Is it possible that all animals are our equals? Are our betters?

I have outlined a mathematical proof that all people are more or less equal. Not created equal, but people are born equal and no matter how hard we try to separate ourselves from the mass of people, people die more or less equal.

The proof needs work and the importance of this topic cannot be overestimated. If the elitists are right, what foundation is there for moral behavior? Theirs? Give me a break. They would kill or enslave the rest of us if they could.

Is the same basic equality true for all animals? Are they our equals? And, more objectively, are they our betters? Are at least some of them our betters?

Are we objective enough to even give such questions a fair trial? The best of judges may be, but the rest of us show poor judgment throughout our lives. Poor judgment is another defining characteristic of man.


Demonstrations by scientists missing the bigger picture

I have often wondered what will eventually replace religion in the US. Religion is hardly dead here, but among scientists, Dawkins included, it looks like religion might be replaced by science-turned-into-a religion (an indiscipline grounded in fanaticism and dogma just like religion), which we must contrast with science-based religion, which is faith-free, dogma-free religion that is grounded in science, steeped in the skepticism of true science, and which thus does not have any of the fanaticism of religion.

Unfortunately, there must be something Kantian about the human mind, some rule with few exceptions, that underlies this because modern science is structured just like religion – complete with authorities (who are also usually full of it and full of themselves) and dogmas. Real science differs most from religion in its skepticism. Skepticism is one thing religion cannot touch and it is one thing that real science must never lose. It is the truest difference between science and religion and science and extremist politics. Objectivity is another difference, but pales by comparison to a scientists’ “I do not believe what you are saying; show me it’s true” skepticism.

This little fact is what all of the scientists becoming marchers and protesters fail to understand, and unfortunately it is the main point. Extremists like religious people and political extremists, these scientists are demonstrating. Scientists do not engage in subjective enterprises like demonstrations; like Socrates, they doubt their own wisdom, even when the evidence keeps mounting in support of currently held dogmas, even ones they helped create. True scientists are dissatisfied with current models. No time for demonstrations, nor temperament for such things, they are always looking for better models. When all of the data are fit perfectly, they can move on to another field, and only then.

In summary, genuine science has at least one dogma:

  1. Always remain skeptical! Thus:
  2. When not in doubt, doubt!
  3. Doubt even more when an agenda is evident.
  4. Why doubt at all? If only because of hidden (“lurking”) variables and Simpson’s Paradox. The paradox may be the rule, or it may be the exception – only careful, skeptical research can answer that question.

A possible problem with enterically coated probiotics

  1. Enterically coated probiotics might create toxins when taken with meals – if they metabolize bile acid salts the wrong way.

On the other hand, when taken during fasting, many bacteria may die during the journey to the colon, but at least they wont be metabolizing bile acid salts and the more robust ones may still survive long enough to do some good. In addition, probiotics are suboptimal as a stand alone. Proper diet can restore a better balance among the flora as long as there are some of the more favorable bacteria already there.

In sum, what we need: properly formulated probiotics, possibly with their own nutrients, their prebiotics, taken at the optimal time and combined with optimal diet.

Current formulations and current protocols for taking them are seriously suboptimal.

Another deficiency to check when someone dies after infectious diarrhea

Mineral deficiencies – can’t believe I forgot it before.

Particularly potassium.

What I do not understand is how this is not more common.

There are 55 million cases of infectious diarrhea per year in the US

But only 3,000 deaths per year from these episodes.

92% of Americans do not ingest the recommended amount of potassium. Potassium deficiency should be pretty common.

When extreme diarrhea and vomiting hit, and last for up to a week, that is when an invisible potassium deficiency can become a full blown crisis and result in fatality.

Predicting the outcome of an experiment with the antioxidant network

Someone who does experiments on single substances shows a want of understanding. A network is the only suitable object of study.

If I am right in believing that in the body, every important substance is a member of multiple networks of important substances and each important substance has a small role to play. In short, the network is everything and the individual components are little nothings. Only in each of the many networks of which they are members do the little nothings have importance and value. By belonging to multiple networks, the little nothings acquire significance on their own.

If this is true, and if one is studying the antioxidant network, e.g., and one preloads all people to have measurably adequate levels of all known components (this experiment has to be repeated with each new validated member) of this network except vitamin C, which is left at its natural, unmodified level, (with the complication that the preloading likely shifted these values), and then studies the effects of normalizing vitamin C to its adequate level in all individuals capable of achieving this, one might find the hypothesis is indeed true. Beyond that, one could test the effects of Pauling type doses – one may not be able to find any effect other than more soluble urine specimens and shorter, less arduous duration of illnesses. Or for the first time, one may be poised to find the effect of therapeutic doses of vitamin C, given a body that is prepared to work with higher doses.

A complication – vitamin C is a member of other networks, including immune networks, connective tissue networks, other networks where its hydroxylation is useful, ADME networks in which vitamin C is a member, etc. The putative therapeutic effect may be in one or more of these networks.

How complicated nature is!

Yes, nature could not work – life would not be possible – without complication. Multitasking is not something we invented, but something we discovered at work in nature.

High dose intravenous vitamin C, intracellular peroxide generation, and cancer



“…it takes much more than logic and clear-cut demonstrations to overcome the inertia and dogma of established thought.” — Irving Stone

Irwin Stone was an early thinker and writer about vitamin C (its scientific name is ascorbic acid). He knew it would be an uphill battle to change the way the medical profession viewed vitamin C. While most doctors accept that scurvy is a vitamin C deficiency illness, few have made the rather humongous jump to seeing high dose intravenous vitamin C as a major player in the management of cancer.

There is actually a wide spectrum of medical uses for vitamin C. Evidence exists documenting it as the best antiviral agent now available … IF used at the proper dose. Vitamin C can neutralize and eliminate a wide range of toxins. Vitamin C will enhance host resistance, greatly augmenting the immune system’s ability to neutralize bacterial and fungal infections. Now the National Institutes of Health has published evidence demonstrating vitamin C’s anti-cancer properties. With so many medical benefits, why do so few doctors know of them?

One explanation stems from ascorbic acid’s designation as a “vitamin.” Consider Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary’s definition of vitamin: A general term for a number of unrelated organic substances that occur in many foods in small amounts that are necessary in trace amounts for the normal metabolic functioning of the body. As a vitamin, only a minuscule 60 mg of ascorbic acid is needed to prevent the emergence of scurvy symptoms. As a medical treatment for cancer and life-threatening infections and toxic exposures, tens of thousands of milligrams of ascorbic acid must be administered, often by the intravenous (IV) as well as the oral route.

The Center’s founder, Dr. Hugh Riordan, was a true scientist who believed in the power of scientific measurement over dogma. With the establishment of The Center in 1975, he routinely checked plasma vitamin C levels in chronically ill patients. He found these sick patients to be consistently low in their plasma C levels. Interestingly enough, the cancer patients he was seeing had VERY LOW vitamin C reserves. This matched scientific literature documenting low vitamin C levels in cancer patients. Cancer cells were actively taking up vitamin C in a way that depleted tissue reserves of C.

PET scans are commonly ordered by oncologists to evaluate their cancer patients for metastases (cancer spread to other organs). What is actually injected into the patient at the start of the scan is radioactive glucose. Cancer cells are anaerobic obligates, which means they depend upon glucose as their primary source of metabolic fuel. Cancer cells employ transport mechanisms called glucose transporters to actively pull in glucose.

In the vast majority of animals, vitamin C is synthesized from glucose in only four metabolic steps. Hence, the molecular shape of vitamin C is remarkably similar to glucose. (Figure 1) Cancer cells will actively transport vitamin C into themselves, possibly because they mistake it for glucose. Another plausible explanation is that they are using the vitamin C as an antioxidant. Regardless, the vitamin C accumulates in cancer cells.


Figure 1

If large amounts of vitamin C are presented to cancer cells, large amounts will be absorbed. In these unusually large concentrations, the antioxidant vitamin C will start behaving as a pro-oxidant as it interacts with intracellular copper and iron. This chemical interaction produces small amounts of hydrogen peroxide.

Because cancer cells are relatively low in an intracellular anti-oxidant enzyme called catalase, the high dose vitamin C induction of peroxide will continue to build up until it eventually lyses the cancer cell from the inside out! This effectively makes high dose IVC a non-toxic chemotherapeutic agent that can be given in conjunction with conventional cancer treatments. Based on the work of several vitamin C pioneers before him, Dr. Riordan was able to prove that vitamin C was selectively toxic to cancer cells if given intravenously. This research was recently reproduced and published by Dr. Mark Levine at the National Institutes of Health.

As feared by many oncologists, small doses may actually help the cancer cells because small amounts of vitamin C may help the cancer cells arm themselves against the free-radical induced damage caused by chemotherapy and radiation. Only markedly higher doses of vitamin C will selectively build up as peroxide in the cancer cells to the point of acting in a manner similar to chemotherapy. These tumor-toxic dosages can only be obtained by intravenous administration.

Over a span of 15 years of vitamin C research, Dr. Riordan’s RECNAC (cancer spelled backwards) research team generated 20 published papers on vitamin C and cancer. RECNAC even inspired its second cancer research institute, known as RECNAC II, at the University of Puerto Rico. This group recently published an excellent paper in Integrative Cancer Therapies, titled “Orthomolecular Oncology Review: Ascorbic Acid and Cancer 25 Years Later.” RECNAC data has shown that vitamin C is toxic to tumor cells without sacrificing the performance of chemotherapy.

Intravenous vitamin C also does more than just kill cancer cells. It boosts immunity. It can stimulate collagen formation to help the body wall off the tumor. It inhibits hyaluronidase, an enzyme that tumors use to metastasize and invade other organs throughout the body. It induces apoptosis to help program cancer cells into dying early. It corrects the almost universal scurvy in cancer patients. Cancer patients are tired, listless, bruise easily, and have a poor appetite. They don’t sleep well and have a low threshold for pain. This adds up to a very classic picture of scurvy that generally goes unrecognized by their conventional physicians.

When Center cancer patients receive IVC, they report that their pain level goes down, and that they are better able to tolerate their chemotherapy. They bounce back quicker since the IVC reduces the toxicity of the chemotherapy and radiation without compromising their cancer cell killing effects. IVC is complementary to oncologic care. IVC is not “either/or” – it’s a good “both/and” proposition. IVC can help cancer patients withstand the effects of their traditional therapies, heal faster, be more resilient to infection, develop a better appetite, and remain more active overall. These things promote a better response to their cancer therapy.

IVC has been used for three decades here at The Center. There have been no serious complications, but there are a couple of potential complications that need to be screened for. Because vitamin C enhances iron absorption, iron overload must be ruled out. The high sodium load of IVC can create a fluid overload in a patient with congestive heart failure, renal insufficiency or failure. We also check our patients for G6PD deficiency (an enzyme used to maintain stability of the red blood cell membranes). Although many physicians worry that large doses of vitamin C may cause kidney stones, we have rarely seen the phenomenon, and several huge clinical trials in the medical literature refute this misconception.

To summarize, most organisms make their own vitamin C. When they are under stress, either by illness or injury, Mother Nature has provided them with a means to facilitate healing: they synthesize more ascorbic acid. As a result, they are in less pain, they remain active, they can sleep, and they have a better appetite: all functions which promote healing.

Dr. Riordan once said that here at The Center, we don’t treat cancer… we treat people who happen to have cancer. IVC is a tool that allows our Center physicians to harness a healing mechanism that our human ancestors lost long ago: the ability to dramatically increase tissue levels of vitamin C. Research shows that the astonishingly high levels achievable only by IVC not only help fight the risk of infection and the pain of metastases, they actually aid in the defeat of the cancer cells themselves, through a very elegant mechanism that does no harm to healthy cells. It’s a discovery that the medical world is only beginning to discover.”

– Ron Hunninghake, M.D.,
Chief Medical Officer, Olive W. Garvey Center for Healing Arts

Wings before flight, eyes before sight

The first winged animals almost certainly could not fly and the first animals with eyes almost certainly could not see. If this fits the model of intelligent design, verify, and if true, add these points to your intelligent design database.

Evolution can work only on what is already there. The selective pressures that gave rise to wings and eyes were not the tremendous advantages we can observe today. Flight and sight were most likely exadaptations, as Steven Gould noted.

Once feathers were there, wings could develop under still newer selective pressures, and once wings developed, evolution could once again have explored the axis of thinner, lighter bones. I assume evolution has always explored the strength of skeleton ever since vertebrates evolved. However, not much advantage would come from thinner, lighter bones until creatures with wings had evolved.

The same is true of a lot of things. Evolution explores all sorts of things, including things we look at as senseless to try, and casts off what does not work. Surely, as I have noted before, evolution has explored the relative amount of fat and sugar calories in milk. Strange as it may seem, no mammalian milk that I know of has more sugar calories than fat calories, and skim milk, much touted as more healthful than whole milk, never won out in evolutionary competition, not in a single species.