Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

The discussion of the Linus Pauling vitamin C/lysine invention for chronic scurvy

Moderator: ofonorow

BaronZemo
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#16  Post by BaronZemo » Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:06 pm

What fruits? For what cost? The numbers may be off, but when Angel wrote that the top 10 drug companies profits exceed the other 490 in the Forbes 500, that was around $32 billion per year. Ergo, the TOTAL profits of the Fortune 500 in that year was around $60 billion, or roughly twice what we spend in the NIH every year.





In the Us, drug companies have the highest profit margins of all industries


Something deceptive that drug companies do is that they say they spend a lot on research, which they list in there corporate reports as a percentage. The percentage is very large, however, what they do is they include marketing expeditures as "research"..that means all the army of sales reps, advertising etc are under that umbrella...in point of fact they spend little as we all know

godsilove

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#17  Post by godsilove » Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:33 am

ofonorow wrote:
does this negate the fruits of all the research that the NIH has funded?


What fruits?


Where do I even begin? A lot of what we know about the human body - about genes, nutrition, biochemistry, etc is partly due to basic science research conducted with grants from the NIH. Without this research, our understanding of diseases and how to even attempt to treat them would be barren.

For what cost? The numbers may be off, but when Angel wrote that the top 10 drug companies profits exceed the other 490 in the Forbes 500, that was around $32 billion per year. Ergo, the TOTAL profits of the Fortune 500 in that year was around $60 billion, or roughly twice what we spend in the NIH every year.

Imagine the breakthroughs if this staggering amount of money that is spent on the NIH went to small private companies to encourage and promote medical research! For example, for the money we waste on the NIH, the Government could offer a reward - say $1 billion dollars - for the company that cures heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. Or make the reward $30 billion. In a year or two, all chronic conditions would be cured! (We know how to do it now. :D )


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Yes, drug companies make a lot of profit, but they also outspend the NIH when it comes to biomedical research (57% vs. 28% of all biomedical research spending according to thisarticle). This is not surprising given that clinical trials are far more costly, and that the NIH funds a lot of laboratory research.

And the truth is that many biotech and pharmaceutical startups are spinoffs from universities or built around patents that arose from NIH-sponsored research. In a way, it is not too dissimilar from the NIH handing over the funds to such companies. But the NIH also funds a lot of research that does not have immediate commercial value, but lays the groundwork for future research. I think that it if were left entirely to the private sector, much of this kind of research would be neglected to the detriment of future progress. But I guess that is another debate altogether.

What percent of people taking the Pauling/Rath therapy are actually cured?


[color=#000080]Trick question! Zero. (The Pauling therapy does not CURE the condition in the usual sense of the word cure, as the patient must continue to take a maintenance dosage to continue receiving the benefits.)


I only ask because Ralph Lotz referred to it as the "Pauling/Rath Cure".

Anyway, tying into what Mike Molyneaux was suggesting in the other sub-forum - the Foundation has a number of testimonials from people who have used this protocol. Why can't it try and implement a more systematic way of recording such information? It would not be as useful as a clinical trial, but it would at least not be as costly. Perhaps there can be a way for consenting participants who are starting the protocol to record their experiences using a daily or weekly web-based survey that records any confirmed diagnoses, lab values, medications being taken, vitamin C/lysine intake and compliance, frequency of exercise, etc. As an incentive, a rebate on vitamin C products could be offered. If the cost of such an exercise is reasonable, perhaps a company like Livon Labs could also provide support.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#18  Post by ofonorow » Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:52 am

I guess the answer to the last question is that there is a business that survives because the PT products do work. The business grows mostly by word of mouth, but is not profitable enough to fund the work that sounds easy to do. If people weren't being helped, believe me, they would not continue to take the products in the face of medicine and its dire warnings. And there is already a ton of good science, but none of it impresses anyone who has an interest in the business of medicine. So adding more "evidence" is futile. Sure, there are things I would like to know, but on the whole, those that follow Linus Pauling's advice experience "miraculous" results. I receive feelings of satisfaction daily that many mainstream doctors may never have.

Name one cure the NIH has participated in, sponsored or spawned.

I brought up the numbers because we "invest" in the NIH at a staggering amount, close to what the 10 most profitable businesses in the world make as profit!!! This is a windfall for Big Pharma - help with funding their research. It is not only outrageous, it should be a crime. I stand by the argument that if we paid a reward to private firms, some small firms would cure (and prove) the major chronic diseases immediately with the money we waste at the NIH. (And I can safely predict this because the "cures" for heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other illness are already well known...)
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

godsilove

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#19  Post by godsilove » Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:29 am

ofonorow wrote:I guess the answer to the last question is that there is a business that survives because the PT products do work. The business grows mostly by word of mouth, but is not profitable enough to fund the work that sounds easy to do. If people weren't being helped, believe me, they would not continue to take the products in the face of medicine and its dire warnings. And there is already a ton of good science, but none of it impresses anyone who has an interest in the business of medicine. So adding more "evidence" is futile. Sure, there are things I would like to know, but on the whole, those that follow Linus Pauling's advice experience "miraculous" results. I receive feelings of satisfaction daily that many mainstream doctors may never have.


I think your assertion that evidence is futile is false. I think there are many medical professionals who would be delighted if there was a treatment that offered significant benefits for their heart disease patients. When you consider that many doctors themselves would benefit or have friends and family who would benefit from this, there is definitely a motive to find a treatment that works better than existing therapies. A doctor does not benefit from prescribing a $100/month treatment over one that costs $5/month.

The issue is precisely that of evidence. Doctors are trained to follow evidence-based medicine, and if you want to see widespread use of vitamin C - evidence is the way to go.

I saw you posted on a different thread that manufacturers make $180m per year on Vitamin C. I realize that it's probably a very fragmented industry, but if even 5% of that money could go towards funding a proper, well-run Phase II trial on Pauling/Rath therapy, then I can guarantee that this would at least spark some interest (if the outcome is positive). Getting an NIH grant fro a larger study would then be a lot easier.

As an aside, as a result of the federal stimulus, the NCCAM will have a larger budget - are Pauling/Rath advocates going to approach them to try and get this therapy evaluated? Sen. Tom Harkin was able to persuade the NCCAM to run a large ($30m) study on the use of chelation therapy. So I don't think it's impossible to get funding for vitamin C; there needs to be more advocacy from alternative doctors who are using this protocol.


Name one cure the NIH has participated in, sponsored or spawned.


Vaccines - even better than a cure. And you have to also wonder how many of the antifungals and antibiotics developed in the last three or four decades have at least built upon work funded by the NIH. To repeat myself, the NIH funds a lot of research that lays the groundwork for future discoveries.

I brought up the numbers because we "invest" in the NIH at a staggering amount, close to what the 10 most profitable businesses in the world make as profit!!! This is a windfall for Big Pharma - help with funding their research. It is not only outrageous, it should be a crime. I stand by the argument that if we paid a reward to private firms, some small firms would cure (and prove) the major chronic diseases immediately with the money we waste at the NIH. (And I can safely predict this because the "cures" for heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other illness are already well known...)


Not just big pharma, but also smaller biotechs and companies in other areas of science and technology benefit from government investment. It is not too different from a government providing loans.

The "cures" are not well known. You believe they are, but you are unable to reliably demontrate this. Many people claim they have the cures - but curiously few of them seem willing to put them to the test. Hulda Clark published many books purporting to know the cure for all cancers, yet she herself passed away with Multiple Myeloma. You have to understand the point of view of people who are not entrenched in the CAM mindset - with all the delusion, misconceptions, and outright quackery associated with "alternative" cancer cures, the only way to sift through the madness is to identify those with scientific merit.

Dolev
quack
quack
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:01 am
Contact:

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#20  Post by Dolev » Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:12 pm

A doctor does not benefit from prescribing a $100/month treatment over one that costs $5/month.


No? I think you should read "The Truth About Drug Companies" by Marcia Angell, M.D.


Doctors are trained to follow evidence-based medicine, and if you want to see widespread use of vitamin C - evidence is the way to go.


Yes, they are trained for that, the question is whose evidence. Many doctors may believe they are following evidence-based medicine, while the evidence they are based on is very flimsy, while ignoring or not being told about stronger evidence for something else. Look doctors work long hours and doesn't have time to research things for themselves. They rely on what they are taught, and most of what they are taught comes one way or another from drug companies as a source. If you don't believe that, the above book will deepen your understanding.

As far as vitamin therapies and evidence-based medicine, have you read Owen's book? Or Dr. Levi's? There is so much evidence for vitamin C's power, that it becomes obvious that it is being ignored .
Dolev

Ralph Lotz
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:52 pm
Location: Lombard, IL
Contact:

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#21  Post by Ralph Lotz » Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:18 am

A doctor does not benefit from prescribing a $100/month treatment over one that costs $5/month.


Right, and the doctor's don't benefit either when the prescription renewal requires another office visit do they?
"Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution...medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship..force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what..dictating outfit offers." Dr. Benjamin Rush

godsilove

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#22  Post by godsilove » Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:47 pm

Ralph Lotz wrote:
A doctor does not benefit from prescribing a $100/month treatment over one that costs $5/month.


Right, and the doctor's don't benefit either when the prescription renewal requires another office visit do they?


In some provinces in Canada, pharmacists have the authority to renew prescriptions, so even this potential incentive (which still seems absurd) would not exist in this case. Thus the decision to prescribe a drug or recommend an over-the-counter supplement is primarily dictated by evidence.

J.Lilinoe

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#23  Post by J.Lilinoe » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:36 am

According to Dr. Gary Null, who recently testified before the New York State Assembly in October 2009 (do a search in YouTube under Dr. Gary Null) medical errors KILL over a million people each year. I repeat, medical errors KILL over a million people each year. So much for "evidence based medicine" eh?

godsilove

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#24  Post by godsilove » Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:14 pm

J.Lilinoe wrote:According to Dr. Gary Null, who recently testified before the New York State Assembly in October 2009 (do a search in YouTube under Dr. Gary Null) medical errors KILL over a million people each year. I repeat, medical errors KILL over a million people each year. So much for "evidence based medicine" eh?


This is a strawman argument. If anything, many of these medical errors (the numbers I've heard are less than a million, although still a substantial amount) probably arise from a lack of evidence-based practices.

J.Lilinoe

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#25  Post by J.Lilinoe » Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:23 pm

Godislove, go take a look at the YouTube video called, Gary Null NYS Assembly Hearing 10-13-09 Vaccines. What he says is that the number one cause of DEATH in America is from AMERICAN MEDICINE. He also said that Vioxx killed over 40,000 people and injured over 100,000 people and after that the drug company's stock went up. He asks, where else but in American can you murder over 40,000 people and still get a raise? He calls the drug companies SERIAL KILLERS who have committed massive crimes against humanity. I don't know about you but I would be ashamed to support an industry of SERIAL KILLERS.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#26  Post by ofonorow » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:02 am

Thank you J.Lilinoe.

Re:

This is a strawman argument. If anything, many of these medical errors (the numbers I've heard are less than a million, although still a substantial amount) probably arise from a lack of evidence-based practices.


Quite the opposite. However, do you consider heart operations and angioplasty examples of "evidence-based" practice? If your answer is no ( they weren't -- there were no studies before coming into widespread use) then I agree with you. People seem to assume that everything a medical doctor does is "evidence based" when some (most?) practice isn't. So if you are arguing against common medical practice, then we agree.

But the issue here I think is the "evidence" behind prescription drugs, which do most of the damage. A solid argument can be made that this "science" is more clever marketing than real science. (See recent Senator Grassley interview about the common practice of Ghost writing - med school professors paid by drug companies to say they authored journal articles, in Rants post)

But we respect your willingness to debate from an untenable position :wink: :lol:

You, as most medically educated professionals do, are free to believe what you believe. I respect that and hope that you are willing to continue the debate!
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

godsilove

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#27  Post by godsilove » Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:57 pm

J.Lilinoe wrote:Godislove, go take a look at the YouTube video called, Gary Null NYS Assembly Hearing 10-13-09 Vaccines. What he says is that the number one cause of DEATH in America is from AMERICAN MEDICINE. He also said that Vioxx killed over 40,000 people and injured over 100,000 people and after that the drug company's stock went up. He asks, where else but in American can you murder over 40,000 people and still get a raise? He calls the drug companies SERIAL KILLERS who have committed massive crimes against humanity. I don't know about you but I would be ashamed to support an industry of SERIAL KILLERS.


Again, this is a fallacious argument because it doesn't really address the issue of evidence-based medicine.

All interventions have different risk-benefit profiles; the task of the FDA is to ensure that it approves only treatments where the benefits outweigh the risks, and to ensure that prescribers and patients are well-informed of them. This did not happen with Vioxx. But without studies, Vioxx would not have been linked with cardiovascular events in the first place. And Vioxx is just one of many, many drugs - they all can have side effects, but the real question is whether they outweigh the benefits.

Furthermore, evidence-based medicine is a goal; not all doctors follow it to the T, and there are many practices that are not based on sufficient evidence. But the beauty of evidence-based medicine is that even widespread interventions are constantly being re-evaluated (for instance, you might have heard of the ongoing debate about the guidelines for breast cancer screening), and they should be. You almost seem to be suggesting that because of the shortcomings of modern medicine, that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. I grew up in Africa and India, where the quality of life of people who have adequate access to modern medicine and those who do not is like night and day. Look at infant mortality rates, for instance.

No doubt, the high number of iatrogenic deaths (even though I think Dr. Null's numbers are probably inflated since he bases them on extrapolations) are a cause for concern. But these will not be addressed by abandoning the entire system altogether. The public would be better served by focusing on finding solutions - and the scientific process can play a vital role in finding them.

Let's take one problem - that of fatalities or injury caused by dosing errors. The solution you seem to be proposing is to forgo any kind of pharmacotherapy altogether. That means no insulin for diabetics, no antibiotics for children with community-acquired pneumonia, no painkillers for terminally ill patients or those who have suffered trauma, etc. In many cases, it would mean witholding potentially life-saving treatment or treatment that would maintain a patient's quality of life. I don't see this as a viable option, and the cost of doing nothing is far too great. I would rather work towards finding solutions that minimize the chance of a drug being administered improperly e.g. electronic health records, innovative drug delivery devices, etc.

godsilove

Re: Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

Post Number:#28  Post by godsilove » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:16 pm

ofonorow wrote:Thank you J.Lilinoe.
Re:

This is a strawman argument. If anything, many of these medical errors (the numbers I've heard are less than a million, although still a substantial amount) probably arise from a lack of evidence-based practices.


Quite the opposite. However, do you consider heart operations and angioplasty examples of "evidence-based" practice? If your answer is no ( they weren't -- there were no studies before coming into widespread use) then I agree with you. People seem to assume that everything a medical doctor does is "evidence based" when some (most?) practice isn't. So if you are arguing against common medical practice, then we agree.


Common medical practice and evidence-based medicine are not always the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive. As per my response to J.Lilinoe, I realize that many widespread practices are not evidence-based. For example, the use of angioplasties is very controversial because some studies have shown no benefit over non-surgical treatment. Another practice that was once widespread without sufficient evidence was the use of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplants in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

But the issue here I think is the "evidence" behind prescription drugs, which do most of the damage.
A solid argument can be made that this "science" is more clever marketing than real science. (See recent Senator Grassley interview about the common practice of Ghost writing - med school professors paid by drug companies to say they authored journal articles, in Rants post)


Ghostwriting is definitely a problem. But if you're using this as an argument against science-based medicine, then this is a tu quoque fallacy. I applaud Sen. Grassley's efforts to get medical schools to be more proactive on this issue, as it definitely needs to be dealt with.


But we respect your willingness to debate from an untenable position :wink: :lol:


Just out of curiosity, what do you think my position is? Because I sometimes think my views get misconstrued on this forum. :(

You, as most medically educated professionals do, are free to believe what you believe. I respect that and hope that you are willing to continue the debate!


I'm not medically educated per se. I'm just a B.Sc graduate with an interest in medicine (for now at least).


Return to “Heart Disease: Linus Pauling's Vitamin C/Lysine Therapy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 64 guests

cron