🍋 What if the answer for your parent were in another country?

A doctor tells you: “No study proves it.” You look elsewhere, and you find that a high-dose vitamin C drug has been sold in German pharmacies for years — for a use that France has not registered in the same way. The question deserves to be asked without putting anyone on trial: why does the same product change status when it changes country?

A high-dose vitamin C drug has been approved in pharmacies in Germany and the United Kingdom for years, to treat a deficiency. In France, no equivalent is registered at that dose: a doctor then has to step outside the approved framework to prescribe it, under specific conditions. That is not a ban — it is a different framework.

What this article does not do: it recommends no treatment, gives no dose, and never says that a vitamin C infusion cures anything. It explains a legal framework and a difference between countries, nothing more — and it does not replace any medical advice.

It is a question almost no one asks, and the book Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents? raises it in plain words: “You might think that French medicine is advanced enough to be among the very best, so why look elsewhere?”

It is not a trick question. French medicine has its strengths, documented and recognized. But a health system is not a single block: it is a set of choices — what gets approved, what gets taught, what gets reimbursed — that differ from one country to the next, even between European neighbors.

The same drug can therefore be registered for a use in Germany and be missing from the French register at the same dose. That is a sign neither of a lag nor of a mistake: it is a sign that two agencies ruled differently, at a given moment, on the same question.

An intravenous infusion delivers a drug directly into the blood, through a vein, without going through the stomach or the intestine. In France, vitamin C comes in three approved forms: the tablet, the powder to dissolve, and the solution for infusion — the product is the same, only the route changes.

Taken by mouth, absorption is limited by the intestine: beyond a certain amount, the blood does not receive any more. This is what a study by the U.S. NIH on 17 volunteers showed: injected into a vein, at the same dose, vitamin C reaches blood concentrations clearly higher than when swallowed. 👉 the NIH study

A summary kept up to date by the U.S. National Cancer Institute spells out this gap: the intravenous route can raise blood concentration up to about 70 times higher than the oral route. This figure describes a pharmacology measurement, not an effect on a disease — the summary itself reports no established effect. 👉 the National Cancer Institute summary

This question of concentration is not new. The chemist Linus Pauling — a two-time Nobel laureate, in chemistry and for peace — devoted himself to championing the use of high-dose vitamin C. 👉 the biography of Linus Pauling

With the Scottish surgeon Ewan Cameron, he published a study in 1976 comparing one hundred people with a thousand historical controls: pioneering work, whose method has since been questioned. 👉 the Cameron and Pauling study It is this story, and what Linus Pauling took from it, that Yvan Keyna tells in chapter 2.4 of his book Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents?. 👉 Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents?

The question is still being studied today: a U.S. team measured, in 33 people, what happens to a high-dose infusion in the blood — how much, for how long, how it is cleared. It is a study of how the body works, not of healing, and it can be read free online. 👉 the study on high-dose infusion

In the eight countries mentioned in the book — Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, China, Japan, Australia and France — an injectable vitamin C drug is approved, sometimes for several decades. What varies from one country to the next is the framework for high doses.

The German vial, for example, comes with a regulatory document published by the manufacturer and approved by the federal drug agency, renewed on a regular basis. In France, the closest product on the register serves another use: intravenous nutrition, not high doses. 👉 the German Pascorbin prescribing information

For a high-dose use, a French doctor has to step outside this approval — an off-label prescription, under article L.5121-12-1-2 of the French Public Health Code. 👉 article L.5121-12-1-2 of the French Public Health Code

The doctor can only do so when there is no recognized alternative, and will have to justify it before the French Medical Council, in light of “established scientific data” — the standard that their code of medical ethics sets more broadly. It is not a refusal: it is a procedure. 👉 the French code of medical ethics

The framework is not only about vitamin C. For diagnosis, South Korea is among the best-equipped countries in the world: 87 CT, MRI and PET scanners per million people, compared with an average of 51 in OECD countries. 👉 the OECD report

For China, no recent international data is available on its current diagnostic equipment: nothing to call it more advanced, nor to say the opposite. It is missing data, not a judgment.

In France, a medical practice is only recommended after its evidence has been graded, from level A — the strongest — to level C. Without a good-quality study, the rule is simple: no recommendation is issued. 👉 the HAS document on levels of evidence

“No study proves it” often means “it has not been graded” — not “it is false.” You may have looked into it too, on a day of doubt, and been given that same sentence, in good faith.

It is not a lie. But hearing it when you are looking for a lead can leave you dejected, or frustrated, or simply discouraged — like a door closing without a sound.

The French doctor's code of ethics sets a specific standard: rely on “established scientific data,” and never present as safe a method that is “illusory or insufficiently tested.” When a doctor tells you “no study proves it,” they are applying that text — they are not judging your effort. 👉 the French code of medical ethics

This reflex is learned in medical school: the official curriculum for medical studies lists knowledge of levels of evidence among its required items. 👉 the official curriculum for medical studies The French Medical Council confirms it: what is not scientifically recognized is not taught to future doctors, who nonetheless remain free to make their own informed health choices. 👉 the French Medical Council report

A doctor offers what their framework recognizes. The sentence you heard often describes that framework — not a final state of science.

There are two different ways to understand the human body, the book says: the holistic approach looks at the person as a whole — their body, mind, emotions and surroundings. The functional approach divides the body into specialties, organs and functions.

Each has its strengths. The functional approach makes huge progress possible — a cardiologist treats a heart better than anyone. But it is, by design, fragmented: a problem with how your parent's teeth meet can affect their posture, without either of the two specialists involved seeing the whole problem.

It is no one's fault. It is a consequence of how the care system is organized, one specialty at a time.

The book also notes that communication between specialists, therapists and agencies is not always easy to keep going — not for lack of goodwill, but because the division makes the exchange harder to organize. This is what chapter 2.5 of the book Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents? explores. 👉 Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents?

No — and the book says so itself: these two approaches “are not opposed; on the contrary, each depends on the other.” It is not a case against functional medicine; it is a reminder that neither of the two, on its own, sees everything.

A cardiologist is still the right person for a heart. What this article questions is not their competence: it is how hard it is, for any highly specialized professional, to see a problem that spills over their own field — a limit of the division, not a limit of the people.

The book separates two acts that are often confused. Treating means dealing with what can be seen. Curing means dealing with what causes it. A cavity that is filled, without any change in eating habits, comes back.

A stabilized stroke, if no one ever looks for its cause, can happen again. A fall that has been stitched up, in a house that stays just as cluttered, will happen again.

This is not blaming anyone: treating what can be seen is already a necessary act, often an urgent one. But one question stays open, every time: who, along your parent's care path, has the time and the mandate to look for the cause, beyond the symptom of the day? That is the question the book Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents? asks, in chapter 2.5. 👉 Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents?

You may be told there is nothing. That sentence often describes a French framework, not the state of science — and it leaves several possible steps, at very different costs. Asking “here, or elsewhere?” costs nothing: it means putting the question to your doctor again, pointing out that other countries allow other frameworks for the same product.

A second opinion in France costs the price of a consultation — another doctor, another perspective, sometimes another specialty, to go over the file from the start. It is often the simplest step to take first.

An opinion abroad — in Germany, Switzerland, South Korea or China — costs more: a plane ticket, sometimes a private consultation. It is not a small step, and it can be expensive. But when the answer you got in France is “there is nothing to be done,” it can be worth the cost.

Looking for the cause, not just the symptom, costs nothing either: it is a question to ask, one more time, before accepting that a file gets closed. It needs no appointment and no plane ticket — only to be asked again.

None of these steps guarantees a result. But none of them is reserved for those who already know where to look.

---

---

Sources used (22)

#	Fact cited	Link
1	Oral vs intravenous route: clearly higher blood concentrations by infusion (NIH study, 17 volunteers, 2004)	the NIH study
2	Summary by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI): gap of up to ~70x, no established effect on any disease	the National Cancer Institute summary
3	Linus Pauling: chemist, two Nobel Prizes (chemistry 1954, peace 1962), advocate of vitamin C in the 1970s	the biography of Linus Pauling
4	Cameron & Pauling, PNAS, October 1976: 100 people vs 1,000 historical controls, pioneering work whose method has been questioned	the Cameron and Pauling study
4 bis	2022 study (Chen et al., Clinical Pharmacokinetics): 33 people, measurement of concentration/clearance — cited for its existence, never for a therapeutic result	the study on high-dose infusion
5	Germany: Pascorbin 7.5 g, prescribing information (Fachinformation) approved by the BfArM, renewed in 2005, indication = deficiency	the German Pascorbin prescribing information
6	United Kingdom: two injectable products registered (1986 and 2020) — shown in the table	the UK product information
7	United States: ASCOR approved since 1947; high dose studied in university clinical trials — shown in the table	the U.S. ASCOR labeling
8	Canada: injectable listed in the federal register (DIN) since 1989 — shown in the table	the Canadian federal register
9	Australia: injectable up to 45 g, for deficiency — shown in the table	the Australian product information
10	Japan: injectable approved; high dose practiced since 2007 in private clinics, not covered by health insurance	the page on practice in Japan
11	China: injectable approved, several manufacturers, labels revised by the NMPA in 2025 — shown in the table	the revised label in China
12	France: legal framework — marketing authorization of injectables limited to deficiency in intravenous nutrition, off-label prescription under conditions (L.5121-12-1-2)	article L.5121-12-1-2 of the French Public Health Code
13	France: code of medical ethics — “established scientific data,” ban on presenting as safe a method that is insufficiently tested (R.4127-8, -32, -39, -40)	the French code of medical ethics
14	South Korea: 87 CT/MRI/PET scanners per million people, compared with an OECD average of 51 (OECD, Health at a Glance 2025)	the OECD report
15	China: no recent international data on diagnostic equipment — nothing is claimed, either positive or negative	—
16	HAS: levels of evidence A/B/C, no recommendation without a good-quality study	the HAS document on levels of evidence
17	Order of April 8, 2013: evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a required item of the second cycle of medical studies	the official curriculum for medical studies
18	CNOM, report “Unconventional care practices and their abuses,” June 2023: what is not scientifically recognized is not taught	the French Medical Council report
19	The book Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents?, chapter 2.4 — vitamin C, Linus Pauling (block A, lines a-c)	Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents?
20	The book, chapter 2.5 — holistic/functional approach, communication between specialists (block B, lines k, l, m, n, o)	Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents?
21	The book, chapter 2.5 — treating or curing: the cavity, the stroke, the fall (block B, line q)	Help! Who's Going to Take Care of My Parents?