• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

High Dose Vitamin C > Cancer ?


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 28 March 2006 - 02:50 PM


Another look at high dose vitamin C cancer therapy

The March 28, 2006 issue of the Canadian Medical Journal, reported three cases of individuals with terminal cancer who experienced unexpectedly long survival times following the administration of high dose intravenous vitamin C.

Mark Levine and colleagues from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland examined the details of three advanced cancer cases in accordance with National Cancer Institute Best Case Series guidelines. Patient 1 was a 51 year old woman with metastasized kidney cancer who declined conventional cancer therapy and received 65 grams intravenous vitamin C twice per week for ten months, along with several other nutritional supplements such as N-acetylcysteine and thymus protein extract. Patient 2 was a 49 year old man with advanced bladder cancer who also refused chemotherapy and radiation, and who received 30 grams vitamin C twice weekly for three months, followed by 30 grams every one to two months for four years. Patient 3, a woman with stage III diffuse B-cell lymphoma, underwent 5 weeks of radiation but declined chemotherapy and opted for 15 grams vitamin C two times per week for two months, followed by once per week for seven months, then once every two to three months for one year. Patients 2 and 3 also combined a number of nutritional supplements with their treatment.

Although patient 1 died of smoking-related lung cancer several years after her initial treatment while the kidney cancer was in complete remission, patients 2 and 3 remain in good health with no symptoms of recurrence.


In their introduction to the case studies, the authors suggest that the failure of high dose vitamin C to effectively treat cancer in trials conducted at the Mayo Clinic could have been due to the oral route of administration which can only elevate plasma levels of the vitamin to a maximum of 220 micromoles per liter, while intravenous administration can raise levels as high as 14,000 micromoles per liter. They note that concentrations of 1,000 to 5,000 micromoles per liter have been shown to be selectively toxic to tumor cells in culture studies. Additionally, studies conducted several decades ago by Linus Pauling and Ewan Cameron which used high doses of both oral and intravenous vitamin C reported success against terminal cancer.

Concerning the current case history review, the authors commented that “most previous case reports lacked independent pathologic confirmation of the tumour and did not follow the NCI Best Case Series guidelines, which makes their interpretation difficult.” They conclude, “In light of recent clinical pharmacokinetic findings and in vitro evidence of anti-tumour mechanisms, these case reports indicate that the role of high-dose intravenous vitamin C therapy in cancer treatment should be reassessed.”


Protocol

Cancer supplements

Although there are hundreds of published studies showing that the ingestion of certain nutrients may reduce cancer risk, relatively few investigate the effects of dietary supplement intake by those already stricken with cancer. This paucity of data has enabled mainstream oncologists to speculate that certain dietary supplements might protect cancer cells from apoptosis (programmed cell death). The assertion made by some oncologists is that there may be a risk when cancer patients take certain dietary supplements.

Abram Hoffer , MD. PhD, contends that the concept of antioxidants decreasing the efficacy of chemotherapy is conveyed more and more by orthodox oncologists. It is, in fact, speculated that the number of oncologists opposed to patients taking antioxidants while receiving chemotherapy may be as high as 75%.

Dr. Hoffer adds that he has treated more than 1100 cancer patients with high doses of vitamin C (most of whom were concurrently receiving chemotherapy) (Hoffer et al. 1993a; Hoffer et al. 1993b; Hoffer 1994; Hoffer 1996). Upon examining health histories, Hoffer found that the mean difference in prolongation of life was heavily in favor of the use of vitamins. In the first Hoffer/Pauling series published, patients on the Hoffer program lived 10-20 times longer than patients not receiving vitamin C.

Critics argue that antioxidant supplements should not be used while treating cancer patients with conventional therapy because they would protect cancer cells against free radicals that are produced by most anticancer agents (Labriola et al. 1999).

One way of approaching this dilemma is to observe the distinct differences of low-dose compared to high-dose antioxidants on cancer cells (Prasad et al. 1998; 1999b). Antioxidants such as vitamin A (and its drug analogs), vitamin E (tocopheryl succinate), vitamin C, and certain carotenoids, when used in high doses individually, have been shown to induce cell differentiation, growth inhibition, and apoptosis in rodent and human cancer cells in vitro and in vivo (Kline et al. 1995; Cole et al. 1997; Prasad et al. 1998; 1999b).


Edited by funkodyssey, 28 March 2006 - 07:16 PM.


#2 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 28 March 2006 - 05:45 PM

I've been saying for a while that vit. C is a profound anti-cancer supplement. The best method is intravenous, but few docs will do this currently. Vit. C is also highly beneficial for keeping the vascular system healthy.

On that poll that was taken several months ago, concerning vit. C daily usage, I was the only person at 10 grams per day. Vit. C is the anti-stress vitamin...animals that make their own vitamin C make several grams worth when under stress, yet most humans get less than a gram per day -- a woefully inadequate amount. The RDA's amount is enough to ward off short-term visible deficiencies, but as a long-term recommendation, it's flat-out deadly wrong.

As I've said before, high dose vit. C is easy to get, using the acid-free powder form (calcium ascorbate). I add one gram to all of my drinks throughout the day. It's virtually tasteless and dissolves fully.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 28 March 2006 - 06:27 PM

Funk, that's quite a long quote, could you highlight (bold preferably) the best bits, for us lazy folk? Thanks.

#4 FunkOdyssey

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 28 March 2006 - 07:17 PM

The entire article is worth reading, but I did my best. ;)

#5 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 28 March 2006 - 07:47 PM

As I've said before, high dose vit. C is easy to get, using the acid-free powder form (calcium ascorbate).  I add one gram to all of my drinks throughout the day.  It's virtually tasteless and dissolves fully.


What is exactly wrong with Ascorbic Acid ?

#6 FunkOdyssey

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 28 March 2006 - 07:54 PM

High dose ascorbic acid on its own can cause stomach upset, nausea, and general digestive discomfort. Calcium ascorbate is a buffered (non-acidic) form that helps avoid those side effects.

#7 meatwad

  • Guest
  • 196 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 March 2006 - 08:14 PM

Abram Hoffer and Linus Pauling are my two favorite researchers/scientists... No joke, they changed my life.

Duke - I also use to take a very high amount of Vit C (20grams/day). I did this for a month, and my bowels
did not conform to it. After about a month I did more reading and found an article about vit C concentrations,
and that taking a higher dosage does not equate with higher concentrations. Sometimes it is inversely
proportional. Tested blood levels, from one study, with 500mg vs 200mg of oral vit C sometimes
lead to a lower level in the 500mg range.**

**course to find this study won't be easy

About this study, I am quite surprised that only 2x per week was
enough to cure them. Very interesting...

#8 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 28 March 2006 - 08:35 PM

Meatwad, I've seen studies showing that higher concentrations can be achieved. Bill Sardi's site has several reference links. The key is that vit. C has a short useful life in the body, and so by putting it in my drinks, I keep a steady flow of it in my system, hopefully maintaining a near maximum concentration. I've guesstimated that each gulp of my drink contains the RDA minimum!

How were you taking your 20g's of C daily? If not in a buffered form, that is probably the issue with your upset stomach. Also, if you're taking more than a gram within an hour, you're overdoing it. Oral absorption reaches maximum usefulness beyond one gram per hour, and the rest goes to waste. Intravenous vit. C can easily achieve 10 grams active C in the blood stream, and that's why it's the way to go for attacking cancers.

#9 trh001

  • Guest
  • 119 posts
  • 1

Posted 28 March 2006 - 09:26 PM

This ought, I would think, fuel some sort of discussion of mechanism, though. That is, wrt malignant cells having known selective acute vulnerability at pharmacologic doses (of many things), as distinct from life-long prophylactic for optimal health.

Pharmacologic dosing with a view toward selecting against cancer cell survival over the long term and/or inducing apoptosis short term, may not have (arguably doesn't have) much to do with ascorbates contribution to the integrity of the vast array of cell/tissue/organ/organ-system specific biochemistry.

The literature suggests plietropy here, not only wrt ascorbate, but anything we choose to ingest. Most recently the plant derived flavonoids have come under scrutiny in this regard.

As regards C, there are publications (see below, for example) indicating toxicity (which in fact was cited, per the ascorbyl radical formed at supraphysiological concentrations, by Linus Pauling as a potential antiviral mechanism, btw), mutagenicity, and what might be argued to be pro-aging, biochemical impacts.

I imagine guinea pig (they don't synthesize ascorbate) life span studies would be helpful here. Do they exist? If we at least saw no decrements in survival curves at the dosing equivalent of 10-30 grams per day, that would be quite comforting.

-----------------

Vitamin C induced decomposition of lipid hydroperoxides: direct evidence of genotoxin-DNA binding detected by QCRS.
Chem Commun (Camb). 2001 Sep 21;(18):1886-7.
PMID: 12240363 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Vitamin C-induced decomposition of lipid hydroperoxides to endogenous genotoxins.
Science. 2001 Jun 15;292(5524):2083-6.
PMID: 11408659 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

#10 FunkOdyssey

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 28 March 2006 - 09:35 PM

We are already conducting a life span study with 10g of vitamin C with one guinea pig (dukenukem). His survival curve looks good so far. [lol]

In all seriousness, you make a good point about the distinction between massive dosing for acute anti-cancer activity vs. prevention. The potential for increased oxidative stress from overly high vitamin C dosing does seem to be present and is a sobering thought. That's why I'm trying to hedge my bets with a middle-of-the-road dose of about 3g daily.

#11 trh001

  • Guest
  • 119 posts
  • 1

Posted 28 March 2006 - 09:59 PM

We are already conducting a life span study with 10g of vitamin C with one guinea pig (dukenukem).  His survival curve looks good so far.  [lol]

In all seriousness, you make a good point about the distinction between massive dosing for acute anti-cancer activity vs. prevention.  The potential for increased oxidative stress from overly high vitamin C dosing does seem to be present and is a sobering thought.  That's why I'm trying to hedge my bets with a middle-of-the-road dose of about 3g daily.


I'm not familiar enough with the literature to continue to take a position, but seem to find myself drifting toward lower doses. I'd been on 500mg time-release for the past 5-10 years, but recently cut back to what's in Ortho-Core. This "feels" to me like a tremendously low dose (I used to take 10 grams back in college...'80-84...but found myself scaling back to 2-3 in the late 80's, and then down to a gram for some time before the 500mg SR.

This has been fueled, in part, by the recognition that we don't, apparently, need to rely (as Pauling once thought) solely on ascorbate to enhance survival....nor on any one nutriceutical.

It's also a recognition that I'm hedging wrt my personal time that can be spent monitoring the literature on each pharmacologically dosed nurtriceutical, or xenobiotic. I tend to focus literature searches on the latter, because they are foreign, and restrict dosing of vitamins to levels that can be ignored (wrt to lit. search frequency) with some margin of safety.

In any case, when Duke's G-pig (G for GRAMS of C...lol) lives to the human equivalent of 160, I'll at least have some comfort wrt those megadoses I took in college not doing any lasting harm. ;)

#12 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 28 March 2006 - 10:07 PM

.  The potential for increased oxidative stress from overly high vitamin C dosing does seem to be present and is a sobering thought.  That's why I'm trying to hedge my bets with a middle-of-the-road dose of about 3g daily.


3g/day in divided doses throughout the day is not bad. 10g/day is probably more then my bowel tolerance.

"The potential for increased oxidative stress" is more bad science (might have been in vitro stuff I forget...I thought I posted the rebuttal on the board somewhere.)

#13 trh001

  • Guest
  • 119 posts
  • 1

Posted 28 March 2006 - 10:17 PM

.  The potential for increased oxidative stress from overly high vitamin C dosing does seem to be present and is a sobering thought.  That's why I'm trying to hedge my bets with a middle-of-the-road dose of about 3g daily.


3g/day in divided doses throughout the day is not bad. 10g/day is probably more then my bowel tolerance.

"The potential for increased oxidative stress" is more bad science (might have been in vitro stuff I forget...I thought I posted the rebuttal on the board somewhere.)



Re. references, that would be helpfull. If you could find something to rebut/contrast wrt the studies I posted above, that would set my mind at ease. I'm less concerned with REDOX and more concerned with recent ties to glycation (if not referenced in the above citations, can did this up). Cheers, T-

#14 Pablo M

  • Guest
  • 636 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 29 March 2006 - 04:50 PM

Some miscinceptions about vitamin C here. Calcium ascorbate isn't "acid free." It has a calcium molecule in its structure which dissociates from ascorbic acid in the stomach. Thus it may not cause bowel trouble but it will definitely put ascrbuic acid (which is acidic) into the kidneys, bladder, urine, toilet. Not that that's a bad thing. Ascorbate protects all those tissues on the way out. Ascorbic acid is a fine form to use, perhaps even the best form. Hoffer has stated that mineral ascorbates are only half as effective because of the mineral present in their structure. Ascorbic acid is twice as effective a free radical firehose as the mineral ascorbates.

#15 FunkOdyssey

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 29 March 2006 - 05:00 PM

hmm... you may be right ;)

One of the world's leading Vitamin C experts, Robert Cathcart, MD (orthomed.com) commends other forms of vitamin C as "fine products," the mineral ascorbates, calcium-ascorbate or magnesium-ascorbate. However, Dr. Cathcart has not been able to achieve the so-called "ascorbate effect" with mineral ascorbate forms of the vitamin. Cathcart reports that in his practice, now spanning 20 years and more than 20,000 patients, only ascorbic acid by mouth can achieve the results that he achieves with intravenous vitamin C.

The much advertised Ester-C™ is a patented form of calcium ascorbate.

The ascorbate effect, explains Dr. Cathcart, is the ability of vitamin C at very high dosages to quench numerous free radicals. Cathcart likens this effect in his patients to pouring water on a "free radical" fire. He explains that each molecule of ascorbic acid reacts with two free electrons or "free radicals." Mineral ascorbates, already bound to the mineral ion, react only with one free radical per molecule. This means, literally, that twice as much vitamin C in the form of mineral ascorbates is necessary for positive therapeutic results.



#16 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 29 March 2006 - 05:08 PM

Some miscinceptions about vitamin C here. Calcium ascorbate isn't "acid free." It has a calcium molecule in its structure which dissociates from ascorbic acid in the stomach. Thus it may not cause bowel trouble but it will definitely put ascrbuic acid (which is acidic) into the kidneys, bladder, urine, toilet. Not that that's a bad thing. Ascorbate protects all those tissues on the way out. Ascorbic acid is a fine form to use, perhaps even the best form. Hoffer has stated that mineral ascorbates are only half as effective because of the mineral present in their structure. Ascorbic acid is twice as effective a free radical firehose as the mineral ascorbates.

Some apparent misconceptions about chemistry here. When an ascorbate (salt of ascorbic acid) dissolves, you are left with ascorbate (negative ion of ascorbic acid) which is not acidic because it has no more protons to donate. On the flip side, if you ingest ascobic acid, it will be an acid in your GI tract, but once it gets into your blood stream, it too will be ascorbate. The body maintains blood at a specific pH, and no matter how you ingest your vitamin C, it is the solution pH that determines the form in which the vitamin C molecule will exist.

Whether within the GI tract there is an absorption difference between the acid and ascorbate forms, I do not know.

---BrianW

#17 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 29 March 2006 - 05:14 PM

Mineral ascorbates, already bound to the mineral ion, react only with one free radical per molecule. This means, literally, that twice as much vitamin C in the form of mineral ascorbates is necessary for positive therapeutic results.

That's nuts. First of all, in liquid solution, ascorbates are not "bound" to mineral ions. They float around as free ions. Second, as I've already said, once in blood and tissue at a specific pH, all vitamin C will be in the same form regardless of the form of administration. If there is an empirical difference between free acid and ascorbate forms, the difference must be due to absorption.

---BrianW

#18 FunkOdyssey

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 29 March 2006 - 05:31 PM

Where did Hoffer state that mineral ascorbates are only half as effective? Check out this quote from Hoffer:

ORTHOMOLECULAR TREATMENT OF CANCER CANCER/VITAMIN THERAPY



Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD, FRCP©
Victoria, B.C., Canada
250-386-8756
Date of Publish: 2/3/97


....

Vitamins and Minerals

Vitamin C- Starting dose is 12 grams daily, preferably as a powder, one teaspoon (4 grams) TID. Occasionally, the powder can not be tolerated well by the patient. In this instance, tablets may be substituted using the 4 grams TID as a starting point. The dose was then increased to the sublaxative dose and maintained. The dosage ranges between 12 and 40 grams per day. As a rule, mineral ascorbates are better tolerated and probably more effective.



#19 Pablo M

  • Guest
  • 636 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 29 March 2006 - 05:36 PM

Brian-- take a few grams of ascorbic acid every few hours with a glass of water. Take a piss. Then tell me that it is not acidic. I never said anything about blood pH because I know health theories revolving around that are foolishness. Obviously the body will not dump highly acidic molecules into the blood. Your reply to my post only mentioned the chemistry of ascorbic acid, which I am not debating. Compare the structures of ascorbic acid and the mineral ascorbates:
http://images.google...G=Search Images
http://images.google...ate&btnG=Search
When the mineral dissociates from calcium ascorbate it would be left with a different structure than ascorbic acid, validating the differences between the two. The orthomolecular physicians who use ascorbic acid have extensive clinical experience that I trust.

#20 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 29 March 2006 - 06:05 PM

Dante,

If you are going to state ascorbic acid is more effective then mineral ascorbates, you'll need significant proof since it makes no sense and....mineral ascorbates are better tolerated, and generally used (except IV as I'm not sure there is an IV form of the mineral ascorbate)

"blood pH because I know health theories revolving around that are foolishness"

Quite possibly not. But that is another discussion for another day.

#21 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 29 March 2006 - 07:06 PM

Dante, the pKa of ascorbic acid is 4. That means your blood would have to have a pH of 3 (!!!) for ascorbic acid to remain as ascorbic acid inside your body. A pH of 3 would kill you instantly.

Within any pH range that can exist inside a living person (7 to 8), all vitamin C exists in your blood as ascorbate. Period. It's a non-negotiable fact of reality.

---BrianW

#22 Pablo M

  • Guest
  • 636 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 29 March 2006 - 07:21 PM

Yeah, maybe I've jumped the gun here. Going back to Pauling, he states they (mineral ascorbates) are equally as effective as ascorbic acid after making a small adjustment for the weight of the mineral. Look at the structures though. The ascorbate has only one -OH while ascorbic acid has two. A chief proponent of MA is Alacer, and they make all sorts of unverified statements, so I tended to be prejudiced against the MAs. But yeah, I take both usually, calcium ascorbate and ascorbic acid.

And yes ascorbates are used in IVs. Sodium is the one most used I beleive.

#23 Pablo M

  • Guest
  • 636 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 29 March 2006 - 07:27 PM

Dante, the pKa of ascorbic acid is 4.  That means your blood would have to have a pH of 3 (!!!) for ascorbic acid to remain as ascorbic acid inside your body.  A pH of 3 would kill you instantly.

Within any pH range that can exist inside a living person (7 to 8), all vitamin C exists in your blood as ascorbate.  Period.  It's a non-negotiable fact of reality.

---BrianW

Brian-- yes yes. I am not debating this fact. I realize I wrote "ascorbic acid" in the kidneys when this is not correct. Notice that I correctly said "ascorbate" at one point. But I recognize that ascorbic acid is not present in the bloodstream. Without looking up the chemistry at play, I am downright sure that AA will make the urine acidic. Try my experiment if you are unsure.

What I mainly object to is the notion of mineral ascorbates somehow being fundamentally different than and superior to ascorbic acid, which as you've underscored is not the case. With MAs you get ascorbic acid and some minerals. Nothing more.

#24 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 29 March 2006 - 11:30 PM

Without looking up the chemistry at play, I am downright sure that AA (ascorbic acid) will make the urine acidic.

Correct. When you consume acidic foods or drinks, the kidneys respond by pumping protons into urine to help the body maintain blood buffer capacity. So ascorbic acid is acid in your gut and bladder, but while travelling in your blood between the two it is ascorbate. Of course if you just consume a small amount of ascorbic acid, it will stay ascorbate in your urine because then your body won't be acidifying urine like mad to maintain blood pH.

---BrianW

#25 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 30 March 2006 - 01:57 AM

I wouldn't count on vit C to help with cancer or even oxidative stress very much. Even the 10 grams a day dukenukem is taking apparently isn't anywhere near enough to even keep up with oxidative stress. From what I've read, everyday a human body makes 0.3 mole of superoxide a day. One gram of vit C can neutralize about 0.01 mole of superoxide a day. 1/30th of the body's daily production. This assumes full absorption and complete reaction prior to excretion.

Of course, I know we all take an assortment of anti-oxidants every day, plus what our body makes, but this gives you a idea of what we are up against everyday. When you get past 50 it's a very challenging proposition to keep up with OS.

Edited by biknut, 30 March 2006 - 02:23 AM.


#26 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 30 March 2006 - 05:23 AM

Vitamin C greatly increases iron absorption and should not be taken with meals, since the major source of iron is red meat.
Flavonoids from fruits, vegetables and teas inhibit iron absorption, even from red meats. .

#27 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 30 March 2006 - 05:40 AM

Vitamin C greatly increases iron absorption and should not be taken with meals, since the major source of iron is red meat.
Flavonoids from fruits, vegetables and teas inhibit iron absorption, even from red meats.  .


Um, how many people here do you think eat red meat at every meal? How many do you think don't eat fruits, vegetables, or drink tea at every meal?

#28 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 30 March 2006 - 06:09 AM

Shut the F up. Nobody said anything about every meal.



*moderation warning: attack the idea and not the person*

- prometheus


#29 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 30 March 2006 - 06:13 AM

Right...

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 syr_

  • Guest
  • 500 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 30 March 2006 - 10:23 AM

High dose ascorbic acid on its own can cause stomach upset, nausea, and general digestive discomfort.  Calcium ascorbate is a buffered (non-acidic) form that helps avoid those side effects.


Still gut and bowel tolerance is often way lower than 10g that someone here takes. I cant go above 3g and no more than 1g at a single dose.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users