Cancer should not exist. Part 1

[rtexanssane]

I owe marichico an apology for pointing out the spelling errors. Now i look back they are pretty awful.
About the logic though. I would like some of you to tell me clearly what your arguments are against the vitamin and enzyme aproach to cancer therapy and why you think that there is no evidence that B17 prevents cancer to begin with.
The only testing done that yeilded negative results were those authorised by the FDA who have only ever allowed Laetrile to be tested by its opponents.
People who had no experience with nutritional therapy and who feel the same way about natural therapies as the FDA.
This is a double standard because the the drug companies are allowed to do all their own testing and so get those tests carried out the way they know they should be.
Furthermore those tests only included the use of Laetrile and metabolic therapy includes a comprehensive nutritional programme which is highly successful outside the US.
The FDA has spread paranoia reguarding Cyanide while failing to point out that ther is actually no free cyanide floating around in laetrile. It must be manufactured by the enzyme Beta-Glucosidase which is only found in large enough quantities to release the Cyanide and Benzaldehyde in cancer cells

For more on this and a nice little diagram that shows how B17 works read here:
http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk...ndcyanide.html


For some insight into why the Sloan Kettering tests failed so miserably read here:
http://www.whale.to/cancer/manner.html

I would also point out that there are some Prominent and reputable names from around the globe within accepted medicine that highly endorse the use of Laetrile in cancer therapy. Here are some of them.

Dr Hans Nieper, former Director of the Department of Medicine at Silbersee Hospital in Hanover, Germany: During a visit to the United States in 1972, Dr Nieper told reporters: "After more than twenty years of such specialised work, I have found non-toxic nitrilosides - that is, Laetrile - far superior to any other known cancer treatment or preventative. In my opinion, it is the only existing possibility for the ultimate control of cancer."

In Canada, Dr N R Bouziane, former Director of Research Laboratories at St Jeanne D'Arc Hospital in Montreal, published his repeated successes in treating cancers with nutrition, which were written up in the medical literature, including the Cancer News Journal, Jan/April 1971, p.20, under the article heading "The Laetrile Story".

In the Philippines, Dr Manuel Navarro, former Professor of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Santo Tomas, Manila, and an internationally recognised cancer researcher with over 100 major scientific papers to his credit, treated terminally ill cancer patients with Laetrile for over 25 years. He stated in the Cancer News Journal: "It is my carefully considered clinical judgement, as a practising oncologist and researcher in this field, that I have obtained most significant and encouraging results with the use of Laetrile-amygdalin in the treatment of terminal cancer patients..."

In Mexico, Dr Ernesto Contreras, one of the country's leading medical specialists in nutritional treatment for cancer for over 30 years, remarks of B17-Laetrile's action with extreme terminal cancer cases: "The palliative action [the ability of a substance to improve the comfort of a patient] is in about 60% of the cases. Frequently, enough to be significant, I see arrest of the disease or even regression in some 15% of the very advanced cases."

Ernesto's son Francisco Contreras continues the work today after his father's retirement. Francisco is author of The Hope of Living Cancer Free in which he lays out the protocols his clinic has used to marvellous success in treating thousands of patients since 1963.

In Italy, Professor Etore Guidetti, of the University of Turin Medical School, announced startling results with Laetrile in successfully combating many types of cancer, including cervix, breast, uterus and rectum. After a speech, an American doctor rose in the audience, challenging the Italian professor that Laetrile had been found to be worthless in the United States. Dr Guidetti was abrupt and dismissive: "I care not what was determined in the United States. I am merely reporting what I saw in my own clinic."
Extracted from B17 Metabolic Therapy by Phillip Day
© Copyright 2003

So i say to anyone challenging this to bring something to the table that is not part of the FDA smear campaign that has been going on for over 60 years and that the rest of the world does subscribe to.

Where to start? I have both an undergraduate degree and a Master's degree in biological science (although I am NOT a real doctor). I worked as a medical librarian for a number of years. I am highly interested in the use of both herbal and nutitional medicine. I do NOT dismiss alternative medicine out of hand.

Not a single person you listed has published his findings in a scientific, peer reveiwed journal. Not a single one has published an experimental protocol which other researchers in the field can follow to attain the same results.

The FDA does not tell universities what they may and may not study. If you want to indulge in paranoid conspiracy theories, you need to go elsewhere. I spent the better part of 20 years either as a student of the life sciences or working with graduate students and professors in the fields of medicine, pharmacology, biology, chemistry, and the other sciences. Never ever , not once were the moods or possible prejudices of the FDA a matter of concern.

Scientists studying nutrition are NOT censored, nor are they denied funding for study and experimentation.

I've stated it before, and I'll state it for the final time. Your claims regarding laetril would be easy to prove if they were valid by simply using a few hundred lab rats in a double blind study. The scientist who proved the cancer treatment/preventative worth of laetril or any other substance would be on the front cover of the Journal of the American Medical Society, Nature, Science, and any other number of prestigous scientific journals. The FDA is NOT a part of the peer review process on any reputable scientific publication.

You so obviously have zero undedrstanding of scientific research, what drives it, and how results are published that its not even worth debating this topic with you further.

I doubt if you could even explain to me or anyone else what the scientific method is. Your head is filled with propaganda fed to you by the laetril hucksters and that's all you want to hear.

Go ahead and poison yourself with "natural" cyanide. Just please don't kill innocent people who are as ignorant of modern medicine as you are with your ill advised manifestos.

[laebedahs]

Originally Posted by rtexanssane

I would also point out that there are some Prominent and reputable names from around the globe within accepted medicine that highly endorse the use of Laetrile in cancer therapy. Here are some of them.

Dr Hans Nieper, former Director of the Department of Medicine at Silbersee Hospital in Hanover, Germany: During a visit to the United States in 1972, Dr Nieper told reporters: "After more than twenty years of such specialised work, I have found non-toxic nitrilosides - that is, Laetrile - far superior to any other known cancer treatment or preventative. In my opinion, it is the only existing possibility for the ultimate control of cancer."

In Canada, Dr N R Bouziane, former Director of Research Laboratories at St Jeanne D'Arc Hospital in Montreal, published his repeated successes in treating cancers with nutrition, which were written up in the medical literature, including the Cancer News Journal, Jan/April 1971, p.20, under the article heading "The Laetrile Story".

In the Philippines, Dr Manuel Navarro, former Professor of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Santo Tomas, Manila, and an internationally recognised cancer researcher with over 100 major scientific papers to his credit, treated terminally ill cancer patients with Laetrile for over 25 years. He stated in the Cancer News Journal: "It is my carefully considered clinical judgement, as a practising oncologist and researcher in this field, that I have obtained most significant and encouraging results with the use of Laetrile-amygdalin in the treatment of terminal cancer patients..."

In Mexico, Dr Ernesto Contreras, one of the country's leading medical specialists in nutritional treatment for cancer for over 30 years, remarks of B17-Laetrile's action with extreme terminal cancer cases: "The palliative action [the ability of a substance to improve the comfort of a patient] is in about 60% of the cases. Frequently, enough to be significant, I see arrest of the disease or even regression in some 15% of the very advanced cases."

Ernesto's son Francisco Contreras continues the work today after his father's retirement. Francisco is author of The Hope of Living Cancer Free in which he lays out the protocols his clinic has used to marvellous success in treating thousands of patients since 1963.

In Italy, Professor Etore Guidetti, of the University of Turin Medical School, announced startling results with Laetrile in successfully combating many types of cancer, including cervix, breast, uterus and rectum. After a speech, an American doctor rose in the audience, challenging the Italian professor that Laetrile had been found to be worthless in the United States. Dr Guidetti was abrupt and dismissive: "I care not what was determined in the United States. I am merely reporting what I saw in my own clinic."
Extracted from B17 Metabolic Therapy by Phillip Day
© Copyright 2003

So i say to anyone challenging this to bring something to the table that is not part of the FDA smear campaign that has been going on for over 60 years and that the rest of the world does subscribe to.

I'd like to point out that three of the six people you pointed out as proponents of Laetrile made those <strike>mistakes</strike> statements over 30 years ago, one of them even 40 years ago. Can you quote more recent backings? I think we both know you can't.

What disturbs me more is one of the people you quote, the Italian professor, did exactly what you're claiming us to do: dismissing it without consideration or even a whim thought. Also, the Canadian doctor you quote in the second paragraph doesn't even mention Laetrile/B17/amygdalin at all! He simply says "treating cancer with nutrition". That's it.

Can you explain the above away like you've been trying with all other posts?

[rtexanssane]

Marichiko. Its interesting that you should mention experiments with rats because the Sloan Kettering institute used mice and it as not until a certain Dr Manner stopped using the same mice that Sloan kettering used that he got amazing results.

Read here. http://www.whale.to/cancer/manner.html

Now you read that interview and tell me whose approach followed the scientific method as you understand it.


Respect to you though Marichiko those are impressive qualifications and i did not realise from your posts here that you also have interest in alternative medicine both herbal and nutritional.
I myself have no qualifications whatsoever, i have just done a ton of research on this specific issue looking at both the findings of the opponents and the supporters of Laetrile.
You are right, i could not give you an exact definition of the scientific method i would have to look it up. i know that basically a scientist has no buisness starting out as being for or against something. He/shemust be neutral which i imagine is damned hard to do in the first place.

I really wanted to stay away from the Laetrile side of the vitamin B17 issue.
The problem i see here is that the opposition that it stirred back in 1952 has created a climate in which the testing of which you speak cannot be conducted in an unbiased setting.
Instead what we have is a situation where anyone who wants to propose Laetrile risks their career and outright ridicule from their peers.
The FDA has gone on record as labelling Laetrile as outright fraud. I read so on their official webste.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/100_exp.html


This has not been demonstrated to be the case. When a genuine scientific fraud is uncovered you dont get raging debates about it for the next 50 years.
Take the case of Piltdown Man.
There are metabolic therapy clinics the world over. Are there also science classes in schools where Piltdown Man is cited as the missing link in the evolutionary chain ? I think not

The FDA has no right to make such a statement and they carry huge weight as an organisation even though they can only enforce a ban in the US.
Here in Britain the NHS will not use anything that has been found to be of no value by the FDA.
Only 2 weeks ago one of our chainstores (Julian Graves) had to pull all of its Apricot Kernals from its shelves due to a cyanide scare from "Oversees"

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/16956...ealth_problems

This article is nothing less than a bare faced lie saying that it is only safe to eat 2 kernals per day when i myself have been eating 10 per day along with tens of thousands of others around the globe who have been doing so for years and cancer patients can safely take up to between 4-6 500mg Laetrile tablets per day.
The article that i just linked even has ads right next to it of where to get them. The whole thing is a joke.

You said "The FDA does not tell universities what they may and may not study"
I am sorry to say that you are wrong in this Marichiko. Here is a clipping from the FDA website

"FDA does not manufacture drugs or directly research whether a drug is safe and effective. The FDA's role in this process is to oversee the pharmaceutical research conducted by drug companies, university research centers and physicians to make certain the federal regulation governing this research are being followed."

http://www.fda.gov/oashi/cancer/pdpat.html

Just try working on something in a university that they have unfairly labelled as outright fraud and guarenteed that they will then conduct their own investigation to prove to you and everyone else that your findings are false.
That is exactly what happened with Laetrile.
The FDA are leaned on by the Drug companies who have nothing to gain from research that cannot be patented, so its really those companies that you are up against.
I am not saying its a deliberate conspiracy. I am saying that it is blindness due to greed and arrogance.
"How can a simple vitamin solve a problem that respected medical scientists have been baffling over for all these years" has always been the current mentality in any period in history and this generation is no exception.

The evidence that Vitamin B17 selectively destroys cancer cells while not harming the body is overwhelming and i dont need a peer reviewed paper to prove it to me.

laebedahs. Those experts may have made those statement 30 years ago, but if they have not retracted those statements sinse and are still standing by Laetrile, then that counts as current does it not.
You are completely ignoring the fact that these clinics exist all around the globe.
The Itallian you mentioned dismissed what was found in the US which he is entitled to do. America does not own the planet and the peer review is not the bible.

[rtexanssane]

I have just found out that there is a manmade version of Laetrile which goes under the same name.
I wonder which version was used in the experiments that showed Laetrile to be ineffective.
I find this appaling. nowhere else in medical science have i seen a manmade version of a natural treatment that is allowed to be passed off as the real thing.
How can the law allow people to be deceived in this way. It should not be allowed to carry the same name if it is not the same substance.
I knew from what Marichiko said that there were two versions of it, but i would never have guessed that the other version was manmade. If i had said that myself i would be further accused of promoting a conspiracy theory.
So i thought i would use something which is not printed by the proponents of Laetrile.

Here is the article.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/co...x_Laetrile.asp

First of all, it doesn't matter if a substance is derived from a natural source or synthesized in the lab. Calcium is still calcium whether it comes from an oyster shell or a pharmaceutical company. If it wasn't, it would be called something else, not calcium Molecules don't care where they came from. They still follow the same laws of chemistry and physics, regardless.

The evidence that Vitamin B17 selectively destroys cancer cells while not harming the body is overwhelming and i don't need a peer reviewed paper to prove it to me..

Then you don't believe in science. Stop trying to use science to disprove science. You probably don't even understand what peer review is or the importance of getting a paper published somewhere besides the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

The FDA's guidelines do NOT tell scientists what they may or may not research. They require that scientists use accepted experimental techniques, including double blind studies to ensure that outcomes are not skewed by observer bias. They require extensive testing on laboratory animals, followed by studies on human patients who volunteer to be part of a clinical trial.

Many respected scientists work in the field of pharmacognosy - the study of substances derived from plants and herbs. Viable cancer treatments have arisen out of such work. The FDA and the pharmaceuticals did NOT interfere with the study of Madagascar Periwinkle, substances from the Yew plant, etc.

No one studies laetrile because it has already been proven to be ineffective and dangerous. It is still around because snake oil salesmen proffer it to the dying and their families who will buy it out of desperation and ignorance.

I cannot argue science with a person who has no use for its techniques. You have no use for the scientific method because it disproves what you want to believe.

If you were to stop eating all those apricot kernels for a month, I have no doubt that you would feel better than you have in a long time. Your thinking might also clear, since you would no longer be poisoning yourself.

.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rtexanssane

peer review is not the bible.

Exactly. The Bible has to be accepted on faith. Peer review requires evidence. No number of testimonials has the credibility of one double-blind study, and multiple double-blind studes are best.

[OnyxCougar]

While I have no interest in Laetrile or reading any links provided, I know for a fact that the FDA is not out for the best interest of the American public. They are paid by the pharmaceutical and food production industries.

I wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out 100 years from now that B17 (or ANY natural cure) really is the cure for cancer, and the FDA suppressed the evidence or outright lied to cover it up.

Do you know how many Billions of dollars is at stake? from the doctors to the labratories to the medical imaging field to the surgeons, to the hospitals, to the pharmacies, hospice care, funeral homes... all of these (and Im sure many more I can't come up with off the top of my head at the moment) make money off cancer? It's a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. Now eliminate cancer.

It's all about what it's always all about: money and power.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Exactly. The Bible has to be accepted on faith. Peer review requires evidence. No number of testimonials has the credibility of one double-blind study, and multiple double-blind studes are best.

Small but very crucial difference:

The bible itself is fact. It's the content of the writing within that (arguably) has to be accepted on faith.

[Happy Monkey]

That's not a crucial difference at all, since when I say "the Bible", I am referring to the writing in it. And if you are not referring to it's contents, then saying "the bible itself is fact" is not a semantically meaningful sentence. A book can't be fact. It's contents can include fact.

If, when referring to a book, I am ever referring to anything but its contents, I'll make special mention of which non-content-related aspect of the book I am talking about.

[rtexanssane]

"I cannot argue science with a person who has no use for its techniques. You have no use for the scientific method because it disproves what you want to believe."

Untrue. The scientific method is sound but the problem is that it has been abanbdoned with reguard to Laetrile.
You did not read the interview with Dr Manner which i posted or you would know that the experiments with mice conducted by Sloan Kettering and the NCI were not scientifically sound.
Twice i have posted the link and you have all stayed clear of mentioning it so i am going to call you on it.
First of all if you are going to use mice to determine whether or not Laetrile works on humans then you need mice that develop the disease the way humans do and not mice that have cancer implanted into them in such a way that they die within 18 days.
Dr Manner was having success until he started using the mice that these institutions were using. I am going to quote you what he said after duplicating What these institutions did to their mice.

"We stopped and talked about it for several weeks. Two things emerged. One, there was the type of tumour we were using. We would buy the mice from Jackson laboratory up in Maine. These were healthy mice. They dined on Purina Lab-Chow formulated by nutritionists. I'm convinced if the American public ate like my mice we would have far less disease in this country.

Anyway, these mice came to our lab in perfect condition. Then I ordered a couple of mice with a tumour. I'd take that tumour out of those mice, put them in a little glass jar and break the tumour into free cells---then take a hypodermic needle with about a million of those cells and inject it directly into the animal's body, and they multiply. Within about 18 days they die of the tumour. So I submit to you that a human being does not get cancer that way. You don't go to a doctor and say "doctor I feel terrific", and he says, "I'll take care of that" and gives you a shot of something so you get cancer. No way does that happen. This is a transplanted tumour. This was the type of tumour we used, also Sloane Kettering and NCI."

If you read the interview further you will note That DR Harold Manner had a 90% rate once he started using mice that develop cancer in later life with whatever is happening in their bodies like humans do
and when he used the full Metabolic therapy programme as opposed to just Laetrile.

Furthermore if the experiments that these institutions used on mice had zero success then what buisness did they have starting clinical trials on humans. but did that stop them as it would in any other branch of medicine. No it did not.
Thousands of humans were used by these institutions with the same tragic results. Some of you will have heard about these experiments.

I would submit to you therefore that these institutions did not follow the same proceedure as those therapists who were having success.
Obviously if one group is having success and another is not then one of the two parties is lying or covering something up.

When Dr manner was carrying out his toxicity tests and proved the non_toxisity of Laetrile how did the FDA respond did they admit they were wrong? No, this is what they did.

"at every meeting I was opposite an FDA representative, Dr Young.....this time it was different as we had finished the toxicity studies. We had shown it to be non-toxic. This was published and sent to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and to Sloane Kettering. Then at the next legislature meeting I heard Dr Young say to the senators, "Gentlemen, the FDA cannot support the use of laetrile because it is an unsafe substance." I looked at him and said how can you say that? You have my report that it is non-toxic. Oh, I didn't say it was toxic, I said it was unsafe. So you see they are changing the definition. He said "We mean by unsafe that if a person uses it they might not use orthodox therapy", and so for this reason the FDA considers it unsafe."

Again the tests run by these institutions reported toxicity problems so again somebody is lying or covering something up.

So you see i am not using science to disprove science, i am using scientific ineptitude to demonstrate the abandonment of logic and the scientific method.

QUOTE
"The FDA's guidelines do NOT tell scientists what they may or may not research. They require that scientists use accepted experimental techniques"

And just who decides what is an accepted experimental technique?
again you miss the point.
The FDA do not need to pull the plug on any experiment. They did not need to do this with Laetrile, they simply made it a banned substance so that anyone choosing to work with it becomes discredited as a quack and is forced by peer pressure to abandon their research or lose credibility in the scientific community.
Also anyone choosing to market it becomes a "Snake oil salesman" as you so kindly put it.

QUOTE
"First of all, it doesn't matter if a substance is derived from a natural source or synthesized in the lab. Calcium is still calcium whether it comes from an oyster shell or a pharmaceutical company. If it wasn't, it would be called something else, not calcium Molecules don't care where they came from. They still follow the same laws of chemistry and physics, regardless."

Explain to me the reason for messing around with it in the first place and how do we know when the altered version is or is not being used in experiments.
If you tell me that this sort of thing goes on in scientific medical experiments
in general then you are giving me more reason than ever to mistrust organised medicine, and if you tell me that it is not a common practice then i want to know why an exception is occuring with reguard to Laetrile.
I am afraid to say that they have backed themselves into a corner on this one.

[laebedahs]

Originally Posted by rtexanssane

laebedahs. Those experts may have made those statement 30 years ago, but if they have not retracted those statements sinse and are still standing by Laetrile, then that counts as current does it not.
You are completely ignoring the fact that these clinics exist all around the globe.
The Itallian you mentioned dismissed what was found in the US which he is entitled to do. America does not own the planet and the peer review is not the bible.

No, no it doesn't count as current. Do you even know what that word means? "occurring in or belonging to the present time". "Current" and "recent" are subjective words, this is true; however I'm sure everyone here can agree that 30 years is not anywhere near current or recent.

I don't think you fully absorbed what I said, so I'll point it out again, just in case you missed it: 'the Canadian doctor you quote in the second paragraph doesn't even mention Laetrile/B17/amygdalin at all! He simply says "treating cancer with nutrition". That's it.'

What about this doctor?

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out 100 years from now that B17 (or ANY natural cure) really is the cure for cancer, and the FDA suppressed the evidence or outright lied to cover it up.

Do you know how many Billions of dollars is at stake? from the doctors to the labratories to the medical imaging field to the surgeons, to the hospitals, to the pharmacies, hospice care, funeral homes... all of these (and Im sure many more I can't come up with off the top of my head at the moment) make money off cancer?

This sounds like something my ex in-laws would say. As a matter of fact, they DID say it. They also said dinosaur fossils were fakes planted by godless communists, Pope John Paul II was the Anti-Christ and that grandma Elsie had seen an alien space-ship land one night in her cornfield. Oh, yeah, they also went to see a German Baptist man who claimed to simply LOOK YOU IN THE EYE and know what ailed ya. He Rx'd plenty of warm water enemas and carrot juice for just about everything, from a cold sore to cancer.

Do you have any idea how much money would be made if they DID have a cure for cancer?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Do you have any idea how much money would be made if they DID have a cure for cancer?

Even more than you'd think. All of a sudden, it would be acceptible to make carcinogens!

Originally Posted by marichiko

First of all, it doesn't matter if a substance is derived from a natural source or synthesized in the lab. Calcium is still calcium whether it comes from an oyster shell or a pharmaceutical company. If it wasn't, it would be called something else, not calcium Molecules don't care where they came from. They still follow the same laws of chemistry and physics, regardless.

That is not remotely accurate.
You cannot absorb pure, manufactured calcium without a plethora of other supplements and food to go with it, but eat a piece of spinach and you absorb an amazing percentage of the calcium contained there. Something science cannot begin to replicate.
Marinol makes 40% of the people who take it more nauseous, marijuana does not, and the list goes on.