Linus Pauling's Controversial Legacy: Examining Mega Doses of Vitamins

  • Thread starter Thread starter Integral
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    cancer vitamins
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Linus Pauling's legacy regarding his advocacy for high doses of vitamin C, particularly in the context of cancer treatment and prevention. Participants explore the implications of his claims, the validity of studies supporting or refuting his views, and the broader impact of such claims on public health.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about Pauling's claims regarding vitamin C, suggesting that he may have been wrong based on various studies indicating no benefit from high doses of vitamin C in cancer treatment.
  • Others highlight the distinction between vitamin C obtained from fruits and vegetables and vitamin C supplements, arguing that the former may contribute to cancer risk reduction due to a combination of nutrients rather than vitamin C alone.
  • One participant draws parallels between Pauling and other prominent figures who have made controversial claims outside their areas of expertise, emphasizing the potential for delusional thought among highly intelligent individuals.
  • Concerns are raised about the dangers of unverified health claims, with a suggestion that individuals should consult medical professionals for guidance.
  • Another participant notes the limited nutrition training that medical doctors receive, advocating for the expertise of practitioners with more extensive nutritional education.
  • There is mention of the term "antioxidants" being used in contemporary discussions, indicating a shift in focus from vitamins alone.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement regarding the validity of Pauling's claims and the implications of high-dose vitamin C. Multiple competing views remain about the effectiveness of vitamin C in cancer treatment and the reliability of health claims made by prominent figures.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various studies and anecdotal evidence, but there is no consensus on the interpretation of these findings. The discussion reflects differing opinions on the role of nutrition in health and the qualifications of medical professionals in this area.

Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
7,232
Reaction score
66
I have never thought of Linus Pauling as a quack but this article seems to indicate otherwise. I find the last paragraph rather misleading.


In May 1980, during an interview at Oregon State University, Linus Pauling was asked, "Does vitamin C have any side effects on long-term use of, let's say, gram quantities?" Pauling's answer was quick and decisive. "No," he replied.

Seven months later, his wife was dead of stomach cancer. In 1994, Linus Pauling died of prostate cancer.

If fails to mention that he was 93yrs old.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Yes, it's sad that people that are great in some things become quacks in others. I had read studies many years ago showing that Pauling was wrong about vitamin C. There are many studies that have repeatedly shown him wrong.

Vitamin C is found in many vegetables and fruits, especially oranges, grapefruits, and peppers. Many studies have shown a link between eating foods rich in vitamin C, such as fruits and vegetables, and a reduced risk of cancer. On the other hand, the few studies in which vitamin C has been given as a supplement have not shown a reduced cancer risk.

This suggests that the activity of fruits and vegetables in preventing cancer is due to a combination of many things such as vitamins, fiber, and other phytochemicals and not to vitamin C alone (see Phytochemicals). Clinical trials of high doses vitamin C as a treatment for cancer have not shown any benefit. High doses of vitamin C can cause side effects in some people.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...vemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/vitamin-c
 
Evo said:
Yes, it's sad that people that are great in some things become quacks in others. I had read studies many years ago showing that Pauling was wrong about vitamin C. There are many studies that have repeatedly shown him wrong.
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...vemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/vitamin-c

Lots of "great" people (in one field) believe lots of crazy things in other areas. For example, William Shockley's (and to a lesser extent, James Watson's) "scientific racism", Kary Mullis' cranky HIV-denial, Josephson's beliefs about telepathy, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's (who wasn't a Nobel winner like the preceding lot, but was a physician and an eminent writer) belief in fairies and the occult. The list is endless. Even highly intelligent, high-achieving individuals are capable of delusional thought. The danger is that these thoughts get a much wider and more serious airing because of their prominence. The moral is that argument from authority is almost always flawed.
 
Last edited:
IMO, that's why the peer review process is so important.
 
The problem with these 'amazing claims' is they are killing people. Talk to your doctor. That is the only expert you should trust.
 
Last edited:
Chronos said:
The problem with these 'amazing claims' is they are killing people. Talk to your doctor. That is the only expert you should trust.

I would hope that a reasonably intelligent person would be able to see through the "amazing claims."

Doctors have very little training in nutrition. I see a nurse practitioner who has taken may more hours of nutritional training and study than the MD she works under.

As she puts it: "Few people eat that well balanced diet we are always talking about."

On average, students received 23.9 contact hours of nutrition instruction during medical school (range: 2–70 h). Only 40 schools required the minimum 25 h recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. Most instructors (88%) expressed the need for additional nutrition instruction at their institutions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430660/

BTW the new buzz word is, antioxidants, and this isn't referring to vitamins.