|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2006 : 19:41:55
|
|
This thread is for posting comments about the SFN article “B17.” Please try to keep posts on topic. Only registered users may post comments.
|
|
|
elevate
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 16:59:35 [Permalink]
|
Hi there
Just wanted to say, I cured myself of testicular cancer using B17 (just apricot kernels), vit c and a change of diet (more seeds and nuts, no red meat). The doctor simply said once i was cured that the origonal tests must have been false positives, which means i have no way of proving absolutely that B17 did it. Ive since heard from many others that the stock-and-standard response from medical professionals is always something like "Oh, your so lucky yourve had a complete remission" or "the origoanl test must have been wrong". its that kind of reasoning that stops people from making the clear connection to B17. I feel better than I have my whole life because i continue with this healthy diet. i feel nutrition is the singl emost important thing a person can do for their own health and that b17 must be a factor (not a cure) in this. I feel rational and positive changes in diet DO make a huge difference, after all its what we put in our bodies that keeps us alive isnt it? so it stands to reason that the quality of what we put in our bodies with reflect the quality of our health. its common sense stuff!
Reminds me of the skurvvy story which youve no doubt heard of. it took the medical profession 200 years to admit it was wrong about scurvvy and realise that plain old fruit like oranges (vitc) could cure scurvvy. hundreds of thousands of people died unnessesarliy from scurvvy back in the time when ordinary people were telling doctors that they were recovering from scuvvy by eating citrus fruit. the doctors called it quackery... i see a simalar thing happening today with cancer, except now there is a huge industry behind it, every year more people die of cancer than the year before, we are not winning the battle with cancer, but it is making a lot of people very wealthy. I know its hard to fathom that perhaps some executives in drug companies might actually be putting profits before health but if u look at our world u see that kind of mentality in every walk of life. You argue that people in drug companies wouldnt knowingly kill themselves (if they had cancer) to keep b17 a secret. to you that doesnt make sense.. BUT who says they are not treating themselves with B17? I have heard of doctors who use B17 who have had all kinds of medical professionals come to them for treatment or who simply cure themselves using the diet change (high in b17) but keep it quiet due to their concern for losing their jobs. Ive heard of people in the NCI who ahve cured themselves of cancer and have lost their jobs as a result. I should also point out that B12 also contains the substances in lesser proportions than B17. There is much to this story that is not well known and your article I felt did not really look into it well at all BECAUSE you ignore the political/profit motive side to the story. The UN is concerned at the huge world population and how it continues to grow every day. A simple nutritional diet cure for cancer would mean a population explosion! this is a political reason to keep cures off the shelves. I know its hard to accept but in my research i have come accross many instances of drug company politics stopping cures for various things. treatment makes money, cures dont.
Did you know there are a number of promising cancer treatments been trialed now in australia and new zealand and the UK that are based on B17-like substances, the one in new zealand is using an extract from apple seeds (high in B17!) and has been very favourable in clinical trials so far.
So if your sooo sure that B17 is a scam then why do you suppose medical researchers are designing B17-like drugs that use the same components to treat cancer? DID you even look into this?
But whats happening now is that drug companies are realising that if they can market a patentable version of B17, something chemically simalar that they can sell then the profits will be huge, however its a fine line between them designing an analogue that treats cancer and one that absolutely cures cancer because although they would profit immensely there would be huge opposition from the medical establishment due to loss of income and jobs fro all the other drug companies.
i see in your article that you actually say that B17 tablets are not cheap! What a load of rubbish, the prices you quote a very cheap when compared to the hundreds of dollars a month it can cost for chemo drugs, not to mention the waiting lists, insurance, and red tape that people have to go through just to get the latest toxic cocktail of chemo, and all the other drugs they have to buy to mask the side effects of chemo.
What i mean is compare it to the electric car, some years back in the 90s car companies produced workable usefull electric cars, then due to pressure from oil companies all the car companies dumped them and destroyed them! a movie has been make about this "Who killed the electric car" and its now a well known fact that this happened. the same kind of profit driven motives are behind the cancer industry. Chemo drugs and radiation treament are part of a huge worldwide network (just like petrol stations) we have chemo and radiation in every city in the world..imagine what would happen if all these were suddenly redundant and not needed! thats why there is so much pressure and opposition to real cures, not just treatments for cancer.
This is why when u consider the profit motives that it comes clear why the NCI studies into B17 were deliberately done in such a way as to hide any positive results. Drug companies are well known to fake and skew results to get a drug approved, they are also well known to hide results that are unfavourable. The NCI B17 trials done didnt use sufficient quantities of B17 to allow any positive results. Look into this, research those trials and i think youll be surprised at how badly they were done. Also Quackwatch IS NOT an impartial website, a recall someone reserched them and discovered ties to funding from drug companies, and the origonal founder of quackwatch has been taken to court on a number of occasions for unfair misconduct... i dont recall the details..
Lastly Id like to ask you something... you have dismissed B17 but have you dismissed chemo? I challenge you to put the same amount of effort into a study of the effectiveness of chemo! Did you know that chemo is only effective in 3% of patients treated? Did u know that chemo has a worse track record than many alternatives. Did u know that intravenous vitc is just as effective as chemo with absolutely no side-effects. Did u know that many oncologists have stated that they would not give chemo to themselves or their own family no matter what the odds of survival where.
I feel you guys should do an skeptic article on Chemo, because i feel that would be very revealing and u might realise that the holy grail of cancer treatment is really just $$... chemo doesnt work in 97 out of a hundred patients, and thats a statistical fact! I challenge you to research Chemo and give us a skeptical unbiased review, just as you would with anything else. Because when I was first diagnosed with cancer and i asked my doctor to find out for me what the statistical benifits of chemo where he reluctantly agreed, and then later was surprised himself when he said that the studies he looked into were not in favour of chemo!
You see my point here? Chemo is the real scam that you guys should be looking into, I dare you and challenge you to do an article on chemo, for starters youd be amazed how many chemo drugs that were used in the past have been taken off the shelves due to it been discovered later on that they were completely useless or more deadly than the trails showed. It really IS all about money. There are lots of good-he |
| Edited by - elevate on 09/02/2006 17:26:23 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 19:46:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by elevate
Hi there
Just wanted to say, I cured myself of testicular cancer using B17 (just apricot kernels), vit c and a change of diet (more seeds and nuts, no red meat)....(EDITED FOR SPACE)...
The doctor simply said once i was cured that the origonal tests must have been false positives, which means i have no way of proving absolutely that B17 did it.
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said
------------------------------------------------------------
thank you for your time on this..
Jason
Wellington
new Zealand
Ummmm.....aahhh.....well....
Nevermind. It's just not worth it. I just wouldn't know where to begin. Good luck to ya! |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
elevate
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 21:19:38 [Permalink]
|
| I dont need luck, im cancer free now for 5 years... if u get cancer lets see what u rely on, lets see if u go with the allopathic appproach, or will you perhaps consider all options and take responsibility for your own health, or will you just leave that up to the pharma industry? good luck to you! |
|
|
|
elevate
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 21:31:13 [Permalink]
|
ps: Evil Skeptic, i did read that thread before i posted this.. whats your point, the letter was from someone who put too much faith in one thing without considering the overall nutritional change that a person needs to make to recover from cancer. There is no magic bullet or magic drug, but a combination of the right nutritional ingredients and a good diet with plenty of B17 and no chemo or radiation will give u a much better than 3% (chemo) chance of recovery. So its easy to choose once you become informed. My challenge is there. Show me some stats that prove the effectiveness of chemo and i will listen. To this date ive seen none. This website offers nothing of value to helping people find the best option when it comes to cancer thats for sure. you guys need some perspective. Wait until the doctor tells you youve got 2 years and then see... you might find your more open to actually listening to your bodies nutritional needs. It turns out for me anyway the way to recovery and cure was simply turning away from processes foods and back to fresh foods with good vitamin and enzyme content, not over cooking, more raw fruit and fresh seeds adn nuts. Perhaps common sense is too much to ask for from the quacks on this site, I call you quacks because do u know where the word quack origonally came from:
The allopathic practitioners denote all health care practitioners practicing outside a narrow range of “standard of care” as “quacks.” The derivation of the word “quack” is from the German word “quecksilber” (translation: quicksilver - a synonym for mercury) and was used by medical doctors to describe mercury-using dentists in the 19th century. We do not miss the irony that it is now the mercury-using dentists calling the mercury-free dentists “quacks.” |
|
|
|
elevate
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 21:35:57 [Permalink]
|
this website appears to me nothing more than a place where skeptics can pat each other on the back... you havnt even bothered to address any of the points i make in my first letter, its like "oh, where do i begin", well you could begin by opening your heart a bit and been nice enough to consider the opinion of someone who has been through the allopathic and natural side of medicine like me and discovered the benifits of taking responsiblity for my own health, but hey maybey thats too much to ask.
Jason |
|
|
|
elevate
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 22:22:35 [Permalink]
|
Cyanide (B17) seen as weapon in fight against cancer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,365394,00.html
Also on the BBC: Cyanide targets cancer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/festival_of_science/913463.stm
Studies in New zealand on apples (Monty's Surprise) also tested with the second highest levels of total Procyanidins in the skin (after the French cider apple - Fuero Rous). In particular it had the highest levels of the compound B2 in the skin, second highest levels of Catechin and third highest levels of Epicatechin. ProCYANIDINS are known anti-cancer agents.
So my point here is, if the drug companies can patent it they will support and push for research, but if you can pick it yourself off a tree and eat it then drug companies will pay PR to suppress and ridicule natural methods of obtaining the same compounds. Its hardly surprising, its all down to money.
|
| Edited by - elevate on 09/02/2006 22:25:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 22:23:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by elevate
There is no magic bullet or magic drug, but a combination of the right nutritional ingredients and a good diet with plenty of B17 and no chemo or radiation will give u a much better than 3% (chemo) chance of recovery.
You said yourself that you've got no way to demonstrate that the above statement is true. Why the hell should anyone believe something that can't be shown to be true? In other words: you have undermined your own arguments by stating (honestly) that you can't support them. Why should anyone "open their heart" to unprovable ideas? Are you suggesting that people should exchange science for faith in the face of disease? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
elevate
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 22:43:54 [Permalink]
|
I was demonstrating to you the bias that doctors have in this regard, i was pointing out that due to the systems we have in place (and with using the electric car analogy) that there is a the bigger picture here to understand, you must take into account the politics and profit motives and the stubbornness of the medical profession (scurvvy example)... yes i was been honest and yes you are right there is no way to prove conclusively, that is my point, its difficult!! you need a bit of common sense and you need to be realistic in your understanding that money talks (in all walks of life).
you said "Are you suggesting that people should exchange science for faith in the face of disease?", i never said "faith", did I, your putting words in my mouth and assumming that i have blind faith in something. I dont. I use common sense and look at both sides. When I was diagnosed with cancer I asked my doctor for supporting research for chemo, what he found was not encouraging to me, i decided on nutrition, ok? I dont have blind faith in the medical system either because I am been realistic and realising that there is more to this than just black or white. Do you understand where Im comming from in this. Im asking for common sense, not blind faith in the drug companies.
you say "Why should anyone "open their heart" to unprovable ideas?" ...listen to yourself, an idea is something that is ... an idea! (ie it is not proven! yet), are u saying that you wont open your heart to consider an idea unless it is already totally proven? Thats a nonsensical statement.
your statement "Are you suggesting that people should exchange science for faith in the face of disease?" suggests to me that you have a black or white attitude to the issue. you want irrefutable proof of everything... there is irrefutable proof that vitc cures scurvvy but it took 200 years for medical science to even listen to what ordinary people had been saying AND doctors had been saying (who were ridiculed for suggesting a nutritional cure). Common sense is the key if u ask me, you need to open your heart and consider all possiblities, never close your mind to something... i am still willing to consider chemo IF and WHEN it proves it self more effective than it currently does. Thankyou |
|
|
|
elevate
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 22:48:44 [Permalink]
|
| Maybey one day i will reccomend chemo to friends and families once they start using the cyanide cancer targeting drugs, BUT who needs to pay hundreds of dollars a month for that when u can pick them off a tree and eat the fruit and obtain it that way! like i say common sense approach..or profit driven approach, your choice! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 22:51:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by elevate
Cyanide (B17) seen as weapon in fight against cancer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,365394,00.html
Also on the BBC: Cyanide targets cancer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/festival_of_science/913463.stm
You'll note that neither of these stories suggest that eating apricot seeds will do the body any good. Or maybe you won't note that, you'll just focus on the words "cyanide," "cancer" and "testing" and incorrectly conclude that these stories somehow support your assertions about Laetrile.quote:
So my point here is, if the drug companies can patent it they will support and push for research, but if you can pick it yourself off a tree and eat it then drug companies will pay PR to suppress and ridicule natural methods of obtaining the same compounds.
The stories you provided links to don't describe anything someone could pick themselves and eat. Your "point" is that because someone is investigating a highly sophisticated method of targeted delivery of cynanide involving nothing coming straight from any natural source unmodified, then people with cancer should eat apricots. That's not even wrong.
By the way, in all my years of asking people who express the views that you do, nobody has ever even tried to answer this simple question: why do you think that for-profit companies would ever act in a manner opposed to their financial well-being? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 23:55:26 [Permalink]
|
Okay, here's the deal. No one in their right mind would suggest that proper nutrition is not helpful in fighting disease. You have apparently made some sensible changes in your eating habits and life style that may well have improved your ability to fight off your cancer. Good deal.
It is, however, a serious leap to suggest that ingesting Laetrile was of any help at all. In fact, for all you know it may have even hindered the speed of your recovery. There is just no way to tell. The studies that have been done suggest that the laetrile probably played no part at all. The fact that the efficacy of cyanide is being considered by some researchers as a treatment for cancer, which is fine, says nothing at all about your self treatment. There are just too many unknowns.
I would not be at all comfortable with suggesting to someone that they purposely administer poison to themselves based on the evidence you have presented. People have died of cyanide poisoning using the very cure that you are administering to yourself. Basically, you have made yourself a guinea pig and you are irresponsible in suggesting that others should consider what you are doing as proper course of action.
By the way, your scurvy analogy is false. Nothing was known about vitamins until the advent of modern medicine. It's kind of like saying that people should stay away from an MD. because 200 years ago they were very likely to be bled to death. There are many many pharmaceuticals these days that came from plants or fungus first. It isn't as though research isn't being done all the time looking into potential cures originating from natural sources. Also, if you were trying to make a point about vitamins, it should be noted that B17 is not really a vitamin.
I'm pretty tired of hearing how the industry is stifling cures because it might cut into their profits. Pharmaceutical companies are marketing vitamins and food supplements too these days, ya know? The reason Laetrile is not being marketed is because it's metabolized as cyanide! The food supplement industry is basically an unregulated mess.
The feds have a hard enough time now policing for safety and dosages of food supplements already out there without having to worry about a friggen poison. Efficacy hardly even matters anymore unless a specific claim is being made about the supplement.
Also, I don't live on the computer. Okay, sometimes I do. But don't expect a reply minutes after you post. Sometimes it takes me days to get to a reply…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 09:01:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by elevate
I dont need luck, im cancer free now for 5 years... if u get cancer lets see what u rely on, lets see if u go with the allopathic appproach, or will you perhaps consider all options and take responsibility for your own health, or will you just leave that up to the pharma industry? good luck to you!
elevate, it's your shotgun approach to your posts that leave me not knowing where to start, coupled with your arrogant attitude and lack of understanding of medical science (yes, there's also an "art" to medicine I realize). You have concocted conspiracy theories between all the participants in allopathic medicine as well.
As for your threat of "Just wait if you get cancer"...
FYI, it's already ravaged my family in the past, and my wife and son are BOTH currently undergoing different allopathic regimens for their cancers right now. So dry up. I didn't say anything to you except a genuine "good luck" and an obvious frustration at where to start a conversation with you on this subject. I genuinely wish you luck in your treatment.
You accuse this forum of being a place where skeptics can come in and pat one another on the back. What the hell do you think you're doing by sticking only to your vague, unprovable treatments and your just as unprovable conspiracy theories? You're just hanging out with those who also only believe them, and dismissing those who would challenge you to use more critical thinking skills.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 10:19:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by elevate
Reminds me of the skurvvy story which youve no doubt heard of. it took the medical profession 200 years to admit it was wrong about scurvvy and realise that plain old fruit like oranges (vitc) could cure scurvvy. hundreds of thousands of people died unnessesarliy from scurvvy back in the time when ordinary people were telling doctors that they were recovering from scuvvy by eating citrus fruit. the doctors called it quackery...
Hi, elevate. I just had a look at the Wiki on scurvy, as your story didn't quite jibe with my understanding of the disease and its history. And indeed, I didn't find much about the medical establishment dismissing citrus as a means of preventing scurvy. The British navy introduced citrus to the diet of its navy in the 1700's in an effort to stop scurvy.
I am sure that vitamin C wasn't known at that time, and I'm also sure that the science behind the use of citrus was not understood. Indeed, it probably took a bit of time to gain acceptance. Still, I don't think that you can quite claim solidarity with James Lind in pioneering efforts to rid disease and illness through sound diet. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 10:59:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
elevate:
Did you know that chemo is only effective in 3% of patients treated?
Okay, I did a bit of looking around and actually there are some pretty impressive statistics on improvements in prognoses with chemo as an adjunctive or primary therapy. The results vary depending on the kind of cancer being treated of course, but full remission and cures are on a generally upward trend. The results of my search were listed by the type of cancer being treated so a comprehensive list would be rather time consuming. I used as my search parameter “chemo is only effective in 3% of patients treated” and chose to include the first result on the google page that came up. That would be:
stage III or C rectal cancer.
What would be helpful is if you would provide a source for your assertion that “chemo is only effective in 3% of patients treated.” Without source, your 3% is a meaningless statistic. And since you made the claim, it is incumbent upon you to back it up.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
