Vitamin C 'helps to fight cancer'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4238250.stm

Just have to get the news out to the people without them. Suppose they could get a delivery system patented and make their billions that way.

Sorry to be so cynical. This is a terrific bit of news I read on my hospital's website just last night. Hope something comes of it.

and how much would it translate into orally?

In chemistry, the mole is the standard measurement of amount. When substances react, they do so in simple ratios of moles. However, balances give readings in grams. Balances DO NOT give readings in moles.

So the problem is that, when we compare amounts of one substance to another using moles, we must convert from grams, since this is the information we get from balances.

There are three steps to converting moles of a substance to grams:

1. Determine how many moles are given in the problem.
2. Calculate the molar mass of the substance.
3. Multiply step one by step two.

Make sure you have a periodic table and a calculator handy.

The three steps above can be expressed in the following proportion:

In this particular lesson, the grams of the substance (upper left) will be the unknown (signified by the letter x). The exact same proportion is used in the grams-to-moles conversion lesson. Then the "x" will reside in the lower left.

This proportion is a symbolic equation. When you solve a particular problem, you insert the proper numbers & units into the proper places of the symbolic equation and then you solve using cross-multiplication and division. Also, do not attach units to the unknown. Let it be simply the letter "x." The proper unitshould evolve naturally from soving the proportion and cancellation of units.

Make sure you have a periodic table and a calculator handy.

well, the MW of ascorbic acid is 176.13. Taking into account a volume of distribution between 0.5 and 1 liter/Kg of body mass (as measured in large mammals), a single oral dose of 30 to 60 grammes of vitamin C is required to raise plasma levels to 4mM. This is just my guesstimate.

Mac Llyr

On edit: the 50gr dose would be adequate only for parenteral (intravenous). The oral dose of vitamin C necessary to reach 4mM in body fluids would probably be higher...

would be my guess, given the stomach's hatred for acid.

Maybe get Vit. C in the form of calcium ascorbate? Anyone read the book "Anatomy of an Illness" He didn't have cancer, but some autoimmune thing-- I think I remember that he was sneaking powdered calcium ascorbate into the hospital.......

Not recommending that, just saying........

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553343653/102-0600379-8378551?v=glance

What a load of baloney. To get a good headline, the writer has extrapolated from a single lab study showing that bathing cancer cells in ascorbate inhibits growth in some of them. (Just a reminder, bathing them in gasoline or oven cleaner also has an inhibitory effect on their growth.)

There is a vast difference between the artificial conditions in this experiment, and actual conditions in your body. To suggest that these effects could be replicated by intravenous infusion of ascorbate is at best a speculation...at worst, simply untrue.

Is there anything of value in the experiment? Yes. It suggests there may be effects worth checking out further, in another experiment. Can we draw any conclusions from it about the efficacy of treating cancer in the body using vitamin C? No. That would require more experiments, more research, more isolation of influences, more replication of results, more confirmation of predictions.

Epidemiological evidence (the kind gathered from looking at statistics drawn from large populations) shows little if any anticancer effect attributable to vitamin C. The article itself admits this.

Bottom line: interesting experiment, misleading article.

Peace.

Wouldn't be very useful here, since there are very, very few people that get IV infusions of Vitamin C across large populations. Remember the lower doses don't have the same effect. '

I thought the article pointed out these and other objections. The headline was a bit much but it was set off in quotes.

Interesting about the hydrogen peroxide~

I was referring to general epidemiological evidence about the anticancer effects of vitamin C. Naturally, there's no evidence in the broad data about this specific (and hypothetical) approach...which is why it's hypothetical.

Science journalists write articles to create buzz. Otherwise, no one will read them, and sooner or later, they won't have a job. The problem is, science proceeds one little experiment at a time. It's fuzzy, not buzzy.

My complaint with articles of this type is that many or even most people who read it take away the thought that "science" now "proves" that vitamin C is an anticancer drug. A year or two ago, "science" "proved" that vitamin C doesn't help cancer...five years ago, it "proved" it does. Same with vitamin E. Back and forth, based on extrapolations from tiny experiments never intended to have sweeping conclusions. The public responds by eventually thinking science is just another flavor of aromatherapy or homeopathy or crystal alignment.

Good link here if this subject interests you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html

Peace.

The same thing happens about weight loss!! Weight loss is important to lower heart disease. PROOF!! Weight loss increases incidence of death. PROOF!!

"My complaint with articles of this type is that many or even most people who read it take away the thought that "science" now "proves" that vitamin C is an anticancer drug."

If what you are saying is that most people don't read articles in a discerning, thoughtful way, I would agree with you.

After all, by ALL polls, over 35% of people thing Shrub is doing a good job.

I like the proper use of epidemilogical data. But not relevant for this particular use of Vitamin C.