just reading about how high dose IV vitamin c can induce cell death in a wide variety of cancers, but somehow, despite this being known for decades, nobody has done rigorous research on it.

https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/news-eve...

From what I can tell there are several things like this - that have promising anti cancer effects, that just don't really get that much attention because there's not a patent possible.

Really makes me think much less of medical science. Even if you couldn't patent any thing you'd think you could get fame and fortune by devising a useful therapy.

When my wife was alive, some people in her group tried it. There's not much evidence.

>> that have promising anti cancer effects

I don't know why people gravitate towards the "simple" remedies for cancer, or pose that money making is a barrier for these remedies. Remember, research costs money! DO the funding yourself if you think there's a miracle cure here. (hint: there's not.)

> That's interesting. I was just reading about how high dose IV vitamin c can induce cell death in a wide variety of cancers, but somehow, despite this being known for decades, nobody has done rigorous research on it.

Sigh. Vitamin C quackery again.

Vitamin C at high doses is cytotoxic, so it works against rapidly dividing cells. Cancer cells also preferentially concentrate vitamin C because they are under oxidative stress.

However, just like with most of other generally cytotoxic treatments, cancer cells quickly evolve resistance to it. And the overall toxicity of vitamin C makes it uninteresting as a treatment.

It’s pretty unlikely that this is true for a few reasons:

- Doctors want the best outcomes for their patients. They’ll use whatever treatment is most effective

- Doctors want the best outcomes for themselves. If they’ve found an effective treatment that others are overlooking then they’ll seek to publish

- Patients want the best outcomes for themselves. If there is an overlooked treatment then they’ll communicate it to their doctor

it’s unlikely for an effective treatment to exist and be ignored by the medical community for decades just because something can’t be patented

One must wonder if the therapy works if it's as trivial and simple as you say.

Rarely are these things straightforward and clear cut.

That being said, I recently broke my ankle, and found that the protocols still often include 6 weeks off it, despite modern evidence largely showing zero downsides (and some benefits, especially in terms of early recovery) to weight bearing immediately - Probably costing possibly billions of dollars in lost productivity and unnecessary PT every year.

I probably shouldn't get too high on my horse about random unexplored therapies - plenty of things in medicine that are just done some way because that's how it's always been done.

Medical trials to prove its safety in human subjects -- pretty essential -- is a lengthy, multi-stage process that is extremely expensive to carry out.

This dates back to Linus Pauling: https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-C/pauling-r...

It seems that once you exceed a certain level the body just dumps it, making megadoses unviable.

IIRC medical research is really expensive, hence money-seeking is to fund it within capitalism.

Also IIRC the rewards are oversized compared to the costs, but that doesn't change that the costs are also huge. Does mean I'm generally in favour of getting every government to quadruple public spending on this though. Whatever the current spend is, we can do more.

Bullets can induce cell death in a wide variety of cancers as well.

https://xkcd.com/1217/

Deeply disappointed by the comments replying to this. I would reply to each individually, but feel like I'd get throttled by hackernews, so I'll just reply to everyone here.

---

shepherdjerred writes that this is unlikely because doctors want what is best for their patients and would notice a cure were it available.

This is kind of true. Some doctors do know about and prescribe vitamin c with typical therapy. Here is an umbrella review of hundreds of such cases documenting positive results from using vitamin C.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8812486/

The issue is not whether doctors will prescribe it - I expect anyone could ask their doctor for it. Vitamin C is safe, well tolerated, and shown to mitigate symptoms of chemotherapy. Doctors can and do prescribe it.

The issue is why an apparently promising therapy isn't getting better testing to establish whether or not it is effective despite it being known for decades.

---

adamredwoods writes that while his wife was still alive people in her group tried it.

I'd love to know more - especially type of cancer and whether the vitamin c was administered orally (no effect expected) or by IV (depending on type of cancer possible effect expected) and at what dosage.

Here's a randomized controlled trial showing substantial benefits of high dose IV vitamin C for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer - they live longer, the cancer progresses slower, and their quality of life is generally better.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39369582/

Adam goes on to suggest I should do the funding myself if I think there is a miracle cure here.

There are a couple ideas here. If I or a loved one ever develop cancer - then of course (depending on type of cancer) I would take high dose IV vitamin C, along with similar therapies that are well established as safe and potentially useful.

As far as "Doing the research myself" - honestly, I might. My path would be to construct a website compiling the research, explaining why people with cancer should try this, explaining how you can get your doctor to prescribe it to you (or, since you don't need a prescription to take vitamin c, how you can DIY), and have functionality to support people registering that they are a cancer patient who has decided to take vitamin c (or not) and give updates.

The hope with the website would be that it could compile enough raw data to become compelling to medical professionals.

---

Panzer04 asks "if the therapy works if it's as trivial and simple as you say" - why isn't it being done?

Vitamin C is sometimes used. That's why we have hundreds of case studies and, in some cases, randomized controlled trials and other experiments documenting its use and efficacy.

My comments here aren't based on what I say or think - my original source was an article explaining the research on cancer.gov. Vitamin C (again: high dose and IV administered) is known to have potential benefits for cancer patients.

---

cyberax says "Sigh. Vitamin C quackery again" and then offers a partial explanation of the mechanism for how vitamin C causes cell death in cancer cells - which is better explained in the link I originally provided.

cyberax then claims, without evidence, that cancer cells quickly evolve resistance to it. I don't believe there is any such evidence, having read several papers on this and never seeing it mentioned - nor, by my understanding, is it plausible that cancer cells could fundamentally change how they work to get immunity to this. Perhaps I'm wrong though and cyberax could supply some evidence.

I notice in the replies to cyberax pfdietz says "There is evidence that high doses of antioxidants can make cancer worse" - and then links 2 papers exploring the use of vitamin E as a cancer treatment. Vitamin E, despite sharing quite a few letters with Vitamin C, is a different thing.

---

dennis_jeeves2 writes that "Linus Pauling (of the Nobel Laureate fame) working along with some physicians did do 'rigorous' research on it".

This is not correct and explained in the first few paragraphs of my original link. Linus Pauling used orally administered vitamin C which results in weaker blood concentrations and therefore less impact on cancer. The modern method uses IV administered high dose Vitamin C (which I was careful to write in my comment).

While Pauling's method shows little effect in randomized controlled trials, high dose IV Vitamin C does show benefits.

---

insane_dreamer writes that "Medical trials to prove its safety in human subjects -- pretty essential -- is a lengthy, multi-stage process that is extremely expensive to carry out."

Pretty meaningless comment. The safety of vitamin C is already well established.

---

pjc50 also cites Linus Pauling - which, again, is explained in the first couple paragraphs of the link I originally posted. High dose orally administered vitamin C doesn't work - there are limits on how much you can increase blood concentration through oral administration, so most of the high dose is lost.

That's why, as explained in my original comment/link, the modern protocol uses IV administered vitamin C.

---

alphan0n quotes an XKCD strip saying "Bullets can induce cell death in a wide variety of cancers as well."

A bad comment because the tests I've been linked to have been in vivo, and my original link explains why this kills cancer cells and not healthy cells.

---

That's my review of the comments. I would characterize them as exceptionally uninformed - which is odd. Why would people feel the need to comment on a subject they don't know about and simultaneously refuse to read the outline I originally linked which answers all the questions and criticisms posted here?

>That's interesting. I was just reading about how high dose IV vitamin c can induce cell death in a wide variety of cancers, but somehow, despite this being known for decades, nobody has done rigorous research on it

Linus Pauling (of the Nobel Laureate fame) working along with some physicians did do 'rigorous' research on it, and I think had published a book on it. You should be able to check the Linus Pauling Institute and find literature on it. I probably did it over a decade back. Predictably he was ridiculed (IMO wrongfully) for it by people who did a very shoddy job of looking into the nuances.

The last I checked in the US the Riordan clinic offers Vit C for Cancer. There are probably several other practitioners who will not publicize that they treat patients for cancer (and several other chronic conditions) for obvious reasons.