Cancer should not exist. Part 2

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.

[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.

[rtexanssane]

Fine pick on that one and ignore the other five if you want to. Thats what i mean by nit picking.
Yes the Scurvy vitamin C link is proven and accepted, but it took nearly 400 years despite the fact that the cure was known and documented in the early 1500's and not followed up.
My point is that the same attitudes that existed back then that stopped the cure becoming common knowledge is still present in science today.
The virus hunters just will not stop, they tried to find a virus for Scurvy, Pellagra, Beri Beri and even cancer research has tried to do the same to no avail.
The people who have posted here have connstantly made the kind of refferences to B17 as the medical authorities made back in the days of Jacques Cartier when they said that they were not interested in the witch doctor cures of ignorant savages which is exactly what you all seem to the the proponants of vitamin B17 are.
I tell you it has been proven but nobody with a career in medicine will touch or write about it because they will lose the respect of all their peers and any institution that works with it will be refused grants or have their funding pulled from under them. There is too much money involved in medicine now for most people to dare to take the risk.
Not to worry though we have had cancer for about 200 years, so humanity still has another 200 years to prove its any better than the Scurvy generations.

[rtexanssane]

Thanks marichico. Everything you say makes sense and i hope that science will keep looking for less and less toxic ways to target cells that divide and not entirely rule out nutritional factors as obviously these would be the least toxic of all.
Taking a look at Harold manner i notice that he himself did not subscribe to the Trophoblastic thesis of cancer saying that he felt it more complex than this, so not all Laetrille proponants agree on all aspects of metabolic therapy.
However they do all agree that diet plays a strong role in preventing cancer.
One thing though. About the trophoblastic thesis assuming that all cancers are the same, this is not quite true.
What it says is that all malignant cells within a tumour are the same which is not the same as saying all cancers are the same.
It says that it is the differing degree to which there are cancer cells to non cancer cells from tumour to tumour that accounts for the different types of cancer tumours.
Are there other differences that i should know about?
Anyway you have certainly convinced me that the therapy side of things is not so simple.
So what are your thoughts on prevention? I have to ask because obviously once therapy is over it cannot be used as prevention.
Do phsyicians give any kind of advice to patients as reguards lifestyle changes to avoid reoccurance ?