Next week, researchers from Stanford will publish the results of a study in mice in which intravenous Vitamin C is active against cancer. This new research is based off of a recognition that absorption of Vitamin C by the intestines is limited, and thus intravenous application is needed to get the dosage high enough to see an effect.
Linus Pauling was a proponent of the efficacy of Vitamin C nearly 40 years ago. Pauling has a history of brilliant inisights (he received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in addition to a Nobel Peace Prize), as well as equally brilliant debunked ideas (besides Vitamin C, he got the structure of DNA wrong because of a mistaken assumption which Watson and Crick ultimately corrected). His status allowed him to speak out on unpopular ideas, and, while his status did not protect his ideas from ridicule, a few researchers have been influenced by him and continued to explore Vitamin C’s role as an anti-cancer agent.
Many are still going to remain cautious about these results, which is prudent; doctors and patients must be open about what is and isn’t known about this treatment. But, in our anti-free market healthcare system, I’m concerned that there has already been enough coercive “caution” in this area. A quote that has been cited already illustrates the problem:
I hope this will not touch off a rash of people to offbeat practitioners to get intravenous vitamin C.
Why would we hold back this inexpensive, possibly life-extending (or life-saving) treatment from a terminally-ill patient? As long as the patient understands that this is experimental, he should be able to receive such a treatment. There are never any guarantees in medicine, and for 40 years we have denied true freedom to cancer patients.
10:06 am on August 6, 2008
