Jump to content

Talk:Linus Pauling/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55

The Vitamin Myth

Here's an excellent RS article about Linus Pauling and dietary supplements:

Brangifer (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Strangely, I can't edit article. Yet can edit this talk page.

Above source is useful key to full understanding of Pauling's current reputation that lacking in present version of article. Here is wordy suggestion for second graf of lede:

"In a 2013 article in The Atlantic Magazine, Dr. Paul Offit said although Pauling was "so spectacularly right" that he won two Nobel Prizes, Offit notes that Pauling's late-career assertions about the benefits of dietary supplements were "so spectacularly wrong that he was arguably the world's greatest quack" (citation from above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.204.142.171 (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Linus Pauling died from cancer in 1994, but at the not unimpressive age of 93. Strange, therefore, that Offit's article somehow omits to mention this. Seemingly, we are supposed to believe that Pauling would have lived even longer if only he had avoided taking all that supplemental vitamin C. I can therefore only conclude that, given this apparently deliberate omission, the article is intended to promote Offit's latest book.[1] Vitaminman (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right, yet one simply cannot imagine how or why. Seems you are making a number of inferences based purely on imagination. For example: am I getting paid or have other interests in a book promotion? I do need money but no.... I waste my time, utterly, on Wikipedia strictly for free. Moreover, why would a book promoter spend their valuable time with such an obscure venue as this particular Wikipedia article?
Information presented in Atlantic Magazine piece is very specific & rather overwhelming. Moreover, Offit seems to be an important, prominent, highly reliable authority.... & blaba.
So, dunno, go ahead and revert if you like.

108.204.142.171 (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit against National Review, Wm F. Buckley, Jr . . . . ? ? ?

Where's it at??? After Pauling had won the Nobel Peace Prize and the Lenin Peace Prize (Thatt isn't mentioned either.) During the early 60s, Pauling was a frequent target of "The National Review" magazine; particularly, in an article entititle "The Collaborators" in the magazine's July 17, 1962 issue. Pauling was not only referred to as a collaborator, but a "fellow traveler." This set off a five year legal battle in the form of federal libel case. He was suing for $1 Mil . . . He lost both his suit and and the appeal. The whole thing added to his rep as a flaky, quack in later years. Doesn't anyone around here have any historial memory???

http://paulingblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/the-national-review-lawsuit/

http://paulingblog.wordpress.com/tag/william-f-buckley/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Dickerman_Williams

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/30/nyregion/c-dickerman-williams-97-free-speech-lawyer-is-dead.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/1968/22-n-y-2d-818-0.html

Needs mentioned.User:JCHeverly 19:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

perhaps a bit too much information?

The biobraphy is too long, and has too much information in it. Yes, a biography of someone who warrants an encyclopaedia entry should have information about "where they came from", but things like "Pauling fell in love with a freshman girl named Irene early in the school year, and, by the end of October, he had used up $150 of his savings on her, taking her to shows and games" is probably a bit too much detail. Irene doesn't feature later in his life, and does not seem to have had any pivotal effect on his life or career. I'm sure she was a nice girl, and young love is sweet and all that, but it's not part of what makes Linus Pauling notable. 101.117.27.85 (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Irene who? Where is she today? Still living? MaynardClark (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No answer after 5 months, so I have trimmed the paragraph and deleted Irene and other details. Yes, more trimming could be done elsewhere. Dirac66 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Intro: not close to being the discoverer of DNA's structure

I would like to question the claim now in the intro that "Pauling also came close to being the discoverer of DNA's structure". This wording might suggest to a casual reader (who does not check further) that Pauling discovered the correct structure but did not credit because Watson and Crick discovered it first. However in fact, Pauling was on the wrong track with his triple helix and neutral phosphate groups, and so would not have had credit even if Watson and Crick had not solved the problem. This is correctly explained in Watson's The Double Helix, which is cited as the source for the dubious sentence in the intro, and it is also correctly explained in the article section on Biological molecules. So I propose that we modify the sentence in the intro to agree. Perhaps the intro could just say "Pauling also worked on DNA's structure, a problem which was solved by James Watson and Francis Crick." Dirac66 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I support that. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed and revised

I've done a complete re-read and revision of the article, and updated the URLS cited, many of which were out of date. (The OSU sites had changed their server, breaking many of the links.) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linus Pauling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Vit. C and stroke/heart attack

I think there should be more discussion re Pauling's work and claims about Vit. C deficiency being the primary cause of heart attacks and strokes. This was a significant focus of his work on Vit. C's benefits.

Also, no mention is made re his optimal dosage ideas.

Robert92107 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


Not only that but "none of which have gained acceptance by the mainstream scientific community." is false.

In the past 3 years or so, Niacin has been recognized as the only compound that clinically reduces cholesterol and is now prescribed by doctors. The very recent discovery vitamin C and antibiotics helps kill cancer vindicates Pauling as does the scientific evidence associated with his many claims that is there for the reading.

Wikipedia is wrong and this benefits industry and not consumers. I no longer care and have not regarded Wikipedia as anything more than a sewer for a few years - so much is wrong - and I'm willing to waste a bit of soap trying to clean it up but not much. If this becomes a cat and mouse game of warring edits because of prevailing industrial overtones I'll concede and simply document this happening again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs79 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note that any material detailing medical claims need to be sourced to material that is complaint with our guideline on sourcing for medical content. In addition, any direct claims that Pauling is vindicated in these respect will also need to specifically mention Pauling, per WP:OR. Yobol (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

OE Source

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Linus Pauling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linus_Pauling/Archive_55&oldid=1133885140"