Cancer should not exist. Part 1

rtexanssane · 04-25-2006, 02:52 AM

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.

Happy Monkey · 04-25-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

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 · 04-25-2006, 12:14 PM

Quote:

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.

laebedahs · 04-25-2006, 05:33 PM

Quote:

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?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-25-2006, 02:52 AM	#1
rtexanssane Wiseacre Emeritus Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 35	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)