Those who think Vitamin C helps fight colds should take
Vitamin C.
Those who don't think it helps should not take Vitamin C.
Problem solved.
Where's my Nobel Prize?
Ah, but you see, you forgot to work in the Global Warning angle.
Tsk...tsk...tsk...
Posted on 11/10/2008 2:14:06 PM PST by yankeedame
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Linus Pauling, Ph.D. (1901-1994), was the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel prizes. He received these awards for chemistry in 1954 and for peace in 1962. He contributed greatly to the development of chemical theories. His impact on the health marketplace, however, was anything but laudable.
Pauling is largely responsible for the widespread misbelief that high doses of vitamin C are effective against colds and other illnesses. In 1968, he postulated that people's needs for vitamins and other nutrients vary markedly and that to maintain good health, many people need amounts of nutrients much greater than the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs). And he speculated that megadoses of certain vitamins and minerals might well be the treatment of choice for some forms of mental illness.
He termed this approach "orthomolecular," meaning "right molecule." After that, he steadily expanded the list of illnesses he believed could be influenced by "orthomolecular" therapy and the number of nutrients suitable for such use. No responsible medical or nutrition scientists share these views.
Vitamin C and the Common Cold
In 1970, Pauling announced in Vitamin C and the Common Cold that taking 1,000 mg of vitamin C daily will reduce the incidence of colds by 45% for most people but that some people need much larger amounts [1]. (The RDA for vitamin C is 60 mg.) The 1976 revision of the book, retitled Vitamin C, the Common Cold and the Flu, suggested even higher dosages [2].
A third book, Vitamin C and Cancer (1979) claims that high doses of vitamin C may be effective against cancer. Yet another book, How to Feel Better and Live Longer (1986), stated that megadoses of vitamins "can improve your general health . . . to increase your enjoyment of life and can help in controlling heart disease, cancer, and other diseases and in slowing down the process of aging." [3]
Pauling himself reportedly took at least 12,000 mg daily and raised the amount to 40,000 mg if symptoms of a cold appear [4]. In 1993, after undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer, Pauling said that vitamin C had delayed the cancer's onset for twenty years.
This was not a testable claim. He died of the disease in August 1994.
Scientific fact is established when the same experiment is carried out over and over again with the same results. To test the effect of vitamin C on colds, it is necessary to compare groups which get the vitamin to similar groups which get a placebo (a dummy pill which looks like the real thing). Since the common cold is a very variable illness, proper tests must involve hundreds of people for significantly long periods of time.
At least 16 well-designed, double-blind studies have shown that supplementation with vitamin C does not prevent colds and at best may slightly reduce the symptoms of a cold [5].
Slight symptom reduction may occur as the result of an antihistamine-like effect, but whether this has practical value is a matter of dispute. Pauling's views are based on the same studies considered by other scientists, but his analyses are flawed.
The largest clinical trials, involving thousands of volunteers, were directed by Dr. Terence Anderson, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto [6-9]. Taken together, his studies suggest that extra vitamin C may slightly reduce the severity of colds, but it is not necessary to take the high doses suggested by Pauling to achieve this result. Nor is there anything to be gained by taking vitamin C supplements year-round in the hope of preventing colds.
Another important study was reported in 1975 by scientists at the National Institutes of Health who compared vitamin C pills with a placebo before and during colds. Although the experiment was supposed to be double-blind, half the subjects were able to guess which pill they were getting.
When the results were tabulated with all subjects lumped together, the vitamin group reported fewer colds per person over a nine-month period. But among the half who hadn't guessed which pill they had been taking, no difference in the incidence or severity was found [10]. This illustrates how people who think they are doing something effective (such as taking a vitamin) can report a favorable result even when none exists...
[The lenghty excerpted section deals with vitamin C and cancer and cancer treatment.]
Other Questionable Activities
During the mid-1970s, Pauling helped lead the health-food industry's campaign for a federal law that weakened FDA protection of consumers against misleading nutrition claims. In 1977 and 1979, Pauling received awards and presented his views on vitamin C at the annual conventions of the National Nutritional Foods Association (the major trade association of health-food retailers, distributors and producers).
In 1981, he accepted an award from the National Health Federation (NHF) for "services rendered in behalf of health freedom" and gave his daughter a life membership in this organization.
NHF promotes the gamut of quackery. Many of its leaders have been in legal difficulty and some have even received prison sentences for various "health" activities. Pauling also spoke at a Parker School for Professional Success Seminar, a meeting where chiropractors were taught highly questionable methods of building their practices. An ad for the meeting invited chiropractors to pose with Pauling for a photograph (which presumably could be used for publicity when the chiropractors returned home).
In 1981, after learning that Pauling had donated money to NHF (for his daughter's life membership), I asked whether he knew about NHF's shady background and the fact that it was the leading antifluoridation force in the United States. I also asked whether he cared that the money might be used to help fight fluoridation.
In a series of letters, he replied that he:
He also sent me a profluoridation statement he had issued in 1967 [25]. His claim that he had spoken out for fluoridation surprised me. Although I have read thousands of documents related to Pauling's views and activities, I had never encountred any other indication that he had publicly supported fluoridation.
In 1983, Pauling and Irwin Stone testified at a hearing on behalf of Oscar Falconi, a vitamin promoter charged by the Postal Service with making false claims for several products. Pauling supported Falconi's contentions that vitamin C was useful not only in preventing cancer, but also in curing drug addicts and destroying both viruses and bacteria.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Pauling could not substantiate his claims [26].
Pauling also testified in 1984 before the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance in defense of Michael Gerber, M.D., who was accused of improperly administering to patients.
-- One was a 56-year-old woman with treatable cancer who—the Board concluded—had died as a result of Gerber's neglect while he treated her with herbs, enzymes, coffee enemas, and chelation therapy.
-- The other patients were three-year-old twin boys with ear infections for which Gerber had prescribed 70,000 or more units of vitamin A daily and coffee enemas twice daily for several weeks.
Gerber lost his license to practice medicine as a result of the hearings. He now practices in Nevada under a homeopathic license.
A flyer distributed in 1991 by the Linus Pauling Institute recommended daily doses of 6,000 to 18,000 mg of vitamin C, 400 to 1,600 IU of vitamin E, and 25,000 IU of vitamin A, plus various other vitamins and minerals. These dosages have no proven benefit and can cause troublesome side effects.
Today's Linus Pauling Institute
After Pauling died, fundraising appeals expressed concern that his death would make it more difficult to raise funds to continue the institute's operations. In 1996, the assets of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine were used to establish the Linus Pauling Institute (LPI) as a research institute at OSU to investigate the function and role of micronutrients, phytochemicals and microconstituents of food in maintaining human health and preventing and treating disease; and to advance the knowledge in areas which were of interest to Linus Pauling through research and education [27].
The LPI Web site has excellent articles about the function and role of many nutrients. Except for vitamin E, the LPI's recommended nutrient levels are in line with prevailing scientific opinions.
One article notes that Pauling's vitamin C recommendations were based on "theoretical arguments" and that we now have much more scientific information upon which to base recommendations [28]. This certainly is true but glosses over the fact that Pauling's meganutrient theories were absurd and were maintained even after scientific studies refuted them. Overall, however, the LPI is now a respectable education and research facility.
The Bottom Line
Although Pauling's megavitamin claims lacked the evidence needed for acceptance by the scientific community, they have been accepted by large numbers of people who lack the scientific expertise to evaluate them. Thanks largely to Pauling's prestige, annual vitamin C sales in the United States have been in the hundreds of millions of dollars for many years.
Pauling also played a role in the health food industry's successful campaign to weaken FDA consumer protections laws.
The Linus Pauling Institute that bears his name has evolved into a respectable organization. But Pauling's irrational advice about supplements continues to lead people astray.
Is Stephen Barrett, M.D. a Quack?
According to the Quackwatch website, Stephen Barrett, M.D. says this about quackery: Dictionaries define quack as “a pretender to medical skill; a charlatan” and “one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed.”
Stephen Barrett, M.D. does not have a degree in nutrition science. He has been trained in psychiatry but has not practiced psychiatry for many, many years and has, to the best of my understanding, never practiced nutritional medicine. In my opinion, Stephen Barrett, M.D., when it comes to the field of medicinal use of nutritional supplements, can be easily defined as a Quack since he pretends to “have skills or knowledge in supplements and talks pretentiously” without actually having clinical expertise or sound knowledge of herbal and nutritional medicine.
A person can’t be an expert at a topic if they have not had hands-on experience. Would you feel comfortable having heart surgery by a doctor who has read all the medical books on how to surgically replace a heart valve but has never performed an actual surgical procedure in an operating room? Would you feel comfortable relying on nutritional advice from a retired psychiatrist, Stephen Barrett, M.D. of Quackwatch, even though he has not had hands-on experience using supplements with patients and does not have a degree in nutrition science?
On a positive note, Stephen Barrett, M.D. often does a good job when it comes to researching credentials of individuals in the nutritional industry, or researching the legitimacy or marketing practices of certain supplement companies. He has uncovered or brought to light several cases of companies that have shady or fraudulent practices. I suggest he stay on this course (which is his forte) rather than giving his uneducated opinion on nutritional medicine or supplement research. I also hope he becomes more balanced in his reviews and makes the effort to also mention positive outcomes regarding supplement research, and not just negative outcomes.
Stephen Barrett, M.D. and Quackwatch lose legal battle and ordered to pay defendant’s attorneys’ fees
December 2007 - After a 6-year legal battle, a California judge ordered Stephen Barrett, M.D. to pay the legal fees of a defendant who, although she has posted negative statements about him, was not held accountable due to a technicality. In an effort to protect Web hosting companies from what is posted on their clients’ Web sites, the US Congress put into legislation language that the courts have interpreted as protecting individuals from suits if they don’t originate the alleged libels.
If Jimmy Carter can get one, why not you?
So it seems that the diet restrictions would make sense. Cancer needs sugars/carbs to fuel it, and eating veggies and some fruits (simple unrefined sugars) would really cut off the fuel supply. Without fuel the cancer cells can’t sustain themselves.”
Unless you have a severe metabolic disorder, you're not going to change the bodies PH by what you eat. The normal body functions of respiration, and the kidney function is designed to maintain a very precise PH balance.
With all due respect Doc you’re reading too much of the literature being put out by the statin makers and those being funded by said.
Statins and their relative success in reducing heart attack and death is miniscule and when you figure “all cause death”, which obviously takes into consideration the negative components associated with statin use, the positive results are little.
I have read mountains of data to backup my opinion and would be happy to forward some of it to you.
The Framington studies are a good place to start because it’s the largest and most comprehensive evaluation every done on heart disease. Also a very good book is “The Great Cholesterol Con” by Malcolm Kendrick.
Good solution, but mine goes one step further: Don't get colds and you won't have to worry about the debate. (Colds are so old-school. Do people really still get those?)
I haven't had one since January 2001. I don't know if the Vitamin C is responsible, but I will argue that 3g a day prevents mystery bruises (the kind that magically appear and aren't the result of an injury).
As we all learned in history class*, colds were actually an invention of the American government to keep the black man down. But the disease careened out of control and it spread throughout the population.
A cure has been developed. It has been held secret for decades and, until now, it has only been shared with the white power structure. Finally, the antidote will be released to us all by the new Obama regime.
Obama is a truly great man. Stay tuned, I hear he has also found a cure for rainy days and flat tires but he's saving the news for after inauguration.
/s
* US History 101 with Prof. Ward Churchill
While vitamin C may not be so spectacular, vitamin D(3) along with retinoic acid from vitamin A may actually be of considerable help in fending off infections. The two have been proven to erode the outer coating that protects pathogens.
Importantly, vitamin A is the lesser of the two in the equation, and taking too much can be toxic, so the emphasis is on just taking a normal amount of A, and increasing vitamin D levels, which is much safer.
Typically, the best way to get a big dose of vitamin D is by sunlight, a 15 minute whole body exposure producing almost 30,000 IU. And this may be why the cold and flu season are more pronounced in the dark of winter. Compare this with a typical vitamin D(3) supplement, when one pill provides a mere 1,000 IU.
People vary considerably in how much vitamin D they can take without problems. For some, taking as little as 5,000 IU of pills can have side effects. But for most people, taking up to 50,000 IU a day for several days running is needed for them to have side effects.
But it is important to know what your sensitivity is to vitamin D, as some are now recommending that at the onset of sickness, you take a 1-shot dose of 50,000 IU. That is, 50 - 1000 IU pills. This is followed up with just a slightly above normal dose until you are completely better.
It is also good to use other techniques for colds and flu. For upper respiratory tract problems, such as coughing, sneezing, congestion, and runny nose, a remarkably effective treatment is gulp after gulp, gargling a large glass full of warm, salty water four times a day. This amazing therapy works for a huge range of upper RT, sinus, oral, eustation tube and other problems.
Once this is done, you can attack upper RT problems with a different mechanism as well — metallic zinc. Not zinc pills, which are poorly absorbed by the mucous membranes, but the form of zinc found in Cold-Eeze lozenges, unique to them, that does get readily uptaken, so has the precious FDA statement that they are “proven to reduce duration and severity.”
Zinc and some other elemental metals have an odd ability to inhibit pathogenic reproduction. So when used after a warm, salty gargle has flushed out much of its growth medium, the zinc works to prevent the disease from reestablishing itself. It has a bad aftertaste, but that is desirable, as it is what is fighting the infection.
For severe congestion, nasal saline spray can be very effective at loosening clogged sinuses and helping drainage.
Early on, there was an assumption that it was the vitamin C in fruit juices that helped against sickness. But in truth, there may be entirely different reasons, and varied ones at that.
Cranberry juice in quantity has been discovered to prevent pathogen cell adhesion in both bladder and intestinal infections. If it cannot stick to the cell, it cannot attack it. However, it is unknown if it could help upper RT problems.
Black cherry juice tends to reduce some types of inflammation. Pomegranate juice has very high levels of antioxidants.
Any number of other juices such as blueberry, mangosteen, and grapefruit, have all sorts of interesting health benefits.
What a crock!
Lots of people "who lack the scientific expertise to evaluate" the theory of special/general relativity accept it. So this statement is just sophistry.
I have a little bit of scientific expertise, not quite as much as Pauling, but I have a bit. The real problem for Pauling is that his experiments related to Vitamin C and the common cold were not in accordance with the ones the government wants people to run. Here, specifically double blind studies; Pauling's tests were statistical as I recall. The government cannot abide people who don't play by their rules so they work to crush them.
I remember a medical student I discussed the C/Cold issue with around the time Pauling published his book about this. He quoted a "study" that was reported in Time magazine, and probably elsewhere, which was done at the University of Maryland. The study involve twenty (20!) people. Ten were given Vitamin C according to Pauling's regimen, and ten were given placebos. Participants did not know which group they were in. After some time each participant had rhino-virus injected to his/her nostrils. And each came down with a cold with no distinguishable difference in severity. QED, Vitamin C made no difference.
So I asked my medical student acquaintance, if he thought milk was important to the growth and strength of a baby's bones. He agreed it was. So I proposed the following experiment to him: Take twenty babies, and feed ten of them milk; and feed the other ten white colored water. After some decent interval place each baby's arm so that it bridges some small gap. The drop an anvil from 15 feet above the gap so that one lands on each baby's arm. Note the severity of bone damage.
The medical student understood.
ML/NJ
Problem solved.
Where's my Nobel Prize?
Ah, but you see, you forgot to work in the Global Warning angle. Tsk...tsk...tsk...
I’d take Barrett’s criticisms with a huge grain of salt (or Vitamin C).
Statins have been studied for 30 years in Scandanavia, with increasing benefits: my cardiologist put me on Lovastatin (Mevacor) 20 years ago.
Plaque isn't just stopped: it gets sloughed away in arteries in the body. In the vascularities of the brain it is likewise reduced, slowing any onslaught of Alzheimer's Disease. There's a reason Lipitor is the #1 prescription.
Mucinex nasal spray. I had a really horrible cold in February or March and could hardly breath. That was the only thing that would clear my sinuses enough to be able to sleep. It was a miracle for me.
Yeah, seems like over-the-counter stuff never works for me either.
If I sip while boiling hot, will I still have the roof of my mouth and tongue?
I can put stuff into my ear by myself; three ear surgeries unfortunately didn’t help with my hearing though. I’m no stranger to drops however. Also been recommended to go to an ear specialist at least every 6 months to have the gunk cleaned out of my ear (chronic discharge discovered in 3rd grade).
But thank you for the advice, as it feels like somebody stuck a basketball pump into my face and started pumping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.