ofonorow wrote:
Again, here is where a comprehensive theory helps make sense out of the data. If homocysteine (like cholesterol) was a cause of cardiovascular disease, one would expect the effect to be random and fairly distributed throughout the cardiovascular system. For example, one would expect to see higher levels of plaque/CVD where the blood pools and slows. But it is just the opposite. Plaque usually forms close to the heart, where the pressure and forces are the greatest. This is what made Willis (and later others) believe CVD was caused by physical stress (plaque is the body compensating for weakness) and this is the basis of the Pauling/Rath unified theory. It is based on the understanding of what would make the arteries weak (lack of collagen caused by a lack of vitamin C).
All fine in "theory", but where is the actual
data supporting these hypotheses?
- What is the evidence that plaque is mostly formed as a response to physical stress (rather than plaque formation leading to physical stress on the artery walls)? What experiments did Pauling/Rath/Willis or anybody else do to test this hypothesis?
- What is the evidence that it is a "lack" of collagen in the arteries of all patients with atherosclerosis?
- What is the evidence that
excessive amounts of vitamin C are necessary to have an optimal amount of collagen?
You are entitled to your opinion, and your opinion is apparently shared by most everyone in medicine (who just happen to be part of a business making billions from the treatment of CVD.) Yes, Pauling's prizes are irrelevant, but it is a different thing for Linus Pauling to have made this claim, than for say, Owen Fonorow to make such a claim. He may have been wrong. Why has there been ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLICITY in the mainstream media that he made this claim?
Huh? I'm not sure what kind of publicity you're expecting (and several years after he proposed his theory?). If a well-designed study actually showed that lysine + vitamin C actually prevented heart attacks, then that would be a different matter. The public health implications would be huge - until then, it's unsupported and inconsequential.
I am confused. There is justification for a large study of vitamin B12 and folic acid, but not for investigating vitamin C? You seem pretty selective, considering that there is considerable evidence - when blood levels are actually measured - that low vitamin C does increase mortality, particularly cardiovascular mortality.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14594788?dopt=Abstract I know of no such evidence for Hsc/B vitamins, for example.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that vitamin C trials have been done already.
Going by the epidemiological study you cite, a 20 µmol/L difference in serum ascorbate levels was associated with a relative risk reduction of about 20% for all-cause mortality. If the association was not due to confounding and reflects a true causal relationship, then one would expect that increasing serum concentrations of vitamin C by 20 µmol/L would result in a decrease in all-cause mortality of about 20%. A daily dose of 500mg of vitamin C would increase serum levels by twice that amount. But large randomized trials using this amount have failed to show any benefit.
Homocysteine falls into the same category. There are a number of epidemiological studies which have shown an association between homocysteine and heart disease (
Example). But as we've seen, lowering homocysteine with B vitamins does not seem to reduce rates of heart disease.
As for chronic scurvy, take your head out of the sand. It is the number one killer in the United States, and probably the world! (I gather you haven't bothered to read Levy's STOP AMERICA'S #1 KILLER).
But of course, given the billions involved, one could argue that the livelihoods of almost everyone in medicine is at stake, thus I would expect you (and most doctors) to be thoroughly confused. That is apparently the intention of some very smart people.
Too bad this attitude dooms a lot of people, many of them all too young, to a lot of suffering.
I see you've brought out the usual retorts (go read so-and-so's book, or doom-and-gloom for medicine if Pauling is to be believed).
I'm still waiting to see compelling evidence. If Levy's book is so amazing, I would expect that he has some concrete data demonstrating that (a) "chronic scurvy" actually exists, and (b) it is the "number one killer in America".