Volume 7 no 50. First published March 1995. ISSN 0964-5659.
All at the Press of a Button Chrissie Loveday
Hair Loss Patents Dr Peter Proctor
The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy Dr Stephen Barrett
Response to Attack on Linus Pauling Peter C. Everett, Steven Fowkes, and John Hammell
FDA Response to the Magnesium Catastrophe Paul Mason
Human Longevity Genes and Sexual Difference in Lifespan Dr Leonid A. Gavrilov
Coenzyme Q10 Cures Breast Cancer Douglas Skrecky
The Breakdown of Government Harry Browne
Xanthophylls & Macular Degeneration Douglas Skrecky
Peace and Quiet Douglas Skrecky
Thoughts on The Prospect of Immortality Robin Helweg-Larsen
What Would Happen if Cryonics Became a Profession Keith F. Lynch
Low Cost Nanotechnology Yvan Bozzonetti
Arresting Migraine, and other pain control Douglas Skrecky
All at the Press of a Button...
by Chrissie Loveday
Wherever I go these days, someone seems to be talking about E-Mail, Internet or Super-Highways. I must say, it is a wonderful idea, even if it does scare me to death. For a start, I am very much an amateur when it comes to using a computer. I have become fairly adept with my own little word-processor, typing away at a rate fast enough to satisfy me, even if I don't use all the right fingers for every key. I was told by an expert typist and teacher recently, that as long as I use more than two fingers, I shouldn't contemplate learning to type properly. (I think she may have been referring to the fact that I'm now too old to learn and have too many bad habits!) Besides, I don't want to waste my precious time learning about all the clever things computers will do ... I want to spend the time available doing what I know already and John is usually close at hand when anything goes disastrously wrong!
Back to the Internet. The first paragraph should have shown that I am not a candidate for grasping the concept of modems and down-loading, up-loading or anything else. (Free-loading, maybe?) What I have discovered, frightens me almost more than pressing the wrong key on the computer ... there are thousands of people who have got to grips with it all and they all have most interesting information to offer. Why this scares me, is all a matter of time. It's like seeing that TV programme advertised that you know is exactly what you should be looking at for the next course you are taking ... that it will doubtless contain the last vital links to set your thoughts on the right lines. The trouble is, there's never enough time to watch, so you record it and consign it to the pile of other worthy programmes you really intend to watch soon. By then, you're on to the next course, the next subject and the old one is out of date.
But not so the Internet. By the time you get round to reading your messages, there are probably half a dozen more, complete with replies from another batch of like-minded people, all saying exactly what you believed in the first place. I asked a question (through my resident expert, of course) about the topic of autism (yes, my next course, in preparation). I am staggered by the number of things people have said and contributed. I am also doing some work on a project concerned with the employment of disabled people. I already have a folder full of wonderful information from highly eminent people in the field. I have read papers delivered to a conference held in Melbourne (Australia) only this week. Brilliant information and very interesting, if only I had time to respond!
So basically, it all comes back to John's so often quoted, "evil of time". There is simply never enough of it. I positively balk at the idea of four or five hundred messages a day, knowing I should never have the self control to skim through them and only read the most interesting. I should want to read the lot and probably reply to at least half. Still, I am the sort of person who scrapes every bit of silver off any card that comes my way, just to see if I would have won the prize, if I had time to enter the competition.
Because he feels so strongly about the huge power of the Internet, John now syphons off the most important messages for me and only gives me those I find most interesting. This is truly a service! Perhaps when the next book is finished, and the college work has been off-loaded, and ... why bother? It's becoming obvious why I need another go at life... I shall need cryonic suspension just to give me time to read all the interesting stuff on Internet. I suppose by then it will have turned into yet something else and I won't have time for that either!
Frequently Asked Questions:
by Peter H. Proctor, Ph.D, MD
Antiandrogens plus Growth Stimulators
Antiandrogens block the action of the male sex hormones (which initiate the balding process). In my experience, they are not very effective by themselves. But they do make other agents work a lot better. Further, they help prevent progression of balding and drug tolerance.
Every few years, a new antiandrogen will be presented as the ultimate cure for balding. This never seems to work out (e.g., cyoctal studies were terminated because of poor effectiveness). About ten years ago, I made this mistake myself on the basis of the ability of spironolactone to make minoxidil work a lot better.
Imagine my surprise, when it did not work well alone.
Well, OK, a few people do get substantial growth from antiandrogens alone. Nothing against antiandrogens - I've got what issued patents there are. Likewise, some of my best friends are antiandrogens. We'll see about Proscar, a weaker agent than either spironolactone or cyoctal.
Possible reason: the androgens have only an initiator " permissive " role in balding. The actual damage is done by immunological mechanisms. The immunological "tagging" done by androgens may be somewhat irreversible - Thus after the fact antiandrogens don't work very well.
In drug development, most new agents show in the patent literature years before anything gets published. Drug companies have no particular reason to publish on new agents. It lets your competitors know what you are doing and may mess up your patent application. Usually, things don't get published until well along in the development process. Often, this is just before a drug gets released.
Neither the media nor most physicians (who have only three months of pharmacology in med school) know this. You kind of have to be in the pharmaceutical business (that's my Ph.D). Thus, you hear all sorts of nonsense about how there ain't many new drugs for hair loss. Tain't so, as I shall prove.
A good place to look is in the Bulletin of the European Patent Office. The EPO uses an "open" system in which patents are published 18 months after application whether they issue or not. Actual issue of a patent itself may take 5-10 years in this area. "EPO" before a number means European Patent Office. WO means a patent published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. The same patent may have different numbers in this system.
To get copies of US, EPO, WO, DE (German) and other patents, I use PatentQuery (1-800-984-9800). Just give them the number. Faxed copies are $5 for the first page and 75 cents for each additional page. [ed note- you can now dial these numbers from the UK with the USA prefix, but full international call rates apply.]
1 Stimulation of Hair Growth with Potassium Channel Openers and an Androgen Receptor Blocker. Schostarez, et al. WO 92/09259. (Pending). To: The UpJohn Corporation.
Note: This is the UpJohn Corporation's patent application for the combination of Minoxidil and Minoxidil-like drugs along with antiandrogens. So far, it has been rejected because of "prior art". This is cited in the EPO's search report as WO,A,87/8700427 (to yours truly--see # 3 below) and DE,A,3615396 (a German patent to the Wella corporation).
2 Hair-Growth Stimulation with Nitroxide and Other Radicals, to Peter H. Proctor. EPO 327263 (issued).
Antiandrogens plus all sorts of other stuff. State of the art in the late 1980's.
3 Topical Composition and Method for Stimulating Hair Growth, To: Peter H. Proctor. EPO232311 (issued).
Antiandrogens plus all sorts of other stuff. State of the art in the late 1980's.
4 Topische Zusammensetzung und Verffahren zur Anregung des Haarwuchses. DE 3688427, to Peter H. Proctor (issued).
Antiandrogens plus all sorts of other stuff. State of the art in the late 1980's, Auf Deutsch.
The various patent offices now view antiandrogens plus hair-growth-stimulators as "obvious" in view of prior art. This has slowed applications because you can't patent an "obvious" invention..
FAQ: Hair Loss Patents-- Superoxide Dismutases
Superoxide dismutases are enzymes which destroy superoxide free radical ( O2- ), an important biological
mediator. In many systems ( e.g., blood vessel dilatation, blood clotting, etc.), superoxide opposes the action of another ubiquitous messenger substance, nitric oxide. In turn, nitric oxide is probably one "natural" form of the hair-growth stimulating drug minoxidil and a natural modulator of hair growth.
Superoxide dismutase in its pharmaceutical form " Orgotein " is also a potent anti-inflammatory agent. In the US, you can only get it if you are a dog or a horse, but it is an approved drug in most of the rest of the world.
Not surprisingly, many researchers find that SODases stimulate hair growth and decrease hair loss, possibly by preventing the inhibitory action of superoxide on nitric oxide or by interfering with the immunological part of balding ( other mechanisms are equally likely ). BTW, I accidentally discovered this effect of SOD in the late 1970's while doing research on diabetic rats at Bayor College of Medicine.
With some exceptions, the patents listed below cover low molecular weight peptides which complex with copper or other metals to form superoxide dismutases. Again, because of the commercial possibilities, patenting, rather than publication, is the usual practice in this area.
Unfortunately, most medical reporters, doctors, etc. don't know to look at patents, which are the first place any drug developer looks. So, a lot of stuff goes unreported and unrecognized. You heard it here first.
You can be reasonably sure that any patented agent works. First, there is no point in going through the expense and hassle of a patent for something which doesn't work. Second, this is an area in which the patent offices demand extraordinary proof. For example, US patent examiners are given two examples of "incredible inventions " - baldness
cures and perpetual motion machines.
BTW: You can get copies of these patents through PatentQuery ( 1-800-984-9800 ) or through the respective US or European Patent Offices (Sorry, I don't have the
procedures at hand.) I use PatentQuery for foreign patents and the local US patent depository at Rice University for US patents. PatentQuery charges $5 for the first page and 75 cents for each succeeding page. They take credit cards.
1 Method for Stimulating Hair Growth using GLH-Cu Complexes., Picard, Loren, US Patent #5,117,061, assigned to Procyte Corporation.
2 GLH Pharmaceutical Compostitions and Compounds, US Pat# 5,214,032, Picard, L. to Procyte Corporation.
Note: This is the "Iamin" or "Tricomin" patent. I get a lot of questions about this compound, which the media does know. Lots of you have probably heard of it. Iamin is the Tripeptide Glycine-Histidine-Lysine complexed with a metal. Another name for it is "Liver Cell Growth Factor". It is a potent SODase. Procyte reports significant hair-growth stimulating ability in their animal and clinical trials. Like SODase itself, Iamin is a potent anti-inflammatory agent.
3 His-Gly-Gly Peptide and Derivatives Thereof for Hair Growth. Kronholm et al, US Patent #5,252,559, to: Procter and Gamble Co.
Note: Ah-ha, the largest maker of hair care stuff in the world is getting into the act. Like Iamin, another metal- binding tripeptide with SODase activity. AKA " Copper-Binding Peptide ". The structure is Histidine-Glycine-Glycine.
An interesting patent to me personally: in patent #4 below, we claim basic metal-binding peptides as a class and give as one example His-gly "and the like". Our patent was published in the Bulletin of the European Patent Office a year before P&G's was even applied for in 1990. Our US priority date is 1986.
The P&G folks did not tell the US patent office about our prior patent, a definite no-no. Besides, aside from our clear prior generic claims to this whole class of drugs, US Patent law is quite definite that a one amino-acid difference in a peptide drug is not enough to confer the novelty necessary for patentability.
Personally, I use the reverse peptide ( Gly-Gly-His ) in some formulations and find it rather effective. If P & G wants to object that I am infringing their patent, let em... OTOH, their patent may be enforceable against others.
4 Hair Growth Stimulation with Nitroxide and Other Radicals. EPO pat# 327263 B1., Proctor, P.
Note: All sorts of stuff. Basic peptides (e.g. Iamin ), SODases, nitroxide spintraps and spin labels, PBN, etc. acetylcysteine, radical scavengers, use of antiandrogens with hair growth stimulators, etc.,etc.. A " prime patent " which has caused several subsequent drug company patents to be rejected because of "prior art". Gives you some Idea of where our research was several years ago.
5 Topical TEMPO, Proctor, P. US pat# 5,352,442.
Note: Unlike the Europeans, the US patent office won't give prime patents in this area and is making us patent everything individually (which is how P&G was able to step in). This is the first US patent so far. Priority is what counts and we've sure got that.
TEMPO and related compounds are SODases, among other things. Researchers at the NCI have shown that TEMPOL, also covered in this patent, prevents hair loss in radiation treatment. Currently, we are trying for FDA approval for
TEMPOL. No, it isn't in any of our formulas yet. However, a related compound, NANO, is.
FAQ: Hair Loss Patents: Immunosuppressive Agents
The organ transplant drug Cyclosporin is among the more effective agents in the treatment of pattern loss. Unfortunately, this agent is too toxic to use for pattern loss in the long run. Further, it is not topically-effective. This has led to a search for new, safer and more effective agents on the part of drug companies.
The relative importance of autoimmune factors verses hormonal factors in balding is likely reflected in the relative effectiveness of antiandrogens ( which are poorly effective alone ) verses Cyclosporin ( among the best agent known for treating pattern loss ). The SODase hair growth stimulators may also interfere with the immunological component of balding.
As may be coming clear to you, there is getting to be a lot of solid science in this area.
The patents below are for several Cyclosporin-like agents. They were recently awarded to Merck and include claims for the treatment of hair loss. Call Patent Query ( 1-800-984-9800 ) or your local patent repository to get copies.
1 US pat #5,284,877. Alkyl and Akenyl macrolides having immuosupressive activity.
2 US Pat # 5,248,840. Alkylidene Macrolides having immunosuppressive activity
3 US pat # 5,262,533. Amino O-aryl macrolides having immunosuppressive activity
4 US pat # 5,262,533. Amino O-aryl macrolides having immunosuppressive activity.
5 US Patent # 5,250,678. O-aryl, Olkyl, and O-alkylnylmacrolides having immunosuppressive activity.
6 US Patent # 5208241. N-heteroaryl, etc etc.. having Immunosuppressive activity.
7 US Patent # 5189042. Fluromacrolides having immunosuppressive activity.
Etc., Etc. ( I got tired of typing )
All these were issued in the last year or so to Merck and Co., Rahway, NJ. I have no idea of their current status. However, the patents were filed in the early '90's, so there has likely been progress since then.
Please address all questions to the Internet Newsgroup sci.life-extension so I don't have to keep answering the same questions. We have access to much of this stuff. If you want more information on our program, send me your surface mail address.
Peter H. Proctor, Ph.D, MD
4126 SW Freeway, Suite 1616
Houston, TX 77027. tel (713) 960-1616
The Dark Side
of Linus Pauling's Legacy
Published in The Skeptical Enquirer, January/February 1995, and reprinted by kind permission.
Subscription details of The Skeptical Enquirer: $29.50 per year (six issues) from
The Skeptical Enquirer PO Box 703 Amherst NY 14226 USA
Linus Pauling was the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel prizes. He received these awards for Chemistry in 1954 and for Peace in 1962. His recent death has stimulated many tributes to his scientific accomplishments. He has been called by many colleagues the greatest chemist of the twentieth century. That was for his fundamental contributions to chemistry. His impact on the health marketplace, however, was anything but laudable.
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 his 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.
In 1970 Pauling announced in Vitamin C and the Common Cold that taking 1,000 milligrams (mg) of vitamin C daily will reduce the incidence of colds by 45 percent 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. A third book, Vitamin C and Cancer (1979), claims that high doses of vitamin C may be effective against cancer. Yet another book, How to Feel Better and Live Longer (1986), stated that megadoses of vitamins "can improve your health . . . to increase your enjoyment of life and can help in controlling heart disease, cancer, and other diseases and in slowing down the process of ageing." Pauling himself reportedly took at least 12,000 mg daily and raised the amount to 40,000 mg if symptoms of a cold appeared. In 1993, after undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer, Pauling said that vitamin C had delayed the cancer's onset for 20 years. This is not a testable claim. He died of the disease in August 1994 at the age of 93.
Scientific fact is established when the same experiment is carried out over and over again with the same results. To test the effect of vitamin C on colds, it is necessary to compare groups that get the vitamin with similar groups that get a placebo (a dummy pill that looks like the real thing). Since the common cold is a very variable illness, proper tests must involve hundreds of people for significantly long periods of time. 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. Slight symptom reduction may occur as the result of an antihistamine-like effect, but whether this has practical value is a matter of dispute. Pauling's views are based on the same studies considered by other scientists, but his analyses are flawed.
The largest clinical trials, involving thousands of volunteers, were directed by 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 favourable result even when none exists.
In 1976, Pauling and Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician, reported that a majority of one hundred "terminal" cancer patients treated with 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily survived three to four times longer than similar patients who did not receive vitamin C supplements. However, William DeWys, chief of clinical investigations at the National Cancer Institute, found that the study was poorly designed, because the patient groups were not comparable. The vitamin C patients were Cameron's while the other patients were under the care of other physicians. Cameron's patients were started on vitamin C when he labelled them "untreatable" by other methods, and their subsequent survival was compared with the survival of the "control" patients after they were labelled untreatable by their doctors. DeWys reasoned that if the two groups were comparable, the lengths of time from entry into the hospital to being labelled untreatable should he equivalent in both groups. However, he found that Cameron's patients were labelled untreatable much earlier in the course of their disease - which means that they entered the hospital before they were as sick as the other doctors' patients and would naturally be expected to live longer.
Nevertheless, to test whether Pauling might be correct, the Mayo Clinic conducted three double-blind studies involving a total of 367 patients with advanced cancer. The studies, reported in 1979, 1983, and 1985, found that patients given 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily did no better than those given a placebo. Pauling criticized the first study, claiming that chemotherapeutic agents might have suppressed the patients' immune systems so that vitamin C couldn't work. But his 1976 report on Cameron's work states clearly that: "All patients are treated initially in a perfectly conventional way, by operation, use of radio therapy, and the administration of hormones and cytotoxic substances." And during a subsequent talk at the University of Arizona, he stated that vitamin C therapy could be used along with all conventional modalities. The participants in the 1983 study had nor undergone conventional treatment, but Pauling dismissed its results anyway.
Science aside, it is clear that Pauling was politically aligned with the promoters of unscientific nutrition practices. He said his initial interest in vitamin C was aroused by a letter from bio-chemist Irvin Stone, with whom he subsequently maintained a close working relationship. Although Stone was often referred to as "Dr. Stone," his only credentials were a certificate showing completion of a two-year chemistry program, an honorary chiropractic degree from the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, and a "Ph.D." from Donsbach University, a nonaccredited correspondence school.
In a little-publicized chapter in Vitamin C and the Common Cold Pauling attacked the health-food industry for misleading its customers. Pointing out that "synthetic" vitamin C is identical with "natural" vitamin C, he warned that higher-priced "natural products" are a "waste of money." And he added that "the words organically grown are essentially meaningless just part of the jargon used by health-food promoters in making their excess profits, often from elderly people with low incomes." But Vitamin C, the Common Cold and the Flu, issued six years later, contained none of these criticisms. This omission was not accidental. In response to a letter, Pauling informed me that, after his first book came out, he was "strongly attacked by people who were also attacking the health-food people." He said that his critics were so "biased" that he would no longer help them attack the health-food industry while another part of their attack was directed at him.
The Linus Pauling Institute of Medicine, founded in 1973, is dedicated to "Orthomolecular medicine." Many of the institute's fund-raising brochures have contained questionable information. They have falsely claimed, for example, that no significant progress has been made in cancer treatment in the past 20 years. This viewpoint, which is frequently expressed by promoters of unproved cancer therapies, is simply untrue. The institute's largest corporate donor has been Hoffmann-La Roche, the pharmaceutical giant that produces most of the world's vitamin C.
A dispute between Pauling and Arthur Robinson gives additional evidence that Pauling's defense of vitamin C megadosage was less than honest. Robinson, a former student and long-time associate of Pauling, helped found the institute and became its first president. According to an investigative report by James Lowell, in Nutrition Forum newsletter, Robinson's own research led him to conclude in 1978 that the high doses (5-10 grams a day) of vitamin C being recommended by Pauling might actually promote some types of cancer in mice. Robinson told Lowell, for example, that animals fed quantities equivalent to Pauling's recommendations contracted skin cancer almost twice as frequently as the control group and that only doses of vitamin C that were nearly lethal had any protective effect. Shortly after reporting this to Pauling, Robinson was asked to resign from the Institute, his experimental animals were lulled, his scientific data were impounded, and some of the previous research results were destroyed. Pauling also declared publicly that Robinson's research was "amateurish" and inadequate. Robinson responded by suing the Institute and its trustees. In 1983, the suit was settled out of court for $575,000. In an interview quoted in Nature, Pauling said that the settlement "represented no more than compensation for loss of office and the cost of Robinson's legal fees." However, the court-approved agreement states that $425,000 of the settlement was for slander and libel.
During the mid-1970s, Pauling helped lead the health-food industry's campaign for a federal law that weakened FDA protection of consumers against misleading nutritional claims. In 1977 and 1979, Pauling received awards and presented his views on vitamin C at the annual conventions of the National Nutritional Foods Association (the major trade association of health-food retailers, distributors, and producers). In 1981, he accepted an award from the National Health Federation (NHF) for "services rendered in behalf of health freedom" and gave his daughter a life membership in this organization. NHF promotes the gamut of quackery. Many of its leaders have been in legal difficulty and some have even received prison sentences for various "health" activities. Pauling also spoke at a Parker School for Professional Success Seminar, a meeting where chiropractors were taught highly questionable methods of building their practices. An ad for the meeting invited chiropractors to pose with Pauling for a photograph (which presumably could be used for publicity when the chiropractors returned home).
In 1983, Pauling and Irwin Stone testified at a hearing on behalf of Oscar Falconi, a vitamin promoter charged by the Postal Service with making false claims for several products. Pauling supported Falconi's contentions that vitamin C was useful not only in preventing cancer, but also in curing drug addicts and destroying both viruses and bacteria Pauling also testified in 1984 before the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance in defense of Michael Gerber, M.D., who was accused of improperly administering to patients. One was a 56-year-old woman with treatable cancer who the Board concluded had died as a result of Gerber's neglect while he treated her with herbs, enzymes, coffee enemas, and chelation therapy. The other patients were three-year-old twin boys with ear infections for which Gerber had prescribed 70,000 or more units of vitamin A daily and coffee enemas twice daily - for several weeks. Gerber lost his license to practice medicine as a result of the hearings. In 1992, Pauling testified on behalf of "clinical ecologist" Warren M. Levin, during hearings that culminated in a recommendation by New York State authorities that Levin's license should be revoked for "gross negligence, fraudulent practice," and "moral unfitness."
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 proved benefit and can cause troublesome side effects.
Although Pauling's megavitamin claims lacked the evidence needed for acceptance by the scientific community, they have been accepted by large numbers of people who lack the scientific expertise to evaluate them. Thanks largely to Pauling's prestige, annual vitamin C sales in the United States have been in the hundreds of millions of dollars for many years. The physical damage to people he led astray cannot be measured.
Stephen Barret, MD., a retired psychiatrist and nationally known consumer advocate, is coauthor/editor of 36 books on health topics. His most recent work is The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods.
Repsonse to Attack on Linus Pauling
Peter C. Everett, Steven Fowkes, and John Hammell,
The views expressed above by Dr Barrett and below by other authors are their own and are presented under the right to free speech. Anyone requiring others to take responsibility for their health is advised to consult an appropriately registered practitioner according to the laws of their own country.
It is a legal precedent that one cannot libel the dead.
After the death of Linus Pauling, an article by Dr Stephen Barrett, MD, appeared in The Skeptical Enquirer (reprinted above) making various adverse comments about Dr Pauling's discoveries concerning vitamin C and the general use of vitamins.
I polled some opinions on these claims on the Internet, and I am grateful to these authors for allowing me to publish their replies. They appear in alphabetical order of the surnames of the writers.
Peter C. Everett
I was present for the hearing on the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Bill (now law) before the House Energy & Commerce subcommittee in October of 1993. Dr Barrett was one of those testifying on the side of Dr Kessler & the FDA.
His testimony relied less on science and more on handwaving and distorted, alarmist accusations. I was left with the impression that he is a creation of or lackey for the FDA.
His and Kessler's testimony that day left me feeling completely outraged. I am SOOOOOOO glad the DSHEA passed, but we still have to keep an eye on these medico-fascists.
"Giving the FDA authority over nutritional claims is like putting the dog catcher in charge of veterinary medicine." - me
Steven Wm. Fowkes (email@example.com)
Cognitive Enhancement Research Institute
PO Box 4029, Menlo Park, CA 94026 USA
Although the Mayo studies were supposed to replicate Pauling and Cameron's studies, two of the Mayo studies were deliberately flawed to produce negative results, one by using chemotherapy/radiation patients, and the other by giving large doses of C for only a short time and then suddenly withdrawing the C (against the specific advice of Pauling who warned NCI and Mayo that it was dangerous to the patients). I don't know what they did for the third study mentioned, but I'll bet that Barrett did not mention the flaws in any of the negative C studies that he cites. Any takers?
Dr Irwin Stone's academic credentials were attacked.
Likewise, the academic and medical credentials of some of Barrett's colleagues have been attacked.
In 1978 research at the Linus Pauling Institute by a Mr Arthur Robinson suggested that high doses of vitamin C might promote cancer. The article claims that Pauling stated that Robinson's work was inadequate and flawed, and dismissed him. A lawsuit resulted which was settled in Robinson's favour out of court.
Pauling never appreciated Robinson's work, and this was scientifically and professionally irresponsible. That does not mean that Robinson was right or that Pauling was wrong. There are probably some circumstances in which vitamin C can dramatically increase cancer incidence (for example, during massive tissue-iron overload). Basically, I think it was an issue of personalities.
Further aspersions were made against associates of Dr Pauling.
Scientific demagoguery par excellence. Dr Barrett's good at that.
The article ended with vague threats that "Thanks to Pauling's prestige, annual Vitamin C sales in the United States have been in the hundreds of millions of dollars for many years. The physical damage to people he led astray cannot be measured."
Neither can the benefits. Barrett's analysis is like the FDA only looking at the safety side of the cost-benefit analysis of drug approval. It's politically expedient to do so, but there is no scientific or public-health basis for such an analysis.
Barrett's motive is to provide ammunition for those who want to ban vitamins. He wants to shut down over-the-counter access to herbs, high-potency vitamins, and amino acids. He works closely with the FDA on these issues (there is an open alliance between the FDA and NCAHF, and the FDA has even donated tax-money to NCAHF). He is an ideologue.
Dr. Barrett is a consumer advocate the way the CSPI (Centers for Science in the Public Interest) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are consumer advocates. They represent themselves as consumer advocates, but they have no political support from consumers. They decide what's best for consumers by an autocratic process that ignores the beliefs, values and opinions of the consumers, subscribers (CSPI) and members (AARP) they claim to represent. It's authoritarian élitism.
In the article he talks about good science and bad science, yet he makes vague unreferenced threats about physical damage etc. Most of his quotes relate to work done in the 1970s. Is this significant?
There's plenty of good science before 1980 that refutes the quackers views as there is bad science that supports them. Barrett discredits himself as a "scientist" by criticising bad science that he disagrees with while simultaneously citing bad science as support of his position.
Maybe some people will listen, and others won't. Many people have strong established opinions on this issue one way or the other (there's a lot of polarization). The politicization of this issue has removed it from the realm of science, as exemplified by Barrett himself. There is minimal content in his message, and overt bias. His message has not changed significantly. He is only redirecting it towards a man who has recently died and can no longer defend himself. He is upset that Pauling is now a "martyr," and in his pure defense of "orthodoxy" wants to brand him as a "heretic."
Political Coordinator of the Life Extension Foundation
I joined the Life Extension Foundation in 1985. I started working here 17 months ago. Before working here I worked at Hospital Santa Monica in Mexico, and before that for Solaray Vitamin Company as a political agitator in Los Angeles. Before that I was on the Health Resources Council in New York City with Gary Null, and I founded the New Jersey Health Freedom Coalition. I'm a member of the Well Mind Association of Greater Washington, the Fully Informed Jury Association, The International Society for Individual Liberty, Terra Libra, and am a registered lobbyist in the state of Florida. My main goal in life is that other schizophrenics have the same chance I've had with vitamins.
All I can say to this ludicrous diatribe against Dr.Pauling is "consider the source."
Just who the hell is Stephen Barrett to criticize Linus Pauling? What has Barrett contributed to the advancement of medicine? In science and medicine there are two distinct camps, one much larger than the other. In the first camp, you have a large group of people who adhere religiously to the status quo, defending it to the grave while they contribute NOTHING to the advancement of science or medicine feeling content to replough old ground.
In the second group you have the pioneers, the trailblazers who stick their necks out and catch all kinds of flack. History has shown that these are both geniuses, and highly moral people who are willing to suffer all kinds of indignities in their efforts to help mankind.
This fact is admirably brought forth in Medical Mavericks Volumes 1 and 2 by Hugh Riordan, MD, Director of The Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kansas (316)682-3100. Anyone reading this book will easily recognize the fact that pundits like Barrett have been slowing medical progress for centuries, and that every age has its visionaries who've been crucified for "going against the grain."
In Medical Mavericks vols 1 and 2 you will learn of the trials and tribulations of such trailblazers as Dr. William Harvey, the first man who realized that blood circulates, Leopold Auenbrugger, Roger Bacon, Elizabeth Blackwell, and many others who you may have never heard of, yet who changed the course of science and medicine for the better.
Harvey had this to say about the Stephen Barretts of his day "These views as usual pleased some more, others less; some chid and calumniated me, and laid it to me as a crime that I have dared to depart from the precepts ... of all anatomists." (p.43 Medical Mavericks Vol.1)
Anyone not familiar with the history of medicine should order both of these books, because both will hold your interest and provide valuable insight. I guarantee that Barrett has not read these books.
I had an interesting experience with Stephen Barrett a few years ago. Hippocrates Magazine ran a cover story about Barrett's "quackbusting" which showed a bewildered looking goose staring out from the cover, and a disreputable looking "snake oil salesman" opening up his suit jacket to reveal hidden pockets lined with vitamin bottles which he is flashing at us in an effort to commit his "crimes."
Inside, Barrett is interviewed and he talks about his Lehigh Valley Coalition Against "Health Fraud", one of the chapters in the National Council Against Health Fraud.
The NCAHF is allegedly non profit, and funded strictly by its members, however every one of its principals is on the Board of the American Council on Science and Health, which is funded DIRECTLY by certain pharmaceutical interests. No one has ever been able to PROVE that NCAHF receives funding from ACSH, but how is it that Viktor Herbert, Stephen Barrett, and the other "quackbusters" are able to jump on a plane, and go wherever they are needed in their war on a moments notice?
Barrett is retired, but Herbert, Jarvis, and others are somehow able to leave their jobs on a moments notice to take off to Alaska, or WHEREVER in their efforts to preserve the status quo! (Hmmmm! Something stinks here!) Also, Barrett has a huge number of "antiquackery" files in his basement in Allentown, PA. Where did they come from? Many feel that they came from the CCHI - the mysterious "anti quackery" division of the AMA that was broken up. There is speculation that the pharmaceutical industry kept the CCHI going, through the NCAHF/ACSF.
After reading Barrett's diatribe in Hippocrates back in 1989, I was outraged that a magazine bearing Hippocrates' name would print something that no doubt had Hippocrates rolling in his grave. What made me angry is that I recovered from schizophrenia via Orthomolecular medicine after mainstream methods had almost KILLED me, and this man was calling it a "fraud"!
So I decided to call him. I decided to mess with his mind, because I was ANGRY! His number was unlisted, but I got it by calling around to local dieticians telling them that I was a college student writing a paper on Orthomolecular psychiatry, and wondered if they knew of anyone with an opposing point of view who I could interview? In this way I got Barrett's unlisted number, and struck up a dialogue with him.
He immediately grew very enthusiastic about "helping" me with my "paper", so I got the sucker on the hook with no problem. I then strung him along for over 2 months playing devil's advocate with him, and it didn't matter how detailed or cogent my arguments were, he never considered them. He never ONCE looked at ANY of the books I referred him to. All he did was try to push his horribly biased agenda, an agenda which is resulting in a LOT of unnecessary suffering and death.
Without my ever asking for them he sent me several unsolicited propaganda books which smear Orthomolecular medicine, then got angry when I didn't PAY him for them! I told him he could drive out to NJ (He lives in eastern Pennsylvania) and get the books back if he wanted, otherwise I was going to toss them out the window of my car next time I was on the Jersey Turnpike so the TRUCKS could run over them!
The real issue here is the DOUBLE STANDARD in which drugs and nutrients are evaluated. The Double Blind is NOT the sole means of determining efficacy, and fewer than 10% of all drugs approved by the FDA are approved on a basis of controlled clinical trials. What about outcomes research? What about statistical analysis? These methods are used when it comes to evaluating the efficacy of mainstream therapies, but are suddenly not acceptable when it comes to anything OUTSIDE the mainstream! (Read The Controlled Clinical Trial by Harris Coulter,PhD, Center for Empirical Medicine 202-364-0898 4221 45 St NW Washington DC 20016.)
Furthermore, rather than waste my time responding to Barrett's specific ludicrous pronouncements, I'd like to assert that he is operating off an OBSOLETE medical/scientific PARADIGM: the now outmoded Newtonian, Cartesian reductionistic paradigm in which EVERYTHING is examined in a MECHANISTIC way on a basis of CAUSE AND EFFECT.
Barrett's stubborn clinging to this old paradigm is analogous to the way people attacked Galileo when he first announced that the world was ROUND!
In his book The Turning Point experimental physicist Fritjof Capra (ISBN 0-553-01480-3) explains that experimental physicists have ABANDONED the old Newtonian paradigm because they've discovered that it is OBSOLETE - it can't be used as an accurate predictor of how the universe works. The NEW paradigm is HOLISTIC, and systems based. Everything is interrelated. When you're trying to evaluate a modality such as Orthomolecular medicine, you just can't do it by analysing any one PART of the system, you must consider how the nutrients interact in the context of a given INDIVIDUAL.
When you have a multifactorial, highly individual approach such as orthomolecular medicine, you have to begin your investigation from a different medical model - one in which everything is systems based. Barrett was aware of the American Psychiatric Association's attack on Orthomolecular Medicine (Task Force Report #7 Megavitamins and Orthomolecular Therapy in Psychiatry), but when I offered to send him Pauling, Hoffer, and Osmond's very scholarly REPLY to this mine of misinformation so he could see both sides, his response was that he wasn't "interested in their drivel."
For the record, anyone desiring to see both sides of this controversy may do so very easily by doing the following:
1. Get a copy of APA Task Force Report #7 (which attacks orthomolecular medicine) by calling the library at Fair Oaks Hospital in Summit, New Jersey at 908-522-7000. Its out of print, but they have it on their shelves and will copy it for you and send it upon request. (They refuse to keep a copy of Pauling, Hoffer, and Osmond's Reply on the shelves for the sake of objectivity.
I went to them in person to try to get them to, but was angrily denounced as a supporter of "quacks". (Theres was the last hospital I was in. Following getting lab work and nutritional recommendations at the Princeton Bio Center while on a pass, I smuggled vitamins into Fair Oaks and hid them in a cavity gouged out of the underside of my mattress, taking them on the sly, while mouthing most of my medication and spitting it down the toilet. Three weeks after doing this, I was given a medical discharge, the first time I'd been out of mental hospitals in 4 years, and they were left scratching their heads wondering what was helping me.)
2. Along with the American Psychiatric Association's horribly biased diatribe against orthomolecular medicine (which Barrett endorses while refusing to examine the other sides rebuttal), you will need to get the Hoffer and Osmond Reply to the APA Task Force Report (Pauling has a section within it, but its mostly Hoffer and Osmond's reply since they were the primary people under attack.) Get your copy from the Canadian Schizophrenia Foundation at 416-733-2117, 16 Florence Ave, North York, Ontario, Canada- and tell 'em I sent you!
I'm not going to tell you what to think: just get both of these documents, and the truth will be revealed to you in great abundance - just be sure to have a toilet handy because you might lose the contents of your stomach when the full impact of what is being suppressed hits you.
If you'd like to join me in my war against Stephen Barrett, the FDA, and the evil elements within the pharmaceutical industry - please join the Life Extension Foundation. We have 30,000 members in all 50 states and several foreign countries, and we're located in Ft.Lauderdale, Florida. Our membership includes hundreds of alternative physicians, researchers, as well as lay people interested in health and longevity. We publish a monthly magazine. For complete information, call me at the LEF Political Office at 305-966-4886. (Add USA code if dialling from overseas.)
FDA Response to the
by Paul Mason
Dr. John Vanderveen is an assitant to the Dr. David Kessler, the Commissioner in charge of the FDA. Dr. Vanderveen returned my call today to explain what the FDA is doing about the Magnesium Catastrophe, which appears to have taken 8 million American lives since 1940, and is apparently still causing about 590 fatal heart attacks each day in the U. S.
Dr. Vanderveen made these points:
1 Magnesium deficiency appears to play a role in many other ailments besides heart disease.
2 The FDA recognizes the "significant controversy" in the scientific community concerning the role of magnesium deficiency in heart disease and the significance of the Ca/Mg ratio. The FDA is cognizant of the work of Dr. Mildred Seelig and others (such as Dr. Burton Altura and Dr. Bella Altura).
3 The FDA has not specifically forbidden or criticized the consumption of magnesium, either in water or as a supplement.
4 The FDA has had NO POSITION on the consumption of de-mineralized water or de-ionized water or reverse-osmosis water, which is commonly used to make soft drinks and beer.
5 It is not the FDA's responsibility to set standards of nutrition.
6 The FDA does not have enough cardiologists on staff to study the impact of magnesium deficiency on heart disease.
7 The FDA is part of the Dept. of Health, and must defer to other agencies.
8 The FDA has taken action in response to my Citizen's Petition requesting that the Commissioner publicly recommend the fortification of beverages with magnesium, and in response to my paper, "Calculations of American Deaths Caused By Magnesium Deficiency, As Projected From International Data".
9 The FDA's response has been to provide "significant resources" to the National Academy of Sciences to study the relationship between Magnesium, Calcium, Phosphorus, and Vitamin D.
10 The FDA has previously published fortification guidelines that permit bottlers to add nutrients, restore nutrients removed during processing, and to fortify in accordance with calorie content (bottled water contains no calories, but soft drinks may contain substantial calories due to the 7-9 teaspoons of surgar per 12 oz. can. Confusion reigns.)
11 The National Institute of Health is conducting an Mg intervention study which may take about a year to complete. Dr. Vanderveen did not have any details, and suggested that I contact Dr. Nancy Ernst , assistant to Dr. Claude Lenfant, for details. (I called, but Dr. Ernst was out).
12 Dr. Vanderveen says that it is up to the NIH to set standards for the Recommended Daily Allowance of magnesium, so the FDA has no responsibility for current RDA standards.
13 Epidemilogical studies alone are not sufficient to nail down the role of magnesium. Clinical studies and intervention studies are also required. Significant activity along those lines are going on at the NAS and NIH, as a direct result of my papers and prodding.
1 In 1880 mineral water was popular in the United States, but by 1950 "pure" was in, meaning no minerals. Evidently the AMA (which functioned as the predecessor of the FDA until 1940) and later the FDA convinced Americans that "pure" water was best. (I recall being taught that in grade school in the 1950's --- that pure water was better than mineral-laden water, and the Europeans were simply ignorant and silly to drink mineral water).
2 My certified request to the FDA for information on their position on water-borne minerals was signed for on Jan. 12, 1995, and by law was supposed to have been answered within 10 working days, but I have received no response. In a call to the FDA today, I was informed that an initial response is "in the mail". I had pointed out in my FOIA request that magnesium deficiency has apparently killed 8 million Americans since 1940, and therefore it is a matter of genuine public interest to release this information to the public.
3 Senator Barbara Boxer has stated that she favors more information be given to the American public concerning magnesium deficiency.
4 Trade magazines such as Beverage Industry and Beverage World and Food R&D have indicated that the food and beverage industries are waiting for a clear signal from the FDA before proceeding with "neutraceuticals". No bottler wants to put out a fortified product and then be slapped down by the FDA, causing financial ruin. The FDA's argument that bottlers are free to fortify is simply unrealistic.
5 Substantial clinical work has already been done that supports the role of magnesium deficiency in the genesis of heart disease and other ailments. Some intervention studies have also been done that substantiate that magnesium supplementation can prevent cardiac death (Singh RB, Effect of Dietary Magnesium Supplementation In The Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease and Sudden Cardiac Death, Magnesium and Trace Elements, 1990;9: 143-151.
6 I will continue to gather information on how the mineral water industry was smothered by the AMA and government agencies in this country, and how de-mineralized water was approved for use in this country. It seems that when a disastrous blunder occurs, no agency wants to take responsibility.
More magnesium information can be downloaded on the Internet from: ftp.execpc.com. The file is in: /pub/magnesium/mgresrch.asc Use "anonymous" as the user name, and set line length to 80.
Human Longevity Genes and
Sexual Difference in Lifespan
Dr.Leonid A.Gavrilov, Ph.D.
Recently our gerontological research group in Russia have made some scientific discoveries which we are going to present at 5th Asia/Oceania Regional Congress of Gerontology (19-23 November, 1995, Hong Kong).
We have submitted our results to the Gerontological Congress in the form of two abstracts printed below:
1 Human Longevity Genes Are Located in X-chromosome
2 Biomedical Basis of Sex Differential in Human Life Span.
firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
Human Longevity Genes Are Located in X-chromosome.
L.A. Gavrilov, N.S. Gavrilova, V.G. Semyonova, A.L. Gavrilova, N.N. Evdokushkina, N.P. Snarskaya, A.N.Belozersky Institute, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899, Russia and R.J.Bradbury, Aeiveos Corporation, Seattle, USA.
The purpose of the study is to locate the longevity genes in human genome. If these genes are located in X-chromosome, then age-related accumulation of mutational load in paternal germ cells should result in decrease of longevity among daughters only (since paternal X- chromosome is inherited by daughters only). Thus, the purpose of the study was to check the prediction of the above mentioned hypothesis that paternal age at reproduction should be associated with specific decrease of daughter's longevity. Information on longevity of sons and daughters combined with information on paternal age at reproduction was extracted from genealogical publications and biographic dictionaries. The data (for more than 3,000 sons and 2,000 daughters) were computerized and sorted by paternal age at reproduction. Then the mean life span for sons and daughters was calculated for different paternal ages and the statistical analysis was made by standard methods (Student test). It was found that longevity of the sons is the same for different paternal age subgroups. Quite different result is observed for daughters: mean life span of the daughters born by old fathers (50-59 years) was significantly lower than for daughters born by young fathers (20- 29 years). The difference in mean life span between these two groups is more than 6 years and this difference is statistically highly significant (p<0.01). The obtained results support the prediction of the hypothesis that human longevity genes are located in X-chromosome. That is why the accumulation of mutational load in germ cells of old fathers is detrimental for longevity of daughters only.
Biomedical Basis of Sex Differential in Human Life Span
N.S.Gavrilova, V.G.Semyonova, L.A.Gavrilov, A.L.Gavrilova, E.V.Lapshin, N.P.Snarskaya, G.N.Evdokushkina, Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences, pr.60 Let Oktyabrya, 9, Moscow, 117312, Russia
The purpose of the study is to understand why women live longer than men. If gender gap is caused by higher genetic redundancy of women's genome (two X-chromosomes) then accumulation of mutational load in one of the female X-chromosomes should result in decrease of sex differential in human lifespan. Thus, the purpose of the study was to check the prediction of the above mentioned hypothesis that paternal age at reproduction should be associated with decrease of the gender gap in human longevity (through introduction of genetic load into female X-chromosome).
Data on longevity of men and women combined with data on paternal age at their birth were extracted from genealogical publications and biographic dictionaries. The data (for more than 3,000 males and 2,000 females) were computerized and sorted by paternal age at their birth.
Then the mean gender gap in longevity was calculated for different paternal ages and the statistical analysis was made by standard methods (Student test). It was found that gender gap in longevity is a function of paternal age: the highest gender gap is observed for the offspring of young fathers (20-29 years), while for the offspring of old fathers (50-59 years) women DO NOT live longer than men. The obtained results support the prediction of the hypothesis that gender gap in human longevity is caused by higher genetic redundancy of women's genome (two X-chromosomes). The research described in this abstract was made possible in part by Grants N7X000, M7E000 and SBI000 from the International Science Foundation and by INTAS Grant 93- 1617.
CoEnzyme Q10 Cures Breast Cancer
by Douglas Skrecky
Cancer has been found to be often associated with a deficiency of coenzyme Q10 and treatment with 60 mg/day COQ10 has been found to increase immunological activity. Treatment of 32 high risk breast cancer patients continued over a year with 90 mg/day COQ10 in conjunction with fatty acids, vitamins and selenium yielded some interesting results. Based on past experience 4 deaths were expected to occur. Mortality in fact was zero and in addition 6 of the patients showed evidence of partial tumour regression. One of these had the COQ10 dosage increased to 390 mg/day. After 1 month of further treatment the breast tumour was no longer palpable and subsequent mammography after 2 months confirmed that the tumor was no longer present. Another patient who refused to undergo further surgical intervention was instead treated with 300 mg/day of COQ10 as the sole therapy. Three months later mammography revealed no evidence of any tumour.
If further tests using a double blind placebo controlled methodology bear out these preliminary results then high dosage coenzyme Q10 treatment would have to be acclaimed as the most effective "drug" treatment for breast cancer. One the doctors involved in the this trial mentioned that he had never seen a spontaneous complete regression of a breast tumour, despite treating about 200 patients per year for 35 years. He had also never seen comparable regressions with any conventional anti-tumor therapy.
Partial and Complete Regression of Breast Cancer in Patients in Relation to Dosage of Coenzyme Q10 1504-1508 Vol.199 No.3 1994 Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
The Breakdown of Government
Why Government No Longer Protects us,
Educates our Children, or Balances its Budget
by Harry Browne
Something has gone wrong in the "land of the free." People today are alarmed at a government that has grown too large and too bold - a government that removes more and more of our choices and demands more and more of what we earn.
The government that was set up to protect private property now confiscates it in the name of preserving the environment or fighting drugs. The government founded by men who warned "Don't tread on me" pries into our bank accounts, harasses us to collect its taxes, and tries to herd us into health-care collectives - as though we were Soviet citizens.
The government formed merely to keep the peace routinely disturbs it with oppressive regulations and environmental mandates on industry - running up the price of everything we buy. Government loads payroll taxes, hiring quotas, and other burdens on employers - drastically reducing our incomes as employees. Government at all levels takes 45% of our earnings through direct and hidden taxes - cutting our standard of living to only a fraction of what it could be.
Is this the government the founding fathers had in mind? Is this the government instituted among men to secure the blessings of life, liberty, and property?
Where did it go wrong?
Once upon a time, government budgets were balanced, our money was sound, the streets were safe, and taxes imposed by all levels of government took less than 10% of our incomes.
Now government's "share" is up to 45%. But that statistic doesn't tell the whole story, because it doesn't allow for the way government regulation has preempted more and more decisions we used to make for ourselves.
Where did it all go wrong? Isn't government supposed to be our servant, rather than our master? Wasn't government supposed to help only those who couldn't help themselves - rather than the politicians and lobbyists? What happened to the principle that government should do for the people only what they cannot do for themselves?
I think there are answers to these questions. In fact, I believe we can identify the precise turning point that made today's breakdown inevitable. And that is the purpose of this article.
What is government?
First, we must identify exactly what government is.
Governments dominate our lives; they are the central topic of the news and public discussion. And yet not one person in a hundred can define what we mean by the word government, and no school or textbook bothers to provide a precise definition.
What is government? How does it differ from IBM or the Boy Scouts or a local security company? What resource does government have that makes it different from every other entity in society?
When people say the government should do something - whether to provide universal health insurance or enact a family leave policy - why do they turn to the government? Why not ask the United Way or the Chamber of Commerce?
Is it government's size that makes it different and, thus, better able to handle some tasks? No. For no matter how large the project, a stock offering could raise the necessary private capital, or a joint venture of existing companies could do the job.
Is it that government operates without profit? No. So do the Salvation Army, the Rotary Club, and thousands of other organizations.
Is it that government has a longer view and is more considerate of the future? Hardly. A corporation can last for centuries, and its stockholders monitor the company to assure that its stock retains its value for their heirs or for future buyers - while politicians look no further ahead than the next election.
Is it that government is the only institution concerned for the well-being of all citizens? No, since government can give to one group only what it takes from others.
It isn't the size of government, its non-profit status, its perspective, or its scope. The distinctive feature of government is something quite different from all these things.
It is force - the ability to compel obedience. It is coercion that makes government unique among every agency in society.
When someone demands that government help flood victims in the Midwest, he is saying he wants to force people to pay for flood relief. Otherwise, he'd gladly have the Red Cross handle everything.
Social Security is a government program because such a scheme can survive only if people are forced to join. Otherwise, most people would tear up their Social Security cards and choose from the hundreds of attractive, voluntary retirement plans available which have rules and provisions that don't change capriciously from year to year.
And government imposes tariffs and import quotas for one reason only to forcibly prevent consumers from buying the products they find most attractive. Otherwise, the companies now protected from foreign competition would simply advertise that their products are better.
No one asks the government to do something that relies on voluntary participation. In one way or another, coercion is at work: someone is forced to pay for something, someone is forced to do something, or someone is forcibly prevented from doing something. There is no other reason to involve the government.
Consequences of Coercion
The government's coercion is an attractive tool for ambitious, concerned people.
If you want to feed the homeless, you don't have to persuade hundreds of people to donate money to your project; the government can force everyone to contribute.
Government is a powerful tool. But it's also an unmanageable one. When government is involved, nothing ever seems to work out the way it was supposed to.
This usually is because people planning a new government program focus only on the immediate beneficiaries of coercion. They fail to see how the benefits will act as a magnet for other would-be beneficiaries, and they fail to consider the reactions of the people whose lives must be turned upside down for the program to succeed.
The goals of government are constantly derailed by unforeseen consequences. Poverty programs don't reduce the number of poor people; on the contrary, they encourage more people to become poor and get on the gravy train. (It's not very good gravy, but it's free.) New regulations don't reform society as expected; instead, they inspire new techniques, new products, and even new industries to help people circumvent the regulations. As the War on Drugs expands, drug use seems to grow. And, through it all, the underground economy siphons off revenue the government had counted on.
The unintended consequences lead to calls for even bigger programs, higher taxes, and tighter regulations to solve the problems caused by the government's earlier programs.
Of course, no government ever admits that it caused the problems it now claims it can solve. It doesn't have to - it can blame everything on the private sector. Thus government control of over half the money spent on medical care has produced an overpriced health-care system but government simply blames that on a "failure of the free market."
So the initiation of any government program almost guarantees that other programs will be demanded later to clean up the mess created by the first program. In this way, government assures its own continual growth.
Government grows, too, because the subsidy or privileged status won by one group inspires other groups to demand similar benefits for themselves. When one company or industry gets government to force competitors out of business, why shouldn't others call for the same protection? That's why no government program ever stands still. Once implemented, it inevitably expands to cover wider and wider areas.
Everyone who comes to the government asking for favours has a plausible request. Once it's been settled that it's proper to use government force to solve a problem in one person's life, it's obviously proper to use it to solve any problem in anyone's life. And so no demand is considered out of bounds. The pressure on lawmakers to grant favours is overwhelming.
But, actually, very little pressure is necessary. Lawmakers, bureaucrats, and judges all thrive on a government that grows and grows and grows. The larger the government, the more power lawmakers have to make or break companies and individuals and the more people must prostrate themselves at the politicians' feet to obtain favours or just to keep government from destroying them.
So government gets bigger and bigger, because everyone wants the special privileges he sees others getting; the failure of each program leads to calls for new programs; and "public servants" use every event as an excuse to expand their private powers.
Through it all, the so-called "legitimate" functions of government more and more take a back seat to subsidies, protection schemes, and the reorganizing of society through force - because the latter functions make us more beholden to the politicians.
The Dictator Syndrome
Government grows also because wellmeaning people like you and me believe the government should do some things that seem to be beyond controversy find a cure for cancer, stop air pollution, keep violence off television, or prevent Saddam Hussein from conquering the Middle East. Whatever the goal, it's easy to visualize exactly how the government will accomplish the objective.
I call this The Dictator Syndrome. You imagine a reform and visualize the way government will solve some social problem without realizing that the program would proceed this way only if you were a dictator who could command everyone involved to act exactly as you want him to. But government doesn't act according to your dictates.
The Civil Rights Acts passed in the last 30 years demonstrate how the political process turns such intentions inside out.
For almost a century, the laws in many Southern states forced companies to practice racial segregation - in hiring, in the services offered to customers, and in the facilities provided for their employees. Companies weren't allowed to make their own decisions. Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these laws but failed to do so.
So they asked the federal government to overrule the Southern states. But when the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 was finally passed, it didn't simply repeal the coercion of the Southern laws and set companies free to make their own decisions. The new law imposed its own coercion prohibiting firms from practising any kind of segregation or discrimination.
The civil rights movement supported this approach, because the new coercion was in the service of a noble objective.
But laws never stand still. Soon it was argued that if it's wrong for an employer, landlord, or organization to discriminate on the basis of race, it was just as wrong to discriminate on the basis of gender. So the law was expanded to cover women and then religious believers, and then the handicapped, and then the elderly.
In the meantime, the bureaucrats and courts had taken charge of the law. They enforced it so zealously that employers could avoid charges of discrimination only by, in fact, discriminating by using hiring quotas to assure the right mix of races among their employees.
In addition, the Civil Rights laws provide a basis for lucrative law suits. So every imaginable group wants to be covered by them to become part of the aristocracy. There are movements to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, weight, looks, drug use, illness, criminal record, and dozens of other categories. Everyone wants in on this sweet deal.
And it is an aristocracy these groups are trying to join. Once they're on the "A List" they possess power that's denied to the rest of us. Anyone who refuses to hire them, rent an apartment to them, or sell his services to them, can be sued and perhaps forced to pay a million dollars or more in punitive damages. Obviously, no one wants to risk these consequences by turning away someone who's a member of the aristocracy especially when any tiny misstep can be considered proof of discrimination.
For example, recently a couple were ejected from an airliner (before take-off) because they shouted a string of obscenities at the other passengers. They then sued the airline on the grounds that they were discriminated against because they have a disease that compels them to utter profanities. Has the law really been stretched to such an exaggeration?
No, it has been stretched even further. In fact, it has gone full circle. The Civil Rights Acts originated when some wellmeaning people wanted to end forced segregation of the races in the South. But in 1992 a Florida court used these laws to award a white woman permanent disability benefits ruling that her employer should have provided a segregated workplace to cater to her fear of blacks.
Although the decision seems absurd, something of the kind was inevitable. If government can coerce on behalf of one group of "victims," the billy club will be swung on behalf of almost every imaginable group. You can't limit the coercion to the purposes you think are right. Thus, government programs continually fail to be true to the original intentions. And yet, well-meaning people want to believe that the next program will be different.
Some people continue to imagine that confiscating more money and throwing it at the poor will banish poverty from our land - oblivious to the fact that very little of the trillions already spent has accomplished any good. Other people call for spending more and more money to fight drugs or crime even though the money spent up to now hasn't reduced drug use or the crime rate. Political activists ignore all the failed programs of the past as they imagine that the next scheme - a new healthcare system, an industrial policy, a crime prevention program, or whatever will be carried out efficiently and fairly.
You don't control the government. And the dreams you have of what government should do are just that dreams. They have nothing whatever to do with what really will happen.
Even if you could somehow win some political objective - just as you had imagined it - what good would it do you? That wouldn't end the matter. Your opponents would struggle to reverse everything you had achieved. To preserve your victory, you'd have to continue fighting the rest of your life.
So long as the instrument of coercion is tolerated, people will try to use it for their purposes - not those you believe are right.
The government that can protect you from your enemies can be used as easily by your enemies to harm you. The government that's strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to destroy you.
Imagining A Free Society
But if government isn't a reliable protector, what is? Without government, how would we protect ourselves from bandits and predators? How would money be issued and circulated in a free society? How would we defend ourselves from foreign invaders?
I don't know the answers to these questions although innovative, plausible, exciting alternatives to government have been advanced over the years.
Those alternatives serve only to show that a free society can provide whatever we need without government. They don't tell us what a free society will be. A free society isn't planned, it evolves from the wishes and talents of its members. So there's no way to know what system of protection, money-issuance, or road building would win out in the free market. In fact, most likely there would be many systems from which each of us could choose for himself.
I may not know the details of how a free society would work, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work. I also don't know how computers will work in the year 2000. I know only that the best minds in that business will develop computers and software beyond my ability to imagine today. They will do this because they'll earn fortunes applying their genius to the needs of computer users. I will benefit from their talents without knowing in advance what they'll develop.
And my inability to visualize how some task would be accomplished in a free society doesn't mean such a task couldn't be accomplished. America's best entrepreneurs would be competing to provide the best schooling, the safest and fastest roads, the most stable money, the best defense.
Suppose Federal Express and UPS were no longer limited by law to courier services, and could compete to deliver first class mail. Who knows how mail delivery would change and improve?
Suppose Bill Gates of Microsoft could make his billions not by creating an operating system for computers, but by developing a system of neighbourhood protection. We can't even imagine the possibilities that his genius for innovation and management would lead to.
Today the government preempts these fields through prohibition, regulation, or subsidy. But once it became profitable for the world's best minds to address these needs, we could enjoy excellence in protection, schooling, and purchasing power comparable to what we now get in telephones, computers, and fax machines.
How would all these things operate? I have no idea, and it would be presumptuous to think that I knew what people would want and what geniuses would create. I know only that market solutions would have to provide what we need and desire while today's methods are designed to provide what the politicians and their allies want.
Government Doesn't Work
But I'm straying from the point.
The issue isn't how a totally free society would work. It isn't really even whether it would work.
What we must realize is that government doesn't work. Government is the source of most of society's ills. And trying to make it more efficient, more accountable, or more fair won't help anything because a system relying on coercion is necessarily a monster.
Once we realize that government doesn't work, we will stop dreaming that we can solve this or that social problem by passing a law or by creating a new government program or by electing someone more honest or efficient.
Once we realize that government doesn't work, we will know that the only way to improve society is by reducing the size of government by doing away with laws, by getting rid of government programs, by getting the money we've earned back in our own hands so we can take care of ourselves.
And once we realize that government doesn't work, we will know immediately which side of any political issue to cheer for: If the proposal would increase the size or reach of government, it is a mistake no matter how lofty its intentions. If the proposal would reduce the power of government, then it's on the right track no matter what flaws it contains because it can't be worse than what it will replace.
The question isn't whether we'll have a totally free society someday. We probably won't. But if, somehow, tomorrow we have less government than we do today, we're going to be better off. And if, somehow, the day after that we have less government still, we'll be even better off.
We don't know how far we'll get down that road, but the farther we go, the better. Every reduction in government sets more people and resources free to provide more of what we need and want.
About Harry Browne
Harry Browne is the author of nine books, a public speaker, and an investment advisor. This article is condensed from a more complete presentation of the same name.
He became widely known in the early 1970s through his books How You Can Profit from the Coming Devaluation and You can Profit From a Monetary Crisis and How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.
Since 1974 he has been writing Harry Browne's Special Reports a newsletter that provides commentary on the economy, investments, government, politics, and other social areas.
Harry is currently running for president as a Libertarian, the third largest political party in the USA. If you are interested in learning more about his campaign, call or write:
If you have any questions or desire further information, please contact Sharon Ayres at:
Harry Browne for President
1500 Adams Avenue, Suite 105
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 USA
Phone: (714) 437-7911
Fax: (714) 432-1468
Like you, we appreciate the value of the Internet as a way to communicate our message of liberty and we are grateful to anyone who aids in this endeavor.
To enquire about subscribing to Harry Browne's Special Reports or to order the complete version of "The Breakdown of Government, send $5.00 to
Harry Browne's Special Reports,
P 0. Box 5586,
U. S. A.
Discounts are available for multiple purchases. For more information, or to order over the phone, call (800) 531-5142.
The above was reproduced with permission of Harry Browne. Please do not reproduce further UNLESS you include all of it unaltered and the addresses for further information.
Comment for people living outside the United States (by John de Rivaz, publisher of Longevity Report):
Harry Browne's campaign in the USA may seem far removed from your daily lives. But government interference certainly isn't.
If he succeeds in his campaign to reduce rules and regulations, and the power of the lawyers, then the US economy will grow so fast that all other nations will have to adopt similar system or become completely bankrupt. The process will be similar to the collapse of Communism. Therefore if you agree with his ideas, then support his campaign by keeping a copy of this file. As you look through the Internet newsgroups (or if you are not on the Internet as you communicate with people generally) pass on complete copies of this document to people you think may be interested. Do not send them out indiscriminately, only if you have a reason, eg to answer a point or complain made by someone else. We do not want Harry associated with junk mail. If you run newsletters, publish the file in those whose readership is likely to be interested. In others, put a short précis and suggest people write for the whole thing.
If you are outside the USA, your participation will still form part of a network that will reach back into it. It will also sow seeds in your own country that will hasten these changes there.
Xanthophylls & Macular Degeneration
by Douglas Skrecky
Age related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness is aged humans. Does diet have any effect on this disease? Are vitamin supplements useful? A recent epidemiological study at 5 ophthalmology centers in the United States provides some of the answers.
Vitamin A, vitamin C and vitamin E intake, including supplements had... no effect on AMD. Although past studies have found a protective effect for increased dietary beta carotene intake and this study fully agreed with these it went beyond the other studies to examine exactly which foods containing beta carotene were protective. It was then found that only foods containing the xanthophlls lutein and zeaxanthin such as spinach and collards were protective. With 5 or more servings of these per week risk of AMD was reduced by over 85%. This provided an intake of about 5700 IU zanthophylls.
It was concluded that beta carotene itself had no protective effect on AMD and that the only apparent impact of diet was solely due to its xanthophyll content.1
Perhaps this should not have been surprising as beta carotene is not found in the macula. Instead the yellow macular pigment consists of lutein and zeaxanthin, which tend to filter out high energy blue light. (Ultraviolet light is filtered by the cornea and lens.) The next step is to conduct a double blind placebo controlled trial to help assess the dose/response effect of supplemental xanthophylls.
Other high xanthophyll foods not studied here include kale, mustard greens and turnip greens. In addition to consuming more of these, suffers of AMD might benefit from wearing yellow tinted glasses to further filter out blue light.
1 Dietary Carotenoids, Vitamins A,C and E and Advanced Age-Related Macular Degeneration 1413-1420 Vol.272 November 9,1994 JAMA
Peace and Quiet
by Douglas Skrecky
People vary enormously in their sensitivity to noise stress. Introverts are more sensitive than extroverts and anxious people are more sensitive than non-anxious people1. Prolonged exposure to noise stimuli can make one less noise sensitive2. Listening to a tape recording of unpleasant sounds could make listening to them easier in real life.
Apartment buildings vary dramatically in their degree of sound-proofing. Living in a tenement with paper thin wooden partitions is very different from living in a well-maintained concrete reinforced highrise. If you can hear intimate conversations conducted in the next apartment a move may well be in order.
If a sound is pleasant to listen to it is music, but if it is unpleasant it is noise. One man's music may be another's noise. As the parents of teenaged acid rock enthusiasts can easily attest not all forms of 'music' can be called relaxing. However some less strident forms of audio entertainment such as harp chamber music do appear to lower anxiety3.
1 Noise: Hearing Loss and Psychological Effects 1325-1327 Vol.281 1980 British Medical Journal
2 Extra-Auditory Responses to Long-Term Intermittent Noise Stimulation in Humans 985-993 Vol.49 No.6 1980 Journal of Applied Physiology
3 Biofeedback, Relaxation Training, and Music:Homeostasis for Coping With Stress 169-179 Vol.9 No.2 1984 Biofeedback and Self-Regulation
The Prospect of Immortality
by Robin Helweg-Larsen
I've just read Ettinger's Prospect of Immortality (kind of slow, aren't I?) and I am delighted that a book that must inevitably take its place with the literary milestones in human history, should contain enough sense of fun to (for example) measure the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight.
At first reading, only two things date the book for me: the dismissal of natural pregnancy and breast-feeding (something that many people may look forward to experiencing in the distant future, when they have enough leisure), and the optimistic belief that the logic of cryonics would receive mass acceptance within a couple of years.
The near-universal rejection of cryonics - the fear, manifested as ridicule or disgust, that it engenders - implies that we are dealing with something absolutely key to the makeup of the human being. This factor must be somewhere in the identity and in the memory.
Science already recognizes two kinds of memory in the human: short-term and long-term. But who has looked for these kinds?
Who has looked for:
1 A gene to allow the transmission not just of brain structure, but of information-patterns held in parts of the brain; so that key areas of human activity would have the evolutionary advantage of specific fears built up in them over time, as the justification for those fears was repeated (falling from heights, animals snarling, spiders, snakes, things that leap at you, etc).
2 A particular area of pre-existing brain information that is copied from the mother to the child at a set time during fetal development, and can involve psychological as well as physical information.
3 A time in the development of the fetus when an event for the mother, especially one involving strong emotions (attack by a dog, for example, or overwhelming love) would be structured into the memory of the fetus as well.
If the latter two exist, they have relevance for ex-utero fetal development.
They also have implications for understanding the fear of death, and the nature of denial mechanisms applied to all thought about actually dying, and the ironic difficulties of getting people to consider cryonics seriously.
Someone recently made a joke about recessive cryonics genes. It may not be a joke. Denial may have carried an evolutionary advantage when people couldn't prevent death, but that advantage has turned sour this century.
Another thought that occurs to me is that our intellect may have outstripped not just our emotions, but also our comprehension. We regularly use numbers that we honestly cannot understand: the age and size of the universe, the speed of light, the population of the earth.... it requires constant work to find a meaningful measure, and denial may be an attempt to stay within the comprehensible rather than follow the intellect uncomprehendingly.
Which of the following figures, for example, are meaningful?
Three per second
A quarter million per day
100,000,000 per year
Those are, in very rounded terms, the present human death rate. Three per second we can imagine: Death wearing camouflage fatigues and walking through a crowded downtown, firing an AK-47, killing three per second.
But we can only build the image for a certain number of seconds. We can't actually imagine it extrapolated to a 24-hour period, and a quarter million dead; but every day we bring mass cryonics closer to reality, that's how many lives we will save.
Which brings me back to The Prospect of Immortality: if it had all happened as fast as Robert Ettinger expected, we would now have billions of people in storage.
Maybe revolutionary ideas just take a generation to catch hold in the popular mind. If so, that tidal wave could be upon us any time: ultimately, three new patients per second, a quarter million per day....
What Would Happen if
Cryonics Became a Profession
by Keith F. Lynch
Medicine and the law are "professionalized" in that nobody may practice either without extensive training in a very expensive government- approved school. And there is a quota of how many doctors and lawyers there can be. This quota is maintained by the doctors and lawyers to keep their incomes high by artificially creating a scarcity.
Also, only government-approved medicines and medical devices may be used in medicine. These tend to be much more expensive than similar substances and devices that don't have government approval for medical uses.
I suppose the same could happen with cryonics. If the government were to come to officially believe that cryonics patients were alive, then that makes cryonics a medical procedure, and implies that only doctors may do cryonics, and that only government-approved medical-grade water, glycerol, etc, could be used in a suspension. There's no use complaining to the government that this "consumer protection" would certainly cost more lives than it saves, by pricing almost everyone out of the market. This is already true of existing medical care, and they don't give a flying.
They'd rather define even the wealthiest Americans as being in need of government financial support for the necessities of life. And use this to impose new taxes and new controls. Perhaps in 20 years, cryonics will be free to everyone who meets government approval, priced out of reach of everyone else except Bill Gates, and we will all be taxed to support goverment-paid cryonics for the approved politically-correct elite.
Low Cost Nanotechnology
by Yvan Bozzonetti
At the start nanotechnology was proposed by the physicist Richard P. Feynman on theoretical grounds and by the semiconductor industry on practical grounds. Any mechanical function has now been produced at the micron scale and, in the coming years, a surgeon in a virtual reality "space suit" could well teleoperate a robot no more than 0.1 millimetre long in a small blood vessel. This is not science fiction, simply a direct anticipation of the current technology. If there is money available, this will happen.
In a second path to nanotechnology, the idea is to go from down up: from atoms and small quantum systems to large molecular assemblies. This is what life does and there could be many "pseudo-lives" produced by an advanced technology. The first step would be to use the biochemical products of life. A single device can naturally include parts from both, the silicon and the biochemical worlds. A common trait to these systems is the high cost of any research in these domains.
As an independent thinker I am mostly interested in low cost approaches. There may be one: the linking of some clay micro crystals, with their catalytic properties, and some large molecular complexes such the numerous chaperones.
Clays are alumino-silicates crystals often less than one micron long produced by the weathering of primary rocks such as granite. Sand is another by-product of the same process. In silicium saturated water, clays can grow atom layer after atom layer, each one reproducing the defects and deformations of the under layer. In a near defect free crystal looking initially as a token, this process generate a close packed set of token stacks. That geometry imparts water circulation and so crystal growth rate. On the contrary, a highly deformed crystal clay can't support many atom layers without exfoliate; The resulting bulk clay displays then a low density and a large water content. It reproduces more quickly because there is more "nutrient" and the exposed surface gets larger.
This system was suggested to form the first reproductive and evolving system in prebiotic era1. It could too have formed the mineral scaffolding for the synthesis of the first biochemical products. Even today, many biomolecules stick readily to clay and cell walls do the same.
My subject has been to find a way to extract clay crystals with particularly deformed surfaces to use them as support for protein systems in a harsh environment. For example, chaperones are protein complexes useful for folding properly new or denaturated proteins. Naturally, chaperones can themselves be denaturated if there is no protective system to keep them properly folded. Clay could be such an armour.
Practical uses go from back folding prion protein in Creutzfeld-Jacob or scrapie diseases to healing help in damaged tissues.
I have used first in the selection process a simple water dilution to get rid of sand and largest impurities. I then dry my clay to remove the free water, that leaves some water between crystals and mostly the adsorbed liquid on surfaces. I use then 70 % per volume alcohol in a first bath and 90% per volume solution in a second bath (24 h each). I then change to organic solvent such white spirit. At that level, there is nearly no more water between the crystals, so I can put them into oil without getting mud drops. I am currently experimenting in a kitchen electric oven different oily products.
The idea unfolds such that: the most deformed crystals will break into thin fold and so will have the smallest mass. The Brownian motion of hot, heavy molecules, must then maintain them in the bulk liquid even if their density is larger than that of the liquid. I can play with two parameters : the oven temperature, controlling the mean molecular velocity and liquid viscosity on the one hand and the molecular mass on the other.
When there will be a sufficient quantity of low bulk density clay, the next step will be to define the broad class of forms found in the sample. That may be done at home with a simple microscope. A particular chaperone kind could then be selected to fit in a common crystal folding.
This process could generate a first nanomachine generation in few years at very low cost. There is no need for exterior help or capital. In a more elaborate second generation, atomic force microscopes could be used to move atoms on a crystal so that a particular form would be produced. In a suitable incubating medium, that crystal would then reproduce itself as bacteria in a biological "soup". The capacity to reproduce clay crystal of any form open the way to develop a mass industry in this domain.
Arresting Migraine and General Pains
by Douglas Skrecky
Gadgets seem to be useful for pain relief. The use of either electromyographic, temperature or galvanic skin resistance biofeedback is associated with a reduction in the incidence of tension headaches1,2
What you eat can also make a difference. Phenylethylamine found in aspartame, chocolate and some cheeses as well as tyramine found in sherry and red wines can induce migraine attacks in susceptible individuals3. Chili peppers contain capsaicin which is effective in blocking knee joint pain4.
Competing sensations such as those produced by vibratory stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation can produce temporary pain relief5.
However for permanent pain reduction nothing beats exercise6. Pain tolerance can also be increased by floating in a sensory isolation tank7.
1 Biofeedback Applications to Migraine and Tension Headaches:A Double-Blinded Outcome Study 135-152 Vol.8 No.1 1983 Biofeedback and Self-Regulation
2 GSR Feedback and Schulz Relaxation in Tension Headaches:a Comparitive Study 205-213 Vol.25 1986 Pain
3 The Effect of Aspartame on Migraine Headache 10-13 Vol.28 1988 Headache
4 Evaluation of the Analgesic Effects of Capsaicin Using a New Rat Model for Tonic Pain 235-240 Vol.365 1986 Brain Research
5 Vibratory Stimulation for the Relief of Pain of Dental Origin 37-45 Vol.10 1981 Pain
6 A Controlled Trial of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation TENS and Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain 1627-1634 Vol.322 No.23 1990 New England Journal of Medicine
7 Restricted Environmental Stimulation and the Enhancement of Hypnotizability:pain, EEG Alpha, Skin Conductance and Temperature Responses 147-166 Vol.30 No.2 1982 The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis
Click arrow to get back to main contents page.