A WORLD WITHOUT CANCER?

F

flint_harper

New Member
Hi,
I tend to fuss over health.  I came across an interesting read on cancer and how it may be caused by a vitamin deficiency of B-17.  

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

My doctor told me that a person with an alkaline blood type cannot develop cancer.  Could B-17 also help to alkaline the blood?

Not sure if this is for real but I find it strange that most of us have never even heard of Vitamin B-17.  And if this vitamin does exist, why is it not found in any bottle of Vitamin B-complex :confused:

Any thoughts?
 
dozingoff.gif
 
Hi Aaron_F,

Would you mind sharing your opinion of the research of Dr. Ernest T. Krebs, Jr. I'd appreciate any input on this health-related topic.

Thanks again,
Flint :confused:
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (flint_harper @ April 17 2005,10:15)]My doctor told me that a person with an alkaline blood type cannot develop cancer.
Click to expand...
It's time to find a new doctor.
 
Hey BoSox,

It was also time for me read up on 'what is outside of my preferred comfort zone.'

I found most doctors either add or take away something. Great surgeons mind you but in terms of self-medication.... well I see your point about finding a new doc there. :)
 
Hi Bryan,

From what I have read, the politics of cancer treatment therapy, is much more complicated than the science behind it. If the cure or at least a helpful preventative mechanism is available then lets try to learn more.

Example: Bitter almond tree banned in US. Why :confused:
 
Laetrile was brought up in topic in an ethics class I took last semester, and I could be wrong, but I believe that the "doctor" who is pushing the product was recently arrested for fraudulent claims and other improper business activities.

That crap belongs at the bottom of a garbage can, right next to a bottle of Corti-slim.
 
Hi baby a,
Which doctor?  
In fact many doctors have already been arrested, fined, sent to prison or lost their licenses for wishing to save the lives of their patients.  They were/are all labelled 'quacks'.  
Did you know that our so-called ‘good’ doctors (who were against saving lives), used to tell people that smoking was ok and would not cause lung cancer?  They even had scientific studies to prove it.  
wow.gif


BTW, the 2 doc's who said that BS, are dead.  One died of lung cancer and the other died in a bed fire. (Caused by guess what?)  Look it up for yourself  
tounge.gif


I don’t think you read the link I posted either.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
Hey man, it's your money.....waste it if you want to!! Have a wonderful cancer free life, dude!!
Click to expand...

I try to be careful as can be. I spend money on food and a good amount of FOOD I eat already has the Vitamin B-17 in it, along with everything else that matters. (You won't find B-17 on the package though. )

I guess blackberries, raspberries, chick peas and apples w/seeds (hint, hint) are a waste of money too, since I would rather eat those foods vs. buying expensive food like say CLA, for example.
tounge.gif
 
You dont find it strange that this magical doctor has known the cause behind cancer since the 60's but its hidden from the general public...

ahahahahahah

I have a bridge in San Fran for sale, one owner, well looked after.
 
Aaron, how much you asking for it? :D

If anyone is interested ?

<a href="http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110" target="_blank">Alternative Cancer Cures: &quot;Unproven&quot; or &quot;Disproven&quot;?
Andrew Vickers, PhD CA Cancer J Clin 2004; 54:110-118</a>
 
Don't worry at this point.  Just know that all I hope for, is that people will be able to decide for themselves.  

In otherwords, I have friends who are not sure about the B-17, yet they still read in between the lines and searched for foods which contain Nitrilosides etc.

http://www.vitaminb17.org/foods.htm

Not to their surprise, many of the foods they already eat.   ;)
Better safe then sorry and my basic message here is complete.  The rest is up to you to decide upon.

Cheers,
Flint

P.S I may have made some of you angry (some of you who understand what a cartel is
sneaky2.gif
- you deserve it and shame on you ).  As for the rest of you good people, I hope you're not too busy laughing, in that you would'nt mind helping me get off my lazy @ss, do the HST, and report back with great progress in future.  I can't wait to start!!
 
http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/Uncon...mygdalinVitaminB17SarcarcinaseNitriloside.htm

&lt;&lt;In 1980, the National Cancer Institute began a clinical study of laetrile in terminal cancer patients. &quot;Conducted in collaboration with four major U.S. medical centers, the clinical tests showed that laetrile failed on four counts: it did not make cancer regress; it did not extend the life span of cancer patients; it did not improve cancer patients' symptoms; and it did not help cancer patients to gain weight or otherwise become more physically active. Laetrile and natural products containing it, such as apricot pits were thus found to be 'ineffective as a treatment for cancer.'&quot; (Tyler)
&quot;Moreover, laetrile has been banned by the FDA because of the risk of poisoning from its cyanide content.&quot; (Fetrow)&gt;&gt;
Sounds like great stuff!
If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
 
Thx for the link dood.  Let's take a closer look at Bccancer's claims.  In the link you provided, I'm taking just one of the few studies they use:

First of all &quot;The National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored an independent study of Laetrile with cancer patients&quot; and that alone, should ring alarms bells!

In fact, I can prove they are misleading you on many of their claims.  Here is just one of them:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
1. Cyanide Release Theory
Dr. Charles G. Moertel described a clinical trial involving 178 patients. Patients were selected who had histologically proven cancer for which no standard treatment was known to be curative or to extend life expectancy. All patients had had no surgery, radiation therapy or chemotherapy for one month. The amygdalin used for treatment was prepared from apricot pits and supplied by the Pharmaceutical Resources Branch of the National Cancer Institute.
Patients selected were in good general condition, were ambulatory and able to maintain good nutrition. Patients who were disabled and bedridden were ineligible for the study.
The routes, dosage and schedule of administration were chosen to be representative of current Laetrile practice. Patients were also placed on a diet identical to the one recommended by most Laetrile practitioners.
&quot;Each patient had either a tumor area which could be measured in two dimensions or malignant hepatomegaly with a clearly defined liver edge extending at least 5 cm below the costal margin. Lesions demonstrable by radioisotope liver scan or by computerized tomographic scan were accepted if they measured 5 cm in diameter.&quot; (Moertel)
Of 171 fully documented patients, only one patient met the criteria for partial response. However, all patients had tumor progression by 7 months.
&quot;The fact that amygdalin therapy did not slow the advance of malignant disease or induce &quot;stabilization&quot; is evidenced by the fact that more than half these patients had measurable tumor progression when they terminated the intravenous induction therapy and that over 90 percent had progression by 3 months.&quot; (Moertel)
Click to expand...


Here is my response from:

http://www.waysedistribution.com.sg/JonChristian.htm

&quot;In the 1980s the Mayo Clinic and three other prominent cancer centers participated in a clinical trial for Laetrile. The National Cancer Institute funded the study. In charge of the test was Dr. Charles Moertel who headed the Mayo Clininc’s North Central Cancer Treatment Group study. (Moertel was probably not the best choice the NCI could have made to head up such a study since he was the most anti-alternative medicine physician in the country. Although he didn’t know it at the time, Moertel was himself dying from cancer when he headed up the study. Dr. Moertel also led the Mayo Clinic’s attack against Nobel prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling’s unconventional vitamin/amino acid treatment of cancer. Within a year of the NCCTG clinical tests, Moertel succumbed to his cancer.)
    Moertel insisted his study was unbiased by noting that the routes, dosage and schedule of administration of Laetrile where chosen to be representative of current Laetrile practices. Patients were also placed on diets identical to the one recommended by most Laetrile practitioners.
    “Each patient,” Moertel indicated in his report, “had either a tumor area which could be measured in two dimensions or malignant hepatomegaly with a clearly defined liver edge extending at least 5 cm on below the costal margin. Lesions visible by radioisotope liver scan or by computerized tomographic scan were accepted if they measured 5 cm in diameter.” According to Moertel, only patients in good general condition, who were ambulatory and who were able to maintain good nutrition were selected to participate. Patients who were bedridden or otherwise disabled were ineligible. Naturopathic physicians who have studied the medical pathology of the patients included in the study, and manner in which Dr. Moertel conducted the study, believe Moertel was biased and deliberately selected patients with very aggressive cancers who had been diagnosed as terminal even though they were ambulatory at the time--patients who most likely would not respond to alternative methods of treatment.
    The NCI admits that the patients selected for the NCCTG study were all terminal, and that none of them had ever received chemotherapy or had endured any surgery to remove tumors. Further, Dr. Moertel admitted that he selected only those where the doctors knew that conventional cancer drugs would not work due to the types of cancers the patients had. Dr. Moertel did not want to “waste” people who could be saved with conventional treatment. The deck was stacked against the naturopathic physicians. The study was extremely biased since the only patients included were people with aggressive, nontreatable cancers that not even conventional cancer drugs could help. An honest, unbiased study would have included patients with a great variety of cancers at varying stages of development. To include only those written off as dead by the medical community shows a clear bias on the part of the study coordinator.
    One hundred seventy-eight patients were included in the clinical test. Fifty-four percent showed measurable cancer progression after 21 days of intravenous treatment of Laetrile. After 3 months, 91% showed disease progression. After 7 months, 100% of the patients had markedly larger tumors. Fifty percent of the patients died within 5 months. Within 8 months, 85% of the patients were dead.
    During the test period, according to the NCI, none of the four centers involved in the study found any anticancer effect. All of them reported significant blood levels of cyanide in some, but not all, of the patients. The NCI said: “...[L]aetrile failed on four counts. It did not make cancer regress. It did not extend the lifespan of cancer patients. It did not improve cancer patients’ symptoms; and it did not help cancer patients to gain weight or otherwise become more physically active. Laetrile and natural products containing it...were thus found to be ineffective as a treatment for cancer.”
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (flint_harper @ April 17 2005,10:15)]My doctor told me that a person with an alkaline blood type cannot develop cancer.
Click to expand...
I just hope that you understand this isn't true. Honestly, I didn't care enough to read anything you just posted.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]My doctor told me that a person with an alkaline blood type cannot develop cancer.
Click to expand...

It was supposed to be a joke to grab attention.  Ok, I know that's not really funny at all. For what it's worth, I had some very bad experiences with my last doctor.
 
Some of us have also, I'm sure that's not uncommon but I should have made that more clear earlier on.
 
Just don't forget to mix your blackberries and raspberries with your HSN Whey.  (I just had to  
thumbs-up.gif
) Best of health to all of you!

Goodnight
sleeping.gif
 
Wow, there is so much wrong with your post I don't know where to begin. How about this, the article you quoted is from a website that SELLS LAETRILE!!! Yeah, that's a unbiased source for sure.
And this: &quot;Naturopathic physicians who have studied the medical pathology of the patients included in the study, and manner in which Dr. Moertel conducted the study, believe Moertel was biased ...&quot;
Of course they would, because his study shows that everything they promote just doesn't work.

&quot;First of all &quot;The National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored an independent study of Laetrile with cancer patients&quot; and that alone, should ring alarms bells!&quot;

So, the National Cancer Institute really doesn't want to help people with cancer? I see.

&quot;In fact, I can prove they are misleading you on many of their claims.&quot;

Where were we mislead?

&quot;Dr. Charles G. Moertel described a clinical trial involving 178 patients. Patients were selected who had histologically proven cancer for which no standard treatment was known to be curative or to extend life expectancy. All patients had had no surgery, radiation therapy or chemotherapy for one month. The amygdalin used for treatment was prepared from apricot pits and supplied by the Pharmaceutical Resources Branch of the National Cancer Institute.
Patients selected were in good general condition, were ambulatory and able to maintain good nutrition. Patients who were disabled and bedridden were ineligible for the study.&quot;

Of course you don't take people who have a good chance for success with known drugs and put them on experimental compounds with no solid proof of efficacy, that's just good science. There was no deception, and the end result was that laetrile didn't help. Face the facts.

&quot;The NCI admits that the patients selected for the NCCTG study were all terminal, and that none of them had ever received chemotherapy or had endured any surgery to remove tumors. &quot;

Well according to your first website that's the best kind of cancer for laetrile to work on: &quot;These hospitals achieve nearly a 100% recovery rate with virgin cases (localised tumours/cancers that have not yet been burned up with radiation, poisoned with chemotherapy, or cut into with surgery).&quot; http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/introduction.html
Funny how one of your sources claims standard treatment seems to interfere with laetrile's magic and the other source says the study on laetrile wasn't fair because they didn't try standard treatment first.

Now lets look at your conspiracy theory, that large drug companies would lose millions if a cheap cure for cancer were found. What about insurance companies, that spend millions on expensive cancer treatments? And how about the federal government that also spends millions on cancer treatments for people on government assistance? I guess the insurance companies and the government are willing to suppress these natural cancer treatments and lose billions of dollars so the drug companies can make money? Riiiight.
You are very naive my friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top