James Randi challenges Stereophile magazine

[Dardedar]

DAR
Seems Randi has been having some round and round with bogus claims and products in Stereophile magazine. $7,250 audio cables, vinyl record "demagnetizers" etc. You can read about it here.

At first I was wondering why Randi was doing this, after all there may be a difference in quality between cables sending a standard audio signal (or so I assume) but then I learned that they are talking about HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) cables. This is a pure digital signal. So the idea that you can notice any difference (detectable by the human ear) by spending multiple thousands on a fancy cable is 100% bullshit.

This fellow gives a good summary:

"Another reader, Charles Lambdin, Psychology Graduate Student at Wichita State University, sent some comments to Atkinson, and reported to me:

The exchanges between yourself and those at Stereophile magazine are highly entertaining. As you know, their responses to your allegations are comprised of a hodgepodge of fallacious reasoning, unfounded accusations, and red herrings all thrown up in a smoke-and-mirrors evasion tactic designed to distract us from the obvious fact that these people cannot demonstrate that these products work (unless "work" is defined as providing an arbitrary prop to facilitate the placebo effect via a little self-delusion).

In response to your million-dollar offer, they come back with snide remarks. They are conning their customers by selling sham products that do not work. The claims they offer on how these products work don't even qualify as pseudo-science; they are nothing but hocus-pocus nonsense phrases primarily comprised of "quantum" and "harmonic" gibberish. Selling sticks that improve sound is no different than selling crystals that improve mood. These people do it for the money and as you know, if they could take your million dollars they would. That they cannot is the lesson to be learned; it is the point and the reason you have the offer in the first place. You've put your money where your mouth is, you've supported your arguments with evidence, and you call on others to do the same."

I read this comment in a thread and I couldn't resist sharing it:

"written by Kent Montgomery, October 12, 2007
Please, oh please take on those twits from Stereophile! I used to be the classical music buyer for a couple of record store chains, and recall fondly that Stereophile touted using a green (only GREEN, thank you) marking pen swiped around the edge of a CD to "keep the information from spraying out the sides/edge of the CD leading to a loss of information." The number of sheep who bought into that was astounding."

It's getting some press.

[Multidude]

Though I am aware of the fraudulent claims made in the name of high fidelity, I also know that if you can hear a difference and if that difference has value to your musical enjoyment - why not?

I remember meeting Ivor Tiefenbrun in the 70s when we (the sales staff for a high-end audio retailer) thought all quality turntables sounded the same. Ivor correctly set up his Linn LP-12 turntable and made our systems sound far better than we had heard with our Garrard 301/SME 3009 front ends. Things started to get crazy then - we were listening to the differences in turntable platter mats, speaker stands (spiked vs. rubber feet), different tube manufacturers with the same spec'd tubes. Monster cable had just come out with with their speaker cables - and holy moly did they make a difference!

Now (thirty years later), I've entered the digital world and use high end appliances from the likes of Tact Audio and Metric Halo. It sounds nutty, I know, but there is a difference between digital interconnects, just as there are in the analog domain.

I am not defending or promoting any particular piece of kit here. All I ask is that each component in the chain is chosen on its own merits. If you can't hear a difference - don't buy it - trust your ears and make up your own mind.

John Atkinson has produced many fine recordings. His depth of knowledge and experience is invaluable to the world of audio. I would like to take a stand against those that would belittle his outstanding body of work.

All we need do is listen to the music.

[Doug]

$7,250 audio cables.

I'd like a list of people who bought them. That's $7,250 for some cables. But, as James Randi points out, it gets worse. The “Transparent Opus MM SC cables” are a pair of 25-foot cables that cost $43,000, or $860 a foot.

As I said, I'd like a list of those who bought either set of cables. I have some Super Serene Stereophonic Securing Stems for only $125 each. To the untrained eye, they look like ordinary twist ties, such as you might see on a loaf of bread, but when you use them to secure cables, they keep the sound pure.

Any takers?

[Dardedar]

DAR
I mostly agree Multidude. But a couple of points:

...if you can hear a difference and if that difference has value to your musical enjoyment - why not?

DAR
Of course. But we are dealing with some really extraordinary claims, and interestingly, claims that can be verified (pretty darn easily too).
I am a pretty fussy sound guy too. I worked in music stores for years selling audio equipment and synthesizers. I am a piano technician and use my ears for careful discernment all day long.

- we were listening to the differences in turntable platter mats, speaker stands (spiked vs. rubber feet), different tube manufacturers with the same spec'd tubes.

DAR
Here is something else that is difficult to over emphasize. People are extremely suggestible. This human phenomenon is the basis much of the work of a magicians (legit), psychics (not-legit), many kinesiology claims, faith "healing," the placebo effect and much of religious experience. Unless you guys were blinding the above listening tests (even single blind) I want to suggest you consider being open to the idea that at least in some of the instances you may have been fooling yourself. It is breathtakingly easy to do and does not require deception on the part of anyone taking part.

MULTI
It sounds nutty, I know, but there is a difference between digital interconnects, just as there are in the analog domain.

DAR
But in the Stereophile/Randi example we are not talking about comparing substandard cables with these very high priced cables but rather Monster cables which you say above are very good. Digital information is a stream of 1's and 0's. A good quality cable should be able to adequately conduct each bit of digital information and get it there on time (just kidding). We can both agree that 1's and 0's do not differ in quality. They must be identical in "quality" in that they are by definition identical. If the good quality cable does this (and it can) then there is nothing to be gained with a more expensive cable (unlike analog which is a different ball game). The burden of demonstrating otherwise rests with these guys selling their $860 per foot cable. If they would like to do this, under proper (and quite simple and rudimentary) observing conditions then they will be well rewarded for their time. Randi's million dollar challenge is legitimate and binding. Doug and I have worked personally with Randi on challenges of our own.
If these fellows will not step forward for a simple (high school level level) double blind test, one is quite justified in being very suspicious.

All I ask is that each component in the chain is chosen on its own merits.

DAR
I agree. But if you really want to know what is going on, aside from the influence of suggestion, you need to do a simple test. I would be very interested in setting something up if you are interested in testing something.

MULTI
John Atkinson has produced many fine recordings. His depth of knowledge and experience is invaluable to the world of audio. I would like to take a stand against those that would belittle his outstanding body of work.

DAR
Even a person with great expertise and knowledge in a certain area can fall into peddling quackery and pseudo-science in another subject only slightly different (i.e. Linus Pauling and vitamin C therapies etc.).

The other day my Ipod earbuds went through the wash. They were still quite workable but subtly damaged. I listened to them side by side with a good pair. I was going to chuck them but tried them on my wife first. She couldn't believe I could hear the difference. I couldn't believe she couldn't hear the difference. In a blind test of the same song I easily picked out the "washed" ones. In a blind test she picked the washed ones as sounding better. We traded, problem solved.

D.

I am serious about putting together a test if you are interested. It could be very educational for everyone.

[Savonarola]

Here is something else that is difficult to over emphasize. People are extremely suggestible.

[monotone voice] "Yes, people are extremely suggestible..."

[Doug]

$7,250 audio cables.

I'd like a list of people who bought them. That's $7,250 for some cables. But, as James Randi points out, it gets worse. The “Transparent Opus MM SC cables” are a pair of 25-foot cables that cost $43,000, or $860 a foot.

As I said, I'd like a list of those who bought either set of cables. I have some Super Serene Stereophonic Securing Stems for only $125 each. To the untrained eye, they look like ordinary twist ties, such as you might see on a loaf of bread, but when you use them to secure cables, they keep the sound pure.

Any takers?

DOUG
I sent this to James Randi. He replied that he already buys enough bread and doesn't need any...

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Darrell - FYI - yes, people are extremely suggestible - which is why it's a good idea to check out what Linus Pauling actually said versus what the opposition (and former hippies like my sister) said he said. Pauling's research showed people receiving high doses of Vitamin C concurrently with traditional treatment did better and lived longer (in general) than those who did not - and that was viral and bacterial infections as well as cancer - and usually required a lower dosage of whatever medication was being used. He did not say Vitamin C should be used in place of medication - and the dosage of Vitamin C in question was so high as to usually need to be injected, as that amount taken orally just passes out of the system without being fully assimilated. Now if you want to talk about someone who said to replace "traditional" medicine with Vitamin C - the man's name was Kenner - he injected up to 6 grams in extreme cases and followed that up with a gram an hour until the patient recovered. I don't have stats on how many actually did recover and how many - didn't.

[Savonarola]

No real point in injections. The body can only assimilate so much per time, and -- as a water-soluble molecule -- vitamin C is eliminated (even from the blood) reasonably quickly. You're best off just taking the RDA a couple times a day.

[Doug]

Some bad stuff about Pauling's claims.

The Dark Side of Pauling's Legacy

In 1970, Pauling announced in Vitamin C and the Common Cold that taking 1,000 mg of vitamin C daily will reduce the incidence of colds by 45% for most people but that some people need much larger amounts. (The RDA for vitamin C is 60 mg.) The 1976 revision of the book, retitled Vitamin C, the Common Cold and the Flu, suggested even higher dosages... Pauling himself reportedly took at least 12,000 mg daily and raised the amount to 40,000 mg if symptoms of a cold appear. In 1993, after undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer, Pauling said that vitamin C had delayed the cancer's onset for twenty years. This was not a testable claim. He died of the disease in August 1994.

...At least 16 well-designed, double-blind studies have shown that supplementation with vitamin C does not prevent colds and at best may slightly reduce the symptoms of a cold.

...The largest clinical trials, involving thousands of volunteers, were directed by Dr. Terence Anderson, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto. Taken together, his studies suggest that extra vitamin C may slightly reduce the severity of colds, but it is not necessary to take the high doses suggested by Pauling to achieve this result. Nor is there anything to be gained by taking vitamin C supplements year-round in the hope of preventing colds.

Another important study was reported in 1975 by scientists at the National Institutes of Health who compared vitamin C pills with a placebo before and during colds. Although the experiment was supposed to be double-blind, half the subjects were able to guess which pill they were getting. When the results were tabulated with all subjects lumped together, the vitamin group reported fewer colds per person over a nine-month period. But among the half who hadn't guessed which pill they had been taking, no difference in the incidence or severity was found. This illustrates how people who think they are doing something effective (such as taking a vitamin) can report a favorable result even when none exists.

The results of these experiments caused an argument between Linus and me, which ended our 16-year period of work together. He was not willing to accept the experimentally proved fact that vitamin C in ordinary doses accelerated the growth rate of squamous cell carcinoma in these mice.

At the time, Linus was promoting his claim that "75% of all cancer can be prevented and cured by vitamin C alone." This claim proved to be without experimental foundation and not true. . . . Vitamin C increased the rate of growth of cancer at human equivalents of 1 to 5 grams per day, but suppressed the cancer growth rate at doses on the order of 100 grams per day (near the lethal dose), as do other measures of malnutrition.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I'm not a biochemist - never got passed high school chemistry and that was on the 2nd try - but Linus Pauling was a biochemist (among many other things), got his first Nobel in chemistry (nature of chemical bonds) and was one of the founders of molecular biology. So here's where my "faith" comes in. I do not believe that a man with that scientific "habit of mind" would suddenly go totally off the rails and start declaiming totally unverified "facts". I'd sooner believe Sav would start declaring that global warming is proof the "end-timers" are right.

I do not doubt Doug's quotes - but I doubt the veracity of the person(s) he's quoting. I do know that the "fallout" of Pauling's Nobel Peace prize - for trying to stop above ground nuclear testing - was almost as bad as that for Oppenheimer. His research funding dried up and he became a target of ridicule for damn near everything he said for a couple of decades. Fox News didn't create their technique, they just perfected it.

I also know the same claims were made about Adele Davis and her nutrition work - just about the time she (also a biochemist and a clinical nutrition researcher for several decades at some of the most respected research training hospitals in America) came to the conclusion, and publically stated, that the food industry with their prettily packaged diddly nutrient foods targeted at kids were a significant part of America's health problem (and, that, as much as she hated it, due to "modern" farming practices, American food no longer had the nutrient load that it had pre-WWII and supplementation was now a necessity). However, I've read ALL of Adele Davis' books, so I know the claims are hooey. I haven't read all of Pauling's and I'm not going to lie and say I have - but I trust a scientist to remain a scientist.

[Dardedar]

I do not believe that a man with that scientific "habit of mind" would suddenly go totally off the rails and start declaiming totally unverified "facts".... [snip] ...- but I trust a scientist to remain a scientist.

DAR
But he did Barbara. This is why he is such a profound/amazing example. Through Linus Pauling we have person who rose to the top and received the highest awards you can receive in science and then in his elder years succumbed to the very natural temptation of believing that which you hope to be true over what the data shows.

D.
--------------------------
Hey, I didn't know he was into electric cars. From wiki:

"Development of the electric car

Pauling contributed to the development of the first modern electric car - the Henney Kilowatt.

In the late 1950s, Pauling became concerned with the problem of air pollution—particularly with the growing smog problem in Los Angeles. At the time, most scientists believed that the smog was due to chemical plants and refineries, not gasoline engine exhaust. Pauling worked with Arie Haagen-Smit and others at Caltech to show that smog was a product of automobile pollution instead of factory pollution. Shortly after this discovery, Pauling began work to develop a practical and affordable electric car. He joined forces with the engineers at the Eureka Williams company in the development of the Henney Kilowatt—the first speed-controlled electric car. After researching the electrophysics underlying the initial Kilowatt propulsion system, Pauling determined that traditional lead-acid batteries would not provide the power necessary to give electric cars the performance necessary to rival traditional gasoline powered cars. Pauling accurately predicted that the low top speed and the short range of the Henney Kilowatt would make them impractical and unpopular. Pauling insisted on making the car more practical before releasing it to the public, and recommended that the project be discontinued until the appropriate battery was available commercially. Unfortunately, the Eureka Williams Company insisted that production plans for the car proceed; as Pauling predicted, the model experienced dismal sales."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauling

[Savonarola]

I'm not a biochemist - never got passed high school chemistry and that was on the 2nd try - but Linus Pauling was a biochemist (among many other things), got his first Nobel in chemistry (nature of chemical bonds) and was one of the founders of molecular biology.

Pauling let a Nobel prize slip through his grasp because he was too eager to be right: he published a model of DNA well before Watson and Crick. Of course, it was inside-out: the bases pointed out with the phosphates in the center. As soon as the paper came out, Franklin immediately knew it was wrong because she'd done the research. If Pauling had waited and done more research, such that the data was more conclusive, perhaps Watson and Crick would be relatively unknown researchers rather than Nobel laureates.

I haven't read all of Pauling's and I'm not going to lie and say I have - but I trust a scientist to remain a scientist.

And scientists are sometimes wrong. I'm not going to say that I'm a better, or more effective, or more prolific, or harder-working scientist than Pauling was, but I've got the data on my side. As a scientist and a science teacher, I can tell you this with certainty: science is all about people trying to poke holes in previous theories, because that means that we've learned something that we didn't previously know.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Pauling did do pretty good in the Nobel department. Wiki notes:

"...in 1954 was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work describing the nature of chemical bonds.

Pauling received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1962 for his campaign against above-ground nuclear testing, and is the only person to win two Nobel prizes that were not shared with another recipient." -ibid

[Savonarola]

Pauling did do pretty good in the Nobel department.

Absolutely. Pauling's name is revered in chemistry. We still use his scale for electronegativity of atoms. He knew his stuff. But nobody is beyond being wrong, and nobody in science gets a free pass. The DNA research is a perfect example of how determination can backfire: it's great to want to be right, but wanting doesn't make it so. It's rare enough for one person to receive two Nobel prizes, but Pauling nearly had three.

So what have we learned? Even somebody capable of winning three Nobel prizes can be wrong in a big way.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Guys, what you don't seem to know/understand/accept is that Pauling (and Kenner and Davis) did his/their stuff in clinical settings. Unlike the hippy-dippies who followed what proto-faux news said they said (and, no, Al Gore never said he invented the internet, either), while the first stage of treatment was with vitamin therapy, traditional therapy was available and used, as needed. The work the three of them did, that most benefits me, was show that pharmaceutaticals, with their multiple side-effects, could be reduced (sometimes, but not always replaced, and the sometimes was if you caught the condition early enough) if used in conjunction with vitamin therapy. I am very sensitive to pharmaceuticals and can't tell you the number of times I've been "overdosed" on the "recommended" dosage - before I started avoiding doctors altogether. Vitamin C is the one you seem to know Pauling for, but that isn't the only one he utilized by a long shot. (The basis of the vitamin C claims, cancer and otherwise - and he didn't claim all forms of cancer could be treated with vitamin C, just certain kinds of mostly skin-related cancers - is that vitamin C is necessary for collagen production - don't ask me how, I'm still not a biochemist.) But he did research on vitamin E, the B complex - the basic body chemistry of nutrients. The current knowledge of antioxidants is based on Pauling's work, for example.

The RDA is an averaged requirement for prevention of scurvy, not general health and wellbeing, and especially not the general health and wellbeing of the skin, because the folks who were doing the testing weren't thinking about skin when they did it. If your tissues are saturated with it, you don't need more than what's in a small grapefruit. Stress, both physical and emotional, uses it up and most folks in modern society have enough stress to require considerably more than the RDA - and most Americans prefer to use their calorie budget on junk food (which also stresses the body and increases its need for micronutrients) rather than the high-nutrient fruits and vegetables.

That he was not correct in everything he did is not my point. I don't expect anyone to be infallable. I'm just saying that a whole lot of what he actually said was correct and the reported "facts" that you are disputing are not what he actually said. He was a very controversial man of research (during the McCarthy witchhunt years the gummint took his passport because of his very vocal protests of nuclear testing due to the cancer-causing effects of the radiation, among other things, and only gave him back his passport so he could accept the Nobel prize) and he continued researching until dang near the end of his life at 93 - and did all of his nutritional research within the framework of "Traditional" western medicine, even though a number of doctors were suckered into thinking otherwise. (But then, as far as I can figure out, doctors can be suckered into anything if you tell them their opulent lifestyle is being threatened.)

There are many people out there so wedded to a pet theory, they can't stand it when it doesn't pan out - the guy who translated the Binet IQ test wanted to prove whites were superior to blacks and spent the rest of his life trying to invalidate his own original research, and even Einstein had a problem with the expanding universe - but Pauling wasn't one of them. It was not in his character and character says it all.

[Dardedar]

Guys, what you don't seem to know/understand/accept is that Pauling (and Kenner and Davis) did his/their stuff in clinical settings.

DAR
I don't care if he did it on horseback. You are all over the place Barbara. I gave one sentence:

"Even a person with great expertise and knowledge in a certain area can fall into peddling quackery and pseudo-science in another subject only slightly different (i.e. Linus Pauling and vitamin C therapies etc.)."

Pauling is a classic example of a person who did this.

Vitamin C is the one you seem to know Pauling for, but that isn't the only one he utilized by a long shot.

DAR
The reason he is known for the Vitamin C issue is because for him it was the biggie.

(The basis of the vitamin C claims, cancer and otherwise - and he didn't claim all forms of cancer could be treated with vitamin C, just certain kinds of mostly skin-related cancers...

DAR
Right. And with regard to his Vitamin C/cancer claims he was all wet.

That he was not correct in everything he did is not my point. I don't expect anyone to be infallable.

DAR
How can you make a statement like that in response my rather mundane claim regarding his extraordinary cancer claims?

I'm just saying that a whole lot of what he actually said was correct...

DAR
That was in question?

and the reported "facts" that you are disputing are not what he actually said.

DAR
Doug has already quoted precisely he said and it is more than enough to show that with regard to vitamin C claims he fell into "peddling quackery and pseudo-science in... a subject outside of his expertise." That's all I am saying.

D.
-------------------------
"Pauling is largely responsible for the widespread misbelief that high doses of vitamin C are effective against colds and other illnesses. In 1968, he postulated that people's needs for vitamins and other nutrients vary markedly and that to maintain good health, many people need amounts of nutrients much greater than the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs). And he speculated that megadoses of certain vitamins and minerals might well be the treatment of choice for some forms of mental illness. He termed this approach "orthomolecular," meaning "right molecule." After that, he steadily expanded the list of illnesses he believed could be influenced by "orthomolecular" therapy and the number of nutrients suitable for such use. No responsible medical or nutrition scientists share these views." --Quackwatch: The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy

[Multidude]

Darrel - I agree with everything you wrote, and its cool to know that you are a piano tech! If there is one profession in this world that deserves respect it is that of the piano tuner. Having worked in recording studios, provided sound reinforcement and being an amateur recordist, I know the importance of a well cared for piano.

Something to consider regarding digital interconnects (and also know that I am not an engineer) - if digital "1s" and "0s" are represented by a square wave, the ideal "slope" at the front of the form would be vertical and the voltage representing "1" should be horizontal for the duration of the sampling rate. If the cable presents a reactance that causes a rounding or under/overshoot of the ideal form, timing can become an issue and fidelity can suffer.

In my experience, listening to the differences in equipment is a trying experience. A/B switching can show differences, but whether one is better than the other can be a tough question. I've organized or participated in double blind tests with the audio society I was affiliated with back in the day, only to find folks more confused after than before. It seems to me that our suggestibility and preconceptions seem to cloud our ability to make decisions about sound quality in one sitting, like most of the tests we hear about are conducted. The only way I can make improvements to my own setup is to live with a change over time. I have fooled myself time and time again into believing some new tweak is the bee's knees, only to realize, after a few days, that the previous configuration delivered more musical results.

I don't know what we could test, but I'd be up for it. Maybe we could try to hear a difference between AES/BEU, S/PDIF and Optical interconnects?

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Chaplin's "The Great Lie" didn't glorify Hitler, Hillary Clinton didn't murder Vince Foster, Al Gore never said he invented the internet, SCHIP doesn't cover undocumented aliens, and Linus Pauling didn't say that vitamin C, by itself, could "cure" anything.

Pauling was a biochemist. He spent the last 30+ years of his life researching the various components of body chemistry. His research focused on - and he published his results in both scholarly and in "pop" formats - health benefits of various chemicals, including the one popularly known as vitamin C.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s biochemists and nutritionists were publishing information - some of which is only resurfacing now - that cast more than a few aspersions on what the food industry had been peddling as "healthy" food. The response was a deliberate and very successful smear campaign against the integrity and ability of the researchers and thus their research. Pauling is not the only one, just the most fameous.

Vitamin C wasn't Pauling's main focus, just the one his attackers used to villify him. It does - and the medical schools that teach nutrition (BYU for example) DO teach this - have a significant role to play in human health - our bodies can't synthesize it and it plays a vital role in collagen production. Between the deliberate "strawman" arguments produced by (I'm assuming, since they're the logical ones) the food industry and the anti-establishments folks who greeted them as gospel, nutritional research was set back a good two decades - and we are now reaping the reward in the obesity "epidemic", Type II diabetes in 10-year-olds, and the myriad diet-related health issues now facing this nation. Most of the things Darrel and Doug quoted were responses to the strawmen. (In Doug's case, also a hopefully honest researcher who violently disagreed with Pauling over some apparently joint research.)

Pauling wasn't a brilliant man in his youth who dwindled into fads in his senility. He was a brilliant man. Period. Vitamin C - as a chemical Pauling was researching - was not out of his area of biochemical expertise and, when used in conjunction with "traditional" therapies by medical doctors trained in its usage, has allowed dosage reduction of pharmaceutical medications in many areas. Cancer is one of them. What makes Pauling's actual (as opposed to propagandists') claims easy meat for the propagandists is that there are very few medical doctors who have even as much nutritional training as I do (4 collegiate hours - I'm not counting seminars and various library and internet readings), much less enough to utilize nutritional therapy in their practices.

Pauling didn't stop researching just because he was the victim of character assassination. His research over the following 20 years and the research of his organization is now surfacing/resurfacing as America kinda sorta in a way tries to find its way back to the health it had in the pre-1950s "sugar-coated" era. Again, the now-accepted role of antioxydants in preventing cancer and heart problems came from Pauling research. As does the recently increased recommendation for magnesium in women's diets. The man was not working outside his area with his actual nutrient claims (as opposed to what has been claimed that he claimed).

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Nevermind, Darrel - I totally agree with your original premise (that someone can be an expert in one area and a total fruitloop outside that area), I just disagree with your example. I've told you my reasons, you've told me yours. We each think our own is correct and can't understand why the other doesn't see it that way. I'd like to leave it there, because otherwise it has the potential to get unpleasant and I like and admire you too much to want to go that direction.

[Dardedar]

and Linus Pauling didn't say that vitamin C, by itself, could "cure" anything.

DAR
Again:

"At the time, Linus was promoting his claim that "75% of all cancer can be prevented and cured by vitamin C alone."

--Robinson AB. Nutrition and Cancer. Nutrition and Cancer Web site, Dec 1999. Link

Pauling was a biochemist.

DAR
That doesn't make him an expert in cancer research.

Vitamin C wasn't Pauling's main focus, just the one his attackers used to villify him.

DAR
That's true. He didn't just peddle quack ideas about vitamin C and cancer, he also peddled quack benefits of taking mega doses other vitamins.

Again:

"A flyer distributed in 1991 by the Linus Pauling Institute recommended daily doses of 6,000 to 18,000 mg of vitamin C, 400 to 1,600 IU of vitamin E, and 25,000 IU of vitamin A, plus various other vitamins and minerals. These dosages have no proven benefit and can cause troublesome side effects." ibid

Between the deliberate "strawman" arguments produced by (I'm assuming, since they're the logical ones) the food industry and the anti-establishments folks who greeted them as gospel, nutritional research was set back a good two decades - and we are now reaping the reward in the obesity "epidemic", Type II diabetes in 10-year-olds, and the myriad diet-related health issues now facing this nation.

DAR
I certainly think Americans have a crappy diet but the idea that obesity and diabetes have anything to do with people not taking mega doses of vitamins is just absurd and laughable.

Most of the things Darrel and Doug quoted were responses to the strawmen.

DAR
You don't give a single example.

(In Doug's case, also a hopefully honest researcher who violently disagreed with Pauling over some apparently joint research.)

DAR
Apparent? Robinson, co-founder and first president of Pauling's Institute of Medicine (a creationist nut I have roasted on this forum before) had a major falling out with Pauling, sued him and won a pretty large settlement for libel. All explained at the link given above.
It's not just Robinson who disagreed with Pauling regarding his false vitamin C claims. All good scientists do. Consider: although Pauling's trophy shelf is full with every sort of scientific award and achievement he is not known for any cancer prevention/cure breakthrough. If his claims regarding this were true, he would be.

Pauling wasn't a brilliant man in his youth who dwindled into fads in his senility.

DAR
I don't know if senility had anything to do with him succumbing to quackery and I am not making that claim. Getting religious and emotional about a belief and letting it get the better of you, even if you have a well trained scientific mind, can happen to anyone as this Pauling example shows. I think this "alternative" medicine category becomes a religion for some (and you might as well admit you are part of the clergy). This stuff is in the alternative category because it hasn't been rigorously shown to work. When it is shown to work it gets moved out of the alternative row and into the accepted row you can promote it without being called a quack. If you peddle it after it is shown not to work, you are a pernicious quack. This reminds me of a personal example I gave in this forum in 12/06:

"I know of a local experience of a person dying because of buying into the quackery.... In the early 90's Scot Sinclair, editor/owner of the newspaper The Grapevine had an accident on his bicycle and got a good scrape on his leg. Doctors cleaned the wound and sent him home with antibiotics. He took extra vitamin C instead. Then he waited too long to go back after it became infected. The gangrene spread quickly once it entered his lymph."

He died within about a day later. This is vitamin C quackery.

Vitamin C - as a chemical Pauling was researching - was not out of his area of biochemical expertise...

DAR
I'm having a little trouble with this leap from "biochemist" to someone who is a medical specialist in cancer prevention or cure. More importantly, he demonstrated himself to not be a specialist in cancer prevention or cure. This is why his "Orthomolecular medicine" is relatively unknown outside of alternative (mostly quack) circles.

What makes Pauling's actual (as opposed to propagandists') claims easy meat for the propagandists is that there are very few medical doctors who have even as much nutritional training as I do...

DAR
I think what makes Pauling's actual claims easy meat for detractors is the fact that his mega dose claims are false.

D.
------------------------
His own institute putting as much sugar on it as they can:

"Later he became convinced of ascorbate's value in combating the flu, cancer, cardiovascular disease, infections, and degenerative problems in the aging process. He added other micronutrients, such as vitamin E and the B vitamins, to his list of helpful supplements and published two other popular books and a number of papers, both scientific and popular, on nutritional therapy. As happened during his earlier efforts in awakening the public to the dangers of nuclear weapons, Pauling's pronouncements on the subject of nutritional medicine were often assailed by physicians and physicians' organizations that ignored his long and insightful involvement with the biochemistry of human health and much of the published studies. They often dismissed his ideas as quackery."
Linus Pauling Institute