FDA and Intravenous Vitamin C Cancer Therapy

orange slices


According to the Wall St. Journal, it’s the patients and doctors that put enormous pressure on the FDA to provide fast access to new cancer drugs.

That’s preposterous!

It’s laughable to imagine that FDA officials listen to you and me and our doctors, and then make decisions based on the urgency of our needs. Drugs get fast-track approval when Big Pharma puts pressure on the FDA. It’s got NOTHING to do with some imaginary pressure from patients.

If FDA officials actually listened to patients, they wouldn’t be trying to cut off the use of intravenous ascorbic acid (IAA) as a cancer-fighter..

In many case studies, IAA has shown GENUINELY promising results–sometimes actually CURING cancer. And there’s no worry about adverse events. Other than loose bowels, virtually no patients experience any side effects from IAA.

So who do you suppose would be putting “enormous pressure” on the FDA to have the cheap, natural, available-without-a-prescription cancer treatment off the market? Oh, yes…it MUST be the cancer patients they’re listening to.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson www.hsionline.com


Intravenous Vitamin C


…and another thing

It always amazes me how low the bar is set for “breakthrough” cancer drugs.

Take Nexavar, a Bayer drug that treats liver and kidney cancers. Forbes calls it a “blockbuster” and an “innovative” medicine.

Currently, there’s a controversy around the drug because a court in India has tried to order Bayer to make the drug available at generic prices so it can be given to Indian patients who can’t afford it.

In India, Nexavar costs $69,000 for a year of treatment — a cost that’s more than 40 times the Indian per capita income.

The price for 10-months of Nexavar treatment in the U.S. is $80,000.

And what do you get in return for that stunning sticker shock?

In 2007, Cancer Focus reported on a study that tested Nexavar tablets in liver cancer patients. Results showed that the drug “significantly extended overall survival” compared to placebo.

But the key word there is “overall.” We’re not talking about the kind of survival where you actually beat cancer and then go on to live out a relatively normal life.

Here are the revealing numbers: The average overall survival of patients who received placebo was 7.9 months. In the Nexavar group it was 10.7 months.

This is primarily what cancer research does these days: Enormously expensive drugs are developed for the potential (no promises) of a few additional weeks of life.

You know what would be a true breakthrough? A drug that kills cancer cells, but leaves healthy cells intact and doesn’t prompt hideous side effects. You know…something like intravenous vitamin C.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson www.hsionline.com


June 4, 2012

“Dear Reader,

I have wonderful news from England. I just wish it were true.

I recently came across an article about intravenous ascorbic acid (IAA) in a UK newspaper.

As I’ve mentioned before, IAA is an excellent cancer-fighter. IAA kills several types of cancer cells, but leaves healthy cells unharmed. And if you’re thinking that sounds like chemo without the side effects, you’re right.

Danielle, a woman in a London suburb, is trying to arrange IAA treatments for cervical cancer. She tells The Enquirer that you can get IAA everywhere but the UK. Then she adds, “In America it is given automatically.”

From your lips to FDA officials’ ears, Danielle!

Brutal misuse

Clearly, someone has misinformed Danielle about IAA use in the U.S.

Chemo and radiation. That’s the full range of “automatic” cancer treatment in this country. Surgery is sometimes an option, of course. Ultrasound techniques are emerging. But chemo and radiation are the go-to treatments in the vast majority of cases.

And I don’t have to tell you, they’re both brutal.

We all know how ghastly chemotherapy can be. But most people are unaware that chemo is often prescribed to the wrong patients at the wrong time.

Several years ago, I told you about a chemo study that analyzed medical records of nearly 8,000 cancer patients. Researchers found a disturbing trend in cases where patients received chemo in the final six months of life. One-third of these patients had cancers that are unresponsive to chemotherapy!

So you take cancer, which is a horror to begin with. You add a ghastly treatment. And then, in many cases, that treatment is inappropriate. Which is despicable. There literally aren’t words strong enough to sum up that level of misery.

And yet, THIS is what passes for automatic cancer treatment in the U.S.

Long-term limbo

Now just imagine the America Danielle describes in her comment to The Enquirer.

In that world, your oncologist would start by determining if IAA would be a good treatment for your cancer.

In cases where it’s not considered effective, it’s still useful. Several years ago an HSI member wrote to tell us that her doctor gave her IAA during her chemo sessions. Her recovery was successful. But she also didn’t suffer the worst chemo side effects. The IAA prevented nausea and hair loss.

Clearly, IAA should be automatic for many patients. But we’re a very long way from that point.

Last year, I told you about an FDA action against an IAA manufacturer. The agency shut down the operation for safety and other violations. But in the process, agency officials revealed something unexpected. AND shocking.

IAA is an unapproved drug, according to the FDA.

This was devastating news. In effect, FDA officials gave notice that they have the authority to shut down all IAA production and use.

Fortunately, that hasn’t happened. Not yet.

I recently spoke with a doctor who uses IAA in his practice. He’s quite familiar with the FDA situation. Nevertheless, he says he has no problem obtaining supplies of IAA. And so far, nobody has ordered him to stop using it.

There’s no telling where all this may lead. Apparently, the agency will tolerate IAA if a few doctors here and there use it. But if its popularity grows and drug companies fear competition to chemo drugs, the FDA could step in at any time.

This is terrible for the long-term security of our health care. But it’s good news for anyone who needs this treatment right now.

You can locate doctors in your area who take a natural approach to cancer treatment and other health issues. Just check the Find a Doc feature here on our HSI website.”

Jenny Thompson, www.hsionline.com


iHealthTube.comIs Change Coming in Cancer Treatment?

NOTE ADDED 12/19/2012

“The power of vitamin C never fails to amaze me.   We’ve seen how intravenous mega-doses can kill cancer cells. And it does this with zero damage to healthy cells.  That puts C in the ranks of great medical treatments. But intravenous ascorbic acid (IAA) has much more to offer. Apparently, it works a small miracle in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

The Riordan Clinic is the leader in IAA research. Riordan researchers recently tested IAA on RA patients. All subjects had elevated levels of C-reactive protein. As I’ve mentioned before, CRP measures inflammation.  IAA doses up to 50 grams cut CRP levels almost in half. Patients also reported significant pain reduction.

The Riordan team believes that cartilage has a chance to regenerate when C neutralizes oxidative stress.   And there’s an added bonus. Reduced inflammation also cuts risk of cardiovascular problems.

C… It’s just amazing.   To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson, www.hsionline.com

“Intravenous Vitamin C administration reduces fatigue in office workers: a double-blind randomized controlled trial” Nutrition Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, January 2012, springerlink.com


…and another thing

The power of vitamin C never fails to amaze me.

We’ve seen how intravenous mega-doses can kill cancer cells. And it does this with zero damage to healthy cells.

That puts C in the ranks of great medical treatments. But intravenous ascorbic acid (IAA) has much more to offer. Apparently, it works a small miracle in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

The Riordan Clinic is the leader in IAA research. Riordan researchers recently tested IAA on RA patients. All subjects had elevated levels of C-reactive protein. As I’ve mentioned before, CRP measures inflammation.

IAA doses up to 50 grams cut CRP levels almost in half. Patients also reported significant pain reduction.

The Riordan team believes that cartilage has a chance to regenerate when C neutralizes oxidative stress.

And there’s an added bonus. Reduced inflammation also cuts your risk of cardiovascular problems.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

“Effect of high dose intravenous ascorbic acid on the level of inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis” Modern Research in Inflammation, Vol. 1, No. 2, October 2012, scrip.org/journal


Both comments and pings are currently closed.

10 Responses to “FDA and Intravenous Vitamin C Cancer Therapy”

  1. mgadmin says:

    Intravenous Vitamin C as a treatment for cancer

    A few months ago, I watched the documentary FOOD MATTERS on Netflix. In that documentary, several speakers mentioned clinical experience with using high doses of intravenous Vitamin C (50,000 grams – 100,000 grams) as treatment for cancer. I have found sporadic web pages where individual doctors mention using this therapy, but I have been unable to locate any consolidated information on what forms of cancer have been successfully treated with IV Vitamin C. Does anyone know success stories and unsuccessful anecdotes about IV Vitamin C?

  2. VITAMIN C USED AS A CURE FOR Cancer. H.L. Newbold (an orthomolecular psychiatrist) wrote a very interesting book “Vitamin C Against Cancer” (published by Scarborough and probably available thru your local library on order). In this book, he tells of the experiment that was conducted by Linus Pauling in Scotland.

    1. persons were selected that were all “terminal” from cancer. Terminal in this case means that they had 3-6 months to live. Then, out of this 1100, only 100 cases were taken at random and these patients given no other therapy than 10 grams (10,000 mg) per day of vitamin C. (Today, I would use “bowel tolerance to determine actual dosages.)

    At the end of a year, all 1000 “control” patients had died. BUT, wonder of wonders – over half of the 100 taking vitamin C still lived. What’s more, some of these had complete remission of their cancer! And they didn’t know (at that time) that vitamin C has no, or little effect, on cancers mediated by hormones.

    I read this book around 1982 and since I had read other books by Dr. Newbold, I respected his writings and of course, I really respected Dr Pauling – the only two time winner of Nobel Prizes.

    So, a few weeks later, a man came to me with a terminal case of colon cancer. He was in his 50’s and he had come to me for a hypnotic tape similar to Dr. Simonton’s hypnotic cures of cancer. He didn’t believe the vitamin C would do him any good. I persuaded him to read the book and lent him my copy. He did and he also got the hypnotic tape I made for him.

    Three months later, he came in to my office again. Not for therapy, but just to thank me for saving his life. He had had to go to 60 grams per day to reach “bowel tolerance”, but between the Vitamin C and the hypnotic tape, he was in complete remission. My thought is “If it works for even one person, it ain’t quackery”.

    Linus was not aware that vitamin C was not useful against hormone mediated cancers, but it is very effective against all viral mediated cancers. It definitely kills virus “bugs” in the bloodstream, but certainly not at the ridiculous amounts of the RDA (75 mg).

    Going to “bowel tolerance” where you are just at the point of diarrhea is the only way to ensure that you are getting enough C to actually kill all the virus.

    (The above was copied from my web page on “Cancer Cures” at
    For more free alternate health info, check out my Navigation and free articles.

    • Hello Phil,

      Could you please elaborate on your post made two hours ago. “Hormone mediated cancers” would likely be prostate cancer or breast cancer. Are there any other cancers in this class?

      For viral forms of cancers on which IV Vitamin C would likely be effective, would these include colon cancer, liver cancer, stomach cancer, and potentially pancreatic cancer?

      Do you have any scientific citation or reference where people could read more about IV Vitamin C being useful on viral cancers but not hormone mediated cancers? Your post was enlightening. Thank you.

      • Hi Michael,

        All the cancers that strike the sexual/reproductive organs of the body seem to be impervious to vitamin C to some extent. That includes vaginal, cervix, uterus, tubes, etc. Linus Pauling was taking 18 grams of C per day when he died of prostate cancer.

        I am not an expert on cancer, but I believe that colon, liver, stomach and pancreatic as well as skin and lung and brain cancers are mostly viral mediated, and should be vulnerable to C. They may be also vulnerable to dichloroacetate (DCA).

        Here’s the rub. Everybody thinks that the RDA of 75 mg is “good enough”, and it’s actually so low that it barely defeats scurvy. Go to a zoo, and talk to a primate vet, and you will find that 4 grams of vitamin C a day is the “RDA” for a 150 pound ape. (and a human by extension)

        Few people realize that a virus doubles every 20 minutes or so in the bloodstream. By the time a virus or cold shown noticeable symptoms, the virus has been doing its binary multiplication for hours, and it now takes much more than a few thousand milligrams to kill off even half. There have been at least 4 “peer reviewed” medical journal experiments similar in that all showed vitamin C not effective against colds and flu. All “sponsored by Big Pharma. No vaccines for me ever again.

        I have moderate emphysema from smoking over 40 years ago, so if I get a cold, I have it in my lungs for weeks. I haven’t had a cold in years for more than an hour or so. I simply start taking 4 grams of vitamin C by pill form EVERY 15 MINUTES. Virus all destroyed with the first hour usually. I go on this until diarrhea just starts, then cut back to 1 gram per hour to “mop up” any that have “escaped”.

        Recently, Canadian scientists tested the simple chemical dichloroacetate (DCA) on human’s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It can’t be patentable, so Big Pharma would like everybody to forget about it.

        More cures on my http://drbate.com/Ref/cancer.html

        • Michael A. S. Guth says:

          You noted that Linus Pauling died of prostate cancer, but at a fairly old age. As I recall he was close to 90. Perhaps more striking was the death of Pauling’s wife, Ava Helen, from cancer about 15 years before Pauling. Many in the scientific community and the general public formed the idea that if Pauling could not even save his own wife from cancer using Vitamin C, then the therapy was somehow quackery. But now your message above has cleared up that mistaken impression. I bet Ava Helen had one of the hormone mediated cancers, and so her oral Vitamin C and possibly IV Vitamin C did not help.

          I found a web page that included an excerpt from Pauling that is germane to IV treatment with ascorbic acid for cancer. The quotation below is from http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/Intravenous_Vitamin_C_IV.html :

          “In 1979, the Mayo Clinic undertook a clinical study to replicate or refute the earlier studies of Linus Pauling. The study participants (with a few exceptions) had all received chemotherapy PRIOR to being given ORAL doses of Vitamin C. The study concluded by the Mayo Clinic reported no evidence that large doses of Vitamin C help in extending cancer survival.

          The following is a letter from Linus Pauling to the Editor of The Times maganize who reported “Vitamin C Fails as a Cancer Cure” as a result of the Mayo Clinic findings.

          By Linus Pauling (October 24, 1979)
          [http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/MM/B/B/R/R/_/mmbbrr.pdf ]

          To the Editor: An article in your Sept. 30 Week in Review section, “Vitamin C Fails as a Cancer Cure” (with reference to me in the first sentence), said that a controlled study of 150 Mayo Clinic patients with advanced cancer, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, had shown no evidence that large doses of vitamin C help.

          This is indeed what was reported by the Mayo Clinic investigators. They themselves and The Times article do not point out, however, that the population of cancer patients investigated in the Mayo Clinic was so different from that investigated by my associate Dr. Ewan Cameron in Vale of Leven Hospital, Loch Lomondside, Scotland, that the results observed in the Mayo Clinic study cannot be considered to refute the results observed in the study in Scotland.

          The chief investigator in the Mayo Clinic study wrote to me last year that he hoped to repeat Dr. Cameron’s work as closely as possible. I then wrote to him, pointing out that cyto-toxic chemotherapy damages the body’s protective mechanisms to such an extent that subsequent treatment with Vitamin C would not be expected to have much value, because Vitamin C functions largely by potentiating these protective mechanisms.

          I recommended strongly that only patients who had not received chemotherapy be used in the Mayo Clinic study. This recommendation, however, was ignored. Nearly all the patients in the Mayo Clinic trial had received courses of chemotherapy, whereas only 4 percent of those studied by Dr. Cameron had receieved chemotherapy.

          The Vale of Leven study showed that large doses of Vitamin C have great value for cancer patients who have NOT received chemotherapy. The Mayo Clinic study answers an important question in that it verifies that treatment with Vitamin C is far less effective for patients whose immune systems have been damaged by courses of chemotherapy.

          “National Institute of Health Confirms Vitamin C Effectiveness

          National Institute of Health / National Cancer Institute – “Early clinical [Cameron/Pauling] studies showed that high-dose – oral OR intravenous vitamin c iv, may improve symptoms and prolong life in patients with terminal cancer. Double-blind placebo-controlled [Mayo Clinic] studies of oral vitamin C therapy showed no benefit. Recent evidence shows that oral administration of the maximum tolerated dose of vitamin C (18 g/d) produces peak plasma concentrations of only 220 µmol/L, whereas intravenous administration of the same dose produces plasma concentrations about 25-fold higher. Larger doses (50–100 g) given intravenously may result in plasma concentrations of about 14 000 µmol/L. At concentrations above 1000 µmol/L, vitamin C is toxic to some cancer cells but not to normal cells in vitro.

          We found 3 well-documented cases of advanced cancers, confirmed by histopathologic review, where patients had unexpectedly long survival times after receiving high-dose intravenous vitamin c iv therapy. We examined clinical details of each case in accordance with National Cancer Institute (NCI) Best Case Series guidelines. Tumour pathology was verified by pathologists at the NCI who were unaware of diagnosis or treatment. In light of recent clinical pharmacokinetic findings and in vitro evidence of anti-tumour mechanisms, these case reports indicate that the role of high-dose intravenous vitamin c iv therapy in cancer treatment should be reassessed.”


          Dr. Mark Levine of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues note that, in vitro, vitamin C is toxic to some cancer cells but not normal cells at concentrations above 1000 µmol/L. IV doses in the range of 50-100 g result in plasma levels of about 14,000 µmol/L.

          The team analyzed clinical and histological data from three patients with advanced cancer who responded to high-dose IV vitamin C.

          The first patient was a 51 year-old-women with advanced renal cell carcinoma, treated with nephrectomy, and several small lesions in the lung “consistent with metastatic cancer.” She received IV vitamin C 65 g twice a week for 10 months, in combination with other alternative therapies, including thymus protein extract. Repeat chest radiography revealed one small spot, assumed to be a scar. Five years later, new lung masses were detected. The patient again received intravenous vitamin c iv, with unsuccessful results.

          The second patient, a 49-year-old man, had bladder cancer with multiple satellite tumors. He received IV vitamin C 30 g twice a week for three months, followed by 30 g vitamin C once every 1-2 months for four years. . Nine years after diagnosis, the patient is in good health, without signs of disease.

          Case three was a 66-year-old woman with B-cell lymphoma invading paraspinal muscle and bone at L4-5. She received IV vitamin C 15 g twice weekly for 7 months, then 15 g every 2-3 months for about one year. Ten years after diagnosis, the patient is in good health.

          Dr. Levine and colleagues note that all three patients survived for longer than expected for the types and stages of cancers that they had. At the doses delivered, vitamin C “is a pro-drug for hydrogen peroxide formation in extracellular fluid,” they explain. Histology results also showed evidence of tumor hemorrhage, attributable to ascorbate.

          The investigators conclude that “the role of high-dose intravenous vitamin c iv therapy in cancer treatment should be reassessed.”

          Vitamin C + Vitamin B3 Niacin Increases Cancer Survival 20 Fold

          Click here to read this article by Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D – Clinical Procedures in Treating Terminally Ill Cancer Patients with Vitamin C [+ Vitamin B3]”

          I included a rather long quotation for two reasons. First, Pauling pointed out “cyto-toxic chemotherapy damages the body’s protective mechanisms to such an extent that subsequent treatment with Vitamin C would not be expected to have much value, because Vitamin C functions largely by potentiating these protective mechanisms.” Therefore, IV Vitamin C must be used before chemotherapy has damaged the body’s immune system.

          Second, all of the anecdotal evidence in the remainder of the quotation is for non-hormonal related cancers. Until you posted your message, I could not see any clear pattern in the cancer remissions. It seemed a hit or miss strategy. Now with your messages above, it is all falling into place.

          If I ever had a non-hormonal, viral cancer, I absolutely would insist upon high dose Vitamin C as the first and possibly only course of treatment. Also, I modified my Vitamin C consumption as of yesterday. I was taking 3 grams per day, but since you are taking 4 grams, I decided to add one more 1,000 mg tablet to my daily regimen.

          I take Vitamin C primarily for its antioxidant effects, but I wonder if consuming these doses might have a preventive effect on cancers over time.

  3. Phil Bate, Ph.D. says:

    Here’s the basic problem. The RDA is set at 75 mg per day for man, but the zoo vets have set 4000 mg per day for a 150 pound ape. I’m at 190 pounds, so I take 4 grams per day, 2 AM and 2 PM, with all other supplements taken at noon. Ascorbic acid (cheapest and best) takes all minerals out by making mineral ascorbates, so my mineral toxicity is “unmeasurable” or very low. That alone reduces stress more than most realize. I supplement nutritional minerals as a result.

    Now realize that all other “animals” manufacture ascorbic acid AS NEEDED out of glucose within their own body. (We primates lost that enzyme 65 mega years ago).

    This means that while that 4 grams might be enough for an “average day”, it may not be even close enough for a virulent disease causing virus. Because all viruses double in strength (number of cells) every 20 minutes in the blood, a dose that is not often enough AND strong enough to keep this multiplication contained is nearly worthless. (If you are in a leaking boat, a thimble is worthless for bailing).

    Many studies (in Med Journals, “peer reviewed” and paid for by Big Pharma have used these factors to prove “scientifically” that vitamin C is “useless” against colds and flu. The vested interest of Big Pharma is to negate any and all vitamin C’s effectiveness, as if everyone started to use my cold and flu method, it would cost drug companies many billions of income. Using 1 gram per hour is ridiculous, and not scientific, and peers who “reviewed” it should be jailed.

    The ONLY vitamin C therapy that seems to be really effective is to take enough vitamin C to get to “bowel tolerance” (diarrhea) and keep dosages high enough for long enough to gradually kill all the virus cells. Bowel tolerance is the body response showing that more than is needed at that particular time is being excreted.

    Since ascorbic acid is pretty cheap, and there is no danger to “overdosing”, my dosage of 4 grams per 15 minutes, usually clears all symptoms within the first one or two dosages, and diarrhea just starts by the 3rd dose. At that point, I go to one gram every 15 minutes, for a few times, and the virus is gone. While diarrhea is not a “fun” experience, it is infinitely preferable to the virus.

    In all the cancer experiments, the amount of C was not even close enough to totally destroy the viral tumor IMO. In my “limited” success with only two actual patients while in practice, it took around 60 grams per day to get to bowel tolerance, but when that occurred, and was maintained until the dosage gradually lowered (still close to bowel tolerance) the cancer tumor disappeared.

    I am not a biochemist, and I have questions about the use of intravenous C vs 1 gram pill forms. It would seem to me that bowel tolerance might be affected, but since I have no experience (not being a MD), I just use the cheap 1 gram pills. (I prefer the Costco pills to the Walmart/Sam’s as they’re easier to swallow.) I hope the above helps to clear up a lot of the confusion about vitamin C.

    By the way, I have more “cancer cures” that have worked, including the latest simple unpatentable dichloroacetate (DCA) and even carrots at:

  4. Dr. Holly says:

    I find it interesting that no one has mentioned glutathione in this process. Glutathione, will not only restabilize itself but also Vitamine C and all the other anti-oxidants. Therefore, utilizing glutathione is incredibly useful.
    When it comes to the hormone driven (estrogen) cancers – again glutathione is incredibly useful – it is the third phase of eliminating excess estrogen in the liver. So when we have excesses of estrogen – we are almost always short of glutathione.

    Now glutathione shouldn’t be taken orally as it breaks down into three amino acids, sulfur and thiol in the stomach and you simply get expensive bowl movements.
    Alternatively you should not take L-glutathione injections as the cells engage their negative feedback loops and stop synthesizing it because there is too much extra cellularly.

    However, we do have a composition patent, basically a pancake mix of all the necessary “natural” molecules, in the right ratios for the entire system to make the endogenous anti-oxidant. Cross over, double blind studies showed an average increase of 292% glutathione in the “average” person.
    Finally, when you look at chemos – there are basically 4 categories – two that promote glutathione – enbabling glutathione to work against the cancer; and two that reduce glutathione – because of the injection of free radical toxicity – you don’t want the glutathione to eliminate it thus reducing the effective of the chemo on the cancer. Very often you I find that oncologists – don’t really seem to understand this difference – and they give people a combo including both types??? Nobody has been able to explain that one to me outside of sheer ignorance.

    Now as an aside – glutathione is also an anti-inflammatory; a chelator; an amino acid transporter; protects the DNA, the mitochondria; involved directly or indirectly in the regulation of most hormones and NO; and promotes growth of teleomeres; amongst other functions.

  5. Phil Bate, Ph.D. says:

    I keep hearing that “glutathione” “renews” vitamin C, and itself. Dr Holly put it that it “stabilizes” vitamin C. I’ve been using and studying ascorbic acid vitamin C for many years, and the facts I am aware of are simply that vitamin C is “used up” by either combining with bacteria or virus cells or by combining with all minerals in the blood stream, and taking these combinations out as water soluble chemicals in effect. The minerals are taken out by making ascorbates of them. Depending on what’s in the bloodstream, vitamin C can have a very short lifetime before excretion via urine.

    However, in all these processes, the vitamin C is “used up and discarded” as now a part of the “bad stuff”.

    All primates (that’s us and apes etc) lost the enzyme to make ascorbic acid out of glucose 65 million years ago, so there is no way we can make vitamin C in our body as almost all other animals on this planet do. Glutathione cannot increase this ascorbic acid chemical by any means I can conceive of. Yet, I keep hearing this in papers and speeches, but when I ask how, I get no answer. Sales hype only?

    I have not used glutathione to any extent. Like Neurofeedback for autism, it is usually only for the wealthy families, NOT the mid and low income families, and those are the ones I try to help. It’s very expensive, and it does not last long in the body under most circumstances, and has to be taken regularly at a relatively high cost to mid and low income families.

    I have read most of the glutathione papers presented at various autism seminars and conferences, and have asked some presenters to explain such statements as glutathione regenerates vitamin C, but no answer as yet proves or even shows this to be true to any extent.

    Vitamin C and glutathione are the only “natural” methods of getting toxic minerals out of the body, and both are definitely lacking in autistic infants and kids. I have been successfully using ascorbic acid vitamin C for over 30 years to get toxic minerals out of schizophrenic and depressive patients, and out of autistic kids for the past 11.

    I make no profit out of either, so I have no “vested interest” except what is best for people I help. So, glutathione is a potent anti-oxident. So is vitamin E, and even dark chocolate, and both are much cheaper than glutathione, and more stable.

    The fact about glutathione being effective against hormone mediated cancer as mentioned by Dr Holly is the first I’ve heard this information, and used for autistic kids, it may have some “other” uses in the body not able to be done by large (and cheap) doses of ascorbic acid. And, there is also the “corn allergy” factor in ascorbic acid as it is made out of dextrose NOT glucose. This may limit many people to either Calcium or Sodium Ascorbate, neither of which can then take out toxic minerals at all.

    As associate in Orlando area has used glutathione for her 15 year old autistic daughter for a long time, and she is now a Glutathione distributor. (We met when she bought one of my Neuroliminal Training Cd’s and it has helped her daughter tremendously).

    We have talked a lot about both glutathione and CVitamin C has a very short time . We have now agreed that if the family can afford it, using half doses of both is probably the best way. Cutting the cost of each in half and using only half of each dosage may be even better and more effective as well as cost. No data on that approach is known to us at this time.

    Dr Holly – are you aware of Dichloroacetate (DCA). It has cured many cancers in a fairly new Canadian study. One of the Big Pharma firms has known this for the last 7-8 years, but but didn’t let this info out as it is non patentable, and the newspapers aren’t interested it seems. I have more about this and many other cancer “cures” that have worked for some at http://drbate.com/Ref/cancer.html

  6. Michael A. S. Guth says:

    On the subject of glutathione, I will begin adding N-acetyl-L-Cysteine (NAC) to my daily supplements beginning next week. Life Extension (lef.org) has this to say about NAC: “N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) is the acetylated form of L-cysteine that has been used to break up pulmonary and bronchial mucous.98-100 It is very efficiently absorbed and has been shown to protect cells directly and support the immune system.101-112 NAC is an antioxidant and a free radical-scavenging agent that increases intracellular glutathione at the cellular level. NAC can act as a precursor for glutathione synthesis as well as a stimulator of the cytosolic enzymes involved in glutathione regeneration.113,114 NAC has been shown to protect against oxidative stress-induced neuronal death in cultured granule neurons.115 ”

    In fact, LEF has many in-depth articles about NAC including one captioned “The Overlooked Compound That Saves Lives.” http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/may2010_N-Acetyl-Cysteine_01.htm?source=search&key=NAC

    The doctor who wrote the article has a table with these bulleted points:

    “NAC replenishes levels of the intracellular antioxidant glutathione (GSH), which is often deficient with advancing age and in chronic illness.
    NAC also regulates expression of scores of genes in the pathways that link oxidative stress to inflammation.
    These dual effects give NAC a unique role in the prevention and treatment of many common diseases, both acute and chronic.
    NAC can protect against avian influenza and more common seasonal flu symptoms.
    NAC reduces the frequency and duration of attacks of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may slow the clinical course of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).
    NAC protects tissues from the effects of exercise-induced oxidative stress, adding value and safety to your workout.
    NAC improves insulin sensitivity in people with some of the most difficult-to-treat metabolic disorders.
    NAC blocks cancer development at virtually every step in the process, and through multiple mechanisms, making it an important cancer chemopreventive agent.
    NAC fights the stomach infection Helicobacter pylori on two fronts, inhibiting the organism’s growth while reducing production of inflammatory cytokines that can lead to gastritis and cancer.
    Though most individuals gain benefits from 600-1,800 mg/day, clinical studies have found that doses of up to 2,000 mg/day are safe and effective. A recent study demonstrated the safety of 2,800 mg/day for 3 months in patients with COPD.23”

    I am most interested in taking NAC to increase my level of glutathione, increase insulin sensitivity, detoxifying effect on the liver, and as a cancer preventive agent. You can read about NAC’s mechanism of action for those three in the article link I cited above.

    NAC is comparatively cheap. It is on a “buy one, get one free” special at swansonvitamins.com for the remainder of the month. I bought enough of the supplement to take 1200 mg/day. The usual starting dose is 600 mg/day or 1200 mg/day, and I have heard so many good things about NAC that I wanted more than a minimal dose.

    The available blood tests at Lab Corps do not show any test for glutathione, so it will be hard for me to have scientific proof that the NAC is working.

  7. […] Michael A. S. Guth: On the subject of glutathione, I will begin adding… » […]