I'm sorry, but I have to comment on this. I don't think I've ever posted on this forum before, but I wanted to correct an error that you (I'm sure quite innocently) have ended up repeating.
Linus Pauling did
not advocate that massive dosages of ascorbic acid would cure cancer: he advocated
intravenous administration of it. That is a subtle but obviously very important difference. I don't think I need to say to anyone here who is interested in medicine that the route of administration is very important and that it can have different effects based upon this (acidic environment, first pass metabolism, et cetera).
And Linus Pauling's theory concerning that does have some validity. There is a very interesting article about this here, and it is written by an allopathic doctor:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/12154.php .
Also, the Linus Pauling Institute has good information on this:
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/ .
Orthomolecular medicine in general is also unfortunately a school that has received a great deal of propaganda, like the Eclectics. Consider the issue of histadelia. Here is an article noting the existence of histamine receptors in the brain, and some of their effects:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301008200000393 . And here is an article showing the detailed mapping of H3 receptors in--albeit, a rat brain--:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452202001355 .
Things like niacin and methionine can cure histamine excess and there is nothing surprising about that if you understand biochemical pathways. What orthomolecular medicine does is to utilize these pathways and they use the fuel for these processes to upregulate and inhibit them: minerals, vitamins, proteins, and fats. There is no pseudo-science to this: it relies upon scientific studies and a good practitioner needs to have a
very detailed understanding about what these various compounds do.
And concerning the propaganda that has been put out to serve economic interests, consider the case of Wilk v AMA:
http://openjurist.org/635/f2d/1295/wilk-v-american-medical-association .
That really says it all. But I will close with a quote from the case:
Massive discovery had taken place in Wilk by the time New York had been filed. Upward of 100,000 documents had been filed and over 100 persons deposed. The bulk of these materials approximately 80-90 percent was not available to New York State or to anyone else, however, for they were covered by a protective order issued by the Wilk district court. This order, entered February 23, 1977, was issued on motion of the Wilk defendants and apparently was not opposed by plaintiffs. Among other things, it prohibits plaintiffs' counsel from revealing any document provided by defendants through discovery, forbids them to divulge even the content of discovery documents if stamped "confidential" by defendants, permits defendants to classify any deposition as "confidential," and provides a procedure for the sealing of documents and other materials.
In summary, it is quite useful to look at the sources themselves. Herbs, orthomolecular, Linus Pauling, etc, these aren't pseudoscience. I've read plenty of medical research articles on them and they have plenty of evidence. The problem with things like coconut oil is that they lack industrial concerns and, like powerful social lobbyists groups versus unorganized people, they tend to fall victim to propaganda.
sad realization.....
