3 ms·

1. No, because the specifics change every week. One week you're deficient in fiber, the next Vitamin D. Look to the mainstream news or online articles for this

1. No, because the specifics change every week. One week you're deficient in fiber, the next Vitamin D. Look to the mainstream news or online articles for this ridiculousness. 2. Maybe consider looking at modern research. https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-central/blog/2020/yun-cantley-vitamin-c https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-cent... > Nevermind that Pauling's vitamin C theories have been thoroughly disproven. Nothing in science is proven. Only re-evaluated.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
The funny thing about the link that you give is that the hypothesis around intravenous Vitamin C is literally the exact opposite around Pauling's beliefs of oral vitamin C. That is, taken intravenously, Vitamin C generates free radicals like hydrogen peroxide that are particularly dangerous to cancer cells. This is the exact opposite of oral administration of Vitamin V where it acts as an antioxidant.
- thenerdhead 3y ago
  Maybe read his book so you can hear what he has to say about it rather than your interpretation of it. Anyway, the article I linked summarizes it fine too: > So why did the Pauling and Mayo Clinic trials have different results? There are at least two crucial differences. First, the Mayo Clinic trials abruptly stopped the ascorbate administration, switching to traditional chemotherapy, when the patient developed signs of tumor progression. Thus, the overall median time of vitamin C treatment under the Mayo Clinic trials was only 2.5 months, while the Pauling and Cameron trials treated patients for the duration of the entire study period or as long as 12 years. Secondly, the Mayo Clinic trials administered 10 g of daily ascorbate to patients only orally, while the Cameron and Pauling trials administered their vitamin C both orally and intravenously. This difference in the two dosage routes proved highly consequential.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

The funny thing about the link that you give is that the hypothesis around intravenous Vitamin C is literally the exact opposite around Pauling's beliefs of oral vitamin C. That is, taken intravenously, Vitamin C generates free radicals like hydrogen peroxide that are particularly dangerous to cancer cells. This is the exact opposite of oral administration of Vitamin V where it acts as an antioxidant.

thenerdhead 3y ago
Maybe read his book so you can hear what he has to say about it rather than your interpretation of it. Anyway, the article I linked summarizes it fine too: > So why did the Pauling and Mayo Clinic trials have different results? There are at least two crucial differences. First, the Mayo Clinic trials abruptly stopped the ascorbate administration, switching to traditional chemotherapy, when the patient developed signs of tumor progression. Thus, the overall median time of vitamin C treatment under the Mayo Clinic trials was only 2.5 months, while the Pauling and Cameron trials treated patients for the duration of the entire study period or as long as 12 years. Secondly, the Mayo Clinic trials administered 10 g of daily ascorbate to patients only orally, while the Cameron and Pauling trials administered their vitamin C both orally and intravenously. This difference in the two dosage routes proved highly consequential.