Dear List Members
Our research DOES NOT support the claims that vitamin C is a threat to
human health........in any way. We have evaluated this material for over nine
years----employing a variety of animals and human volunteers.
There are many ways experiments may be "rigged" to enable
predetermined outcomes. I am not accusing Dr. Robinson, or his colleagues, of
such------just mentioning that persons with specific agendas (especially
commercial ones) are sometimes tempted to "condition" results.
We are in constant contact with over six well-staffed research
centers (some "world-class) and none of the four with historical experience
with vitamin C-----has ever reported adverse effects.......to us. My comments
may be regarded as anecdotal......as I do not intend to become embroiled in any
form of antagonistic exchange with list members.
One comment that may be of value-----we have determined that rodent
models versus actual humans are "highly" unreliable......as efficacious
indicators in Vitamin C evaluations. The original discrepancies prompted us to
conduct paralleled evaluations......the results of which presented
sometimes-alarming variations in effects. One of the worst criteria results
from using "mass-adjusted" dosages for almost any non-huyman subjects.. The
variations in metabolic rate and other, non-linear, functional systems are
---simply---non-transferable, in any reliable sense.
A majority of our vitamin C research has been dedicated to
circumstances involving dynamic circumstances surrounding "expressing
afflictions" among human volunteers. Few "double-blind" tests have been
conducted; but our "treated" versus "controlled" populations have expressed
very consistant results......over a variety of evaluations-----from diet to
pathogenic afflictions. Others may have enjoyed results of a different type.
Sincerely, Brooks Bradley.
----- Original Message -----
From: Carol
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: CS>Study Indicates that Vitamin C is Not Effective for Colds
Forgive the length of this but this debunks Linus Paulings theory on vitamin
C as a fraud. Makes you think twice on taking the stuff. Carol
Art Robinson will be 59 in March. He was a chemistry student at Caltech
himself, and something of a whiz kid. He was one of the few students ever to be
appointed to the faculty of the University of California (in San Diego)
immediately after getting his Ph.D. He is not pleased by many developments in
America in the last generation, especially at the intersection of science and
politics, and his own life has been beset by obstacles and tragedies. But he is
a man of steely determination and intensity, and he has achieved a good deal
since moving to Oregon 20 years ago.
In the mid 1970's, after a few years at U.C. San Diego, Robinson teamed up
with Linus Pauling to form the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine
in Menlo Park, California. Robinson, president and research director, revered
Pauling both as a teacher and a chemist, while Pauling had referred to him as
"my principal and most valued collaborator." Pauling had won two Nobel Prizes,
for Chemistry (1954), and Peace (1962), and by the mid 1970'S had widely
publicized the claim that Vitamin C could cure the common cold. In addition, he
said, "75 percent of all cancer can be prevented or cured by Vitamin C alone."
At the new institute, on Sandhill Road, Robinson devised some mouse
experiments to test this amazing theory. By the summer of 1978, he was getting
"highly embarrassing" results. At the mouse-equivalent of 10 grams of Vitamin C
a day-Pauling's recommended dose for humans-the mice were getting more cancer,
not less. Pauling responded to the unwelcome news by entering Robinson's office
one day and announcing that he had in his breast pocket some damaging personal
information. He would overlook it, however, if Robinson were to resign all his
positions and turn over his research. When Robinson refused, Pauling locked him
out and kept the filing cabinets and computer tapes containing nine years'
worth of research. They were never recovered. Pauling also told lab assistants
to kill the 400 mice used for the experiments. Pauling's later sworn testimony
showed that the story about the damaging information was invented, while
experiments by the Mayo Clinic conclusively proved that the theory about cancer
and Vitamin C was wrong.
A sharp divergence of political opinion between the two men also became
apparent. A few years after he won the Nobel Peace Prize, Pauling also won the
Lenin Peace Prize. He told Robinson that he was more proud of the Soviet than
the Norwegian award. For his part, in the spring of 1978 Robinson had given a
speech at the Cato Institute, then in San Francisco, deploring the government
funding of science as harmful to the independence that is essential to
scientific inquiry.
The Nobel fakery of
LINUS PAULING
Taken from EIR August 28,1984
This was an interview of Dr. Arthur Robinson, head of the Oregon Institute of
Medical Science, a board member of the journal, Mechanisms of Aging &
Development.
Linus Pauling spent nearly 1 million dollars trying among other things to
suppress Dr. Robinson's research which indicated that a moderate dose of
Vitamin C increased the incidence of cancer, but that another diet, entirely
different from the one that Pauling pushed on talk shows, was far more
effective in suppressing cancer. "The results showed that if you gave mice the
equivalent of the 5 to 10 grams a day of Vitamin C that Pauling recommends for
people, it about doubled the cancer rate. If you give them massive multiple
vitamins, it does too. (Think about that, you Handful-of-Vitamin takers !) As
you go up in dose range, you near the lethal dose. And just under the lethal
dose, there starts to be a suppression of cancer. Then I became interested in a
raw fruits and vegetable diet for the mice. That was very effective against
cancer, it was remarkable".
Linus Pauling tried to publish a paper claiming that a double dose of his
already high Vitamin C diet would essentially provide complete protection
against skin cancer in mice. Pauling apparently didn't do the work and so may
have been unaware that the double dose was absolutely lethal and that none of
the mice lived. He later claimed that this was a great discovery about cancer.
Dr Robinson suggests that "it appears increasingly that Vitamin C is
mutagenic in large amounts in aerobic solutions, and it is not at all clear
that you don't increase the chances or the risk of cancer if you pour 10 or 20
grams a day into people's stomachs and intestines for years.
Now stay with this stuff PLEASE! You probably still believe that Vitamin C
supplements are good for you, regardless of what research people found out
about mice. It's ok! The real point of all this is that YOU have to sort out
what is truth from politics and economics, and I hope to be able to give you
some tools to do just this.
Linus Pauling then published an article in PREVENTION Magazine. He says that
"75% of all cancer can be prevented and cured by Vitamin C alone" He said this
without a shred of evidence. The Mayo Clinic goes out and does a study to prove
Pauling wrong - and that's easy. 15 other studies concluded that Pauling was
preaching nonsense.Vitamin C doesn't cure cancer. But Pauling gets a lot of
press. He got more press by talking about himself and his wife. He put himself
and his wife on 10 grams of Vitamin C a day. She lasted ten years before dying
of stomach cancer. Dr. Robinson points out that she was bathing her stomach
with an enormous amount of mutagenic material for 10 years. He doesn't know if
that is why she got it, but it is the sort of thing that he would worry about
in the long term. Linus himself died of cancer at age 93.
For a detailed account of Linus Pauling's IgNobel conduct, see Accuracy in
Media October-B 1994 XXIII-20 "Linus Pauling: Crank or Genius" by Dr. Thomas H.
Jukes.
Most people confuse ascorbic acid and adsorbates with Vitamin C. They are not
the same. Ascorbic acid is the antioxidant portion of the vitamin C complex.
Natural vitamin C is made up of at least 10 different, distinct molecules that
we know of. These include ascorbic acid (which is only the preservative portion
of the nutritional complex), the enzyme tyrosinase (needed to make organic
copper), rutin, bioflavanoids (vitamin p), organic copper, manganese, and a
host of other phytochemicals including enzymes, trace mineral activators and
more.
. The FDA (our protector) allows drug companies to sell synthetic ascorbic
acid as Vitamin C, and allows them to infer that the benefits derived from
taking their product will be the same as taking the real stuff.
90% of all the ascorbic acid in the US is manufactured by pouring battery
acid or hydrochloric acid on corn syrup. [YUM}
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) suggests that the optimal dose of
vitamin C is 200 mgs. Most people who take Megadoses of adsorbates show severe
vitamin C deficiency when tested properly says Lita Lee, Ph.D. For more
information on natural vitamin C versus ascorbic acid, see chapter 22 of her
book "Radiation Protection Manual".
Vitamin C Pills cause hardening of the arteries?
A new study raises the disturbing possibility that taking vitamin C pills may
speed up hardening of the arteries. When you extract one component of food and
give it at very high levels, you just don't know what you are doing to the
system, and it may be adverse, "said Dr. James H. Dwyer, and epidemiologist who
directed the study. He presented his findings at a meeting in San Diego of the
American Heart Association 3/16/00.
Dwyer and colleagues from the University of Southern California studied 573
outwardly healthy middle-aged men and women who work for an electric utility in
Los Angeles. About 30 percent of them regularly took various vitamins.
The study found no clear-cut sign that getting lots of vitamin C from food or
a daily multi vitamin does any harm. But those taking vitamin C pills had
accelerated thickening of the walls of the big arteries in their necks.
In fact the more they took, the faster the buildup. People taking 500
milligrams of vitamin C daily for at least a year had a 2 1/2 times greater
rate of thickening than did those who avoided supplements. Among smokers the
rate was 5 times greater.
Ascorbic Acid contributes to coronary heart disease?
Advocates of Vitamin C supplements cite a study by University of Buffalo
epidemiologists that shows that people with higher levels of Vitamin C in their
blood serum have lower levels of a marker for oxidative stress. The researchers
tested the actual blood level of Vitamin C. I have no problem with this. The
question is, does taking synthetic concentrated ascorbic acid actually raise
the level of Vitamin C in your blood serum. Tests that Dr. Bruce West have run
indicate that Vitamin C concentrates (ascorbic acid) produce NO difference in
blood serum levels of Vitamin C.
Large amounts of ascorbic acid produce a copper and tyrosinase deficiency
(weakens the adrenal glands) just as high doses of calcium or zinc produce a
magnesium or copper deficiency. Don't take high doses of artificial supplements
even if they claim to be "ALL NATURAL". All natural means: "of the earth".
Plastic is "ALL NATURAL". What you should be looking for is something
resembling: "Made from fruits and vegetables below 70 degrees F." rom:
[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: CS>Study Indicates that Vitamin C is Not Effective for Colds
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/2001/10/01/FFX6WSBQ7SC.html
Study rebuts 'myth' of vitamin C cold cure
The Age
1 OCtober 2001
By MARY-ANNE TOY
HEALTH EDITOR
Monday 1 October 2001
The theory that high doses of vitamin C can cure the common cold - first
advocated in 1970 by dual Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling - is a myth,
according to an Australian study.
The study's leader, Robert Douglas, of the National Centre for
Epidemiology and Population Health, at the Australian National
University, said he had stopped taking vitamin C on the strength of the
finding.
The study involved 400 volunteers from the ANU in Canberra. It found that
vitamin C taken at the onset of a cold had no effect on the duration or
severity of symptoms in healthy adults.
Professor Douglas said he had conducted his study because results from
previous ones had been inconclusive.
"It was pretty clear that vitamin C couldn't prevent people from getting
colds, but there was still a question mark over whether it did something
to treat colds," Professor Douglas said.
"There have been four other studies with ambiguous findings, but there
was nothing ambiguous about our study."
But groups such as F H Faulding, the market leader in health supplements,
and the Centre for Complementary Medicine, said the study was flawed
because participants did not take strong enough doses for a long enough
period.
The 400 volunteers were randomised to receive one of four interventions -
a "placebo" dose of 0.03 grams a day of vitamin C; one gram a day; three
grams a day, or three grams a day of the vitamin plus other additives -
without knowing what dose they were taking.
Volunteers were given bottles, tablets and a "respiratory event card" to
fill out if they began to get a cold. If a volunteer had at least two
symptoms for a minimum of four hours (such as a sore or scratchy throat,
nasal congestion or discharge, a headache or stinging eyes) they were to
start the tablets as soon as possible, preferably within four hours. They
were asked to continue the tablets for the next two days and record their
symptoms on the card.
One hundred and forty-nine participants returned records of 184 cold
episodes. The study, published today in the Medical Journal of Australia,
found no significant differences in any measure of cold duration or
severity between the four medication groups.
The placebo group had the shortest duration of nasal, systemic and
overall cold symptoms but the difference was not statistically
significant.
However, Marc Cohen, director of the Centre for Complementary Medicine at
Monash University, said the study was seriously flawed. A therapeutic
dose should be at least five grams a day; participants were too slow to
take their first dose (average time between onset and first dose was 13
hours) and vitamin C was taken for only just over two days.
Dr Cohen said there were no conclusive studies about whether vitamin C
helped colds, and it was frustrating that the new study had such major
flaws.
Naturopath and pharmacist Lesley Braun, a consultant to Faulding, said
the study only proved that a particular protocol (1-3 grams of vitamin C
taken for just over two days) was ineffective. "This is not to say that
other protocols don't work," Ms Braun said.
American chemist Linus Pauling, who was twice awarded the Nobel Prize for
science, sparked the vitamin supplement craze when he published the book
Vitamin C and the Common Cold in 1970 and Cancer and Vitamin C in 1979.
Australians bought $27 million worth of vitamin C last year from
pharmacies and grocery stores.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release Date: 9/18/01
