Veritas said:

available free of charge if you invoke the healing power of sunlight, pure water, stress reduction, exercise, and healthy food choices.

---

prevention before intervention.

badchad said:

There have in fact been clinical trials with laetrile (B 17) and its ability to "cure" cancer"

The first was a trial of 178 patients:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7033783&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

where they concluded: "Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment."

You will also notice the "information" on these alternative cures " can be yours for the low price of buying my book...order today, or you will die".

These people pray on people's ignorance and take advantage of those with terminal illness. It's a shame they are allowed to continue manipulating people in this way.

---

Quote:

The fact is, when you look at the hard data and actual documented studies of these alternative therapies, they simply haven't proven to be effective.

This is why all the "evidence" you see for these types of "cures" are in self published literature and are only present in anecdotal reports. When you actualy subject these treatments to rigorous scientific investigation; they fail.

---

MushmanTheManic said:

Show me a clinic that has cured cancer with B17.
The Mayo clinic already tried using this with one hundred and seventy three patients and not one tumor was even reduced in size.

---

Shroomism said:

It's a shame some peoples knee-jerk reaction is to automatically try and debunk such information without even looking at the evidence.

---

Shroomism said:

Hey, that's a nice one-sided paragraph written in 1982.. but I fail to see how this discredits everything I just posted.

---

Shroomism said:

Yeah, mmhm. That's how my aunt cured her colon cancer after doctors told her she had no hope of recovery. You talk about "hard data" and "documented" studies, I tell you my aunt is still alive, when doctors said she was supposed to be dead 5 years ago.

Keep fighting the good fight..

---

Quote:

To base the whole argument of whether Laetrile works or not on laboratory experiments and their results is ludicrous. Humans conduct these experiments and humans lie. Since cancer research and treatments run into the billions of dollars, the government agencies along with the major cancer research centers will always hide the truth. To be able to cure cancer with something so "trivial and inexpensive" a treatment is tantamount to all Laetrile research by cancer research centers being sabotaged.

---

Quote:

However, there are a few honest researchers with integrity who have not played the political cancer game. Money is not what motivates these people but the search for truth does. Here are their names with a brief synopsis of their experiments with Laetrile:

Dr. Ernest T. Krebs, Jr. a biochemist and the researcher who first isolated Laetrile in apricot seeds and also discovered B-15 (panoramic acid, a vitamin which has been proven to be an important adjunctive therapy in the treatment of illnesses related to circulation). He spent three years of anatomy and medicine at Hahnemann Medical College and then changed his direction and became a doctor of biochemistry. He did undergraduate work at the University of Illinois between 1938-41. He did graduate work at the University of Mississippi and also at the University of California. By 1950, he had isolated the nutritional factor in crystalline form and named it Laetrile. He tested it on animals to make sure that it was not toxic. He then had to prove that it was not toxic to humans. There was only one thing to do. He rolled up his sleeve and injected Laetrile into his own arm. As he predicted, there were no harmful or distressing side effects. (I find it interesting to note that Dr. Krebs was more than willing to test his theory about Laetrile on himself while cancer doctors and their personnel take great precautions to be sure they themselves are not exposed to the drugs they administer to their cancer victims, I mean patients.) Dr. Krebs authored many scientific papers in his lifetime. He was the recipient of numerous honors and doctorates both at home and abroad. He was the science director of the John Beard Memorial Foundation before his death in 1996.

Dr. Dean Burk, Director of the Cytochemistry Section of the federal government's National Cancer Institute reported that, in a series of tests on animal tissue, the (Laetrile) vitamin B-17 had no harmful effect on normal cells but was deadly to a cancer cell. In another series of tests, Dr. Burk reported that Laetrile was responsible for prolonging the life of cancerous rats eighty percent longer than those in the control group that were not inoculated. Dr. Burk was one of the foremost cancer specialists in the world. He was the recipient of the Gerhard Domagk Award for Cancer Research, the Hillebrand Award of the American Chemical Society, and the Commander Knighthood Of the Medical Order of Bethlehem (Rome) founded in 1459 by Pope Pius the Eleventh. He held a Ph.D. in biochemistry earned at the University of California. He was a Fellow of the National Research Council at the University of London, of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology, and also Harvard. He was senior chemist at the National Cancer Institute, which he helped establish, and in 1946 became Director of the Cytochemistry Section. He belonged to eleven scientific organizations, wrote three books relating to chemotherapy research in cancer, and was author or co-author of more than two-hundred scientific papers in the field of cell chemistry. He is a biochemist. If Dr. Burk says that Laetrile works, I believe him!

Let us look at one more study. For five years, between 1972 and 1977, Laetrile was meticulously tested at Sloan-Kettering under the direction of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura. Dr. Sugiura was the senior laboratory researcher at Sloan-Kettering with over 60 years experience. He had earned the highest respect for his knowledge and integrity. He was the perfect person to conduct experiments since his quest for truth blocked out anything else. Dr. C. Chester Stock, the man in charge of Sloan-Kettering's laboratory-testing division wrote this about Dr. Sigiura, "Few, if any, names in cancer research are as widely known as Kanematsu Sugiura's… Possibly the high regard in which his work is held is best characterized by a comment made to me by a visiting investigator in cancer research from Russia. He said, "When Dr. Sugiura publishes, we know we don't have to repeat the study, for we would obtain the same results he has reported."" (Ralph Moss, The Cancer Syndrome, New York: Grove Press, 1980 pg. 258)

The official report about Laetrile from Dr. Sigiura read: "The results clearly show that Amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary tumors… Laetrile also seemed to prevent slightly the appearance of new tumors… The improvement of health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to controls is always a common observation… Dr. Sugiura has never observed complete regression of these tumors in all his cosmic experience with other chemotherapeautic agents." ("A Summary of the Effect of Amygdalin Upon Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Mice," Sloan-Kettering report, June 13, 1973.)

Dr. Sugiura's report was cause for great alarm at Sloan-Kettering. Remember, cancer is over a billion dollars a year industry. This report would cause the house of cards to collapse. As would be expected then, many more experiments were conducted by others who were not as honest as Dr. Sugiura. At a press conference, Dr. Sugiura was asked suddenly by a reporter if he stuck to his report. Dr. Sugiura clearly and boldly stated, "I stick," even though Sloan-Kettering was trying to discredit everything that he did. To read about the many times that Sloan-Kettering tried to discredit their finest researcher, get the book, "World Without Cancer," by G. Edward Griffin.

Now, even though we have proof from the laboratories, let us look at what is being discovered in prominent physicians' studies:

(The following is taken from the book, "World Without Cancer", by G. Edward Griffin, published by American Media, Westlake Village, CA)

"As early as 1974, there was at least twenty-six published papers written by well-known physicians who had used Laetrile in the treatment of their own patients and who have concluded that Laetrile is both safe and effective in the treatment of cancer.

Dr. Hans Nieper, of West Germany, former Director of the Department of Medicine at the Silbersee Hospital in Hanover. He is a pioneer in the medical use of cobalt and is credited with developing the anti-cancer drug, cyclophosphamide. He is the originator of the concept of "electrolyte carriers" in the prevention of cardiac necrosis. He was formerly the head of the Aschaffenburg Hospital Laboratory for chemical circulatory research. He is listed in Who's Who in World Science and has been the Director of the German Society for Medical Tumor Treatment. He is one of the world's most famous and respected cancer specialists. During a visit to the U.S. in 1972, Dr. Nieper told news reporters, "After more than twenty years of such specialized work, I have found the nontoxic 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 there is N.R. Bouziane, M.D., former Director of Research Laboratories at St. Jeanne d'Arc Hospital in Montreal and a member of the hospital's tumor board in charge of chemotherapy. He graduated magna cum laude in medicine from the University of Montreal. He also received a doctorate in science from the University of Montreal and St. Joseph's University, an affiliate of Oxford University in New Brunswick. He was a Fellow in chemistry and a Fellow in hematology, and certified in clinical bacteriology, hematology and biochemistry from the college. He also was Dean of the American Association of Bio?Analysts.
After the first series of tests with Laetrile shortly after it was introduced, Dr. Bouziane reported:

We always have a diagnosis based on histology [microscopic analysis of the tissue]. We have never undertaken a case without histological proof of cancer...

In our investigation, some terminal cases were so hopeless that they did not even receive what we consider the basic dose of thirty grams. Most cases, however, became ambulatory and some have in this short time resumed their normal activities on a maintenance dose. (Cancer News Journal, Jan./Apr. 1971, pg. 20)

In the Philippines there is Manuel Navarro, M.D., former Professor of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila; an Associate Member of the National Research Council of the Philippines; a Fellow of the Philippine College of Physicians, the Philippine Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism; and a member of the Philippine Medical Association, the Philippine Cancer Society, and many other medical groups. He has been recognized internationally as a cancer researcher and has over one?hundred major scientific papers to his credit, some of which have been read before the International Cancer Congress. In 1971 Dr. Navarro wrote:

I ... have specialized in oncology [the study of tumors] for the past eighteen years. For the same number of years I have been using Laetrile?amygdalin in the treatment of my cancer patients. During this eighteen year period I have treated a total of over five hundred patients with Laetrile?amygdalin by various routes of administration, including the oral and the I.V. The majority of my patients receiving Laetrile?amygdalin have been in a terminal state when treatment with this material commenced.
It is my carefully considered clinical judgment, as a practicing 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, and that these results are comparable or superior to the results I have obtained with the use of the more toxic standard cytotoxic agents. (Letter from Dr. Navarro to Mr. Andrew McNaughton, The McNaughton Foundation, dated January 8, 1971, published in the Cancer News Journal, Jan./April, 1971, pp. 19,20.)

In Mexico there is Ernesto Contreras, M.D., who, for over three decades, has operated the Good Samaritan Cancer Clinic (now called the Oasis Hospital) in Tijuana. He is one of Mexico's most distinguished medical figures. He received postgraduate training at Harvard's Children's Hospital in Boston. He has served as Professor of Histology and Pathology at the Mexican Army Medical School and as the chief pathologist at the Army Hospital in Mexico City
Dr. Contreras was introduced to Laetrile in 1963 by a terminal cancer patient from the United States who brought it to his attention and urged him to treat her with it. The woman recovered, and Dr. Contreras began extensive investigation of its properties and use. Since that time he has treated many thousands of cancer patients, most of whom are American citizens who have been denied the freedom to use Laetrile in their own country.
Dr. Contreras has summarized his experiences with vitamin therapy as follows:

The palliative action [improving the comfort and well?being of the patient] is in about 60% of the cases. Frequently, enough to be significant, I see arrest of the disease or even regression in some of the very advanced cases. (Cancer News Journal, Jan./April, 1971, pp. 20. We must bear in mind that these are terminal patients-people who have been given up as hopeless by orthodox medicine. Fifteen percent recovery in that group is a most impressive accomplishment.)

In Japan there is Shigeaki Sakai, a prominent physician in Tokyo. In a paper published in the October 1963 Asian Medical journal, Dr. Sakai reported:

Administered to cancer patients, Laetrile has proven to be quite free from any harmful side?effects, and I would say that no anticancer drug could make a cancerous patient improve faster than Laetrile. It goes without saying that Laetrile controls cancer and is quite effective wherever it is located.

In Italy there is Professor Etore Guidetti, M.D., of the University of Turin Medical School. Dr. Guidetti spoke before the Conference of the International Union Against Cancer held in Brazil in 1954 and revealed how his use of Laetrile in terminal cancer patients had caused the destruction of a wide variety of tumors including those of the uterus, cervix, rectum, and breast. "In some cases," he said, "one has been able to observe a group of fulminating and cauliflower?like neoplastic masses resolved very rapidly." He reported that, after giving Laetrile to patients with lung cancer, he had been "able to observe, with the aid of radiography, a regression of the neoplasm or the metastases."
After Guidetti's presentation, an American doctor rose in the audience and announced that Laetrile had been investigated in the United States and found to be worthless. Dr. Guidetti replied, "I do not care what was determined in the United States. I am merely reporting what I saw in my own clinic." (Cancer News Journal, Jan./April, 1971, p. 19)

In Belgium there is Professor Joseph H. Maisin, Sr., M.D., of the University of Louvain where he was Director of the Institute of Cancer. He also was President Emeritus of the International League Against Cancer which conducts the International Cancer Congress every four years.

And in the United States there are such respected names as Dr. Dean Burk of the National Cancer Institute; Dr. John A. Morrone of the Jersey City Medical Center; Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., who developed Laetrile; Dr. John A. Richardson, the courageous San Francisco physician who challenged the government's right to prevent Laetrile from being used in the United States (See John A. Richardson, M.D., and Patricia Griffin, R.N., Laetrile Case Histories; The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience published by Westlake Village, CA: American Media, 1977); Dr. Philip E. Binzel, Jr., a physician in Washington Court House, Ohio, who has used Laetrile for over twenty years with outstanding success (Philip E. Binzel, M.D., Alive and Well: One Doctor's Experience with Nutrition in the Treatment of Cancer Patients, published by American Media, Westlake Village, CA, 1994); and many others from over twenty countries with equally impeccable credentials." (End of quote from World Without Cancer, by G. Edward Griffin).

In my opinion, these results are more credible than something that can be worked up in a laboratory. The proof of whether Laetrile works or not is undisputed by eyewitness accounts from these highly respected physicians who have had many years of seeing people recover from their cancer by using Laetrile therapy. Remember, laboratory experiments can be manipulated to produce any result that the researcher is looking for. Unscrupulous men have used these reports for their own gain and benefit, not for the cancer patients. Laetrile is a vitamin that cannot be patented. It is not worthy to used in cancer treatment since it is not making the conglomorate pharmaceutical companies, research centers, etc. any money. To them, the only solution is drugs, even though they know without any doubt that these drugs do not work. To prove it, let's take a look at what surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy really do to the cancer patient.

Surgery is the least harmful of the three. Surgery can be life-saving if there are intestinal blockages that must be relieved to prevent death of secondary complications. There is also the psychological advantage of visually removing the tumor and offering the temporary comfort of hope. However, the degree to which surgery is useful is the same degree to which the tumor is not malignant. The greater the proportion of cancer cells in the tumor, the less likely that surgery will help. The most malignant tumors are generally considered inoperable. There are also two to consider that cutting into the tumor, even for a biopsy, does. First, there is trauma to the area. This triggers the healing process, which in turn, brings more trophoblast cells (the start of cancer) into being as a by-product of that process. (See chapter IV of the book, "World Without Cancer", by G. Edward Griffin, for more information on the trophoblast thesis of cancer.) The second thing is that if not all the malignant tissue is removed, what remains may become encased in scar tissue from the surgery. Consequently, the cancer tends to become insulated from the action of the pancreatic enzymes which are essential for exposing trophoblast cells to the surveillant action of the white blood cells. There is also no solid evidence that surgery that patients who submit to surgery have any greater life expectancy, on the average, that those who do not. For more information regarding the many studies that have been done regarding surgery, see the book, "World Without Cancer", by G. Edward Griffin.
The rationale behind X-ray therapy is the same as with surgery. The objective is to remove the tumor, but to do so by burning it away rather than cutting it out. Here, also, it is primarily the non-cancer cell that is destroyed. The more malignant the tumor, the more resistant it is to radio therapy. If this were not so, then X-ray therapy would have a high degree of success-which, of course, it does not. It also increases the likelihood of cancer developing in other parts of the body. X-rays induce cancer because of at least two factors. First, they do physical damage to the body whichs triggers the production of trophoblast cells as part of the healing process. Second, they weaken or destroy the production of white blood cells which constitutes the immunological defense mechanism, the body's front-line defense against cancer. As with surgery, there is little or no solid evidence that radiation actually improves the patient's chances for survival. For more information regarding the many studies that have been done regarding radiation therapy, see the book, "World Without Cancer", by G. Edward Griffin.
We have now briefly viewed the miserable results obtained by orthodox surgery and radiation. However, the record of so-called anti-cancer drugs is even worse. The primary reason for this is that most of them currently in use are highly poisonous, not just to cancer but to the rest of the body as well. Generally, they are more deadly to healthy tissue than they are to the malignant cell. All substances can be toxic if taken in sufficient amounts. This is true of aspirin, sugar, Laetrile or even water. But, unlike those, the anti-cancer drugs are poisonous, not as a result of an overdose or as a side-effect, but as a primary effect. In other words, anti-cancerous drugs are deliberately poisonous. It is the desired effect. Now, these chemicals are selected because they are capable of differentiating between types of cells and, consequently, of poisoning some types more than others. But don't jump to the conclusion that they differentiate between cancer and non-cancer cells, killing only the cancer cells, because they do not.
The cellular poisons used in orthodox cancer therapy today cannot distinguish between cancer and non-cancer cells. They act instead to differentiate between cells that are fast-growing and those that are slow-growing or not growing at all. Cells that are actively dividing are the targets. Consequently, they kill, not only the cancer cells that are dividing, but also a multitude of normal cells all over the body that also are caught in the act of dividing. In the case of a cancer that is dividing at the same rate or even slower than normal cells, there isn't even a theoretical chance of success in killing the cancer cells before the poison kills the patient. Poisoning the system is the objective of these drugs. The toxins catch the blood cells in the act of dividing and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal systsem is thrown into convulsion causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. Hair cells are fast growing, so the hair falls our during treatment. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. The brain becomes fatigued. Eyesight and hearing are impaired. Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agony for the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer rather than to continue treatment. I have already said elsewhere on this page that the personnel who administer these drugs to cancer patients take great precautions to be sure they themselves are not exposed to them. Because these drugs are so dangerous, the Chemotherapy Handbook lists sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical personnel who work around these drugs. The procedure for disposing needles and other equipment used with these drugs is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the category of "hazardous waste". Yet, these same substances are injected directly into the bloodstream of hapless cancer patients supposedly to cure their cancer! A report from the Southern Research Institute, dated April 13, 1972, based upon research conducted for the National Cancer Institute, indicated that most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society's "proven cures" category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy! Can you believe it? These drugs are carcinogenic! How can poison and hazardous waste products cure anyone of anything?!!!! So why do doctors use chemotherapy if it is toxic, an immunosuppressant, carcinogenic, and futile? The answer is that they don't know what else to do. Doctors do not like to tell any patient that there is no hope. In his own mind he knows there is none, but he also knows that the patient does not want to hear that and will seek another physician who will continue some kind of treatment, no matter how useless or fatal it may be, so the doctor will continue to treat the patient himself. In his book The Wayward Cell, Cancer, Dr. Victor Richards made it clear that chemotherapy is used primarily just to keep the patient returning for treatment and to build his morale while he dies. But there is more! He said, "Nevertheless, chemotherapy serves an extremely valuable role in keeping patients oriented toward proper medical therapy, and prevents the feeling of being abandoned by the physician in patients with late and hopeless cancer. Judicious employment and screening of potentially useful drugs may also prevent the spread of cancer quackery." (Victor Richards, The Wayward Cell, Cancer; Its Origins, Nature, and Treatment; Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1972, pp. 215-16)
Heaven forbid that anyone should forsake the nauseating, pain-racking, cancer-spreading, admittedly ineffective "proven cures" for such "quackery" as Laetrile! Here we have revealed, the true goal of much of the so-called "educational" programs of orthodox medicine-psychologically to condition people to not try any other forms of therapy.
So let's sum up the four different options of dealing with cancer:

SURGERY: Least harmful. Sometimes a life-saving, stop-gap measure. No evidence that patients who receive radical or extensive surgical options live any longer than those who receive the most conservative options, or, for that matter, those who receive none at all. Believed to increase the likelihood of disseminating cancer to other locations. When dealing with internal tumors affecting reproductive or vital organs, the statistical rate of long-term survival is, on the average, 10-15%. After metastasis, the statistical chances for long-term survival are close to zero.

RADIOLOGY: Very harmful in many ways. Spreads the cancer and weakens the patient's resistance to other diseases. Serious and painful side-effects, including heart failure. No evidence that treated patients live any longer, on the average, than those not treated. Statistical rate of long-term survival after metastasis is close to zero.

CHEMOTHERAPY: Also spreads the cancer through weakening of immunological defense mechanism plus general toxicity. Leaves patient susceptible to other diseases and infections, often leading to death from these causes. Extremely serious side-effects. No evidence that treated patients live any longer, on the average, than untreated patients. Statistical rate of long-term survival after metastasis is close to zero.

VITAMIN THERAPY: Non-toxic. Side effects include increased appetite, weight gain, lowered blood pressure, increased hemoglobin and red-blood cell count. Eliminates or sharply reduces pain without narcotics. Builds up body's resistance to other diseases. Is a natural substance found in foods and is compatible with human biological experience. Destroys cancer cells while nourishing non-cancer cells. Considering that most patients begin vitamin therapy only after they have been cut, burned, or poisoned by orthodox treatments and have been told that there no longer is any hope, the numbe rof patients who have been brought back to normal health on a long-term survival basis (15%) is most encouraging. For those who turn to vitamin therapy first, the long-term survival rate is greater than 80%!

---

Shroomism said:

No, I think what keeps us in the dark ages is this notion that everything has to be conducted in a "controlled laboratory setting" with "double-blind placebos" and published in a "peer-reviewed journal" for it to be considered valid. And that anything outside of that is invalid. Laboratory results can easily be and have been manipulated to produce the desired results. They mean nothing.

---

Quote:

Clinics aren't in the business of curing ANYTHING because they don't make money off cures. Fact. They make money off of continual treatment and expensive medications. Fact.

---

The Mayo Clinic is a non-profit organization.

Quote:

Cancer is one of the biggest money making industries in the world today. If you all of a sudden had a cure for cancer.. A LOT of people would be out of jobs. It would most definitely NOT be in their best interest to go touting cures.

---

Quote:

Who would be out of a job? I assure you, whoever discovers a cure for cancer is going to be rich beyond their wildest dreams. This is just common sense. If what you say is true, why did they decide to cure polio?

---