ofonorow wrote:You obviously haven't read my book
(See the Steve From Florida testimony. I fear he is no longer of this world, but his testimony was taken verbatum from this forum. Steve reported no success with the Pauling-therapy after the Cleveland Clinic inserted a medical stent. We also discuss the reasons why we believe persons who initially recovered so quickly, reported relapses over time, (yes not all the news was good news) and of course there is Carol Smith - who anyone can talk to and you can listen to her radio interview from our main web site - hers is a 9 year case study of on the Pauling therapy, feeling fine, getting a normal EKG, stopping for economic reasons and relapsing almost to the point of death. This happened 3 times.)
Fair play to you for including testimonies from people who were successful and not so successful while on the therapy. But the main drawback with testimonies is that it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from them. How do you control for the placebo-effect, or avoid reporting bias or confirmation bias? Even if Pauling Therapy is effective in some patients, there's no way to get an idea of the response rates or the subpopulations in whom the treatment will work.
That's a bizarre reason to dismiss Vitamin D. Sorry, but I'm simply not convinced that scientists have a personal vendetta against the late Linus Pauling. And whether or not Omega-3 has been touted by alt.med proponents is irrelevant here - you made the claim that the way to ruin a research career would be to publish favourable studies on nutritional supplements. A simple search on one of the most prestigious medical journals debunks this claim.
[color=#0000FF]I have never made a claim that scientists are biased against Linus Pauling! (Of course, I don't consider medically trained doctors running these trials to be scientists.) I can point you to several books that expose the debunking campaign, at that time, orchestrated by certain individuals then connected with the AMA. An author posed as a reporter, offering to help, and was given access to files, and he made copies. He found that they had actually studied which alternative modalites seemed to work, and which ones were the most popular, and used this information to aim the disinformation campaign against. It is notable that vitamin D did not make the list, that's all. (They must regret their mistake now.) This is big business, huge business, and these interests know exactly where the competition comes from.
So are all medical researchers forwarded this debunk list, or is this something inculcated in medical school - "thou shalt publish negative studies of vitamin A,B,C,E,K,etc...oops forgot D"?
update: I did look at the first abstract, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... type=HWCIT
regarding ascorbic acid and lead levels, and while this 1999 study was nice, Pauling wrote about this known result in his 1970 book, in the section mentioning that children who consumed more vitamin C had higher IQs, and speculated that this effect was probably due to the then already known result of lower lead levels in people with higher vitamin C blood levels (paint was a larger problem in those days). He has the studies cited, I'll have to check, but they were probably done in the 1940s. If I get time, I will study the references in this 1999 JAMA study to see if they found the earlier work Pauling cited. If they did, I will be surprised, because most of this early work is "hidden" from modern researchers.
Doesn't invalidate my point, even if Pauling speculated upon it in his book; the fact remains that there are both negative and positive studies of vitamins in the mainstream medical literture. As far as early research is concerned, I suspect it is often not cited because of the difficulty accessing the papers or they might be in other languages.
For the most part, taxpayers.
[color=#0000FF]This is what I would have thought. Unfortunately, the $27 billion funded (now $40 billion funded after stimuls) NIH turned us down - twice. Why does the government have no interest in this? Maybe because the pharmaceutical interests - for all intents and purposes - control the NIH? (And if you appreciate irony, after sending my book to the few (2) vitamin C friendly folks at the NIH - they contacted us - the Vitamin C Foundation - asking for grant money to help THEM - the NIH - study vitamin C!?! Think about that?!)
Well, getting funding is not easy to get in general. I'm sure if you asked any PI, they probably submit grant applications to several funding agencies.
Perhaps a Vitamin C researcher might stand a better chance of getting funding from the NCCAM.
Another alternative would be to stumble upon a philanthropist who benefited from Pauling Therapy - another key source of funding for some researchers is non-profits and charitable organizations.
In any case, I wouldn't construe the fact that you have been turned down twice as a general bias against vitamin C. Getting funding isn't easy.
As far as the data, medical science has a blatant self interest, and to the extent Universities are dependent on NIH or pharmaceutical grants, they lose their objectivity. You can chose to believe what you want, but because of the outright fraud in so-called medical science (again I can quote Author and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine about how these medical "studies" are routinely doctored) I do not believe it is worth my time to read any studies run by medicine.
Then you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Even if pharmaceutical companies can rig trials does not mean that they do it routinely. In recent years, there is greater awareness of this especially after the Vioxx saga - I think often the pendulum has swung way too far in favour of the anti-pharma sentiments.