It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Linus Pauling: Scientist, Quack or Both?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Linus Pauling: Scientist, Quack or Both?



Fellow ATS members, I have searched the ATS archives and found only one thread that directly addresses Linus Pauling. This is puzzling to me in that this man’s life and accomplishments had all the elements necessary for a juicy conspiracy thread. That earlier thread (seen here) focused around a Women's Health Initiative study tracking eight years of multivitamin use by older women. That study found that multivitamin use did nothing to lower the incidence of both heart disease and certain cancers.


“The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) was a major 15-year research program to address the most common causes of death, disability and poor quality of life in postmenopausal women -- cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis.”


Here is a link to the New York Times article from Feb. '09 on the WHI multivitamin study:

Major studies question value of vitamin supplements

Here is an excerpt from that NYT article:


Vitamins given in high doses may also have effects that science is only beginning to understand. In a test tube, cancer cells gobble up vitamin C, and studies have shown far higher levels of vitamin C in tumor cells than are found in normal tissue.

The selling point of antioxidant vitamins is that they mop up free radicals, the damaging molecular fragments linked to aging and disease. But some free radicals are essential to proper immune function, and wiping them out may inadvertently cause harm.

In a study at the University of North Carolina, mice with brain cancer were given both normal and vitamin-depleted diets. The ones who were deprived of antioxidants had smaller tumors, and 20 percent of the tumor cells were undergoing a type of cell death called apoptosis, which is fueled by free radicals. In the fully nourished mice, only 3 percent of tumor cells were dying.

"Most antioxidants are also pro-oxidants," said Dr. Peter Gann, professor and director of research in the department of pathology at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine. "In the right context and the right dose, they may be able to cause problems rather than prevent them."

- (excerpt) By Tara Parker-Pope, New York Times, February 17, 2009




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Linus Pauling: Scientist, Quack or Both? (continued)



That WHI study is damaging news for multivitamin proponents. Allow me to post this section of an article by Andrew Hickey published on helium.com under the title “Linus Pauling: His life and accomplishments remembered“ Here is the section:


“Most of the rest of Pauling's life was spent working on the properties of vitamin C and other nutrients, especially as treatments for major diseases. This period of his work is the most controversial some regard it as a blot on his record, while others say that if his work had been properly appreciated it would have saved millions of lives. I'm in the latter camp, for reasons I'll explain in several posts over the next few months, but one anecdote sums up the medical profession's absurd reaction to Pauling (this taken from Vitamin C & Cancer by Abram Hoffer with Linus Pauling, in Pauling's own words):

I was on a television programme with one of the established authorities' in nutrition, Dr Frederick Stare, then a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health . As the interview ended, Dr Stare said "I know that Dr Pauling's method of preventing the common cold is no good because I tried it, and it didn't work." Before I could ask a question, David Frost said "Gentlemen, I'm sorry that our time is up; I thank you for having been on the programme." Then, after the TV camera had been turned off, Dr Stare turned to me and said "Of course, I didn't use the astronomical amount that *you* recommend"

- Andrew Hickey


From what I can glean from the Helium site, Andrew Hickey is likely a well read blogger. If we consider nothing more on Pauling and mega multivitamin regimens than what is presented in these two pieces (And we don’t need to, there’s loads out there) we could conclude that Pauling’s work in the very least shown a light on a connection between nutrition and cancer. Dr. Gann’s statement leads us to conclude that mega-doses of vitamins/anti-oxidants could damage the immune system while feeding the tumors. Yet the quote from Pauling’s book indicates that during his lifetime colleagues did not follow his recommendations to their completion. We can only wonder about the “amounts” used in the more recent studies.

Correct me if I’m assuming wrong here but doesn’t chemotherapy damage and suppress the immune system of cancer patients? Isn’t chemotherapy often accompanied by courses of antibiotics to counter this?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Linus Pauling: Scientist, Quack or Both? (Finale)



I stated early on that Pauling’s life and accomplishments had all the elements necessary for a juicy conspiracy thread. Allow me to list a few of those elements. These facts and statements are taken from the Linus Pauling Biography page of the Linus Pauling Institute on the Oregon State University website.

1. “He is the only person ever to receive two unshared Nobel Prizes — for Chemistry (1954) and for Peace (1962).”

2. “Linus Pauling for years was probably the most visible, vocal, and accessible American scientist.”

3. “He was a master at explaining difficult, even abstruse, medical and scientific information in terms understandable to intelligent lay persons.”

4. “Of the over 1,000 articles and books he published as sole or joint author, about two-thirds are on scientific subjects.”

5. “His landmark book The Nature of the Chemical Bond is frequently cited as the most influential scientific book of the 20th century.”

6. “Linus Pauling was never reluctant to inspire or enter into controversy by expressing unorthodox scientific ideas, taking a strong moral position, or rousing the public to some worthy cause.”

7. “He took professional and personal risks that most of his colleagues avoided.”

8. “In both theoretical and applied medicine he made important discoveries in genetic diseases, hematology, immunology, brain function and psychiatry, molecular evolution, nutritional therapy, diagnostic technology, statistical epidemiology, and biomedicine.”

9. “Pauling originated the concept of molecular disease.” – see sickle cell anemia

10. “He invented a meter that monitored oxygen levels in submarines and airplanes; the device later provided invaluable in ensuring safe levels of that life-sustaining gas for premature infants in incubators and for surgery patients under anesthesia.”

11. “During the infamous McCarthy era in the early 1950s, he was treated almost as a traitor.”

12. “In 1964 Linus Pauling left his tenured professorship at Caltech because of pressure from administrators and conservative trustees who disapproved of his prominent, persistent antinuclear and international peace-promoting activities.”

Those are just a few statements I selected that I thought were fodder for conspiracies from one angle or other, there are many more. His life, works and causes seemingly blew in and out of mainstream favor dependent on the political stance of the nation during various times of his life. It continues today. I focused on the mega-vitamin aspects as that was my interest. The man was a fountain of accomplishments that can only be amply dissected by those specifically in the know. To find someone “in the know” on all of these subjects would be rather difficult I suspect. It would take, I think, someone the likes of a Linus Pauling.

PS Before you come down hard on Linus Pauling, rid yourself of those nasty bottles of vitamins cluttering your cupboard!


[edit on 30-12-2009 by Hemisphere]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Before an idea becomes evident and is generally accepted by the majority of scientists, one man or woman must be the first to think this idea, form a hypothesis and test it. Most scientists never form one creative groundbreaking idea in their live. Linus Pauling was brilliant. He is the father of many great ideas, which still rule our live.

New medical knowledge does not only come from people , who have studied and worked in the medical field. Today many new insights come from biochemistry, a field of science, which Linus Pauling helped to create. Maybe Pauling overestimated the beneficial effects of consuming high amounts of vitamins and nutrients. But scientist can and often do err. Pauling was more often right than wrong.

Pauling's voice rarely joined the mainstream choir. Instead he followed his heart. His stand for peace convinced many other people to join him. If more people would follow their hearts and stand for what they believe is right, the world would be a better place.




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
There's no doubt in my mind that Pauling was a genius. He bridged many fields with stunning clarity and insight. I do think that he was too far ahead of his time for most people. I also think that he may have had some false conclusions on Orthomolecular Therapy, though the treatment most definitely works.

The two most effective nutrients in Ortho is Niacin and Ascorbic acid. They both have numerous anti-pathogenic properties. I think what usually ails people that doctors cant find are stealth pathogens. It seems that the treatment from Niacin and Ascorbic acid are very effective in healing a wide range of pathogen causing diseases. I don't think it's because people have a genetic vitamin dependency. It's because we've been infected with militarized mycoplasma, GMO's, heavy metals, plastics, nanotech, etc..that we find the need to use vitamins as drugs.

Pauling was definitely not a quack. His studies speak for themselves. People get well from taking in the right amounts of nutrients. Common sense.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by unityemissions]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

The two most effective nutrients in Ortho is Niacin and Ascorbic acid. They both have numerous anti-pathogenic properties. I think what usually ails people that doctors cant find are stealth pathogens. It seems that the treatment from Niacin and Ascorbic acid are very effective in healing a wide range of pathogen causing diseases. I don't think it's because people have a genetic vitamin dependency. It's because we've been infected with militarized mycoplasma, GMO's, heavy metals, plastics, nanotech, etc..that we find the need to use vitamins as drugs.


In my opinion if these "stealth pathogens" including nanotechnology are involved in causing illness then one would need a way to monitor these. I submit my recent thread on Royal Raymond Rife and the Rife, Universal Microscope in particular as a partial answer to that need.

I find at times one thread I am researching can spark me on to my next. I happened in this instance to jump from one on human parasites to Rife and on to Pauling. Rife and Pauling were also both explored on a quackery website, I thought both unjustly so. I've been intrigued by Pauling and his work for many years.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Well of course we need a way to monitor them. I'm right there with you. Wasn't it Rife who had his work destroyed? Another one of the greats from the first half of the 20th century. I truly think if half the inventions from that time wouldn't have been discredited and destroyed, we'd be living in a golden age right now.

Hopefully it won't be too much longer before the general public demands answers. Sadly, I think that will only come after most people have a family member who is terribly affected by stealth pathogens.

Here's an easy read on stealth pathogenic mycoplasma:

Myco

Video of mycoplasma and various diseases:




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Well of course we need a way to monitor them. I'm right there with you. Wasn't it Rife who had his work destroyed? Another one of the greats from the first half of the 20th century. I truly think if half the inventions from that time wouldn't have been discredited and destroyed, we'd be living in a golden age right now.

Hopefully it won't be too much longer before the general public demands answers. Sadly, I think that will only come after most people have a family member who is terribly affected by stealth pathogens.


Precisely. These men and their works appeared to have been systematically buried. Why? We can only guess but money and power seem like two good starting points.

Both of these men had theories on treating disease and in the case of Rife, monitoring it on a level only imagined. A microscope that could view the functions of living viruses. Rife also researched treating disease with various electronic frequencies and that would now tie in with your mention of designed attacks by nanotechnology.

Even if nothing conspiratorial was involved, one must ask why the works of these two men (and others) was abandoned and discredited by the scientific community when their work held so much promise for the world? There were far less promising scientific "money pits" that have been explored ad infinitum. It would seem one of the best and most prestigious ways to make your way in our world is to seek a cure or a prevention for disease. When you even remotely approach a cure or universal prevention, well then you are treated very differently.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Hemisphere]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


I have read a great deal of his material. His theory that coronary/arterial disease is a form of scurvy is fascinating....

I find it interesting how hostile his opponents are when vitamin C is ever discussed in relationship to large doses. What's the worst that can happen? Diarrhea and expensive urine. Big deal. But you'd think he was recommending the ingestion of arsenic based upon the intensity of his opponent's reactions to his theories.

Nice to see a thread on this.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


I have read a great deal of his material. His theory that coronary/arterial disease is a form of scurvy is fascinating....

I find it interesting how hostile his opponents are when vitamin C is ever discussed in relationship to large doses. What's the worst that can happen? Diarrhea and expensive urine. Big deal. But you'd think he was recommending the ingestion of arsenic based upon the intensity of his opponent's reactions to his theories.

Nice to see a thread on this.


Thank you. And you've hit on it, what's the harm? Bowel movements and urine, just think for a moment. How does the body rid itself of poisons?

Despite the possibility of "expensive urine" for a time, how would that compare in expense to the currently accepted cancer treatments? Surgery, pharmaceuticals, antibiotics and chemotherapy.? That I think is the rub. That is why his theories were not pursued. None of us know if these treatments would have worked, we do know they were not pursued as vigorously as other treatments.

The following from Wiki on the "War on Cancer" so take this with a grain of salt as we can not be certain of the veracity.


According to John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Dept. of Epidemiology & Biostatistics at McGill University:

"Despite $30 billion spent on research since 1970, cancer remains undefeated, with a death rate not lower but actually higher than when they started. The effect of new treatments for cancer has been largely disappointing. The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment."

The late Professor of Medical Physics, H.B. Jones, was a leading U.S. cancer statistician. In a 1969 speech to the American Cancer Society, he stated that studies had not proved that chances of survival were improved by early intervention. In fact, according to his studies, untreated persons with cancer lived up to four times longer and with a better quality of life than treated ones. He was not invited back. According to the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet:

"If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the medical profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from breast cancer." [3]

According to the oncologist, Glen Warner, M.D.:

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."


Was even one billion spent following through on Pauling's treatments? I sincerely doubt that.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Entirely agree. It's rather bizarre how seemingly intelligent men of science get so wound up from someone trying to expand their mind by thinking outside of the box. Apparently, their reality is grounded in beliefs, solidified by institution, and spun out as the end all of knowledge. What an incredibly inefficient way to progress, don't you think?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Cancer and heart disease, both discussed in this thread, are diseases of civilization and one needs only to observe the diets of those cultures that have not been "westernized" to find what is crippling our nation.

Of course, those observations would not be conclusive until thoroughly tested.

Luckily, those tests/experiments have already been performed. And with the exception of cancer, all other diseases of civilization (heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc.) are almost undoubtedly caused by easily digestible carbohydrates, specifically sugar.

Cancer is just a bit trickier, because researchers can't quite seem to pinpoint/agree upon the mechanisms involved. Though, epidemiology fully supports the idea that sugar/easily digestible carbs cause cancer.

And although vitamin D deficiency seems to be almost always associated with cancer, it may be due to the effects of blood sugar and insulin.

Thanks for the thread, good information.


-Dev



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Agreed. Sugar is the culprit, specifically fructose. 30% of fructose gets converted into fat by the liver. I think part of it is not just how the body processes it, but that fungi and other pathogens feed off of sugar. The link between cancer and fungus is interesting. Not sure which comes first, the fungi or cancer, but they do seem to be found together in many cancers.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


So you suggest to avoid eating fruits or minimize daily intake?

I have no evidence to back this up, but I'm willing to estimate that in a full-range vegetarian diet, at least a third of polyphenols and antioxidants come from fruits alone.

If you want to take oranges out, at least consider the indian berry "Acerola". It contains 10 times as much Vitamin C compared to oranges for much less fructose.

Just a single glass of 100 mililiters of acerola juice provide over 1000 MG of Vitamin C, a megadose, while containing only 5 grams of fructose, hardly that much at all.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by jjjtir]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Thank you hemisphere - a much needed thread/focus on Pauling. Flagged.


FYI - Pauling did a paper on the immune system in the late 30's/early 40's (?). Then in 1950 he proved that proteins fold and misfold (actin: alpha and beta sheets). ...IMO - most of his work on nutrition was informed by his earlier work, and designed to prevent and/or delay the effects of diseases like Mad Cow (caused by "prions" or misfolded proteins).

...I don't think it was scientifically appropriate for Watson and Crick's DNA double-helix discovery to overshadow Pauling's work on proteins

- genes just make proteins, but infectious proteins (prions) don't need genes to propogate, just proximity to other chemically similar proteins.

BUT - imo - TPTB already suspected proteins sometimes misfold to become infectious prions. ...it's scary; they didn't want people to know; so they buried Pauling's work by focusing on genetics and dismissed the importance of his protein research...

Unfortunately, besides savaging Pauling's reputation, their strategy held up critical research and misdirected healthcare for over 50 years. Thank god it's all finally starting to come out.

-sofi

.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jjjtir
 


Sorry should have been more specific. It's the fructose in juices that are horrible. Same with sucrose as it's half fructose. The fiber in fruits balances the fructose. I saw in a video that fructose was the poison, and fiber was the antidote. Lemme see if I can find this for ya

Here you go:



This talks mainly about obesity, but you can see statistically that obesity leads directly to cardiovascular disease and many cancers.

I actually make sure to eat an apple and orange daily, minimum. The main culprit is junk sodas, fruit juices, and sports/energy drinks


[edit on 2-1-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
(heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc.) are almost undoubtedly caused by easily digestible carbohydrates, specifically sugar.


You realize the average american diet contains 40%+ fat??

If what you say is true how does pritkins, ornish and mcdougall cure heart disease on a 80%+ carbohydrate diet. Diabetes has been proven to be caused by high fat diets,

biosingularity.wordpress.com...

Your assumption that sugar causes any of these disease is wrong and not supported by anything. I could eat bags of refined sugar and most likely not succumb to any of these diseases.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Agreed. Sugar is the culprit, specifically fructose. 30% of fructose gets converted into fat by the liver. I think part of it is not just how the body processes it, but that fungi and other pathogens feed off of sugar. The link between cancer and fungus is interesting. Not sure which comes first, the fungi or cancer, but they do seem to be found together in many cancers.


Any refined product is gonna cause problems. Nothing wrong with fructose obtained from whole sources(i.e. fruit). Fyi every cell on earth runs off sugar, this includes cancer cells, plant cells and the cells inside your body



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Found this awhile ago while researching something unrelated on Google and haven't been able to corroborate everything it says but very interesting none the less,

Linus Pauling: winner of 2 Nobel Prizes, one for peace and one for the several elements he discovered, advocated fruit as the food which most approximates neural transmitters. He established a Center For Orthomolecular Research.. and defined an orthomolecule or right molecule as a fruitarian or fruit-based one. He wrote that the neurotransmitters of the brain are all fruit based. Vitamin C speeds the flow of electrical signals across the brain synapses.Vitamin C (best taken in whole uncooked fruit for cooking destroys C) also removes toxins from brain cells. It is the body's bouncer.

Maybe his true intentions were not to supplement vitamin C with pills but achieve high doses thru fruit based diets



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Rawhemp
 


Rawhemp, you stated 2 things which are true.

1st "Diabetes has been proven to be caused by high fat diets"

If anyone have looked up "Trans Fats", will notice there are natural!!! trans fats.

CLA, or conjugated linoleic acid, an omega-6 derived trans fat, have been shown in animal studies to promote insulin resistance and over the long run, consequentially diabetes.

2nd "every cell on earth runs off sugar, this includes cancer cells"

This is the most funny of all, sceptics of mainstream scientific community HATE when they hear this expression being spoken.

Remember Otto Warburg also a Nobel Prize winner?

He proved Ozone/oxygen therapy works, indirectly by showing cancer cells reverts to glucose based metabolism and turns ANaerobic, without oxygen.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join