High dose IV vitamin C slashes Covid mortality ( or does it )

OK, I have waited a couple of days to post this, I'm just hesitant to do so. But I feel like I should. I can't remember if I have already started a thread or posted somewhere else on the subject of this study. I think I might have. But that would've been about my frustration because of a study that I had been waiting for since maybe February, which was supposed to be complete in sept. But September came and no results, then October and November. And finally, at clinical trials.org, where I had been keeping up with it, a few weeks ago I saw this notice "trial terminated due to lack of patients". They were supposed to look at a large number of patients either getting vitamin C or placebo, but because the pandemic slowed down so much in China(where they give a lot of IV C), supposedly, they could not get enough patients to match their predetermined number so " you are terminated".

Well, low and behold the study finally appears a few days ago. And the results – at least until I did the usual digging in for the details - seemed quite unimpressive and disappointing."HDIVC failed to reduce 28-day mortality (P = 0.27)..........Conclusion: This pilot trial showed that HDIVC failed to improve IMVFD28, but might show a potential signal of benefit in oxygenation for critically ill patients with COVID-19 improving PaO2/FiO2 even though.".

IMVFD28, the PRIMARY outcome looked at, is the number of days ventilator FREE during the 28 days of the study. 26 for the C group, and 22 days without a vent for the placebo. Yes, a slight improvement for the C group, and I'd take it, but not significantly significant, and thus "failed to improve". Boy, not much excitement with that result, and boy was I surprised and disappointed since they gave 24,000 mg of vitamin C into the vein, along with all the other usual treatments.

But when I dug into the details, I found results that were quite different from what was indicated in that summary. This is a situation that I have not uncommonly found when looking at studies. But in this case, I could not think of any reason these Chinese researchers would want to play down their results. Then it dawned on me: I had been told by an American MD/PhD associated with the study that they had been trying to get ths published for months, but were turned down several times. Did they need to tone it down in order to find some one who would publish it? (it was finally published in the "Annals of Intensive Care" ) I don't know. But another good question is, why would any one turn them down for publishing, as was reported to me? Another great mystery related to the world of research.

Anyway, I gave the less than impressive abstract results above. In the next post, I will copy what I found in the charts and tables. It paints quite a different story.

The results seemed quite exciting to me, if I was in the hospital with Covid I would dang sure want to be in the Vitamin C group and not in the placebo group. Also, according to the Docs at the FLCCC, it is super important to get started on their MATH+ protocol( the A = Ascorbic Acid aka vitamin C) very early in the disease. They have argued against some researchers, which did not get as good results as they routinely do, by saying their studies were designed to fail by starting the vitamin C ridiculously late in the disease. Also, you need to keep it going until you are pretty certain of a cure, or surviving virus can attack you again. None the less, even though they got great results(IMO), a potential drawback/handicap for this study is that they did not begin the vitamin C on average until 17 days after 1st symptoms. And, only gave the C for 7 days, though these people were in the hospital for 28 days, apparently 28 days after the study started. (not certain about that last) Despite all of those handicaps, lives were saved by the addition of high dose IV C.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/14/2021 3:07:24 PM (GMT-7)

"The average age of the study patients was 66.7 ± 12.7 years, and 66.1% of the patients were male. The APACHE II score of all patients was 13.5 (IQR, 10.2-15.7), with no differences between groups. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (44%), followed by diabetes (30%) and coronary heart disease (22%). The average time from symptom onset to starting HDIVC treatment was 17 (11–25) days. No significant differences in vital signs, laboratory results, disease severity, or treatments were observed between groups at baseline..............................


Scroll down to "secondary outcomes" and observe Figure 3B, which is "28-day mortality and survival curves were compared with the Wilcoxon test (P = 0.06) among severe COVID-19 patients (baseline SOFA score ≥ 3)". Note the most severe category, with SOFA(organ failure) scores = to or > than 3. These people are in dire shape. Now just look at that chart on the right(B) showing the difference in the placebo group and the vitamin C group. Which group would you rather be in? I want the vitamin C, no question about it. BTW, there were no adverse effects for the C group.

Now, scroll back up a page or so to table 2. Or, just go to this link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13613-020-00792-3/tables/2 Once there, scroll down on the left side to "IMV, (which is "invasive mechanical ventilation"), and notice 1.5 days for the vitamin C group vs 6 days for the placebo group. Then notice "Patients’ condition deterioration, n, %", and notice the 11% for the C group and the 24% for placebo. Now keep scrolling to "ICU mortality, n, % " and notice the 22.2 % for the C group vs 37.9% for the placebo group. The same table says that even though this is a hazard ratio of 0.5, the P value is only 0.2, and thus it is not significant, and thus cutting deaths almost in half is "not significant" and therefore the conclusion "HDIVC failed to reduce 28-day mortality (P = 0.27)." So cutting deaths almost in half = failed to reduce mortality". Yep. But that is how studies work.


But now, for the grand finale, lets scroll down to "ICU mortality of patients with SOFA ≥ 3, n, %". After all, this is what is most important to know, isn't it? How did the ones more likely to die do? Those with a SOFA score already indicating some organ failure? Well, I see a most impressive difference in % mortality in the vitamin C group of
21.7% compared to the placebo group with SOFA scores 3 or greater mortality of 52.4%. With a hazard ratio of 0.2, and a P value of .04. IOW, definitely statistically significant. Death rate cut more than in half by simply adding some side effect free(or minimal) high dose IV vitamin C. Makes me wonder what 50 or 100 gm would have done, which has been used in other studies and case reports. ( research Dr. Klenner of NC from the 40s and 50s) It seems likely that many thousands of lives could have been saved.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/14/2021 2:46:06 PM (GMT-7)