Apricot Kernels

Think of it his perspective, if they are indeed dangerous, then how come
he's not dead? Is he just lucky?
Anth

"Rich Andrews." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Viewer" <qw@nonamewhatsover> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Rich Andrews." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bew" <qw@nonamewhatsover> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

> I am interested to know if anyone has had success using apricot

kernels

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to
> combat cancer . I have a friend who has had terrific success with
kernels
> plus high doses of antioxidants and other natural products , I am
curious
> to hear of others who have also had positive results .
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> ---
>

There is no sound scientific evidence to support the claim that eating
apricot kernels will prevent or cure cancer. In fact, this practice can

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dangerous and potentially fatal. Apricot kernels contain a substance
called amygdalin. When the kernels are chewed, cut or crushed the
amygdalin produces the poison cyanide. Depending on the number of

kernels

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eaten, the cyanide can be poisonous with a range of symptoms from
dizziness to coma and death. The characteristic almond like smell in
almonds is due to benzaldehyde, another degradation product of

amygdalin.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Apparently you can't read very well , I didn't ask for a explanation of

what

Quoted message said:

an apricot kernel is , I already know that .

Now you also know that they are dangerous and can kill you too.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

It is very sad to see this situation. If they would all open their minds up
we would have great medicine in leaps and bounds. This is the biggest regret
the natural medicine people see today that the "other side" is so closed
minded.

"Bew" <qw@nonamewhatsover> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"DRCEEPHD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Apricot Kernels
From: "Bew" qw@nonamewhatsover
Date: 2/27/04 4:22 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I am interested to know if anyone has had success using apricot kernels

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

combat cancer . I have a friend who has had terrific success with

kernels

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

plus high doses of antioxidants and other natural products , I am

curious

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to hear of others who have also had positive results .

Cheers

My approach is to determine what kind of cancer you are dealing with.

First,

Quoted message said:

is it "natural" or "induced". How advanced is it and just where is it?

If it is "natural", diet, lifestyle changes, and deep detox can restore

health.

Quoted message said:

I had one patient with a malignant inoperable brain tumor which

dissapeared in

Quoted message said:

30 days ( based upon her oncologists interpretation of her brain scan.)

If it is "induced", then you will need additional help, the same as if a

wound

Quoted message said:

had become grangrenous. You will have to cut it out or poison it out.

Here, in addition to what I would do for "natural" cancer, I would add

some

Quoted message said:

amygdalin, either from apricots or apple seeds.
This nutrient contains a nitrile, not a cyanide as some non-chemists

would

Quoted message said:

have

Quoted message said:

you believe. However, under enzymatic cleavage, it can release cyanide

and a

Quoted message said:

benzealdehyde. Both are non-toxic to normal health cells, but are toxic

to

Quoted message said:

cancer cells.

If the pharmceutical industry can ever get this converted over to a

synthetic,

Quoted message said:

patentable product, then we will have a much better chance at beating

cancer by

Quoted message said:

going to an oncologist at your local poisoning center.

DrC PhD

Thanks for your sensible reply to my query . I personally have been taking
apricot kernels for about 3 years , I have around 20 per day , they come
from an organic orchard . I understand fully the hoo haa about cyanide and
have read several books on the subject , so I treat the cyanide alarmists
as irrelevant . I make my own choices , I also eat 2 or 3 apples every

day

Quoted message said:

and always eat the pips .

The difference between conventional and alternative has really been shown

to

Quoted message said:

me yet once again . Two of my friends were diagnosed with cancer several
months ago ( about 8 months ) , one with prostate cancer , the other

with

Quoted message said:

prostate cancer plus melanoma plus bowel cancer , he was in a bad way .
Friend 2 had already had a previous operation on his bowel , but was told
the cancer had returned .

Friend one was very afraid to try anything outside the conventional
treatments as he was told that if he did not follow their procedures his
chances of survival were slim , if he did follow their procedures his
chances were above 80% . Of course he was very frightened and so would

not

Quoted message said:

listen to anything other than what his oncologists said . People are
vulnerable when frightened and make no mistake , conventional medicine

takes

Quoted message said:

great advantage of that fact , just as the quacks do . I don't blame him

for

Quoted message said:

being scared , and of course we all have the right of choice , he

exercised

Quoted message said:

his right , and for him it was the right decision , he was happy with his
decision .

Last week he was buried and I attended his funeral .

My second friend astounded and infuriated his oncologist when he flatly
refused any further treatment from them , he was told in no uncertain

terms

Quoted message said:

what a fool he was and how he was basically signing his own death
certificate , the sort of words that strike fear into any person . I think
sometimes we can too easily be dismissive of the bravery it takes to face
the full force of the system , this huge machine , with all its
intimidating power and it's cold production line mentality , and tell them

,

Quoted message said:

thanks but no thanks , especially when it is a life and death situation ,
and the life is yours .

He took a detox course of tablets . He then embarked upon a regime of
organic apricot kernels in amounts recommended by freely available
information on the web , he added pineapple to help , plus he obtained and
used in copious amounts the best range of natural wellbeing and

antioxidant

Quoted message said:

products he could find . Of course he cut out all the poisons like coffee

,

Quoted message said:

alcohol , red meat and drank only pure water . The results do date have

been

Quoted message said:

great , his blood results are now returning levels so low that the
oncologist cannot accept they are real . He feels great , he is looking
forward with a positive attitude and is leading a normal life .

Maybe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of both schools of thought ,
certainly it seems that poisoning a person with chemo and deadly drugs is
meeting with dismal failure worldwide and yet they persist with this .

Most

Quoted message said:

people would protest if they wanted to build a nuclear power station next
door , but accept the stuff being pumped into their body . I think maybe ,
for many the pocket comes before the patient , it certainly does with the
drug companies , they don't make money from well people . Sadly many

doctors

Quoted message said:

just follow blindly along ,they are not bad people , they just cannot open
their minds and see the big picture .

Bew

---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 18/02/2004

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Is that why bacteria are becoming resistant to them?

Bacteria are becoming resistant to some antibiotics (particularly the
older ones) because of overuse and inappropriate use. That does not
invalidate the fact that antibiotics are a class of drugs that can cure
bacterial diseases. Indeed, even despite all the resistance that has
developed over the last 65 years or so since penicillin came into
widespread use, even good old, plain, basic penicillin can still cure
certain infections.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bew" <qw@nonamewhatsover>

Quoted message said:

I am interested to know if anyone has had success using apricot kernels

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

combat cancer . I have a friend who has had terrific success with

kernels

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

plus high doses of antioxidants and other natural products , I am

curious

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to hear of others who have also had positive results .

There is no objective evidence that apricot kernels are effective
against cancer.

Likewise for many of the conventional treatments.

But do tell us all, what ones really work, and why, and the statistics of
the treatments.

Cheers, Rod.

Quoted message said:

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

You mention anti-biotics, I seem to recall that these came from many years
back ,where's the amazing cures of today's diseases typically cancer heart
disease and diabetes?
I could be equally selective of where diseases were 'cured' using nutrition,
in fact the results from nutrition are equally as superior.
Anth

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Is that why bacteria are becoming resistant to them?

Bacteria are becoming resistant to some antibiotics (particularly the
older ones) because of overuse and inappropriate use. That does not
invalidate the fact that antibiotics are a class of drugs that can cure
bacterial diseases. Indeed, even despite all the resistance that has
developed over the last 65 years or so since penicillin came into
widespread use, even good old, plain, basic penicillin can still cure
certain infections.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gymmy Bob said:

It is very sad to see this situation. If they would all open their minds up
we would have great medicine in leaps and bounds. This is the biggest regret
the natural medicine people see today that the "other side" is so closed
minded.

No, the real problem is that too many alties like you automatically
mischaracterize any skepticism towards the claims of alt-medicine as
being "close-minded" rather than being honest, healthy scientific
skepticism. If instead you answered honest and fair skepticism with
actual evidence, you'd very likely get a different reaction from a
significant segment of the "conventional" medical community.

Evidence talks; [censored] walks.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

(David Wright) said:

In article said:

The major problem is that they think they have ALL the answers and know
EVERYTHING when in reality many of them ( of course not all ) are just drug
dispensers for the godlike drug companies and are just repeating a mantra
given to them as legitimate.

Gee, Bew, you really are a cretin. Any medical journal is loaded with
articles containing phrases like "the mechanism for this is not well
understood" (a euphemism for "we have no idea how the hell this
works."😉

Quite true. Scientists are usually pretty honest about what is not yet
understood.

Quoted message said:

It's the alties who claim to have all the answers, e.g. Hulda's "cure
for all diseases" or "Dr" Cee's explanation of how to cure any cancer
(and there are only two types!).

Also quite true. No scientist would ever claim to have the "cure for all
diseases." Such a claim is ludicrous on a logical basis alone, much less
on a scientific basis.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

That is wrong, typically the oncologists I came across claimed they were
scientists

If they were associated with an academic institution, that likely was
true.

Quoted message said:

(the claimed they were, which incidentally [censored] me off as my
mother wasn't science but a human)

Why, exactly, would that [censored] you off?

Quoted message said:

They had not heard of Gerson Kelley Gonzalez or any alternative,

That's because they are trained to use treatments that have good
evidence of efficacy.

Quoted message said:

all they
could do is parrot that it wasn't science,"Me not looked, me say bad." was
their attitude.

They're only telling it like it is. In the vast majority of cases,
alt-med treatments AREN'T based on science and have little or no
scientific evidence to show they do what is claimed for them. There are
exceptions, but the vast majority of alt-med isn't science.

Quoted message said:

They are stuck in their own little world oblivious to alternatives, they
should be looking - their job is to save lives after all..

They ARE looking, but they're doing their looking based on science.
That's your real issue with them. You are perfectly free to disagree
with the scientific (although you have yet to show why the alt-approach
would be better other than alt-med slogans and platitudes). However, it
is disingenuous of you to claim that conventional doctors and scientists
are not looking for better cancer treatments or a cure simply because
you disagree with WHERE they are looking for them.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Drugs don't cure - their primary function is to alleviate.
You only need to look at the disease plagues that are on us to know that.

[censored]. Some drugs do cure (antibiotics for bacterial infections,
chemotherapy for certain cancers, for example). Others are designed to
alleviate symptoms or control disease. Different drugs have different
purposes and uses.

As for your idiotic pooh-poohing of drugs that alleviate symptoms, let's
take an example, insulin. Before insulin, type I diabetics would waste
away within weeks or months of their diagnosis or would develop
ketoacidosis, lapse into a coma, and die. The only treatment, which was
developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's, was a favorite of alties,
a dietary treatment. The patient would be placed on a very low calorie,
low carbohydrate diet, the goal being to keep their food intake so low
that they no longer spilled sugar into their urine. This dietary
treatment was, in essence, slow starvation. Patients might live a couple
of years on it, but would ultimately starve to death instead of dying of
acute diabetic complications. With the discovery of insulin in 1922, it
became possible to treat diabetics. Insulin was not a cure, but it did
regulate blood sugar levels and allowed diabetics to lead close to a
normal life. Although diabetics still tended to die at a younger age
than non-diabetics because of the long-term complications of diabetes
such as heart disease, they could live decades, and many of them could
even live to a ripe old age taking insulin. This was far superior to the
results of any treatment that came before, including dietary and natural
treatments.

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Tell us why the hypothetical SSRI medications work. The pharm giants don't
know either and will tell anybody that can read this. It is all theory at
this point.

"Rod" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bew" <qw@nonamewhatsover>

Quoted message said:

I am interested to know if anyone has had success using apricot

kernels

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

combat cancer . I have a friend who has had terrific success with

kernels

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

plus high doses of antioxidants and other natural products , I am

curious

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to hear of others who have also had positive results .

There is no objective evidence that apricot kernels are effective
against cancer.

Likewise for many of the conventional treatments.

But do tell us all, what ones really work, and why, and the statistics of
the treatments.

Cheers, Rod.

Quoted message said:

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Quote me some drugs that cure and I'm sure I could quote you thousands that
don't.
Anth

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Drugs don't cure - their primary function is to alleviate.
You only need to look at the disease plagues that are on us to know

that.

Quoted message said:

[censored]. Some drugs do cure (antibiotics for bacterial infections,
chemotherapy for certain cancers, for example). Others are designed to
alleviate symptoms or control disease. Different drugs have different
purposes and uses.

As for your idiotic pooh-poohing of drugs that alleviate symptoms, let's
take an example, insulin. Before insulin, type I diabetics would waste
away within weeks or months of their diagnosis or would develop
ketoacidosis, lapse into a coma, and die. The only treatment, which was
developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's, was a favorite of alties,
a dietary treatment. The patient would be placed on a very low calorie,
low carbohydrate diet, the goal being to keep their food intake so low
that they no longer spilled sugar into their urine. This dietary
treatment was, in essence, slow starvation. Patients might live a couple
of years on it, but would ultimately starve to death instead of dying of
acute diabetic complications. With the discovery of insulin in 1922, it
became possible to treat diabetics. Insulin was not a cure, but it did
regulate blood sugar levels and allowed diabetics to lead close to a
normal life. Although diabetics still tended to die at a younger age
than non-diabetics because of the long-term complications of diabetes
such as heart disease, they could live decades, and many of them could
even live to a ripe old age taking insulin. This was far superior to the
results of any treatment that came before, including dietary and natural
treatments.

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

That is wrong, typically the oncologists I came across claimed they were
scientists

If they were associated with an academic institution, that likely was
true.

Quoted message said:

(the claimed they were, which incidentally [censored] me off as my
mother wasn't science but a human)

Why, exactly, would that [censored] you off?

Why would it [censored] me off? Because these chumps _think_ that they are
practicing science when they are not, and that science is more important
than the life of their patients.
If they gave a [censored] they would be out seeing what other doctors are doing in
the alternative circle (because of limitation in their own system i.e. it's
a failure) and give more than 30 seconds to brush over a paper and conclude
that on the basis of the date on the paper it doesn't work.
Also they are chumps because they suggested chemo to my mam (which
incidently in her case would have no evidence for life extension at all)
They are not practicing science, I think her phrase was (oncologist) "I
think we will try some 5FU chemo."
5FU chemo for stage 4 metastatic colon cancer - my mam went out of there
thinking that chemo would give her 3 years life?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They had not heard of Gerson Kelley Gonzalez or any alternative,

That's because they are trained to use treatments that have good
evidence of efficacy.

....and they convinced my mother that all the other treatments wouldn't
work - they brainwashed her, bit like how you are brainwashed.
Hell the oncologist had not even heard of things like Gerson - shows how
ignorant of alternaives she was.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all they
could do is parrot that it wasn't science,"Me not looked, me say bad."

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their attitude.

They're only telling it like it is. In the vast majority of cases,
alt-med treatments AREN'T based on science and have little or no
scientific evidence to show they do what is claimed for them. There are
exceptions, but the vast majority of alt-med isn't science.

The vast majority of conventional medicine isn't based on science, it's
based on flawed studies and politics, and again you are being selective,
Gonzalez is based on science
(trophoblast thesis/immune modulation) and has an impressive pilot study.

How come Kelly had so many long term surviving patients or indeed other
doctors who use the metabolic therapy - are you saying that all of these
miracles are selection bias and other artifacts?
How come the quack hospital OASIS OF HOPE is having good results with
metastatic breast cancer using dur dur dur Laetrile and metabolic therapy?
Impressive enough to warrent a look by conventional medicine - but to be
turned down by some outspoken stupid MD with a complex about alternatives
(Are you saying that all of them are selection bias?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They are stuck in their own little world oblivious to alternatives, they
should be looking - their job is to save lives after all..

They ARE looking, but they're doing their looking based on science.
That's your real issue with them. You are perfectly free to disagree
with the scientific (although you have yet to show why the alt-approach
would be better other than alt-med slogans and platitudes). However, it
is disingenuous of you to claim that conventional doctors and scientists
are not looking for better cancer treatments or a cure simply because
you disagree with WHERE they are looking for them.

I diagree, the fact that they practice science isn't my issue with them (you
seem to think I'm against science?) My issue is that they are not open
minded to alternatives and are more inclined to say they don't work (bit
like you do).
From what I've seen the doctors who look into alternatives are cast out as
heretics and wasters in the medicine circle - guess who does that to them?

Oh and another thing that pisses me off - they killed her when my family
could have had a bit more time with her, and they got lots of money for
doing so.

Quoted message said:

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Anth

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

That is wrong, typically the oncologists I came across claimed they were
scientists

If they were associated with an academic institution, that likely was
true.

Quoted message said:

(the claimed they were, which incidentally [censored] me off as my
mother wasn't science but a human)

Why, exactly, would that [censored] you off?

Why would it [censored] me off? Because these chumps _think_ that they are
practicing science when they are not,

They do more science than any altie I've yet encountered.

Quoted message said:

and that science is more important
than the life of their patients.

Incorrect.

Quoted message said:

If they gave a [censored] they would be out seeing what other doctors are doing in
the alternative circle

Why?

Quoted message said:

(because of limitation in their own system i.e. it's
a failure)

Only because you declare it a failure, not because it is, in fact, a
failure.

Quoted message said:

and give more than 30 seconds to brush over a paper and conclude
that on the basis of the date on the paper it doesn't work.

Which paper?

Quoted message said:

Also they are chumps because they suggested chemo to my mam (which
incidently in her case would have no evidence for life extension at all)

Actually, yes there is.

Quoted message said:

They are not practicing science, I think her phrase was (oncologist) "I
think we will try some 5FU chemo."

It is the standard of care for advanced colorectal cancer and is pretty
good palliation with relatively low toxicity. These days, it's been
shown that the addition of irinotecan to the standard 5-FU/leucovorin
regimen is better.

Quoted message said:

5FU chemo for stage 4 metastatic colon cancer - my mam went out of there
thinking that chemo would give her 3 years life?

If true, that's incorrect. 5-FU does extend survival in metastatic colon
cancer, but median survival is usually only around 12-16 months.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They had not heard of Gerson Kelley Gonzalez or any alternative,

That's because they are trained to use treatments that have good
evidence of efficacy.

...and they convinced my mother that all the other treatments wouldn't
work -

That's because the vast majority of them have no good evidence that they
would work.

Quoted message said:

they brainwashed her, bit like how you are brainwashed.

TRANSLATION: Anyone who doesn't swallow alt-med claims at face value is
"brainwashed."

Quoted message said:

Hell the oncologist had not even heard of things like Gerson - shows how
ignorant of alternaives she was.

An oncologist is only obligated to know about treatments that are proven
to work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all they
could do is parrot that it wasn't science,"Me not looked, me say bad."

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their attitude.

They're only telling it like it is. In the vast majority of cases,
alt-med treatments AREN'T based on science and have little or no
scientific evidence to show they do what is claimed for them. There are
exceptions, but the vast majority of alt-med isn't science.

The vast majority of conventional medicine isn't based on science, it's
based on flawed studies and politics,

Still way, way better than alt-med, which is most definitely not based
on science in most cases and all too frequently isn't even based on
flawed studies--or any studies at all!

Quoted message said:

and again you are being selective,
Gonzalez is based on science
(trophoblast thesis/immune modulation)

Incorrect science.

Quoted message said:

and has an impressive pilot study.

Questionable. I'll await the results of the bigger study.

Quoted message said:

How come Kelly had so many long term surviving patients or indeed other
doctors who use the metabolic therapy - are you saying that all of these
miracles are selection bias and other artifacts?

It remains unclear, but, given the rigor of the program, yes, selection
bias is definitely possible.

Quoted message said:

How come the quack hospital OASIS OF HOPE is having good results with
metastatic breast cancer using dur dur dur Laetrile and metabolic therapy?

Really? What is their survival rate compared to controls treated with
the best conventional therapy and how was it determined? Where have they
reported these results?

Quoted message said:

Impressive enough to warrent a look by conventional medicine - but to be
turned down by some outspoken stupid MD with a complex about alternatives
(Are you saying that all of them are selection bias?)

Again, what is the survival rate, and how was it determined?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They are stuck in their own little world oblivious to alternatives, they
should be looking - their job is to save lives after all..

They ARE looking, but they're doing their looking based on science.
That's your real issue with them. You are perfectly free to disagree
with the scientific (although you have yet to show why the alt-approach
would be better other than alt-med slogans and platitudes). However, it
is disingenuous of you to claim that conventional doctors and scientists
are not looking for better cancer treatments or a cure simply because
you disagree with WHERE they are looking for them.

I diagree, the fact that they practice science isn't my issue with them (you
seem to think I'm against science?)

Yes, you do give the impression of being against science.

Quoted message said:

My issue is that they are not open
minded to alternatives and are more inclined to say they don't work (bit
like you do).

Again, in science, data and evidence talk, [censored] walks.

Quoted message said:

From what I've seen the doctors who look into alternatives are cast out as
heretics and wasters in the medicine circle - guess who does that to them?

Not true. I know at least three researchers who are doing medical
research on "alternative" therapies and know of several more at our
institution. They have not been "cast out" and are well-respected
members of our faculty.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

What about the solid tumours with metastasis - the most common kind?

Actually, it's not the most common kind. The most common solid tumors
are usually diagnosed while still treatable. And no, conventional
medicine doesn't do that well with most of these in terms of survival,
but it does do fairly well in terms of palliation. On the other hand,
I've yet to see any compelling evidence that alt-med does better.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Quote me some drugs that cure and I'm sure I could quote you thousands that
don't.

You ignored my question; so I'll repeat it again:

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

Your pooh-poohing of drugs that treat chronic conditions is a red
herring. Treating chronic conditions is a very valuable service to
patients and can markedly improve their quality of life. Yes, it would
be nicer to have a real "cure," but just because we do not have a cure
does not mean that treating chronic diseases like diabetes or heart
disease with drugs that improve quality of life is not of value.
Besides, you can't show that alt-med can do better for ANY of these
diseases, nor can you show that alt-med can CURE any of these diseases.
If it could, you might have a more compelling point. Since it can't,
you're just raising a red herring.

Quoted message said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Drugs don't cure - their primary function is to alleviate.
You only need to look at the disease plagues that are on us to know

that.

Quoted message said:

[censored]. Some drugs do cure (antibiotics for bacterial infections,
chemotherapy for certain cancers, for example). Others are designed to
alleviate symptoms or control disease. Different drugs have different
purposes and uses.

As for your idiotic pooh-poohing of drugs that alleviate symptoms, let's
take an example, insulin. Before insulin, type I diabetics would waste
away within weeks or months of their diagnosis or would develop
ketoacidosis, lapse into a coma, and die. The only treatment, which was
developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's, was a favorite of alties,
a dietary treatment. The patient would be placed on a very low calorie,
low carbohydrate diet, the goal being to keep their food intake so low
that they no longer spilled sugar into their urine. This dietary
treatment was, in essence, slow starvation. Patients might live a couple
of years on it, but would ultimately starve to death instead of dying of
acute diabetic complications. With the discovery of insulin in 1922, it
became possible to treat diabetics. Insulin was not a cure, but it did
regulate blood sugar levels and allowed diabetics to lead close to a
normal life. Although diabetics still tended to die at a younger age
than non-diabetics because of the long-term complications of diabetes
such as heart disease, they could live decades, and many of them could
even live to a ripe old age taking insulin. This was far superior to the
results of any treatment that came before, including dietary and natural
treatments.

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Drugs don't cure - their primary function is to alleviate.

Ibuprofen cures headaches. Antibiotics cure infections. Accutane
cures acne.

Quoted message said:

You only need to look at the disease plagues that are on us to know that.

Anth is a moron -- you only need to look at the stupid posts he
inflicts on us to know that.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Apricot Kernels
From: Orac [email hidden]
Date: 2/28/04 12:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[censored]. Some drugs do cure

Nada. Poison always, cure never.

Quoted message said:

(antibiotics for bacterial infections,
chemotherapy for certain cancers, for example).

What a brainwashed maroon.

Quoted message said:

Others are designed to
alleviate symptoms or control disease.

Palliation? Worthless for healing isn't it?

Quoted message said:

The only treatment, which was
developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's, was a favorite of alties,
a dietary treatment.

This may have been the allopathic understanding and approach. What was the
orthopathic understanding, approach, and success rate?

Typical of the allopaths, they tell you how miserabley they failed and assume
that all other medical protocols failed as well.

Quoted message said:

Although diabetics still tended to die at a younger age
than non-diabetics because of the long-term complications of diabetes
such as heart disease,

Not to mention blindness and amputations ( when the doc removed the correct
limb and not the reverse, hopefully.)

Quoted message said:

This was far superior to the
results of any treatment that came before, including dietary and natural
treatments.

Nope, the Orthopathic knowledge and treatrment was far superior then and still
is today.

Quoted message said:

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

If the misuse of pig insulin had not been allowed and perpetrated by the
allopaths, perhaps we could have eradicated the vaccines and dietary that are
responsible for this scourge.

DrC PhD

In article said:

"DRCEEPHD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the pharmceutical industry can ever get this converted over to a
synthetic, patentable product, then we will have a much better
chance at beating cancer by going to an oncologist at your local
poisoning center.

DrC PhD

Thanks for your sensible reply to my query.

Following "Dr" Cee's health advice is a fine way to allow you to put
three new letters after *your* name: RIP.

Quoted message said:

I personally have been taking apricot kernels for about 3 years , I
have around 20 per day , they come from an organic orchard . I
understand fully the hoo haa about cyanide and have read several
books on the subject , so I treat the cyanide alarmists as
irrelevant . I make my own choices , I also eat 2 or 3 apples every
day and always eat the pips .

So what? The pips aren't intended to be digestible. In fact, that's
part of the seed's survival mechanism. Fruit is a bribe to induce
animals to eat the seeds, which are then scattered in the animal's
droppings. But digesting the seeds releases cyanide -- so that's the
inducement to the animal *not* to digest the seeds.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

In article <[email hidden]>,

DRCEEPHD said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Apricot Kernels
From: Orac [email hidden]
Date: 2/28/04 12:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[censored]. Some drugs do cure

Nada. Poison always, cure never.

Quoted message said:

(antibiotics for bacterial infections,
chemotherapy for certain cancers, for example).

What a brainwashed maroon.

Oh, wow. So is "Dr" Cee now claiming that antibiotics do *not* cure
infections? Jesus, even Scudamore isn't that nutty (though he does
take great delight in mentioning antibiotic resistance).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Others are designed to
alleviate symptoms or control disease.

Palliation? Worthless for healing isn't it?

That's the point. Glad you got it. It may not heal, but that's not
what it's supposed to do, hence the use of the term "palliation."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only treatment, which was developed in the late 1800's and early
1900's, was a favorite of alties, a dietary treatment.

This may have been the allopathic understanding and approach. What was the
orthopathic understanding, approach, and success rate?

I give up. What was it? ("Dr" Cee will now tell us that it was a
brilliant success, never failed, completely cured diabetes, allowed
the sufferers to fly to the moon on gossamer wings, etc.)

I was also particularly amused by Cee's claims about the values of
cholesterol "lubricating" the blood a few days back. Yet another gem
from the orthopathic treasury. Except he seems to mostly like the
data from the mid-1800s. Somehow, I don't think they knew much about
cholesterol back then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

If the misuse of pig insulin had not been allowed and perpetrated by the
allopaths, perhaps we could have eradicated the vaccines and dietary that are
responsible for this scourge.

A disease that goes back through recorded history was caused by
vaccines?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Apricot Kernels
From: Orac [email hidden]
Date: 2/27/04 10:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Indeed it is. The discovery of penicillin is one of the greatest medical
discoveries in the history of medicine.

Only because your pathetic theory of medicine is so false.

Humans discovered that bacteria release a poison to keep other bacteria from
getting their food. Penicillin, bread mold, is one. Soil bacteria produced
the sufa drugs.

We grew the bacteria, isolated the poisons, and called it a great medical
discovery. Now we grow the poisons by the millions of tons. And to what
advantage to humans? Just how many humans have been poisoned to death by
penicillin?

What utter nonsense.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and to the alties out there: Penicillin is a NATURAL product,
derived from the fungus Penicillium notatum.

My mistake? I thought penicillm was derived from the feces of a mold and not a
fungus.

DrC PhD