Synthesis of opposing views: a syncretic view of the many contradictions re vitamin C


A model that makes sense of opposing views about vitamin C has the following “tenets” (by definition, tenets are tentatively held ideas, modifiable with every piece of data that does not fit the model):

  1. Pauling focused on the high rate of synthesis of vitamin C in animals that make it. He focused on the fact that if we ingest grams of vitamin C, we absorb grams of vitamin C. He noted that we absorb even more vitamin C when we are ill. Pauling focused on the proven utility of high dose vitamin C in the work of Dr. Frederick Klenner. He more or less ignored the high rate of urinary excretion of vitamin C.
  2. The US government focused on the high rate of urinary excretion and the fact that total body pools of vitamin C cannot be increased stably beyond about 1500-3000 mg. The government scientists ignored the fact that animals of our size make 200 times our RDA and that we absorb grams of vitamin C before we excrete all but about 100 mg of it per day and that we absorb more vitamin C when we are sick.
  3. As a rule, animals make about what they need of various nutrients. Exception: we make less choline than we need. As a consequence, animals do not make 200 times what they need.
  4. Both Pauling and the government scientists are making valid points. What is the explanation of these contradictory viewpoints?
  5. A possible explanation of the paradox is that vitamin C is accidentally absorbed (for example, oxidized vitamin C is absorbed by a glucose receptor) and deliberately excreted. This fails to explain why vitamin C is absorbed better when we are ill.
  6. Optimal tissue levels of vitamin C are at or near SL (saturating or near saturating levels). This explains why goats make 13 grams of vitamin C a day and why we absorb grams per day even though we need but 100 mg or so to replace losses of vitamin C (at 2-4% loss per day with a total body pool size of 1500-3000 mg).
  7. Supersaturating levels in serum and tissues occur for a short period of time following injection with high levels of sodium ascorbate.
  8. Chosen properly, an injection that achieves a therapeutic window of proper supersaturating levels of serum and tissue vitamin C, which I will call SSL1 (supersaturating level 1), avoids most of the toxicity and allows some antitumor, antiviral, antibacterial, and antifungal action, as well as some high level chelating of heavy metals. This explains the effectiveness of the use of injectable vitamin C as an adjunct cancer therapy and the many anecdotal results (more than 30 diseases treated) of Dr. Frederick Klenner re injection of high doses of vitamin C followed by high oral doses. Before even getting a diagnosis, Dr. Klenner treated everyone prophylactically with a high dose of injectable vitamin C, followed by multiple oral high dose vitamin C. When they came back for their diagnosis and treatment, they were in many cases on the road to recovery.
  9. Chosen improperly, there is a level of serum and tissue super-saturation, SSL2 (supersaturating level 2), at which there could be heavy damage to normal cells, especially if the kidneys are compromised. Possible mechanism: a catalytic cycle in which vitamin C binds regions in the genome in which copper is bound to cellular DNA, and creates single and double stand breaks. Vitamin C can be regenerated by various cellular antioxidants like glutathione (at 5-10 mM, glutathione is many times higher in concentration than cellular vitamin C), making this a highly destructive catalytic event.
  10. This toxic reaction or something like it or both explains why evolution has favored those animals whose kidneys excrete vitamin C so well and so rapidly, and this rapid excretion explains why vitamin C cannot ordinarily be driven to still higher concentrations in tissues (>=SSL2), given reasonably healthy kidney function.
  11. This explains the US government’s position – why take more than about 100 mg a day if it is all going to be excreted? Well yes, after tissue saturation has been achieved. I doubt that 100 mg a day can always maintain saturation in all tissues. When we are sick we absorb more vitamin C (as evidenced by higher bowel tolerance) and we consume more vitamin C when we are sick. When goats are sick they make twice as much vitamin C as when they are healthy.
  12. Nature’s program is to overdose the vitamin, thus achieving tissue saturation, and then excrete the excess as rapidly as possible to sidestep the toxic side reaction(s).
  13. Because of the toxic reaction(s) at SSL2, at inappropriately high supersaturating concentrations of vitamin C, no one with impaired kidney function should take Pauling type doses (18 grams a day).
  14. Re the government’s position: I would argue that vitamin C passing through the bowel may be doing us a world of good in keeping stools somewhat looser rather than too hard. I would also argue that vitamin C in urine is definitely doing us a world of good. First, in solubilizing substances like calcium (calcium oxalate and calcium phosphate stones are much less likely in someone taking high dose vitamin C). Second, and this is more speculative, in reducing the likelihood of UTI – the acidity of urine with lots of vitamin C likely makes it very uncomfortable for fimbriated bacteria trying to colonize the urinary tract.
  15. Also, re the government’s position: the total requirement for vitamin C cannot be deduced merely from mass balance studies. Two reasons – vitamin C is likely a member in a number of other nutrients’ ADME networks, and it will have an optimal dose for functioning there that is in addition to its own optimal dose (since a vitamin C molecule cannot be in two places at once). In addition, we need to write the total requirement of any nutrient as the sum of at least 4 independent parts: 1. the requirements of the entire gut. 2. the requirements of the blood stream and lymphatic systems. 3. the sum of the requirements of all tissues. 4. the requirements of the urinary system.

How general is this model? Might the same not be true of selenium and other nutrients in which the therapeutic window is rather narrow?

Nature plays with fire – it has to; life would never have come to be without doing so – and avoids getting burned most of the time thanks to many rounds of selective pressure that was at times so great that scientists estimate that ~90% of all species were extinguished. That is how nature comes up with such nearly flawless solutions to working with substances that can be as beneficial at one set of doses, between SL and SSL1, and so harmful at another set of doses, that is, >=SSL2.


Possible problems with determining nutrient requirements by mass balance studies


Determining the minimum daily requirement of a nutrient seems simple enough – just determine the mass balance, that is, how much of a nutrient is needed to replace obligatory daily losses, and do the experiment over a sufficiently long period of time to have confidence in the results.

However, this assumes that all nutrients in that particular nutrient’s ADME network are in place at optimal levels – highly unlikely in modern America.

Consider the absurdity of trying to define the minimum daily calcium requirement in a person with a clear deficiency of magnesium. Such a person inappropriately excretes calcium in his urine because magnesium is a nutrient in calcium’s ADME network.

The iron requirement in a person who is copper deficient cannot be defined, so important is copper in iron’s distribution (copper puts the D in iron’s ADME network; at least 3 copper-requiring proteins are involved in moving iron around the body).

In addition, it may be that some, many, or even all nutrients need to circulate throughout the body to grease the body’s gears so to speak – for these nutrients, the minimum daily amount needed is that amount necessary to maintain its balance, given optimal levels of all ADME nutrients, PLUS the amount needed to circulate through the body each and every day to keep everything running smoothly and everything else in balance.

Sodium, chloride, and vitamin C are almost certainly nutrients that need to pass throughout the body each and every day for optimal health. Is this true of all other nutrients?

Notice that my idea that the vitamin C requirement is the sum of the amount needed to maintain vitamin C balance PLUS the requirement that must circulate through the body comes close to Pauling’s idea that very high doses (multiple grams) of vitamin C are useful in preventing atherosclerosis – circulating high levels of C throughout the body hour by hour each day would keep the serum level consistently high and consistently protective against oxidative damage to key structures, provided that nothing untoward is making the vitamin C act like a pro-oxidant, in which case the vitamin C is likely attacking the culprit by bleaching it.

Why do I think that sodium chloride needs to cycle throughout our bodies?

Reason 1: Because our craving for salt is so much higher than what is needed to replace losses. This craving, present even in reasonably well nourished people, suggests the body has needs for salt that are greatly in excess of replacing insensible losses of sodium and chloride. So important is salt that it must even be added to sweets to make them taste better – first and foremost, if our taste for salt is not satisfied, we cannot thoroughly enjoy the sweetness of a sweet treat.

Reason 2: we absorb so much more sodium chloride than we need to maintain mass balance. Reasonable explanation: sodium chloride needs to circulate throughout the body. To maintain optimal health, we need more sodium chloride per day than what merely replaces daily losses.

Speculation: every essential nutrient is an essential nutrient in at least one other essential nutrient’s ADME network. If true, then sodium and chloride, each of which are essential nutrients, are essential nutrients in other essential nutrients’ ADME networks, and they may need to be temporarily at higher activities at particular locations for optimal bodily function. The same goes for vitamin C and who knows how many other essential and conditionally essential nutrients.

What evidence is there that vitamin C needs to circulate?

The evidence is a bit speculative:

Consider the goat, which is about our size. The goat makes about 13 grams of vitamin C a day. If its total body pools are like ours, about 1.5-3.0 grams, and its rate of turnover of vitamin C is about the same as ours, about 2%-4% per day, then as little as 4% of 1500-3000 mg (60-120 mg) is all that is needed to maintain homeostasis under the worst of conditions. Clearly the goat is making more than it “needs” Biological systems do not in general make 100 times more of something than they need to. So why make so much? Probably because something comparable to this amount of vitamin C, 13 grams, which is roughly 200 times the human RDA (60 mg/day, which is based on balance studies with a generous overage for safety), in all likelihood needs to circulate through the goat’s body each and every day. Is it not likely the same is true for us?

In addition, why does even a person with good vitamin C status still absorb grams of supplemental vitamin C only to excrete nearly all or all but what he/she needs to replace losses? Reasonable explanation: vitamin C needs to circulate throughout our bodies. Replacing losses is not enough. The assumptions behind mass balance studies are or may well be false.

Also, why does the body absorb so much more than it needs of supplemental B vitamins only to excrete what it does not need? Is there something not accounted for in current models of nutrition?

Could atherosclerosis be all but non-existent in us, as Pauling and Rath suggested, if we circulated many grams of vitamin C a day in proper and multiple doses throughout our bodies?

Has the US government misconstrued nutritional science, even when it is interpreting a “simple” balance study?

Does this apply even to cholesterol? Why does the body absorb up to a gram a day of additional cholesterol while remaining fully committed to making a gram a day?

Re poisons: In cases of accidental poisoning, why do we absorb so much more arsenic than we need (we need perhaps just 12 micrograms/day out of just 48 micrograms/day in our food supply)? I assume because mechanisms did not evolve to protect us from arsenic, which is not abundant in food, and so many other poisons. But mechanisms did evolve to protect us from iron poisoning, and food (10-20 mgs/day ingested) does contain enough iron to poison us, if we did not exclude all but 1-2 mg/day, although no known mechanism evolved to protect us from iron overload if the former mechanisms failed, as they do in hereditary hemochromatosis. Is the same true of salt, vitamin C, and the B vitamins? Mechanisms did not evolve to protect us from over-absorption of the minerals and the vitamins, and the over-absorption did not prove to be anywhere near as harmful as over-absorption of arsenic does, and iron would, if mechanisms did not exist to protect us from iron overload due to over-absorption?

The bull’s-eye diet: Not high fat, but sufficient fat


By definition, high fat is too high and low fat is too low. What we want is just the right amount of each type of fat and thus the right amount of total fat.

The bull’s-eye diet is not high in fat, but it is higher in fat than most experts believe is healthy. It is way higher in fat than the low-fat vegan diet many believe is optimal, at least for heart health.

Because most people are under-nourished, they cannot find the optimal level of fat in their food using as guides either their taste buds or the meal’s ability to suppress their appetite for at least 6 hours. Any meal that can suppress appetite for at least 6 hours must have sufficient calories, sufficient protein and sufficient fat. Sufficient calories alone does not remove the sufficient protein and sufficient fat requirements. Low fat, low protein vegan dieting is running uphill when it comes to suppressing the appetite.

F, The amount of fat we need per meal, is that amount that will accomplish at least all of the following:

1. Form a good micellar emulsion with water and bile and other emulsifiers (like choline) and all of the useful and absorbable fat soluble substances and amphipathic substances (essential nutrients like linoleic acid and linolenic acid and vitamins D, E, A, and K), conditionally essential nutrients, and accessory nutrients like carotenoids and the amphipathic substance vitamin P [and biotin?]) in foods and supplements, resulting in sufficient absorption of these nutrients. Call this F1.

2. Satisfy our well-nourished appetite suppression system for many hours so that we are not gaining weight by giving in to hunger frequently. One meal a day is ideal, as in the Fast-5 approach. Two meals are better than three. So we are talking about satisfying the appetite for 6 hours (for three meals) or 12 hours (two meals) to 19 hours (1 meal per day). Call this F2.

3. Completely empty our gall bladders, so important because our gall bladders store 10-20 concentrated organic toxins and amphipathic toxins from the liver. Call this amount F3.

4. Provide sufficient antimicrobial activity in the lumen of the stomach in the presence of stomach acid – 6 log killing can be achieved with 1 mM free fatty acid at pH 3, while 10 mM free fatty acid can achieve almost the same at pH 4.5 (C.Q. Sun et al. / FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology 36 (2003) 9-17). Call this amount of fat F4. Salivary serous gland lipase (the principle products of this enzyme are free fatty acids and diacylglycerols) is able to penetrate fat globules and is thus active without the need for bile and in the presence of acid, down to at least pH 4.5 – so considerable digestion can occur right after eating a meal with sufficient fat before the stomach contents are acidified down to where pepsin is optimal.

5. Provide a well-nourished taste bud system with good taste – not too little fat, which does not taste good, and not too much, which tastes greasy. This satisfaction of the taste requirements also contributes in a virtuous circle to appetite suppression and mood stabilization later on. Call this amount F5.

6. Provide sufficient fat for mood stabilization (helps prevent depression, likely taste bud satisfaction contributes to a better overall mood). Call this F6.

7. Provide sufficient fat for lubrication in enteric and non-enteric tissues. Call this F7.

Is F=F1=F2=F3=F4=F5=F6=F7? Don’t know, but it would be fascinating if it worked out that way or even approximately the same. Would be fascinating if F is also the amount of fat that we can digest by salivary lipase and gastric lipases, and absorb without making either new enzymes (salivary, gastric, or pancreatic lipases) or more bile. This amount of fat may decrease as we age. We may need to supplement digestive enzymes as we age and stimulate our digestive process (with all natural digestive bitters, e.g.) in any way we can.

Note that our well-nourished bodies also tell us when we consume too much fat. Too much fat not only tastes greasy, but it makes stool float and at an even greater excess too much fat in the diet results in smelly diarrhea. Too much fat may also promote feelings ranging from mild anxiety to outright panic attack, and from mild nausea to vomiting.

How could any reasonably intelligent person fail to read these signals? The body is clearly saying that too much fat is not good for the body.

Stating the obvious once more: an undernourished person may have such reactions to too low a level of fat in his diet. Only a properly nourished body has properly functioning taste buds, appetite satiation, and appropriate responses to too little fat and protein, and too much fat and protein.

The antioxidant network is a relay system for removing free radicals from sites of major harmfulness


In cell membranes, vitamin E is oxidized by free radicals. This is reduced by CoQ10, which itself is regenerated by the respiratory chain, to the degree that respiration is not “impaired.”

Or: diffusible vitamin C, or more optimally vitamin C held near the membrane by something (possibly including vitamin E), reduces vitamin E, glutathione reduces vitamin C, glutathione reductase reduces oxidized glutathione, and ultimately NADPH is regenerated by the oxidation of foodstuffs (pentose phosphate pathway oxidative cycle in which two glucose-6-phosphate are oxidized twice to produce four NADPH, two carbon dioxides, and two ribulose-5-P, which are non-oxidatively recycled back to one four carbon sugar plus one glucose-6-P, using transketolase, transaldolase, and phosphoglucose isomerase; in this way NADPH can be ramped up to appropriate levels for reduction of oxidized glutathione, keeping the antioxidant network [as noted above, involving minimally vitamin E, vitamin C, glutathione, glutathione reductase, and NADPH from the pentose phosphate pathway, but likely many more participants, including antioxidant enzymes and other small molecule antioxidants.] running smoothly, and reductive biosynthesis. When NADPH is sufficiently high, ribulose-5-phosphate can be used to make ribose-5-phosphate and its derivatives). NADPH is the ultimate or ground zero antioxidant in the body. NADH and FADH2, also regenerated from the oxidation of foodstuffs, serve as additional reservoirs of reducing power in the cell.

The above description is that of a relay shuttle, which carries away harmful molecules from the site where they would otherwise do the most damage.

The body uses the network principle, not the pharmaceutical principle, and thus achieves higher signal/noise ratios. The highest signal/noise ratio is never seen in any natural process near the maximum signal, as the pharmaceutical model presupposes. Rather the highest overall signal/noise ratio is achieved using concentrations of each component of a large network well off their maximal effective dose.

A shuttle network makes it obvious why it is not useful to overdose on any one component of the network. Optimal -not maximal- doses of ALL components (including the cofactors in the antioxidant enzymes) and precursors (in the case of making the enzymes and glutathione) make more sense in supplements.

Square Meal Poll #1


A commercial square meal would be certified to contain 100% of all of our nutritional requirements, thus taking away all worries and concerns about nutrition and health-related nutrition issues (except of course those due to genetic problems). Square Meals are only about 670 calories, leaving the vast majority of our calories for our favorite foods.

50 grams of protein


Below is a Table that helps one select sources to obtain the 50 grams of protein the average adult needs per day.

8 “servings” of protein is approximately 50 grams.


One Serving Equals

Meat, Fish, Cheese

One ounce


One large egg

Milk or Yogurt

Six ounces

Cooked Legumes

One half cup

From the Table above, 50 grams of protein would be about 8 ounces of beef or chicken, 8 ounces of shrimp or salmon. 8 ounces of blue cheese used to top the salad. 8 large eggs. 2 large eggs, one quarter pound burger, and four ounces of cheese.

One caveat: When the sole protein source is legumes, be sure to supplement the amino acid methionine (at least one half a gram, 500 mg.) and vitamin B12.

How to create a Square Meal


You need three things: (1) 50 grams of protein, (2) a pound of one or more dark green leafy vegetables, (3) a pound of other vegetables.

For example: Let’s make a shrimp spinach salad: (1) 8 ounces of cooked shrimp, (2) one pound of washed baby spinach leaves, (3) a pound of vegetables consisting of carrots, broccoli, tomatoes, celery, and cucumber. That is two and one half pounds of food, filling by design. That is the Square Meal. Easy. Square Meals average about 700 calories. If you are maintaining your weight on 2,000 calories, that leaves 1,300 calories in the “calorie bank” to enjoy any way you want.

Now to make the salad taste great, add your favorite dressing and toppings. These are borrowed from the “calorie bank.”

The Square Meal Diet Fundamentals


1. Enjoy one square meal a day to satisfy all of your nutritional requirements for optimal health. Obtaining sufficient nutrition during dieting is extremely important, but it is overshadowed by all of the emphasis on the importance of weight loss. It is assumed that weight loss “outweighs” any damage done to the body by nutrient deprivation on “denial diets.” I assume the opposite. Weight loss without assuring proper nutrition is dangerous to health.

2. Enjoy your favorite foods.

3. To lose weight, gradually increase physical activity and gradually reduce the portion sizes of your favorite foods, but never give them up.

Welcome to the Square Meal Diet Blog


I’m  Dr. Mark Collins, author of The Square Meal Diet: The Revolutionary Diet That Features Comfort Foods. This blog is to discuss technical issues relating to this diet.

A companion blog is devoted to recipes, The Square Meal Diet Recipe Blog.

Thanks for participating!      © 2011 Mark L. Collins

Optimal solutions

Optimal solutions have at least two variables and tend to have the form:

  1. x%  x1 + (100-x%)  x2.

What is clearly suboptimal and often what simply does not work is 100% x1 or 100% x2.

The optimal human diet:

x1. 100% plant food

x2. 100% animal food.

The optimal human diet is neither x1 nor x2.

It is a blend, and the optimal blend is personal and specific. What is optimal for you is not optimal for me or anyone else.

Knowing that pure x1 and pure x2 is not optimal is the first and most important step to finding your personal optimum.

Ignore doctors who advocate a vegan diet or a carnivorous diet. Man is an omnivore and does best when he follows his well-nourished taste buds and adopts an omnivorous diet.

The problem with getting by

Something happens that increases needs.

That is why we try to give the body everything (including cholesterol and fat) that it is looking for.

The body makes enough of a lot of different substances to get by, to meet ordinary, everyday needs.

From diet it looks for reserves of the same molecules it is making to meet increased demands. Sooner or later, demands always increase.

Who is ready to meet the demands? Those who ignore what certain foolish doctors say, and give their bodies what their bodies are looking to absorb. Yes, cholesterol is included in this list.

Contradictions in science and every other field

Faced with contradictions, most scientists choose sides.

Proper procedure in science or any other field: broaden one’s conception. As a rule, in all fields, contradictions are due to ideas that are too narrowly conceived.

Newton vs Huygens debate on the nature of light. Newton declared that light is obviously a particle, while Huygens declared that light is obviously a wave.

Each scientist had the killer counterexample that showed that the other’s view was just plain wrong.

Each scientist dug in, chose his side, dismissed the interpretation of the contradictory data, and thus, as he thought, proved his viewpoint.

What was needed was a broader conception. The data refute both ideas as too narrowly conceived.

Light is neither a particle nor a wave, but a Protean wave-packet. A wave that can be tightly condensed, an entity that behaves as a particle, and a particle that can be diffused out into a wave and then re-condensed, depending on conditions. The particle nature of light, the condensed form of the wave packet, allows it to knock electrons out of crystals. The particle nature of light allows light to traverse through “empty” space, and the wave nature of light (the wave packet de-condensing) allows light to show diffraction patterns and to move through more movable and substantial media by prehension.

Other examples:

  1. “Arsenic is a poison.”
  2. Too narrowly conceived. Contradiction: Cannot explain why animals do not develop properly if they are nourished on an arsenic free diet.
  3. Broaden to “arsenic is a versatile inorganic element, and is poisonous above a certain dose.”
  4. “Cyanide is a poison.”
  5. Too narrowly conceived. Contradiction: The human body uses cyanide to make thiocyanates. The salivary glands secrete thiocyanates and peroxidases. The peroxidized products are potent germicides.
  6. Broaden to “cyanide is versatile organic molecule and is poisonous above a certain dose.”
  7. “Hypertension is caused by overconsumption of salt.”
  8. Too narrowly conceived. Contradiction: The Pima Indian studies.
  9. Broaden to “hypertension is due to improper lifestyle” – lifestyle is a super-variable composed of variables such as diet, which itself is broader than salt consumption, and sleep habits, exercise habits, and psych factors.
  10. “Gout is caused by high serum uric acid.”
  11. Contradictions abound: some people with extremely high serum levels of uric acid never develop gout. Some people with gout have ordinary serum uric acid concentrations. The high serum uric acid causes gout hypothesis is too narrowly conceived. Further evidence of that is its failure to explain the pronounced sex vs age differences in the incidence of gout: while more than 90% of 40 year olds with gout are men, at age 80, the incidence of gout in men and women is similar.
  12. The cause is that which is completely responsible for the effect: obviously causation is too narrowly conceived to be a rule in nature. When applicable, replace cause with driver, that which is mostly responsible for the effect, and contributors, each of which is not mostly responsible for the effect.
  13. Truer statement: “high serum uric acid can aggravate gout.”

The death of wrong ideas

Model: classical survival analysis from Statistics, such as Kaplan-Meier, can be used to model the death of wrong ideas.

Assumption 1: as a rule, the killer counterexample, the data that refute the wrong idea, is generally known at the time the wrong idea is proposed.

Assumption 2: as a rule, the killer counterexample is known even to the person proposing the wrong idea.

In fact, the erroneous idea is often put forth as a resolution to a contradiction, when the proper response to contradiction is not choosing sides, but a broader conception of the underlying problems and entities, in short, a better understanding of nature, human nature, or more generally, the nature of things and processes.

The importance of contributors

Just think of it – the moment you discover that something “merely” contributes to an effect, don’t be discouraged!

You’ve made a bigger discovery. The phenomenon has no cause! The phenomenon may yet have a driver (something primarily responsible), but it cannot have a cause (something that is completely responsible).

And any phenomenon that has a contingency table with non-zero values cannot have a cause. If there are cases with no known exposure (for example, non-smokers who get lung cancer prove that cigarette smoking cannot possibly cause lung cancer), then exposure was not and is not necessary to get those cases. Without necessity, there is no SIN (sufficiency, immediacy, and necessity in two distinct senses), and without SIN, there is no causation.

Great job!

Why nature is more reliable than doctors

Your body is the product of four billion years of mistakes.

Nature kills its mistakes; doctors call even their mistakes “sound medical advice.”

Nature sheds no tears when it kills off its mistakes. When it makes the right call, it moves on, makes more mistakes, and kills them off. Right calls survive and have offspring. Nature changes the rules and some well adapted species perish. Well, too bad. More mistakes of a sort by bungling nature. Fast forward four billion years and you have the human body. A whole lot of mistakes went into making this machine. Dead mistakes, dead and gone. Except – the mistakes live on in medical textbooks. Doctors memorize them and pass them on to us whenever they take sides against the available evidence, particularly the evidence of evolution, and anatomy and physiology.

Nature does not bury its mistakes.

Daily do grieving survivors bury doctors’ mistakes.

Moral: if your body tells you one thing and doctors say something quite different, more likely than not, nature is right. Trust your body; if you have been a good steward of your body, meaning that you have been giving it what it is trying to absorb (including fat and cholesterol), trust it even more. If your doctor is supremely confident in his wisdom, trust him less.

Arrogance plus ignorance = folly.

Few if any exceptions to that rule.

An unerring path to the truth?

Synonyms: ‘by rule’ and ‘most probable’; ‘exception’ and ‘less probable’.

Cause: that which is completely responsible for the phenomenon.

Driver: that which is mostly responsible for the phenomenon.

Contributor: that which is not mostly responsible for the phenomenon.

By rule, with dichotomous problems, there is a more probable and a less probable answer. Exception: when the probabilities are roughly 50:50. By rule, in situations in which there are three or more possible answers, there is a most probable and a least probable. Exception: when the possibilities are nearly equal in probability.

Unerring path: By rule, pick the more probable answer. Exception: Abandon the more probable answer only if a model ends up contradicted by data. Final result: a model that accounts for all of the known data. If picking the less probable answer also ends in contradiction, rephrase the question.

Pick the less probable result and by rule, one ends up with a model that is flat-out contradicted by available data. Exception: lucky guess of the right answer as the less probable.

Deceived by a host of factors (including emotions, stupidity, arrogance, and ignorance), people often pick the less probable. Some people err almost without fail.

Examples are gross as earth.

The American Dental Association has a strong economic incentive to push its one-sided agenda. Bad oral health is good for business and bad advice on oral health is good for the business of dentistry. If Americans became as obsessed about eating right (and they did not stop experimenting with diets until their oral health became outstanding) as they are now obsessed with money, the American Dental Association might be rendered nearly powerless and penniless. Like most governmental bodies, they are foxes guarding the henhouse. With a beaming smile, the fox always reports that all chickens are safe and accounted for.

It is generally agreed that good oral health is measured by the relative absence of tooth decay and gum disease. I would add throat health, tongue health (the various types of glossitis are a veritable catalogue of B vitamin deficiencies) and cheek health.

The American Dental Association has identified good oral hygiene (use of fluoride toothpastes, regular flossing, and germ killing mouthwashes), avoidance of sweets, and regular dental checkups as the key contributors to good overall oral health; together this list constitutes the driver of good oral health.

Nature, as observed by Weston Price, in roughly two dozen indigenous peoples, who have no fluoride toothpaste, no floss, and with a few exceptions, no germ-killing mouthwashes, who eat sweets (nature’s sweets) liberally, and never have a professional dental checkup should have very bad oral health. Just the opposite is true: their oral health is always better than those who both adopt our Western ways and follow the advice of the American Dental Association.

More probable: Since healthy teeth and gums are vital to survival (consider scurvy as a key illustration of this fact), Nature has not left our oral health defenseless.

More probable: Oral health has a lower priority in short-term survival than that of key organs/systems.

Consequently, when there is a nutrient shortfall, the effects are likely to appear in oral health before major organ dysfunction. For example, both the thyroid and the salivary glands have a need for iodide. If iodide is adequate, both are well supplied. If iodide is somewhat deficient, oral health suffers more than thyroid health. When iodide is extremely deficient, both suffer. Monitoring thyroid function would not be a wise choice for detecting inchoate iodide deficiency.

Consequently, by rule, one can infer the quality of the diet better through oral health than general bodily health. Exception: when oral hygiene is exceptional.

More probable: find an optimal diet by measuring its effect on oral health, using ordinary oral hygiene, than by measuring its effect on blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol.

Less probable: The American Dental Association has identified the key drivers of good oral health correctly.

More probable: Nature has it right.

More probable: Proper nutrition is the key driver of good oral health.

More probable: One has proper nutrition when one has good oral health, given ordinary oral hygiene.

More probable: If one has poor oral health, one has not had proper nutrition (this is the more probable explanation of why scientists sometimes find skeletons many thousand of years older than civilization that are riddled with cavities – it takes only a brief time with poor nutrition to get tooth decay. If the ADA were right, ALL prehistoric skeletons should be riddled with tooth decay. Manifestly untrue).

Knowing that man can err if he is missing a single fact, and that nature’s most serious errors result in death before reproductive age, has 4 billion years of selective pressure got it right or has modern medicine got it right?

More probable: Nature has it right.
Less probable: Man has it right.

For the last 50 years doctors have told us to limit fat and cholesterol in our diets. Yet given a gram of cholesterol in our diet and up to 500 grams of total fat in our daily diet, our bodies readily take them up.

Doctors tell us that we need no more than 100 mg of vitamin C a day, regardless of circumstances. Yet if we give our bodies grams of vitamin C, our bodies readily absorb it, and our bodies absorb more when we are ill. Why? Who is right?

More probable: Nature.
Less probable: doctors.

Since doctors are highly fallible, nature need only be slightly less than highly fallible to be right more often than doctors. A major difference between nature and doctors: Nature selectively prunes its mistakes, while doctors cultivate theirs. Their is a culture of mistakes.

Doctors believe LDL-cholesterol is “bad” cholesterol. Nature has selected LDL as the chief carrier of fat-soluble nutrients (a laundry list includes cholesterol, vitamin E, vitamin K, carotenes, CoQ10, and more) in the human body and as far as I know, throughout the animal kingdom.

More probable: Winners in the evolutionary struggle are not bad for health.

More probable: if LDL-cholesterol is involved in atherogenesis, it is an adulterated form of LDL that is more responsible.

More probable: LDL-cholesterol is also “good” cholesterol.

Less optimal target for fighting atherosclerosis: LDL-cholesterol.
More optimal target: the adulterants of LDL and/or cholesterol.