My understanding is that Linus Pauling and others had incredibly promising human trials, but attempts to replicate always seem to alter one 'minor' detail or another like adding glutathione (an anti-oxidant) or giving high dose vitamin C orally instead of intravenously. This is before they knew that Vitamin C is pro-oxidant when deliver at high dose in the blood. You want anti-oxidants to prevent cancer but once you have cancer you want oxidants. Like you want bullets.
What the mouse model suggests is that you need an immune system in the first place to get the benefits of high dose IV vitamin C (HDIVC), since the mice lacking an adaptive immune system didn't get the effect. It's unclear how exposure to different amounts of chemo, which messes with the immune system, disrupts the effectiveness of HDIVC. i.e should it be tried first, or in what combination?
Interesting that patients who already had high vit C / good immune system in their body did not see
a significant or relevant change.
Quote...
"During the 1970s, studies by ... Pauling suggested that high-dose vitamin C has beneficial effects on quality of life and survival time in patients with terminal cancer. However, some subsequent studies—including a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial ... did not support these findings. ...patients with advanced colorectal cancer who received 10 g/day vitamin C fared no better than those receiving a placebo. The authors of a 2003 review assessing the effects of vitamin C in patients with advanced cancer concluded that vitamin C confers no significant mortality benefit."
What the mouse model suggests is that you need an immune system in the first place to get the benefits of high dose IV vitamin C (HDIVC), since the mice lacking an adaptive immune system didn't get the effect. It's unclear how exposure to different amounts of chemo, which messes with the immune system, disrupts the effectiveness of HDIVC. i.e should it be tried first, or in what combination?