It is currently Sun Nov 23, 2014 11:04 pm




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 A Pauling Therapy Study Design Exercise 
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post A Pauling Therapy Study Design Exercise
ofonorow wrote:
Quote:
I just wish there was some way I could prove that the cardio-C was reversing her heart disease


Me too.

I think Dr. Thomas Levy's book makes the best, fairly easy-to-read case for vitamin C being the root cause of cardiovascular disease. Very powerful. The hope is that anyone you can get to read it will realize that not only is there no harm in trying, in all liklihood, taking extra vitamin C will do a great deal of good.

The hard part is overcoming the mountain of propaganda promoting drugs, especially statin drugs and aspirin as "life savers."



Owen,

I don't mean to oversimplify matters but if Dr. Levy or some other orthomolecular-friendly researcher could prove ... even in a non-blinded, small pilot study that the use of these nutrients could in fact reverse heart disease ... it would go a long way for many people.

I get frustrated with the tap-dancing that goes on with this issue. We can and should be able to determine, in an objective way, whether or not this protocol works. We don't need to wait for the NIH or any governmental agency to help finance such a study.

This lack of obtainable evidence is the big elephant that stands in this room, I believe. No offense is intended to you. But, I just feel like there's no chance of this research being taken seriously if serious proof is never provided.


Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:15 pm
Report this post
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9341
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post Proof has existed since the 1950s
Quote:
I don't mean to oversimplify matters but if Dr. Levy or some other orthomolecular-friendly researcher could prove ... even in a non-blinded, small pilot study that the use of these nutrients could in fact reverse heart disease ... it would go a long way for many people.


The vitamin C proof was given and published in the peer reviewed Canadian Journal of Medicine by Dr. Willis in the early 1950s. See http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/pdfs

The rest of the "proof" is outlined (650 clinical trials if memory serves) by Levy in STOP AMERICA'S #1 KILLER.

I receive all the "proof" I need almost every day. As Pauling said, with results like these, and no toxicity, and NO PREDICTED DOWNSIDE, what reason is there to wait on the proof you have been "conditioned" is necessary?

However, we could run a pretty convincing study for about $5000. Would you like to donate $5000 to fund such a study on about 20 people?

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:35 am
Report this post
Profile
Reply with quote
Post offer
Owen,

I'd be willing to donate $100 - and I'm far from being rich. It shouldn't be that hard to raise $5,000. Spread the word and I'm sure you could find another 49 contributors or even one wealthy customer. Or, tag on an extra $5 to each bottle of Cardio-C and the Tower products and explain that these funds will go to funding a study that will once-and-for-all prove if this technology works or not. Maybe some of the researchers and doctors, that are famous for their other research on vitamin C, could pony up $1,000 each to actually fund a study that would really change the world.

$5,000 really shouldn't be a stumbling block. If you believe that actual, real-world proof is of value ... then it can be ascertained. If you're happy with studies that indicate some possible effect, cutomer testamonials, and theories that point to a proposed effect ... then I guess that's where we differ. That's all valuable information but why stop there?

Let's be clear. What many people are using these products/nutrients for is to clear their arteries. Can these products/nutrients accomplish this? We don't know. We make educated guesses. Why not find out for sure?


Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:51 am
Report this post
Reply with quote
Post 
I agree, $5000 should not be a stumbling block for something as important as this. Besides when I said proof that the cardio-C is working I didn't mean proof as in case histories or documented writings, I meant proof that is is working for my mother at this present time. I can't get that proof without tests which have to be done through her doctor which will not happen. In the meantime I will continue her vitamin C therapy, control her diet, and continue her doctors medication and hope for the best. She is 80 years old so I'm not expecting anything darrastic, just a more comfortable life in her final years.


Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:13 am
Report this post
Reply with quote
Post sorry
Mazeroller,

Sorry. I guess I kind of posted a bit off-topic on your thread. That's poor 'net etiquette on my part. I apologize.

My Mom, who is in her 70's is using the Heart Technology product too and I just feel like we should be able to have more solid proof as to what kind of objective effect is likely to occur.

I hope your Mom finds good results. I hope that for everyone who uses these products - myself included.


Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:47 am
Report this post
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9341
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post What we are up against
Quote:
..studies that indicate some possible effect,


Whether you know it or not, you are seeking an assurance that comes from a) a favorable newspaper article, b) the acceptance of vitamin C by the medical profession for CVD, or c) vitamin C as a cause/treatment for CVD in medical text books, etc..

In other words, the 650 clinical studies cited by Levy do not impress you unless the above outcomes are met. You want widespread support and concensus from regular medicine.

I guess it is natural to want more assurance than you feel you have with a medical maverick like Pauling, or Hoffer, Levy, Roberts, etc. etc. Unfortunately, a $5000 study may make you feel better, but even with a solid design, impartial scientists, and unbelievably wonderful effects, it will not generate any media publicity, nor would it move medicine towards acceptance, nor will it enter any medical text books.

You know it, I don't have to prove it.

But the idea that the existing studies only show "some possible effect" is the clue that you assume the medical profession would be "all over this" if the truth were otherwise. I can tell you that the 50-year-old Willis studies are credible. They are ignored, yes, but just because they are ignored, doesn't mean that they show only a "possible effect". Willis nailed it. He proved the relationship between vitamin C and CVD.

However, a study by the US National Institutes of Health is a different matter. And the NIH are the ones who should be testing this, given the amount of human suffering and potential savings involved. We'd be much better off if the 1000 individuals (make it 1 million) flooded the NIH with questions, rather than put out $100. THe more people who ask the NIH why they wouldn't fund out proposed studies, or come up with their own study, would do a lot more good.

I may split this part of this thread because as you say, we have strayed, but more importantly, I would like everyone's input on how to design such a study.. I went through this exercise myself on two separate occassions.

Remember, we have submitted two different grant requests to the NIH - both turned down.

What are you looking for that you feel such a small study will provide that we don't already have or know?

Here are some questions that need answered to do the design.

1. Exactly how should we measure the outcome?

2. What would you like to know? Vitamin C? Vitamin C/Lysine? Vitamin C/Lysine/Proline?
Vitamin C/lysine/Proline/Vitamin E/A etc.??

3. What do we do about the control group? How do we deprive any one of vitamin C during the study? What would we use as a placebo?

4. How do we obtain patients and what are the restrictions (if any)? Most heart patients are taking a rather dangerous protocol - prescription cocktail of drugs that cause heart disease.

5. How do we pay for the objective tests to measure the outcomes, the product, and/or the particpants?

6. How long should the study run?

7. Why is this even necessary? It is a fact that any individual can obtain the basic protocol without prescription and with a great assurance of no toxicity. The force behind this is Linus Pauling. In other words, every individual can run this experiment ON THEMSELVES to see whther it works in their case. With their particular diet, their bioindividuality, their set of prescription drugs and supplements, and their particular dental work and other issues.


As an aside, there was a researcher in England who did a 2 year study of vitamin C, lysine and vitamin E, and reported to me highly favorable results. But then he went entirely silent. (Was he paid off? I don't know.) We think he may have started a company. This is some evidence that he was trying to obtain world-wide patents on his formula, etc. He may be waiting to publish after he has the patents..)

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Report this post
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9341
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post New Thread
This is the topic to post your ideas on what should be measured in heart patients, and how to measure the benefits of vitamin C and lysine. I will play devils advocate, not to discourage discussion, but to help us hone any protocol we come up with.

Our last grant request is posted at http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/NCCAMgrant/.

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Report this post
Profile
Reply with quote
Post part one
Owen,

In this first post I will offer some input that may help to shape a viable design for the proposed study. I'll follow-up this post with responses to some of the issues you've made in a previous post. I don't want you to think I'm dodging your inquires and comments.

I think it would be a good idea to look at the few studies that have actually proven that dietary and lifestyle modification can reduce arterial plaque. This should be our focal-point because these studies were well-designed and accepted both in the allopathic and naturopathic communities.

Let's start with this study:

Quote:
1: JAMA. 1998 Dec 16;280(23):2001-7.

Erratum in:
JAMA 1999 Apr 21;281(15):1380.

Comment in:
JAMA. 1999 Jul 14;282(2):130; author reply 131-2.
JAMA. 1999 Jul 14;282(2):130; author reply 131-2.
JAMA. 1999 Jul 14;282(2):131-2.

Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease.

Ornish D, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Brown SE, Gould KL, Merritt TA, Sparler S, Armstrong WT, Ports TA, Kirkeeide RL,
Hogeboom C, Brand RJ.

Department of Medicine, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, USA. DeanOrnish@aol.com

CONTEXT: The Lifestyle Heart Trial demonstrated that intensive lifestyle changes may lead to regression of coronary atherosclerosis after 1 year.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of patients to sustain intensive lifestyle changes for a total of 5 years and the effects of these lifestyle changes (without lipid-lowering drugs) on coronary heart disease.

DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted from 1986 to 1992 using a randomized invitational design.

PATIENTS: Forty-eight patients with moderate to severe coronary heart disease were randomized to an intensive lifestyle change group or to a usual-care control group, and 35 completed the 5-year follow-up quantitative coronary arteriography.

SETTING: Two tertiary care university medical centers.

INTERVENTION:
Intensive lifestyle changes (10% fat whole foods vegetarian diet, aerobic exercise, stress management training, smoking cessation, group psychosocial support) for 5 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to intensive lifestyle changes, changes in coronary artery percent diameter stenosis, and cardiac events.

RESULTS:
Experimental group patients (20 [71%] of 28 patients completed 5-year follow-up) made and maintained comprehensive lifestyle changes for 5 years, whereas control group patients (15 [75%] of 20 patients completed 5-year follow-up) made more moderate changes.

In the experimental group, the average percent diameter stenosis at baseline decreased 1.75 absolute percentage points after 1 year (a 4.5% relative improvement) and by 3.1 absolute percentage points after 5 years (a 7.9% relative improvement).

In contrast, the average percent diameter stenosis in the control group increased by 2.3 percentage points after 1 year (a 5.4% relative worsening) and by 11.8 percentage points after 5 years (a 27.7% relative worsening) (P=.001 between groups. Twenty-five cardiac events occurred in 28 experimental group patients vs 45 events in 20 control group patients during the 5-year follow-up (risk ratio for any event for the control group, 2.47 [95% confidence interval, 1.48-4.20]).

CONCLUSIONS: More regression of coronary atherosclerosis occurred after 5 years than after 1 year in the experimental group. In contrast, in the control group, coronary atherosclerosis continued to progress and more than twice as many cardiac events occurred.

PMID: 9863851 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


link to abstact: http://tinyurl.com/2edd35

Quote:

A Strategy to Arrest and Reverse Coronary Artery Disease: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study of a Single Physician's Practice

Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr, MD; Stephen G. Ellis, MD; Sharon V. Medendorp, MPH; and Timothy D. Crowe


Background. Animal experiments and epidemiological studies have suggested that coronary disease could be prevented, arrested, or even reversed by maintaining total serum cholesterol levels below 150 mg/dL (3.88 mmol/ L). In 1985, we began to study how effective one physi cian could be in helping patients achieve this cholesterol level and what the associated effect of achieving and main taining this cholesterol level has on coronary disease.

Methods. The study included 22 patients with angio graphically documented, severe coronary artery disease that was not immediately life threatening. These patients took cholesterol-lowering drugs and followed a diet that derived no more than 10% of its calories from fat. Disease progression was measured by coronary angiography and quantified with the percent diameter stenosis and minimal lumen diameter methods. Serum cholesterol was measured biweekly for 5 years and monthly thereafter.

Results. Of the 22 participants, 5 dropped out within 2 years, and 17 maintained the diet, 11 of whom com pleted a mean of 5.5 years of follow-up. All 11 of these participants reduced their cholesterol level from a mean baseline of 246 mg/dL (6.36 mmol/L) to below 150mg/dL (3.88 mmol/L). Lesion analysis by percent ste nosis showed that of 25 lesions, 11 regressed and 14 re mained stable. Mean arterial stenosis decreased from 53.4% to 46.2% (estimated decrease=7%; 95% confi dence interval [CI], 3.3 to 10.7, P<.05). Analysis by mini mal lumen diameter of 25 lesions fotind that 6 regressed, 14 remained stable, and 5 progressed. Mean lumen diame ter increased from 1.3 mm to 1.4 mm (estimated in crease=0.08 mm; 95% CI, --0.06 to 0.22, P=NS). Dis ease was clinically arrested in all 11 participants, and none had new infarctions. Among the 11 remaining patients af ter 10 years, six continued the diet and had no flirther cor onary events, whereas the five dropouts who resumed their prestudy diet reported 10 coronary events.

Conclusions.
A physician can influence patients in the decision to adopt a very low-fat diet that, combined with lipid-lowering drugs, can reduce cholesterol levels to below 150 mg/dL and uniformly result in the arrest or reversal of coronary artery disease.

Key words. Coronary disease; cholesterol; nutrition; ath erosclerosis; preventive medicine. (J Earn Pract 1995; 41:560-568)

source:
http://www.heartattackproof.com/study01_background.htm


Image


Quote:
1: Clin Nutr. 2004 Jun;23(3):423-33.

Pomegranate juice consumption for 3 years by patients with carotid artery stenosis reduces common carotid intima-media thickness, blood pressure and LDL oxidation.

Aviram M, Rosenblat M, Gaitini D, Nitecki S, Hoffman A, Dornfeld L, Volkova N, Presser D, Attias J, Liker H, Hayek T.


The Lipid Research Laboratory, Rappaport Family Institute for Research in the Medical Sciences, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa 31096, Israel. aviram@tx.technion.ac.il


Dietary supplementation with polyphenolic antioxidants to animals was shown to be associated with inhibition of LDL oxidation and macrophage foam cell formation, and attenuation of atherosclerosis development. We investigated the effects of pomegranate juice (PJ, which contains potent tannins and anthocyanins) consumption by atherosclerotic patients with carotid artery stenosis (CAS) on the progression of carotid lesions and changes in oxidative stress and blood pressure.

Ten patients were supplemented with PJ for 1 year and five of them continued for up to 3 years. Blood samples were collected before treatment and during PJ consumption. In the control group that did not consume PJ, common carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) increased by 9% during 1 year, whereas, PJ consumption resulted in a significant IMT reduction, by up to 30%, after 1 year.

The patients' serum paraoxonase 1 (PON 1) activity was increased by 83%, whereas serum LDL basal oxidative state and LDL susceptibility to copper ion-induced oxidation were both significantly reduced, by 90% and 59%, respectively, after 12 months of PJ consumption, compared to values obtained before PJ consumption.

Furthermore, serum levels of antibodies against oxidized LDL were decreased by 19%, and in parallel serum total antioxidant status (TAS) was increased by 130% after 1 year of PJ consumption.

Systolic blood pressure was reduced after 1 year of PJ consumption by 21% and was not further reduced along 3 years of PJ consumption.

For all studied parameters, the maximal effects were observed after 1 year of PJ consumption. Further consumption of PJ, for up to 3 years, had no additional beneficial effects on IMT and serum PON1 activity, whereas serum lipid peroxidation was further reduced by up to 16% after 3 years of PJ consumption.

The results of the present study thus suggest that PJ consumption by patients with CAS decreases carotid IMT and systolic blood pressure and these effects could be related to the potent antioxidant characteristics of PJ polyphenols.

PMID: 15158307 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


full text link: http://www.pompills.com/pdf/clinical_nutrition.pdf


Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:05 pm
Report this post
Reply with quote
Post Re: What we are up against
ofonorow wrote:
Quote:
..studies that indicate some possible effect,


Whether you know it or not, you are seeking an assurance that comes from a) a favorable newspaper article, b) the acceptance of vitamin C by the medical profession for CVD, or c) vitamin C as a cause/treatment for CVD in medical text books, etc..

In other words, the 650 clinical studies cited by Levy do not impress you unless the above outcomes are met. You want widespread support and concensus from regular medicine.


This is an incorrect assumption on your part. I would not expect the mainstream media to accept vitamin C. Nor do I need the medical establishment to give it's endorsement. The same applies with allopathic text-books.

What I'd like to see is a well-designed study that demonstrates that the Pauling protocol is effective at clearing the arteries of plaque. This is the implied claim. Hundreds of studies that show that vitamin C or lysine help in one way or another with cardiovascular health DO NOT PROVE THE IMPLIED CLAIM that this formula will clear one's arteries.

Now, if you can find enough customers who have had tests that show this effect (and these tests can be reasonably verified) ... then perhaps a study would be less necessary. This is another option/opportunity that has yet to be taken.

Quote:
I guess it is natural to want more assurance than you feel you have with a medical maverick like Pauling, or Hoffer, Levy, Roberts, etc. etc. Unfortunately, a $5000 study may make you feel better, but even with a solid design, impartial scientists, and unbelievably wonderful effects, it will not generate any media publicity, nor would it move medicine towards acceptance, nor will it enter any medical text books.

You know it, I don't have to prove it.


Let me state this as clearly as possible. This is not about feelings. I don't need any media-validation. I think you're correct when you say that even a successful trial would still not make a major impact. If successful, such a study would likely have a much lesser impact than even Dr. Ornish's research has had. But, this is beside the point.

The truth is the truth regardless if it is ignored or criticized.

It absolutely blows my mind that after all these years, someone like Mathias Rath hasn't conducted a study like the one we're proposing. He's conducted many far less useful studies that show some effect but he's neglected to do the most important (and obvious) study of them all.

edit: In fairness, I found this study, conducted by Dr. Rath, that showed a HALTING of the progression of atherosclerosis. This is significant. Based on this, I wouldn't have a problem with Dr. Rath stating that his program may slow or stop the decline that is typically seen in atherosclerosis.

But let us concede that halting and reversing (or curing) are two very different things.


One final note, the levels of Vitamin C, Lysine (and Proline) in the Rath study were relatively small (compared to what Dr. Pauling and many others advocate for the treatment of heart disease). This may explain the lack of reversal.

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_ ... /pub18.htm

Now, some members of this board tend to accept certain conspiratorial theories regarding medicine. Let me lay-out a theory that is at least as plausible as those that are often made about modern medicine.

Here's a theory that some people could logically propose:

The specialists (authors, doctors, scientists, etc) who write books that advocate using nutrients to reverse heart disease don't want to have a definitive study conducted. Why? Because the vast majority of the time, when natural remedies are tested (even by proponents of natural medicine), the results typically are less spectacular than the claims that are/were made.

Quote:
But the idea that the existing studies only show "some possible effect" is the clue that you assume the medical profession would be "all over this" if the truth were otherwise. I can tell you that the 50-year-old Willis studies are credible. They are ignored, yes, but just because they are ignored, doesn't mean that they show only a "possible effect". Willis nailed it. He proved the relationship between vitamin C and CVD.

However, a study by the US National Institutes of Health is a different matter. And the NIH are the ones who should be testing this, given the amount of human suffering and potential savings involved. We'd be much better off if the 1000 individuals (make it 1 million) flooded the NIH with questions, rather than put out $100. THe more people who ask the NIH why they wouldn't fund out proposed studies, or come up with their own study, would do a lot more good.


I'd love to see an NIH study but what if that doesn't happen (like it hasn't for many years since your request)? Do we just sit around and complain about how unfair the government is? I don't count on the government to pay my bills and I don't count on "the system" to provide everything else I need. We're not helpless victims of the government. We can do a great many things without their assistance and stamp-of-approval.

So, if you want to wage a letter-writing campaign to help bring attention to the cause of the NIH study ... count me in. But, I can tell you that the case for such a study would only be bolstered by the evidence that we could gather from our proposed pilot study. Our little study, apart from providing evidence of it's own, could help to instigate a larger study. This is very common. Pilot studies are often followed up by larger-scale studies.

Of course, if the results of our study turn out to be negative ... this would likely hurt our chances with the NIH.

Quote:
I may split this part of this thread because as you say, we have strayed, but more importantly, I would like everyone's input on how to design such a study.. I went through this exercise myself on two separate occassions.

Remember, we have submitted two different grant requests to the NIH - both turned down.

What are you looking for that you feel such a small study will provide that we don't already have or know?


Proof that this protocol can clear (any amount of) arterial plaque.

Quote:
Here are some questions that need answered to do the design.

1. Exactly how should we measure the outcome?


Pleae take a look at the other successful studies on dietary interventions (from "post one"). Let's use those as possible models.

Maybe the CardioRetinometry could play a role?

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/bush/

Quote:
2. What would you like to know? Vitamin C? Vitamin C/Lysine? Vitamin C/Lysine/Proline?
Vitamin C/lysine/Proline/Vitamin E/A etc.??


Personally, I think we should stick to the basics. If the primary active ingredients are Vitamin C and lysine ... then let's start with those. But, I'm not opposed to incorporating some or all of Pauling's supplemental guidelines or using one of the products that you helped to formulate.

The one thing I would want to avoid is this: Whatever "we" decide to use (supplement-wise) let's agree that, if the study is not successful or less successful than we'd hope ... we won't start second-guessing and saying, "Well it didn't work because we added this nutrient or left out this other nutrient". This is a common and frustrating tactic that leads to a lack of credibility.

Quote:
3. What do we do about the control group? How do we deprive any one of vitamin C during the study? What would we use as a placebo?


Most older people have some degree of arterial build-up and some of them do not take medications for it. We can utilize the large segment of the population. We don't have to use people with established heart disease that are on medication.


[color=blue]You take one group, of these older people, that aren't on any medication and provide them with the supplements.

You take another group who ARE ON medication and you use them as a comparison group.

It's important to note that this doesn't have to be a blinded-study! Allopathic medicine doesn't have any medication that will clear a patient's arteries! So, the participants using the medication will, at best, remain stable or likely worsen. The participants who receive the nutrients will possibly improve, stabilize or potentially worsen.

That's all the comparison we'll need! One group (hopefully) will show a regression of their arterial plaque and the other should not.

Quote:
4. How do we obtain patients and what are the restrictions (if any)? Most heart patients are taking a rather dangerous protocol - prescription cocktail of drugs that cause heart disease.


I think my prior answer covers this concern.

Quote:
5. How do we pay for the objective tests to measure the outcomes, the product, and/or the particpants?


That's where the fundraising comes in. We keep the protocol and testing to an absolute minimum. We call upon any allies that may be willing to help with the funding, the supplies and our diagnostic needs. Let's get creative.

Quote:
6. How long should the study run?


You tell me. In your prior proposal you state some proposed time-frames. Naturally, the shorter the time-frame ... the lower the cost. But, the study would need to be long enough for the prospective effect to manifest.

Quote:
7. Why is this even necessary? It is a fact that any individual can obtain the basic protocol without prescription and with a great assurance of no toxicity. The force behind this is Linus Pauling. In other words, every individual can run this experiment ON THEMSELVES to see whther it works in their case. With their particular diet, their bioindividuality, their set of prescription drugs and supplements, and their particular dental work and other issues.

As an aside, there was a researcher in England who did a 2 year study of vitamin C, lysine and vitamin E, and reported to me highly favorable results. But then he went entirely silent. (Was he paid off? I don't know.) We think he may have started a company. This is some evidence that he was trying to obtain world-wide patents on his formula, etc. He may be waiting to publish after he has the patents..)
[/color]


A concept that many people in the naturopathic community don't seem to grasp is this: If my mother, for example, uses this protocol for a year and it doesn't work ... it is a year in which she could have been benefiting from something else. Again, as an example, let's say she went on Ornish's program or started drinking Pomegranate Juice. Would the nutrient-therapy do as well for her? We don't know.

Also, taking all of the suggested nutrients that we often read about IS costly and it requires a significant amount of dedication. So let's not just say that it's non-toxic and cheap. Again, as a comparison, one glass of Pomegranate Juice would likely be much cheaper (especially if you reconstitute the juice from a concentrate) and it's much easier than mixing the powders, carrying around the capsules and determining bowel tolerance, etc.

We must consider all costs - time, money, convenience, comfort, etc. In other words ... quality of life.


Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:07 pm
Report this post
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9341
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post Way to much
This is going to be an interesting issue, but I would appreciate multiple posts, maybe even multiple threads when the topic varies! Too much in one post.

For example, you mentioned early on that Rath hadn't run a study, (when in fact he has run a year-long study), but then you found it in the middle of the post. My poor little brain..


Anyway, lets start with this
Quote:
This is an incorrect assumption on your part. I would not expect the mainstream media to accept vitamin C. Nor do I need the medical establishment to give it's endorsement. The same applies with allopathic text-books.

What I'd like to see is a well-designed study that demonstrates that the Pauling protocol is effective at clearing the arteries of plaque. This is the implied claim. Hundreds of studies that show that vitamin C or lysine help in one way or another with cardiovascular health DO NOT PROVE THE IMPLIED CLAIM that this formula will clear one's arteries.


Ahh. So you want proof of a given formula! This is different.

My point is that the proof of the efficacy of vitamin C already exists. If you read the various Willis studies, which I encourage you to do, they provide PROOF that not only will vitamin C - and vitamin C alone - reverse human-like atherosclerosis in guinea pigs, but even low doses in humans can reverse 1/3 of the plaques, and halt another 1/3. Again, this was in 1953, but it contains the proof of vitamin C that you say is missing. Rath repeated that with his low-dose formula

Now, the studies you posted may have some bearing, but from a cursory review of what you posted, they don't impress. Not very well controlled. Lots of variables, not sure of the measurements, etc. Not sure much or any valuable information would come out of those studies.

What do you like about them?.

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:24 am
Report this post
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9341
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post Where do we state cure?
Quote:
But let us concede that halting and reversing (or curing) are two very different things.


I admit it, I love to quote Pauling's own words where he stated that vitamin C and lysine not only "completely control", but may "reverse" atherosclerotic plaques. That was his opinion, based on the theory and his knowledge.

But our small compaines would risk jail by claiming a cure in any advertising or web site (in our wonderful free country). If we do give this impression, please help us by pointing to a specific instance where we claim that it is the cure? Again, we do sort of imply this on paulingtherapy.com - which is devoted to Pauling and his words on the 1992 video (now DVD!) And I do personally believe that for many people, vitamin C and lysine can be an effective "cure" - so long as they keep taking vitamin C and lysine. I even wrote an article about why we shouldn't call it a cure, because the condition returns once the vitamin C is stopped. So let me know where the claim you seem so uneasy about is so we may rectify the impression. (Dr. Levy's book points out that the nature of the plaque differs, and its age determines how well/easily vitamin C and lysine might reverse the "blockage". )

And, per this discussion, we all would hope that by now, some researcher somewhere at some college or university would have picked up on this idea and tried to either prove or disprove it. (Forgetting for the moment the UK researcher who did just this, but then went silent.) The point is that the Foundation is biased. We all want indpendent observers to run the experiments.

Dr. Steve Hickey makes a good point, either in the book ASCORBATE, or in correspondence published at this forum. Hickey worte that the fact that no one has yet DISPROVED Pauling's assertion is quite powerful. It is safe to assume that the Pharmaceutical companies had the where-with-all and motive to run one or more studies to debunk Pauling/Rath by now. If they had found any evidence that Pauling was wrong, we would have heard about it long ago. (Or are we to assume they just ignored the potential cure for the number one killer in the industrialized countries?)

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:38 am
Report this post
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9341
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post I think I see where you are coming from
Quote:
Proof that this protocol can clear (any amount of) arterial plaque.



First, we have had the "proof", as I keep saying, and have had it since 1950. Why do you resist? Well controlled, good science, understandable outcome. And this was for 1500 mg of vitamin C all by itself.

But from your discussion, I can see exactly where you are coming from. Unlike me, you have not talked to hundreds of people over ten years who have completely cleared their conditions (although we have posted many of their stories). And of course I am swayed by these anecdotes because there is a basis of a sound, comprehensive theory.

Also, I know that when the average person searches the internet they are apt to find many conflicting claims, It is only natural to wonder whether the Pauling approach is a hoax, or whether something else might in fact be much more effective. (There is one product in particular that is VERY expensive, gains a lot of converts, doesn't work to my knowledge, have been cited by the FTC, but their marketing is good!)

Ergo, you want science to "prove" one approach over another.

Fine, so do I. And maybe the outcome of this topic will be a reasonable design that isn't too expensive that can provide the data you are looking for. (But you also want to know whether the other methods work or don't work. This is where the Pauling/Rath unified theory helps me! I can predict tthe outcome! Using the theory, it is easy to know what will and won't work. And that means any study should be designed to disprove (or prove) the theory)

We have toyed with the idea of funding a study a lot, but it boils down to a complete waste of money if we (the Vitamin C Foundation) conducts it. Since the NIH exists, and siphons public funds to pay pharmaceutical companies, we are just trying to get funds spent on what the public thinks their money is being spent for! I am no fan of big Government, and in fact the FDA and NIH are pawns of Big Pharma - funded by US Taxpayers.

Long live Ron Paul!!!

Anyway, we wouldn't still be in business if people stopped taking the product. There is NO advertising, at least any more, and over the years we have done very little. Our business is completely word-of-mouth.

And I know of at least 2 other trials that are planned or going on, err make that 3, but I'm not supposed to talk about.

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:05 am
Report this post
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Way to much
ofonorow wrote:

Now, the studies you posted may have some bearing, but from a cursory review of what you posted, they don't impress. Not very well controlled. Lots of variables, not sure of the measurements, etc. Not sure much or any valuable information would come out of those studies.

What do you like about them?.


I like them because:

a) They use an objective means of determining success and prove that these methods are successful (in humans).

b) They're long term studies.

c) They go against the pharmaceutical model and yet they still managed to get published in mainstream, peer-reviewed medical journals (something it is supposedly impossible).


Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:57 am
Report this post
Reply with quote
Post Re: Where do we state cure?
ofonorow wrote:
Quote:
But let us concede that halting and reversing (or curing) are two very different things.


I admit it, I love to quote Pauling's own words where he stated that vitamin C and lysine not only "completely control", but may "reverse" atherosclerotic plaques. That was his opinion, based on the theory and his knowledge.

But our small compaines would risk jail by claiming a cure in any advertising or web site (in our wonderful free country). If we do give this impression, please help us by pointing to a specific instance where we claim that it is the cure? Again, we do sort of imply this on paulingtherapy.com - which is devoted to Pauling and his words on the 1992 video (now DVD!) And I do personally believe that for many people, vitamin C and lysine can be an effective "cure" - so long as they keep taking vitamin C and lysine. I even wrote an article about why we shouldn't call it a cure, because the condition returns once the vitamin C is stopped. So let me know where the claim you seem so uneasy about is so we may rectify the impression. (Dr. Levy's book points out that the nature of the plaque differs, and its age determines how well/easily vitamin C and lysine might reverse the "blockage". )

...

Dr. Steve Hickey makes a good point, either in the book ASCORBATE, or in correspondence published at this forum. Hickey worte that the fact that no one has yet DISPROVED Pauling's assertion is quite powerful. It is safe to assume that the Pharmaceutical companies had the where-with-all and motive to run one or more studies to debunk Pauling/Rath by now. If they had found any evidence that Pauling was wrong, we would have heard about it long ago. (Or are we to assume they just ignored the potential cure for the number one killer in the industrialized countries?)



If I looked hard enough, I'm sure I could find statements that imply some preventive or therapeutic effect. It is not in your interest (or mine) for me to look for such information. It is enough to acknowledge that that is the common perception. Many people are using these products with the intent of clearing their arteries.

The reason I won't look for this information is that I do not wish you or this foundation any harm. I simply want to push the envelope a bit. I think that people that use these products deserve this.

Look, if for whatever reason these products don't perform as well as we'd hope (in a trial), wouldn't you want to know this? You receive positive testimonials but what of the people that don't reorder or don't send such testimonials? Are they moving on to other things? Dying? Getting so much better that they leave the entire therapy behind? Who knows?

I disagree that Hickey's point makes any sense at all. There isn't enough research out there for Big Pharma to give a darn about the Pauling Therapy. Dr. Pauling has been gone for over a decade. If anything, his work is drifting from popularity rather than gaining momentum. This doesn't point to any real threat to the pharmaceutical industry.

If Hickey was right, Big Pharma would have already tried to run trials to discredit Dr. Ornish. His therapeutic approach got far more attention and would be far more of a threat than the Vitamin C/Lysine approach. And, he's still out there writing books, conducting research, doing interviews, etc.


Last edited by Seymore Spectacles on Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:09 pm
Report this post
Reply with quote
Post Re: I think I see where you are coming from
ofonorow wrote:
Quote:
Proof that this protocol can clear (any amount of) arterial plaque.



First, we have had the "proof", as I keep saying, and have had it since 1950. Why do you resist? Well controlled, good science, understandable outcome. And this was for 1500 mg of vitamin C all by itself.

But from your discussion, I can see exactly where you are coming from. Unlike me, you have not talked to hundreds of people over ten years who have completely cleared their conditions (although we have posted many of their stories). And of course I am swayed by these anecdotes because there is a basis of a sound, comprehensive theory.

...

And I know of at least 2 other trials that are planned or going on, err make that 3, but I'm not supposed to talk about.



Owen,

Tell me something. If Dr. Willis proved that 1,500 mg of vitamin C (all by itself) could reverse heart disease ... then why did a study, conducted some forty years later by a colleague of Dr. Pauling (Dr. Rath) find that nearly double that amount of Vitamin C could only HALT the process?

I do believe that anecdotal accounts of success have meaning. But, they need to be carefully documented if they are to have the legitimacy that they likely deserve. Have you followed-up to determine that these positive cases are in fact accurate? Have you requested and received copies of lab-work or radiological images? Compiling such evidence and presenting "to the world" for scrutiny would be a step in the right direction.

I won't question you about the upcoming trials since it appears to be sensitive information. I'd like to ask about 'em. But, I'll restrain myself. :)

I just thought of one question which hopefully isn't too sensitive: Do you know if the authors of these upcoming studies plan to publish or otherwise make public their results - regardless of success or failure? I would hope so.


Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:15 pm
Report this post
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.