paul@phs.UUCP (Paul C. Dolber) (03/11/85)
According to Science 85 (April issue, quoted by someone): "Vitamin C is ineffective as a treatment for cancer. So say doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who found that victims of bowel cancer given large doses of vitamin C had no better survival rate than victims treated with a placebo. The report contradicts the assertions of two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, a longstanding advocate of the vitamin's powers to treat some diseases." Someone else commented: "Mmmrmmph! Don't you love the way they make it sound so final, so resolved, so unambiguous?" J. Giles agreed that the report sounded too final, and suggested an alternate report style. But, boiled down, what did the original report say? Without any requirement for advanced scientific education? Vitamin C is ineffective as a treatment for cancer, say doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. [Their] report contradicts the assertions of two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. This is final, resolved, unambiguous? Regards, Paul Dolber (duke!phs!paul).