Chapter 4 -- continued
< --- Chapter 4, Section 3
"The medical profession
itself took a very narrow and wrong view (of the body's need
for ascorbic acid). Lack of ascorbic acid caused scurvy, so
(surely) if there was no scurvy, there was no lack of ascorbic
acid. Nothing could be clearer than this. The only trouble
was that scurvy is NOT a first symptom of lack but a final
collapse, a premortal syndrome, and there is a very wide gap
between scurvy and full health. But nobody knows what
full health is! . . . "
Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937)
Discoverer, Vitamin C
"More than sixty years
of research on living systems have convinced me that our body
is much more nearly perfect than the endless list of ailments
suggests . . . (its shortcomings) are due less to its inborn
imperfections than to our abusing it."
. . . again, Szent-Gyorgi
"We may ask why
the physicians and authorities on nutrition have remained
so lacking in enthusiasm . . . there seems to have existed
a feeling that the intake of vitamin C should be kept
as small as possible, even though this vitamin is known to
have extremely low toxicity. This attitude is, of course,
proper for drugs -- substances not normally present
in the human body and almost always rather highly toxic --
but it does not apply to ascorbic acid. Another factor
has probably been the lack of interest of the drug companies
in a natural substance that is available at a low price
and cannot be patented."
Nobel Laureate (Chemistry, 1954)
as a researcher in the field, it is my contention that
effective treatment for the common cold, a cure, is available,
that is being ignored because of the monetary losses that
would be inflicted on pharmaceutical manufacturers, professional
journals, and doctors themselves."
. . . again, Linus Pauling
quoting Douglas Gildersleeve, M.D.
To be fair, no one
has ever suggested that Vitamin C is a cure for cancer.
Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi himself was resistant to any claim
to quick fixes. Correction of defects may take the better
part of a year, he suggested. What he did state, unequivocally --
and this is not an interpretation of clinical data, it is now
hornbook physiology: Vitamin C is built into "the very
heart of life's machinery . . . we are constantly
building and rebuilding this machinery all the time."
On this basis, Szent-Gyorgyi felt that a continuous
supply of ascorbic acid was very important.
Although the common narrative,
as it relates to scurvy, teaches that scurvy was cured hundreds
of years ago, I maintain that Irwin Stone, Linus Pauling,
and Albert Szent-Gyorgyi had it right: scurvy is only the
most severe development in a broader deficiency condition
which Stone called "hypoascorbemia."
It is a complete sham to
maintain a published Recommended Daily Allowance of 60 mg.
per day, when the evidence clearly suggests that an intake
that is closer to 4 to 5 grams per day (perhaps 70 to 80 times
the amount that orthdox medicine, and its legions of doctors
and nutritionists recommend) is closer to what is required
for optimal human health. To get an idea of the
incredible breadth of research that has been published
demonstrating the benefits of ascorbic acid in higher doses,
this author has long recommended a thorough reading of
(not because it is current or comprehensive, but because it
is concise, compelling, and written in layman's terms).
Research on higher ascorbate intakes has clearly demonstrated benefits
in a wide variety of modern illnesses and conditions --
from colds and other viral
infections, to bacterial illnesses, heart disease,
strokes, allergies, ulcers, diabetes, wounds -- even shock.
The range of benefits has been proven to be so broad
that Stone viewed ascorbic acid not as a micronutrient,
but as something close to a macronutrient. He preferred
to call it "The Healing Factor," and it is only in compiling
the broad range of studies showing its many benefits that
he was able to enlist the help of Linus Pauling in drawing
attention to the established fact.
When living in the wild,
living as gatherers of fruits and vegetables, eaten fresh with its
nutrients undiminished by exposure to time, heat, or processing,
most humans don't ingest 60 mg. a day of Vitamin C. They ingest
ascorbic acid measureable in several grams per day -- and not in
one or two lump sums supplementally, but gradually throughout the
day as they eat small meals. Even the average gorilla in the wild
ingests approximately 4 grams per day of ascorbate.
With the recent emergence of
civilization, but most particularly with the ascension of
, such natural living has met a
terminal, maladaptive end. In its place we have "civilized living"
that leads to processed foods, while those that ARE fresh are
aged, those that CONTAINED heat labile ascorbate are now
In the name of progress,
"homo sapiens" have created an array of modern lifestyles, which
cut across sub-cultures and socioeconomic levels, but which
uniformly lend themselves to mass hypoascorbemia -- which
itself is but one small by-product of mankind's "adventures in
To educate the public as
to the very existence of this development would create an
unfathomable diminishment in the reputation, influence,
and profitability of today's medical industrial complex.
That is why the orthodox
establishments fights so hard to suppress it.
Despite the fact that
vitamin C was discovered as the "cure" for scurvy -- the latter recognized
to be a form of avitaminosis (deficiency disease); despite
the discovery of Vitamin C's chemical composition (in 1937
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi was given a Nobel Prize for asborbic
acid's discovery, Sir Walter Haworth for his research on its
chemical structure and synthesis), the scientific establishment
has impeded further discovery of its benefits for the last 70 years.
It is not remotely an
exaggeration to say that ever since the discovery of Vitamin C,
with the further unfolding of the many conditions that improve
from higher Vitamin C intake, established medicine has done
everything possible to downplay clinical results.
In fact, the positive
results are so voluminous (when you factor out the studies
where the ascorbate amounts selected for test subjects
are deliberately chosen at a level too small to produce
a clinical impact), that we will have to be selective
in what area of application we study for the remainder
of this chapter. (Even Stone's work is heavily annotated
with study references for those who wish to read the
Since cancer has been
the focus of our open chapters and initial study, it would
be interesting to note what discoveries have been made about
Vitamin C -- a relatively cheap, inexpensive nutrient -- and
In 1969, Dean Burk and
his associates at the National Cancer Institute published a
paper showing that ascorbate is highly toxic to carcinoma cells.
In fact, Vitamin C caused profound structural changes in the
cancer cells in their lab cultures. As Stone notes,
the group wrote:
"The great advantage that ascorbates . . . possess
as potential anticancer agents is that they are, like penicillin,
remarkably nontoxic to normal body tissues, and they may be
administered to animals in extremely large doses (up go 5 or
more grams per kilogram) without notable pharmacological
This finding, alone, should
have been cause to bring greater resources to bear on an
area of research that could bring enormous benefit
to the public. What was the U.S. government's response?
The Cancer Chemotherapy National Service Center, tasked
with screening new cancer-killing materials, refused to
include Vitamin C in its testing for cancer-killing
properties. Their reason? Ascorbic acid was too nontoxic
to fit into their program!
to the end of his life (he died in 1986 at the age of 93),
felt that cancer research was misdirected and was overlooking
the obvious. "The blindfold search for a cure for cancer seems
a hopeless waste." [ 6 ]
But as is typical
of our Suppression Pattern, the Vitamin C / cancer connection
doesn't end here. It is not enough for Modern Medicine to turn
its nose at vitamin therapy and thereby save the lives
(not to mention pocketbooks, God forbid!) of its patents.
The primary "approved" methods of cancer treatment in
the West not only deny additional Vitamin C at a time
when the body needs it most, but they utilize
immune-suppressive therapies that do just the opposite:
they deplete it.
[ 7 ]
The position of the
orthodox medical community vis-a-vis Vitamin C intake that
rises above the grossest manifestations of hypoascorbemia,
namely scurvy, is particularly irresponsible when one
considers that for at least two generations, we have known that
"all of (the impartial evidence gathered to date supports) the
conclusion that vitamin C is intimately involved in cancer as
well as in scurvy."
Going all the way back
to James Lind's autopsy reports of scurvy sufferers (1753)
one find expressions such as "all parts were so mixed up and
blended together to form one mass or lump that individual organs
could not be identified" -- to which Pauling was led to
comment, "(this is) surely an 18th-century morbid anatomist's
graphic description of neoplastic infiltration."
More recently, in 1954
and 1959 Dr. W.J. McCormick, a Canadian physician, formulated
the hypothesis "that cancer is a collagen disease, secondary
to a deficiency in vitamin C. He recognized that the generalized
stromal change of scurvy (changes in the nature of the tissues)
are identical with the local stromal changes observed in the
immediate vicinity of invading neoplastic cells., and surmised
that the nutrient (vitamin C) that is known to be capable of
preventing such generalized changes in scurvy might have similar
effects in cancer. The evidence that cancer patients are almost
invariably depleted of ascorbate lent support to this view."
Supportive of this position
is the observation that "anemia, cachexia, extreme lassitude,
hemorrhages, ulceration, suspectibility to infections, and
abnormally low tissue, plasma, and leukocyte ascorbate levels,
with terminal adrenal failure, are virtually identical with the
premortal features of advanced human scurvy."
[ 7b ]
Those who think
that this observation is circumstantial are not familiar with
the enormous amount of clinical work that has been done
over the years supporting the benefits of orthomolecular
(high dosage) vitamin C in connection with cancer.
Thousands of studies exist substantiating the benefits.
[ 7c ]
And yet ever bit
as compelling, are the proven benefits of increased
vitamin C intakes in the prevent and treatment of
heart disease . . .
One of the most shocking
demonstrations of the Suppression Pattern at work in the
orthdox medical community concerns the described physiological
mechanism connecting ascorbate deficiency, arteriosclerosis,
strokes, and coronary heart disesae. Though obviously not the
sole etiological factor in all cases, what IS known
is that all of these conditions are initiated or worsened
by ascorbal insufficiency; the correlation
and causative factors are well-described, as
are the profit motives that prevent these facts from
being widely known to the public. The role of
Vitamin C as a potential "anti-atherogenic" is, or should
be, an important debate in medicine, since atherosclerosis
"and its clinical manifestations, particularly angina
pectoris, myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, is the
single most important cause of morbidity and mortality
in the Western World."
"Never forget that you are fighting
one of the most important battles for human health . . .
(The battle) will be long and hard."
The "discovery" itself
appears to have been properly credited by Dr. Linus Pauling
to a noteworthy understudy, Dr. Matthias Rath. The discovery
was so amazing, that Pauling was moved to comment before his
death in 1994 that, "(You should) never forget that your
discovery is one of the most important discoveries in
[ 9 ]
That heart disease
and circulatory conditions were connected to a lack of
Vitamin C had long been observed. How could it not?
The same breakdown in tissue structure observed in
scurvy could be observed in all of the above mentioned
diseases -- only it was made manifest in the circulatory
system. Sign posts were occasionally reported, such as
the observation that Vitamin C converts cholesterol into
water-soluble bile acids.
[ 10 ] Still -- no one was able to
definitively put all the causative factors involving
vitamin deficiency and heart disease until Rath.
Before Rath, no one
was able to provide a viable explanation for why animals
don't get heart attacks, but people do.
[ 11 ] Surely, it would seem
likely that someone would have come along in the
interim between Szent-Gyorgyi's discovery of ascorbate
as the "cure for scurvy" and Rath's emergence -- someone
to press this issue. After all, by the time Rath started
speaking out -- with Pauling's backing and assistance --
it had been well known for most of the twentieth century
that one of the primary differences in the physiology
between animals, which don't get heart attacks, and
homo sapiens, who do, is that humans can easily
suffer from ascorbate deficiency, whereas most of
other animals, as we've stated, cannot. They make their own.
As can be expected,
Rath has been the subject of numerous "ad hominem"
attacks, and equally predictable is his branding
as a "quack" by the orthodox medical community.
[ 12 ] He has been
engaged in extensive litigation, criminal and civil,
[ 13 ], which is standard
operating procedure for any one who threatens the
orthodox system with therapeutic systems or products
that threaten profits in the orthodox system
(high profile cases immediately coming to mind include Rife, Reich,
Hoxsey, Wright, Koch, Naessens, and Burzynski).
[ 14 ] But a fitting criteria
in the current study with respect to Rath's work is not
whether his antics have been respectable, his actions
self-serving (i.e. he commits the unpardonable sin of
actually selling his own brand of vitamins), or the
delivery of his message less than elegant.
In an orthodox system,
which is, as we explored in the side bar earlier in this
chapter, loathsome of anything truly "evidence-based,"
the most relevant question is, "Is it true?"
into the world of corrupt medicine goes all the way back
to his last year in medical school when his father died
of a heart attack. After graduation, Rath was hired on with
a research project, sponsored by the German Research Foundation.
The goal? To identify the mechanisms by which cholesterol
and other fat particles "get stuck" inside blood vessel
walls. By the time Rath began his research, cholesterol-lowering
drugs were already a billion dollar a year industry, so there
was plenty of research grants to go around to try and help
supporting the "high cholesterol" juggernaut. At that time,
medical research in cardiology was focussed on "bad cholesterol"
or low-density lipoproteins.
Not only was "LDL" acknowledged by orthodoxy as the main
factor causing atherosclerotic plagues -- and therefore
a primary and direct causative agent in the case of
most heart attacks and strokes, but research funds were
fueled by "Big Pharma's" lust to have yet another
problem to "fix."
Rath's career path
took a dramatic turn when he began to question the role
of a newly discovered risk factor in heart disease:
"lipoprotein(a)." What followed is best told in
Rath's own words:
" . . . Our own
studies involving more than ten thousand research
data and measurements left no doubt that in order
for the 'bad cholesterol' to stick inside the blood
vessel wall, it needs the biological adhesive lipoprotein(a)
The results established together with my colleagues were
an important milestone towards the understanding about
the nature of cardiovascular disease. What we found
was that everywhere cholesterol was deposited in the blood
vessel wall there was the biological adhesive tape
'apo(a)'. It was clear that the deposits were not
dependent on the amount of cholesterol but on the amount
of 'adhesive' present in the body. At that point we
did not know that this, also, would only be the partial
truth and that heart and strokes would turn out to be
primarily the result of vitamin deficiencies.
After having his
findings reported in Arteriosclerosis, Rath sought
out the counsel of Linus Pauling, who, subsequent to their
initial meetings, recognized the enormous value of Rath's
work and created a place for him at his marginally funded
research organization, The Linus Pauling Institute.
on the 'sticky cholesterol' lipoprotein(a) were so new,
that the American Heart Association (AHA) did not accept
the presentation of these data at their annual convention
in 1988. They simply did not believe it. It was not
until one year later that the AHA invited me to give a
presentation at their annual convention in Anaheim in
November, 1998. At the same time the AHA accepted
these findings in their official journal, Arteriosclerosis.
Lipoprotein(a) turned out
to be a ten times greater risk factor than cholesterol.
More importantly, no drugs, not even cholesterol-lowering
drugs were able to lower this risk factor in the blood.
But by far the most intriguing question about this
new risk factor for heart attacks and strokes was the
fact that it was only found in humans -- but rarely
in other living species.
It was back in 1987
when I made the following decisive discovery that should
change medicine forever: The sticky risk factor lipoprotein(a)
was only found in humans and other species that had lost the
ability to manufacture their own Vitamin C. Apparently,
there was an inverse relationship between the lipoprotein(a)
molecule and the deficiency in Vitamin C. I immediately
started to do experiments on Vitamin C and lipoprotein(a)
and later conducted a clinical pilot study where Vitamin C
was shown to lower elevated lipoprotein(a) levels.
Imagine the year
1987, Vitamin C was considered quackery and no reputable
medical institution was even willing to consider
conducting clinical studies with vitamins. The knowledge
about Vitamin C as a carrier of cellular bio-energy
was entirely lost in the medical education, and patentable
pharmaceutical drugs were considered the only form of
acceptable medicine . . " 
had already successfully established the principle behind
the Vitamin C - lipoprotein(a) connection and its
relation to heart disease, but he needed something more
definitive. He needed "more scientific proof." As so many
of his fellow 20th century researchers in Vitamin C research
had done, he used guinea pigs to conduct the next phase
of his investigation. He began with a theory that followed
naturally from his findings to date: that guinea pigs, which,
as we discussed early in this chapter, share the human
genetic disorder of having virtually no Vitamin C
manufacturing capability in vivo, would develop arteriosclerotic
deposits once they were put on a vitamin C deficient diet.
He further conjectured that if one analyzed the "plaster
cast" that was deposited in the arterial walls, he
would find the sticky lipoprotein(a) fat molecules.
Science resembled anything close to a quest for Truth . . .
if Profit Motive were not the largest, mightiest, heaviest
sphere in the Scientist's constellation, whose gravitational
field was so great that it warped the orbits of all
other objects in Scientism's galaxy, Rath might have
had a chance. The Truth would have leaked out and
been embraced by an honorable medical tradition whose primary
consideration was the welfare of its patients
(i.e. customers, victims, and gullible 'tards')
and not its own self-enrichment. But, alas, such
is and was, not the case. As it turned out, Rath was able to
show that a deficiency in Vitamin C -- which in humans
would equate to levels far above the "Recommended Daily
Allowance" -- caused a weakening of blood vessels,
similar to scurvy. The fatty deposits, indeed, were
composed of cholesterol, lipoprotein(a), and other
risk factors in the blood. Cardiovascular disease
developed "as an inevitable response of our body to
repair the blood vessel walls weakened by vitamin
Guinea pigs receiving too little vitamin C in the diet
develop cardiovascular disease. BOTTOM:
receiving optimum vitamin C have clean arteries. Orthodox
medicine, in its collusion with the pharmaceutical industry's
multi-billion dollar cholesterol drug business, has no choice
but to suppress this finding and its many implications.
To have the public understand the underlying cause of
coronary heart disease would cause the collapse of a huge
profit center for organized medicine in the West.
So how has Rath's
miraculous finding been received by organized medicine?
Was it received in terms that were anything close
to Pauling ("But no matter what happens, never forget
that your discovery is one of the most important
discoveries in medicine ever.")?
Of course not.
and Pauling, for all their collective genius,
were still not able to see through the common narrative.
Yes, they could see that, to use Rath's words,
the medical community was guided by "economic greed
of stratospheric proportions,"
and yet they held onto
irrational notions of science's commitment to the
quest for objective Truth -- like seasoned political
scientists who, despite all evidence to the contrary,
refuse to jettison the common narrative and accept
that democracy is a co-opted tool of plutocratic
power and has nothing to do with fulfilling the
will of the People -- but rather was CREATED by
Elite to give the People, the plebs, the illusion
that they were the ones in charge.
What meaning could
people of the calibre of a Pauling or a Rath -- or anyone
else who sacrifices their soul in the quest to uncover
life's deeper secrets -- find in a world where Science
is recognized as little more than a co-optation tool
for powerful, monied interests?
It would seem,
Pauling and Rath plodded along,
achieving success in having their newest finding
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences in 1990.
The following August
(1990), Pauling and Rath attended an arteriosclerosis
meeting in Venice, Italy, where "the entire cream of
medical researchers and medical opinion leaders in the
area of cholesterol and heart disease were present."
Rath gave his presentation, noting in just a few
sentences the discovery about lipoprotein(a),
vitamin C deficiency and heart disease.
How did the conference respond?
moment on, the conference was not the same. The
mood changed to that of a funeral . . . "
Pauling's very own Institute, the mood within the
organization termed somber. When certain
researchers openly professed a desire to work
with Rath on what, on the surface, appeared to
be an exciting new area of scientific research,
they were dissuaded by their co-workers. "If you
work with Dr. Rath, you will ruin your career,"
they were advised.
Rath should have gotten the hint, but they didn't.
They continued under the illusion that Science
operates on a level playing field. After successfully
publishing twice in the Proceedings, Pauling
himself attempted a third publication, under the title
"Solution to the puzzle of human cardiovascular
disease: its primary cause is ascorbate deficiency
leading to a deposition of lipoprotein(a) and
fibrin/fibrinogen in the vascular wall." After
some mutually agreed modifications, the editor in
chief, in a move that violated the rules of the
academy, decided to send the manuscript to reviewers.
They rejected the publication of the landmark paper
with the argument, "Since there is no puzzle of
cardiovascular disease, there can be no solution
to this puzzle."
"Alright, guys -- you've had your fun. But now it's
time for you to get your heads screwed on straight.
Are you really that nuts? Do you have any idea what
kind of economic impact our industry would suffer if
this kind of material were to be positively received by
common lay persons? Did you really think you would
go very far with findings that would singularly
torpedo the multi-billion dollar a year cholesterol
lowering drug market -- and injury many of our own
personal incomes, as well? Get with the program!" )
This is not
to say that the medical industrial complex did not at least
attempt to profit from the Pauling/Rath
finding. They did. On the only terms they knew
how: with criminal price fixing practices on
vitamin raw materials
, while simultaneously
creating the "Codex Alimentarius" on the international
level, which would ban any natural health claims in
all U.N. member countries -- which is to say,
throughout the world. (Interestingly, the decisive
U.N. Committee on nutritional supplements is headed by
the German government. "No wonder -- Germany is the
world's largest export country for pharmaceutical
products." [20 . . .
and this battle is still ongoing.]
Not everyone who
has studied the "Vitamin C research suppression phenomenon"
fails to initially see through the common narrative.
One such individual is Dr. Stephen Sheffrey, who
self-published Vitamin C
Under Attack: Unfair trials bombard high-dose benefits
in 2000. A dentist by trade with a keen interest in
nutrition (like Weston Price),
Sheffrey decided to write
about the suppressed benefits of high-dose Vitamin C
intake after he himself had taken 10 grams or more daily
for several years -- 100 to 200 grams daily during signs of illness.
He knew from personal experience and his own
research that most of the warnings published on the dangers
of high-dose Vitamin C were overblown, if not deliberately
The author doesn't
present his material without covering the necessary,
well-established caveats. Most notably, orthomolecular
intake levels of Vitamin C (say, in excess of one or two
grams at a time) are found to cause discomforting side
effects with 20% of the population: diarrhea, intestinal
discomfort, chapped lips, etc.
Some of those in the "20% camp" are able to negotiate their way
through a high-dose regimen, but many are not.
But what 80%
of the general world population that would
benefit from higher ascorbal intakes are subjected
to is massive misinformation. Sheffrey divides his
study according to the tactic used to scare the
public away from higher dosing: deliberately
deceptive trial studies, inadequate dosing,
faked data on "side effects and safety," etc.
even in the face of well-orchestrated efforts to discredit
higher dosages of a human nutrient that would adversely
affect pharmaceutical sales, the truth gets through.
(Example: the National Cancer Institute's admission
that of 46 epidemiological studies it examined,
in 33 there was evidence of "statistically significant
treatment of cancers of the mouth, esophagus, stomach,
pancreas, breast, anus, colon, and cervix.")
 But the vast
majority of studies on the benefits of higher
dose Vitamin C, funded as they are by vested
interests, utilize a consistent, predictable,
menu of disinformative methods to prevent the public
from realizing the benefits.
Vitamin C is more
than a singular molecular entity with known nutritional
benefits. It is a metaphor for the natural world --
largely existing where foods that contain it are
fresh, raw, and uncooked.
It quickly diminishes in potency as it is removed from
that world, and it is scorned and scientifically libelled
because of the threat that a more complete understanding
of its function and use would bring to monied interests.
Its absence from the diet brings maladaptation . . . disease . . .
not in an abrupt low-dosage-induced burst of scurvy as
modern medicine would have us believe, but in gradual stages
as we deviate from what nature has predeterminated as optimal.
This is hypoascorbemia.
Cancer, like Vitamin C, is
also a metaphor -- but in this instance, it stands for the converse :
deviation from the natural world. A hodge-podge of loosely
connected ailments, the very word itself represents the attempt
to redefine nature and define a set of conditions from which
an unsuspecting public can be bilked and not cured.
Studied fully and
completely, we could, if so inclined, see the irreparable
mess that medicine has become with just the study
of these two metaphors -- sitting as they do at opposite
ends of a thorough gaze of civilization.
But then, we would lose
the perspective that comes with comprehending our past
-- that comes with
seeing the inevitability of that with which we currently live.
Over the preceeding
pages we have reviewed my own personal experiences with approaches
to cancer that met the "suppression pattern," and examined
one of the most notable cases in recent history -- one
difficult to dismiss by even Modern Medicine's most
the "suppression pattern," we have succeeded
in identifying a reoccurring social symptom --
but can be locate the cause of the disease?
This, I believe --
as stated early in this chapter -- requires us to go
back in history, to the earliest stirrings of our
current age of civilizations. If there is a global
"operating system" that has set the tone for humanity's
course over the past 6,000 or so years (and I believe
there is an abundance of evidence that there is), then
have the "cultural mimetics" of this operating system
made the medical atrocities we now witness inevitable?
our quest leads us to a place where a clarity emerges
as to "Civilization's End" as we know it. We can
reach a point where we may understand why the system
cannot be repaired.
It can only
be destroyed and then be rebuilt.
In seeing this we
can reach a point in our exploration where we, to
borrow from Spencer, have a cognition of humanity . . .
and it is not so much that we will not want history . . .
rather, having distilled
its essence, we will no longer need it.
- Stone, The Healing Factor p. xi.
The remark is made in the opening paragraph of the second Foreward.
There are two in this volume: the first by Linus Pauling; the second,
by Albert Szent-Gyorgyi.
- Moss, Ralph W.,
Free Radical, p. 253.
- Pauling, Linus,
Vitamin C and the Common Cold, p. 4.
- Ibid., p. 48. In
a footnote on the same page, Pauling adds, "This name (Douglas
Gildersleeve, M.D.) is probably a pseudonym, assumed by the author
for professional reasons. I maintain this only serves to make
yet another point about the 'doctors who speak out'."
- Healing Factor, p. 94.
himself notes that although as little as 5 mg. of ascorbate "is believed"
to be enough to "prevent scurvy in most people," ascorbate is not is
so non-toxic that people have been given "as much as 150 grams (g),
one-third of a pound, of sodium ascorbate by injection or intravenous
infusion by mouth without serious side-effects." (See
Cancer & Vitamin C, p. 100.)
Additionally, see Vitamin C
Under Attack, p. 56, where authors of a 1969 study reported that
nontoxic substances "have been largely if not totally excluded from
consideration in the screening program." (as cited on p. 86:
"Benade L., Howard T., Burk D., Synergistic killing of Ehrlich
ascites carcinoma cells by ascorbic acid and 3-amino-1,2,4,-trizole.
Oncology 1969, 23:33-43.
- Free Radical, p. 253-254.
- Ask Dr. Weil: Vitamins & Minerals,
p. 12-13. I admire Andrew for his attempts to press the boundaries
of orthdox medicine's stodgy resistance to those proven
contributions that eminate from the "alternative community,"
but too often he proves to be a "company man." He has
to be. Again, "respectable people are loath to rock
the foundation of the very system that is itself the
source of their respectability." Nonetheless, in this
brief monogram, Weil's brief comments on Vitamin C
were fairly in accordance with recommendations of other
alternative physicians. He recommends 1,000 mg. of
Vitamin C twice a day "at a minimum." (Yes, that's
3300% of the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance.)
And he admits that
"we need more of it when exposed to toxins, infection,
and chronic illness." How much? "I'd go up to
2,000 mg. three times a day." (A whopping 10,000%
of the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance. Oh my!)
What isn't mentioned is
that the most common forms of orthodox cancer treatment
(chemotherapy and radiation) are highly
toxic, so he is inadvertently admitting that if you're
going to go through conventional cancer treatment,
you're going to place demands on the immune system that
require higher ascorbate intake to counter the more
rapid depletion these treatments create. Predictably,
the vast majority of oncologists don't say a word to
their patients about the effects of orthodox treatment
on this vital nutrient.
Cancer & Vitamin C,
Linus Pauling, p. 99-107.
Vitamin C Against Cancer by
H.L. Newbold, M.D. (1981); Vitamin C:
The Master Nutrient by Sundra Goodman, Ph.D.;
The Vitamin C Connection
by Dr. Emanuel Cheraskin (M.D., D.M.D.), et. al. (1983);
The Vitamin Controversy
by Dr. Emanuel Cheraskin, (1988); and
Ascorbate: The Science of
Vitamin C (2004) by Dr. Steve Hickey and Dr. Hilary Roberts.
Dr. Cheraskin, alone, shared in approximately 1,000 clinical
experiements, eventuating in about 80 published papers in the
Controversy, p. 183-193.
- Ten Years that
Changed Medicine Forever, Matthias Rath, M.D.,
p. 15 (Introduction).
The quote is, according to Dr. Rath, a comment
that Linus Pauling made to him in 1994 in one of the
last conversations before Pauling's death. This author,
knowing Pauling through stories from his own mentor,
Dr. Russell Jordan, believes the quote to be most
- Ibid., p. 72. The quote above it on
atherosclerotic mortality is taken from
[R. Paoletti, et. al., editors], p. 59 -- citing
Gotto AJ, Farmer JA (1988). Risk factors for coronary disease. In:
Braunwald E. (ed.) Heart disease: a textbook of cardiovascular
medicine, 3rd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 1153-1190.
As an aside,
the deficiencies in many of the studies cited by B. Frei,
and similar studies funded by orthodoxy, is addressed
in Vitamin C Under Attack:
Unfair trials bombard high-dose benefits [Stephen
Sheffrey, 2000]. A thorough reading angers the impartial reader
on the mere basis of the outrageousness of the tactics used.
- The author was first exposed to the
finding of Jacobus Rinse, Ph.D., in Dr. Morton Walker's
How Not to Have a Heart Attack,
p. 116. Note that even in the work of Rinse and Morton, dealing
with the effort to perfect a dietary regimen for heart disease
patients, there can be observed the same tendency, a la
James Lind, to complicate the matter and pull it into
the realm of ineffectiveness.
- To accent his findings in this area,
Rath even titled his book on the subject,
Why Animals Don't Get Heart Attacks ...
But People Do!. A well-written and less technical
treatise on this subject, however, is covered in his
- By way of example, see his treatment
in the online "Skeptic's Dictionary,"
http://skepdic.com/rath.html, or Dr. Stephen Barrett's
Obviously, it would
take a separate book to do justice to the ongoing
debate between Rath and his critics, and for the
record, this author does not agree with Rath on
every point. By way of example, my belief is that
although Vitamin C contributes to an effective
"anti-cancer" regimen, I would agree with Szent-Georgyi
himself that it is not an effective treatment, after
the fact. Rath crosses the line and says it can be,
which I believe overstates the case and threatens
the strength and legitimacy of his other statements
and findings. For the purposes of this discussion,
however, I wish to narrow the focus to the relationship
between Vitamin C and the above stated circulatory
- See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Rath.
- A sampling of this suppressive "legal"
warfare on therapeutics that prove too threatening to
vested interests can be found in Dan Haley's,
Politics in Healing.
- Ten Years that
Changed Medicine Forever, Matthias Rath, M.D.,
p. 56-58, in section marked, "How I got interested in
- Ibid., p. 68-69. Note: the sequential use of
this footnote for both quote and caption is intentional.
- Ibid., p. 72.
- Ibid., p. 75.
- Ibid., p. 73.
- Ibid., p. 127.
- Stephen Sheffrey,
Vitamin C Under Attack: Unfair
Trials Bombard High-Dose Benefits, p. 198.
- Lynne McTaggart (ed.),
The Cancer Handbook: What's Really Working,
Commentary on Kuhn's
Structure of Scientific Revolutions ...
< --- continued from Chap 4-3
Going beyond Kuhn, I found the "mythology of history as progress"
even better articulated by Hiram Caton (no relation) in his
Taken from "Introduction," p. 3.
One of the primary theses of
Hiram Caton's work is that the rendering history since the 17th century
has been fashioned to show consistent progress and make diminutive
our primitive beginnings.
"One fruit of the renovation of historiography was a view of the
history of the human species as an advance from primitive
conditions." (p. 21) All the usual suspects are included in his
coverage, of course, Kepler, Huygens, Locke, Newton, etc.
But to make Caton's observations juxtapost Kuhn's we see that
the suppression of historical information necessary to
upholding current paradigms is not merely a tendency, but
an absolute requirement to maintaining any semblance of
So rooted is the myth that the history
of science is this linear march of unending improvement
that Kuhn is moved to write, "Does a field make progress
because it is a science, or is it a science because
it makes progress?" (Kuhn, p. 162) Nonetheless, this is a myth which
is indispensible to sustaining the respectability of science
in the mind of the public. After all, with each successive
scientific revolution, how could the victorious camp ever
admit to something less than progress? "That would be rather
like admitting that they had been wrong and their opponents
right." (Kuhn, p. 166) "When it repudiates a past paradigm,
a scientific community simultaneously renounces, as a fit subject
for professional scrutiny, most of the books and articles in
which that paradigm had been embodied. Scientific education
makes use of no equivalent for the art museum or the library
of classics, and the result is a sometimes drastic distortion
in the scientist's perception of his discipline's past. More
than the practitioners of other creative fields, he comes to
see it as leading in a straight line to the discipline's
present vantage. In short, he comes to see it as progress.
No alternative is available to him while he remains in the
field." (Kuhn, p. 167).
Those who hold that orthodox medicine has not been
suppressing effective treatments for the entire of
its existence know nothing about the history of
Leaving Caton and Returning to Kuhn: Each paradigm brings with it new puzzles.
But the new paradigm may fail to solve problems
that earlier paradigms handled easily. (p. 140).
One example that strikes this author poignantly, because
it involved the theoretical underpinnings for an
Alpha Omega Labs
product called Bone Builder,
is that of biological transmutation.
The product itself made use of a well observed fact that
is completely denied by modern chemistry: that biological
organisms have the ability to transmute elements. An
abundance of further examples that can be readily shown
in the laboratory to prove that biological transmutation
is a fact of everyday life (see C. Louis Kervran's
which we discuss at greater length in a later chapter).
One of the most ubiquitious, commonly used defense
mechanisms used by the orthodox establishment (and, in
our study, replace this with "orthodox medicine") is the
pejorative labelling of those who identify Elite misbehavior
as "conspiracy theory" -- never mind that the very nature of
maintaining the established order and preventing people from
seeing through the mythology of the "common narrative" requires
well orchestrated conspiracy. One of the best examples of this
is demonstrated in the very historigraphical tools used to
uphold a major tenet of scientism: that, as Hiram Caton
has noted, history (be it the history of civilizations, the history
of science, the history of medicine)
is presented as progress to uphold the
glory of the present system and make its precedessors (which
have failed and are now dead) diminutive. Every civilization has followed
this pattern -- without exception. In every empire and in
every age, the
reigning culture has attempted to inculcate the idea that it will
succeed where all others have failed -- irrespective of the
fact that each successive civilization uses but a slightly different
variation on its path to failure of the the many that preceeded it.
Arnold Toybnee noted not less than 25 prior dominant civilizations over the past
5,000 years have taken this path. He notes that sixteen are completely
dead and buried, and all but one exhibit the distinctive characteristics of
disintegration: Western Civilization.
(See A Study of
History (abridged, p. 244)) My position is that Toynbee's
close, personal association with the Elite prevented him (just as
it prevented Quigley, see
Tragedy & Hope, p. 7) from seeing that Western Civilization
has already passed the point of no return. The inevitability of
this was not lost on Spengler (see Decline of the West).
A corollary to the
notion that "history is the record, proof, reinforcement, source
of common narrative, and propaganda major" of its prevailing
Elite is the mythology of cumulative acquisition
of unanticipated novelties, which "proves to be an almost
non-existent exception to the rule of scientific development.
The man who takes historic fact seriously must suspect that science
does not tend toward the ideal that our image of its cumulativeness
has suggested . . . cumulative acquisition of novelty is not only rare
in fact but improbable in principle. . . . The man who is
striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique
is not, however, just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve,
and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly.
Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the
extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove
wrong. Often the importance of the resulting discovery will itself
be proportional to the extent and stubbornness of the anomaly that
foreshadowed it. Obviously, then, there must be a conflict between the
paradigm that discloses anomaly and the one that later renders the
anomaly lawlike . . . There is no other effective way in which
discoveries might be generated." Examples throughout history
abound, if objectively examined in this light: "only after the caloric
theory had been rejected could energy conservation become part of
science . . . Einstein's theory can be accepted only with the
recognition that Newton's was wrong . . . It is hard to see how
new theories could arise without these destructive changes in beliefs
about nature. Though logical inclusiveness remains a permissible
view of the relation between successive scientific theories,
it is a historical implausibility." (p. 96-98)
The transition between an old paradigm and a new are
rarely smooth. The parallels between upheavels in politics
and in science are striking. "Political revolutions are
inaugurated by a growing sense, often restricted to a segment
of the political community, that existing institutions have
ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment
that they have in part created. In much the same
way, scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense,
again often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific
community, that an existing paradigm has ceased to function
adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to
which that paradigm itself had previously led the way.
in both political and scientific development the sense
of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite
to revolution . . . the parties to a revolutionary conflict must
finally resort to the techniques of mass persuasion, often
including force." (p. 92-93). The revolution, as I have been
able to observe it in the U.S., is already running at
full-steam. The FDA is presecuting, imprisoning, has
even murdered, those who stand in the way of the money
machine that fund their top management: primarily the
It is hard to make nature fit into a paradigm.
(It is the author's belief that this a logical
corollary of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in
mathematics.) "That is why the puzzles of normal
science are so challenging and also why measurements
undertaken without a paradigm so seldom lead to
any conclusions at all. (To make a paradigm work
you have to) beat nature into line." (p. 135)
Science can never be a reflection of truth, because
it is limited by commonly held precepts and cultural
memes -- but most importantly, political / economic
forces that are the strongest and most durable
forces in our current cultural operationg system --
a system which has rules the majority of humanity
for at least the last 8,000 years.
The prevailing pharmaceutical paradigm
can never allow the acceptance of evidence-based
medicine (which, to be effective, will almost
always be derived from nature Herself, since
the physical system itself is an artifact of
nature). Thus, the pharmaceutical paradigm
must be destroyed to allow acceptance of
effective healing evidence. But that cannot
happen without the introduction of a more
compelling, dynamic paradigm . . . hence
the timely need for Meditopia.
Beaumont Prison, 3/27/05
Each paradigm brings with it new puzzles.
But the new paradigm may fail to solve problems
that earlier paradigms handled easily. (p. 140).
A scientist is much like a chess-player.
He will test millions of possible moves, but
never the rules of the game (prevailing paradigm,
The old must die off for a new paradigm
to take hold. "A new scientific truth does not
triumph by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light, but rather because its
opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it."
Max Planck) . . . (p. 151)
"The transfer of allegiance from paradigm
to paradigm is a conversion experience that cannot
be forced. Lifelong resistance, particularly
from those whose productive careers have committed
them to an older tradition of normal science, is
not a violation of scientific standards but an
index to the nature of scientific research
itself. The source of resistance is the assurance
that the older paradigm will ultimately solve
all its problems, that nature can be shoved
into the box the paradigm provides. Inevitably,
at times of revolution, that assurance seems stubborn
and pigheaded as indeed it sometimes becomes.
But it is also something more. That same assurance
is what makes normal or puzzle-solving science
possible. And it is only through normal science
that the professional community of scientists
succeeds, first, in exploiting the potential scope
and precision of the older paradigm and, then, in
isolating the difficulty through the study of which
a new paradigm may emerge." (p. 152) The exploitation
of a paradigm and its eventual submission to a new
replacement, as well as the direction of the paradigm's
replacement, is more influenced by monied interest
than any other factor. (See Spencer Klaw's
The New Brahmins,
p. 168-227, which, although dated and focussed on
the scientific community in the U.S., clearly
spells out the nature of this influence.)
For all the ballyhooing over its strict adherence
to the scientific method, modern science is as much
influence by unsubstantiable feeling and emotion
as it is anything objective. "Even today Einstein's
general theory attracts men principally on aesthetic
grounds, an appeal that few people outside of mathematics
have been able to feel." (p. 158). Or as Nobel
laureate Paul Dirac put it, "it is more important to have beauty
in one's equations than to have them fit experiment."
(See Kaku's Hyperspace,
p. 189). What logical or reasonable basis, for instance,
can be seen in science in the famous exchange between
Wolfgang Pauli and Neils Bohr? To recap, physicist
Wolfgang Pauli gave a lecture on the Heisenberg-Pauli
unified field theory with "many eager physicists in
attendance." When he was finished, however, the lecture
received a mixed response. Niels Bohr finally stood up
and said, "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy.
The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough."
p. 137). In this light, it is even easier to see how
monied interest and high entropy solutions could influence
the direction of science. After all, under the cultural
operating system that civilization has been obeying for
8,000 years, what is more aesthetic or beautiful
or motivating than money? Nothing.
"The very existence of science depends upon vesting
the power to choose between paradigms in the members
of a special kind of community . . . The group's
members, as individuals and by virtue of their shared
training and experience, must be seen as the
SOLE POSSESSORS [emphasis added] of the rules
of the game or of some equivalent basis for unequivocal
judgments. To doubt that they shared some such basis for
evaluations would be to admit the existence of incompatible
standards of scientific achievement. That admission would
inevitably raise the question whether truth in the sciences
can be one [won]." (p. 168). As it relates to the health
sciences, where evidence-based medicine has consistently
shown that simple, low entropy therapeutic solutions
that work in accordance with nature are superior to more
complex, more profitable therapeutic approaches, this
flawed feature of science becomes glaring. For as the
sole possessors of the rules of the game, the dominant
group, the assenting majority that constitute the
acknowledged, authoritative, scientific community,
must -- of necessity -- destroy its competitors.
Suppression, again, is not an option. It is a necessity.
From this angle, we again see why modern medicine, holding
sway over that area of science devoted to health care,
could never come to an agreement with that stream
of thought and practice that is "evidence-based."
It is on account of science's fundamental flaws,
written into the very fabric of its being, that
"we may have to relinquish the notion . . .
that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those
who learn from them closer and closer to the truth."
"We are all deeply accustomed to seeing science
as the one enterprise that draws consistently nearer
to some goal set by nature in advance. But need
there be any such goal? Can we not account for both
science's existence and its success in terms of evolution
from the community's state of knowledge at any given time?
Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full,
objective, true account of nature and that the proper
measure of scientific achievement is the extent to
which it brings us closer to that ultimate goal?" (p. 171)
The fact is, science doesn't have any nature-specified
goal, and the only
common force that unifies all science as
its one and only "deficiency nutrient" --
the absence of which would starve any scientific enterprise --
is MONEY. Proofs of this that can be drawn from the
medicine community abound. In fact, the only way that
modern medicine could ever have evolved into anything
other than the current cesspool of corruption, payola,
widespread death-by-doctoring, and iatrogenesis as the
world's leading epidemic, is if there were a close
conjunction between making money and curing patients.
Because of the effectiveness of low entropy therapeutic
approaches, such a conjunction does not, could not,
and will not ever exist. Caught between the demands to
return a profit and the demands of nature to cure the
patient, it is the patient that will lose under our
modern cultural operating system.
The uniformity of education and grooming of
scientists means that all who want to be in the
CLUB drink from the same cyanide-laced punch bowl.
Whatever virus or defect exists in the prevailing
paradigm will therefore be MAGNIFIED. (p. 177).
By having a paradigm, the scientific community -- as
this is so very evident in medicine -- must have something
to DEFEND, but any phenomenon is inclined to align
itself with economic benefit. The bigger the money,
the stronger this centripetal force. (p. 179).
Ohm's Law: Sometimes the new paradigm
employs NEW DEFINITIONS or understandings of
old terms. This section provides insight into why
the Medical Industrial Complex must so viciously
fight evidence-based health care: Meditopia doesn't
replace the vinyl siding; it identifies a serious
crack in the foundation that requires the
destruction and rebuilding of the whole house. (p. 179)
As we saw in the example on
the previous page involving the work of Dr. Gerald
Dermer, what is endorsed by one group of scientists in
one discipline will be opaque to another.
Kuhn takes the position that "practitioners of
the developed sciences are . . . fundamentally
puzzle-solvers. Though the values that they deploy at times of
theory-choice derive from other aspects of their work as well,
the demonstrated ability to set up and solve puzzles
presented by nature is, in case of value conflict,
the dominant criterion for most members of a scientific group."
(p. 205). I most strongly disagree.
Since the very measure of success under our
current cultural operating system centers around one value
and one value alone -- making a profit -- it only stands to
reason that consciously or unconsciously, the problem-solving
process will always be biased towards a solution that affords
financial opportunity. Those who would disagree are not being
honest with themselves. Take the very word itself: SUCCESS.
Now repeat it gently in the mind, as if it were a Hindu
mantra. Is there anything other than financial prosperity
that is evoked in the Western mind when this word is repeated?
Of course not. To grasp the truism of this observation is to
understand why Modern Medicine was, from inception, doomed
to be an abysmal failure -- like so many other facets of
Western civilization, from which it was born.
Modern medicine does not represent a step forward
in man's understanding and employment of health care.
It is a dysfunctional step backwards. There are other
parallels to be found in other scientific disciplines.
For all the laudations concerning its advancement
in our understanding of physics, "Einstein's general
theory of relativity is closer to Aristotle's than
either of them is to Newton's." (p. 207).
There is a "relative scarcity of competing schools
in the developed sciences" (p. 209). The school that
makes more money will, by application of pure common
sense, be in a better position to squash its competitors.
This insight, yet again, shows why Modern Medicine could
never serve in the best interests of the patient. That
system which can skillfully extract the most money from
a given pool of patients will have an enormous edge over
a system which is purely devoted to the best outcome
for that same patient pool.
Kuhn closes by stating that "scientific knowledge,
like language, is intrinsically the common property of a
group or else nothing at all." (p. 210). However, Kuhn
fails to delineate the inherent, fascist condition by
which the group imposes its view of the world
ON EVERYONE ELSE! In doing so, he fails to illuminate
the effects of its powers of co-optation, the employment of
cooperating state powers, and the suppression
of its competitors . . .
I simply must
finish Meditopia when I get out of this prison.