Re: Practicing Medicine Without A License ?
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:51 am
Medical doctors routinely tell their patients that there is no benefit from vitamin C for heart disease, and they are trained to say that taking vitamin C for this reason is "unproven" and may even be unsafe. The book is not proof, it merely provides counterexamples that are difficult to attribute to anything else. (Question for you: Why won't medicine study it and prove Pauling wrong? They have had more than 20 years...)
But if the "few" cases are not sufficient fodder to stimulate your thinking, you may begin to review our testimonials starting at http://www.practicingmedicinewithoutalicense.com/#TESTIMONY
The point is that medical advice against vitamin C is not based on science, and since vitamin C and lysine are extremely safe and there is no known harm from taking either substance, why wouldn't doctors hedge their bets and advise their patients to follow Pauling's advice?
By the way, there is excellent hard science to support the Pauling/Rath theory. The issue is that no studies have been run on the specific dosages recommended by Linus Pauling. (There was reportedly one, as we mention, but Kenton work was never published.)
But if the "few" cases are not sufficient fodder to stimulate your thinking, you may begin to review our testimonials starting at http://www.practicingmedicinewithoutalicense.com/#TESTIMONY
The point is that medical advice against vitamin C is not based on science, and since vitamin C and lysine are extremely safe and there is no known harm from taking either substance, why wouldn't doctors hedge their bets and advise their patients to follow Pauling's advice?
By the way, there is excellent hard science to support the Pauling/Rath theory. The issue is that no studies have been run on the specific dosages recommended by Linus Pauling. (There was reportedly one, as we mention, but Kenton work was never published.)