The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today
I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!
Check it out.
Continued From Last Post
You might be interested to know exactly what the NIH, quackwatch, etc.
complained about in the Cameron/Pauling study. They complained it was not a
"double blind" study.
Now let's think about this for a moment. Suppose two groups are selected for
a study and the patients are not told which group they are in. The first
group is secretly given Vitamin C in an IV, which builds their immune system,
provides zero pain, and the patients feel fine. The second group is secretly
given chemotherapy in an IV, which destroys their immune system, destroys
their vital organs, makes them feel sick, and causes enormous pain. Do you
think the patients could figure out which group they were in? Do you think
you could do a "double blind" study with Vitamin C versus chemotherapy? Don't
be ridiculous. Within a matter of days each group would know what kind of
treatment they were on.
But it gets deeper than that. Let me quote from quackwatch, a defender of
orthodox medicine and one of the major servants of Big Pharma. See if you can
figure out what tricks of logic they are using before you read my comments
about their statement:
"The Pauling/Cameron study
was not a clinical trial in which patients were compared to carefully matched
patients chosen at random and followed using a standardized [selection] protocol.
Instead, Pauling and Cameron attempted to reconstruct what happened to the
control group by examining their medical records. Most cancer specialists and
journal editors are extremely reluctant to accept [medical records] for evaluating
the validity of contemporary cancer therapy, primarily because bias may occur
in selecting controls."
First of all, it is a blatant lie that medical records are not acceptable in
medical research, they are frequently used. Second, there was nothing
unethical about using a single group. These patients were going to die in any
case, it was only a matter of when and the difference at most would only be a
matter of weeks. Furthermore, by not taking chemotherapy, the patients would
be in much less pain even if they did not live as long.
There are many cancer patients who would rather have a less painful treatment
plan, even if they don't live as long. In fact many cancer patients drop out
of chemotherapy because they lose interest in a treatment plan that makes
them so sick and causes them so much pain and misery.
But to go a little deeper, image that two cars collide in an intersection, a
red car and a green car. The red car ran a "red light" several seconds after
the light had turned red and was speeding as it entered the intersection. The
green car, which did not enter the intersection until after the light turned
green, had one tire that was low in air pressure. Imagine the judge saying
that the green car was at fault because the air pressure in one of its tires
was low. Imagine the judge ignoring the fact that the red car ran a red light
and was speeding! Using Barrett's logic, the green car was at fault.
What Barrett's (the M.D. owner of quackwatch) site
was saying was that there was no placebo control group. In other words,
when they picked the control group, they used medical records rather than
a placebo control group. The key question is this: "if Cameron and Pauling
had used a placebo group, instead of medical records, would the psychological
effect of taking a placebo have resulted in the placebo control group living
several times longer than they did?" Barrett must that thought the answer to
that question was "yes." As already mentioned, such a study would be impossible
when comparing Vitamin C to chemotherapy, which is what Cameron and
Pauling were comparing.
But there is another problem. If a placebo group were required, what two
groups would you use? It could not be Vitamin C versus chemotherapy, because
one group must be given nothing (i.e. a placebo). But if you compare the
placebo group to the Vitamin C group (which actually would have been
acceptable if that is what you were studying), you still have to ultimately
compare the Vitamin C group to the chemotherapy group by using medical
records. Thus, you cannot get around using medical records if you want to
compare Vitamin C to chemotherapy.
The main reason for doing a double-blind study
is to gauge any psychological factor that may exist in the minds of the participants.
In other words, if both groups think they are getting the real medication (Vitamin
C in this case), then you eliminate any psychological factor.
Is it possible that in four different studies, done in three different
countries (Scotland, Canada and Japan), that a psychological factor caused a
several-fold increase in survival time? If so, why didn't both groups in the
Mayo Clinic studies survive several times longer than expected, because both
groups thought they were getting Vitamin C? Even if the psychological theory
was true, I would still give people Vitamin C, if their psychological state
of mind caused them to live several times longer!
If fact, Barrett's argument is total nonsense. The purpose of the study was
to compare Vitamin C to chemotherapy, and that is impossible to do using a
double blind study. The real reason the two groups of studies yielded
different results was the treatment protocol, not the psychological effect of
Here is the important thing, quackwatch didn't even mention that there were
any differences in the treatment protocols between Pauling and Moertel (i.e.
they didn't mention that the red car had run a red light or that it was
speeding). Their focus was on the selection protocol (i.e. the air pressure
in the tires of the two cars).
Do you see how quackwatch twists the facts and uses sensationalism to divert
your attention from the most important issues. It is as if Dr. Cameron did
not know how to determine which hospital the patients were at, what kind of
cancer they had, which stage of cancer the patients were at, and which
doctors treated which patients. Let me re-quote from above:
"These patients were then compared by Cameron and me to patients with the
same kind of cancer at the same terminal stage who were being treated in the
same hospital but by other doctors--doctors who didn't give vitamin C, but
instead just gave conventional treatments."
To quackwatch, this wasn't good enough because it didn't come to the correct
answer - use prescription drugs. The vastly different treatment protocol used
by the Mayo Clinic is more "scientific" because it leads you to take
prescription drugs. Get used to this type of propaganda, you will see it all
the time. They love to divert your attention with irrelevant issues.
A normal, open-minded researcher, if they studied the Pauling/Cameron studies
and the three Mayo Clinic studies, would quickly look at the selection
protocol and see nothing significant to complain about. They would then focus
their attention on the treatment protocol. Since the two groups of studies
had vastly different results, it would be absolutely obvious to the
legitimate researchers that something significant was different about their
studies. By far the thing that was most significant was the treatment
Barrett also has a page on Linus Pauling himself. The title to the quackwatch
page on Linus Pauling is titled: "The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy."
Ohhhh, it sounds like Linus Pauling joined the "Dark Side" before he died.
The article starts:
"Linus Pauling, Ph.D., was the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel
prizes. He received these awards for chemistry in 1954 and for peace in 1962.
His recent death has stimulated many tributes to his scientific
accomplishments. His impact on the health marketplace [sic], however, was
anything but laudable."
Yes, I agree Pauling's impact on Big Pharma was not laudable. He was a pain
in their neck. He had integrity, which is something they cannot tolerate. He
also cared about people more than money, and they view people no deeper than
a "source of money to increase earnings per share."
You should realize that Vitamin C, by itself, is not a cure for cancer, but
if it can extend the life of terminal cancer patients by 5 1/2 years or even
1 year (depending on how advanced they were when treatment began), that gives
them plenty of time to use the natural treatments that do cure cancer. That
makes Big Pharma even madder.
Later, I will talk about the "top 100" most effective alternative treatments
for cancer. Where does Vitamin C therapy fit in this list? It is not on the
list. Not even close. It's cure rate is far too low. It is used in
alternative medicine largely to extend the life of the patient so far more
effective treatments have more time to work.
The Bogus Mayo Clinic Studies on Laetrile
Largely the same people at the Mayo clinic also did two bogus studies on
laetrile therapy to discredit the tens of thousands of testimonials of people
cured by laetrile therapy. The public was beginning to believe that laetrile
actually worked. Time for damage control. Guess what, the Mayo Clinic did not
follow standard American protocol and dosages.
For example, if they had followed the standard laetrile diet, which is
virtually the same thing as a "raw food" diet, the diet alone would have
significantly extended the lives of the patients.
But in this case it was the watered-down and phony "laetrile" the NIH
provided to the Mayo Clinic that was perhaps the most bogus part of these
studies. The NIH, which funded the bogus studies, did not allow an
alternative treatment vendor to supply the laetrile for at least one of the
studies, even though they offered to supply the laetrile for free.
God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513