The proposition is so very manifest that it seems
ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have
been called in question had not the interested sophistry of merchants
and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. [Adam
Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 4, 1776]
How could such a list and organization that sponsors
it (the so-called National Council Against Health Fraud or NCAHF)
exist in today's society? Does the quack list protect the public?
Or are we witnessing something sinister -- the stifling of scientific
ideas and research results that would harm vested economic interests?
It is the author's contention that blatant economic self-interest
is the only reason these self-proclaimed experts would take the
risk of listing a great American scientific genius Linus Pauling
on their 'quack list.'
Normally, one should not resort to name calling,
but this case may be an exception. In the spirit that if you can't
take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, the author searched for
a term that adequately responds to the 'quack' label the NCAHF
uses so indiscriminately. Could it be that these perpetrators
of the quack list are stooges of the pharmaceutical consortiums?
There can be little question, the "quack" attacks similar
to those made by Herbert, Renner, Barret and Jarvis have only
one purpose and one purpose only: To restrain trade by harming
competition to traditional allopathic medical practice. (This
assertion is superbly documented in the recent book RACKETEERING
IN MEDICINE: The Suppression of Alternatives by Dr. James
P. Carter, MD, DPH.) These people care not who they list as long
as the person listed poses an economic threat to their vested
interests. Pauling is a "quack" only because
his prestige poses such a huge threat.
Dr. Victor Herbert, one of the compilers of the list,
is owed a debt of gratitude. If it weren't for him, Linus Pauling
may not have written his first book about Vitamin C. On page
251 of the fascinating book Linus Pauling in his Own Words,
Pauling relates:
" Here's this man, this professor - I didn't identify him when I wrote the book - Victor Herbert, who to this day keeps writing papers and giving speeches saying that no one benefits from taking extra vitamins … and he won't even look at the evidence.
The upshot of this whole thing is that I
finally became sufficiently irritated by this fellow that I decided
I ought to do something about it. So I sat down one summer -
here, downstairs in my study -- and in two months wrote a book
Vitamin C and the Common Cold."
So thank you Dr. Victor Herbert! The good your work
has unintentionally perpetrated on mankind can not be measured.
Not much has changed in the 200 years since famed free market economist Adam Smith wrote the following words in The Wealth of Nations:
"The violence and injustice of the rulers of mankind is an ancient evil, for which, I am afraid, the nature of human affairs can scarce admit of a remedy. But the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind, though it cannot perhaps be corrected may very easily be prevented from disturbing the tranquillity of anybody but themselves.
That it was the spirit of monopoly which
originally both invented and propagated this doctrine cannot be
doubted; and they who first taught it were by no means such fools
as they who believed it. In every country it always is and must
be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever
they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so
very manifest that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove
it; nor could it ever have been called in question had not the
interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded
the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect,
directly opposite to that of the great body of the people. As
it is the interest of the freemen of a corporation to hinder the
rest of the inhabitants from employing any workmen but themselves,
so it is the interest of the merchants and manufacturers of every
country to secure to themselves the monopoly of the home market."
After personally reviewing a tiny portion of the
mountain of evidence written about vitamin C, there is little
doubt that Linus Pauling felt that the proposition that "Vitamin
C is beneficial in amounts larger than the RDA", based
on 10,000 papers published during the 20th century,
"was so very manifest that it seemed ridiculous to take
any pains to prove it." What I find hard to understand
is why so few other competent medical researchers have reviewed
all the evidence and spoken out. Is it possible that The Stooges
have been able to intimidate an entire branch of medical research?
Apparently so. If the genius, Pauling, erred, it was by not taking
into account the "interested sophistry of the drug merchants
and drug manufactures to confound and confuse the common sense
of mankind."
Who are these guys who wrap themselves in the cloak
of science, yet call one of the greatest scientists of all time
a "quack?" Who tell me that I am not qualified to examine
the scientific evidence and make up my own mind, but do not think
Linus Pauling qualified either? Who attack people and not their
work? Who fail to cite any evidence of a substantial body of
research that supports their position? (When they do cite evidence,
it is usually in the form of some well publicized "negative"
study (e.g. the Finnish beta-carotene studies) that they claim
disproves certain facets of their opponents arguments. (Yet these
studies are usually run by medical doctors funded by or with vested
economic interests in the outcome and the amounts of vitamins
and other nutrients are always quite small.) Why is it that these
individuals feel they are qualified to identify quacks a priori?
What are their qualifications, background, and education? How
are they funded? Why should you and I believe them, over say Linus
Pauling? Were they at the top of the class in medical school?
Do we even know if and where they went to medical school? Are
their own patients happy with them? Do they even have patients?
The sad fact is that The Stooges have much
more influence on medical thinking than ordinary MDs. Satisfying
an urge to learn "what doctors learn" the author attended
a pre-med Therapeutic Nutrition course in 1994. I also copied
the class notes from the basic (200) level nutrition course, bought
the Biochemistry text, etc. Buried in the class notes for the
basic nutrition course was a checklist. Its title: "Ways
To Spot A Quack". (Where could this checklist have come
from?) The quack checklist is included as figure #1. On this
evidence alone the author concludes that name calling is the way
to affect change and direct thinking in the nutrition and medical
research professions.
Although the How to Spot a Quack checklist
is silly, I did not object to the inclusion of this highly inflammatory
checklist in the nutritional materials. I believe in free speech.
However, I was dismayed that there was no semblance of balance,
or even pretense that some scientists held contrary views. Yet
the word "science" was repeated often; as though hearing
the word was somehow reassuring to the instructor.
These young adults are taught early in traditional
nutrition, to their great detriment, that MDs who prescribe in
excess of RDA are by definition: Quacks. Case closed.
So the nutrition misinformation starts early in the
life of a medical student. After reading about the Quack Busters,
and seeing their web site, it is safe to attribute this brain-washing
to four specific individuals: The Stooges. Their influence
on the medical profession is much larger than it should be because
they are allowed to infect young minds first; early in their medical
education, and without any significant challenge. If this isn't
regarded as criminal, it should be. It isn't questioned by the
nutrition educators. The general public would be surprised. This
isn't Science.
It is difficult to understand how schools that only
present one side of a controversial issue during the educational
process can be accredited? The message these young students learn
immediately seems to be: "Doctors may not think for themselves.
They must follow the dictates of the profession -- or else."
Any school that trains students nutrition from the How
To Spot a Quack checklist, without also including relevant
material with opposing viewpoints (on par with those of Linus
Pauling) should lose its accreditation.
With a computer generated "quack list"
one immediately wonders if it can be accessed via the internet?
A search began looking for the names of "quacks" in
this area. (One can not have enough good doctors to call upon
these days). The search uncovered the 'quack watch' http://www.quackbusters.com
web page that is maintained by The Stooges. This is not
the correct URL (internet address). Although it does contain a
great deal of funny material, why advertise it? Few competent
medical scientists would want to be associated with this crew.
It is interesting that The Stooges claim their
entire web site is copyrighted and all duplication is strictly
prohibited. Why is that? Why wouldn't they want this information
disseminated as widely as possible and freely copied?
Answer: This site isn't really set up for the
general public or to influence true scientists. It is there to
counter-balance the growing mountain of medical information available
on the internet and meant to "influence" (some might
say brainwash) youngsters attending medical and pre-medical schools.
No doubt this URL is (or will be) "recommended"
by the American Dietetic Association and included in the class
notes of College students studying nutrition. If you are really
interested in this drivel, you may can contact me for the correct
way to find their site. Individuals and estates considering defamation
suits will be very interested.
AMA CRITERIA FOR JUDGING MEDICAL INFORMATION ON THE
INTERNET
Last month the AMA announced its standards for assessing
the value of medical information on the Internet. Although wary
at first, I now see the value in this criteria:
Lets apply these criteria to the "quack busters"
web site run by Stephen Barrett, MD. One passage should suffice,
(I don't want to risk getting sued for slander by repeating their
material on some doctor who happens to be alive). The entire article
on the "dark side" of the "quack" Linus Pauling
is included as exhibit #2.
At the bottom of a rather long, rambling, mostly
irrelevant and undocumented section obviously aimed at defaming
Linus Pauling (who is of course dead and therefor unable to respond
for himself) it reads:
"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. The physical
damage to people he led astray cannot be measured."
Sound pretty serious. The man who received the Nobel
peace prize for almost single handily stopping above ground nuclear
testing in the 1960s stands accused of causing "immeasurable
physical damage to people."
Lets apply the AMA criteria. Do we know who wrote
the page and their credentials and associations? Yes. Stephen
Barrett, MD, takes credit for the site, although the other Stooges
names are also there. That's one for their side. (Well let the
credential and affiliation requirement slide.)
What about Attribution? Does the site contain references?
None on the Pauling page. Are we getting someone's opinion?
The lack of references for making such a serious
charge against Linus Pauling is striking. Dr. Stephen Barrett
is entitled to his opinion, but I would expect him to cite
a reference for is claim that the recommendations of Linus Pauling
caused anybody harm, much less "physical damage" that
must be so bad it "can not be measured."
He doesn't even cite a single unreferenced example of harm.
That's a big one for our side. An outright
lie.
What about disclosure? Is the site visitor made
aware of the financial affiliations that may indicate a bias?
(We'll get to that.)
Finally, what about timeliness. (This criteria is
not that important unless there has been on-going research.)
Anyway, The Stooges waited until after the death of Linus
Pauling to publish there opinions. Need we say more?
So the site does not pass muster under the AMA's
own criteria. If you trust the AMA, you would not place any
credence in the material.
No doubt Linus Pauling was human. Even when the
discoverer of the alpha helix made one of his few mistakes, such
as the now infamous incorrect hypothesis for the three dimensional
structure of DNA, several people out of billions in the world
have the capacity to understand the mistake, much less offer a
competing hypothesis. From the recent biography Linus Pauling
in his Own Words, on page 150 Barbara Marinacci writes "Pauling
had first meet Albert Einstein in 1927, when the latter attended
a Pauling lecture at Caltech - afterward declaring that he would
have to learn more about chemistry in order to understand what
Pauling had said. ("Linus Pauling - now there's a genius!"
[Einstein] is reported to have commented in later years to an
acquaintance.)" It is ludicrous that a computer scientist
by training, who does not have the medical credentials to even
bear the label "quack", must defend some 30 years of
medical research work by Linus Pauling. (But where are the voices
of the medical researchers?)
One can't argue with Barrett's last sentence: The
"damage to people [Pauling] led astray cannot be measured"
-- for there was no such damage. (Freudian slip?) On the contrary,
it is relatively easy to measure the great benefit to the U.S.
and world population since Linus Pauling's book on vitamin C was
first published.
Too, as Barrett freely acknowledges, much of the
high volume of vitamin C that is consumed in this country can
be traced to the prestige of one man: Linus Pauling. Pauling pleads
guilty on this charge. And what do we now know about the intake
of higher levels of vitamin C (higher than the U. S. RDA)?
Lets begin by considering "the harm" to the man Linus Pauling himself. First stricken with an illness, considered terminal in the 1940s, Pauling lives and begins taking a multivitamin tablet. In his sixties, after learning about the value of large amounts of vitamin C from Irwin Stone, he begins consuming 18 gm of ascorbic acid daily to approximate what animals produce in their own bodies. He dies at the age of 93, or some 30 years later with a clear mind and remarkably active body. Thanks to an increase intake of vitamin C, the other anti oxidants and other vitamins, mankind has benefit of 30 years of medical research, conducted by one of our greatest scientists, during a period in life when most of us hope to be able to enjoy golf in our retirements. 18,000 mg of vitamin C did not harm Linus Pauling.
Consider two of these points. After Dr. Pauling's
book was written, as Dr. Barrett acknowledges, Vitamin C consumption
in the U. S. rose - the Pauling institute claims by 300%. Mortality
from heart disease decreased by 30%-40% in the U. S. -- the only
country with a significant drop in heart disease fatalities.
Coincidence or correlation?
We now know, thanks to Dr. Enstrom that increased
intake of vitamin C (approximately 500 mg) reduces the rate from
heart disease by nearly half and prolongs life for nearly six
years. A benefit that can be measured. The number of lives that
were saved can be calculated.
If one attributes this reduction in the death rate
of heart disease entirely to vitamin C, as I do, then thanks are
due almost entirely to Linus Pauling. We can compute roughly 6,250,000
lives have been saved over the past 25 years. The calculation
goes like this: According to the American Heart Association, somebody
dies of Heart Disease in the U. S. every 34 seconds. This means
approximately 927,158 people die in this country every year. Assuming
a 30% higher death rate otherwise, then roughly (on average)
250,000 more people would have died prematurely this year. (Something
saved these people.)
Although a recent news story based on a published
medical journal article attributes the 30-40% drop in the heart
disease death rate to an ingredient in junk food, the author concludes
that a more reasonable hypothesis, based upon the Enstrom study
and the Pauling/Rath work on Heart Disease, is this: The increase
in Vitamin C alone, not junk food, is the most important reason
for this significant drop in the heart disease fatality
rate.
And we know much more. Thanks to the many years of fine research work by E. Cheraskin, MD, DMD, et. al., at the University of Alabama, as summarized in the book The Vitamin C Connection:
"There are more than ten thousand published scientific papers that make it quite clear that there is not one body process (such as what goes on inside cells or tissues) and not one disease or syndrome (from the common cold to leprosy) that is not influenced -- directly or indirectly -- by vitamin C."
Dr. Cheraskin discusses some of this research in
his most recent book Vitamin C: Who Needs It? This new
book is based on 50, randomized, double-blind, clinical studies.
In other words, repeatable experimental science.
Irwin Stone's insight are from his classic 1976
book THE HEALING FACTOR: Vitamin C Against Disease. Stone
begins his book with:
"The purpose of this book is to correct an
error in orientation which occurred in 1912, when ascorbic acid,
twenty years before its actual discovery and synthesis, was designated
as the trace nutrient, vitamin C.
"Scurvy, in 1912, was considered solely as
a dietary disturbance. This hypothesis has been accepted practically
unchallenged and has dominated scientific and medical thinking
for the past sixty years. The purpose of this vitamin C hypothesis
was to produce a rationale for the conquest of frank clinical
scurvy. That it did and with much success, using minute doses
of vitamin C. Frank clinical scurvy is now a rare disease in
the developed countries because the amounts of ascorbic acid in
certain foodstuffs are sufficient for its prevention. However,
in the elimination of frank clinical scurvy, a more insidious
condition, subclinical scurvy, remained; since it was less dramatic,
it was glossed over and overlooked. Correction of subclinical
scurvy needs more ascorbic acid than occurs naturally in our diet,
requiring other non-dietary intakes. Subclinical scurvy is the
basis for many of the ills of mankind.
Because of this uncritical acceptance of a misaligned nutritional hypothesis, the bulk of the clinical research on the use of ascorbic acid in the treatment of diseases other than scurvy has been more like exercises in home economics than in the therapy of the sequelae of a fatal, genetic liver-enzyme disease. One of the objects of this book is to take the human physiology of ascorbic acid out of the dead-end of nutrition and put it where it belongs, in medical genetics. In medical genetics, wide vistas of preventive medicine and therapy are opened up by the full correction of this human error of carbohydrate metabolism."
Later, Stone adds the following interesting tidbit:
"We can surmise that the production of ascorbic acid was an early accomplishment of the life process because of its wide distribution in nearly all present-day living organisms. It is produced in comparatively large amounts in the simplest plants and the most complex; it is synthesized in the most primitive animal species as well as in the most highly organized. Except possibly for a few microorganisms, those species of animals that cannot make their own ascorbic acid are the exceptions and require it in their food if they are to survive. Without it, life cannot exist. Because of its nearly universal presence in both plants and animals we can also assume that its production was well organized before the time when evolving life forms diverged along separate plant and animal lines."
Robert Cathcart, III, MD, after reading Pauling's
book and trying vitamin C discovered that he could control a recurring
infectious illness acquired in childhood. After reading all he
could on the subject he began treating patients with "bowel
tolerance" doses of vitamin C. In 1981 after observing 9000
patients (today after observing more than 14,000 patients) on
high dosages of vitamin C, Cathcart describes the bowel tolerance
phenomenon. Patients whom can only tolerate 4-15 gm of vitamin
C per day when well, tolerate much more, sometimes orders of magnitude
more, vitamin C when ill or when their bodies are otherwise under
stress. The proponents of the 60 mg RDA of vitamin C have yet
to explain why the human body seems to require ascorbic acid in
such large magnitudes for these temporary periods while under
stress. They have had 16 years to formulate their response. And
what is the response of medical science? Silence. The important
work of Cathcart is ignored by the mainstream. (Unfortunately
for the name callers, we, the public, may not be qualified to
judge the science, but we can experience changes in "bowel
tolerance" for ourselves.)
Furthermore, on the vitamin C front, it is important
to summarize the findings of one physician who accidentally discovered
some of the most important medicinal properties of ascorbic acid.
Frederick Robert Klenner, MD. He wrote in a 1974 paper SIGNIFICANCE
OF HIGH DAILY INTAKE OF ASCORBIC ACID IN PREVENTIVE MEDICINE as
reprinted in Roger J. William's Handbook of Orthomolecular
Medicine::
"A few grams of ascorbic acid, given by
needle, while [physicians] waited for laboratory procedures or
examination to fit their schedule, could have saved their lives.
I know this to be a fact because I have been in similar situations
and by routinely employing ascorbic acid have seen death take
a holiday. In a paper title "An Insidious Virus," I
reasoned that it should be a maxim of medicine for large
doses of vitamin C to be given in all pathological conditions
while the physician ponders his diagnosis. The wisdom of this
dictum is backed by many hundred cases under our supervision..."
According to Klenner, the importance of daily high
intake of ascorbic acid in preventive medicine has no limits.
Klenner recites, among some 28 papers that he wrote on his clinical
experience, the litany of human illness he was successfully able
to treat with administration of large doses of the vitamin. The
illnesses that Klenner found he could treat with high dosages
of vitamin C include most viruses, (e.g. the common cold and the
flu), crib deaths (commonly attributed to suffocation), crib syndrome,
viral encephalitis, herpes simplex virus, diphtheria, hemolytic
streptococcus and staphylococcus infections, trichinosis, measles,
herpes z. (chicken pox), herpetic lesions, sub clinical scurvy,
elevated cholesterol, heavy metal poisoning, monoxide poisoning,
pseudamonis, shock, hepatitis, mononucleosis, urethritis, chronic
cystitis, simple stress of pregnancy, glaucoma, schizophrenia,
arthritis, tooth decay, abdominal wounds, rheumatic heart, tuberculosis,
pneumococci, heat stroke, chronic myelocytic leukemia, pancreatis,
severe burns, and probably several I missed. He also reported
reductions in kidney and gall stones and dramatic improvements
in coronary artery disease.
All or most of this experience has been clinically
confirmed by the few physicians that today employ so-called megadoses
of vitamin C, e.g. Dr. Robert Cathcart, III. Klenner's papers
include detailed and sound medical reasoning why ascorbate is
so effective in treating each of these illnesses. This 1974 summary
paper stated that "the potential is so great and the employment
so elementary that only the illiterate will continue to deny
its [vitamin c] use."
The proposition is so very manifest that it seems
ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have
been called in question had not the interested sophistry of merchants
and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind.
It is truly amazing that in the year 1997, young
medical students are unaware that any of this clinical experience
ever took place! (The drug companies paid pretty close attention.)
E. Cheraksin, M.D., D.M.D., in his recent book Vitamin C: Who Needs It? makes a similar point on page 98:
"So, what do the experts tell us about a vitamin C connection in the control of sugar metabolism?
We turned to five of the leading textbooks dealing with diabetes mellitus published during the last five years. Would you believe? There was not one word indicating any connection -- or a lack of correlation -- between ascorbic acid and carbohydrate metabolism!
This is even more incomprehensible when one realizes that reviews of the literature as far back as 1940 showed that blood sugar can be predictably reduced with intravenous ascorbate."
And so in this decade, one of the greatest minds
of all time is now labeled "quack" because of his efforts
to bring this, and the 10,000 various other scientific studies
and reports to the attention of the medical profession and mankind.
It is quite possible, even probable, that the
suppression of this knowledge, as practiced by The Stooges
and their ilk is the greatest harm that has ever been perpetrated
upon mankind.
And we are not finished. There are many other fronts.
According to Dr. A. Hoffer, MD, Ph.D., in his recent article THE
VITAMIN PARADIGM WARS, folic acid is another safe water soluble
vitamin (thus one The Stooges have maintained is only
necessary in the amount that prevent its deficiency disease) and
one where the cost of not using it can be calculated. According
to Dr. Hoffer,
"folic acid has been used in doses up to
15 mg daily. There has been a report that this dose caused gastrointestinal
disturbances but in another study with the same dose this was
not seen. Most patients do not need more than 5 mg. Recently it
has been proven that women will give birth to babies with spina
bifida and similar neural tube defects (NTD) much less frequently
if they take supplemental folic acid, 1 mg per day. I generally
recommend 5 mg daily. Dr. Smithells[25] in 1982 showed that giving
pregnant women extra folic acid decreased the incidence of NTD's.
Before that he had measured the red cell folate and white cell
vitamin C levels of mothers who had babies with NTD's and found
they were lower in both. It was thus known since 1981 that a multivitamin
preparation containing folic acid would decrease the birth of
these damaged babies.
The immediate reaction to the original findings
was one of strong disbelief and hostility, and the establishment
refused to advise women to take folic acid until the requisite
number of double blind experiments were done. At last they are
satisfied 11 years later, culminating with a report in J. American
Med Ass in 1989. Folic acid provided protection for most causes
of the defect. Even in women with a family history, the frequency
of babies with the defects was more than five times greater -
18 per 1000 against 3.5 per 1000, in women who did not take the
vitamin in the first six weeks of pregnancy. How many babies could
have been saved by such a simple solution? Even if the original
findings had been wrong, what harm would it have done to have
advised them immediately about this very important finding? I
was astonished in 1981 at the vehemence of the reaction by physicians
and nutritionists, and I am still astonished. The recent studies
showed that folic acid decreased NTD's by 75 percent. If all the
other vitamins were used as well I am certain that figure would
be closer to 100 percent.
I can not recall in the past 40 years a single
female patient of mine on vitamins giving birth to any child with
a congenital defect. I have been able to advise them all that
they not only would not harm their developing baby by taking vitamins,
but that their chances of giving birth to a defective child would
be greatly diminished. I was frequently asked this by my patients
who had been told by their doctors that they must stop all their
vitamins while pregnant. They looked upon vitamins as toxic drugs.
I am still asked the same question for the same reason today.
However, governments can learn and respond. It
is now official that pregnant women should take extra folic acid
in order to prevent spina bifida and other birth defects. The
U.S. Public Health Service has issued the following advisory:
"In order to reduce the frequency of NTD's (neural-tube
defects) and their resulting disability, the United States Public
Health Service recommends that: All women of childbearing age
capable of becoming pregnant should consume 0.4 mg of folic acid
per day for the purpose of reducing their risk of having a pregnancy
affected with spina bifida or other NTD's". This
amount will not be provided by most diets and requires supplementation.
Apparently the US Public Health Service is considering fortifying
bread with folic acid. Folic acid is destroyed by heat but some
will survive.
In USA about 25,000 babies are born each year
with spina bifida. In Canada it has been estimated that each of
these children will have cost about $40,000 by the time they are
14 years of age. Giving women folic acid early in their pregnancy
would have avoided perhaps 3/4 of these births. Over ten years,
while the cautious scientists were discussing whether folic acid
was safe enough and was effective, 250,000 children were born
at a total cost of 10 billion dollars (over ten years). Folic
acid for pennies per day could have saved the United States public
7.5 billions dollars over this ten year period. The saving in
public health dollars will be enormous. The waste in this long
delay is inexcusable, since folic acid is totally safe and could
have been given to all pregnant women over ten years ago. This
is the costs of inactivity, of the conservative stance of the
profession when it comes to the super safe vitamins."
We may then proceed to Vitamin E, Vitamin A, the
various B vitamins, the amino acids, and so on and so on. Hundreds
of books could be - and have been -- written describing all this
research. The only educated people who don't seem to know anything
about it are the traditional allopathic medical doctors. This
ignorance is in large part due to the conscious activity (name
calling) of The Stooges over the years.
There can be little doubt that Linus Pauling saved
lives and helped countless people improve their lives. Millions
of people. The enormous loss of life which the author attribute
to the "super-quackery" of The Stooges for the
Pharmaceutical industry can be measured. Had they not
tried to influence medical thinking against the vitamins and other
nutrients, through propaganda aimed at the pre-medical programs
and text books, many more people would have postponed premature
death, felt better, been healthier, and avoided birth defects
and a myriad of other illness.
You may ask, what motive could there possibly be
to keep this knowledge from the medical profession? For sake
of argument, lets assume Linus Pauling was absolutely right and
that Hoffer, Klenner, Stone, Cheraskin, Cathcart, et. al. are
correct also. Lets assume that every disease these pioneers discovered
could be treated with large amounts of vitamin C (are actually
caused by inadequate vitamin C in the body because of a genetic
defect .) What would this mean to the pharmaceutical industry
and allopathic medicine? It would bring absolute devastation.
By any calculation the numbers approach the national debt. Heart
disease alone is reported to cost this country some 100 billion
dollars this year, or almost a trillion dollars since Pauling/Rath
announced it can be 'completely controlled.' There are equally
outrageous sums paid every year to treat cancer, arthritis, the
common cold, viral infections, diabetes, allergies, etc. Perhaps
some enterprising reporter or graduate student may wish to compute
how much this "wasted" money exceeds the national debt,
and whether, perhaps, it is the largest contributor to
the national debt. And where has all this money flowed?
Here is the bottom line.
If you have heart disease today: blame The Stooges. If
you have cancer today: a large part of the blame lies at the feet
of The Stooges. If you suffer from, or know of any person
who suffered or died from any of the illnesses that Dr. Fred Klenner
discovered could be treated with vitamin C: blame The Stooges
and their ilk.
The Stooges have no interest
in science (unless a particular study seems to prop up their side)
and little interest in the welfare of the average patient. (Need
more proof, visit their web site.) They are not interested in
evidence. They are hired pit bulls. If they can't attack people's
work, they attack people's credentials or defame them. They are
name callers. (It can get habit forming, I know.) No M.D. or
medical researcher wants to bear the label "quack" and
The Stooges do their best to keep ordinary MDs from straying
too far from the party line. As Dr. Whitaker pointed out in his
letter, these "people" don't even pretend to consider
the merits of opposing views. They are afraid of debate. They
have no interest in the truth. They are in place for one primary
reason -- to influence the thinking of new doctors entering the
medical profession. Their web site has no other purpose than this
end. They influence "old" doctors too. Doctors must
be told there is no value in nutrients as long as the fiction
can hold out because there are no good economic alternatives for
the allopathic medical profession, and especially their pharmaceutical
benefactors.
HOW ABOUT A VOLUNTARY FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE?
For the record, the author is willing to examine
the proposition that he is dead wrong. That The Stooges
are top-notch medical professionals with no monetary incentive
whose only objective in life is the betterment of public health.
Maybe they really are who they purport to be: Humanitarians who,
although misguided or poorly trained, really believe what they
write and say?
As Dr. Matthias Rath might say, "How can we
prove this?"
Well, one way would be a full voluntary public disclosure
of their financial records! Perhaps The Quack Busters/ Stooges,
as men of integrity with nothing to hide, would be willing to
publicly disclose their financial status and especially sources?
Such an act would engender the utmost respect and help them meet
the AMA Disclosure criteria.
Therefore, I issue the following formal public challenge
to The Stooges:
Because the understanding of financial motivation is fundamental to whether or not
your interpretations of medicine and nutrition can be believed, and in order to
encourage the early release of this vital information, and if you expect the public
to take your advise seriously, you should be willing to provide a complete
financial disclosure statement. Please identify
the sources and amounts of all grants, gifts, fees, payments etc.
you and your NHACF and other related organization have received
over the past 15 years. The public is interested as far back
as 1984. Please post this disclosure on your web site. Also,
please provide the name of your auditing/accounting firm.
p.s. We are all very interested in your supplemental
vitamin intakes as well.
CONCLUSION
"There is a principle which is a bar against
all information, which is proof against all argument, and which
cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle
is condemnation without investigation." [Herbert Spencer]
It must be admitted that there are quacks in the
medical profession. That said, upon reading the quack list the
normally pejorative term "quack" taken on a benevolent
meaning for me; it now summons to mind a doctor who is open-minded,
who is focused on prevention, who is leery of drugs and surgery
unless absolutely necessary, and who prefers a nutritional or
holistic approach. The "quack" does not follow blindly
the dictates of his or her profession. When he or she knows of
a treatment that might help the patient, although currently not
accepted in the profession, offers it nonetheless.
However, it is unthinkable that name-calling is tolerated
by the medical profession and especially medical researchers.
Only in the medical profession, to my knowledge, is this behavior
the norm. The NCAHF and their "quack database" is not
about medical quackery. It is about the suppression of an alternative
medical viewpoint because it threatens the economic base of a
powerful segment of society. In fact, never have so few stood
to lose so much as they do if the medical professional dam against
the mega-vitamins breaks.
The Stooges waited until
after Linus Pauling passed away to publish their defamation of
him. (Perhaps a tactical mistake for while Pauling was certainly
a public figure in life, although he is no longer around to defend
his good name and character, the Pauling estate does have such
an interest and they are not public figures.) If the American
scientist Linus Pauling can be intimidated by these people - any
researcher, any where, and at any time can be intimidated.
This article took the unusual step of "name calling"
in hopes that it will stimulate researchers "on the fence"
or on the other side to find the research and prove me wrong.
(Lets see whether they attack the author or the research only
a minuscule amount of which is mentioned here?)
So, what if anything can be done to limit the influence
of The Stooges? Why worry? Why not simply let their web
site speak for itself? Nobody really believes this "stuff"
do they? I don't not worry about the "quack list" as
long as it contains the likes of Linus Pauling. (These fellows
better watch out before they wind up giving all "quacks"
a good name.) Abraham Lincoln said that you can fool some
of the people all the time. The people I worry most about
are young medical students. Medical doctors from United States
medical schools should not graduate ignorant. Therefore, my suggestion
is for the 2,500 "quacks" black listed to file a class
action suite against The Stooges for restraint of trade,
if not outright Racketeering. Such action would be a great service
to their profession. The Stooges web site makes a strong
case that can be used against them in the court of public opinion,
if not a court of law. Their web site does not meet the AMA criteria.
Their "quack list" proves that they employ unethical,
unprofessional, and unscientific practices.
There is a cancer in the medical profession and surgery
is now called for. All previous "non invasive" procedures,
(logical arguments with a gentlemanly approach), have failed..
The 2,500 quacks listed can take further action to improve the
public perception of the medical profession. File complaints
and bring The Stooges before their state medical boards.
Lets strip these birds of their licenses! Wouldn't that be poetic
justice?
Especially since the physical damage to the people
The Stooges have led astray definitely can be
measured.
Owen R. Fonorow
P. O. Box 3097
Lisle, IL 60532