"I used to think vitamins had been thoroughly studied for their health trade-offs. They haven't. The reason you take one multivitamin pill a day is marketing, not science."
What the hell has he been reading? Clearly not enough.
In the 1930s vitamins and biochemistry suddenly appeared. By 1948 it had been shown one cures polio with 100% efficacy and zero side effects. But, the commercial pressure from the pharma companies who stood to make billions suppressed it. There are thousands of clinical reports that show clearly some vitamins in therapeutic doses have a rather dramatic effect.
In Japan for example they've treated MRSA with IV C with striking success and they keep asking why no American journal will publish it.
Scott doesn't have enough of a biochem background and hasn't read enough to know what's what. The levels in a multivitamin are too low to be useful, so I guess we agree they're worthless.
In the last 5 years, fish oil, niacin and bad gut flora have been recognized by the medical industry; prior to that they were ridiculed as "alternative" medicine for 100, 50 and 35 years respectively. It takes generations for new advances to filter out to the medical establishment and if Adams had done the proper reading he's see where science hasn't failed us, marketing has. Foster's work on HIV or Shaefer and Potter's work on cancer would open anyones eyes who knew enough to understand what they've written.
First and foremost, what do you think stoped Ebola, Scott? It wasn't a vaccine.
was not found.
"Klenner's paper (Klenner FR. The treatment of poliomyelitis and other virus diseases with vitamin C. J. South. Med. and Surg., 111:210-214, 1949.) on curing 60 cases of polio in the epidemic of 1948 should have changed the way infectious diseases were treated but it did not." - Robert Cathcart
That's amazing! Why are they still messing around with antibiotics to combat MRSA then if they already know that IV C works?
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ne...
It's not all a conspiracy...