From: uad1214@dircon.co.uk (Peter Cox)
Subject: Re: Orthomolecular Approaches to Medicine
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 10:02:07 GMT


There seems to be some confusion about Linus Pauling here -
perhaps I can help to clarify things by posting this from a
book of mine (unfortunately, only published in the U.K.)
Spellings are British. ============




In the world of science, Dr. Linus Pauling holds a unique
position.  A controversial figure, he is revered and
vilified in roughly equal amounts by doctors and
scientists.  In 1954 he won the Nobel prize for chemistry,
given to recognize his pioneering work which shed new light
on the molecular structure of chemicals.  In 1962 he again
won a Nobel prize, this time for peace, in recognition of
his campaigning work to ban the atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons by America, the USSR and Britain.  At the
time, the three superpowers maintained that there was
absolutely no danger to the public from the radioactive
fallout which their atomic explosions created.  Difficult
though it is for us to believe today, the American Atomic
Energy Commission tried hard to convince Americans that
atmospheric fallout was actually good for them.  Citing
evidence of studies on fruit flies, they put forward the
view that radiation could bestow "more vigour, hardiness,
resistance to disease, and better reproductive capacity" .
In support of their position, they enlisted the help of
Willard Libby, another Nobel laureate.

Pauling's response was typical of his careful, painstaking
and often iconoclastic approach towards science.  After a
methodical analysis of the data Libby had produced to
support his view that atmospheric fallout was 'safe',
Pauling demonstrated that, on the evidence produced by
Libby and the Atomic Energy Commission, the series of
atomic test explosions then being proposed would result in
55,000 children being born with gross physical and mental
defects, and more than 500,000 miscarriages, stillbirths
and newborn deaths.  The subsequent controversy erupted
internationally, and Pauling was at the centre of it.
Having greatly angered the American authorities, he had his
passport revoked, and he was the target of much official
smearing and slander ('Life' magazine called his Nobel
prize a "weird insult from Norway").  Nevertheless, Pauling
achieved his objective, and the atmospheric test ban treaty
came into effect on the very same day that he received his
second Nobel prize.

Pauling has always been several steps ahead of the pack.
For this, too, he has often had to endure much acrimonious
criticism.  Nevertheless, his ideas have almost always
turned out to be correct.  In the 1920s, his revolutionary
theories concerning the three-dimensional structure of
chemical molecules and their bonds (much opposed by
'orthodox' chemists at the time) essentially laid the
foundations for modern chemistry.  The molecular chemistry
which is today taught in schools and universities owes much
to Pauling's trailblazing work.

Many other major scientific achievements followed.  He
pioneered the understanding of protein structure, and
explained the molecular basis of sickle-cell anaemia.  He
discovered the 'alpha helix' - the way in which polypeptide
chains are arranged in proteins, and in 1953, he proposed
the screw-like helix structure of the DNA molecule.  This
came tantalizingly close to the correct double-helix
structure which Watson and Crick proposed the same year (in
his memoirs, James Watson tells of his great fear that
Pauling would beat him to the discovery of the structure of
DNA).  Banned from travelling (his passport was still
revoked by the U.S. State Department) Pauling was denied
access to X-ray photographs of the DNA molecule, which
would have completed his understanding of DNA's structure,
thus winning him his third Nobel prize.

In 1983, after a lifetime of extraordinary scientific
achievement, he was awarded the Priestley Medal, the
highest honour of the American Chemical Society, in
recognition of his stature as perhaps the world's leading
chemist.

Today, ninety years old, Pauling is still busy, conducting
research and stirring up controversy.  His current work
centres around his theory of orthomolecular medicine.  "I
have coined the term orthomolecular medicine",says Pauling,
"for the preservation of good health and the treatment of
disease by varying the concentrations in the human body of
substances that are normally present in the body and are
required for health".   Pauling uses the word
'orthomolecular' to distinguish this sort of medicine from
conventional drug treatment - which could be called
'toximolecular' medicine.

In fact, some forms of conventional medicine are also
orthomolecular in their mode of action.  Pauling cites the
use of insulin to treat diabetes as one example.  Insulin
is a substance which is naturally present in the human
body, although in the case of diabetics, not in sufficient
quantity.  When given additional insulin, a diabetic person
can live a perfectly normal life.  Similarly,
orthomolecular medicine uses supplementation of other
substances which are naturally found in the human body
(usually vitamins) in order to bring about an optimum state
of health.

Vitamins are, of course, vital for a healthy body, but
Pauling maintains that the amounts necessary for
disease-free robust good health are much larger than the
officially-recommended daily allowances - often so much
larger than they cannot be reasonably obtained from the
present-day diet.

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                     Peter Cox
uad1214@dircon.co.uk           CompuServe 100012,221 
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative