I don’t see enough severe burn patients for this to matter in my practice. However, I agree with the reply that indicates this does not disprove previous results of Tanaka.
The method of action of vitamin C in the previous trials was surmised and theorized but not proven, as is the case with many other drugs. So being, the effect of a much higher dose may follow a totally different pathway than the lower dose.
To disprove Tanaka an exact same regimen should have been used.
All I gather from this study is that the lower dose does not work. Does Tanaka’s dose work? I don’t know. Replicate that and we will see.
This conclusion and the whole paper is such a disappointment. The so-called failure study used a 10th of the vitamin C used in the Tanaka trial. This reminds me of the earlier studies in the early 2000s that claims to debunk vitamin C's affectiveness, but instead of replicating the proven method, that is going IV with vitamin C, the debunking studies used PO vitamin C which is a completely different animal. Then as now they use an apples and oranges argument to debunk vitamin C's effectiveness returning everyone back to a baseline of pseudoscience. An utter embarrassment. Isn't it the most basic of science to replicate other studies that have proven success and not creature own study and then try to apply those findings to previous models?
So just to clarify: your position is that finding harm from a much lower dose of vitamin C in this trial (relative to Tanaka et al) does not effectively refute Tanaka et al, and that a better approach at this point would be to give 10x the dose of vitamin C (replicating the Tanaka protocol)?
Hello! To answer your question, yes to the dosing and, as importantly, yes to the timing. Otherwise why bother? The regimen that generated the early positive findings—most notably Tanaka's study—used approximately 66 mg/kg/hour for 24 hours, or roughly 120 g/day in a 70 kg patient, aimed specifically at reducing early capillary leak during burn resuscitation. VICTORY instead tested a substantially different regimen of 50 mg/kg every 6 hours for 96 hours, totaling only about 14 g/day**—roughly one-eighth of Tanaka's daily dose, administered over four times longer. Ditto for the LOVIT and ACTS trials. How is it possible demonstrably intelligent physicians cannot see the huge discrepancy in study design? It is hard to find a better example of comparing apples to cannonballs. This sort of slop is what has caused much confusion vis-a-vis vitamin C, magnesium, and others, and what will dissuade future clinicians from pursuing what Tanaka et al., gave us. What makes these later studies more dangerous is they're 1) "New" and garner more attention and 2) their titles are more like clickbait, making unvalidated conclusions the typical reader will fall for.
I don’t see enough severe burn patients for this to matter in my practice. However, I agree with the reply that indicates this does not disprove previous results of Tanaka.
The method of action of vitamin C in the previous trials was surmised and theorized but not proven, as is the case with many other drugs. So being, the effect of a much higher dose may follow a totally different pathway than the lower dose.
To disprove Tanaka an exact same regimen should have been used.
All I gather from this study is that the lower dose does not work. Does Tanaka’s dose work? I don’t know. Replicate that and we will see.
This conclusion and the whole paper is such a disappointment. The so-called failure study used a 10th of the vitamin C used in the Tanaka trial. This reminds me of the earlier studies in the early 2000s that claims to debunk vitamin C's affectiveness, but instead of replicating the proven method, that is going IV with vitamin C, the debunking studies used PO vitamin C which is a completely different animal. Then as now they use an apples and oranges argument to debunk vitamin C's effectiveness returning everyone back to a baseline of pseudoscience. An utter embarrassment. Isn't it the most basic of science to replicate other studies that have proven success and not creature own study and then try to apply those findings to previous models?
So just to clarify: your position is that finding harm from a much lower dose of vitamin C in this trial (relative to Tanaka et al) does not effectively refute Tanaka et al, and that a better approach at this point would be to give 10x the dose of vitamin C (replicating the Tanaka protocol)?
Hello! To answer your question, yes to the dosing and, as importantly, yes to the timing. Otherwise why bother? The regimen that generated the early positive findings—most notably Tanaka's study—used approximately 66 mg/kg/hour for 24 hours, or roughly 120 g/day in a 70 kg patient, aimed specifically at reducing early capillary leak during burn resuscitation. VICTORY instead tested a substantially different regimen of 50 mg/kg every 6 hours for 96 hours, totaling only about 14 g/day**—roughly one-eighth of Tanaka's daily dose, administered over four times longer. Ditto for the LOVIT and ACTS trials. How is it possible demonstrably intelligent physicians cannot see the huge discrepancy in study design? It is hard to find a better example of comparing apples to cannonballs. This sort of slop is what has caused much confusion vis-a-vis vitamin C, magnesium, and others, and what will dissuade future clinicians from pursuing what Tanaka et al., gave us. What makes these later studies more dangerous is they're 1) "New" and garner more attention and 2) their titles are more like clickbait, making unvalidated conclusions the typical reader will fall for.