Nutritherapies – Dr. Linus Pauling – Double Nobel Prize

### Dr. Linus PAULING :Unified Theory of Cardiovascular Disease

Part 1

## Dr Linus Pauling’s Unified Theory of Cardiovascular Disease, from:

Over ten years ago, the two-time Nobel prize Laureate, Dr Linus Pauling and his associate Dr Matthias Rath, advocated and published a definitive thesis on the root cause, treatment, and actual cure for all forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD), including congestive heart failure, heart disease, and stroke.

Today, cardiovascular related health problems together comprise fully one half of all causes of death in the US. Pauling and Rath’s brilliant analysis of CVD is absolutely compelling and amply supported by numerous epidemiological and clinical studies. His unified theory of CVD constitutes one of the greatest breakthroughs in modern science, and yet has been almost completely ignored by the mainstream medical establishment, and received almost no press.

# Paulings Unparalleled Credentials

Most doctors and other medical practitioners have not even heard the truth about CVD that Dr Pauling so convincingly revealed. This might be understandable if Pauling was just some anonymous unheard-of crackpot, lacking any serious credentials or reputation. But to the contrary, Pauling was one of the all-time greats of science. He was listed by the British Journal of Science in their list of the top 20 greatest scientists of all time.

Pauling was the father of modern chemistry, unifying the fields of quantum mechanics and chemistry to reveal our modern understanding of chemical bonding and the synthesis of molecular compounds. His early work contributed greatly to the field genetics and our understanding of the double helix structure of DNA.

Pauling was thirty years ahead of his time when he ushered in the modern era of alternative medicine with his concept of orthomolecular medicine and mega vitamin therapy. Orthomolecular medicine describes the practice of preventing and treating disease by providing the body with optimal amounts of substances, which are natural to the body. Linus Pauling first introduced the term, “orthomolecular” in a paper he wrote in the journal Science in 1968. This paper first described the theoretical foundations for what was later to become a specialty within complementary medicine.

In the sixties, Pauling waged almost single handedly a successful crusade against atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons; warning of the future fallout in the form of genetic diseases, cancers and numerous other serious health problems. His relentless work in this area yielded nuclear test banning treaties among the Soviets, US and other major powers, resulting in a cleaner, safer environment for us all.

Pauling was a scientist with uncommon vision and foresight matched by few in history. He had an unrivaled determination to cut through established beliefs and fallacies to get to the truth of any matter of his focus. When he reviewed peer scientific studies he always drew his own conclusions and tested the evidence, not to be swayed or fooled by preconceived conclusions.

Only now, thirty years after he introduced the concepts of orthomolecular medicine, has the mainstream medical community even begun to stir a little and recognize the huge value of essential vitamins and nutrients in high doses for the prevention of numerous medical conditions. Pauling bucked mainstream opinion and wisdom in many areas of science, chemistry, medicine, and politics. And more often than not he proved to be well ahead of his time. When Pauling first advocated mega-doses of Vitamin C back in the seventies as a cure for the common cold, he was poo-pooed and mocked by the mainstream medical community, and yet today millions of people worldwide have discovered the benefits of Paulings advice. Still a healthy and vigorous man in his late 80s and early 90s, during his last years, Dr Linus Pauling with his fellow collaborator, Dr Rath, published “A Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular Disease Leading the Way to the Abolition of This Disease as a Cause for Human Mortality”.

This monumental work has largely gone unnoticed because of the entrenched opinions and dogma of the mainstream medical community and their overseers, the multi-billion dollar international pharmaceutical industry. The fact that you have probably not heard about this discovery in the mainstream media is disturbing and speaks volumes on the power of big money and the effectiveness of the pharmaceutical industry’s disinformation campaigns.

# The Only Patent for the Cure of Cardiovascular Disease

Pauling and Raths theory of CVD is so scientifically compelling and demonstrable that in 1994 they were granted the only US patent for the cure of cardiovascular disease. This was no small feat since the US Office of Patents will only grant a patent for an invention that has been demonstrated to work. The non-prescription therapy advocated by Pauling and Rath has become know as the Pauling Therapy. The efficacy of the Pauling Therapy has been amply proven in thousands of cardiovascular patients who have been so fortunate to discover the remarkable treatment. The Pauling and Rath heart protocols in lower dosage levels will prevent cardiovascular disease and in higher dosages will actually reverse arterial plaque build up and reverse heart disease!

Heart patients moving to the Pauling Therapy commonly avoid open-heart surgery and angioplasty. This is accomplished by dealing directly with the root causes of CVD and arterial plaque buildup. Almost without exception patients experience rapid recovery.

– The entire article from lifespandynamics news letter

– Owen’s Heart Disease CURE Article

– Pauling’s Video Lecture

– Lp(a) Binding Inhibitors For Sale

Monitor the War between Health and Medicine – Daily

## Linus Pauling, The Last Interview, 1994, The Institute for Optimum Nutrition

Q. When you published ‘Vitamin C and the Common Cold’ what did you expect that to do to medical thinking?

When my book was published near the end of 1970, 1 thought the medical profession and ordinary people would be pleased. They would be pleased that they no longer were suffering the miseries of the common cold and related diseases and the physicians would be pleased in that they were no longer bothered by patients with the common cold for which they didn’t have any very good treatment anyway, but could concentrate on more serious illnesses. So I was astonished at the reception that I got when the Professor of Medicine at Mount Sinai College of Medicine wrote to me complaining aboutmy statement that vitamin C, three grams a day would provide considerable protection against the common cold.

I checked the medical literature to find what evidence there was at that time. I found four controlled trials, recently well conducted trials, involving what I would describe now as rather small amounts of vitamin C per day of between 200mg and a 1,000mg per day. I think that the best one of these four early trials was done by Dr Ritzel, the physician for the school system in Basle, Switzerland. he gave 270 schoolboys at a winter ski camp either a gram of vitamin C per day, in a capsule or a placebo. It was a randomized double-blind, controlled trial and with each boy the nurse made sure that the boys swallowed the capsule so that he didn’t have the trouble that other investigators have of the boys, boys especially, not swallowing the capsule but instead, trading them back and forth so that you, the investigators, didn’t know which one had received the vitamin C and which the placebo. The result was 63 per cent less illness with the common cold for the boys who received the vitamin C compared to those who received the placebo. Well, this was a very good trial.

In a paper by a Professor of medicine at the University of Helsinki, Finland about vitamin C and the common cold, he mentioned the publication of my book and said that he had decided to check the medical literature to find out how many studies had been carried out since 1970 on the effectiveness of vitamin C against the common cold . He decided that he would accept only studies in which at least 1 gram a day of vitamin C was given, some of the studies involved 2 grams, perhaps one involved 3 grams a day but mostly they were 1 gram a day of vitamin C in which a placebo was given to half of the subjects and the studies that were randomized and double-blind so that neither the physicians nor the subjects knew which persons were getting the vitamin C. He found 38 clinical trials had been carried out since 1970 satisfying these requirements. 37 of the 38 trials lead to the conclusion that vitamin C had a protective effect greater than the placebo and a number of these, a dozen of these clinical trials had high statistical significance at p=3D0.001- that means 99.9 per cent confidence that the result wasn’t just a statistical fluctuation, a chance result.

There is no doubt now that vitamin C in large doses has value against the common cold. My recommendation is not 1 gram a day, or 2 grams a day of vitamin C but at the first sign of a cold, take a gram of vitamin C or 2 grams and then an hour later, if the symptoms still exist – if you’re still sneezing, or your nose is running or feel shivery, take another 1 or 2 grams of vitamin C. Keep doing that until you forget because the symptoms have gone away and this will stop a cold in almost every person who follows the regimen.

Q. What do you feel about the major criticism that anything over 100mg of vitamin C is a waste of money and goes down the drain because It’s eliminated by the body?

The evidence shows that this is just not true. I myself, twenty years ago or more, read this statement, probably made by Fred Stare, professor then at Harvard School of Public Health, and I decided to check. I was taking 10 grams per day of vitamin C. I collected my urine for 24 hours and analyzed it myself for the vitamin C content. Instead of nearly 10,000mg being eliminated in the urine, 9850mg, I found only 1,500mg, 15 per cent of the dose that I was taking during this trial, so the statement just is not true. Of course, some of the ingested ascorbate remains in the intestinal contents and doesn’t get into the blood stream. It may be as much as a third. Some evidence indicates that perhaps as much as a third remains in the intestinal contents. Well, this does good, protecting the lower bowel against cancer by destroying carcinogens that are present in the fecal material and also does good because of the laxative effect of bringing water into the bowel so that the volume of the waste material is larger. There’s also a smaller surface area which helps speed up the process of elimination of this material. The rest of it, two thirds perhaps 6.5 grams when I was taking 10 grams a day, gets into the blood stream but only 1.5 grams is eliminated in the urine. So we can ask what happens to the other 5 grams? The answer I’m sure, in fact we have direct experimental evidence for it, is that vitamin C is rapidly converted into other substances, oxidation products and these other substances, these oxidation products have been shown to have greater value against cancer than vitamin C itself. So if you take large doses of vitamin C you produce large amounts of these other substances, the value of which is still under investigation. We have been studying it for fifteen years.

Q. Why has your work on nutrients been countered. Is It ignorance, is It prestige, is It money interests? Why Is It being suppressed?

Well I have thought about that a great deal. Most scientists in general have accepted my idea and ideas of other pioneers. Of course I took over my ideas mainly from Irwin Stone and other early investigators of vitamin C. So scientists have said usually “Well Linus Pauling has been right so often in the past, he’s probably right about this too”. But then an ordinary physician, has the duty of dividing his time and energy for the proper care of his patients. He doesn’t have time to read the literature, the scientific and medical literature, and think about a question such as whether there is something new and significant that has been discovered. He has to rely on medical and nutritional authorities and I blame them for having been lazy and biased, and not really willing to keep up with new developments. But why are they biased? Well I decided, 40 or 50 years ago, that when they were trying to understand the action of drugs and also of nutrients, they realized that you give a drug in the amount as large as possible so that its toxicity does not kill a patient in the hope that it will save the patient’s life. And there are certain drugs that have great value in protecting against certain diseases. There is no doubt that these drugs have great value. Doctors and investigators have worked hard to determine what the proper dose of a drug is. Now with vitamin C for example, I am sure they said we know what vitamin C does. It keeps people from dying from scurvy and investigators have studied human beings enough to know how much vitamin C they need to give in order to prevent the development of scurvy. It isn’t much, just a little pinch each day so they say we know the answer with vitamins just as with drugs. And the answers are the RDAs, 60 mg a day of vitamin C to prevent scurvy, and 2mg of a day of thiamin, vitamin B1, to prevent beriberi and so on. What they did not do was to ask this question: here is a substance which has no known toxicity, which can be taken in 1000 times the RDA, the amount that stops people developing scurvy, without causing harm to a person. Is there a possibility that very large doses of vitamin C and the B vitamins and vitamin A, beta carotene and vitamin E, would have much additional value in improving the health of the people? Twenty five years ago, when I became interested in vitamins, it was just that question that interested me. I looked in the medical and nutritional literature to find out how much vitamin C a person should take in order to be in the best health, perhaps to control diseases other than scurvy. I couldn’t find anything and the result, of course, is for 25 years I have devoted much of my life and time and energy trying to find the answer to the. question – how much of these very powerful and important substances should we take to be in the best of health?

Q. How would you compare your vision of orthomolecular medicine and conventional medicine?

One of my colleagues in the field of orthomolecular medicine invented the word ‘toximolecular’ medicine to describe conventional medicine and this seems to me to be good in that conventional medical practice relies heavily on drugs, all of which essentially are toxic substances. It’s hard for me to think of an example of a drug that is like the vitamins in having nearly zero toxicity. With aspirin, some patients with severe arthritis are advised by the physician to take as much as 10 grams of aspirin a day and it’s my memory that the LD50, the amount that would kill 50 per cent of patients, is 28 grams of aspirin and that’s why many people commit suicide by taking an overdose, a whole bottle full aspirin tablets. So I think that’s a good description of conventional medicine.

I’m not against drugs when they are properly used and have said so over and over again. We advocate for every patient with cancer taking high doses of vitamin C as an adjunct to appropriate conventional therapy and I agree with Dr Cameron that surgery – he was a surgeon – surgery is often the best treatment for a malignant condition if the malignant tumor can be removed and sometimes, for a few kinds of cancer, chemotherapy is known to have much value and, for some kinds, high energy radiation has value even though chemotherapy and high energy radiation have pretty serious side effects, are damaging to the body as a whole, nevertheless, the benefit may outweigh the disadvantages.

Q. Tell us about the work of your associate Dr Jariwalla on HIV?

I was very pleased that Dr Jariwalla should have carried out some work in our laboratory on vitamin C and human immunodeficiency virus. They carried out experiments on the virus growing in cells in the laboratory and showing that there were as much as a 99 per cent suppression of the development of the virus in the cells when you had high, large amounts of ascorbate, vitamin C, in the medium – amounts that you could achieve in the bloodstream by giving a large oral intake. This result was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Long before Dr Jariwalla did this work, I had written to the president of Wellcome, the manufacturer of AZT, saying that we had some evidence that high dose vitamin C helped to control the disease and perhaps if it were given along with AZT it would be more effective than AZT alone. For one thing, we know with other chemotherapeutic agents, that high dose vitamin C helps control the side effects.

I got no answer.

Only a small fraction of people who are HIV positive develop AIDS. I don’t know that any study has been made, such as has been made with some other diseases, to determine whether the ones who then go on to develop full blown AIDS are people who are low in plasma ascorbate, plasma vitamin C. Maybe that they are. At any rate, I think that HIV positive people should be taking vitamin C up to the bowel tolerance level and that people who have developed AIDS, should be taking very large amounts, again up to their bowel tolerance level. It is much cheaper, of course, to take fifty grams a day, that’s only a dollar a day, two cents a gram, $365 dollars a year. AZT used to cost about $10,000 dollars per person. Vitamin C costs very little in comparison with AZT.

Q. Now you are recommending vitamin C and lysine for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.
How exactly does lysine help to prevent cardiovascular disease?

Many investigators contributed to showing that lipoprotein A is what is deposited in plaques, not just LDL, but lipoprotein A. If you have more than 20mg/dI in your blood it begins depositing plaques and atherosclerosis so the question then is what causes lipoprotein A to stick to the wall of the artery and cause these plaques? Well countless biochemists and other chemists are pretty smart people and they discovered what it is in the wall of the artery that causes lipoprotein A to get stuck to the wall of the artery and form atherosclerotic plaques and ultimately lead to heart disease, strokes and peripheral arterial disease. The answer is there is a particular amino acid in a protein in the wall of the artery – lysine, which is one of the twenty amino acids that binds the lipoprotein A and causes atherosclerotic plaques to develop. I think it is a very important discovery.

Well, now, if you know that there are residues of lysine, lysyl residues, that hold the lipoprotein A to the wall of the artery and cause hardening of the arteries, then any chemist, any physical chemist would say at once that the thing to do is to prevent that by puffing the amino acid lysine in the blood to greater extent than is normally. Of course you get lysine normally in your food. Meat in particular contains a good bit of lysine. And you need lysine to be alive, it is an essential amino acid, you have to get about a gram a day to keep in protein balance, but you can take lysine, pure lysine, a perfectly non toxic substance in food, as 500mg tablets and that puts extra lysine molecules in the blood. They enter into competition with the lysyl residues on the wall of artery and accordingly count to prevent the lipoproteinA from being deposited or even will work to pull it loose and destroy the atherosclerotic plaques.

Q. Do you think the treatment of lysine and vitamin C can reverse the atherosclerotic process?

I think so. Yes. Now I’ve got to the point where I think we can get almost complete control of cardiovascular disease, heart attacks and strokes by the proper use of vitamin C and lysine. It can prevent cardiovascular disease and even cure it. If you are at risk of heart disease, or if there is a history of heart disease in your family, if your father or other members of the family died of a heart attack or stroke or whatever, or if you have a mild heart attack yourself then you had better be taking vitamin. C and lysine.

Q. How do you decide how much vitamin C Is right for you and, If you take 3 grams should It be split throughout the day?

In my opinion adults should be taking at least 2 grams a day. There is much evidence about increased health with 2 grams a day, and of course even more with 4 or 6 grams a day . Even an extra 60mg had been shown to add value in cutting down the death rate from heart disease, cancer and other diseases. Now my feeling is as people grow older they ought to be increasing their vitamin C and perhaps they should follow the policy that I have followed of increasing the intake. It can be either one chunk, one dose in the morning, or even better three doses throughout the day, increasing the intake until a laxative effect is observed, speeding up the rate of elimination of waste material from the bowel. So my suggestion is every person who wants to have the best of health should increase the intake of vitamin C to somewhat less than the amount that causes significant looseness of the bowel.

Q. How do you think your opponents will remember you?

Molecular biologists will of course remember me as one of the founders of molecular biology, and chemists in general will remember me as one of the founders of modern chemistry, changing it from a pretty descriptive to a far more rational sort of science, and physicians will remember me as having been at least in part, responsible for the revolution in medicine in which there is a great improvement in human health and in control of disease through the use of vitamin C and other vitamins. This will include my opponents, although the opponents may have died off by that time.

Excerpts from interviews with Tony Edwards for QED BBC Television, and with Patrick Holford at the Power of Prevention conference.

Transcribed by Chris Gupta . Pauling Therapy

### REMARK from:

The Difference Between Dr. Linus Pauling’s Recommendations and the Linus Pauling Institute’s Recommendation for Vitamin C Intake.

Dr. Pauling, for whom the Linus Pauling Institute has great respect, based his own recommendations for vitamin C largely on theoretical arguments. In developing his recommendations, he used cross-species comparisons, evolutionary arguments, the concept of biochemical individuality, and the amount of vitamin C likely consumed in a raw plant food diet. Using this approach, Dr. Pauling suggested in the early 1970s that the optimum daily intake may be about 2,000 milligrams of vitamin C and that everyone should get at least 200-250 mg/day. In a 1974 radio interview, he noted that “the first 250 mg is more important than any later 250 mg. The first 250 mg leads you up to the level where the blood is saturated. You can achieve a higher volume [concentration] in the blood by a larger intake, but you get much better improvement for the first 250 mg than for additional grams.”

Dr. Pauling significantly increased his recommendation in his 1986 book “How To Live Longer and Feel Better”. At the Linus Pauling Institute, we have based our vitamin C recommendations on the current body of scientific evidence, which is significantly greater than it was at Pauling’s time but remains incomplete owing to the many diverse functions of vitamin C in the human body that have yet to be fully understood.

In this context, it is important to note that data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have indicated that vitamin C levels in plasma and circulating cells become fully saturated at intakes of about 400 mg/day in young, healthy nonsmokers. These observations are consistent with other data that intakes of about 400 mg/day are associated with reduced risk of heart disease. While these NIH studies are the best we currently have regarding the pharmacokinetics of vitamin C in the human body, they have numerous limitations, including the fact that they are based on a small number of young, healthy men and women. We currently do not know how much vitamin C is required to achieve saturation of cells and tissues in children, older adults, and diseased or stressed individuals. A recent meta-analysis of 36 studies on the relationship between vitamin C intake and plasma concentrations found that the elderly require a substantially higher daily intake of vitamin C to attain plasma concentrations that younger adults achieve at a lower intake. Additionally, work by Linus Pauling Institute investigators has shown that cellular uptake of vitamin C declines with age, supporting the notion that vitamin C requirements are increased in the elderly.

Therefore, the Linus Pauling Institute’s intake recommendation of at least 400 mg/day of vitamin C for generally healthy adults takes into account the currently available epidemiological, biochemical, and clinical evidence, while acknowledging the extremely low toxicity of vitamin C and the incomplete information regarding optimum intake. It should also be noted that the Linus Pauling Institute’s recommendation is strictly directed towards prevention of disease in healthy individuals, not treatment of disease. Thus, individuals suffering from certain diseases may require substantially larger amounts of vitamin C to achieve optimum body levels or derive therapeutic benefits, areas that were of great interest to Linus Pauling and need to be further explored.

Last updated 01/27/04Copyright 2000-2004 by the Linus Pauling Institute

### PAULING THERAPY Synopsis: The Reader’s Digest Version

“It is an established fact… There is a simple, inexpensive, cure and preventive for heart disease and other circulatory diseases, and a path to faster recovery for stroke victims. To understand why this simple regimen works requires understanding why cardiovascular disease occurs.”
Jon Cambell. [Read Jon’s entire overview at]

Linus Pauling invented a putative cure for Heart Disease in 1991 which was announced 1993-1994. [Overview]

Pauling’s claim that specific orthomolecular or non-toxic food substances, called Lp(a) binding inhibitors, taken orally will prevent, resolve, and even dissolve existing atherosclerotic plaque build-ups is based on scientific research that began in the late 1930s in Canada.

Three United States of America Patents have now been granted on the Pauling/Rath method.

Pauling’s announcement was made after experiments with guinea pigs, who like humans can not make their own vitamin C, proved cardiovascular disease can be caused by inadequate vitamin C in our diet.

The two primary “Lp(a) binding inhibitor” are the amino acids lysine and proline. Vitamin C is need to heal and activate lysine and proline.

The therapeutic dosage is 5-6 g each of vitamin C and lysine. Some people require even more vitamin C (See BOWEL TOLERANCE at ).

Smaller dosages will have less effect. Pauling recommended 3 g each of vitamin C and lysine daily as a preventive measure.

Reports since 1991 indicate that the Pauling Therapy works as a cure by itself, but in theory, Pauling’s protocol makes an ideal oral adjunct to EDTA Chelation therapy and other more conventional therapies for all forms of cardiovascular disease, except intra arterial radiation.

Early Canadian scientists recognized that plaques are uniform. Usually near the heart where the blood vessels are stretched and bent, implicating high blood pressures and the mechanical stress caused by the heart beat. These peer reviewed findings were ignored.

The 1985 Brown-Goldstein Nobel prize in Medicine led to the subsequent discovery of the Lysine Binding sites on the Lipoprotein(a) cholesterol molecule. We know now that atherosclerotic plaques deposit in response to injury and that plaque is part of a healing process.

It is unlikely that the primary cause of the lesions leading to heart disease are “poisons” circulating in the blood. We know that plaque does not form randomly. Heart by-pass operations replace only a few inches of blood vessel near the heart (coronary arteries). In a heart bypass, leg veins are used which are without plaque. Early scientists felt that the reason for the localized lesions is mechanical stress, the heart beat, not cholesterol or other “poisons in the blood.

Mainstream medical science has known since 1989 that Lp(a) (not LDL cholesterol) binds to form atherosclerotic plaques. Pauling and Rath have identified Lp(a) as an evolutionary surrogate for low vitamin C in humans.

Modern medicine has been misguided about vitamin C since the 1940s. Pauling in 1970 informed us that vitamin C in sufficient amounts can alleviate colds. Medical “science” disagrees. Ordinary people who experience substantial relief for themselves lost faith and trust in Medical “science” leading to the alternative medicine movement.

It is a fact that vitamin C is required, and used up, as the body makes the super protein collagen. Adequate collagen is required for the health of blood vessels. According to the Pauling/Rath Unified Theory, the root cause of atherosclerotic plaque deposits is a vitamin C deficiency: chronic, not acute. The correct terminology for cardiovascular (heart) disease is “chronic scurvy” or “sub clinical scurvy”.

Heart disease is unknown in most animal species. Pauling and Rath think humans are less resistant than other animals to arterial damage from mechanical stress (caused by the heart beat) because they become deficient in a specific protein caused by a specific vitamin deficiency. A vitamin C deficiency is impossible in most animals!

The Pauling mega-nutrient therapy to counter Lp(a) increases blood concentrations of important substances that will:

# Strengthen and heal blood vessels,

# Lower Lp(a) blood levels and keep Lp(a) levels low, and

# Inhibit the binding of Lp(a) molecules to the walls of blood vessels.

# Vitamin C is required for healing the lesion, primarily through the collagen pathway.

# Lysine and proline work to unbind Lp(a) from the arterial wall.

Unlike ordinary drugs, there are no health risks. These substances are required for life.

The Pauling Therapy is so safe, and the medical condition so grave, there is no reason why any physician should resist it, especially in otherwise hopeless cases.

By “cured” we mean that as first described on the LINUS PAULING VIDEO ON HEART DIEASE: A UNIFIED THEORY End-stage CVD patients report the complete cessation of their angina pain, color returns, blood pressure drops, blood flow increases, blockages disappear, heart rates drop, lipid profiles normalize, energy increases as does the sense of well being. Patients who had failed now pass treadmill stress tests without surgery or any other medical intervention. Patients barely able to walk before the Pauling therapy report that within months they can dig fence post holes and cut down trees. Over time, elevated Lp(a) lowers. Some doctors have even told such patients that new blood vessels have “grown” as an explanation for the increased blood flow to the coronary arteries feeding the heart.

Linus Pauling’s 1992 video describes these findings.


Most cardiologist tell their patients that there is no “proven” value in taking vitamin C for heart disease. Technically, this statement may be accurate, but it is misleading. The implication is that experiments have been run that prove vitamin C has no value. No such experiments have ever been run. On the contrary, all the research and experiments we know of provide compelling evidence that vitamin C does, in fact, have great value.

Heart by-pass operations and angioplasty were never clinically “proven” before being adopted by the medical profession.

The medical profession refuses to acknowledge the Pauling/Rath discovery and the drug companies don’t want it publicized, because it challenges the huge investment in the conventional treatment of cardiovascular diseases – heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and numerous other circulatory diseases.

Regrettably, not a single study has been conducted to investigate the high-dose Pauling protocol. Instead, all this is dismissed a priori as “quackery.

This discovery puts a dagger through the heart of the pharmaceutical industry and Medicine’s oft made claim to be based on “science.” Every pharmaceutical employee and investor, cardiologist and heart surgeon has a vested interest in their part of the $326 billion spent annually on heart disease. Should the Pauling discovery become widely known, there will be a revolution in medicine. Cardiology and heart surgery will not survive in their present form.

We are not doctors. In 1995, when we reported what Pauling had said and written, we did not know if Pauling was correct.

We now know. Pauling nailed it.

Intelisoft Multimedia is now willing wager against others who might think otherwise. Amount negotiable. Winner takes all. Should any person or entity wish to accept this challenge and pit any competing therapy, treatment or protocol against Pauling’s, in a clinical trial setting with end-stage cardiovascular patients, contact us . Terms negotiable.

There are only two up-front stipulations:

1. The competing protocol may not include vitamin C (above the RDA), lysine or proline (or synthetic analogs), and

2. The subjects in the Pauling Therapy group must not have been treated with any intra-arterial radiation therapy to stem restenosis.

We will fund the Pauling protocol subjects. Antagonist fund the patients on their protocol.

Our Prediction: Over 90% of the patients (n greater than 30) on the high dose Pauling vitamin C/lysine protocol will be “cured” within 30 days as measured by: lowered Arterial Stiffness (ASI measured using FDA approved Cardiovision), reductions in Chest pain, increased mobility, improved sense of well being, etc.

Pauling Therapy FORMULA we will use for our study group

[Another, very easy to read overview by Jon Cambell at]

The Crimes Against Humanity Mass murder and the Title 18 Genocide Statute.

### Talking Your Cardiologist Out of Drugs and Surgery

How to Talk Your Cardiologist out of Drugs and Surgery
Excerpt from the Pauling-therapy Handbook

Copyright 2005 by Owen Richard Fonorow

The Scenario

A person wearing a white lab coat has just uttered, “massive cardiovascular disease.” Perhaps you have survived a recent heart attack. You and your family are frightened. Slowly more words, “Ticking time bomb.” “High cholesterol.” “Elevated enzymes.” “Eminent death.” The cardiologist recommends that you immediately begin taking three or four drugs, including a “life saving” statin, cholesterol-lowering drug. You are given “priority” scheduling for various diagnostic tests, such as a treadmill “stress test” or “angiogram.” Depending on the outcome of these tests, you may be a candidate for either an “angioplasty” procedure or a coronary bypass-graph operation.

According to statistics published by the American Heart Association, the above scenario plays out more than 1000 times every day in the United States. Most patients are scared to death. They and their families do not realize that the knowledge cardiologists have regarding heart disease is filtered to them by medical journals and pharmaceutical interests. There are safer alternatives to risky heart medications and surgery, but you are unlikely to hear about them from your doctor. Your objective should be to inform your doctor about the Linus Pauling therapy, and then secure her agreement to try this alternative approach first, under direct medical supervision.

It is possible to soften the average medical doctor’s resistance to alternative treatments.
You must

a) know the risks ,
b) ask your doctor detailed questions about each risk ,
and then c) request medical supervision while you adopt a much safer alternative.

Most people trustingly accept heart medication that is routinely prescribed by cardiologists. Even doctors may not be aware of some of the risks in the medications they prescribe. Use the Internet/library to study the risks as if your life depends upon it, because it does. The more you know, the better.

The best approach is to ask the doctor intelligent questions about each and every known or potential risk. With your notes in hand, meet with and ask your doctor questions, first general, then detailed specific questions, such as the ones in the following papagraphs. For added effect, bring a tape recorder. Ask your physician if she would be willing to have her answers recorded. If not, bring a note pad and take copious notes.

Be persistent. For example, after the doctor responds to your first general question “Can you tell me the risks in the procedures and drugs that you are recommending?” you must follow up the usual canned answer, “the risks from the drugs and testing procedures are minimal,” with more specific questions.

We suggest asking all of the following:

1. How often do people have strokes or die during or immediately after heart surgery or angioplasty? (Consider that 2% of 400,000 procedures is 8000! The number for the “less risky” angioplasty is 3.2% to 6.2%, depending on the drugs administered.)

2. “What is restenosis? Doesn’t the atherosclerotic plaque grow back, after angioplasty or a coronary bypass surgery, in 40% or more of the cases? Doesn’t the regrowth occlude the coronary arteries even more than before the procedure? What causes this regrowth and what are the odds of restenosis in my case?

3. “What about brain damage? The Discovery Health channel reports that open-heart-surgery, using a heart-lung machine, leads to diminished brain function in more than 40% of those undergoing these operations. Apparently, the risk of brain damage was the reason former President Clinton had the “beating- heart” style heart surgery. What can you tell me about this risk? What kind of surgery are you recommending for me?

4. “How often does the first operation fail? Why are follow-up heart operations often required, as in the case of former President Clinton? How often are follow-up heart surgeries required, and why does fluid build up around the heart?

5. “Don’t statin drugs cause heart failure in many people?
You have recommended that I take a cholesterol-lowering statin drug (e.g. Lipitor, Mevacor, Zocor, Crestor, etc.). Its my understanding that these drugs deplete an important substance called Coenzyme Q10, and that this coenzyme is required for energy in the mitochondria of cells. If there is no coQ10, cells die. I know that a group of medical doctors blame these statin drugs for the recent increase in heart failures. Merck has several patents (1990) on how to overcome the CoQ10 depletion issue by adding CoQ10 to the statin drugs, but these Merck patents have never been implemented. Canada requires warnings about the CoQ10-depletion effect in their drug ads, and I know that the FDA is being sued to require these warnings in American drug ads.
Why would I want to take a drug that depletes my energy and may lead to heart failure?

6. “I read that statins are nothing more than an isolated poison derived from the fungus known as red yeast rice (Monascus purpurus). [*] This plant makes lovostatin to protect itself from predators which die because their cholesterol and CoQ10 decline after ingesting the rice. If statins are nothing more than toxins, why are they so popular?

7. “Why is the Heart Protection Study hiding their raw data? I know from reading letters to the Lancet medical journal that in the more recent studies that are used to justify the “life saving” nature of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the raw study data is being withheld. Prior studies have shown little or no change in overall mortality in the statin groups. [*] The Heart Protection study at Oxford, which is used to justify Zocor ads, has never released its raw study data. Why do they hide their data? Why does medicine tolerate such behavior?

8. “What does it mean when a medical journal says that post-mortem plaques are “more complex?” I read in a medical journal that the Heart Protection Study researchers at Oxford observed, post-mortem, that those taking statin cholesterol-lowering drugs had more “complex” plaques than the placebo group. [*]

9. “Why do cholesterol-lowering drugs elevate, rather than lower Lp(a)? The statin drug ads in Canadian medical journals also have warnings that these drugs will elevate lipoprotein(a). I know that Linus Pauling stated that this form of cholesterol poses the most risk. Please tell me more about Lp(a) cholesterol.

10. “Do you have scientific information about the risks in the newer metal stents that are routinely placed in arteries to keep the artery open? I’ve read that some contain radiation pellets, is this true? What is the radiation for, and how do I know the long-term consequences? Can a stent be taken out once it is inserted? Isn’t restenosis still a problem with stents, even the newer models?

11. “Doctors who promote the alternative EDTA chelation therapy argue that while bypass and angioplasty repair only a few inches of arteries near the heart. EDTA chelation therapy may improve the health of the entire cardiovascular system. Is there a reason we couldn’t try this therapy first?

12. “I’ve read that each year some 500,000 people experience blood infections after an I.V., and that 30,000 die from these infections. What is the record of blood infections in the hospital you are associated with?

13. “Are there any other risks connected with the drugs or invasive procedures that you are likely to recommend that I haven’t mentioned? ”


With all the risks freshly in your physicians mind it is time to suggest a far safer course of action. Ask your doctor to monitor your progress “for a few weeks” as you adopt a less risky, nontoxic, much less expensive, and likely curative alternative therapy.

Linus Pauling identified the problem of heart disease as the human body’s response to chronic vitamin C insufficiency. The Pauling ideas are backed by a sound theory and basic science.

You might say something such as:

“I have read on the Internet that the late scientist Linus Pauling recommended high doses of vitamin C, and lysine, as a means of quickly reversing cardiovascular disease. I know this approach has never been clinically tested, but Pauling remarked that such a test was probably not necessary because the substances are completely non-toxic. You cannot kill an animal with any dose of either vitamin C or lysine.

“Pauling’s recommendations are based on the knowledge of the Lysine Binding Site on the Lipoprotein(a) molecule. I am also aware of thousands of anecdotal reports of great success taking 5 to 6 g of both vitamin C and lysine daily.

“I’d like to try this approach under your supervision before resorting to riskier, and more expensive, medications and procedures. Are you willing to supervise such an experiment for 30 days, and if there is progress, for 3 to six months? If not, why not? ”

If your physician’s primarily interest is your welfare, she will be curious. Many doctors are willing to monitor patient progress for some short period of time. Most won’t believe that “vitamin therapy” will do any good, but they will go along with your suggestion. You can make the most of this opportunity by following the entire Pauling protocol under your doctor’s supervision. Make sure you obtain copies of the initial lab reports.


One problem you may encounter is that your cardiologist has been trained to believe that the likelihood that a vitamin C deficiency causes heart disease is about zero. Medical doctors are apt to consider evolutionary arguments in dismissing the need for vitamin C in daily amounts above the government recommended daily allowance. They may ask how humans evolved to require so much more vitamin C than is available in the ordinary diet. Yet, this same argument carries no weight regarding cholesterol. Your physician readily accepts the notion that your body’s natural production of cholesterol is flawed. Most doctors believe that cholesterol levels need to be lowered by expensive modern pharmaceuticals, even if the only symptom of disease is “high cholesterol.”


If your cardiologist rejects the “absurd” Pauling-therapy suggestion, you might ask another follow-up question about EDTA Chelation Therapy.

“Isn’t the NIH running a large trial on something called EDTA chelation therapy, and isn’t EDTA approved by the FDA for the removal of lead from the body? Some doctors believe that it can also remove heavy metals, and perhaps even calcium. Many alternative doctors and patients rave about the benefits of EDTA. Why don’t you recommend this approach which, if it works, helps the entire cardiovascular system? ”

As the pressure is increased, some physicians may exhibit anger, knowing that few patients wish to provoke anger in their doctors. If your cardiologist becomes angry, ask yourself why should questions regarding potentially safe and effective alternatives elicit anger?

Unfortunately, there are some doctors who will tell you that if your pursue any other course of treatment, other than that which they recommend, they can no longer be your doctor. (It is best to have this declaration recorded on tape). Our best advice is to take them up on their offer and find another physician. (We know that for many types of insurance programs, people don’t have the luxury of changing doctors. Many are forced to go along with the suggested treatment, or risk losing their insurance. In this case, you are out of luck.)

It is hoped that this approach to talking with your doctor about alternatives will help you avoid needless surgery and expensive toxic drugs that generally cause more problems than they solve.

If you found this pamphlet helpful, please let us know. We are interested in patient stories, successes and failures. If you discover more risks, please contact us so that we might include them in future publications.

Owen Fonorow, Naturopath, Ph.D.

Vitamin C Foundation, PO Box 3097, Lisle IL 60532,, 630-416-1438 , Fax: 630-416-1309
Major Web Sites:,,,

# Links to Recent News Stories Describing Risks in Heart Surgery and Heart Medications

· Washington Post:More Heart Devices Malfunction…

· ABCNews: Study Challenges Heart Attack Treatments…

· Johns Hopkins launches study to determine if heart angioplasty is safe … (Aug 2005. Angioplasty has been used for decades, and doctors don’t know whether it is safe?)

· Women are nearly twice as likely as men to die from complications of heart bypass surgery…

· The nitroglycerin that is given continuously to hospitalized heart attack patients injures the lining of blood vessels… (Sep 2005)
Believe it or not, after 130 years, medicine has decided to final study the use of Nitro for heart patients. “We’ve simply taken for granted that nitroglycerin is good,” said lead author Dr. Jonathan S. Stamler, a cardiologist at Duke University. ” Given the findings, reported in the February issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, the researchers said it was time to subject the compound to clinical trials of its safety and usefulness.

· Popular Plavix® Fails the Test…
The clinical trial for Prevention of Vascular Events program have been discontinued due to a significant difference in efficacy, in favour of the standard oral anticoagulation (OAC) over antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel (Plavix) plus aspirin).

· Pfizer Accupril Has No Benefit After Bypass Surgery-Study…

· Heart bypass surgery increases risk of Alzheimer’s disease …

· Pfizer Lipitor (Cholesterol-lowering Statin) No Better Than Rivals – Some Cases Side Effects Are Worse-Study

· 6.2% risk of heart attack and cardiovascular death before and after angioplasty…

· Aspirin will not protect against cardiovascular events …

· Genentech Drug Is Not Safe With Angioplasty…,1,6153489.story?coll=la-headlines-business

· Drug firm says cancer drug can raise heart risk…

· Anti-thrombotic therapies used in the last two decades have been associated with a significant increase in bleeding risks and high mortality…New therapies said to be safer for patients…

· AMA Warns for Long Time: Cholesterol Drugs Linked to Cancer…

· The hazards of heart bypass …

· 500,000 develop IV-based infections, 30,000 die…

· Pa.: Nearly 12,000 Patients Got Infections in Hospitals…

· New Northwestern Memorial Hospital Study Demonstrates Significant Burden Staph Infections Place on Hospitals…

· Popular painkillers linked to high blood pressure in women…

· Fifty thousand implanted defibrillators recalled due to short circuits …

· Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists…

· NSAIDS Routlinely Given to Eash Pain Slow Healing …

· ‘Researchers call for end to pharmaceutical industry’s cynical use’ of drug studies…

· Two-thirds of meta-analyses in the [medical] literature are of poor quality…


· High Cholesterol Wards Off Dementia in Elderly…

More Links and Articles by Owen

· The 50-Year Suppression of the Cure for Heart Disease

· The Cure for Heart Disease

· Dr Linus Pauling’s Unified Theory of Cardiovascular Disease (good article)

· Video Lecture at

· Purchase Lp(a) Binding Inhibitors at

· Vitamin C Info at

· Monitor the War Between Health and Medicine at

· The Cure for Cancer

· Other Articles By Owen

### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Pauling Therapy for Heart Disease

O. Fonorow, M. S. Till, Intelisoft Multimedia, Originally posted: 12-08-2000

1. Question: How much vitamin C and lysine should I take?

Answer:The amount will vary between individuals. On the Linus Pauling Video, seriously ill heart patients required 5-6 gm of vitamin C and 5-6 gm lysine daily. That is, 5,000 to 6,000 mg of each. However, we know of one case (70 year old man) where 1/2 this amount (2,500 mg of vitamin C and 2,500 mg of lysine) cleared a 50% carotid blockage in one month. This was verified by surgery.

In the most recent case Mr. Fenlason says he is taking 14 g vitamin C with 5 to 6 g lysine and resolved more than ten years of suffering at the hands of modern cardiology in roughly 2 days.

2. Question: If Pauling really said this was the cure for coronary heart disease, why haven’t I heard about it?

Answer:This is the real question, and there are no satisfactory answers. Even if Pauling was wrong, his stature was such that this work should have been widely reported. To our knowledge, it has never been reported by a major media outlet.

For example, we have repeatedly informed respected Chicago columnist Jack Mabley (now at the Suburban Daily Herald) for years. Mr. Mabley takes vitamin C himself, so knows the value, but so far has refused to use the power of his column to inform his contemporaries.

The entire list of Media outlets that have been informed .

Most doctors can not accept this work, should they learn about it, because of their medical school training in nutrition. Linus Pauling not withstanding, there is a total void surrounding the therapeutic uses of vitamin C in medical school. The void is obvious and can hardly be accidental.

Linus Pauling did not have time to write a definitive book on the subject before his death. (One of his lectures was taped and is available on video, but Pauling was 92 years old.) Pauling’s earlier claims regarding cancer and vitamin C were controversial. The heart cure claim is “fantastic” and it is hard for skeptics to swallow on top of his earlier cancer benefit claims. (Claims, by the way, that are being validated by research around the world.)

Politics are involved. There are powerful forces in medicine that oppose widespread dissemination of this knowledge. The $326 billion we in the USA spend on healthcare related to heart disease winds up in someone’s pocket. Health freedom fighters have identified dark forces who work to suppress low-cost cures. These “quack busters”strive to keep doctors from learning the truth about the health benefits of megavitamins and non-prescription nutritional products. Benefits that for the most part were determined by competent scientific trials and experiments around the world.

The media has been negligent. It relies on medical authorities, the same authorities who benefit from the status quo. The media reporters who might have blown this story wide open, are apparently afraid to.

3. Question: I heard Matthias Rath calls vitamin C the Cure and that Linus Pauling never did.

Answer:Pauling did in fact use the “cure” word in his last published interview (1994 British Journal of Optimum Nutrition).

We believe that while Pauling and Rath worked together and jointly developed their unified theory, Pauling realized that to counteract the Lp(a) threat, high amounts of vitamin C, lysine, antioxidants and other Lp(a) Binding Inhibitors were required. If Dr. Rath understood the significance of high doses, this is not apparent from his product line. For some reason only small amounts appear in the products he developed while Pauling was still alive. We also believe strongly that the reason Pauling filmed the Heart Disease video was to set the record straight about who invented the high-dose cure, and that high-doses, are in fact required.

It is an interesting tidbit that the founder of Tower Orthomolecular Laboratories/Heart Technology, William Decker, telephoned Dr. Rath’s Health Now company asking why the dosages of vitamin C and lysine were so small. He was told by a Rath associate the reason: “These amounts are the limit we believe conventional doctors will accept.” So Willam Decker decided to found Tower Laboratories and offer orthomolecular products that contain the high amounts Pauling recommended.

4. Question: What is the scientific basis? Isn’t it true that this claim has not been verified true by science?

Answer: Actually, everything we know about this is based on science. The discovery of the vital nutrients was one of the great scientific pursuits of the early twentieth century. The discovery of vitamin after vitamin wiped out the many deficiency diseases such as scurvy, beriberi and pellagra.

Canadian medical doctors, Willis and Paterson, as early as the 1940s and 1950s during a period when scientific interest in the vitamins (especially vitamin C) was running high, conducted controlled clinical experiments with animals and humans. These doctors knew the major functions of vitamin C in the body and they were able to show that the lack of vitamin C in the diet causes atherosclerosis in Guinea pigs, and that vitamin C supplements reversed atherosclerosis in human subjects. They were ignored but the science was first rate, especially for the time.

Pauling and his associate Rath, proposed and tested their unified theory, (which is largely based on findings that led to the 1985 Nobel prize in medicine), under tightly controlled, repeatable experimental conditions with Guinea pigs. These experiments proved that low vitamin C intake causes heart disease. These results were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The truth is that while completely ignored, excellent science is behind every aspect of the Pauling claims and invention.

Note: We submitted (under the auspices of the Vitamin C Foundation) a comprehensive proposal in 1998 to the United States National Institutes of Health Office of Alternative Medicine. Our proposal, if funded, would have fairly evaluated the Pauling claim in a clinical setting. We proposed running two tests simultaneously using two different medical doctor (principal investigators) at two different clinics. One on the East coast and the other on the West coast. It would have been hard to deny results from such a Government/NIH sponsored BI-trial. We found medical doctors willing to conduct the study. However, we were turned down by the U. S. Government – twice.

5. Question: What is Lp(a) and why is it important?

Answer: Lipoprotein(a) “small a” or Lp(a) is a variant of the so called “bad” LDL cholesterol. Lp(a) is “sticky” substance in the blood that Pauling and Rath believe is the lipid that begins the process of forming atherosclerotic plaques in heart disease. The 1985 Nobel prize in medicine led to the discovery of the cholesterol binding sites. The so-called Lysine Binding Sites. We now know that it is Lp(a) and not ordinary cholesterol which binds to form plaque. There are now over 1500 mainstream studies and research reports on Lp(a).

Pauling and Rath, knowing why and how plaques form in blood vessels invented so-called Lp(a) binding inhibitors. Their three U. S. patents explain how these non-toxic substances act as plaque solvents.

Briefly, Lp(a) has lysine (and proline) receptors. You can think of a chemical receptor as a simple lock and key. Only one key (e.g. lysine) will fit into the lock (receptor on the Lp(a) molecule.) There may be multiple receptors on the molecule, but once they are all filled up with keys (lysine or proline) the Lp(a) molecule looses its ability to bind with any more “keys.” When all the Lp(a) locks have keys, Lp(a) will no longer be able to create plaque.

Once Linus Pauling learned that Lp(a) has receptors for lysine, he knew how to counter the atherosclerosis process chemically. His invention, the Pauling Therapy, is to increase the concentration of this essential and non-toxic amino acid (and proline) in the blood serum. Lysine and proline supplements increase the concentration of free lysine and proline in the blood. The higher the concentration of the free lysine (and proline) in the blood, the more likely it is that Lp(a) molecules will bind with this lysine, rather than the lysine strands that have been exposed by cracks in blood vessels, or the other lysine that has been attracted to the Lp(a) already attached to the blood vessel wall.

According to Pauling, a high concentration of free lysine can destroy existing plaques.

It is important to keep all this in perspective using the Pauling/Rath Unified theory. If you are not getting enough vitamin C to produce collagen, and your blood vessels are wearing down, then the Lp(a) plaque is of great benefit to you. Simply removing plaque without restoring the vein or artery to health is like tearing a scab off a wound. You do not want to remove the scab until after the tissue underneath has started healing. Your body needs sufficient vitamin C so your arteries can heal.

The Unified Theory blames mechanical stresses (high blood pressures, stretching and bending, etc.) on the blood vessels for exposing lysine that Lp(a) is attracted to. This explains why plaque doesn’t always form. Atherosclerosis is a healing process. Like a scab, plaques form after a lesion or injury to the blood vessel wall.

There is an awesome elegance that these binding inhibitors (vitamin C/lysine) are completely non-toxic. They are also the basic building blocks of collagen. The unified theory blames poor collagen production for the entire problem of heart disease. Therefore, the Pauling Therapy not only melts plaque, but it attacks the root cause by stimulating the bodies’ production of collagen.

6. Question: Pauling did not recommend the amino acid proline on the video, but you do. Explain?

Answer: We believe that Pauling knew about the experiments that show proline can be several fold more effective as an Lp(a) Binding Inhibitor than lysine, but if not, then this is the reason. We can only speculate why Pauling focused on lysine and did not mention proline. (Note: Pauling’s associate Matthias Rath, MD, does recommend proline.)

Here is our speculation:

o The Lp(a) proline binding site was discovered after the lysine binding site, and not until 1996 was proline shown to be a strong binding inhibitor by researchers at the University of Chicago. (Pauling died in August 1994.)

o Unlike vitamin C and lysine, which are essential, meaning we must get some in our daily diet to live, the human body can make Proline. This makes it harder to determine a safe dosage on an individual basis because each person may be making different amounts of Proline in his or her cells.

Note: It is fascinating that the Lp(a) of the Rhesus monkey has only proline binding receptors. No lysine receptors. So only proline would be able to prevent and dissolve atherosclerotic plaques in these monkeys.

7. Question: Describe the Linus Pauling Video

Answer: The now famous Linus Pauling Video on Heart Disease: Unified Theory of Cause and Cure is the primary record Pauling left to us on these matters. In 1993, at age 92, Pauling was recorded speaking via satellite to a health conference in Europe from his home in Malibu.

Linus Pauling filmed this video no doubt because he believed that early cardiovascular products being developed, and coming on to the market at that time, would be ineffective; he wanted to set the record straight. These products claim to be based on this discovery, and yet they contain much less than sufficient amounts of the key ingredients (e.g. vitamin C and lysine) to effect the cure he felt possible.

The video is notable because Pauling, without notes, gives a one hour dissertation covering the unified theory. He begins with the 1985 Nobel prize, tells the story of vitamin C, and ends with his three case histories that are now published. These cases illustrate how high-dose lysine intervention essentially cured 3 heart patients.

The presentation can be understood by most audiences. Health professionals or those currently suffering heart disease are the primary audience.

Because the U. S. patents had been applied for, but not granted at the time this video was filmed, Pauling had to be somewhat circumspect. He does relate how he invented the Therapy helping a fellow scientist overcome serious heart disease.

8. Question: Describe the Tower Orthomolecular Heart Technology formula?

Answer: Heart Technology is a Pauling Therapy drink mix formula from Tower Orthomolecular Laboratories Corporation that provides for high oral administration of the substances recommended by Linus Pauling. Tower was formed in 1996 by a friend and contributor to the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine. The benefactor, upon viewing the Linus Pauling video on Heart Disease, looked for a product already on the market that provided the high amounts of vitamin C and lysine and other nutrients recommended by Pauling. Most products offered very small amounts.

Bottom Line: the only way one could obtain Pauling’s recommended amounts in existing products was by consuming lots of pills. Perhaps 20-25 or more pills daily, or by mixing several unsweetened powders in juice.

The Tower founder invented his pleasant tasting drink formula for his own personal use and subsequently formed the Tower the company to manufacture and distribute Heart Technology.

Heart Technology combines many ingredients recommended by Linus Pauling on the video, with those previously published in HOW TO LIVE LONGER AND FEEL BETTER, into a single product that resembles Tang. (Tang is a drink mix developed for NASA.) The Tower formula includes proline, carnitine, Co-Q10, Vitamin E and Vitamin A along with vitamin C and lysine. Taste is enhanced by the herb Stevia, and for what ever reason, together in this formula, the anecdotal results have been outstanding. While a newnecdotal reports are highly encouraging, we think the objective before and after Lp(a) measurements are convincing. Lp(a) drops in many people, and it isn’t supposed to. (Warren Levin, MD) We are investigating whether these results, at high dosage, can be repeated.

It is interesting that Linus Pauling himself alerted Tower’s founder to the “Lp(a)” threat during a day the two spent at Pauling’s Malibu ranch in the early 1990s. Pauling mentioned the experiments that were on-going and said that if the experiments panned out, it would mean that “heart disease could be eradicated.” And yes, those experiments did pan out as published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

Information on Heart Technology and 24 Hour on-line ordering

9. Question: I have had coronary by-pass operations, angioplasty, stents, etc. Is the Pauling Therapy safe for me?

Answer: We are not doctors and it is safe to say that nobody really knows. But we believe the Pauling Therapy is safe based on the experience of many people in your condition who have contacted us since 1995.

There is compelling evidence that heart by-pass, and even angioplasty are very dangerous. Neither procedure was proven before being adopted by the medical profession (Julian Whitaker, Health and Healing). No doubt these procedures have saved lives, but over the past six years we have noticed an abnormally high percentage of patients experiencing a stroke within one week of heart surgery. Many die.

We are not aware of any problems with the patients who have adopted, and maintain the Pauling Therapy. (We have heard of relapses, but so far in every case, the person stopped the Pauling Therapy, perhaps due to expense or because they were feeling so good.)

Stents worried us, but many people with stents implanted have started Heart Technology, seen their Lp(a) reduced, and tell us that in their opinion, a “miracle” has happened. They have become well. See Testimonials

Before your doctor inserts a stent, ask him or her about the recurrence of plaque with the stent. We believe that Restenosis is higher than it would be without the stent. This is predicted by the Pauling/Rath Theory.

It is our strong recommendation that you get well using the Pauling Therapy before stents become necessary.

Note, if the Pauling theory is correct, it would be dangerous for any heart patient to limit vitamin C and lysine in their diet. Sufficient supplies of these nutrients promote collagen production and healing of the arteries.

10. Question: Are there any doctors who know about this?

Answer: A few. We maintain a referral list of Lp(a) knowledgeable physicians at this web site. We also recommend The Academy for the Advancement in Medicine web site. You can search ACAM for enlightened doctors in your area by zipcode.

I would not expect ordinary medical doctors to be receptive to these ideas. It is bizarre that this could be true and not widely known or publicized.

11. Question: If Doctors know, why do they keep it secret?

Answer: Again, not all doctors know. Cardiologists are even TAUGHT (and probably believe) that there is no “proven” value in supplemental vitamin C for heart patients. (Of course, there is no proof vitamin C doesn’t work. There is simply no proof. It has not been investigated.)

Observation 1: There has been an enormous collective effort and combined intellect of medical researchers working on the great problem of heart disease, yet CVD remains the top killer in the USA. (Obviously this research has been headed down wrong paths, but it is hard to believe that all these people have overlooked the Vitamin C Connection to heart disease. Ignorance perpetuates itself.)
Observation 2: a) Doctors and CEOs of pharmaceutical companies are generally smart people and b) Doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, in general, do not make a penny on people who are healthy and feeling well. (We think Doctors and Pharmacuetical companies have figured this out.)

12. Question: What is the difference between the Pauling Therapy and Chelation Therapy

Answer: Most of the doctors who know about and use the Pauling Therapy are doctors that utilize EDTA Chelation therapy. Chelation therapy is a means to reduce calcified plaque deposits using an IV drip. Metals (and it is thought calcium) attach to the EDTA and are expelled in the urine. Chelation Therapy has many benefits other than heart disease and is safe and approved by the FDA for the removal of heavy metals and other toxins. We suggest the excellent book FORTY SOMETHING FOREVER: A Consumers Guide To Chelation Therapy, by Arline Brecher for an excellent introduction to the many uses of IV EDTA Chelation Therapy.

Vitamin C (and possibly lysine) can be added to the IV Chelation drip, and many doctors do add the Pauling Therapy. If you are getting Chelation, you should insist on vitamin C and lysine for the best results. Putting the Binding Inhibitors directly into the blood stream, with no loss in the gut, is probably the most powerful way to apply the Pauling therapy.

Oral Lp(a) Binding Inhibitor products, like the Tower Orthomolecular Heart Technology formula, are ideal adjuncts to IV Chelation. They provide the nutrients that are required for healing. Maintenance doses should be used both during and after the course of IV Chelation treatment.

13. Question: Why are you so against using radiation to stem restenosis (plaque regrowth).

Answer: We believe that using radiation particles inside arteries to stop the regrowth of plaque is at best unethical, and at worst criminal. We hope this research is based on ignorance. If Pauling is correct, these procedures are unnecessary. The people who are subjected to radiation will not be able to heal normally and they will likely suffer a premature death. If the patients live, it is unknown what kind of dangerous side effects that radiation may itself cause (e.g. cancer.)

Since this procedure is being studied, it is strong evidence that cardiovascular doctors are entirely ignorant of the nature and true cause of heart disease. Cardiologists have no idea that heart disease is chronic scurvy, and that plaque growth is a simple natural healing process. When they cut (by pass) or damage the arteries (angioplasty) they are surprised that the scab (atherosclerotic plaques) reforms.

To the extent the radiation interferes with that arterial wall’s ability to heal normally, such treatments make success from Pauling’s cure impossible. (The Pauling therapy relies on the artery healing itself.) And although hard to believe, maybe this is the idea? Keep heart patients ill in order to perpetuate a lucrative income stream.

14. Question: I contacted the Linus Pauling Institute. They know nothing about this. Why?

Answer: It is ironic that the people who have taken over the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine do not realize that their namesake invented the outright cure for heart disease!

The current head of the Institute has no appreciation for Pauling’s vitamin C contributions. They now offer poor advice. Advice that shortens the lives of heart patients.

## Our suggestion, look to the or now for accurate information about vitamin C.

## The Heart Cure Article

## Compute Your Pauling Therapy Requirement

## How to obtain the Pauling Video and Heart Technology formula

### After 3 Heart Attacks… June 19, 2003

Updated Sun Oct 2 14:07:29 EDT 2005[Linus Pauling Virtual Exhibit]

“Hi Owen
Just a note to let you know that I saw my heart specialist and he said the EKG showed no evidence of any heart damage. Amazing isn’t it!! You were right. I will email you more later, have to leave for work in a few minutes. Life is great.”
Carol Smith,

Scroll to Top