|
A cure for cancer, Vitamin b-17 (Laetrile)? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
So the quack-watcher is a quack?
What is this world coming to?? :wtf: :crazy: :haha: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
So the quack-watcher is a quack?
What is this world coming to?? :wtf: :crazy: :haha: |
Yup. Except he's no Rockefeller, which is why he didn't get away with it. :stongue: [EDIT: hint to Standard Oil, Anti-trust, and Sherman Act (which virtually never succeeded in court for the purpose it was meant for, although they did use it against Unions, which it wasn't meant for)] |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| I'm guessing if I didn't find that article exposing "Mr. Quackwatch" and his "non-profit" institution for being an FDA front and completely hypocritical, majority of you would be calling me a "paranoid conspiracy theorist" for not trusting "www.quackwatch.com." :rolleyes: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by OurManFlint
That's the reason I make it my goal to eat as many natural and fresh fruits and veggies as I can and make them the majority of my diet so that I will never be the victim of any illness or any pharmaceutical companies that profits from my ilness. Not saying I'll be totally rid of any ailments, but my risks will be more than cut in half.
I was reading about a pharmaceutical company that is trying to lobby their pill so they can market being fat as a disease. If they can get out as much propaganda about how being fat is a disease and not a person's fault and how their magical pill can help cure this ilness, they can make some serious money off of it. This is why I never want to be their victim through any kind of ailment. |
That's another reason why I try to keep my diet as natural and balanced as possible. And the only way to do that is to eat a good combination of all food groups; meat, vegetable, fruits, grains etc. The only guarantee of an unadulterated and nutritious diet is organic food, which is why I don't trust GOMs at all. Once I graduate from college, my diet is going to be strictly organic. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I've only skimmed the original article and I'll try a more in-depth read, but I'm already very leery.
Curing "cancer" is like trying to find a cure for the "flu." There are many types caused by a variety of factors both environmentally and physiologically. To think that a magic bullet out there exists is pretty optimistic and very, very difficult for me to believe.
The only common theme with all cancers is uncontrolled growth due to specific point mutations. Cancer drugs basically are used to either kill fast growing cancer cells (hence, the lost of other fast-growing tissue such as hair), or is able to pinpoint specific mutated cells and kill them. This "wonder-drug" seems to belong to the former category.
We already have plenty of drugs in this category, and Laetrile is no different (according to the National Cancer Institute) than any of them. They have the ability to shrink or slow the growth of cancer, but they also have horrific side effects and are generally considered adjunct therapies to surgical or other interventions. As alluded to in the article, Laetrile has cyanide as one of its components, and consuming enough of it basically leads to cyanide poisoning.
Most damning of all is the lack of true clinical evidence to the efficacy of this drug. Contrary to what the article would have you believe, there have been no controlled studies involving Laetrile. The bulk of the information comes from comparing population groups, one known for eating diets high in Laetrile-like substances, and the other not. However, this type of comparison leads to faulty conclusions. As I've said, cancer is a multi-faceted disease, and comparing two diverse populations has too many variables to be considered a reliable study.
After working with cancer patients for the last four years, I can tell you that everyone, especially patients, would love for there to be this so-called "magic bullet." However none exist that we know of and due to the intricacies of cancer, I found it highly doubtful we'll ever find one...at least a naturally occurring one. That doesn't stop people from thinking they have one, be it dietary supplements, daily rituals, herbal medicine or spiritual practices. Right now, I'd say that Laetrile falls into that group. There is lots of anecdotal "evidence" that it works, but in reality there is none.
The bottom line is as of right now, the only concrete evidence resulting from the administration of Laetrile is the harmful side-effects caused by the cyanide it contains. Should the drug be studied more? Probably. Is it the cure for cancer? Probably not. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I've only skimmed the original article and I'll try a more in-depth read, but I'm already very leery. |
I suggest you take a look at the documentary as well, it was the primary focus of the post. It's not terribly long, only 55 minutes or so.
I'm obviously no doctor or expert, so I hope you don't take my response here as flat out dismisal of anything you've said or arrogance. Apparently several studies/doctors have suggested/shown that cancer is in fact a result of a dietry deficiency (vitamin B17) and all the other factors you just mentioned are triggers and catalyst, for the most part (but are certainly valid points). I recommend you take a look at Edward G. Griffin's book "A World with out Cancer" for much more indepth detail of the areas the documentary covers, exracts from scientific studies/journals, and footnotes for studies etc so you can research all of this for yourself. Most of the studies, to the best of my knowledge, suggesting leatrile as ineffective or even dangerously toxic are mostly outdated and a result of poor/fradulent research, majority of which are coming from sources heavily funded or connections with the pharmacuetical industry.
EDIT: The documentary addresses a majority, if not all, of the points you made in your post, which is another reason why I think you should take a look at it.
EDIT2:
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
We already have plenty of drugs in this category, and Laetrile is no different (according to the National Cancer Institute) than any of them. They have the ability to shrink or slow the growth of cancer, but they also have horrific side effects and are generally considered adjunct therapies to surgical or other interventions. As alluded to in the article, Laetrile has cyanide as one of its components, and consuming enough of it basically leads to cyanide poisoning. |
That's exactly why I have no faith in the conclusion of these studies. I'm pretty sure the documentray went over that too. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
Yup.
Big pharma HATES herbal medicines. They make a fortune on life-long palliatives.
Did you know that the acid of licorice stops HIV dead in its tracks? |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Yup.
Big pharma HATES herbal medicines. They make a fortune on life-long palliatives.
Did you know that the acid of licorice stops HIV dead in its tracks? |
You're talking in vitro right? I hardly believe that if you eat enough licorice you're going to cure yourself of AIDS. Sure, if you put a virus in a test tube, add some licorice acid, I'm sure you're going to get results. I'm sure if you put any type of acid in a test tube with AIDS (HIV), you're going to get some results, but in vitro to in vivo is a big jump.
I'll try to watch that documentary when I get the chance. I'm going to concede though that I'm much more likely to side with the side of the National Cancer Institute than independent groups. Just like you think pharmaceutical companies have agendas, so do independent scientists. Everyone is looking for funding/publishing and some scientists take their theories and run with them, making up science and results as they go. For a few examples of this, you can read about Hwang Woo-suk, Eliaas Alsabti, Robert Millikan, Luk Van Parijs, Jon Sudbø or even Mendel. These are all cases where individuals either made-up or selectively chose the results of their experiments in order to promote their own work.
Like I said though, I'll watch when I get the chance and keep an open mind as possible.
Back to studying the perineum. :confused: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'll try to watch that documentary when I get the chance...
...Like I said though, I'll watch when I get the chance and keep an open mind as possible. |
Good, that's always a desirable and rational choice (to try and set aside one's biases) :).
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'm going to concede though that I'm much more likely to side with the side of the National Cancer Institute than independent groups. |
Well, atleast you admit to it before hand. +1 for honesty.
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Just like you think pharmaceutical companies have agendas, so do independent scientists. |
Yes, but pharmacuetical companies are already in a much greater position of power. And as we all know, power corrupts. So their agenda is quite different from independent scientists (who are not in a position of power). Keeping that in mind, I think it's safer and more logical to be more skeptical of pharmacuetical companies as opposed to independent scientists. I haven't looked into this, but it wouldn't come as a surprise to me at all if several major pharmacuetical companies were owned by a few parent corporations, much like everything else these days. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Let's hear it for good multi-vitamins!! :toothless
(I've been taking them for over 10 years now) :D |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| But, why wouldn't other agencies, such as the EMEA (European Medicines Agency), be in favour for it if it truly had a real provable effect. After all, most countries in Europe have free or cheap drugs, subsidized by the states, so there would be a huge economic interest in such a drug from goverments. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
But, why wouldn't other agencies, such as the EMEA (European Medicines Agency), be in favour for it if it truly had a real provable effect. After all, most countries in Europe have free or cheap drugs, subsidized by the states, so there would be a huge economic interest in such a drug from goverments. |
That's exactly the point. It's not profitable, as you can't patent a naturaly occuring substance. It would become common knowledge that vitamin B17's an important nutrient that should be present in your diet. Leatrile is (as far as my understanding goes) a pill form of it. |
|
|
|
|
