This article reports on the use of intravenous vitamin C as a treatment for cancer. The article tells the story of several patients who had wonderful outcomes after the use of intravenous vitamin C. But there are no quantitative estimates of benefit; the reader is only given anecdotal reports about how well a couple of patients did. We have no idea whether this is better or worse than others with similar disease.The story mentions that reports of side effects are rare and that risky patients can be screened out. But the harms are not clearly delineated, nor the true number of patients that are affected. Since other “providers” may be administering this treatment without physician oversight, if there are people at risk for bad outcomes this should have been described more fully.
The story mentions cancer cells being killed in culture by vitamin C under conditions in which normal cells flourished. However, the article should have taken the opportunity to question how to interpret the lack of scientific studies demonstrating real potential in human use.
Overall there is a question of balance in this story. Most of the people quoted are either patients who have received intravenous vitamin C who believe it is responsible for their current state of well being, or are clinicians who appear to have a vested interest in vitamin C infusions. The article would have been improved by including the perspectives of individuals who are not associated with this treatment. This may have provided a clearer picture of the state of the evidence about vitamin C as a cancer treatment.
The story lists the cost for intravenous infusion of vitamin C as $110 and the article mentions that most insurance companies do not cover it.
There are no quantitative estimates of benefit; the reader is only given anecdotal reports about how well a couple of patients did. But we have no idea whether this is better or worse than others with similar disease.
The story mentions that reports of side effects are rare and that risky patients can be screened out. But the harms are not clearly delineated, nor the true number of patients that are affected. Since other “providers” may be administering this treatment without physician oversight, if there are people at risk for bad outcomes this should have been described more fully.
While some of the evidence presented is weak and anecdotal, the story attempts in several places to address those weaknesses.
The story appropriately states: “The problem is, anecdotes and impressions don’t count. Skeptics ask: Where’s the data on dosing and regimens, on tumor responses, on survival?” And it says that “A clinical trial is considered ultra-reliable because it is designed to keep beliefs and hopes from slanting findings.”
This article has many examples of disease mongering. The story could have explained, for example, that the case of the woman diagnosed with colon cancer at age 38 – though not unheard of – is very unusual at this age.
There is a question of balance in this story. Most of the people quoted are either patients who have received intravenous vitamin C who believe it is responsible for their current state of well being, or are clinicians who appear to have a vested interest in vitamin C infusions. The article would have been improved by including the perspectives of individuals who are not associated with this treatment. This may have provided a clearer picture of the state of the evidence about vitamin C as a cancer treatment.
Intravenous vitamin C is presented as a viable alternative to traditional cancer treatments or as a treatment for patients for whom such treatments are not thought to have much value. While the patients depicted in the story did well, there was no data provided that give the reader a sense of whether their stories were typical or best case scenarios. Many people (even those with advanced malignancies) will have a treatment response with appropriate mainstream therapy.
It is clear from the article that intravenous vitamin C is available at only select locations. The article points out that specialized training is required to administer the treatment and that mainstream physicians do not provide or advocate this treatment.
The article explains that intravenous vitamin C used against cancer is not a new idea, but is one that has not been tested in meaningful fashion. The article does point out accurately that the use of these very high doses of vitamin C given intravenously is novel.
There is no evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like