The Pauling Therapy Rejected
December 26, 2001
Owen R. Fonorow
President
Intelisoft Multimedia, Inc.
PO Box 3097
Lisle, IL 60532
Dear Owen,
Thanks for continuing to regard me as a person worthy of your interest – regarding the Pauling concept of heart disease.
I have never really tried to study Dr. Pauling’s concept, but since you sent the CD with video clips, I did take some time to watch and listen.
I heard enough to now have an opinion, and am quite willing to engage in whatever dialogue might be useful on this.
As you know I am a rather large “presence” on the web, on the subject of heart disease and oral chelation. I happen to have also published many pages about the Pauling therapy – and have not previously indicated my own opinion on that matter.
In the first few minutes of Dr. Pauling’s explanation of heart disease he said something like, “It is well accepted that heart disease starts with a lesion on the inside of the artery wall.” He then goes on to say that this lesion would not start except that there is a deficiency in Vitamin C.
The concept that heart disease starts with that lesion WAS commonly accepted many years ago. I even agreed with it then. That concept then goes on to say that the body attempts of heal or protect this weakened area by placing a coat of cholesterol there. The theory may then vary, but I used to lecture that the cholesterol had a different electrical charge from the calcium floating in the blood, so a layer of calcium was added, followed by another of cholesterol, etc.
In my first Book on Heart disease this was the view I held. I then claimed that Cysteine, etc., would somehow bind to the unwanted calcium, remove it, and thus clean out the arteries, restoring blood flow.
This was the view in
Dr. Elmer Cranton’s first edition of Bypassing Bypass.
I believe it was an error for Dr. Pauling to accept the prevailing view of the beginning of heart disease. Since he was such an expert on Vitamin C, it is almost like the old saying, “To a man with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail!”
Dr. Pauling was looking for things that Vitamin C could cure!
I was rather nervous about the reports I saw that Cysteine would NOT remove calcium if metals were present, but I rather ignored that data. After all IV chelation certainly “works.”
I no longer hold this view. I was persuaded by Dr. Cranton’s frank admission that he was wrong, when he wrote the second edition of his Book. I read that in the early 1990s and then published the second edition to my own book – agreeing with Dr. Cranton that heart disease was caused by free radical damage to the cells in the arteries, and that free radicals were greatly increased in quantity and activity by the presence of heavy metals in the body. Finally, EDTA (and Cysteine) remove these heavy metals – far in preference to ever removing calcium (which could happen too).
Thus, there need be no lesion to start with.
A free radical, of course, can easily penetrate through the membranes of cells and, for instance, damage the DNA or RNA inside a cell. The damaged cell can then lose some of its abilities, including the ability to eject excess calcium. This cell could die in a calcified state. An MRI, looking for “plaque” cannot distinguish the actual wall of the cell, and thus doctors mistakenly claim the calcium (plaque) is on the outside of the cell, when, in my view, it is on the inside of the cell. IV chelation could certainly not somehow penetrate a living cell and bind to and remove the calcium inside – but, in accordance with the chemistry of EDTA, it can certainly bind with metals found in the blood.
So, clearly the concept that EDTA removes calcium must be false. Most IV doctors know this to be true, but will not admit it.
This is not a concept unique to me – but, of course, it is not accepted by those who urge us to eat no eggs or butter!
I have no doubt that increased usage of Vitamin C (and/or other nutrients in the Pauling therapy) can be very beneficial – but their success in handling heart disease is based on what I now consider a false premise – the existence of that lesion.
The role of the free radical has been studied for many years – since no medical drug can remove a free radical, and in fact many of them add free radicals to the body, this means that the entire drug approach to heart disease is going down the wrong path.
It is possible that there are ALSO lesions, and that, thus, Vitamin C can prevent whatever form of heart disease is related to that problem. But, my view is that free radicals and toxic metals are much more the source of heart disease than these lesions and deficiency in vitamin C.
I would be quite willing to exchange thoughts with you on this, preferring eMail to letters.
Sincerely,
Karl Loren
[Karl Note: In the usual pattern of eMail messages, I got a message from Mr. Fonorow, in black type below, and I responded to him, interspersing my remarks into the midst of his -- my remarks are in blue type.]
Dear Owen/Rick,
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: fonorow@internetwks.com [mailto:fonorow@internetwks.com]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 8:18 AM
To: karl@karlloren.com
Cc: fonorow@foxvalley.net; mtill1@houston.rr.com
Subject: Thx. You Say You Prefer Email
Karl,
Thank you for being the first, and so far the only one, to not only
view the videos on CD-ROM, but to also provide a thoughtful and
engaging response.
True science is a tool that dispassionately seeks truth, and I agree
with most scientists that experiment is the great and final and only
determiner of "truth."
Experiments with a
bias would be the norm, I am certainly not without my own biases.
I am posting some "ancient" papers at
www.vitaminCfoundation.org/pdfs that may help clear our
thinking.
Your basic disagreement seems to be with the idea of a lesion.
Not quite. I can agree with lesions as existing. It is just that I am so imbued with the idea of free radicals, and have to tie in any other theory with free radicals. If the theory does not somehow take into account free radicals, I tend to think of it as wrong or incomplete.
Yet, the idea of an injury, or lesion, is appealing because it explains why some people, and most animals, do not develop plaques.
For the moment considering humans only, I wonder if plaque is not almost universal -- but often also not deadly, and then the controlling factor may still be the amount of toxic metals, and thus free radicals in the body. Toxic metals could well be the variable for humans.
Whether or not it is precisely
correct.
To me, lesion means some "change" and some "location" in the blood
vessels.
What-ever sticks (Pauling and Rath say Lp(a)), only sticks after
"something" happens. I think of this event as the "lesion." To be
honest, I am not sure what your alternative is. Some kind of
charge? Where? Everywhere? Why in humans and not animals?
I've written this very extensively, but the short story is simply that most of us have toxic metals in our bodies -- in quantities we did not have 300 years ago.
Metals act as multipliers of free radicals -- and free radicals cause both cancer and heart disease -- simply moving through the body, randomly, and occasionally damaging cells in the arteries, perhaps the DNA, or the RNA, or whatever, so that the cell becomes less able to ejecting garbage, including calcium.
The cell accumulates calcium, as part of the normal in and out of the fluids into and out of the cell -- can't get rid of them, and becomes dead (calcified) or sluggish. Remove free radical damage by removing metals? The cells are able to come back to a previous state of health -- arteries become flexible and blood flow increases.
This would be the
explanation of IV chelation as well as OC.
It is possible that these ideas can be congruent. But arterial
weakness and so-called lesions have been studied, at least since
1939! (Again, see reference Paterson pathology reports.) And that
idea that plaque is simply a response. A healing process is
attractive.
No doubt about it
being attractive. But, while I can see that Vitamin C would
strengthen the membranes of cells, what explanation exists for the
remarkable recoveries by people who take in only EDTA -- and it
is well established that EDTA removes heavy metals -- no other
benefit (it does also neutralize free radicals).
But the emotional response that Pauling always finds value in
vitamin C, while understandable, ignores the fact that he DID find
great value and believed that it is, in fact, a GROSS deficiency in
vitamin C that causes heart disease.
(I even found a paper by University of Chicago scientists that say
the same thing, and they never reference Pauling and Rath.)
The problem I have from a theoretical standpoint with any
"substance" in the blood stream being the primary cause
a) why not a more random distribution of plaque?
b) why always in arteries, especially close to the heart, but not
veins?
c) Why not in animals. Only guinea pig has the same plaque
A random distribution of plaque would trace back to a random distribution of metals in the body -- certainly one of the IV studies showed people living near free ways, exposed to lots of lead car fumes, got cancer and heart disease far more often than people in the same country (Switzerland) living just 20 miles away, in a rural area.
I don't think body metals are "random" but are, indeed, caused by any of the various causes of metal burden in the body.
The Pauling/Rath vitamin C theory is really a
theory of MECHANICAL STRESS, first postulated by G. C. Willis.
(Again, see the ancient papers for a wonderful hypothesis and
excellent experimental data.) They say CVD is really a collagen
deficiency, but it is usually caused by too little vitamin C. If
copper were missing, and a very small amount of copper is required
to synthesize collagen, according to Pauling/Rath, copper could be a
contributor to the "lesions" (that form from weakness.) Ditto
vitamin B6, etc. Matter or perspective. Pauling believed that the
MAJOR contributor is low vitamin C in humans.
And animals make, on average AFBW, 11 g of vitamin C in the
livers!! Straight into the blood stream. More than 2 orders of
magnitude more than the RDA for vitamin C. Animals are flush with
vitamin C, and they do not have the same time of altherosclerotic
"lesions."
Now I "know", and this has been experimentally confirmed by Life
Extension Foundation, that people who consume a lot of vitamin C, I
would guess more than 10 g daily of vitamin C, and have for at least
10 years, do not have any evidence of heart disease. I challenge
anyone to cite a single exception - except for an obvious genetic (hyperlipidemia)
disorder.)
Dr. Gary Gordon,
founder of ACAM, is convinced that with proper chelation therapy
(including his OC) you would never die of heart disease. I don't go
that far.
I also have informally polled those who call me with disease CVD the
past five years. Some have claimed to take 500 mg to 1 g daily. Very
few, and upon questioning, most will say they did take this much C
for awhile, but quit, perhaps on doctors advice, some time before
their heart attack.
My OC formula, of
course, includes 3,000 mg of Vitamin C -- I agree with its
importance.
Most took an ordinary vitamin pill. The RDA. If a study or
experiment could be designed to check, Id be willing to wager that
EVERY human who only obtains the RDA of vitamin C has CVD. Plaque.
This experiment has already been run - in guinea pigs - the only
animals that do not make their own endogenous vitamin C. Or one of
a very few.
So true scientists, interested in validating our competing
hypotheses, would design an experiment. The experiment I have in
mind would be to use high amounts of antioxidants, say vitamin E,
vitamin A, and probucol, grapeseed, red wine, etc. to nullify any
free radicals in the blood stream.
As I understand
it, the amount of free radicals created by toxic metals would
be far, far in excess of anything that could be neutralized by any
amount of anti-oxidants.
But restrict vitamin C to the RDA.
I predict that heart disease would only develop in the Vitamin C
restricted group. What would your theory predict? (This can be
done with guinea pigs, by the way.)
I don't have much of a clue on animals, but my basic, core belief is that diet governs all -- and that processed foods, and cooked foods are the source of virtually all health problems. I would have to add to that, that the ingestion of metals, from fumes, or wherever, would be separate from diet considerations.
Bottom line.
Pauling not only had his profound way of looking at the world, but a
comprehensive theory, based on fifty years of research, with no bias
introduced by $$$$.
$$$ are certainly not the only source of bias.
To the man with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.
Experimentally and in life, the vitamin C theory bears out and can be a miracle for people not taking vitamin C.
I am not disagreeing with this.
Karl
Owen/Rick Fonorow
Dear Karl,
Thx back. Good points.
Do you get Mike Culberts ICHF (Intl. Council Health Freedom)
newsletter? Page 3 of Winter/Spring 2002 titled
Suppository EDTA "changing field of
Chelation."?
The claim is that Dr. Carlos Viana (Aruba) found that EDTA is a POWERFUL Mercury chelator. It comes out in the feces, after the THIRD bowel movement.
(Why it has been missed.)
I won't bore you with details, since you probably
know all this, but if you would like to see the article, send me a
fax number.
Owen
Dear Owen,
I do not get that newsletter.
I am almost 100% convinced that EDTA suppositories are a fraud.
I have a page on it: here: http://chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p20.htm
I have much more data than I am publishing on this.
Your below data is new to me, however, and I will seek it on the web.
If you have it in eMail form -- best.
Elsewise, FAX 818 558-7299.
I believe EDTA, taken IV, does NOT chelate mercury. How could it chelate mercury when used rectally, when not when taken by IV?
Karl
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month. You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below. You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered. If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed. There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit. The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription. When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active. No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-1799, the FAX: (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:24 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.