Intravenous Vitamin C
Large doses of vitamin C are cytotoxic, or deadly, to
For more complete and up-to-date information, please go to his web site.
BSI Note: Following is professional commentary from a
blog about intravenous vitamin C therapy. Each paragraph reveals dosages and
protocols by various therapists, as compiled by the blog owner.
The discussion of the doses. Some of the doses are used by many practitioners, some doses are used at the clinical trials (that by some extend cause the outcome results of the trial). Definitely the most interesting are the doses used by the
1. Laboratory studies show that vitamin C kills cancer. There are three types of tumor models: the sparse model layer, the dense model layer, and the hollow fiber tumor model. Most of the solid tumors in the body are of the hollow fiber tumor model, with the sparse and dense models being found on the outer layers of the tumor. Studies show that plasma levels of just 200mgs/deciliter (one tenth of a liter) will kill all the cells in the dense and sparse models, but hardly touch the hollow fiber tumor model. At 700mgs/deciliter we get about 50% to 65% live cells remaining in the hollow fiber tumor model.
So, we know that these large doses of vitamin C are cytotoxic, or deadly, to cancer.
However, it is hard to maintain this high plasma level of vitamin C and the level sought in IV C treatment is 400mgs/deciliter.
Now for those of you taking mega doses of vitamin C orally, you should know that the most
you will ever get into your plasma is about 10mgs/deciliter. To get these higher levels, you must have vitamin C administered intravenously (through a needle directly into your
2. http://northfieldclinic.net/IntravenousVitaminC/: patients will receive roughly 50 grams of intravenous IV at a rate of 1 gram per minute. High doses of vitamin C four times a day for four weeks. Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA). http://www.cancercenter.com/research/1.cfm ,
3. Dr. Hugh Riordan of Kansas treated hundreds of cancer patients with doses of vitamin C up to 200,000 mg (200 grams) per day in infusions lasting 4-12 hours several times a week. He compiled a series of case histories documenting impressive responses, but passed recently before his work was generally acknowledged. IV vitamin C, when adminstered by a trained, experienced physician, is safe and well-tolerated, even at doses as high as 100,000 mg (100 grams) per day. Proper blood tests must be done to assure that it is well-tolerated, and the patient must be monitored. Doses must be gradually adjusted upward. Not all patients may be candidates for IV vitamin C.
Vitamin C can be safely administered even while patients are undergoing chemo and
radiation; in fact, the FDA-approved trial at Kansas University Medical Center explicitly permits the co-administration of vitamin C with conventional
4. We subsequently reported a case of resolution of bone metastases in a patient with primary breast cancer (1A) using infusions of 100 grams, once or twice per week (2).
5. In the CTCA study, the first cohort of 3 patients is being treated with 30 g/m2�approximately 50 g for an average-sized individual�vitaminC, infusions on 4 consecutive days per week for a period of 4 weeks.
6. If it is feasible to have a Hickman line put in the patient, extraordinary doses of vitamin C – anything between 50g to 100g, depending on the malignancy of the cancer, – can be self-administered at home on a daily to weekly basis over a period of months, stepping down or up in frequency according to the individual
7. The very large doses should also be built up to gradually over some days to establish good tolerance, starting at 15 grams for 1 or 2 sessions, then to 50 grams and, if necessary, to 100 grams.
8. (2008/02) NCT00626444: Drug: Intravenous vitamin C: Up to 100 gms of intravenous vitamin C, three times per week for 10 weeks.
9. To achieve this desired chemotherapeutic effect it has been found that a vitamin C blood plasma level of 400mg/dl should be attained immediately an infusion is finishing. To achieve this doses anywhere from 50 grams upwards is required – generally 75 – 100 grams although some patients are on higher doses. I would therefore recommend that all people considering this treatment come to the clinic in Auckland for several days so that the right level can be determined. Once this is established [grams required for required plasma] the clinic will write a letter of referral back to the patients local Doctor who will administer the treatments.
10. Dr Thomas Levy, (a doctor from Colorado, has painstakingly reviewed all of the research in his book Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins: Curing the Incurable). As Dr Klenner repeatedly described in his many papers, vitamin C must continue to be administered in appropriately high doses until a positive clinical response is seen, and then lower doses can be given. In other words, Dr Klenner would use whatever dose necessary to see a positive clinical response. This meant anything from 35 to 65 grams for a first dose, given intravenously. In terms of oral supplementation, take as much as you can tolerate, starting with 2 or 3 grams every three to four
11. Clinical Trial at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Jefferson’s Kimmel Cancer Center, along with the National Institutes of Health, plan to begin enrollment within the next few weeks of 20 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients.. will be given varied intravenous doses of vitamin C three times a week during the study, expected to last from 4 to 6 months”.
12. Puertorico 100-125g (see conferences video section)
13. Dr Julian Kenyon (London) “Plasma levels of vitamin C between 300-400 milligrams per 100cc are required in order to kill significant numbers of cancer cells. This requires intravenous infusions of 75 grams of vitamin C, (in some cases less, depending on the size of the patient and the tumour cell mass), infused intravenously on a daily basis for three weeks in order to be able to attain these plasma levels. It’s important to realise that the highest plasma level of vitamin C achievable in humans using oral supplementation is 4.5 milligrams per 100cc..
Our most common protocol is the use of 75 grams of vitamin C, in sterile water, with a number of minerals, particularly magnesium, zinc, chromium, selenium, B12 and some B vitamins.
The patient is infused over 2.5 hours daily for 3 weeks (excluding weekends). The vitamin C level at the end of the infusion course is tested and if this is sufficiently high then some significant tumour kill has happened. If it isn’t, then this regime may have to be repeated.
15. Loretta Hill (43), 30 grams weekly for 4 years.
16. Bill Nath 30 grams intravenously, twice a week for three months, then every month or two for four years.
17. NDC 49072-039-50, Ascorbic Acid Injection, USP, Without preservative 500 mg/mL, Sterile dispensing vial not for direct infusion”
18. Intravenous vitamin C is typically used with patient while on chemotherapy and radiation. A typical cancer patient will receive 75-80grams of intravenous vitamin C 2-3 times a week.
Intravenous Vitamin C Overview
For further reading please select from the categories in the right. I tried to compile a comprehensive list of the intravenous vitamin C news and video reports by major agencies and other interesting editorials found on the Internet. There is a number of important to know scientific publications. A constantly growing number of researchers, doctors, practitioners, universities and clinics are working in the field of theory and practice of intravenous vitamin C.
A number of Phase I and Phase II clinical trials are just launched to prove the wider community the benefits of the intravenous vitamin C therapy. As a cancer patient, one might be interested in costs, protocols, doses, supplements, contraindications and also coexistence with conventional treatments such as safety with chemotherapy and radiation. While we are waiting for results of official clinical trials, doctors and patients who could not wait are trying this new treatment. They are sharing their testimonials and conclusions on effectiveness of intravenous vitamin C treatment on a wide range of different types of cancers. New and more efficient types of vitamin C are emerging.
Thu, 05 Jan 2012
Vitamin C is generally considered to be an important “nutrient,”
but its perceived value usually ends there. Only rarely does the public (and
the medical profession) glimpse its true potential in the prevention and
treatment of disease — and this because, by legal definition (in the US),
only FDA-approved drugs can prevent, treat and cure disease.
This does not mean, however, that essential nutrients like Vitamin C cannot
in fact prevent and treat disease, i.e. only because it is illegal to speak
truthfully about something, doesn’t mean that that something isn’t true. The
National Library of Medicine, in fact, contains thousands of studies
demonstrating vitamin C’s ability to significantly improve health, with 220
disease applications documented on the research site GreenMedInfo.com
alone. The best thing ‘we the people’ can do, despite our lack of medical
degrees and licensure, and without the FDA’s iron-fisted legal and
regulatory apparatus on our side, is to use the peer-reviewed research at
our disposal to inform and protect our treatment decisions.
Perhaps we must revisit an important moment in history to regain a sense of
how profoundly vitamin C deficiency and vitamin C therapy can affect health.
James Lind (1716-1794), pioneer of naval hygiene in the British Royal Navy,
conducted the first ever clinical trial proving that citrus fruits cured
scurvy. Lind’s discovery saved tens of thousands of seamen from the ravages
of scurvy, spurring England’s naval supremacy, putatively changing the
course of world history.
If significant historical events like these don’t provide enough evidence to
vindicate the efficacy of nutrients like Vitamin C, molecular biology and
the science of genetics can help to fill in the gaps.
It is a little known and under-appreciated fact that all humans are
born with a serious, life-threatening genetic defect: namely, the inability
to manufacture Vitamin C.
This defect occurred approximately 63 million years ago, when our haplorrhini
(“simple nosed”) primate predecessors lost the gene (Gulnolactone
oxidase pseudogene – GULOP), responsible for the manufacture of Vitamin C
The ability to synthesize Vitamin C, in fact, has been lost several times in
vertebrates, e.g. in guinea pigs, some bats, some fishes, passeriform birds
and in primates of the suborder Haplorrhini, which includes monkes,
apes and humans.
It was Linus Pauling, two time Nobel Laurette, and the world’s foremost
vitamin C proponent, who first brought this inborn error of metabolism to
popular light. Pauling advocated taking large doses of Vitamin C (up to
10-12 grams a day) in order to offset the deficiencies of our modern diet.
He believed that it was our movement away from a vitamin C rich
fruit-and-vegetable based diet that explained the modern epidemic of heart
According to this perspective, without adequate Vitamin C we are unable to
produce the collagen necessary to heal our arteries. The Vitamin C starved
body compensates for this by increasing the production of a very small and
sticky type of cholesterol known as lipoprotein A, which leads to the
formation of atheromatous plaque (clogged arteries). Linus Pauling advocated
taking large amounts of vitamin C in combination with the amino acid lysine
to reverse the damage done to the arteries, and to prevent recurrence.*
Indeed, a study published in 2008 showed that higher plasma
vitamin C levels are associated with a significantly reduced risk of stroke.
Scientists from the clinical gerontology unit at Addnbrooke’s University
Hospital in Cambridge, UK, tracked 20,649 men and women aged 40 to 79 years,
between 1993 and 1997. The group was followed through March 2005.
Individuals who had the highest vitamin C levels showed a 42% reduction in
stroke risk! If you compare this with Plavix’s 8.7 – 9.4% risk reduction,
and the profound side effects drugs like these generate, one begins to
understand why the media projection of “vitamins are toxic”
propaganda serves only the interests of the drug companies.
The history of vitamin C illustrates just how profoundly important it is for
us to get these vital nutrients known as “vitamins,” and that they
are best derived from food. If we choose to overlook the importance of
vitamins in maintaining health, and yes, even preventing and reversing
disease, we will be forced to accept a pharmaceutically driven medical
perspective that believes that health is the absence of symptoms, and that
symptoms are to be combated or driven back deep into our bodies with
sublethal dosages of toxic chemicals, i.e. drugs. Such as perspective on
disease is itself so diseased that there is no escaping the ill health that
results from it. We must remember that there has never been a disease that
has been caused by a lack of a drug…..therefore, why would it ever be
considered sound medical practice to treat disease with drugs, as a first
line of treatment?
*If Linus Pauling and other Vitamin C researchers are correct and a
deficiency of Vitamin C causes the breakdown of collagen in the artery,
aspirin therapy, which causes Vitamin C deficiency, would not be considered
a safe way to reduce cardiac mortality. To the contrary, it would further
destabilize the strength and elasticity of the artery leading to hemorrhage,
which is the primary deadly side effect of aspirin therapy.
Vitamin C Prevents Radiation Damage
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service
Wed, 01 Feb 2012
� Tepco/AFP/Getty Images
Fukushima: Tepco says as a precaution it has poured a mixture of water and boric acid, which helps prevent nuclear reactions, into the reactor.
Workers with severe radiation exposure at the Fukushima nuclear plant had major reduction in cancer risk when supplemented with vitamin C and other anti-oxidative nutrients. Sixteen men aged between 32 and 59 years worked 5 to 6 weeks in a radiation contaminated area, collecting contaminated water, measuring radiation levels, operating heavy machinery, and removing debris. Blood samples were obtained to measure whole blood counts and blood chemistry, plasma levels of free DNA, and 47 cancer related gene expressions.
Four workers who took intravenous vitamin C (25,000 mg) therapy before they went in, and continuously took anti-oxidative supplements during the working period, had no significant change in both free DNA and overall cancer risk.
Three workers that did not have preventive intravenous vitamin C had an increase in calculated cancer risk. After 2 months of intervention with intravenous vitamin C and oral anti-oxidative nutritional supplements, free DNA returned to normal level and cancer risk score was significantly decreased. (1)
This important clinical demonstration confirms research done nearly 20 years ago showing that pretreatment with vitamin C, by oral intake or injection, increased sperm head survival after the injection of radioactive Iodine-131 in mice. (2)
Oral intake of alpha-lipoic acid and vitamin E reduced urinary radioactivity and oxidative stress in irradiated children in Chernobyl. (3) Furthermore, there have been numerous scientific studies about the radio-protective effects of other vitamins, minerals, and antioxidative nutrients.
OMNS in Japanese
We are pleased to announce that OMNS is now published in Japanese. As of today, OMNS-JPN http://iv-therapy.jp/omns/ is online and free access. If you go to it via Google or other major search engines, they or your internet browser may offer a page-translate function that can give you an idea of what Japan’s 125 million people may now read in their own language.
We welcome to our Editorial Board many distinguished Japanese colleagues. Atsuo Yanagisawa, MD, PhD is General Editor of OMNS-Japan. Dr. Yanagisawa is President of the Japanese College of Intravenous Therapy and is a member of the Orthomolecular Hall of Fame. Other members of the editorial board include Ken Kitahara; Toru Mizoguchi, MD; Ryozo Saito, MD; and Tomomi Himeno, MD. A welcome statement to Japanese readers from OMNS Editor-In-Chief Andrew W. Saul is at http://iv-therapy.jp/omns/news/2.html
Japan is a leader in employing nutritional medicine including high-dose nutrient therapy, intravenous vitamin C treatments, the Gerson Therapy, and other effective and safe modalities.
If you are a skilled translator interested in having more orthomolecular information available in your country, and would like to volunteer to make it happen, please let us know at the contact email address below.
We would like to get the good news out in every language.
1. Yanagisawa A. Effect of Vitamin C and anti-oxidative nutrition on radiation-induced gene expression in Fukushima nuclear plant workers. Free download of full presentation here:
2. Venkat R. Narra, Roger W. Howell, Kandula S. R. Sastry and Dandamudi V. Rao. J Nucl Med,1993. Vol. 34 No. 4, p 637-640.
3. Korkina L, et al. Antioxidant therapy in children affected by irradiation from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Biochem Soc Trans,1993. 21:314S. PMID:
Intravenous Vitamin C
As Cancer Therapy
By Orthomolecular Medicine News
April 18, 2011
Free Access to Twenty-One Expert Video
Scientists have long studied the effects of mega-doses of vitamin C
to treat a wide variety of illnesses and diseases. Research documents vitamin
C as one of the best antiviral agents available. Vitamin C has been shown to
neutralize and eliminate a wide range of toxins, and to enhance host
resistance, greatly augmenting the immune system’s ability to neutralize
bacterial and fungal infections. Most importantly, there is extensive
published research demonstrating vitamin C’s anti-cancer properties. (1)
In the 1970s, Hugh D. Riordan, M.D. and colleagues began studying the
underlying causes of cancer and ways to treat cancer in a non-toxic fashion.
From this research came the Riordan Intravenous Vitamin C Protocol for Cancer.
(2) This protocol is widely recognized in the integrative and orthomolecular
medicine community and is commonly used as an effective adjunct to
conventional oncologic therapy.
Oncologist Victor Marcial, M.D., has experience using it. He says:
“We studied patients with advanced cancer (stage 4). 40 patients received
40,000-75,000 mg intravenously several times a week. . . In addition, they
received a diet and other supplements. The initial tumor response rate was
achieved in 75% of patients, defined as a 50% reduction or more in tumor size.
. . As a radiation oncologist, I also give radiation therapy. Vitamin C has
two effects. It increases the beneficial effects of radiation and chemotherapy
and decreases the adverse effects. But this is not a subtle effect, is not
15-20%, it’s a dramatic effect. Once you start using IV vitamin C, the effect
is so dramatic that it is difficult to go back to not using it.” (3)
In 2009 and 2010, Riordan IV-C and Cancer Symposiums brought together
medical professionals, researchers and IV-C practitioners from the United
States and abroad. The latest advancements in intravenous vitamin C cancer
therapy were presented in detail, recorded on video, and are now available for
free access at http://www.riordanclinic.org/education/symposium/2009.shtml
(twelve lectures) and http://www.riordanclinic.org/education/symposium/2010.shtml
OMNS readers are urged to have their physicians (especially
oncologists) watch these important presentations.
(1) Free access to full text papers at http://www.riordanclinic.org/research/journal-articles.shtml and
(2) Download the Riordan protocol free of charge at http://www.doctoryourself.com/RiordanIVC.pdf or
(3) Presentation at the Medical Sciences Campus, University of Puerto
Rico, April 12, 2010.
Also of Interest:
Video clip: Is Vitamin C Better than Chemo for Cancer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxveVAMir4o&feature=related or
YouTube access to Riordan IV-C Symposium Videos. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=riordan+ivc+symposium&aq=f
If your hospital or doctor says that the hospital will not allow IV
vitamin C: http://www.doctoryourself.com/strategies.html
If your hospital or doctor says that IV C is illegal: http://www.doctoryourself.com/VC.NZ.Sept.2010.pdf
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to
fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a
non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person.
Why is “Hot Chemo” an Acceptable Cancer Treatment –
But IV Vitamin C is “Too Far Out There”?
Alliance for Natural Health
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00 CST
Patients liken hot chemotherapy to “being filleted, disemboweled, and then bathed in hot poison.” Best patient care, or merely the biggest moneymaker?
According to the New York Times, hot chem
otherapy, which couples extensive abdominal surgery with blasts of heated chemotherapy to the abdominal cavity and its organs, was once a niche procedure used mainly against rare cancers of the appendix. Most academic medical centers shunned it. Now it’s being offered to patients to treat more common colorectal or ovarian cancers.
Dr. David P. Ryan, clinical director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, says there is little evidence that it really works and “has almost no basis in science.” The treatment is extremely costly, and is something of a desperation move by leading medical centers because the competition for patients and treatments is so intense.
So why is this dangerous, scientifically unsound, and outrageously expensive procedure considered a viable treatment option for cancer patients, when intravenous vitamin C – safe, effective, and far less expensive – is questioned as an adjunct therapy? Why is this common vitamin, administered in high doses intravenously, labeled an unapproved drug by a hostile FDA?
Why also is the nutritional advice for cancer patients from the American Dietetic Association so half-hearted? It seems more focused on stopping weight loss during chemotherapy or radiotherapy than it is about using nutritional and other natural factors to help rebuild immunity and get the body more into balance. Could it be because the organization gets about $1 million a year in payments from pharmaceutical companies?
You know the old saying: just follow the money. As we reported previously, oncologists are the only doctors allowed to sell – and profit from – their own drugs. Oncologists can buy chemo drugs at a deep discount and then dispense them at the higher rate in their offices. It lets oncologists run a kind of pharmacy as a side business, and represents a considerable part of some oncologists’ income. Contrast that with intravenous C.
Because it is a vitamin, IV-C is inexpensive, and it cannot be patented, so no one makes any serious money. Oncologists lose the financial incentive to prescribe it.
The overtreatment of minor cancers is a growing problem. This is especially the case for prostate and breast cancer. Not long ago, prostate cancer was commonly detected with a digital rectal examination, which revealed palpable neoplasms. PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing detected many more cancers – which led to many more biopsies and treatments. However, the observation that the number of cancer deaths stayed the same suggests that a substantial percentage of cases are unlikely to progress. Still, about 90% of diagnosed men seek immediate “curative treatment,” which in theconventional medicine world means chemo and surgery.
There is some good news – the tide may be turning, albeit very slowly. A recent statement from NIH stated that “active surveillance” is a viable option as treatment for low-risk cancers. This is a blow to the current standard of care touted by mainstream medicine.
At the same time, the active surveillance approach also recommends multiple biopsies to monitor the progression of the tumor. This is extremely problematic for several reasons. First, even the NIH admits that infection through biopsy is one of the side effects of active surveillance.
As we reported last year, studies from three countries show that infectious complications from prostate biopsies have more than doubled in less than a decade. As much as five percent of prostate biopsies develop infections from the procedure – or about 50,000 Americans every year, and an equal number in Europe. Nine out of 10,000 men whose tests were negative for prostate cancer died within a month from sepsis and other complications, according to a recent study in the Journal of Urology.
The greater risk, however, is that biopsies can cause cancers to spread, usually along the path of the biopsy needle, a phenomenon called “needle track seeding.” A 2004 study concluded that manipulation of an intact tumor, either by fine needle biopsy or by large-gauge needle core biopsy, is associated with an increase in metastases, perhaps due in part to the mechanical disruption of the tumor by the needle.
Another study suggests needle track seeding as a possible occurrence with breast biopsies, and concludes that the cancer may recur “if the tract is not excised or radiotherapy not given.” So the way to fix the spread of a cancer via biopsy is to do more surgery and/or radiation! This is exactly what happened to a 62-year-old woman whose needle biopsy caused the cancer in her breast to extend the full length of the needle tract. She ended up losing her entire breast because of the biopsy when only an excision was originally needed.
The Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark has studied the effects of mammography on breast cancer risk. They found that for every 2,000 women screened, only one will have her life prolonged, while ten will be treated unnecessarily because of “overdiagnosis” and will in the process be more likely to suffer future cancer and other complications. This kind of early, over-detection causes oncologists to administer conventional treatments even though, if the cancer had been left alone, the cancers in most cases would likely have been managed and controlled naturally by the body.
Why does over-diagnosis and over-treatment like this continue? Like chemotherapy treatments, cancer screenings are big moneymakers. This is wrong on so many levels. Hot chemo? Biopsies that spread malignancies? Taking away our right to opt for intravenous vitamin C, basically mandating a one-poison-fits-all, one-size-kills-all approach to cancer? It would seem that if you rely solely on conventional medicine to diagnose and treat cancer, you may go broke from the horrendous expense – but you may also get sicker and die sooner.