Vitamin C and Heart Disease Prevention: Another Conspiracy of Silence?

Originally posted by rollsthepaul
My wife and I have started to take lipsomal Vitamin C; 6 grams each per day. It is Vitamin C micro encapsulated in lecithin. The big advantage is that most of the Vitamin C is not destroyed by the digestive system and enters the blood stream and is available to all of the body in much higher concentration. Vitamin C is extremely effective protection from radiation because it satisfies free radicals, resulting from radiation exposure, and prevents damage to DNA and organs. Vitamin C can be ingested orally as tablets or intravenously or orally as lipsomal. The lipsomal method is by far the best because it gets more into your body and keeps it there.
Many people complain that Vitamin C tablets upset their stomach or give them diarrhea. Lipsomal has no negative impact on the digestive system. My wife has a very delicate stomach and she suffers no ill effects from 6 grams of lipsomal VitaminC daily.
There is a very noticeable side effect from taking lipsomal Vitamin C and that is much increased body strength, increased energy and greater stamina.
We make our own lipsomal Vitamin C and store it in the fridge. There have been cases where people took 50 grams Vitamin C per day intravenously, with no ill effects and positive healing. In other words, toxicity is not an issue.
The video playlist below, explains the ground breaking work done by a Japanese doctor, involved in the Fukushima disaster. The other video explains how to make lipsomal Vitamin C.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Excellent info, rollsthepaul. I understand that Liposomal C is micronized to be able to penetrate directly into the cells -- which is why its supposed to be so effective.

I haven't seen the video by the Japanese doctor before.

AV

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by AuranVector

 

The sole cause of heart trouble is not C deficiency. I've had a quick browse through the book and Dr. Rath is actually very favourable towards traditional medicine's account of the cause of cardiac problems. In fact, on pages 82 and 83 in particular he suggests vitamin C along with B3, B5 and E as methods to reduce cholesterol.

The most substantial thing we can take from Dr. Rath's work is that he advocates the reduction of medical intervention (pills) where natural (fruit, vegetables, cereals) remedies are effective. The body is an amazing thing, it regulates itself, almost everything you need can be produced by your body as long as you give it the basic materials to work with. It doesn't stop there either, not only do you produce the molecules you need to build, maintain and repair yourself just by eating a steak, you have blood monitoring facilities throughout your organs which check for different things. When you detect that you need more x, you produce more x and vice versa. If you inhibit or stimulate this production you're overriding your natural control mechanisms. In some extreme cases this is necessary, like diabetes, but unless a regulatory factor has completely shut down there is absolutely no need to take manual control. It's just not as effective.

Taking drugs to regulate your body requires conscious action on your part, and your body can't just decide to increase or decrease the production when it needs to, this is seriously detrimental to your health - imagine that you need 1.5L of water a day, so you carry a 1.5L bottle around with you and drink from it when you get thirsty. That's analogous to homoeostasis, the act of your body regulating itself. If you do a bit of running to catch a bus, you might have a bit of water, if it's hot, you might have a bit of water. Now imagine that you're only allowed to drink that 1.5L of water at midnight every night, none in-between. That's medical intervention.

This isn't some new and innovative discovery - this is just a brightly packaged attention getter to remind people that we don't have immortality machines. People seem to think that they can eat whatever they want and then have the doctor sort it out when they hit 40, but it doesn't work like that. If you consume the components the body needs throughout your life, you'll be less likely to develop chronic problems in the future. If you eat nutrient deficient foods consistently, you may be fine on the day, you may be fine 5 years from then, or even 15 years from then, but somewhere down the line it will come back to haunt you.

In a nutshell, Dr. Rath explains that high cholesterol is bad, but using drugs to lower your cholesterol is also bad. Eat more fruit.

I'm glad to see someone else here has the book. Made me go get mine. I have the 2003 revised 4th edition.

I'm wondering what Dr. Rath had in the Vitacell he gave freely to the AIDS victims in South Africa.

I'm looking at pages 82 & 83 right now. This is not where Dr. Rath's nutritional recommendations are.

His recommendations are on page 25. It's comprised of more than 30 vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and trace elements. The most important is Vitamin C at 600 to 3,000 mg a day.

His book is available for free download -- the link is in the OP.

I disagree with your, "This isn't some new and innovative discovery." His and Dr. Linus Pauling's research was revolutionary.

Dr. Rath's conclusion that Atherosclerosis is caused by a Vitamin C deficiency is revolutionary.

Not only that, but the book goes on to explain the role of Vitamin C in preventing other cardiovascular diseases and it's use in treating diabetes and dementia.

He advises in no uncertain terms: "If you're on cholesterol or lipid-lowering medications, I encourage you to discontinue their use as soon as possible."

Advice that dovetails into the statin horror stories in FissionSurplus's excellent thread on the Cholesterol Conspiracy.

reply to post by AuranVector


I think we're on the same page here but there's a bit of miscommunication.

I'm saying that Dr. Rath is advocating a natural diet with lots of vitamins and nutrients in order to prevent CHD and the like. I'm also saying that this is not a new idea, "stop eating junk food" has been the mantra of many doctors for many years. Dr. Rath's carefully laid out supplement guide is a guideline as he states himself. I'm of the opinion that using pills to treat diseases is bad, as is Dr. Rath apparently, and I think we all agree people should eat more fruit if they want to live longer.

I'd also like to point out the Dr. Rath does state explicitly throughout the book that modern medical techniques do work, but they're not optimal. He does not ever say "disregard your doctor's advice and do what I say" because that would fart in the face of every societal advance over the last 200 years.

I really do think we're on the same side, but I think you're taking Dr. Rath's advice a little too much to heart. Relax, eat some fruit.

reply to post by Dispo


LOL Okay, I'll eat some fruit. I love fresh, raw pomegranates myself. They're in season now.
Very good for combatting bad cholesterol.

Eating even half a pomegranate a day can make a difference. I can literally feel the life force from the fruit move into my body -- similar effect from raw pineapple.

I don't like pasteurized pomegranate juice -- the heat kills the valuable enzymes.

Originally posted by Osiris1953
reply to post by AuranVector

 

Good Information. I recently started taking 2000 mg of Vitamin C/day and feel better than I have in years. When the rest of my family gets sick, I might get a runny nose. I would take even more than I already do, but any more than 2000 mg gives me horrible stomach cramps.

Thanks for this though. S&F

Have you looked for buffered Vitamin C? FissionSurplus recommends Ester C (a bit more expensive, but it will not upset the stomach).

Also there is Liposomal C or Lipid Encapsulated Vitamin C, that will not upset your stomach.

Here's a very long ATS thread on LIposomal C:

“I make my own liposomal vit C. This stuff is frickin AMAZING!!!!!”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think it's up to page 69 now, or something like that.

This is a far better description of what Rath is all about.
He's a vile man.

(Please be advised that some of the comments at the bottom of this link contain foul language)

scienceblogs.com...

reply to post by AuranVector

I'm wondering what Dr. Rath had in the Vitacell he gave freely to the AIDS victims in South Africa

It's somewhat murky what was in his Vitacell that he gave "free" to those recruited for his illegal clinical trial in Kayelitsha.
Since his foundation expected something in return, they were NOT really free.
His employees were given R100 for every person they recruited in the impoverished township, and his bag of free groceries was really a small compensation for people who found themselves subjected to medical tests and indignities, like being photographed in their underwear . His adverts fell foul of the advertising standards authority, and he never attempted to make his trials legal by approaching an academic institution or an ethics committee.

He certainly presented himself as a Messiah-type humanitarian, often with benignly outstretched hands.
It was clear that he was a multimillionaire who wasn't afraid to spend, and that it would be advantageous to those who supported his cause.
Mostly he holed himself up in a multi-million-rand mansion in Hout Bay, until he left SA in 2005.
His aim was to employ vocal AIDS-denialists/rethinkers like Antony Brink to cast doubt on proven medical treatments, while the second phase was to market his VitaCell as an alternative.
One assumes his eventual goal in SA was to gain some government tender or deal to distribute his products in all the clinics in SA (although it never got to this stage).
This was very possible, since the Mbeki-led government was favorable to denialist theories and stalled the rollout of ARVS at very opportunity.

His main mistake was probably that he targeted Kayelitsha for his experiments, which was one of the few sites in SA that had a very successful ARV pilot project, run by groups like Doctors without Borders (MSF).
Locals could quickly see what worked and what killed people.
He also invited litigation by making false claims against the Treatment Action Campaign and even the Medicines Control Council, which would eventually backfire.
The fact that he hired the grandiosely eccentric Advocate Brink to represent him in court was probably his biggest blunder, and his absurd rants probably helped to lose the second case against quackery.

A batch of VitaCell was confiscated at the Cape Town harbor, because the products had not been cleared as medicines, supplements or foodstuffs according to existing laws. The then Deputy Minister of the Food Control Directorate in the Health Department, Antoinette Booyson, however cleared the products as "foodstuffs" on the recommendation of a homeopath, because the dosages were very low. However, the deputy minister later learned she was misled: Health-e informed her that the dosages were in fact double of what she had been led to believe, and the bottles had been relabeled at a later stage. Neither was she aware that Rath would market his products as an alternative to proven ARVs. She was apparently unaware that the trials would include mega-doses of 20 pills a day!

All this fraud makes it very difficult to say what was in the pills, or whether it was always the same.
Such uncontrolled trials can really do what they like.
Pretty early in the trials Kayelitsha doctors found an uncanny resemblance to the side-effects in some of Rath's "patients" to the ARV efavirenz.
Such mono-therapy with an ARV can cause an initial improvement, but the virus quickly becomes immune and returns with a vengeance.
Noluthando Zondani (who died a terrible and undignified death during the trial) felt dizzy and nauseous from her first dosage of 20 pills, and she would vomit every time she tried to eat.
Similar reports began to emerge, and the victims and their families were told not to contact any healthcare worker when they became ill, but rather to alert Rath's employees.
Within hours of such deaths two Rath workers would enter the house and remove all traces of Rath's products, including any empty pill containers.
So this was all done in a way which made it impossible for independent sources to say what was actually in these pills.

In the meantime Rath used people who had died in his trials as success stories, while some later admitted they privately remained on ARV treatments, even while they publicly endorsed Rath's discourse, due to promises of food and money.

So, while Rath may appear to give things for free, they are really not free at all but advertising for his products.
Of course the presentation is very successful, otherwise I guess he wouldn't be a multimillionaire.
Perhaps in future he should employ actors with market-related salaries.

(Source: "The curious tale of the vitamin seller" by Anso Thom in: The Virus Vitamins and Vegetables. Edited by Kerry Cullinan and Anso Thom: Jacana, 2009. Pp. 112-129.)
Wider opinions on Rath products:
www.tac.org.za...

reply to post by AuranVector


Of course some will label anything as "spin" or propaganda that doesn't suit their view, and when courts ruled against Rath, it was immediately further proof that not just the TAC, but in fact the courts and the entire journalistic and medical establishment are funded by big pharma!

So people like Rath can make false allegations, slander people, and when the evidence proves their claims as false, then the courts too must be employed by big pharma.
In fact, anyone who disagrees with Rath is potentially labelled as an agent of "big pharma".
It's OK for Rath to make unproven scientific claims, run illegal trials and treat the poor of Khayelitsha and SA like it was his personal "wild west" to corrupt, and yet he remains a hero and victim to some.
Astounding really, but fans will be fans and nothing will detract them.

Firstly on Nazi comparisons: if anyone deserves that comparison it is in fact Rath, who conducted illegal experiments (see my previous post). As Nathan Geffen writes:

There are few aspects of the dark side of medical experimentation that conjure up as much revulsion as unethical medical experimentation. Besides the well-known examples of grotesque Nazi experiments during the Second World War and the Tuskegee syphilis study, books (or, more likely, movies) such as The Constant Gardener and Frankenstein have imprinted the horror on the public mind. The Rath clinical trial was a real-life version of the story told in Le Carré's novel, except that the bad guys were not our ideal of a multinational pharmaceutical company and a Western state - the villains were a vitamin salesman and a developing world government.

(Source: Debunking Delusions: The inside story of the Treatment Action Campaign by Nathan Geffen, Jacana: 2010. P. 165.)

Unfortunately the delusions of grandeur held by some people are their own worst enemy.
Rath eventually distributed pamphlets that falsely accused the TAC of being fronts for big pharma, and eventually money-laundering and renting crowds (quite ironic coming from Rath), but, Geffen points out: "The slurs were not confined to TAC. Our funders, including the Rockefeller Foundation, Bread for the World and Atlantic Philanthropies, were also accused of being pharmaceutical fronts." (Ibid, p. 151.)

Ultimately the TAC presented a full audit, and the court ruled against Rath and his attempts at defamation.

I'm not sure where the claim comes from that none of the patients were on ARVs when they started Rath's "free" trial. Marietta Nziba died within four months of Rath's experiment, although her photo continued to appear on one of Rath's websites as a "proven success". But two other patients who attended a session of photographs for the Rath support group in Gugulethu "later admitted to Health-E that they were on ARVs all along and had been bribed to speak at the meetings with promises of food and money".
(Cullinan and Thom: The Virus, Vitamins and Vegetables Jacana: 2010 P.125.)

As for Antony Brink and his rant against Zackie Achmat.
I'm not sure at all how this would have helped Rath's case, since it's often considered one of the lowest points of AIDS-denialism.
It's not sure if Brink considered his charges against Achmat as some form of joke, or what he was really trying to do. Brink remains unclear about this on his TIG website (www.tig.org.za...) and wrote: "It caused quite a fuss. Was it serious? Was it a joke? Was it a serious joke? You decide."
In his detailed chapter on the court cases (from a TAC perspective), "TAC litigates against Rath" (2010) Geffen writes:

While Rath's affidavit was bizarre, reading Anthony Brink's affidavit felt like going through the looking glass into Lewis Carroll's Wonderland. Brink filed 1,289 pages. Once more, instead of testifying about the facts of the case, Brink wrote a polemic that attacked not only our integrity, but the integrity of 51 judges of the Cape high Court as well as the Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional judges. This is not a recommended method for winning court cases.

(Geffen 2012, p.161.)

The TAC is a grassroots organization that has done more to fight "big pharma" in SA than anybody else.
They do not distribute ARVs or medicines, but instead focus on scientific literacy to make sure that nobody profiteers from HIV, including "big pharma", or quacks like Rath.
They want proven and affordable healthcare for all who choose it, including the poor.
At first TAC worked with Dr Zuma and government to fight the profiteering of big pharma.
For those who want historical visuals of their campaigns, see documentaries like Patient Abuse or TAC: The fist 5 years.

Some more footage from South Africa regarding Dr. Rath.

Of course it's not my aim to discuss AIDS denialism or rethinking (there are many good threads on the issue), but some sweeping statements were made on the previous page. So these clips are to illustrate some of the points made in my previous 2 posts.

What it means for heart disease and other countries is uncertain, but Rath was far from a hero in South Africa, and there's a clear lack of knowledge on the TAC and a position that still argues that they were a front for the pharmaceutical companies! They can believe what they like in other countries, but it's a defunct argument here.

(Incidentally, Kayelitsha/Khayelisha and Antony/Anthony Brink are sometimes spelled differently in texts.)

Testimonies against Rath and his treatments from 2005:


An interview with the TAC from 2005.
The main points here are that Rath's vitamins contained a scheduled substance (I suppose even from the label) and that without following the legal channels he was in contravention of the Medicines Control Act.
It never should have been the duty of the TAC to stop this, but of the government according to its own laws.

His reasons were interpreted simply as producing advertising for his wider market, and his Internet products were considered extremely expensive.

Rath's basic multivitamin then cost R180 per month on the Internet, while multivitamins in the pharmacies cost R62 a month.

So I guess he should have hired regular actors for his adverts, within the labor laws on salaries, like other marketing, instead of experimenting on people with all kinds of shenanigans to get a screen-shot.



I can't say what his heart disease or other medication does either way, but concerning HIV in SA, his operation was a major flop.

Originally posted by Pardon?
This is a far better description of what Rath is all about.
He's a vile man.

(Please be advised that some of the comments at the bottom of this link contain foul language)

scienceblogs.com...

Dr. Matthias Rath is a fearless crusader for natural cures and has warned people about the Big Pharma poisons that are being prescribed to them by gutless MDs.

Of course, Big Pharma & the Medical Establishment will do what they can to destroy Dr. Rath.

Ben Goldacre doesn’t have any credibility. He removed the chapter on Dr. Rath after Dr. Rath threatened to sue him.

“CIA-Sponsored Trolls Monitor Internet
& Interact With Users to Discredit Factual Information”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by halfoldman


You actually expect me to believe anything put out by TAC?

TAC (funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and WHO [World Health Org] -- the people who delivered AIDS to Africa) was headed by Zackie Achmat, founder of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) in South Africa.

This is the guy Brinks wanted INDICTED for GENOCIDE at the international criminal court in The Hague.

reply to post by halfoldman


I guess I didn't make myself clear. The people who own "Big Pharma" are the same people who own the major banking cartels, who own the politicians, who own the media, and who own the judges.

See "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" by Jim Marrs

I trust nothing from them.

reply to post by halfoldman


First of all, this thread is NOT about AIDS. This thread is about Vitamin C and Heart Disease.

I am very suspicious of anyone who spends as much time as you have trying to discredit someone like Dr. Matthias Rath.

I am NOT aware of ANY product that Dr. Rath is selling in the US for ANY ailment, muchless AIDS.

In the US there are numerous sources for Vitamin C and other (Dr. Rath recommended) nutrients.

Dr. Rath provides his 315 page book, "Why Animals Don't Get Heart Attacks, But People Do" for FREE, as a download.

But I guess some people feel it's their duty to warn the general public against Dr. Rath's recommendations of a healthier diet with more fresh vegetables and fruits combined with 600 to 3,000 mg of Vitamin C a day, along with other nutrients (vitamins, minerals, amino acids, etc).

Who will save us from this monster, Dr. Matthias Rath!?!

What Dr. Rath did that was unforgivable to TPTB was to take out newspaper ads warning the public against Big Pharma drugs.

TPTB are getting even by smearing Dr. Rath as a quack whenever possible.

Over the decades, many brave naturopaths have been sent to prison for speaking out for natural cures and against Big Pharma drugs. What were the charges? Practicing medicine without a license.

They can't do that to Dr. Rath because he is a medical doctor with an excellent education.
But don't worry, they will find some other way to destroy him.

“CIA-Sponsored Trolls Monitor Internet
& Interact With Users to Discredit Factual Information”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by AuranVector


It didn't take me any time at all thanks.
He's that much of a danger he's extremely well known. Infamous if you will.

Rath's a dangerous quack.
End of.

You're a fool for believing otherwise (unless, you have something to gain from it...).

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by Pardon?
This is a far better description of what Rath is all about.
He's a vile man.

(Please be advised that some of the comments at the bottom of this link contain foul language)

scienceblogs.com...

Dr. Matthias Rath is a fearless crusader for natural cures and has warned people about the Big Pharma poisons that are being prescribed to them by gutless MDs.

Of course, Big Pharma & the Medical Establishment will do what they can to destroy Dr. Rath.

Ben Goldacre doesn’t have any credibility. He removed the chapter on Dr. Rath after Dr. Rath threatened to sue him.

“CIA-Sponsored Trolls Monitor Internet
& Interact With Users to Discredit Factual Information”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 6-12-2012 by AuranVector because: (no reason given)

I like Ben Goldacre. He takes no sh*t from anyone.
He didn't remove it because Dr Death threatened to sue him over it.
He withheld it from printing as Dr Death was already suing the Guardian over criticism of Death's vitamin pill AIDS cure and felt it wasn't appropriate. Dr Death dropped the action and had to pay the Guardian £200k in damages. As soon as the case was over, Goldacre printed the whole chapter.

By the way, Goldacre doesn't just criticise quacks like Rath, you may be surprised to hear that very soon there will be a book of his criticising your favourite enemy, BIG PHARMA.


Oh, I wish I was sponsored by the CIA, especially with Christmas on the horizon. The extra pay would come in very handy.
Do you know anyone there I can apply to please?

Originally posted by AuranVector
Vitamin C is an inexpensive, powerful anti-oxidant, and excellent for combatting inflammation. It's entangled in just about every function of the human body.

The human body cannot store it, yet its intake is essential EVERYDAY in some form.

Why isn't this shouted from the roof tops? Some doctors & scientists have tried.

"Why Animals Don't Get Heart Attacks but People Do," Fourth Revised Edition (2003)

By Dr. Matthias Rath, M.D.

“Dr. Rath’s research identifies the TRUE CAUSE of heart disease as a DEFICIENCY of VITAMIN C and other essential nutrients in the cells composing the heart and coronary arteries – not high cholesterol. Once the artery wall is weakened by vitamin deficiency, the body responds by producing excess cholesterol in the liver and depositing it in the injured artery. If this process continues without nutritional intervention, the buildup of fats in the arteries will eventually lead to atherosclerosis, the cause of heart attacks.”

“Using easy-to-understand language, Dr. Rath explains what the reader can do to prevent heart attacks and other cardiovascular conditions naturally. He presents his ten-step program for achieving natural cardiovascular health, as well as his clinically proven Cellular Health nutrient recommendations for preventing and improving heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart failure, arrhythmia, diabetes and other conditions."

"Dr. Rath even provides clinical proof – complete with the Ultrafast CT scans of patient’s arteries – of the natural reversal of atherosclerotic deposits, without angioplasty or bypass surgery.”

“Matthias Rath, M.D. is an internationally respected cardiovascular researcher who worked closely with the late two-time Nobel Laureate LINUS PAULING, Ph.D. Dr. Rath was appointed by Pauling as the first director of cardiovascular research at the Linus Pauling Institute, formerly located in California.”

“The author of four bestselling health books, Dr. Rath developed the scientific concept of Cellular Medicine, which defines the deficiency of nutrients at the cellular level as a root cause of chronic diseases. His research has been published in numerous scientific journals, including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine and the Journal of Applied Nutrition.”

Free download of the book is here:

www.why-animals-dont-get-heart-attacks.org...

I also have great respect for Dr. Pauling's research in this area.

Dr. Linus Pauling (1901 – 1994) died at 93 yrs.
Won two Nobel Prizes (Chemistry & Peace)
Used Bronson Vitamin C Crystals

I am convinced that Big Pharma is debilitating us with their drugs and it’s intentional. It's no accident that the statins being pushed so hard now are causing cognitive challenges in those who take them.

Related ATS threads:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If what he says is true, why do primates in captivity and a number of domestic pets suffer from cardio-vascular disease? (I used to help out the local vet school with anigiography so it's well documented)
Is it to do with the fact that their bodies don't produce enough vitamin C to combat the difference in what they're given to eat rather than what they would eat in the wild?
Or is it just down to their diet?

Have a guess which one it is (and the answer doesn't contain the words vitamin or C)?

Having been involved in cardio-vascular medicine for over a quarter of a century (I'm a cardiac physiologist, so no "big pharma" ties) his rudimentary knowledge of the aetiology of heart disease is quite, quite disturbing. Especially since he has a basic medical degree. One would expect much better than that.
Having flicked through the book you linked I see an alarming amount of testimonials. Testimonials raise so many red flags for me and looking at his clinical studies section I see he's been extremely selective in what he has chosen.
This is all leading me down a well-trodden path.....
I've sort of said what I think of Rath in earlier posts, this rubber-stamps it for me.

Whilst Linus Pauling may have a couple of Nobel Prizes, neither of those had anything to do with his involvement in vit C.
A certain company called Hoffmann-La Roche did (they're a big pharma company, you may know them just as Roche).
Just in case you were unaware, Hoffmann-La Roche were probably the biggest manufacturer of vit C at the time Pauling became involved and bizarrely Hoffmann-La Roche were the biggest funders of the Pauling Institute.
Don't you find it strange that Pauling's "research" with vit C has never been able to be reproduced?

Given the above it's hardly surprising that Rath became involved with it really is it?

These "natural medicine" promoters aren't really as distanced from BIG PHARMA as you would like people to believe.

Originally posted by AuranVector
reply to post by halfoldman

 

You actually expect me to believe anything put out by TAC?

TAC (funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and WHO [World Health Org] -- the people who delivered AIDS to Africa) was headed by Zackie Achmat, founder of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) in South Africa.

This is the guy Brinks wanted INDICTED for GENOCIDE at the international criminal court in The Hague.

I don't expect you to believe anything.
You've clearly made your choice of what authors to believe.

However when sweeping statements are made about the TAC or Zackie Achmat that I believe to be false and disinformation, I will give my side of the story (yes, for FREE) and people can make up their own minds.

Anthony Brink is considered a colorful maverick and pretty much a one-man show since the days of AIDS denialism in SA, and his opinions really count for nothing (except perhaps within a certain faction of AIDS denialism).

His "indictment" against Achmat was absurd, and taken seriously it just included a sadistic fantasy and invective.

Furthermore, Brink indicates on his own Treatment Information Group website that his indictment was a satire, and compares it with two similar satires on AIDS in The Onion:

On 4 January 2007 we served (PDF, 719KB) a 59-page draft bill of indictment (PDF, 137 KB) at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, in which we applied for the prosecution of TAC leader Zackie Achmat on a charge of genocide for his direct criminal role in the deaths of thousands of South Africans from ARV poisoning. It caused quite a fuss. Was it serious? Was it a joke? Was it a serious joke? You decide. (See ‘On Satire’, a letter to Zapiro below. And these spoofs in the Onion: here and here.)

www.tig.org.za...

I don't see Brink's shenanigans as relevant at all, and it's more of an embarrassment than something to shout about, especially for authors who treat this as significant. I guess some people just have a zany sense of humor.

If other countries are happy to host Dr. Rath that's fine with me, as long as he sticks to their laws (which he didn't do here), or they don't care if he breaks them.

I don't see Rath excluded from the global banking systems, and his material and products are available online to anyone who wants them.

Both Rath and big pharma sell vitamins, minerals and amino acids.
His free book and marketing could support getting them from either sources, if the local pharmacy or supermarket stores the formulas he proposes.

Whether chemical vitamins are "natural" or even safe is another matter.

There's a lot of spin about which formula is best and more natural, so this whole big pharma spin is just an illusion to aggressively market one product over another.

In a sense getting involved in these court cases is good for business, because it promotes the image of the victimized rebel against big pharma (and most people won't check the details of what actually happened in other countries), and that image appeals to some, although, as you point out, the products are the same (beyond shuffling the formulas and dosages to make them appear unique).
It's the image that ultimately sells.

reply to post by AuranVector


Yup youngegity and dr wallach taught me about how crucial minerals and high dose vitamins are

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by AuranVector

 

It didn't take me any time at all thanks.
He's that much of a danger he's extremely well known. Infamous if you will.

Rath's a dangerous quack.
End of.

You're a fool for believing otherwise (unless, you have something to gain from it...).

Dr. Rath is an excellent medical researcher & doctor or he would not have been allowed on Dr. Linus Pauling's research team.

The only reason Dr. Rath has been labeled a "quack" is because the Medical Establishment & Big Pharma have viciously labeled him one -- as punishment for pointing out the dangerous poisons Big Pharma pushes on a trusting public.

Let that be a lesson to anyone taking out large newspapers ads attacking Big Pharma.

And you are a fool for swallowing anything dished out by the Medical Establishment & Big Pharma.

I have nothing to gain from publicizing Dr. Rath's work, except the satisfaction of passing on useful information -- despite the aggressive suppression of TPTB.

Originally posted by Pardon?

Having been involved in cardio-vascular medicine for over a quarter of a century (I'm a cardiac physiologist, so no 'big pharma' ties)....

...Having flicked through the book you linked I see an alarming amount of testimonials....

Don't you find it strange that Pauling's "research" with vit C has never been able to be reproduced?

As a cardiac physiologist, you are a member of the Medical Establishment --- which most definitely has ties to Big Pharma -- they probably funded the research you do or did.

So you discount testimonials -- that doesn't surprise me. The first hand experiences of people who have tried alternative methods do not interest you. But they do interest me and other people, because we have our own experiences.

Dr. Pauling's research most definitely has been reproduced by people trying his recommendations.

I have first hand experiences of the value of mega-doses of Vitamin C.