| Revision as of 15:46, 3 September 2006 editTheNautilus (talk | contribs)1,377 edits →suppression of outright error: question degree of Pauling basher POV as a minority & extremist denigration← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:17, 6 September 2006 edit undoTheNautilus (talk | contribs)1,377 edits →Suppression of outright error: stmt still scientifically unsupportable, and the brazen (current) "majority" claim that implies doctors are cargo cult scientists supporting her stmt is uncitedNext edit → | ||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
| ==Suppression of outright error== | ==Suppression of outright error== | ||
| The Cassileth statement pushes a factual error, sourced or not, and asserts a dubious, unreferenced majority as current professional opinion (that they of course have lots of doubts maybe, or extremists' stmts such as QW continuing to try to influence opinion, but such bumpkin catcalls by 50+% as an individual's professional stmt seem unlikely in the face of current science and trends on vitamin C). Btw, the "professional" societies in this aspect might be better identified as an anticompetitive, financial POV that is often sustained by a number of antiscientiic dodges including misrepresentations of irrelevant tests including likely scientific frauds (repeated, 2-3 strikes in test designs in multiyear efforts is hard to swallow as mere oversight or incompetence), ad hom, persecution and decades long resource denial (failure to test or approve testing). I removed the bigoted, blatantly '''erroneous''' stmt by Cassileth (...no benefit), after citing an unrefuted, simple demonstration by counterexample of an absolute stmt in the edit summary; more are available at Orthomolecular Medicine talk, some real doctor examples included. Your assertion that a majority of MD doctors would be so dismissive to an objective public or an encyclopedia is highly dubious and has no '''current reference''', eg. "51+% of US doctors denounce Pauling's vitamin C work and dance on his grave" the way you do (pharma paid, alcohol influenced, herd or revival-like personal behaviors aside, this assertion of a dogmatic majority seems hardly encyclopedic and unlikely at a professional level). Your QW refs are wholly inadequate to support a statement on the current state of affairs in medical opinion. Few, if any, doctors that I have actually talked with would make such an naked stmt, they tend to say something along the lines of "we never discussed Pauling's vitamin C theories in med school", "I didn't have much training in nutrition" or "oh" - you need a really good reference here. I kept the refs as an example of sentiment but think it will be better handled at OM alone. You are eager to bash a notable person with your "Brother Stephen" anti-OM denunciation campaign, that has been repeatedly shot down & sustained at the "list of ]" and your (several of you) highly advertised references often have multiple flaws such as the BCCA page (I previously stopped at about 4 problems, have another half dozen that I would rather not work up) and Cassileth's absolute (wrong) stmt. Controversial yes, and the historical "quackery" charge adequately addresses the issue. The "ps" pejorative and Cassileth's "no benefit" misstatement have been addressed repeatedly now, and will be addressed as QW advertising (where you apparently are involved with the site) & trolling henceforth.--] 15:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | The Cassileth statement pushes a factual error, sourced or not, and asserts a dubious, unreferenced majority as current professional opinion (that they of course have lots of doubts maybe, or extremists' stmts such as QW continuing to try to influence opinion, but such bumpkin catcalls by 50+% as an individual's professional stmt seem unlikely in the face of current science and trends on vitamin C). Btw, the "professional" societies in this aspect might be better identified as an anticompetitive, financial POV that is often sustained by a number of antiscientiic dodges including misrepresentations of irrelevant tests including likely scientific frauds (repeated, 2-3 strikes in test designs in multiyear efforts is hard to swallow as mere oversight or incompetence), ad hom, persecution and decades long resource denial (failure to test or approve testing). I removed the bigoted, blatantly '''erroneous''' stmt by Cassileth (...no benefit), after citing an unrefuted, simple demonstration by counterexample of an absolute stmt in the edit summary; more are available at Orthomolecular Medicine talk, some real doctor examples included. Your assertion that a majority of MD doctors would be so dismissive to an objective public or an encyclopedia is highly dubious and has no '''current reference''', eg. "51+% of US doctors denounce Pauling's vitamin C work and dance on his grave" the way you do (pharma paid, alcohol influenced, herd or revival-like personal behaviors aside, this assertion of a dogmatic majority seems hardly encyclopedic and unlikely at a professional level). Your QW refs are wholly inadequate to support a statement on the current state of affairs in medical opinion. Few, if any, doctors that I have actually talked with would make such an naked stmt, they tend to say something along the lines of "we never discussed Pauling's vitamin C theories in med school", "I didn't have much training in nutrition" or "oh" - you need a really good reference here. I kept the refs as an example of sentiment but think it will be better handled at OM alone. You are eager to bash a notable person with your "Brother Stephen" anti-OM denunciation campaign, that has been repeatedly shot down & sustained at the "list of ]" and your (several of you) highly advertised references often have multiple flaws such as the BCCA page (I previously stopped at about 4 problems, have another half dozen that I would rather not work up) and Cassileth's absolute (wrong) stmt. Controversial yes, and the historical "quackery" charge adequately addresses the issue. The "ps" pejorative and Cassileth's "no benefit" misstatement have been addressed repeatedly now, and will be addressed as QW advertising (where you apparently are involved with the site) & trolling henceforth.--] 15:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Fsylee, you persistently ignore any facts, counterexamples and reasoning on this subject, as above and previously. Mere citation, is not sufficient in the face of broader, longer known undisputed facts. Linas' examples could have been "more orthomolecular" but he is basically on target. Another example of undisputed orthomolecular treatment benefits would be megadose niacin for dyslipidemias since 1956 (Dr. Wm Parson, then at the Mayo Clinic), in amounts up to 9 grams per day (vs RDA of 14-18 mg)! The large scale Coronary Drug Project and Canner Study showed a substantial gain in life expectancy with only 6 years use at only 2 to 3 grams of niacin per day. Some even more striking were published case histories that included up to 75%+ cholesterol reduction in the 1950s (cholesterol starting at 750), a generation before the statins. '''No drug''' matches pure niacin's performance in improving HDL<SUB>2<SUB> as well as greatly improving triglycerides, fibrinogen, LDL and Lp(a). Even some pharmas have begun to test or market niacin, alone or in combination. Since B<SUB>3<SUB>- niacin therapy originated with Abram Hoffer you can't get much more orthomolecular. With this fact alone, Cassileth had no excuse for making that counterfactual, bigoted statement then or now, and it destroys her statement's credibility as a reliable or expert source. You have not cited any basis for asserting her stmt as a current "majority" medical view (it will be interesting to see who else wants to demonstrate themselves as cargo cultists :-> ). You nakedly reverted in the face of the facts and logic w/o discussion presumably because you assert an unfair, unscientific, childish version of WP:RS policy or that orthomolecular treatments accepted by conventional medicine are no longer orthomolecular medicine, confuting alternative medicine as synonymous with orthomed with respect to acceptance by the "mainstream" destroying alt med status. Orthomed is both mainstream and alt med as Dr Harris explored at length earlier in orthomed Talk. | |||
| :Let me set forth a few respective problem's of Cassileth's stmt with WP:RS and your part of that sentence under WP:RS: '''(1)''' the Cassileth quote part fails basic fact checking with megadose niacin for dyslipidemias much less others; '''(2)''' Cassileth is a anti-alt med partisan of long duration -- this compromises "... agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report..."; '''(3)''' you provide no citation for current medical opinion (such as surveys), post 2005 Vioxx, Celebrex, Baycol, Tequin etc. as well as the PNAS & NIH about-face on the Mayo-Moetel tests with respect to vitamin C pharmokinetics (openly or tacitly agreeing on different points by Pauling) or the 2006 Finnish restudy on vitamin C test analyses for respiratory problems that show clear error in previous "mainstream" medical analyses & their error laden negative pronouncements on vitamin C; '''(4)''' you (& your "mainstrean" moonbeam friends) quote no relevant tests/data or studies on actual recommended orthomolecular megadose treatments, rather the "mainstream" fake or strawmen tests, as Dr Harris discussed in orthomed talk, also exemplified by meager "mainstream" respiratory test examples of 0.2 to 3 gram/day vitamin C orally oid vs orthomed's 30-200 grams/day AA orally to bowel tolerance, divided does every 0.1-2 hr, for respiratory treatment. Time to put Cassileth's cherished misstatement aside.--] 03:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:17, 6 September 2006
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Linus Pauling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
 | Biography: Core A‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | History of Science Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Leftist politics?
It really isn't fair to say that Pauling got the peace prize for misguided leftist politics. Above ground nuclear testing causes fallout, which in turn causes cancer. One doesn't have to be a leftist to agree with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.36.74 (talk • contribs) .
- The article doesn't say that--it says that those who opposed his campaign, did so for stated reasons. (If everyone in the world had opposed aboveground testing, it wouldn't have been done in the first place.) Vicki Rosenzweig
- The article doesn't include Pauling's refusal to join the Manhattan Project. Ancheta Wis 09:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Can someone please explain this to me:
- His political activism prompted the U.S. State Department to deny him a visa in 1952 when he was invited to speak at a scientific conference in London,...
Pauling was a US citizen, resident in the US at the time. Visas are issued by the destination country, to permit you to enter. And a citizen is always allowed to return, visa or not. Surely what is meant here is that the UK government denied him a visa? Or perhaps that he did not yet have a passport, and the US State Department refused to issue one? (At which point it would be the discretion of the UK government to allow him in or not.) Either way, as stated it cannot be right. Securiger 05:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Also
- Later in life, he became an advocate for alternative medicine, specifically regular consumption of massive doses of vitamin C."
makes it sound like he supported alternative medicine in general, which he certainly did not. (In Vitamin C and the Common Cold he is scathing about "organic food", for example). I've changed it. Securiger 08:53, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Correction
A correction: Pauling is one of three two-time Nobel Prize winners. John Bardeen is the only Nobel Prize winner to win it twice in the same field - Physics. He shared his first in 1956 with William Shockley and William Brattain for the invention of the transistor. His second came in 1972 for BCS theory in superconductivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helen B (talk • contribs) .
- To correct your correction...Pauling is the only individual to win two prizes unshared. You will see that each one of the above scholars shared at least one of their prizes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.255.239 (talk • contribs) .
NPOV?
Emphasis added by me:
Interestingly, the Caltech Chemistry Department, wary of his political views, did not even formally congratulate him. However, the Biology Department did throw him a small party, and one cannot help but think that they were more appreciative and sympathetic toward his work on mutations caused by radiation.
Is this NPOV?--Fangz 22:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it's NPOV or not. But the words you put in bold aren't necessary and should be removed (indeed, everything after the word 'party' should be removed). This is assuming that what is left is true, of course. jguk 22:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Modifications
In the introductory paragraph, I put in: "a pioneer in the application of quantum mechanics to chemistry" instead of "one of the first quantum chemists" because I think it better describes his essential contribution in a single statement. I also put in the parts about molecular biology and proteins because they were also very significant contributions that he made.--Ashujo 14.00 10 Feb, 2005.
Comment
Exactly where how does the author come to the conclusion that many scientists consider Pauling's later work as outright quackery? I hope it isn't from quackwatch.org which is headed up by an anti-nutritionist extremist married to pharmaceuticals. Even while Pauling was alive, he was against the work of the Institute that carries his name. They pretend to "carry on" his work and get funding thanks to his name, but it is very clear in his books that the institute does not carry on the work of Pauling because they recommend only moderate doses of vitamin C. Also, the largest studies around show vitamin C in > 1.5 grams/day has the strongest postive benefit to the heart of all known compounds, so I would like to see the author's reference to the published peer-reviewed literature that contradicts the abstract i have in front of me. And if the author doesn't know of that abstract, then he has no business writing about Pauling's later work. Also, there are many studies investigating vitamin C and cancer, most of which are positive or neutral, another gross error in the author's "research" that seems to have referred to only one "quack" website and "most" scientists. Can you reference the poll that was taken? I am sure it isn't a poll of nutritionists. - Scott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.214.99.108 (talk • contribs) .
Vitamin C controversy
Dispite a cogent dissection of the second Mayo cancer trial, the carefully crafted tidal wave of adverse publicity effectively undercut Pauling's credibility and his vitamin C work for a generation.
Should read: "Despite two lengthy and expensive studies by the Mayo Institute, the effectiveness of Vitamin C as a cancer preventing agent remains entirely unproven." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.180.104 (talk • contribs) .
- Very POV, and "needs a lot more background education, homework and information" about the Mayo-Moertel attack on LP. See but the author still doesn't quite grasp some of the Mayo-Moertel test problems and tricks. Vitamin C's anticancer performance is, as yet, demonstrated at a level of certainty less than a conventional govt agency or pharmaceutical trial for an "authoritative proof" with a full scale double blind RCT for large amounts of vitamin C (Pauling originally wanted 50gm/day, closer to Klenner, and later Riordan, but Cameron had resource and administrative limitations). One investigator's work (Riordan) that carried on privately after the Mayo fiasco: , "Entirely" is quite (conventionally) misinformed. It really has taken a generation to begin to recover from the Mayo PR assualt with careful technical and clinical studies, privately funded. --69.178.31.177 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Robinson devised some mouse experiments to test this amazing theory. By the summer of 1978, he was getting "highly embarrassing" results. At the mouse-equivalent of 10 grams of Vitamin C a day—Pauling's recommended dose for humans-the mice were getting more cancer, not less. Pauling responded to the unwelcome news by entering Robinson's office one day and announcing that he had in his breast pocket some damaging personal information. He would overlook it, however, if Robinson were to resign all his positions and turn over his research. When Robinson refused, Pauling locked him out and kept the filing cabinets and computer tapes containing nine years' worth of research. They were never recovered. Pauling also told lab assistants to kill the 400 mice used for the experiments. Pauling's later sworn testimony showed that the story about the damaging information was invented, while experiments by the Mayo Clinic conclusively proved that the theory about cancer and Vitamin C was wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.180.104 (talk • contribs) .
Mayo-Moertel proved nothing except perhaps incompetence or malice, see previous note and refs. They acted and completely failed to replicate the Pauling + Cameron protocols in ways that are easy to construe in the negative. --69.178.31.177 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- This section of the article needs a lot of work. It's not at all clear to me what "despite a cogent dissection of the second Mayo cancer trial, the carefully crafted tidal wave of adverse publicity effectively undercut Pauling's credibility and his vitamin C work for a generation" means! Who carefully crafted publicity? -- pde 00:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. It talks about the 'Mayo study' but never describes what it is. More worrying is that it alludes to some sort of conspiracy to shut Pauling out of funding without being explicit or citing any sources. This needs to be fixed soon. Ashmoo 04:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Moertel, a prominent oncologist at Mayo Clinic "nailed" Pauling with classics in dispargement in his "vitamin C RCT" articles prominently run in NEJM, 1979 & 1986. (Creagan FT, Moertel CG, O'FalIon JR et al. Failure of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid) to benefit patients with advanced cancer: a controlled trial. N Eng J Med 1979; 301:687-690. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Creagan FT et al. High-dose vitamin C versus placebo in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer who have had no prior chemotherapy. N Eng J Med 1985; 312:137-141.). The first trial was so poor, a second major test and a third minor one in between were run. Pauling hammered Moertel / Mayo (in non medical fields one might use words like error, misconduct, bias and/or incompetence for profound multiple & repreated failures to replicate as well as not compellingly demonstrate) and dug up a lot of hidden, damning details in the next 5 years (1986-91) but was unable to ever complete the tests' information recovery (natural defensive obstruction, often called stonewalling).
- Of course, prominent Mayo researchers could never innocently f--- -- 2-3 times in a row, so it must be that LP was a senile old windbag (exactly how it was insinuated in the TV news of the time, and I was as guilty as most giving any credence to it). So the story has played for 20+ years, nice tale except it is documented as untrue even though Moertel probably took half the dirtiest details to the grave. "Conspiracy" no, more like normal competitive corporate backbiting, information warfare and hardball politics in specialty chemical sales where generics are dangerous orphans and fair game. Especially works well with non-technical & less blooded technical audiences. A previous attempt to review this situation . You'll need to track down this book to get better details Vitamin C and Cancer: Medicine or Politics? (1991) by Evelleen Richards, an intro to it Dr. Golem How to Think about Medicine (2005) by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch. I am not arguing LP was infallible and I am taking a generalized SPOV.--69.178.41.55 07:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not Vitamin C does anything valuable, it is hard to dispute the fact that Linus Pauling lived to the ripe and productive old age of 93. The vitamin is a reasonable thing to take and recommend. Thank you for my 2 cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.120.208.101 (talk • contribs) .
Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Misplaced Pages. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:03, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
AIDS opinion from his radio show
Right before his death, on his radio show (whoch should be mentioned), I could have sworn I heard him advocating treating or curing AIDS by depressing the immune system. Can anyone confirm that this was a treatment being used back then by some radicals? I was close editing a sentence to read: "Later in life, he became an advocate for regular consumption of massive doses of Vitamin C, which is still regarded as medically unorthodox today, and for treating AIDS by depressing the immune system, which is no longer advocated." -Barry- 11:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"quantum chemist and biochemist"
It seems to me that he should also be called a physicist.
Pauling, in a public lecture at Cal Tech, around 1960, stated proudly that his appointment there was in physics as well as in chemistry, or at least that was what they had told him before he came. Later, in Santa Barbara, he published on nuclear physics, though I do not know how much he accomplished there. It has been suggested that a major journal bypassed its usual editorial policy to be able to publish a paper by a double Nobel laureate.
But little known and unimportant details aside, covalent bonds, though they may be chemistry now, were clearly also physics when he worked on them. David R. Ingham 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Rosalind Franklin peer review
Please read the Rosalind Franklin article and contribute to the peer review. Your comments would be much appreciated. Alun 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Religion categories
Although the article does not seem to mention Pauling's religion, as often happens, zealous Wikipedians seem to have added him to their favourite religions. So he's currently a Unitarian-Lutheran humanist. As far as I know, his parents were Lutheran and religion wasn't really his cup of tea... but any categorization of Pauling's relgious views should be backed up by statements in the main article and those should have references. TheGrappler 22:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Trivia
I think it was Paul Dirac who theoretically re-discovered purling, not Pauling: http://www.dirac.ch/PaulDirac.html --Ewen
"Cogent"
Pauling was greatly mocked after the Mayo episodes. Even though Pauling's scientific criticisms are simple and powerful (Moertel completely failed to *replicate* the work and fundamentally approached the test design in a high handed and biased manner, as shown in prior stmts, subsequent correspondence & actions), Pauling was simply brushed aside in the media as a doddering old fool that one still treats somewhat respectfully. LP's writing and interviews after that show that he was still mentally acute. His cancer work with vitamin C is undergoing a quiet scientific rehabilitation within the last two years in mainstream publications (NAS, NIH), some of them linked in the section. "Dissection" alone is easy to interpret as an unmeritorious backlash. "Cogent" is hard to properly replace.--69.178.41.55 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Except that everything you say here is highly POV. I'm sure Mayo, Moertel & 'the media' would say that his criticisms weren't 'cogent' or 'powerful'. This is obviously controversial, so we can't take sides when we describe the controversy. Ashmoo 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- It may seem so, this is the usual situation when politics hit hard up against SPOV. Moertel's situation *is* surrounded by adverse facts, many not well known or understood in context. I don't think the article should *belabor* Moertel, just directionally note it and move on, rather than rub their nose in the article (Whole sentences or paragraphs). There is a huge information lag and preconception problem here, afflicts a lot of people (doctors & researchers - did you research / trawl for your info an hr, a day, a yr or a decade? most do an instant scan). This is also why Richards sociological documentation and Pauling's dogged dig for details were important. This very vitamin C protocol issue: quantity, IV vs various oral types, duration, & controls issue (max bloodstream concentration) is one of the major, hidden tectonic fault lines in the wars over orthomed, *entirely unaddressed* publicly in conventional medicine until these past 2 years (showing up to a scientific fist fight with ZERO data is usually considered a loser unless you own the umpire, hmmm...). It will take a while for most people to become fact based on this shift in the conventionally recognized medical facts. However, unlike Cromwell, I don't expect them to go dig up and shorten anybody.
- Only recently has it become possible for outside technical people to pop up a significant fraction of the details on the Mayo-Moertel fiasco with small investment. If one has insight into dirty science conflicts, to see this kind of detail is very sobering, and annoyingly scandalous. Moertel's behavior would be unacceptable by current publication standards (failing to archive pertinent data and to fully answer qualified reviewers). He also obviously ignored documentation or background from any source of actual clinical experience with high dose vitamin C (never mind Pauling & Cameron, whither Klenner (MS-MD), McCormick (MD), Kalerkinos (MD), or Stone (biochemist) ) that any *careful* researcher would have considered at length in a sensible test design. He blew through so many opportunities to correct the test design and complete the record afterwards, it is hard to avoid imputing negatives to his handling of the whole affair, never mind his handling of Pauling. If you look carefully at the NIH paper, they are admitting error in the Mayo-Moertel trials (no initial IV ascorbate segment, 10g/d x 10d, no real test, no foundation whatsoever). There are great problems with the Mayo-Moertel trials and now that we are beginning to bypass the edifice complex, some people/institutions may be chagrined. I am not the one saying this - the recent NAS, NIH, CMAJ articles are, sotto voce.
- Now, I also want to be clear that I am *not* saying that 10g/d vitamin C is "the answer" or even an answer, even IV vitamin C or that "Pauling was absolutely right about vit C". I also once found a comment that Pauling had wanted to test 50g / day but Cameron simply couldn't overcome his own local politics. Klenner, *the* original high dose IV vitamin C clinician apparently had unpublished high dose experiences that may have been (surely?) passed on to Pauling. Klenner advocated 90g IV vit C /d in an unpublished paper (summarized posthumously). A fair statement is that Moertel had ZERO relevant data to castigate vitamin C or LP here (non representative tests) and played politics heavily, grossly (over)generalizing his peculiar (relative to documented IV vit C usages) tests' results.
- Lest you think I am an uncritical LP groupie, consider this: coming from a much different US region, when I was younger, Pauling's interviews on camera always rubbed me the wrong way. With Cameron, Pauling was overcautious, he settled for dangerously too little, when he needed to be testing the 30g-100g/day IVC region of Klenner. One may respect LP writings, even though there are things that time has improved upon since. If it helps, 20 years ago I pretty much felt the way you do when I first heard the Mayo-Moertel tale. I have learned a few important things since then.--69.178.41.55 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, but it is still your opinion (however informed). We need to provide NPOV and sourced summaries of the controversy. 'Cogent' is totally POV. If you can quote someone who used the word, do that, otherwise there in no need for it. Better to use sources that document the affair and let the reader decide whether it is 'cogent' or not. Ashmoo 02:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Spheron, structure of the atomic nucleus references
I think that this section is all an interesting work that should probably be a separate, expanded article with such detailed references perhaps there. Pauling had a lot of notable and quotable work, the main article is getting close to unwieldy and needs to leave the mindspace for high priority summary writings. I would suggest that 1-2 hot links be added to the "External links" section, only one refernce be added to the references list, the rest of the hot links go in line in the "Spheron, etc..." section. I will ask, that long term, these references be removed from Talk and be put in another, more specialized LP article or on a subpage - archive.--69.178.41.55 03:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
cut & pasted unaltered here, some improvements on the references remaining inline: Publications by Linus Pauling on the Spheron Nucleon Cluster Structure of the Atomic Nucleus
Pauling, Linus, "Structural Basis of Neutron and Proton Magic Numbers in Atomic Nuclei", Nature, Letters to the Editor, Vol. 208, Oct. 9, 1965, p. 174
Pauling, Linus, "Structural significance of the principal quantum number of nucleonic orbital wave functions", Phys. Rev. Lett, 15, Sept., 1965 pp. 499
Pauling, Linus, "The Close-Packed_Spheron Model of Atomic Nuclei and its Relation to the Shell Model", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 54, No. 4, Oct. 15 1965, p. 989 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-012.html
Pauling, Linus, "The Close-Packed-Spheron Theory and Nuclear Fission", Science, Vol. 150, No. 3694, Oct. 15 1965, p. 297 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-026.html
Pauling, Linus, "Structural Basis of the Onset of Nuclear Deformation at Neutron Number 90", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 15, No. 22, Nov. 29 1965, p. 868
Pauling, Linus, "The close-packed-spheron theory of nuclear structure and the neutron excess for stable nuclei (Dedicated to the seventieth anniversary of Professor Horia Hulubei" Revue Roumain de Physique 11 no. 9,10. July, 1966, pp:825-833 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-048.html
Pauling, Linus, "Magnetic-Moment Evidence For The Polyspheron Structure of the Lighter Atomic Nuclei", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 58, p 2175, 1967 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-068.html
Pauling, Linus, "Baryon resonances as rotational states", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA Vol. 56, 1966, pp:1676-1677
Pauling, Linus, "Geometric factors in nuclear structure", in Maria Sklodowska-Curie: Centenary Lectures. Vienna:International Atomic Energy Agency, 1968, pp. 83-88
Pauling, Linus, "Orbiting Clusters in Atomic Nuclei", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA Vol. 64, No. 3, November 15, 1969, p. 807 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-075.html
Pauling, Linus, and Blethen, John, "Resonance Between a Prolate and a Superprolate Structure of the 162Er Nucleus", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 71, No. 7, July 1974, pp. 2905-2907
Pauling, Linus, "Structure of the Excited Band in 24Mg", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 35, No. 21, Nov. 24, 1975, p. 1480
Pauling, Linus, and A.B.Robinson. "Rotating Clusters In Nuclei", Can. J. Phys., Vol. 53, 1975, p. 1953-1964 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-084.html
Pauling, Linus, "Structure of the Excited Rotational Band in 40Ca", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 36, No. 3, January 19 1976, p. 162
Pauling, Linus, "Superprolate Shape of the Spontaneous-Fission Isomer 240Am^m", Physical Review C, Vol. 22, No. 4, Oct. 1980, p. 1585
Pauling, Linus, "Changes in the Structure of Nuclei Between the Magic Neutron Numbers 50 and 82 as Indicated by a Rotating-Cluster analysis of the Energy Values of the First 2+ Excited States of Isotopes of Cadmium, Tin, and Tellurium", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 78, No. 9, Sept. 1981, pp. 5296-5298
Pauling, Linus, "Comment on the Test for Tetrahedral Symmetry in the 16O Nucleus and its Ralation to the Shell Model", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 49, No. 15, Oct. 11 1982
Pauling, Linus, "Prediction of the Shapes of Deformed Nuclei by the Polyspheron Theory", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 79, April 1982, pp. 2740-2742
Pauling, Linus, "Rules Governing the Composition of Revolving Clusters in Quasiband and Prolate-Deformation States of Atomic Nuclei", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 79, Nov. 1982, pp. 7073-7075
Pauling, Linus, "Discussion of the coexisting O+ band in the doubly closed subshell 96Zr on the basis of the polyspheron model", Phys Rev C 35, 1987, pp:1162-1163
Pauling, Linus, "Regularities in the Sequences of the Number of Nucleons in the Revolving Clusters for the Ground-State Energy Bands of the Even-Even Nuclei with Neutron Number Equal to or Greater than 126". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 87, June 1990, pp. 4435-4438
Pauling, Linus, "Transition from one revolving cluster to two revolving clusters in the ground-state rotational bands of nuclei in the lanthanon region"., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol 88, 1991, pp:820-823 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-125.html
Pauling, Linus, "Analysis of the energy of the first four excited states of the ground-state rotational bands of the even-even lanthannon nuclei (58Ce to 70Yb) with the model of a single cluster of nucleons revolving about a sphere", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol 88, 1991, pp:4401-4403
Pauling, Linus, Puzzling questions about excited superdeformed rotational bands of atomic nuclei are answered by the two-revolving-cluster-model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA Vol. 89, 1992, pp. 8963-8965
Pauling, Linus, Analysis of a hyperdeformed band of 66Dy86 on the basis of a structure with two revolving clusters, each with a previously unrecognized two-tiered structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA Vol. 91. 1994, pp.897-899
==
As the person that provided these references, I find no problem with the removal of these papers from the main article, as long as the important topic (e.g., that Pauling invented a very interesting cluster model of the atomic nucleus) is maintained on the article page.
Suppression of outright error
The Cassileth statement pushes a factual error, sourced or not, and asserts a dubious, unreferenced majority as current professional opinion (that they of course have lots of doubts maybe, or extremists' stmts such as QW continuing to try to influence opinion, but such bumpkin catcalls by 50+% as an individual's professional stmt seem unlikely in the face of current science and trends on vitamin C). Btw, the "professional" societies in this aspect might be better identified as an anticompetitive, financial POV that is often sustained by a number of antiscientiic dodges including misrepresentations of irrelevant tests including likely scientific frauds (repeated, 2-3 strikes in test designs in multiyear efforts is hard to swallow as mere oversight or incompetence), ad hom, persecution and decades long resource denial (failure to test or approve testing). I removed the bigoted, blatantly erroneous stmt by Cassileth (...no benefit), after citing an unrefuted, simple demonstration by counterexample of an absolute stmt in the edit summary; more are available at Orthomolecular Medicine talk, some real doctor examples included. Your assertion that a majority of MD doctors would be so dismissive to an objective public or an encyclopedia is highly dubious and has no current reference, eg. "51+% of US doctors denounce Pauling's vitamin C work and dance on his grave" the way you do (pharma paid, alcohol influenced, herd or revival-like personal behaviors aside, this assertion of a dogmatic majority seems hardly encyclopedic and unlikely at a professional level). Your QW refs are wholly inadequate to support a statement on the current state of affairs in medical opinion. Few, if any, doctors that I have actually talked with would make such an naked stmt, they tend to say something along the lines of "we never discussed Pauling's vitamin C theories in med school", "I didn't have much training in nutrition" or "oh" - you need a really good reference here. I kept the refs as an example of sentiment but think it will be better handled at OM alone. You are eager to bash a notable person with your "Brother Stephen" anti-OM denunciation campaign, that has been repeatedly shot down & sustained at the "list of ps" and your (several of you) highly advertised references often have multiple flaws such as the BCCA page (I previously stopped at about 4 problems, have another half dozen that I would rather not work up) and Cassileth's absolute (wrong) stmt. Controversial yes, and the historical "quackery" charge adequately addresses the issue. The "ps" pejorative and Cassileth's "no benefit" misstatement have been addressed repeatedly now, and will be addressed as QW advertising (where you apparently are involved with the site) & trolling henceforth.--TheNautilus 15:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fsylee, you persistently ignore any facts, counterexamples and reasoning on this subject, as above and previously. Mere citation, is not sufficient in the face of broader, longer known undisputed facts. Linas' examples could have been "more orthomolecular" but he is basically on target. Another example of undisputed orthomolecular treatment benefits would be megadose niacin for dyslipidemias since 1956 (Dr. Wm Parson, then at the Mayo Clinic), in amounts up to 9 grams per day (vs RDA of 14-18 mg)! The large scale Coronary Drug Project and Canner Study showed a substantial gain in life expectancy with only 6 years use at only 2 to 3 grams of niacin per day. Some even more striking were published case histories that included up to 75%+ cholesterol reduction in the 1950s (cholesterol starting at 750), a generation before the statins. No drug matches pure niacin's performance in improving HDL2 as well as greatly improving triglycerides, fibrinogen, LDL and Lp(a). Even some pharmas have begun to test or market niacin, alone or in combination. Since B3- niacin therapy originated with Abram Hoffer you can't get much more orthomolecular. With this fact alone, Cassileth had no excuse for making that counterfactual, bigoted statement then or now, and it destroys her statement's credibility as a reliable or expert source. You have not cited any basis for asserting her stmt as a current "majority" medical view (it will be interesting to see who else wants to demonstrate themselves as cargo cultists :-> ). You nakedly reverted in the face of the facts and logic w/o discussion presumably because you assert an unfair, unscientific, childish version of WP:RS policy or that orthomolecular treatments accepted by conventional medicine are no longer orthomolecular medicine, confuting alternative medicine as synonymous with orthomed with respect to acceptance by the "mainstream" destroying alt med status. Orthomed is both mainstream and alt med as Dr Harris explored at length earlier in orthomed Talk.
- Let me set forth a few respective problem's of Cassileth's stmt with WP:RS and your part of that sentence under WP:RS: (1) the Cassileth quote part fails basic fact checking with megadose niacin for dyslipidemias much less others; (2) Cassileth is a anti-alt med partisan of long duration -- this compromises RS:Issues to look out for"... agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report..."; (3) you provide no citation for current medical opinion (such as surveys), post 2005 Vioxx, Celebrex, Baycol, Tequin etc. as well as the PNAS & NIH about-face on the Mayo-Moetel tests with respect to vitamin C pharmokinetics (openly or tacitly agreeing on different points by Pauling) or the 2006 Finnish restudy on vitamin C test analyses for respiratory problems that show clear error in previous "mainstream" medical analyses & their error laden negative pronouncements on vitamin C; (4) you (& your "mainstrean" moonbeam friends) quote no relevant tests/data or studies on actual recommended orthomolecular megadose treatments, rather the "mainstream" fake or strawmen tests, as Dr Harris discussed in orthomed talk, also exemplified by meager "mainstream" respiratory test examples of 0.2 to 3 gram/day vitamin C orally oid vs orthomed's 30-200 grams/day AA orally to bowel tolerance, divided does every 0.1-2 hr, for respiratory treatment. Time to put Cassileth's cherished misstatement aside.--TheNautilus 03:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)