3 ms·
I wouldn't say that "But if this work makes some headlines of the “Linus Pauling was right” sort, don’t believe them" is a political position. Pauling was wrong
by SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
I wouldn't say that "But if this work makes some headlines of the “Linus Pauling was right” sort, don’t believe them" is a political position. Pauling was wrong: he didn't say "High dose IV vitamin C is helpful", he said (paraphrased) "High dose IV vitamin C is helpful because it is an antioxidant". But it's not an antioxidant, as this paper shows, it's an oxidant! It's helpful, but for exactly the wrong reason, and low-dose vitamin C is an antioxidant, which is harmful! So if Pauling were correct you'd expect other antioxidants to help, but they also cause harm (in oncology).
- agumonkey 7y agoI've been curious about balancing [anti]oxydants, do you know good texts on this ?
- 1996 7y agoSo basically this guy who said vitamin C IV in high doses fights cancer was wrong and should be never rehabilitated , because the hypothetised mechanism was the other way around? (anti oxidant -> oxidant) I think we are forgetting the most important result there: vitamin C IV in high doses fights cancer.
- SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago> I think we are forgetting the most important result there: vitamin C IV in high doses fights cancer. No, that's wrong. Vitamin C IV in high doses makes certain chemotherapy work better to fight cancer. And does so in a way that Pauling wouldn't have been able to predict, his mechanism of action would imply that it would reduce the effectiveness of the chemotherapy.