ofonorow wrote:The truth I speak of is that a vast majority of illness in our species is caused by our inability to synthesize ascorbate, as the other 99.99% of mammals do. Were we able to replace this missing factor in the population, not only would there be far less illness, the large pharmaceuticals would have little or no reason for existence. (There would be no market for statin drugs, for example.)
Of course disease exists, but my point is that much (if not all) can be explained by the absence of ascorbate, and, but to a far lesser extent, some other nutritional factor (e.g. coQ10, vitamin B12, etc. etc.). However, medical professionals are routinely taught that this notion is nonsense and "quackery."[/color]
But none of this (i.e. vast majority of illness being due to the GULO mutation) is backed by convincing scientific evidence; it is largely hypothetical.
I think the evidence speaks for itself. Why do you think there hasn't been EVEN ONE study run to test the Pauling therapy at the recommended dosages?
There has to be a justification for running a clinical trial - based on pre-clinical evidence or in this case, peer-reviewed case reports demonstrating both biological and clinical plausibility. As I've mentioned before, if Pauling Therapy is so successful, then why doesn't an alternative practitioner compile a consecutive case series that is independently reviewed? This is a less costly alternative then running a pilot clinical trial, and could serve as grounds to justify spending money on a clinical trial.
I'll have to go back, but you surprised me in the discussion of the "huge mountain" of statin research saying that they have proven "prevention" but that it is not a pallitive treatment.
Why is it surprising? Statins are indicated for lowering cholesterol and for risk reduction - not for relieving pain symptoms. There are other treatments for that.
That was quite an admission, since vitamin C, on the other hand, is advocated as a quick turn around of advanced CVD. Something you seem to want to avoid studying. Yes, alt. doctors who are willing to buck orthodoxy see these turn arrounds routinely. I am more interested in regular cardiologists, who would naturally be skeptical. What have they got to lose by trying? (Their patients have a lot to lose.)
Avoid studying? Hardly....to the contrary, I'd love to actually see some clinical evidence that goes beyond anecdotal reports.
I am trying to point out that prevention is a side issue. Critically ill patients can be made well in less than 30 days. Without any risk of toxicity.[/color]
I thought we were discussing statins - the majority of patients prescribed statins are not "critically ill", so prevention
is the important issue here.
Hard to say. I've been hearing hundreds of reports from people who have adopted the Pauling-therapy, usually without their doctors knowledge, for more than 15 years. The similarity of the reports is what is convincing. I'd say that I became a believer after about 20 or 30 in the first year. However, without Linus Pauling and the Pauling/Rath Unified Theory, it probably would have required more for me to feel comfortable "sharing" with CVD patients, maybe 50 or one hundred.
Perhaps something the foundation could do is get patients who are considering Pauling therapy to volunteer to be a part of a case series, and have their test results independently reviewed by a cardiologist. After reports from a satisfactory number of patients have been compiled, you can try and get them published in a journal or present the findings at a conference. It's not as rigorous as a clinical trial, but it is something.
Well, I don't know what the percentage is but I'd say the majority, probably now more than 100,000 papers, articles and studies, are of tests in humans. These are described in books by Pauling, Stone, Cheraskin, Levy, etc. The problem is that there is some date, probably in the 1960s, and maybe the 1970s, where even the abstracts are not catalogued by medline. This ignores more than 30 years of extensive vitamin C research. Fortunately, we have the books.
Have you seen this abstracts? If they are not all catalogued, how can you be sure that there aren't any negative studies amongst them?
As far as "how many show efficacy of vitamin C in heart disease", I have reported on most of what I could find in my book, especially the Canadian George Willis, MD studies in both guinea pigs and humans. His results should have sparked considerable research, or so we are led to think. Instead, what happened is that research in vitamin C became taboo after Willis.
Do you have a citation for his studies in humans (with respect to vitamin C and heart disease)? I'm not able to find a single one that investigates ascorbic acid supplementation in living human subjects.