Update: Intravenous Vitamin C Targeted by FDA

by | Jan 13, 2011

Naturopathic and other Holistic Physicians use nutritional IV’s to boost the body’s ability to heal itself. Vitamin C is among the safest of all vitamins. Our bodies cannot make, we cannot live without it and we need much higher doses when we get a cold, flu or cancer. I have used IV therapies for 25 years without any side-effects. I use them to fight infections, subdue allergies and boost energy. We do not want to lose this valuable natural therapy.
As we reported to you last week, the US Food and Drug Administration recently sent a warning letter to McGuff Pharmaceuticals, ordering it to stop manufacturing and distributing intravenous vitamin C. The warning letter lists several issues, but the issue of concern falls under the subheading Unapproved New Drug and Misbranding Violations. The FDA letter tells the firm, “You manufacture and market unapproved new drugs in violation of sections 505(a) and 502(f)(1) [21 U.S.C. §§ 355(a) and 352(f)(1)] of the Act”-that is, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C.
The letter goes on to specify which “unapproved new drugs” are being targeted: various formulations of injectable (intravenous) vitamin C, magnesium chloride, and B complex 100.
In our discussions with the acting director of the Compliance Branch of the FDA, ANH-USA confirmed that the FDA’s determination of intravenous vitamin C as an unapproved drug is completely unrelated to other issues raised in the warning letter. We mention this because widespread rumors are circulating that this particular firm was targeted for reasons that would not relate to other firms, and that other manufacturers of IV C would not be affected. This is simply not true. According to the acting director, the FDA has gone through an internal process whereby they determined injectable vitamin C to be an unapproved drug.
Further, because McGuff was unable to show (a) that this form of vitamin C was exempt because it had been grandfathered in under the FD&C, or (b) that they were in compliance with new drug approval protocols, the FDA ordered them to discontinue manufacturing and distributing intravenous vitamin C immediately.
What we still don’t know is the extent to which FDA is targeting IV C. The acting director told ANH-USA that any other company unable to show an exemption or prove that it has taken IV C through the drug approval protocols would be subject to a similar order to cease production and distribution. What she would not tell us was when or whether they intend to move on other manufacturers and distributors. We know that FDA has a history of targeting specific products, such as estriol and natural desiccated thyroid. Sometimes they begin with one company in an effort to scare other companies into shifting business practices, and sometimes they send letters to multiple companies at once. At other times, they speak to companies behind the scenes without issuing official warning letters of public record.
The good news is that so far, it appears FDA has gone no further than this initial firm. It’s possible that FDA merely intended to test the waters with this first company, and that public reprisal via your messages has them rethinking their strategy. It’s also possible that FDA intended to target this one company alone, although we should reiterate that the language in the warning letter would apply to all other companies currently making or distributing IV C.
There is some more potentially helpful news. Injectable vitamin C is both manufactured by companies in bulk and on an individual prescription basis by compounding pharmacies. It appears that FDA may have targeted the manufacturing end of things, rather than the compounding pharmacies. Although IV C alone has not been approved as a new drug, it is a component of other drugs which have already been approved and which have USP monographs. This is important, because it means that intravenous C can arguably continue to be made by compounding pharmacies even if the FDA targets the remaining manufacturers of IV C.
It would be devastating to lose widespread access to IV C, but ANH-USA does not believe it will disappear completely, because compounding pharmacies could still make it. So it’s not time to stockpile intravenous vitamin C just yet! We must, however, remain vigilant.
ANH-USA is continuing to receive information about IV C daily. We will continue to monitor FDA’s actions, and as always, we will update you as we learn more.

Ivermectin + Mebendazole taken together produce remarkably Positive Clinical Cancer Benefits in 84.4% of Patients.

The largest real-world human analysis to date evaluating ivermectin and mebendazole in cancer patients has just been published—and the results represent one of the most compelling clinical signals ever documented for repurposed anti-parasitic therapies in oncology.

This groundbreaking analysis was made possible through a unique collaboration between The Wellness Company, the McCullough Foundation, and the Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel (Dr. Harvey Risch)—uniting real-world clinical data, frontline medical experience, and high-level epidemiologic expertise to deliver urgently needed insights in oncology.

This was a real-world prospective clinical program evaluation of 197 cancer patients, with 122 completing a follow-up survey at about six months (61.9% response rate).

Cancer patients were prescribed compounded ivermectin–mebendazole, with each capsule containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole—most commonly taken at 1–2 capsules per day.

The cohort represented a clinically relevant population, including a wide variety cancer types, with 37.1% of patients reporting actively progressing disease at baseline and many having already undergone chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.

At six months, 84.4% of cancer patients reported clinical benefit (Clinical Benefit Ratio: 84.4% [95% CI: 77.0–89.8%]):

✅ 32.8% reported NO evidence of cancer (95% CI: 25.1–41.5%)
✅ 15.6% reported tumor regression (95% CI: 10.2–23.0%)
✅ 36.1% reported stable disease (95% CI: 28.1–44.9%)

Treatment adherence was high, with 86.9% completing the full protocol and 66.4% remaining on therapy at six months.

The regimen was well tolerated, with 25.4% reporting side effects, primarily mild and gastrointestinal, and over 93% continuing treatment despite these events.

Patients were treated in real-world conditions alongside concurrent therapies, including chemotherapy (27.9%), radiation (21.3%), surgery (19.7%), supplements (49.2%), and dietary modification (37.7%), supporting use as an adjunctive approach.

Together, these findings represent a large, internally consistent real-world clinical signal that supports URGENT further investigation of ivermectin and mebendazole as low-toxicity, adjunctive cancer therapies.

Given the strength of the signal observed here, advancing this line of investigation is no longer optional—it is necessary.

This is NOT the end. We will continue advancing this work with larger datasets to further define and validate the role of anti-parasitics in cancer outcomes.

The manuscript is now available as a preprint on the Zenodo research repository, operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research, while undergoing peer review at leading oncology journals: “Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort.”

Bar chart showing distribution of common cancer types with breast cancer most prevalent.
Infographic on disease status and median duration since diagnosis.

Receive Our Newsletter

9 + 14 =

jQuery( document ).ready(function( $ ) { // $( "div" ).hide(); });