reply to post by RogerT3
You're incredibly arrogant and pompous given that it's plain that you know nothing about what you're saying.
Pauling, albeit a great scientist in his field (as every time his name is mentioned in connection with vitamin C therapies, his Nobel prizes are also
mentioned...), was no clinician. Having been involved in clinical research for more years than I care to remember I was amazed that his study wasn't
terminated early as his methods were a complete mess. All I can put this down to was the fact he had no experience in these types of clinical trials
since, as I said, he wasn't a clinician. He didn't even publish his results in a clinical journal.
As you say "You'll find that on ATS you have to back up your opinions with references or at least with a few links if you want the 'thinking'
members to take you seriously."
well I think you'll find that out in the big wide world even a few links aren't sufficient especially the one
you've quoted to back up your "understanding" that there was a hatchet job done on his study. I'll quote these two lines from your post
"Unfortunately, a hatchet job was almost immediately published in the New England Journal of Medicine which claimed Dr. Pauling’s research was
nonsense. This work is so devious and evil that I will not cite it
How very convenient. And how very typical. A study fails and it HAS to be a hatchet job. Grow up.
Were you aware that Pauling was sponsored quite heavily by a company called Hoffman-La Roche? This company effectively produced the majority of the
world's vitamin C. So no conflict of interests there then...
What the likes of you really don't understand about cancer is that virtually any compound if used in high enough concentrations can kill tumour cells
(my particular favourite's paracetamol) in vitro. The negating factor is that getting them into the body in these ridiculously high concentrations to
effect the cells would always prove highly toxic irrespective of how they are administered. In vitro studies are generally the first step in
formulating an hypothesis however when these are then moved on to in vivo studies that when you sort the wheat from the chaff. Even if they seem to do
well in animal studies (mice, rats etc) there's still no guarantee that they'll work in humans.
The "studies" you've cited as proof of what you're arguing for, to use your vernacular, are bollocks and are typical of the pseudo-scientific
studies used by people such as yourself as proof. If you read the study properly you will see that although some of the tumour growth was delayed,
there was NO shrinkage in any of them. Again, this "effect" can be replicated with a myriad of other compounds.
"That should get you started and at least point you in the direction of the authentic research, not the pharma funded panic attack!"
Tell you what, go away and learn how to understand clinical studies and their implications and how to differentiate between a good, robust and useful
study from those just making up the numbers or trying to prove already decided conclusions rather than the other way around.