Cancer should not exist. Part 2

[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.

[laebedahs]

Originally Posted by 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.

The difference being that scurvy has been solidly proven to be treated/prevented by having vitamin C regularly present in your system. No one denies it as truth because it is accepted practically by everyone. You might try to argue with this logic stating that if it isn't already accepted as truth then it never will be. That isn't what this means, either. It is widely accepted as truth because it has been tried again and again over the years and found to be working as intended; that is, it cures/prevents scurvy. So far, you have yet to provide any concrete evidence that Laetrile does what you stated it does.

Concerning the doctor: I am not nitpicking. You're quoting people who support the use of Laetrile, but the fact remains that he never mentioned Laetrile <strong>anywhere</strong> in the quote. Do you see what I mean? You can't claim him as a supporter of Laetrile use because he says it no where in that quote.

Originally Posted by 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 ?

I don't have a "professional" opinion in regard to cancer, since I am NOT a cancer research scientist or physician who specializes in cancer treatment.

My opinion as one who was trained in the area of biological science is this: The trophoblast theory assumes that all cancers are the same. They are NOT. Different cancers have different causes and different outcomes. First of all, the human body does not normally have a need to kill off its own cells. Our cells are genetically programmed to do the number of divisions required to carry out cellular tasks in whatever organ they may be a part of. Epidermal cells divide to a greater extent than kidney cells do, for example. Our cells are also programmed to die after a certain length of time has passed and new daughter cells take their place. Cancer cells are ones where their DNA has become damaged, so that the cell continues to reproduce and live long past what a normal cell should. These traits are passed on to the daughter cells and can be the beginning of a tumour, whether cancerous or benign. The body has a second line of defense beyond the standard DNA sequencing of our cells. Normally, cells which are abberant or malformed will be quickly dispatched by leuckocytes or white blood cells. Cancer cells do not send off the normal alarms by their cell membrane structure that would allow the leucocytes to destroy them.

Cancer prevention is best done by avoiding insults to the molecular structure of the DNA which can cause the cell to reproduce endlessly, turning it into a cancer cell. If these environmental insults cannot be avoided or if a person has a heriditary weakness which causes the cells in his body to be more susceptible to damage which turns the cells cancerous, than medicine must try to halt the reproduction of the cells which are cancerous. The simplest way to do this is to attack cells which are undergoing a high rate of division. Some non cancerous cells in the body may normally divide rapidly, hence the side effects of chemo. New therapies are being directly aimed at cells which have faulty information within their DNA. Thus, some cancers can now be targeted specifically.

Cyanide ingestion may cause certain cells to die off faster than others, but the fact is that cyanide disrupts cell function in every single cell of the body, be it a trophoblast,nerve cell or a cancer cell. At least Chemo only attacks cells undergoing rapid division.

If anything, the daily ingestion of cyanide is only one more environmental assault on the normal cells within your body. Far from preventing cancer, the ingestion of low doses of cyanide over a long period of time may encourage cells that were healthy to become cancerous thanks to repeated assaults on cell metabolism and respiration by a deadly poison.