[...]It is not easy to be an orthomolecular physician. This field has not yet been recognized as a medical specialty. Orthomolecular medicine for some reason seems to be considered a threat to conventional medicine. Orthomolecular physicians are harassed by the medical establishment. One of my friends, in fact the present president of the Orthomolecular Medical Association, had his California medical licence revoked in 1984 and has had to move to another state in order to continue his practice of medicine. I testified at his hearing, where I was aked some rather silly questions by the assistant attorney general of the State of California. None of his patients presented charges against him; instead, the charges were brought by another physician, who may have felt that orthomolecular medicine constituted unfair competition, in that the patients are benefitted too much and at too low a cost (vitamins are much cheaper than drugs). My understanding is that the principal charge against my friend is that "He did not try hard enough to get his cancer patient who had decided against chemotherapy to change her mind." That sort of excuse seems to me to be about as flagrant as the one used thirty-three years ago by the U.S. Department of State for not giving me my passport to permit me to attend a two-day international symposium in London arranged by the Royal Society of London to discuss my discoveries about the structure of proteins. I was to have been the first speaker. The State Department said that my "anti-Communist statements had not been strong enough."

[...]The most recent and the most outrageous action by organized medicine against the new science of nutrition and the well-being of the American people has been perpetrated by the Mayo Clinic. This action, the publication of a fraudulent paper int the 17 January issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, has been mentioned in Chapter 19. The principal author of the paper, Dr. Charles G. Moertel, and his five collaborators, deliberately misrepresented their investigation of the value of high doses of vitamin C for patients with metastatic cancer of the colon or rectum as a repetition of and check on the work by Dr. Ewan Cameron and his collaborators (of whom I was one). They concluded that high doses of vitamin C have no value for patients with advanced cancer. In fact (although they suppressed this information), they supplied vitamin C to the patients in a way completely different from that followed by Cameron. Cameron's patients received high doses of vitamin C from the beginning of their treatment until the end of their lives or the present time, as much as twelve or thirteen years, whereas the Mayo Clinic patients received a smaller amount for a short time. Cameron and I had warned that suddenly stopping the high doses of vitamin C could be dangerous. This warning was ignored by the Mayo Clinic.

The National Cancer Institute was also a victim of the Mayo Clinic fraud. Its officers were mislead into thinking that the Mayo Clinic had repeated Cameron's work. By making a public statement to this effect, they loaned their authority to this bogus effort and compounded its error.

The Mayo Clinic doctors have refused to discuss this matter with me. I conclude that they are not scientists, devoted to the search for the truth. I surmise that they are so ashamed of themselves that they would prefer that the matter be forgotten. The Mayo Clinic used to have a great reputation. This episode indicates to me that it is no longer deserved.