There is a substance that:
Does no harm, and of which the side effects are at worst "mild" [diarrhea lasting one day, which could actually be considered "cleansing"];
Helps the body produce collagen, which is the primary way that the body deals with the first few cancerous cells by enveloping and then disposing of it;
Increases interferon levels, as well as IgM and IgG antibody molecules and phagocytic ["cell eating"] lymphocytes;
Prolongs the lives of patients in any and all stages of cancer by an average of about 30%, and for some by 60% and more;
Helps patients with advanced cancers "feel better".
It does no harm, and of which the side effects are at worst "mild" [diarrhea lasting one day, which could actually be considered "cleansing"], and it does, at least, some good for almost all, if not all, cancer patients.
Why not use it? We are ludicrous, methinks. Read on to confirm this opinion:
This substance has been used in cancer patients in studies of up to 10 years at prestigious hospitals in Scotland and the USA [Mayo clinic]. The results were as above in each study - "harmless, often helpfull, possibly curative".
This substance is measureable in our white blood cells. The white blood cells of cancer patients show a clear reduction in this substance as compared to people without cancer - in other words, cancer patients have greatly reduced amounts of this substance.
This substance is lower yet when chemotherapy is used.
It is lower yet in cancer patients whose cancers have metastisised.
Logic demands that we understand the implications of these facts - the disease of cancer depletes this substance and by replacing it cancer patients not only feel better, but also survive longer [on average, but no single cancer patient can be gauranteed of it].
Also, that the mechanisms by which cancers begin, and by which they are beaten, are both aided by this substance.
We fall short of being able to say that cancers are sometimes "beaten" by taking this substance because cancer is such a complex and baffling disease, and so other factors could be the determining factor. Nonetheless, the significantly longer average survival times of patients who take this substance could be interpreted as having survived the cancer - the mainstream medicine definition for survival is "having lived 5 years after diagnosis", and the average time of survival of patients taking Vitamin C goes beyond that 5 year definition.
Linus Pauling wrote the truth in 1980, but Vitamin C is not used, possibly because it is inexpensive and does not require a team of doctors to administer. Even a course of IV Vitamin C can be done at home with one-time help from a nurse.
Either that, or all these facts, determined over 10 years in several studies by renowned doctors and researchers, are wrong.
Do you think the data is wrong?
I found it in Dr. Linus Pauling's 1979 book "Cancer and Vitamin C", a book I found at our local library book sale, a book previously owned by a local resident who had famously lived with a cancer tumour for the past 27 years, and who died in a car crash [hit by a drunk]. I think he took Vit C - the book was well read.
And now another resident here, a friend of mine, has lung cancer, but he gives Vitamin C no credibility because his doctor does not recommend it; my friend won't even bring it up with his doctor. Unless and until the professionals are on board, Vitamin C's benefits will not be believed by the public. And as such, it's wonderfull secrets are generally unknown.
I suppose I will see replies here that will say it has all been disproven - show me the studies!!