Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How was the study original flawed, wouldn't it have been unethical to withhold anything to a cancer patient that may help them?. Also how could you give the standard of care + placebo v standard of cancer + vit c in a terminal patient, after all SoC no longer works for them?. Also 2 other studies did replicate the original study, one of which was in Japan. Dr Pauling did point out the flaws in studies at the Mayo Clinic. As for Dr Gorski he is one of the most negative people on the net and flogs the same dead horses over & over again (Burzynski, homeopathy, ND's). I'm not overstating the benefits either, even the original study shows its no cure
Yes, you are overstating the benefits. I have already explained it previously.
You lack evidence. Again, it's been pointed out.
Not being negative. Absence of evidence is not permissible. The Mayo Clinic tests, reviews and studies this sort of thing. They dismiss this sort of thing after giving it due study which the writing of the papers failed to do. It is what you fail to do.
It is more unethical to tout something as a cure, when it is not effective.
Yes, you are overstating the benefits. I have already explained it previously.
You lack evidence. Again, it's been pointed out.
Not being negative. Absence of evidence is not permissible. The Mayo Clinic tests, reviews and studies this sort of thing. They dismiss this sort of thing after giving it due study which the writing of the papers failed to do. It is what you fail to do.
It is more unethical to tout something as a cure, when it is not effective.
As an adjunct, vitiman c does offer some benefit.
The two studies done by the Mayo Clinic were flawed which was pointed out by Dr Pauling. I have already explained it previously.
Two studies replicated the original study, one of which was in Japan. I have already explained it previously.
Neither the original study or the others shows it to be a cure. I have already explained it previously.
It was never touted as a cure by the original doctors, the papers show it improves the quality of life and extends it
What? So you read the account you like most and call it the truth?
That is rather foolish. No, that is downright ignorant.
Dear God!. Look at the original study and the others, then view the comments/criticism by other inc Dr Pauling. This is beyond basic stuff and its appalling that you need to be told.
Dear God!. Look at the original study and the others, then view the comments/criticism by other inc Dr Pauling. This is beyond basic stuff and its appalling that you need to be told.
So you as a presumably lay person with limited scientific training are now a qualified professional?
So you as a presumably lay person with limited scientific training are now a qualified professional?
So, that is the extent of your argument? Wow.
Feel free to head over to the alternative medicine forum here. That might be more suited to your beliefs. Things like science won't get in your way.
As i said in post 16 ''Look at the original study and the others, then view the comments/criticism by other inc Dr Pauling''.
In post 9 you even say ''Yes, vitamin c does offer some benefits in treatment''. In the original study they didn't use it as an adjuvant therapy along with SoC, as you know full well. The original as well as two others shows it helps increase the life span and improves a terminal patients quality of life. Its no cure and there is no conspiracy. Its not my fault that the doctors at the Mayo couldn't follow the original protocol/study
As i said in post 16 ''Look at the original study and the others, then view the comments/criticism by other inc Dr Pauling''.
In post 9 you even say ''Yes, vitamin c does offer some benefits in treatment''. In the original study they didn't use it as an adjuvant therapy along with SoC, as you know full well. The original as well as two others shows it helps increase the life span and improves a terminal patients quality of life. Its no cure and there is no conspiracy. Its not my fault that the doctors at the Mayo couldn't follow the original protocol/study
Do you even know how the Mayo studied the findings or arrived that their conclusion? No.
Yet you accept another study on that same blind faith? You continue to lambast me for finding your conclusions ridiculous.
You with absolute certainty dismiss the Mayo Clinic?
Yet stand firm on a flimsy study from decades ago. Can't help you sport. You can continue to attack me. It doesn't prove your point.
Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
