List: As some of you know I dated a Ph.d in Nursing and he also has a Ph.d. in Naturopathy last year. Below is his response and historical knowledge of the Pauling case. I have not edited his comments or corrected his spelling.
Jeannine ************** The reason for the extreme hatred of Pauling was it was considered that vitamins and natural health were taboo in the 60's and 70's At one point in the 70's, I was threatened with my job since I was doing vitamins and the docs were so against them. Dr Robinson research was proven WRONG and the research that Pauling did concerning Vit C has been repeatedly proven right. This article is OLD and has been floating around for since since the 60 Min program on Pauling and Robinson was on in the 1980's. The real problem with Robinson was he wanted a Nobel Prize like Pauling and he would never get one while under Pauling and to add creadibility to his own research Robinson had to discredit Pauling. As for politics. I find it interesting that nearly every profesor at every major univ was a anti war protestor and anti nuke person. Pauling was not alone for what he thought was a devious device. Tens of thousands of people are antiNuke. I dont see this mentioned in this Pro-Robinson / Anti-Pauling article. Concerning the double helix it was Schauberger who first described it in the 1920's. But because he did not have a doctor degree every one snubbed him. The description that Pauling gave was correct. When it comes to writing and giving credit all these scientific types "forget" to mention stuff. This is one reason why I refuse to publish because so much is distorted. Pauling didnt give credit. But there are several other nobel lautets that pledgerized and falsified blatentlythere published articles. Also who publishes first gets credit. Pauling published first. As for psychiatry you should read the book Toxic Psychiatry and the use of psych meds and research which is heavy with fruad and fraudulant claims escpecially on Welbrutrin. And as for respectability the psych doctors are listed as being the most fraudulant in a medicare study on medicare fraud. 80 to 90% in a 10 state study. All those who have tried to tarnish Pauling are themselves tarnished. I saw a study about 2 yrs ago that was backing Paulings claim on Vit C. Pauling just didnt have a Nobel Prize he had 2 Nobel Prizes. You dont get a Nobel prize and not become arrogant and he had 2 so he was twice as arrogant. As for Robinson and his research it has proven to be BLAH BLAH BLAH at the best and he will never get a Nobel Prize. Also the Pauling Nobel Prizes have NEVER been challanged as for the legitamacy of his work that got him the Nobels. Dave
