Cancer should not exist. Part 2

[WabUfvot5]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Does anyone know of a website where I could find out more information about this lifesaving treatment that teh pharmaceutical companies don't want me to know about?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Does anyone know of a website where I could find out more information about this lifesaving treatment that teh pharmaceutical companies don't want me to know about?

Jeb's reply drew my attention to your response, Mr. Noodle. Since Jeb does not frequent the board as much as I do, he may not be aware of your story.

I truly hope as Jeb implied, that your comment was in jest.

I don't know that we've ever agreed on a damn thing on this board, Noodle. But I suspect that we are both in full agreement that your Dad should have the best possible treatment which hopefully leads to a full remission of his cancer, and the best quality of life possible.

Please don't go out there chasing false hope offered by unscrupulous snake oil salesmen who only want your money.

If the pharmaceutical companies have become so powerful and so ruthless as to suppress all understanding of treatment, cure, and prevention of cancer that does not directly benefit them, we are ALL lost anyhow.

Laetril contains a deadly poison which kills ALL living cells. Radiation therapy and chemo therapy is directed at cells that actively divide - i.e. cancer cells. Other cells in the body also actively divide like the ones which line your intestinal tract and are responsible for hair growth. These are called epidermal cells - cells which actively divide but are not cancerous. That is why people undergoing chemo may loose their hair or get very nauseated. But unlike cyanide, chemo does not kill every last cell in the body. Cyanide WILL. It is an effective and deadly poison which has been known for centuries.

If you are interested in the latest avenues of cancer research done by respected scientists and doctors and carried out at real medical institutions, PM me. I recently did a ton of research for a friend on this same subject, and I still have bookmarked quite a few extremely helpful and informative links.

In addition, the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver is engaged in active, cutting edge cancer research. Their projects are sponsored by the NIH and other reputable outfits. I can tell you how to get more information on what is going on there, as well.

Please, please, please don't poison your Dad in an effort to help him.

All the best,
Mari

[Brett's Honey]

Coincidence?...I don't know...but the only thing I know about laetrile is this - my uncle is the only cancer patient who was treated with it, along with the other conventional cancer drugs, out of everyone I've known who has died of cancer,and he is the only one who was not in pain when he died, unlike my daughter, grandmother, other uncle, best friend's brother, great-uncle, ex-mother in law, ex-step father in law, I know I'm forgetting someone....
The Hospice nurse who attended my uncle's death commented on the fact that the people whose death she attended who were treated with laetrile did not suffer with pain like those who were not.
Anyone else know a similar story? It may have not been the laetrile, who knows...but I would like to know more about this...

[Brett's Honey]

And mrnoodle - not EVERYONE diagnosed with cancer dies of the disease. I must admit that out of the ten kids I got to know with cancer (and that # includes my kid), only one is alive today. But she is my hope...the proof that it can be beat. And I know more adults than children, it seems, who survive cancer. (maybe it's caught earlier, more routine checks for it maybe...?) But when you're dealing with a loved one fighting cancer, it is natural to search out every single thread of hope out there. Nothing wrong with that, you're in the position where you'd try anything reasonable to help them, whether it is to beat the cancer, or to be more comfortable.
When my uncle was sick, not eating and feeling bad, his son asked around at work one day for some pot for his Dad to smoke. A co-worker who smoked rolled him up a couple, he took his dad outside that evening and had his dad smoke about 1/2 of one, my uncle felt better than he had in weeks and he ate for the first time in 2 or 3 days. (He was a cigarette smoker and he didn't have any trouble smoking it, seemed to enjoy it, actually.)
Good luck. If I come across anything that I think you may want to check out, I'll certainly send it to you.

[rtexanssane]

Marichiko. You have said some things that have forced me back into the thread because i am wandering about something now which is going to force me to do more research.
One of us has been misinformed. Essentially i am interested in the truth and not in being right so i have to consider the possibility that it is you that are right and me that is misinformed, but i am not set either way just now.
Here is the point of contention for me. You quoted from an article that said.

"Laetrile is the trademark of a compound of two parts glucose and one part cyanide. There is no vitamin B17, "B17" is a trade name created for laetrile by a laetrile proponent. It is naturally present in the kernels of apricot pits and a number of other stone fruits and nuts. There is no RDA but doses vary from 0.25 g to 1.0 g a day."

I have not come accross the statement even from the opponents of Laetrile that B17 does not exist. It was originally identified as part of the Nitriloside family and is a complete molecule locked inside a membrane.
The molecule itself consists of 2 units of Glucose, 1 unit of Hydrogen cyanide and 1 unit Benzaldehide.
So what concerns me is the part of the statement that says that Laetrile consists of 2 units and 1 part Cyanide.
G. Edward Griffin as a result of his research says in his book and documentary "World without Cancer" that Benzaldehide and cyanide acting together are 100 times more toxic than either acting alone and it is this which kills the cancer cell.
This makes sense to me because Vitamin B12 which also contains cyanide has as far as i know never been considered for treating cancer.
If this be the case then the concentrated form of B17 Laetrile is lacking a vital compound.
Also the article referred to by Kitsune said that there is more than one type of Laetrile. That Mexican Laetrile is not the same as the Laetrile originally developed by Krebs in the USA.
If these things are true then i am willing to concede that there could be a problem with Laetrile and that this concentrated form of B17 may be a misuse of a naturally occuring compound in many foods.
I am not a crank who just accepts any conspiracy theory. I was motivaed to do some research into B17 when i first heard about it for the simple reason that millions of people are still dying despite the efforts of conventional medicine. It makes sense to look at other possibilities under such circumstances.
I am not willing to dismiss the possibilty that B17 in its natural form in various foods can prevent cancer, but i am thankful to you all for forcing me to take a second look at the whole picture.
I need more research.

[mrnoodle]

oops, I should really check in more often.....

Yes, I was kidding. Dad's cancer seems to be gone. He's continuing with chemo for 5 months to make sure they've killed the last of it, but his "count", which is supposed to be less than 5 (cancer free), has been at 2 for the last couple of blood tests. Of course, the 5-year point is the one we're shooting for -- after that, if he's still cancer-free, they call it "cured".

Thanks for your concern though mari : . I was making fun of the tinfoil hat guy (no real offense intended, though - just playin)

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Dad's cancer seems to be gone. He's continuing with chemo for 5 months to make sure they've killed the last of it, but his "count", which is supposed to be less than 5 (cancer free), has been at 2 for the last couple of blood tests.

That, sir, is news worth celebrating. I'm glad to hear all is working out so far!

[laebedahs]

Originally Posted by marichiko

If you are concerned about cancer prevention, do some of the things I outlined above: Eat organic foods, check your home for asbestos, quit smoking, avoid contact with strong chemicals of any sort, try to live in the least polluted environment possible, and have a yearly check up from your licensed MD. Woman over 40 should get mammograms, and woman of any age need yearly pap smears, men should get checked for prostrate cancer. If you have a mole which changes shape or color, call your doctor. Eat a variety of nutritious foods with an emphasis on whole grains. Please.

And remember, always spay or neuter your pets! Sorry Marichiko, it just reads like a public service announcement. The more you know...

[laebedahs]

Originally Posted by rtexanssane

Undertoad i am afraid i do know what i am talking about. The success rate of conventional treatments is appaling and yet nobody complains about that.
I challenge you to name a single disease that no longer exists because of modern medicine. Once cancer has spread to a secondary location the success rate of conventional medicine and surgery is virtually Zero. Radiology kills the normal cells in a tumour while the malignant ones remain. Consequently you can reduce the mass of a tumour by 80% and at the same time increase its malignancy by 80%. Great job, now the cancer is even more deadly than it was before the treatment and the the body is damaged by radiation on top of this. The more you subject the body to things which are foreign to our biology the more your body will produce trophablast which is why the cancer started in the first place. What the hell do you think a carcenogen is ?
Mad made medicine does not cure disease, it merely treats the symptoms.
There is nothing that is foreign to the biological experience of any living organism that can improve it. To believe so is to believe that man is a better designer than God himself.
I am past the point of trying to convince anyone who has posted in this thread. I am only posting now for the benefit of those who will read it from here on and they can make up their own minds as to whose arguments are the more logical.
You have all approached this subject in such a way that anyone who agrees with me will not post because they will be viewed as gullible so the lack of support i am getting means nothing as far as i am concerned.

I'm going to point how that the same crap you're trying to push here, is on many, many websites trying to sell the same stuff. The same exact crap. Do a search on google for "B17 studies". Click the first link at the top (no, I'm not going to link it here so that website can get a higher pagerank). Try some of the links at the bottom of the site, like "Microwater". What the fark?

I remember my (ex) mother-in-law telling me how her mom is/was interested in "coral calcium". All she would talk about was that and how it was amazing and so helpful. Guess what coral calcium really is? Limestone, aka " calcium carbonate, with some magnesium and trace amounts of many other minerals":http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...DSH/coral.html

But back on topic. As stated 32 years ago, Laetrile/B17 was and still is "quackery". It's the same thing as a travelling salesman claiming to make rain (one of the best Quantum Leap episodes :P). Laetrile/B17 prescriptions are currently banned in the U.S.

Originally Posted by laebedahs

And remember, always spay or neuter your pets! Sorry Marichiko, it just reads like a public service announcement. The more you know...

Heh! Yeah, it does now that you mention it. I just felt the need to re-iterate some common sense here for those "future readers."

Noodle, I should check in on this thread more often, myself. That's great news about your Dad! YAY! I suspected you were joking, but one never knows, eh?

rtexanssane, the substance which has been given the trade name "B17" exists, but it is no more a vitamin than H2O would be if I got a trademark for "B18" and sold bottled water under that name.

Unfortunately, laetrile is POISON, unlike water. Cyanide is toxic, alright. It kills everything in sight, including cancer cells. At least modern cancer treatments are aimed at destroying cells which divide, ie cancer cells. Radiation treatments can be directed at the tumor itself, unlike taking a nice cyanide tablet which is going to adversely effect every cell in the body.

Hell, if you want to take something that kills off cells pretty indiscriminately and is hard on the liver, start drinking alcohol. At least you'll get a buzz in exchange for the damage you're doing your body. Laetrile will just make you sick.

[rtexanssane]

"Unfortunately, laetrile is POISON, unlike water. Cyanide is toxic, alright. It kills everything in sight, including cancer cells. At least modern cancer treatments are aimed at destroying cells which divide, ie cancer cells. Radiation treatments can be directed at the tumor itself, unlike taking a nice cyanide tablet which is going to adversely effect every cell in the body."

Marichika that is so grossly inacurate that you leave me almost speachless.
It is Kemo that is not target specific and poisons all living cells while B17 and Laetrille are target specific only releasing Hydrogen Cyanide and Benzaldehyde in response in response to Beta-Glucosidase which cancer cells have 3000 times as much of as normal cells. Why do you think Kemo can only be used for a limited period.
This is the problem with modern medicine. IT only offers relief during therpy and has no value in terms of prevention. You cannot have Kemo as part of a carefull balanced diet for the rest of your life because you die very quickly whereas B17 is naturally occring in over 1200 foods around the world. You are not seriously suggesting that all these 1200 foods should be banned from the human diet because they will poison you to death.
You keep harping on about cyanide as if it were the only compinent of which B17 is made. It is a highly complex molecule which does not contain the free cyanide radical that is found in Vitamin B12. They are two completely different compounds.
You are paying far to much attention to the findings that have resulted from the smear campaign unleashed by the FDA since 1952 and not enough attention to what has been uncovered around the globe.
In connection with this i would like to direct you to my comments in part 1 of this double thread.

BTW. That rhodanese which is found in healthy cells and not in cancer cells neutralises cyanide by converting it into thiocyanate is supported by organised medicine outside of cancer research.
If you look up information on cyanide antidotes you will see what i mean.

Here is one such article

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

For more detail on how B17 behaves in response to healthy and cancer cells read this little snippet plus view the nice little diagram that demonstrates in detail how it works.

http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk...ndcyanide.html


Finally. I may be wrong about Kemo because i have not done much research there. Could you direct me to some articles on this that you have read.
Has Kemo over the years been revised and improved or is it the same treatment as when it first started?

A good starting point for information on Chemotherapy can be found in Wikipedia.

CHEMO targets cells that are under going active division - ie cancer cells. As I have mentioned before, the lining of the digestive tract and hair follicles are also cells that under go active division, hence the side effects of chemo. However, more specialized anti-cancer agents are being experimented with. There are now some drugs out that target cancer cells specifically.

Cyanide kills everything - dividing cells or not. If you don't beleive me, go drink some. No, don't.

Many of the substances used in accepted cancer treatment protocols are derived from - guess what? Naturally occuring substances in plants like yew, may apple, and periwinkle. Where was your FDA when these experiments were going on? Tisk, tisk! How dare modern medicine make use of substances found naturally in plants? Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, modern medicine does this all the time - WHEN THE SUBSTANCE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO GIVE RESULTS.

[rtexanssane]

Thanks for that link Marachico.
A very enlightening article that is also honest about the limitations and side effects of this treatment, there must have been tons of research going into this approach.
The only thing i would say is that it is no use to me personally as a means of preventing cancer from ever occuring.
This is the whole reason for my exploring the nutrition and enzyme aproach to cancer.

Just out of interest what is your proffesional opinion of the trophoblastic thesis of cancer.
I know that metabolic therapists will not treat women who are in the early stages of pregnancy because they know that the B17 will attack the trophoblasts that occur in early pregnancy in the same way that it attacks what they are saying are those same trophoblasts that occur as part of the general healing process when the pancreas is unable to supply sufficient levels
of the pancreatic enzymes that shut down the healing process upon completion of its task, the same way that pregnancy trophoblast is killed off after 8 weeks once the baby's pancreas becomes functional.

What do you think ?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rtexanssane

I know that metabolic therapists will not treat women who are in the early stages of pregnancy because they know that the B17 will attack the trophoblasts that occur in early pregnancy in the same way that it attacks what they are saying are those same trophoblasts that occur as part of the general healing process when the pancreas is unable to supply sufficient levels
of the pancreatic enzymes that shut down the healing process upon completion of its task, the same way that pregnancy trophoblast is killed off after 8 weeks once the baby's pancreas becomes functional.

What do you think ?

I think that sentence sounded better in your head.

[rtexanssane]

laebedahs. What holds as being scientifically truthful does not become untruthful just because 30 years have elapsed reguardless of whether anyone restates those truths or not.
I cant believe i am having to explain this to you. That vitamin C prevents Scurvy is as true today as it was hundreds of years ago and it does not need to be restated unless people systematically start to exclude it from their diets which is not going to happen.

About that doctor. I think you are just nit picking here.

I was also challenged to find modern day proponents of Laetrile which has proved difficult because the opponents of Laetrile dont give their names they just refer to them as "Proponents of laetrile" so it is only those who have written books who become prominent and easy to find

Philip E. Binzel, Jr., M.D. Is one such doctor who wrote the Book "Alive and well" in 1994
He is a graduate of the Medical School at St. Louis University in Missouri and did his internship at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Dr Harold Manner died in 1988 but in another interview with PLOWBOY he reveals something which sheds some light on why it so difficult to find those proponents of Laetrile.

Here is a clipping.

PLOWBOY: And the individuals who arranged these "secret meetings" were researchers?

DR. MANNER: A lot of them were. Many were people from the other universities which were conducting studies that I felt might provide data I could use. This sort of information exchange goes on regularly . . . but not, apparently, when laetrile is involved.

PLOWBOY: They didn't even want to be associated with it?

DR. MANNER: Right. And they still don't. Peer pressure is a funny thing. I believe it's killing this country. We researchers are subjected to this pressure by what is called "peer review". Which means that if we want to get a grant-say, from a government agency-we submit our proposals and they're passed on to a group of our peers. Now, these men and women-these peers-have ideas about the directions they want research to take, and if it happens that the proposal leans another way. . . well, the grant is rejected. This has happened to even the giants in the field . . . researchers like Linus Pauling.

We also have to deal with the editorial boards of the medical journals. If a researcher's work happens to run against the grain of any of the peer reviewers on a medical journal, he will never get a paper-no matter how good printed in that publication. I could write the best paper on laetrile in the world, for example, and I know it wouldn't get into the Journal of the American Medical Association. Because of this pressure, I've been publishing in smaller journals lately . . . those that are, at least, willing to listen. It's funny, though: Over the years, I've had more than 50 reports printed in the front-line journals. If I were working on anything but laetrile I could publish my results anywhere.