5
$\begingroup$

As I understand it after winning two (un-shared) Nobel prizes Linus Pauling began work which eventually had him recommending large amounts of vitamin C to all and sundry.

When another scientist was unable to repeat the results a scandal began. Linus Pauling and/or his people made savage professional attacks on the poor researcher who just wanted to know how to get the same results in an experiment. Once the smoke settled it became clear that Pauling's conclusions were wrong after all and he should be ashamed of himself for treating another scientist so shabbily. Much was made about how far the mighty have fallen, a lesson to us all etc.

What I never hear about was Pauling's original claim in this regard and how he reached it. By what error or series of errors did he make such mistakes? I can imagine based on the severity of his defense he might have been long passed the rational portion of his life. But what was the primary claim, and for that matter, why do we seem to still act as if it were all true, that vitamin C is the answer; scurvy notwithstanding.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ All the topics you list go to describe the great work Pauling did and was rewarded for and as such they are attached here to link him to them. My question, clearly stated, is about his work on vitamin C and what it actually was. Again, this is often lost in the story of the treatment of another scientist who first doubted the results. $\endgroup$
    – Elliot
    Commented Feb 20, 2021 at 19:59

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

Among other things (I was present at one of Pauling's lectures), Pauling used examples of Vitamin C levels in various mammals as evidence that humans should use more.
FWIW, it was the opinion of most of his peers and colleagues that he had simply lost the power of rational investigation, using slim evidence of vitamin C's ability to strengthen cell walls and/or antioxidant capability as proof of the need for massive doses. Obviously he never investigated the excretion levels of vitamin C in overdosed test subjects.

If you were asking about what diseases Pauling claimed it helped fight, no surprise that cancer was on the list.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The following paper, in which Pauling suggests a daily dose of 5g of vitamin C for humans, seems relevant: Linus Pauling, "Are Recommended Daily Allowances for Vitamin C Adequate?". Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 71, No. 11, pp. 4442-4446, November 1974 (online) "There is evidence that viruses are involved in some human cancers. Vitamin C might provide some protection against these cancers, through its antiviral activity. Moreover, an increased intake of the vitamin increases the strength of the intercellular cement [...]." $\endgroup$
    – njuffa
    Commented May 23, 2018 at 14:50
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks very much. That is just the answer I needed. And from a guy who was there, no less. Sad that human limitations often afflict people before they know it. $\endgroup$
    – Elliot
    Commented May 23, 2018 at 22:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As I recall Louse Leakey had similar difficulties when digging up "Man made" stone tools in North America. The other scientists shook their heads and asked him to reconsider his claims. I've seen many examples of older men, personal friends and famous men, losing it as it were in this way and similar. $\endgroup$
    – Elliot
    Commented Sep 20, 2020 at 3:47
  • $\begingroup$ Sadly, both Pauling and his wife died of cancer. $\endgroup$
    – ACR
    Commented Feb 20, 2021 at 3:04
2
$\begingroup$

In 1970, Pauling published "Evolution and the Need for Ascorbic Acid" suggesting an ascorbic acid daily intake of 2.3g or more. This is followed by the book "Vitamin C and the Common Cold".

If you are interested in Pauling's original claim, you could start with these 2 publications.

An article from University of Helsinki's Department of Public Health on "Bias against Vitamin C in Mainstream Medicine: Examples from Trials of Vitamin C for Infections" does a good review of historical issues.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ While informative, the cited paper appears to be partisan. Given that Pauling was an eminent scientist, I find the following statements in the paper in partial contradiction: "views on vitamin C and infections have been determined by eminence-based medicine rather than evidence-based medicine" vs "While the public embraced Pauling’s claims, the medical profession rejected both his theory and his expertise." $\endgroup$
    – njuffa
    Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 22:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.