Here we go again... Dr. Bill Sloman finds it appropriate to over-exaggerate a (well and frequently) documented claim that somebody cured *some* diseases to be magically transformed in the statement that
*all* diseases are claimed to be cured. What a loser you are if you have to win your arguments in such a deceiving way.
Indeed, I agree, one must be a silly asshole to believe that vitamin C cures *everything*.
The 'only' thing he was talking about was polio, some flu and just a few more. Not 'everything.
Any well documented claim of a fantastically too-good-to-be-true cure deserves serious follow-up.
Only arrogant egoistic 'scientists' would dismiss such a claim on the grounds that 'there is no scientific theory that supports your claim', just as they did with Semmelweis.
In physics, the mother of 'hard science' a claim isn't considered refuted as long as there is no theoretical proof of it being wrong and no experiment hasn't falsified it yet. It would be nice if the medical community would follow this example in order to spare humanity some more of the unnecessary failures a la Semmelweis, Marshall, Klenner (yes: Klenner!).
And even failed to test them against reality. That's the criminal stupidity of it all.
Yeah, the same stupid error again: "Oh, so you claim that you cured polio? So we have done it all wrong all the time and it's so simple that we look like some silly ass-holes if this came out? No, therefore it can't be true."
Old and proven retarded reasoning reflex of the 'scientific' medical community.
But enough different diseases to make his claims obvious nonsense.
It got it - more motivated by Linus Pauling advocacy than anything else - a nd the results were less than impressive.
It would be unscientific to reject a claim because there wasn't any previou s scientific theory into which to fit the observations. Klenner and Pauling claims were rejected because they didn't survive independent experimental testing.
As I seem to have to keep reminding you, the colleagues of Semmelweis rejec ted his claims because they didn't take them seriously. Science didn't come into it - the word scientist had only been invented (in England) 13 years earlier, and no medico though of themselves as a trained in a discipline th at owed anything to science, mainly because it didn't at that time.
Semmelweis's claims were accepted as soon as Pasteur had established germ t heory - by experiment. Lister gets the credit, but Semmelweis had got thei r first. Marshall didn't have any trouble getting his theory accepted as so on as he had experimental evidence to support it. Klenner's experimental ev idence was replicable, so he's - correctly - ignored.
Joey Hey doesn't know about the tests that the Mayo clinic did. Unlike the Pauling and Cameron trials, the Mayo clinic did know how to randomise their patients and run proper double blind experiments (somewhat compromised by the tendency of high doses of Vitamin C to give patients diarrhea) and the effect that Pauling and Cameron had thought that they had seen was not repr oduced.
Elizabeth 2 - at 86 - is doing very well. Her mother died recently at 102, so the genes are probably good, and her environment couldn't be much better (give or take a bit of finely divided soot in the air she breathes). Her f ather died at 57, of lung cancer but he'd smoked like a chimney, as did her younger sister Margaret (also dead).
Drinking unpasteurised milk is an avoidable risk, but not - in modern Engla nd - a particularly large risk. If there's ever an outbreak of tuberculosis in the vicinity, the risk gets a whole lot larger.
Please provide us with references were those 'independent experimental tests' are published. Klenner was simply ignored and as far as I know no one, except for some practitioners that you would also arrogantly brush aside, has even tried to replicate his method. The replication of Pauling's procedure has been plainly sabotaged.
They worked at academic hospitals, carried professor and doctor titles and refuted him based on lack of scientific theory. If that doesn't shout 'science' all around, then I don't know what you think a 'scientist' actually is.
Ok, so finally they got it. Orally vit C doesn't help with cancer. Good. And the 1.2 g/kg vit c is quite near the range of which Klenner has used to treat his patients. Intravenously, that is. So there's no contradiction here also although I'd rather combine the vit C with hemp oil rather than use it exclusively. Further one needs to ensure high enough levels for vit E and glutathione in order for the vit C to have its maximum effects. The mechanism of the Fenton reaction involved is in the mean time also well understood and explains the positive effect of vit C. He, David Gorski, finds a reduction in tumour size of 40%-53% with respect to controls "fairly convincing". The fact that high dose IV vit C is "fairly well tolerated" is also encouraging.
And then further on he continous with a funny assertion. Testing in an early stage would be unethical en (sic) _therefore_ he argues against use of high-dose IV vit C in the early treatment of cancer. The funny thing is that exactly the same argument is used against a comparable type of test for the efficacy of vaccines! And yet everybody is bullied into allowing the pharmaceutical industry to put at least 60 shots into the bodies of their little children.
I find the author a good sport in that he is able to admit that IV vit C _does_ reduce tumour size, but I find him quite a nagger about the 'incredibly high-doses of ascarbate' whereas he himself admits that those doses are 'fairly well tolerated'.
While Bill Sloman is only able to come up with some paltry 'it is all non-sensical' dismissal, even after reading this article himself.
Thanks for the link, although it's clearly very difficult for the author to leave his beloved quack-buster modus operandus.
I guess the pharmaceutical companies would be very happy with a 'medicine' that's able to reduce tumour size by more than 40% but would be much and much more poisonous than high-dose vit C.
One other aspect of the vit C story is the 'unified theory of cardiovascular disease' (CVD) of Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath which until is left out completely of this discussion here.
After finally establishing that after all Pauling _was_ right in that vit C has a curing effect on tumours, the 'scientific medical community' would do well by seriously investigating the effects of not-so-high doses of vit C on cardiovascular disease, especially in the light of the claims that this is completely curable and reversible with medium-high dose vit C.
The basis of this theory is that humans are one of the few animal species that is _not_, or very limited, able to produce its own vit C and should daily ingest something in the order of 10 g of it (of ascorbate). The fact that 1/2 g vit c / day cures and prevents scurvy is by no means 'proof' that we don't actually need more of it. Scurvy is the short term clinical manifestation of severe vit c deficiency and it is argued that CVD is the long-term manifestation. It's also quite possible that there are more long-term sub-clinical conditions that develop with a mild vit C deficiency. Of course there's no research done in that direction, and so, again, the 'scientific medical community' will ridiculously 'argue' that the absence of proof means absence of fact. Well, good luck with that, I would say.
By the way, I myself got a long term 10 point reduction in blood pressure on a supplementation of 5 - 10 g vit C daily. For me that's one of the confirmations that the theory isn't so crazy as some establishment practitioners, raised in highly pharmaceutically subsidized medical institutions would have us believe.
And you call yourself a trained scientist? What the f*ck do _you_ know about the genes of the British Crown. The whole topic here is about longer life from lifestyle, and you don't like that so just blame it on the genes. Hahaha, what a transparent loser...
Oh, and maybe she also gets blood infusions with the blood of young children that seem to have the habit to disappear from the communities around those circles...
In the case of rabies vaccinations, it's generally more than a decade. ...and it can be easily checked. My brother got his rabies titre checked every couple of years and got a booster when needed. For most, there isn't much point in it since the vaccine is effective even after exposure (which is usually pretty obvious).
That was Pauling's theory. It seems to be nonsense.
The "fact" is that 10 milligrams per day of vitamin C prevents cancer. 70 m illigram per day gets the tissues up to one third of the saturation level, so anything more than 200 milligram per day ought to be a waste of effort - though it may do stuff for your gut bacteria.
Clinical trials with around 1 gram per day of vitamin C make it pretty clea r that the high dose doesn't have any more effect than the saturation dose.
y
The argument has only been put forward by demented vitamin C enthusiasts, a nd does seem to have been confirmed in any properly constructed clinical tr ial.
Her pedigree is a matter of common knowledge. She got half her genes from her mother, and half from her father. Her mother lived to 102 which is unusual, and there does seem to be a heritable element in longevity.
formatting link
The genes do come into it, whether we like it or not.
Seems unlikely. For a start, the British police get very interested when children go missing.
Only laughable complete idiots would dismiss the rational musings of a genious as Pauling as 'seemingly nonsense'. It always surprises me that there are fools walking around who have no trouble being arrogantly dismissive about the findings of an excellent scientist, based on... well, nothing.
I'm afraid that I'd require some references to back up that claim of you, because in the animal kingdom those are extremely low doses and it would be extremely surprising, and therefore needing rigorous confirmation--so references please--if the human being were the *only* animal being healthy on such low doses. Monkeys in the zoo get a ration of 10 g per day supplied through their diet. Goats produce themselves in the order of 10 g per day, if stressed up to a factor of 100 more, and then us, human beings, would have enough with less than 200 mg per day? This sounds more like religion than anything else.
I'm also extremely curious as to where you got your figures of the tissue saturation levels.
What 'tissue' are you exactly referring to?
Blood plasma? That cannot possible be saturated at 200 mg/day, as there is no evidence that blood plasma in the living human can be saturated with ascorbate.
White blood cells? White blood cells are a poor model for normal body tissues. White blood cells manufacture oxidants and have very specific requirements for vitamin C. Their use as a model for normal body tissues produces inadequate levels.
The NIH (Levine et al Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93, pp. 3704-3709,
1996) measured the blood concentration of ascorbate about 12 hours after the dose. That is approximately 24 half-lives for vitamin C concentrations above background level. This means that they did not measure a steady state, since the definition of steady state in pharmacology depends on the dose interval being short relative to the half-life. This is a basic pharmacological error
The ideas of plasma and body saturation used to generate the RDA are false and unsupported by the evidence. These ideas are misguided: there is insufficient information to recommend an RDA with any scientific basis whatsoever.
So, if you referred to the USA NIH study on which the guidelines are based, it is interesting to know that the NIH gave a dose of vitamin C, waited until it had been almost completely excreted, and then measured blood levels. Then, 24 half-lives later, NIH researchers concluded this was the saturation level and based on this flawed experiment developed an RDA for 280 million people. And you, in your naive trust in authority, happily seem to be citing this shit as if it were God's 10 commandments.
And let me remind you my request for the references that back up your claim in a previous post that Klenner's and Pauling's claims "didn't survive independent experimental testing", which you never honoured, rather snipped away... On the contrary, there are some case histories that seem to confirm their claims rather spectacularly.
Clinical trials with around 1 gram per day of vitamin C don't say
*anything* about the effect of high doses of 10 gram per day or more. Any statement to suggest it does is pure speculation and highly unscientific. Further there are so many problems with the so called 'saturation dose' and its establishment, that it's no use referring to those either in order to artificially construct a case against higher doses, like for instance those that are totally normal in zoo animals that don't manufacture their own vitamin C.
And IF lifestyle could have an influence, that would also have been transferred from her parents to herself.
Nature or nurture? You don't know that. So you can not possibly conclude that their age is caused by their genes. Which makes that statement 'highly unscientific'.
And then influential people are eagerly willing to stop any investigation into the matter, as we have seen, also in England.
Life-styles changed quite a lot - even for the rich - in Elizabeth 2's life time.
We do know that both come into it.
We do know that ageing is influenced both by genes and environment. People who get very old do have a marked tendency to have had at least one parent who lived to a great age. Having had a parent who died at 102 doesn't stop you from getting hit by a bus, or a particularly virulent flu virus, but it does improve your chances of lasting as long.
Enough has come out recently to suggest that influential people aren't all that influential.
formatting link
It can take a while, but Rolf Harris has gone to jail - decades after he co mmitted the offenses.
I wouldn't know - and neither would you - but one suspects the Royal's cook s follow fashion, like everybody else.
Nobody has "an answer". There are factors that seem likely to change the pr obabilities, which you seem surprisingly unwilling to recognise.
All you can say about anybody's age is that they aren't dead yet. QE 2 is s till getting about without a stick and moving reasonably freely, so she see ms relatively healthy for her age, as her mother was at a similar age.
She's got half of the genes her mother had, so that's a relevant observatio n. Your claim that what I'm saying is "highly unscientific" is just more of your moronic nonsense.
Not a claim that I ever made.
Did you read the Guardian report? The original investigation goes back to 1
991, and didn't lead to a prosecution because none of the three witnesses w ere willing to testify in court. The police eventually found witnesses who would talk, if not about Ted Heath (whose posthumous involvement probably h as more to do with publicity-seeking by an attention-seeking "victim" than any actual activity on Heath's part).
Nevertheless, if the Queen was some kind of vampire, the police would be mo re interested now than they might have been in times past. It's a fairly im plausible proposition in any event.
All it means is that you are slightly more tolerant of it than the average punter. Try large doses of kaolin instead ;-)
It will prevent scurvy but apart from providing me with a large number of aluminium tubes perfect for C cells and wasting NHS money on the clinical trials it had no measurable effect on preventing colds or flu.
It was Linus Pauling's conjecture and people did take it seriously in the mid 1970's enough to do clinical trials which showed no discernable effect. Anyone taking multigramme quantities knew they were on it too.
Hiding the placebo controls was somewhat hampered by the fact that monitoring the pH urine and Na/K balance of blood and the risk of diarrhoea on overdose (like eating any citrus fruit in addition).
Pauling did get stuff slightly wrong, even when he was right, and while he was right about plenty of vitamin C being better than just enough to prevent scurvy, he was wrong about the advocating megadoses of the stuff.
That because you hero-worship people like Pauling. I never met him, but I did meet a few people who were in his league, and even they do say silly things from time to time.
So go find it.
Really? And how would you know "scientific" from a bar of soap?
There are cases where high doses of a chemical do have different effects from low doses - lots of paracetamol will kill you because enough of it will saturate the normal mechanism that clears it from the body, and one of it's metabolites will then kill you.
formatting link
It's a little harder to see something like this happening with vitamin C because it passes through the kidneys fast and unchanged. There's absolutely no evidence of lots of vitamin C doing anything interesting.
Only by the kind of people who think that vaccination is bad for you, and drinking unpasteurised milk is a good idea.
It got a certain amount of publicity at the time, and sounded like one more health-nut fairy-tale.
Freeman Dyson, at a similar age, expressed reservations about anthropogenic global warming. Pauling had had quite a few silly ideas when he was younger, and tended to stick with slightly half-baked versions of his best ideas. Freeman Dyson's lapse was thus rather more unexpected.
In science it's the ideas themselves that matter, not the track record of the guy presenting the idea.
That's not how it works. It's your claim, so you back it up. Or not of course, if there is nothing available to back it up, because after all how could you possibly know if there wasn't an external source divulging it to you. So, in science it's common practice that people who make a claim back up the same with either a report of their own physical or though experiments or give a link (also called a 'reference') to a report of somebody else who did a physical or thought experiment on the relevant topic.
Generally, a claim, like yours, without a proper explanation, experiment report or reference, is considered a *bogus* claim.
The only references that are known to exist and to establish your 200 mg 'saturation level' are the papers by Mark Levine et.al. that I mentioned before but the mention of which you very eagerly and most conveniently choose to snip away.
Yes I know, it's hard to accept an inconvenient truth...
I guess that providing you with a detailed story about how the NIH's Mark Levine f***ed up his study in which he aimed, but failed, to establish a DRA of 120 mg vit C, or whatever wrong low dose he came up with, complete with references to the relevant articles, was a little bit too much for you to grasp.
Geez, I didn't expect you to fall back to such a childish response after I provided you with a very detailed and scientifically sound explanation of why the NIH's establishment of the DRA is totally inadequate en not supported by proper science.
But the answer is quite simple: If I don't use enough soap, I don't get clean. If I do use enough, I will get clean. The same goes for vitamin C: If you don't use enough it's no use. If you use enough, it might work.
Now, was that so difficult?
That's interesting (not really), apart from that vit C isn't really the same as paracetamol. On the contrary, 'mega-doses' of vit C don *not* kill you. (And neither do they damage your kidneys.)
While it is true that at any dose, except for very small doses, some of the vitamin C is excreted unchanged, and the more of it is excreted unchanged at higher intakes, also more will be used by the body judging from the also increased excretion of its metabolites, after for example being used up in the manufacture of collagen for the arterial walls, which by the way is made from pro-collagen by hydroxilating lysile and prolyle residues in the pro-collagen, converting them into hydroxilysile and hydroxyprolyle residues. With every hydroxil group that is introduced, one ascorbate ion, one molecule of vitamin C that is, is used up.
That's how vit C prevents scurvy.
And, oh yeah, another interesting fact is that only one half of the scurbusic patients actually die of internal bleeding. The other half dies of some infection which the vit C deficient body is not able to defend itself against.
The principal mechanism of cardiovascular disease is surprisingly simple. The primary cause is vit C deficiency with as a result that lesions develop in the arterial wall (collagen production has stopped), which is followed by a whole cascade of efforts to heal the lesion, including ultimately laying down artherosclerotic plaques of lipoprotein, with all the nasty consequences that follow.
And don't take that from me, it's two other Nobel Prize winners, Brown and Goldstein, who stated that in an article in Scientific American. They were the ones that discovered the binding region that holds LDL down.
Human beings are not able to make vit C and they don't have enough of it in their food to put them in really good (for instance cardiovascular) health. The result is that lesions form in the arteries of 50% of the people in the United States and other developed countries, and who then die as a result of coronary heart disease, strokes, or periferal circulatory disease, or another problem of that sort.
Pretty straightforward, I would say.
Vaccination isn't necessarily bad, as I have explained before, but the MMR in the first year of life is quite a risky undertaking. It's not clear yet why. It can be the combination of the antigens, it can be the preservatives, such as mercury, formaldehyde. It can be the adjuvants such as squalene, aluminum hydroxide (Alzheimer?), aluminum phosphate, calcium phosphate, bacterial products, or plain and simply contaminations such as monkey virii etc. entering during the production stage. Mercks cancer causing 'monkey virus' SV-40 is famous for example. And yes, thimerosal (or thimoseral) seems to have been removed from at least the childhood vaccines.
You talk about cancer & vit C now, or cardiovascular health & vit C? IF cancer THEN skip(the next 2 paragraphs) ELSE read(on) FI.
I thought so, you didn't investigate it for yourself, rather followed 'the lead' by the main stream media that of course will torpedo that kind of news.
Apparently you don't seem to have learned anything from Semmelweis, Marshall en who more else, neither do you seem to have ever heard of the knee-jerk reflex of the masses: ridicule - fight - acceptance - worship. You passed phase 1, are now in phase 2, I would say, but are so caved in in this phase 2 stage that I doubt you will ever 'progress' (pun intended) to phase 3, let alone 4, "which God may forbid", I already hear you shout. :)
Come on now, let's not be shy about that extremely interesting explanation of the root causes of cardiovascular disease and possible ways to cure it, so let me fix that for you (again :)
formatting link
That may be interesting background information, or others might call it noise, but not much more than that.
Right! Encouraging remark! So, in this moment of brightness, take your chance and read the 'Unified Theory of Cardiovascular Disease in the Human Being' of Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath!
Oh, for a moment I thought your answer was that it were the genes, not the lifestyle/choice of food.
Let me remind you that it was you who pointed solely to the genes, not me. I was the one bringing the 'other factors'.
See what I mean?
Yes. And that can be by inheritance, either of genes that promote longevity, or of information about how to feed and behave.
No, you pointed solely to the genes, implicating that this was the only thing one can inherit from his/her parents. Preliminary exclusion of possible factors is highly unscientific. Sorry, but I can't change that.
Huh? In your previous reply it says, from you, and I quote:
I let the reader decide...
No, I'm more interested in vit C & D. Oh, and let me add hemp oil.
That is quite a rational approach of something that was in fact a joke. (No, the other things I said, also in previous posts, are no jokes.)
That's science. What I'm doing is being sceptical about the pseudo-science you are peddling. One of the things I'm justifiably sceptical about is your capacity to pay any attention to any information that doesn't fit your pre conceptions, and I'm only going to go to the trouble of digging out referen ces to widely available information when it makes a useful rhetorical point .
You'd be an expert on them, since you don't make any other kind of claim.
And exhibit how difficult it is more or less nonstop.
Let's just say it didn't take us anywhere useful.
Actually, your "very detailed and scientifically sound" explanation was uni nformative enough to inspire the response.
But if you use almost enough you will get almost clean.
Even a small amount will cure scurvy, which is useful. More doesn't seem to do anything extra - not even a little bit extra.
For "might" read "won't".
We use very little vitamin C and all that we consume about that tiny fracti on eventually gets excreted - and quite fast. Your thirty minute half-life for orally administered vitamin C does seem to be widely accepted, and I bu y time-release package vitamin C so I can get a sustained dose without havi ng to take a new tablet every half hour or so.
and
Great. How much collagen does your body need to make every day? Will taking ridiculously excessive amounts of vitamin C cause it to make more?
What's interesting about that?
That's one theory. So how come coronary artery blockage is an essentially 2
0th century plague? There's at least one doctor whose take on the epidemiol ogy was that it had to be driven by some kind of new epidemic - something l ike a new flu with an unsuspected and slow-acting side-effect.
Coronary heart disease is becoming less prevalent, and my arteries are in m uch better shape than my father's and my uncle's were at my current age, an d than my two-year younger brother (who needed a quadruple by-pass at 66).
I do take 500 mgm of slow release vitamin C every day, but I've also been t aking statins for about ten years now, like pretty much everybody else. My guess is that the statins are doing the trick.
Except for the fact that it didn't seem to happen in the nineteenth century , when there weren't any statins, and any vitamin C came from fresh vegetab les (which weren't there in winter).
Different species don't have identical metabolic chemistries.
It isn't. It's just that a publicity-seeking doctor pulled out some mislead ing statistics to make it look that way. There was no real evidence of sign ificant level of risk, but the community that was suscetible to being frigh tened out of what wits they had have remained irrationally panicked.
be
It's not clear why, because there isn't any significant level of damage to be explained. It's hard to explain why a non-existing effect would be happe ning when it doesn't happen in the first place.
I didn't read about it in the main-stream media. I had access to more speci alised journals at that time.
Semmelweis and Marshall experienced two very different outcomes. What commo n message do you think you can extract from both stories?
I'm not into worship. Agnostics tend to see it as turning off rational cons ideration. Nor am I into knee-jerk reactions, though the fact that you are persistent dim jerk might be influencing what I'm posting at the moment.
Odd that while you post a link to Pauling's senile ramblings, you don't pos t a link to something equivalent in writing, where the editor and the co-au thor got a chance to censor the sillier bits.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.