I think “everything in moderation” is the way to go.
But regarding Vitamin C, they are discovering that it’s good for you afterall.
Regarding Linus Pauling, I think you need to assess him based on his epoch. At that time people didn’t know about vitamins and his discovery that vitamin C is good for your was indeed a great discovery.
I don’t quite know what drove him to become a “peace” activist though... just found out, it was his wife! — was just reading his bio in Wikipaedia. Also looks like he was taken in by the communist propaganda.
But he was right about the vitamin C, though.
A current article:
Vitamin C linked to reduced risk of stroke
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/272741.php
“A study due to be presented at a conference later this year suggests that eating foods containing vitamin C, such as oranges, peppers, strawberries, papaya and broccoli, may be linked to a reduced risk for hemorrhagic stroke.”
One area of hindering scientific progress was through promoting his "valence bond theory" while undercutting the work of Mulliken and others in the development of precise understanding in behavior of solids offered by the "molecular orbital" model, which showed the fatal deficiencies of Pauling's model.
It could be said that Pauling did not suffer from over-use of humility or self-deprecation. Thus I kind of understand how your impression of his role in the use of megadosage of vitamin C, which he vaunted in the 1960s and 1970s, came to give you (and others) the impression that he "discovered" vitamin C, a flawed perception. The advantages of antiscorbutic foods became recognized in the mid-1700s, not by Linus Pauling.
According to the Wiki summary on his accomplishments:
". . . his promotion of orthomolecular medicine, megavitamin therapy, dietary supplements, and vitamin C have been criticized, with a pediatrician Paul Offit stating that Pauling "was arguably the world's greatest quack" for his assertions about dietary supplements, and the medical establishment concluding that his claims that vitamin C could prevent colds or treat cancer were quackery. Recently, a 2009 review suggested that Pauling's views on high dose vitamin C as an effective anticancer agent might have some merit, but only when it is administered intravenously, so as to achieve high enough plasma saturation levels."
My comment was not to deny his exceptional brilliant intelligence, but his tendency to overstate it to the point of his use of it to the harm it could do others not accounted for in his generalizations. I think you might have missed that facet of my previous post.
I hope I haven't offended you. I have a bit of the effect that diminished Linus Pauling's acceptance in my own style, and that might put you off. It's a quality that I do not like, either.