Quote:

---

OrgoneConclusion said:
Should we rely merely on anecdote?

---

Quote:

---

Notendo said:
Ok, after a quick google search for dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, I found this:

Fosamax is manufactured by Merck & Co. and was prescribed to increase bone density. Since 2001, more than 2,400 patients taking this type of medication have report cases of osteonecrosis (deterioration of the jaw bone causing severe infection, swelling and loss of teeth).

There are many more high-profile cases than the above, but I just wanted to have a quick exhibit.

Sometimes an herbal medicine will pop up and be shown to be ineffective at treating what its proponents claim. Other times the argument against the herb in question is simply "oh, it hasn't been scientifically proven to be effective."

But you know, there are a lot of drugs that are scientifically studied, that go through many trials, that after being approved and distributed are shown to be actually quite dangerous and ineffective. The drug I quoted about above was scientifically "proven" to increase bone density but wound up doing the opposite! If that's not ineffective medicine I don't know what is.

---

Quote:

---

OrgoneConclusion said:
I hate science!

Now I shall transmit the same message without using technology:








*crickets chirping*

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
No, read you own story again.

He has criminal charges pending for selling a cure for cancer, not for selling apricot seeds.

And if you start selling snake oil and claim it cures penile erectile disfunction, you should face criminal charges too. Not for the snake oil, but for the medical claim.

People should be allowed to buy whatever they want. But duping them with unsubstantiated medical claims should be a crime. That's why we require medical practitioners to be licensed.

---

Quote:

---

One hundred seventy-eight patients with cancer were treated with amygdalin (Laetrile) plus a "metabolic therapy" program consisting of diet, enzymes, and vitamins...
The pharmaceutical preparations of amygdalin, the dosage, and the schedule were representative of past and present Laetrile practice...
The hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range. Patients exposed to this agent should be instructed about the danger of cyanide poisoning, and their blood cyanide levels should be carefully monitored. Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment.

---

Quote:

---

A pharmacologic and toxicological study of amygdalin

C. G. Moertel, M. M. Ames, J. S. Kovach, T. P. Moyer, J. R. Rubin and J. H. Tinker

Six patients with advanced cancer were treated with amygdalin (laetrile) at dosages similar to those employed by laetrile practitioners. Amygdalin given intravenously at 4.5 g/sq m/day was largely excreted unchanged in the urine and produced no clinical or laboratory evidence of toxic reaction. Amygdalin given orally at 0.5 g three times daily produced significant blood cyanide levels to 2.1 microgram/mL. No clinical or laboratory evidence of toxic reaction was seen in the six patients taking oral amygdalin at this dosage. One patient, however, challenged with a large intake of raw almonds, had transient symptoms of cyanide toxic reaction with escalating blood cyanide levels. This small study indicates that amygdalin in the doses employed produces few clinical side effects. A definite hazard of cyanide toxic reaction must be assumed, however, and possible long-term side effects remain unknown.

---

Quote:

---

With this method, mild toxicity is observed at concentrations of 0.5-1.0 mcg/mL. Concentrations of 2.5 mcg/mL and higher are associated with coma, seizures, and death.

---

Quote:

---

johnm214 said:
cuz things that produce cyanide are toxic?

---

In Chapter Five I mentioned the testimony of a doctor from the FDA who said that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide and, thus, is toxic. Somewhere in this book I wanted to correct that misconception. Perhaps this is the best time to do so.

There is no "free" hydrogen cyanide in Laetrile. As pointed out in Chapter Two, when Laetrile comes in contact with the enzyme beta-glucosidase, the Laetrile is broken down to form two molecules of glucose, one molecule of benzaldehyde and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide (HCN). Within the body, the cancer cell — and only the cancer ceil — contains that enzyme. The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It is not floating around freely in the Laetrile and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme beta-glucosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable of manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there are no cancer cells in the body, there is no beta-glucosidase. If there is no beta-glucosidase, no HCN will be formed from the Laetrile.

It is worthwhile repeating something I said in Chapter Two: In 1977 it was thought that the hydrogen cyanide formed in the above-mentioned chemical reaction exerted the toxic effect against the cancer cell. In the past several years there has been much evidence to show that this chemical reaction produces only a minute amount of hydrogen cyanide, that the hydrogen cyanide is quickly converted to thiocyanate and probably has little, if any, toxic effect on the cancer cell. It is the benzaldehyde formed in this chemical reaction that is extremely toxic to the cancer cell.1

Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical (CN–). This same cyanide radical is contained in Vitamin B12, and in berries such as blackberries, blueberries and strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting cyanide poisoning from B12 or any of the above-mentioned berries, because they do not. The cyanide radical (CN–) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are two completely different compounds, just as pure sodium (Na+) — one of the most toxic substances known to mankind — and sodium chloride (NaC1), which is table salt, are two completely different compounds.

If the above is true, how did the story ever get started that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide? Guess! No, it was not G. Edward Griffin. It was the Food and Drug Administration.

I remember reading in some newspaper back in the late 1960's or early 1970's a news release from the FDA. This release stated that there were some proponents of a substance known as "Laetrile" (I'd never heard of it before) who were saying that this substance was capable of forming hydrogen cyanide in the presence of the cancer cell. The release continued by saying that, if this were actually true, we had, indeed, found a substance which was target-specific, and would be of great value to the cancer patient. But, the news release went on to say, the FDA had done extensive testing of this substance, "Laetrile," and found no evidence that it contained hydrogen cyanide or that any hydrogen cyanide was released in the presence of the cancer cell. Thus, they said, Laetrile was of no value.

When it was clearly established some time later that Laetrile did, indeed, release hydrogen cyanide in the presence of the cancer cell, how do you suppose the FDA reacted.? Did they admit that they were wrong.? Did they admit that they had done a very inadequate job in running their tests? No! They now proclaimed that Laetrile contained hydrogen cyanide and thus was toxic!

So, here is a bureau of the Federal Government which, a short time before, had said that the reason Laetrile did not work was because it did not release hydrogen cyanide in the presence of cancer cells. Now, when they find that it does, they say that it is toxic. When offered an opportunity to present evidence of Laetrile's toxicity in Federal Court, they admitted that they had none. (See Chapter One)

When anyone tells you that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide, that individual is either mis-informed or wants to mis-inform you.

http://www.whale.to/m/binzel.html


"The names, professional standings, medical achievements, and clinical findings of some of the more prominent doctors who endorse Laetrile; the beneficial side-effects produced by its use; a suggested anti-cancer diet; and a brief description of vitamin B15" (p. 105)




"Clinical evidence in support of the trophoblast thesis; laboratory experiments showing that Laetrile kills cancer cells; and case histories of terminal cancer patients who attribute their recovery to the effect of Laetrile" (p. 115).

Thousands of case histories have been documented showing that Laetrile successfully has treated cancer. However, orthodox medicine still claims that there is no proof. To contradict documented cases of cancers being successfully treated with Laetrile, doctors often claim that the patient went into spontaneous remission or that the patient never had cancer to begin with.

Who knows which information is shit? I'm still skeptical...