Moderator: ofonorow
This paper sounds like a lead in that’s used to spike interest to receive grant money to further a study.
J.Lilinoe wrote:This paper sounds like a lead in that’s used to spike interest to receive grant money to further a study.
So out of curiosity, who would give a grant like that to further a non-drug study?
Bill and Melinda Gates?
Ralph Lotz wrote:WAKE UP!
Don't count on NIH, government funded universities or anyone else from the power elite to reverse atherosesclerosis or any other disease.
The Business with Disease is one of the biggest industries in the world.
A cure is not welcome. Current health authorities make sure that a cure is never found while a "new (more expensive) treatment" is right around the corner.
IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DONE, DO IT YOURSELF. This forum has most of the answers.
The best way to reverse atheroscleros is to to never get it.
Use these supplements daily:
Heart Technology/Ascorsine 9, Lifeforce Multiple, Ultra-Mag, high DHA fish oil, K2 as MK-7, D3, Iodoral, green tea extract, grape seed extract, LONGEVINEX, methylselenocysteine. IP-6 cleanse in spring.
If you already have atherosclerosis, take the above, but double the dosages.
P.S. This program will probably prevent and treat just about everything unless you live exclusively on junk food.
In regards to green Tea extract; Wouldn't it be wiser to just take L Theanine instead of the GT?
Then who can we count on?
Despite all government's flaws, public funding has led to several scientific breakthroughs over the past century or so.
Agreed, but for most governments it is also one of the biggest burdens on the national deficit.
With statements like this, one has to wonder how antibiotics and vaccines ever made it on the market.
What "answers"? A lot of what is posted in this forum is speculation and anecdote. Some of it may be true, but there's no systematic way of knowing without scientific studies. You may not be an advocate of the scientific method, but I do think that it's a reliable tool to help drive progress - both in healthcare and other aspects of our daily lives. I'm not saying that patients should not be proactive when it comes to their health, but I think your cynicism borders on paranoia. I agree that government does not always have the public's interest in mind, but that's an evil of government that persists across all its various roles and functions. I don't want to get into a much broader, more tedious debate about the role of government, but suffice it to say that I don't share you glass-empty view on government.
Evidence? Or is that only the prerogative of the "power elite"?
Despite all government's flaws, public funding has led to several scientific breakthroughs over the past century or so.
I also have read (Julian Whitaker) that the NIH tried to steal Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's Antineoplaston Therapy See: http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/ (for brain tumors) and filed patents on his ideas.
ofonorow wrote:Despite all government's flaws, public funding has led to several scientific breakthroughs over the past century or so.
???
Breakthroughs? Do you have any examples? I know we U.S. taxpayers used to pay around $27 billion per year to fund the NIH, and that number just went up dramatically. So what are we getting for $30-$40 billion per year? (Off the top of my head, I can not think of anything novel or important, much less a breakthrough that has originated out of the NIH.)
I do know that for a pittance the NIH could have studied Linus Pauling's claims and chose not to, in favor of supporting medicine and pharmaceutical companies over the public interest.
I also have read (Julian Whitaker) that the NIH tried to steal Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's Antineoplaston Therapy See: http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/ (for brain tumors) and filed patents on his ideas.
Ralph Lotz wrote:Generally, the public pays and the patents and profits go to the researchers and pharmaceutical compnies. Exhibit A is warfarin.
Agreed, but for most governments it is also one of the biggest burdens on the national deficit.
This makes the business with disease a great way to break the bank and bankrupt the nation.
A Cure Is Not Welcome is actually the title of a book. Specifically I was referring our efforts to enlighten the world to the Pauling/Rath Cure for the last 20 years.
A lot of the information on this site is more than mere speculation. And observational medicine has been around for millenia before the so called scientific method. We can sit around waiting for the studies while millions die or see what we have learned in the last 13 years through our experience with the Pauling Therapy. After 40 years in the nutritional investigation business and 2 years working with Dr. Rath I probably am both cynical and paranoid.
Don't lecture me about government. I am a 13th generation American and my ancestors invented this great republic.
I worked as a lobbyist in both IL and DC for DSHEA, without which their would be no (as in zero) supplements in the USA above RDI levels. I am not ignorant of the machinations of government.
If you are seriously interested in a dialogue, please withhold the sarcasim. If you think that there isn't a power elite you are either naive or a "progressive."
The information that I give is based on 46 years of research. It is generally based on the nutrients that are usually absent from a typical diet coupled with those nutrients that have shown promise for preventing and reversing pathologies.
The information is general, but the supplements that I recommend are ones that I have seen good results with and are inexpensive at vitacost.com or iherb.com.
does this negate the fruits of all the research that the NIH has funded?
What percent of people taking the Pauling/Rath therapy are actually cured?
Return to “Heart Disease: Linus Pauling's Vitamin C/Lysine Therapy”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests