Dear Editors,

An opinion piece questioning the benefits of IV vitamin therapy boldly asserts that “there is no trial that justifies the benefit of IV over simply ingesting a pill.”  This simply isn’t so.  Worse, the implication is that there is no science to support IV therapy.  The depth of this research is substantial.

The CMAJ, in a 2006 study on the efficacy if IV vitamin C noted that “we found 3 well-documented cases of advanced cancers, confirmed by histopathologic review, where patients had unexpectedly long survival times after receiving high-dose intravenous vitamin C therapy.”

The NIH reports that high-dose vitamin C has been studied as a treatment for patients with cancer since the 1970s.  Further, they report that laboratory studies have shown that high doses of vitamin C may slow the growth and spread of prostate, pancreatic, liver, colon, and other types of cancer cells.  Most importantly, intravenous high-dose ascorbic acid has caused very few side effects in clinical trials.

In my clinic, I provide patients with extensive information on clinical efficacy of IV therapies.  For vitamin C, I have citations from over 42 published studies on its safety and efficacy, including JAMA, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine, and many other peer-reviewed publications.  All of the research I have collated specifically shows the serum concentrations and pharmacological effect of vitamins administered IV versus orally.

It staggers the mind that two professors, supposedly experts in medical research, can turn a blind eye to the substance of an issue by replacing opinion for peer reviewed science.


Victor Chan

Victor Chan, BSc, MBA, ND

BCNA President