Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Interactive SFN Forums
 Comments on Articles
 B17
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

elevate
New Member

14 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2006 :  15:15:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send elevate a Private Message
elevate, I have already deleted one of your posts for not citing or providing a link and a possible copyright infringement violation by copying too much material. Please read the Copyrighted Materials and Trademarks section of our FAQ page for more information about our rules.

Since this is the second time you have violated our terms of service, and it was already explained to you why another post of yours was deleted, you should consider this a warning…

Kil

Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2006 :  15:17:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
The above post seems to have been pulled (without citation) from:

http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/metabolictherapy.html

It is unfortunate simple forum rules can't be followed.


by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Edited by - pleco on 09/05/2006 15:17:45
Go to Top of Page

Arealskeptic
New Member

Australia
1 Post

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  22:47:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Arealskeptic a Private Message
Hi Folks,

Id like to know..

q. How many MD's did you speak to with experience actualy using Laetrile in clinical trials?

q. What research was undertaken into nitrilosides, their function and the definition of what a Vitamin is?

q. What Journal sources were purchased and skepticaly evaluated to confirm the conclusion?
Eg, were the abscract claims true. Did they follow Tradtional Metabolic Therapy protocols, were all aspects of the treatment executed or only one aspect, did they follow the protocols of clinical trials from experienced MD's or create their own? Did the people involved in the research have any involvement or prior knowledge to Laetriles function, or were they following a specific protocol designed for failure? See point 2 below..

I think you did a very poor job, as Ive noticed on all Skeptic websites (Most just seem to be Cut N paste copies of Quackwatch LOL)

Heres some things you either got wrong ir didnt cover..
1. Cyanide is not the Anti Cancer agent in Laetrile. Benzaldheyde is the Cancer killing agent. (1-4)
2. Laetrile targets Cancerous cells not Tumor cells (This is important to understand when evaluating studies done on Laetrile eg. NCI studies which focus on tumor size reduction. Cancerous malignant cells are never any more than 10% of the tumor).
3. Laetrile is not Poisonous, and never has been. Whether taken oraly or IV. In 1981 in JAMA, Dr. Moertal wrote: "In our study, intravenous amygdalin was found to be free of clinical toxicity and no cyanide could be detected in the blood...In summation, the administration of amygdalin according to the dosages and schedules we employed seems to be free of significant side-effects. This conclusion appears to be validated by early observations in phase II study of 44 Mayo Clinic patients receiving intravenous amygdalin therapy and 37 receiving oral therapy who have not experienced any symptomatic toxic reaction."
Amazingly the ABSTRACT of this Journal record from JAMA states Laetrile is Toxic! You have to be a real skeptic to challenge the abstract and read the journals yourself. (5)

3. In Australia it is illegal for a MD to talk about Laetrile to a client/patient. The patient must request the info. At no time can the doctor mention it prior to the request.
4. Laetrile is one aspect of Metabolic therapy, for success, all aspects of the therapy must be followed and even then success is not guranteed. It never is in any authentic cancer treatment.
5. Metabloic therapy cost less than 1% of tradtional treatment.

In ref to your artcile.. I was very disapointed in reading the same old "skeptical" non-sense, regurgitated information. And yes I get sick of reading the same old regurgitated information from Latrile supporters too. But when Journals cost $30US for the every day skeptic to purchase, doing some inital research can be costly, so your forgiven for that. But please bear in mind cancer is a serious issue, one of our biggest killers in western civilisation, for a group who operates a Skeptical Website such as this, you owe it to your readers, and the internet community to do some real research, even if it means paying out a few dollars for journals, or do what I do, and get a Medical student friend to access it through his/her university. Its worth knowing the truth about prevention and treatment.

Id refrain from stupid comments like "I just have to wonder how many pharmaceutical multinational conspirators, or members of their families, have died of cancer since the discovery of this cure. They know the truth about Laetrile. Do you suppose they choose death rather than risk discovery?"

a. This is something we would never know
b. Most studies are designed to fail, if not they yeild positive results supporting Laetrile.
c. Metabolic Therapy is a very simple process, and not hard to do, requires no expensive equipment and can be undertaken very simply. Having Access to Laetrile to incorporate into the Metabolic Therapy is not at all hard to achieve.

The funny thing is, you can get Metabolic Therapy with Laetrile.. Its not at all hard to do (Although its a hassle, and takes a strong Skeptical character to stand upto the status quo), the choice is yours to make. Sadly chances are, in todays world you will have to make this choice for yourself or by advising loved one on the matter of cancer treatment. Sadly it will also be the taxpayer, the government coffers that will fork out the massive cost for your conventional treatment that will probably kill you anyway. Money that could be better spent elswhere.

When I started my research on this subject many years ago, I was skeptical.. So the investigative process begun.. Along my journey, I was very supprised to find such extensive misrepresentation of findings in Authoritive publications and journals, research deliberately undertaken to fail and data obtained during studies presented as proof of failure, when it could have quite easily be presented in a different way to show success! In some cases you could read the hypothesis and procedure and know "This is going to fail, there doing it wrong!" and of course the study concludes a failure.

I understand how frustrating it must be for people practicing REAL medicine, trying to help people HEAL, who read and access these studies and pull their hair out searching for truth. So many times I was ready to give up at what appeared to be a final Smoking Gun for the demise of Laetrile only to find out the smoking gun was shooting blanks!

It takes a lot of courage to challenge the norm, to stray from the apprent safety of the heard and dare to question the booming voice of the status quo..

Yes.. that takes..

A real skeptic..

Ref:
(1) likeuchi, S. et al (1978) "Benzaldehyde as a carcinostatic
principle in figs" 42: 1449-51.
(2) Kochi, M.et al (1980) "Antitumor activity of Benzaltlehyde"
Cane Ureat Rep 64: 21-3.
(3) Kochi. M.et al (1985) 'Antitumor activity of benzaMehyde
derivative" Cane Ti-eat Rep 69: 533 ff,
(4) litsumlira, T. et al -(1990) "4,6-0-Benzylidene-D-glucopyranose
(BG) in the treatment of solid malignant ibbiois, an extended
phase I study" Br J Cancer 62: 436-39.
(5) Moertal, C. et al (1981) "A pharmacologic and toxicological
study of amygdalin" JAMA 245:591-94.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  02:21:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Gracious! This one took off in a hurry!

I must admit that I don't know much about metabolic therapy, so I ran a brief google on it and found an article from the American Cancer Society containing the following paragraphs:
quote:
Are there any possible problems or complications?

Some aspects of metabolic therapy are considered dangerous. There are reports of complications related to liver cell injections and diets that contained too little salt, as well as nutritional deficiencies due to restricted diets. Several deaths have been directly linked to injecting live cells from animals (cell therapy). The drug laetrile may cause nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, and even cyanide poisoning, which can be fatal. Care should be taken to make sure that any diet containing raw meat or raw meat juice is free from contamination, given the increasing number of diseases that are known to be transmitted from animals to people.

A number of deaths have been linked to coffee enemas. People with diverticulitis, ulcerative colitis, CrohnÂ's disease, severe hemorrhoids, rectal or colon tumors, or recovering from bowel surgery may be at higher risk of bowel injury when using enemas. People with kidney or heart failure may be more likely to experience fluid overload or electrolyte imbalances. Enemas can also cause discomfort and cramps.

Women who are pregnant or breast-feeding should not use this method. Relying on this type of treatment alone, and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care, may have serious health consequences.

Having read the whole thing, I think that if I get any sort of cancer I'll stick to the mainstream treatments. This metabloic therapy stuff rather smacks of the chiropractic.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  10:07:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Arealskeptic

1. Cyanide is not the Anti Cancer agent in Laetrile. Benzaldheyde is the Cancer killing agent. (1-4)
Why not just drink artificial almond extract (benzaldehyde in water), then, and eliminate all possible risk of cyanide poisoning? After all, to get benzaldehyde from amygdalin, one also gets hydrogen cyanide.
quote:
2. Laetrile targets Cancerous cells not Tumor cells (This is important to understand when evaluating studies done on Laetrile eg. NCI studies which focus on tumor size reduction. Cancerous malignant cells are never any more than 10% of the tumor).
How do you stop the hydrogen cyanide from targeting every cell?
quote:
3. Laetrile is not Poisonous, and never has been. Whether taken oraly or IV. In 1981 in JAMA, Dr. Moertal wrote: "In our study, intravenous amygdalin was found to be free of clinical toxicity and no cyanide could be detected in the blood...In summation, the administration of amygdalin according to the dosages and schedules we employed seems to be free of significant side-effects. This conclusion appears to be validated by early observations in phase II study of 44 Mayo Clinic patients receiving intravenous amygdalin therapy and 37 receiving oral therapy who have not experienced any symptomatic toxic reaction."
Amazingly the ABSTRACT of this Journal record from JAMA states Laetrile is Toxic! You have to be a real skeptic to challenge the abstract and read the journals yourself. (5)
Where is there a study claiming that oral amygdalin doesn't raise hydrogen cyanide levels in the blood (all your quote discussed was "early results," so where are the final results)? It's the splitting of amygdalin into benzaldehyde and a couple of sugers which creates the hydrogen cyanide, and the splitting occurs due to digestion, so I wouldn't be surprised if IV amygdalin doesn't produce it. Nobody is trying to shove apricot pits down an IV line.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  10:50:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
Wow superb post, AREAL,

In addition to elevates other areas of ignorance of this subject I would like to point out this,

quote:
did u know that pharmaceutical companies are tring to take complete control over the vitamin industry so that in the future you might need a script just to get vitamins? yup its all about control of natural resources and profits..



Did you know then that as little as 200% of the daily requirement of Retinol(Vitamin A) can lead to Osteoporosis, how many thousands of people will have developed this horrible condition due to the lack of study and oversight of vitamins(Which are actually just drugs we call vitamins) How many people have ever been told that vitamins are bad in any way shape or form?

Retinol Study- www.turner-white.com/pdf/jcom_feb99_orrosteo.pdf


more bad vitamin news,
quote:
If an overdose of vitamin B6 occurs it could cause serious damage, it could cause sensory control and motor control loss.


quote:
Vitamin E is another vitamin that is often mistreated. There are extreme side effects of consuming more than the body can absorb. The body's system only needs one hundred to three hundred milligrams of vitamin E per day. There are vitamin supplements on the market that are sold to help grow nails and hair. These are often abused, you need only to take one tablet per day, and consume at least eight glasses of water per day. If an overdose of vitamin E occurs it could cause blood clots, fatigue, tumors in the breast, and reproductive problems.

Consumers are unaware of the dangers of vitamins A and D. Most people take vitamins A and D they same way they take vitamin C. The only difference is that if vitamin C is taken in excess it is passed through the kidneys and flushed out of the body. But vitamins A and D are stored in the body's fat and the liver, causing sever consequences. By consuming extreme amounts of vitamins A and D, it could result in Cirrhosis of the liver, fatigue and dry and itchy skin.

from-( http://az.essortment.com/vitaminsoverdos_rzlk.htm )

Heres more,
quote:
The latest study suggests the possibility of harm
The study from the University of Washington, reported last week, brings up the possibility that antioxidant therapy may do more than merely fail to halt the progression of coronary artery disease. This new study suggests the possibility of harm.

In this trial, patients with coronary artery disease who also had low levels of HDL cholesterol were randomly assigned to one of 4 groups: 1) low-dose statin and niacin therapy; 2) low-dose statin and niacin therapy plus a cocktail of antioxidants; 3) a cocktail of antioxidants without statin and niacin, and 4) placebo. The cocktail of antioxidants consisted of vitamin E, vitamin C, beta-carotene, and selenium. The study results showed that the increase in HDL levels seen in patients receiving statin-niacin therapy was eliminated when they also received the antioxidants. That is, in these patients the antioxidants were potentially harmful.

from- ( http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/riskfactors/a/antiox.htm )

quote:
TAKING vitamin E sup

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  19:30:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Arealskeptic

Id refrain from stupid comments like "I just have to wonder how many pharmaceutical multinational conspirators, or members of their families, have died of cancer since the discovery of this cure. They know the truth about Laetrile. Do you suppose they choose death rather than risk discovery?"
And why is that a "stupid comment?" It's standard Laetrile-proponent boilerplate that there exists a conspiracy among pharmaceutical companies to continue the ban on Laetrile because a cure would hurt their profits. Of course, this idea is based upon the unevidenced notion that "Big Pharma" is a single entity in which individual drug companies look out for each other, but the reality is that each one is generally only beholden to its own shareholders. Obviously there are ways to capitalize upon unpatentable products, since otherwise the same drug companies that give us Viagra and Prilosec wouldn't also be selling us multivitamins, cough sryup and wart remover, and competing with each other to do so.

How much does the average drug company profit, per year, on cancer treatments? Answer that and we can compare that dollar amount to, say, Johnson & Johnson's profit on selling cotton balls and see whether the Board of Director's active suppression of Laetrile is really worth watching their family and friends die of cancer.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  11:20:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
If the drug companies sold Laetrile they would make huge profits. Just because it is easy to get does not mean it would not be profitable, it would actually be more profitable for the companies. My proof is a god damn bottle of WATER is a $1.25.


If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  12:27:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
How much for Holy water as opposed to the God Damned water?

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.42 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000