Why Don't Doctors Know? -- of the enormous benefits of Vit C ?
-- because the knowledge is actively vilified and suppressed;
[through lies, deceptions, myths, fraud]
-- because usage is punished, harshly.
###
Tom Levy:
The awareness of vitamin C as a powerful anti- pathogen, antitoxin, and for the support of general health by optimizing immune system function has been neglected by all of mainstream medicine for over 80 years now. Furthermore, it has been actively vilified and suppressed by most of mainstream medicine during that period of time. And there are many cases of medical and dental license boards taking away those licenses for using this therapy, and for actively promoting it.
Medico-Legal Strategies for Orthomolecular Treatments, @ 51st Annual International Orthomolecular Medicine Today Conference
###
Bob K. statement:
Why Don't Doctors Know? -- Most likely for the same reason that a 1987 court ruling found that “the AMA decided to contain and eliminate chiropractic as a profession” with intent “to destroy a competitor”.
Vitamin C has the certain potential to be a huge competitor -- the low-cost "Pauling Therapy for heart disease (vitamin C and lysine)" would bankrupt every major hospital in the USA, since bypass surgery can account for 30 to 40 percent of a hospital's total income.
Medical science has ignored the Pauling Therapy. The profession has not published a single study of Pauling's recommended dosages of vitamin C and lysine, or conducted public clinical trials. (And yet: medical science has conducted more than 1000 trials of the statin prescription cholesterol-lowering drugs, most showing little or no heart benefit.)
Linus Pauling -- is the founder of modern chemistry, holder of 48 honorary Ph.D.s, and the world's only 2-time un-shared Nobel prize laureate. Some would say he's the smartest person in centuries.
###
Three Influential Papers, Published in 1975
In mainstream medicine, the views on vitamin C and infections have been determined by eminence-based medicine rather than evidence-based medicine.
The rejection of the demonstrated benefits of vitamin C is largely explained by three papers published in 1975—two in JAMA; one in AJM—all of which have been standard citations in textbooks of medicine and nutrition and in nutritional recommendations. Two of the papers were authored by Thomas Chalmers, an influential expert in clinical trials, and the third was authored by Paul Meier, a famous medical statistician.
Life 2022, 12(1), 62; doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/life12010062
###
FRAUD:
An Influential Fraudulent Study
Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Charles Moertel’s study of Vitamin C, the results of which were published in 1979.
In this trial, extremely sick colon cancer patients, who had already failed to respond to chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, were given VERY SMALL DOSES OF ORAL VITAMIN C.
###
FRAUD:
Studies designed in such a way as to fail
They put the (natural) agent being studied at a disadvantage, so that it will fail the test.
For instance, one study of St. John’s Wort was conducted on people with moderate to severe depression. This was not a fair test for an herb that has a mild to moderate effect!
This study was partly funded by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures Zoloft.
It was not publicized that the study also showed no statistical advantage to using Zoloft with depression of that severity!
But, the headlines read: “St. John’s Wort worthless in the treatment of depression.”
The missing headlines might also have read, “Zoloft worthless in the treatment of depression.” The message in the press was therefore skewed, thus depriving people of a possible treatment for mild to moderate mood disorders.
###
FRAUD:
Influential Fraudulent Study:
Chalmers’ (1975) Review in American Journal of Medicine
In 1975, Thomas Chalmers also published a meta-analysis of vitamin C and the common cold in the American Journal of Medicine [82]. That meta-analysis has been cited, for example, in textbooks of nutrition and infectious diseases and in nutritional recommendations, in which authors have claimed that vitamin C is ineffective against colds (Table 3) [24] (pp. 36–38). As one specific example of the significant influence of the Chalmers review, the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA) officially stated in 1987 that “One of the most widely misused vitamins is ascorbic acid. There is no reliable evidence that large doses of ascorbic acid prevent colds or shorten their duration” [83] (p. 1934), which was based entirely on Chalmers’ 1975 review [82].
A re-analysis of the trials known to Chalmers in 1975, which had used ≥1 g/d of vitamin C, i.e., trials that tested Pauling’s proposal [1,2,3], showed that colds were 0.93 ± 0.22 (SE) (p = 0.01) days shorter in the vitamin C groups [86]. Thus, an estimate more than eight times higher than Chalmers’ estimate was obtained by using the correct values and restricting the analysis to trials which used doses as high as Pauling had suggested. Furthermore, Chalmers calculated the effect of vitamin C on the absolute scale, i.e., as reduction in duration of the common cold in days. However, the duration of colds in the control groups varies substantially, and therefore the relative scale is much more useful in the analysis of such an outcome [86,97,98,99]. Had Chalmers used the relative scale, he would have found even stronger evidence that vitamin C shortens common cold duration by 21% ± 3% (SE) (p = 0.001) [86]. Finally, given the strong indications of dose dependency in the Karlowski trial (Figure 1), Chalmers could have restricted his analysis to trials that administered ≥2 g/d vitamin C, and combining their p-values would have led to p = 0.000002 [100]. Thus, using correct data from trial reports and appropriate statistical methods, a review in 1975 could have concluded that there was very strong evidence that vitamin C differs from placebo in its effects on the common cold.
###
FRAUD:
Influential Fraudulent Study:
Dykes and Meier (1975) Review in JAMA
In 1975, JAMA published the Dykes and Meier (1975) review on vitamin C and the common cold [101]. The second author of the review, Paul Meier, was a famous medical statistician, the second author of the widely popular Kaplan–Meier method [102,103,104]. Consequently, this review on vitamin C in a widely circulated journal became highly influential. It has also been a standard reference in textbooks on nutrition and infectious diseases, and in nutritional recommendations, when justifying the claim that vitamin C has no effects on the common cold (Table 3) [24] (pp. 42–45). Again, there are several shortcomings in the review [100].
Dykes and Meier justified their review by referring to Pauling’s meta-analysis [1]. They stated that “Pauling gave great weight to the 1961 study of schoolchildren in a skiing camp in Swiss Alps by Ritzel”. It then seems illogical that Dykes and Meier did not highlight the results of the Ritzel trial in their paper. They failed to mention that in the Ritzel trial, there was a 45% decrease in the incidence of colds (p < 0.03) [1] and a 61% decrease in the total number of days of colds in the group administered 1 g/d of vitamin C [105]. Hiding such quantitative findings from the readers of JAMA was misleading. Concealing the actual results prevented critically minded readers from drawing their own conclusions about the Ritzel trial, which was randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled [105,106]. The Ritzel (1961) trial falls in the small group of trials that found significant preventive effects of vitamin C in participants under heavy short-term physical stress [4,7], and thereby it seems to reflect a genuine biological effect instead of being a statistical artifact.
###
American Medical Association Key Goal -- Destroy Competitors
Medical practitioners organized the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1847 with the stated goals of standardizing medical education and instituting a program of medical ethics [3]. By 1849, the AMA had taken on the role of investigating the various competing sects of medicine and challenging them on the basis of their ethics [3]. The AMA took the position that the other forms of medicine, including the newly discovered chiropractic profession, were unethical and “unscientific.” Many authors, however, have made the argument that the AMA’s intent was to decrease competition for financial reasons rather than to protect the public from unethical practitioners [4, 5].
In 1987, United States District Judge Susan Getzendanner found the AMA and its codefendants guilty of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. In her decision, Getzendanner asserted that “the AMA decided to contain and eliminate chiropractic as a profession” and that it was the AMA’s intent “to destroy a competitor” [22].
The AMA’s plan to undermine chiropractic expanded in the so-called “Iowa Plan”, wihch outlined the “containment of the chiropractic profession” that “will result in the decline of chiropractic".
The massive scope and methodical nature of this plan were exposed in hundreds of thousands of pages of AMA documents that were brought to light in the 1976 trial Chester C. A. Wilk et al. v. AMA et al. AMA writers ghostwrote television and movie scripts, Ann Landers’ widely read newspaper column, and any other media outlet that could be used to tarnish the reputation of chiropractic in the public eye. The AMA even encouraged the distribution of antichiropractic materials to high school guidance counselors so they would dissuade interested students from pursuing careers.
Chiropractic’s Fight for Survival
Steve Agocs, DC
American Medical Association Journal of Ethics
June 2011, Volume 13, Number 6: 384-388.
Virtual Mentor. 2011;13(6):384-388.
DOI:
10.1001/virtualmentor.2011.13.6.mhst1-1106.
http://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2011.13.6.mhst1-1106
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/sites/joedb/files/2018-06/mhst1-1106.pdf
###
Effective Therapies Ignored, Remain Unused By Most
It would be a miracle if the cure for heart disease already exists.
It would be even more miraculous if the therapy that leads to the cure works quickly (even in advanced disease), is completely nontoxic, is very inexpensive, and if it is available at any drug store without a prescription!
30 Years Ignored: Linus Pauling’s Greatest Discovery
"The medical establishment refers to bypass surgery as "preventive care" even though studies show that bypass surgery does not extend overall life expectancy. (That's because the newly grafted artery usually starts clogging right away.)" - Stephen Cherniske (DHEA Breakthrough)
Most doctors haven't heard about this because there have been no published studies. (No one goes to jail when a cure for a major disease is not evaluated by science.) Most people rely on their doctors for medical information. The Pauling Therapy for heart disease works quickly. Patients have consistently reported symptom relief in ten days or less, even in advanced disease. The effect is rapid and undeniable, thus the reasons that most people haven't heard about this are not based on science, rather malfeasance.
Then there are the drugs used to lower blood pressure and cholesterol -- another growth industry. These drugs are also called "preventive care" even though there are studies showing that individuals treated with them have increased overall mortality and even though an entire class of blood pressure medications have been shown to increase the risk for heart attack. - Stephen Cherniske (DHEA Breakthrough)
NIH Refuses to Study Pauling/Rath Therapy
Medical "science" has ignored the Pauling Therapy. The "profession" has not published a single study of Pauling's recommended dosages of vitamin C and lysine, or conducted public clinical trials. Not one. (Consider this: Medicine has conducted more than 1000 trials of the statin prescription cholesterol-lowering drugs, most showing little or no heart benefit.)
The reason your doctor has never heard about "the Pauling Therapy for heart disease (vitamin C and lysine)" from trusted sources is because this low-cost therapy would bankrupt every major hospital in the USA. And, because there have been no published studies.
"Bypass surgery... is one of the biggest growth industries in the United States ... this procedure brings in more money to metropolitan hospitals than does any other type of care. In many cases bypass surgery accounts for 30 to 40 percent of a hospital's total income." - Stephen Cherniske (DHEA Breakthrough, 1996)
The Pauling therapy is simple. Take high doses of two nutrients that are required for life. Doing so can prevent and even cure many forms of cardiovascular and heart disease - in days or weeks. The question becomes how much should one take?
The Vitamin C Foundation submitted two study proposals to the United States National Institutes of Health, (NIH) Office of Alternative Medicine.
Either proposal would have fairly evaluated the Pauling therapy on heart disease.
These submissions (and subsequent rejections) are a matter of public record.
https://paulingtherapy.com/wp/
###
"PROGRESS" HAS ALWAYS BEEN SLOW -- EXAMPLE: SCURVY
It has been known since antiquity that fresh foods in general, and lemons and oranges in particular, will cure scurvy. Starting with Vasco da Gama’s crew in 1497, sailors have repeatedly discovered the curative power of citrus fruits, and the cure has just as frequently been forgotten or ignored by subsequent explorers.
John Woodall, the first surgeon-general of the East India Company, reported on the antiscorbutic properties of lemons in his 1617 book ‘The Surgions Mate’. He recommended making sure that ‘There is a good quantity of juice of lemons sent in each ship’ (Woodall 1617).
No matter how many times the connection between scurvy and produce was demonstrated, people kept forgetting it; cures for scurvy continued to be lost and found and lost again. Scurvy appeared among members of the Arctic explorations of the 1820s and miners during the 1848–1850 American Gold Rush. Florence Nightingale reported entire shiploads of cabbage being tossed overboard during the Crimean War of 1853–1856 at the same time that soldiers were perishing from the disease. (The cabbage had been sent specifically to treat scurvy, but thanks to bureaucratic snafus no one had ordered it to be distributed in men’s rations.) The disease plagued prisons, refugee camps, and prisoners of war in the 20th century, and emerged among the babies of wealthy and educated Americans and Europeans in the late 1800s and early 1900s because of pasteurized cow’s milk. (The heat destroyed the vitamin C.)
https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/the-age-of-scurvy/
~~~
Scott And Scurvy
https://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm
Writing about the first winter the men spent on the ice, Cherry-Garrard casually mentions an astonishing lecture on scurvy by one of the expedition’s doctors:
Atkinson inclined to Almroth Wright’s theory that scurvy is due to an acid intoxication of the blood caused by bacteria...
There was little scurvy in Nelson’s days; but the reason is not clear, since, according to modern research, lime-juice only helps to prevent it. We had, at Cape Evans, a salt of sodium to be used to alkalize the blood as an experiment, if necessity arose. Darkness, cold, and hard work are in Atkinson’s opinion important causes of scurvy.
Now, I had been taught in school that scurvy had been conquered in 1747, when the Scottish physician James Lind proved in one of the first controlled medical experiments that citrus fruits were an effective cure for the disease. From that point on, we were told, the Royal Navy had required a daily dose of lime juice to be mixed in with sailors’ grog, and scurvy ceased to be a problem on long ocean voyages.
But here was a Royal Navy surgeon in 1911 apparently ignorant of what caused the disease, or how to cure it. Somehow a highly-trained group of scientists at the start of the 20th century knew less about scurvy than the average sea captain in Napoleonic times. Scott left a base abundantly stocked with fresh meat, fruits, apples, and lime juice, and headed out on the ice for five months with no protection against scurvy, all the while confident he was not at risk. What happened?
[more: lots of factors; incredible history ]
###
"PROGRESS" HAS ALWAYS BEEN SLOW -- EXAMPLE: HANDWASHING
Ignaz Semmelweis, one of the first doctors to link cleanliness to patient survival, decades before Joseph Lister, tried in vain to promote washing hands to vastly reduce mortality in hospitals, but was mocked by many. He was committed to an insane asylum and was beaten to death by guards. He died on August 13, 1865, at the age of 47.
The Tragic Story Of The Doctor Who Pioneered Hand-Washing
https://www.grunge.com/247211/the-tragic-story-of-the-doctor-who-pioneered-hand-washing/
Ignaz Semmelweis: “The Savior of Mothers” On the 200th Anniversary of the Birth
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec;219(6):519–522. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.036
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6333090/
###
Bob K. theory of why doctors don't know: propaganda (rumors/myths)
Somebody started a rumor; presented it as established fact; presented to, and easily convinced, multiple influential and high-reputation persons in the field; who for all eternity then preach these rumors as gospel -- and really and truly believe them; thus, very few doctors ever see the contradictions between the basic functions of Vit C and the false gospel; since the facts have been made so clear and firm, and since life is busy, very few are motivated to go learn more; the ones that do learn more and apply it in their practice are defamed. Not just one rumor -- many rumors started, turn into myths, taught and preached with firmness and sincerity, received as fact.
###
Rumors & Myths: Examples
Opponents of vitamin C supplementation have sensationalized studies that have suggested deleterious health claims, most of which are of little consequence to the general population.
For example, since vitamin C promotes iron absorption [118], this led to claims that vitamin C supplements were detrimental in individuals suffering from iron overload and hemochromatosis. On the contrary, in animals and humans with iron overload, high plasma ascorbate levels are protective against oxidative damage induced by excess iron [18,19]. Indeed, the recommendation for these individuals should be not to avoid ascorbate, but instead to limit dietary iron intake.
Another commonly cited 'risk' of ascorbate supplementation is the formation of kidney stones, as oxalate is a product of dehydroascorbic acid breakdown.
But:
• Ascorbate in low or high doses generally does not cause significant increase in urinary oxalate.[2-6]
• Ascorbate tends to prevent formation of calcium oxalate kidney stones.[3,4]
• Risk factors for kidney stones include a history of hypertension, obesity, chronic dehydration, poor diet, and a low dietary intake of magnesium.
###