View Single Post
Old 04-11-2005, 05:54 PM   #16
HubbleRules HubbleRules is offline
Senior Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 711
HubbleRules HB User
Re: The other side of high cholesterol


I'm with you!!

I place much more confidence in studies about natural remedies than in any study funded by a profit-seeking pharmaceutical company, or which was conducted by researchers who take consulting fees or accept funding from the pharmaceuticals. The financial conflict-of-interest that the FDA and many clinical-study research groups have with the pharmaceuticals today is incestuous to say the least.

The profits on drugs are so astronomical, that the pressure to push them on an unsuspecting public is overwhelming. Statins alone are a $27 BILLION dollar industry.... Like they say, money talks!!!

Congress didn't demand public hearings last summer about drug-saftey and the FDA's inability to protect the public from dangerous drugs for nothing. By the time congress gets involved, a situation is not just serious, it's damn near critical.

I think there is something about the efficacy of high-dose vitamin-c and l-lysine in reducing the risk of CHD. Several independent, non-pharmaceutical-tainted studies to date have indicated such a reduction in CHD - but only when the vitamin dosage was sufficient.

I believe these studies much more than anything funded by the makers of Baycol, Vioxx, or Celebrex et al.

By the way, the pharmaceuticals provide the vast majority of the funding for the New Drug Approval division of the FDA. If you were an employee in this division, would you dare to publish findings that reflected negatively on a new drug at the expense of having your department funding slashed by the pharmaceuticals, and your job put at risk? Or would you slant the research in favor of the drug and keep your job? Would you dare to conduct a study that applauded the benefits of a low-cost alternative to the drug (to wit, Vitamin-C)?? Congress is seriously considering (and rightly so) taking the funding of this FDA division out of the hands of the drug companies. THey are also considering funding post-approval studies of drugs to monitor their safety - something the FDA DOES NOT DO TODAY (as incredible as that sounds).

Once you understand this simple, but overwhelmingly powerful, financial conflict of interest plauguing the drug-approval process as it stands today, you begin to accept most clinical trials of drugs only with a huge grain of salt (and maybe a side-order of a mind-altering drug).

I think it will take years, but eventually, I think Pauling's therapy will be vindicated.