Re: 'Laetrile' in science

Because it's one sided.
Anth

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quackwatch isn't a reliable source of information.
Anth

Why do you say that? Dr Barrett writes dispassionately and provides an
extensive bibliography. He even supplies the website (if applicable) of

the

Quoted message said:

practitioner/manufacturer/etc. to let you get their side of the story in

their

Quoted message said:

own words.

If you disagree with his assesment, would you tell us what specifically

you

Quoted message said:

disagree with?

Quoted message said:

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>
>All these findings coincide with that mentioned by Otto Jacobsen in

1887,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Davidson in 1944, and Dr. Dean Burk (National Cancer Institute of the

USA)

Quoted message said:

>in 1968. "AMYGDALIN is impressively atoxic (non-toxic) from the
>pharmacological point of view,"
>
>i.e. a complete 'porky pie' laetrile is toxic
>
>Anth
>
>

Uh, Anth, are you aware that rats eat a lot things that are poisonous

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

humans? These aged studies do nothing to bolster the case. Isn't the

most

Quoted message said:

recent date in the study 1968? Geez, people didn't have 8-track tapes

back

Quoted message said:

then!

Here is some acceptible information on Laetrile. It includes a pretty

good

Quoted message said:

bibliography as well.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

Quoted message said:

Because it's one sided.
Anth

He also puts in a complete bibliography plus links to the "other" side. That's
a pretty admirable practice. Obviously, one may take the view that Dr Barrett
is against alt-med and is therefore unqualified to speak out against them.
However, he does supply his reasoning on a case by case basis.

Discounting a while documented paper simply on the basis of the author is not a
good idea. People you or I find odious may well be correct in their matters of
fact. If you disagree with Dr Barrett viz-a-viz Laetrile, what specific
citation/quote/statistic do you dispute?

Quoted message said:

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quackwatch isn't a reliable source of information.
Anth

Why do you say that? Dr Barrett writes dispassionately and provides an
extensive bibliography. He even supplies the website (if applicable) of

the

Quoted message said:

practitioner/manufacturer/etc. to let you get their side of the story in

their

Quoted message said:

own words.

If you disagree with his assesment, would you tell us what specifically

you

Quoted message said:

disagree with?

Quoted message said:

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> >
> >All these findings coincide with that mentioned by Otto Jacobsen in

1887,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >Davidson in 1944, and Dr. Dean Burk (National Cancer Institute of the
USA)
> >in 1968. "AMYGDALIN is impressively atoxic (non-toxic) from the
> >pharmacological point of view,"
> >
> >i.e. a complete 'porky pie' laetrile is toxic
> >
> >Anth
> >
> >
>
> Uh, Anth, are you aware that rats eat a lot things that are poisonous

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> humans? These aged studies do nothing to bolster the case. Isn't the
most
> recent date in the study 1968? Geez, people didn't have 8-track tapes
back
> then!
>
> Here is some acceptible information on Laetrile. It includes a pretty
good
> bibliography as well.
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

In July 1980, the NCI undertook clinical trials of 178 cancer patients who
received Laetrile, vitamins and enzymes at the Mayo Clinic and three other
prominent cancer centers. The study included patients for whom no other
treatment had been effective or for whom no proven treatment was known. All
patients had tumor masses that could easily be measured, but most of the
patients were in good physical condition. Since Laetrile proponents were
unable to agree on the formula or testing protocol for Laetrile, NCI decided
to use a preparation that corresponded to the substance distributed by the
major Mexican supplier, American Biologics. The preparation was supplied by
the NCI Pharmaceutical Resources Branch and verified by a variety of tests.
The dosage of Laetrile was based on the published recommendations of Krebs,
Jr., and the Bradford Foundation.

Amygdalin was to be tested again, but this time it was to be combined with
'metabolic therapy' consisting of diet, enzymes, and nutritional
supplements - exactly what the nutritional doctors had been advocating. The
leading Laetrile practitioners, however bitterly objected that the protocol
used was not comparable to theirs. Furthermore, there was serious doubt
about the purity of the amygdalin being used. It was suspected that the
entire experiment was carefully crafted to fail. And fail, it did. The mayo
doctors reported "No substantive benefit was observed"

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: 'Laetrile' in science
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 7/30/2003 2:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Because it's one sided.
Anth

AND,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p182.htm#quack

One of the most evil people on the web is a former psychiatrist who lashes out
against just about every possible alternative health product or practice. It
is, in fact, a hall of fame. If you are mentioned in his pages you can assume
you are doing a good job!

He attacks chelation therapy, of course, but he selects a "straw man" to
attack. In other words, the early explanation of how chelation therapy works
is well proven to be false, even though many people are still repeating those
lies. But, the more thoughtful intravenous doctors have discarded this early
theory and gone on to the second theory, mentioned on another page.

Jan

Quoted message said:

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quackwatch isn't a reliable source of information.
Anth

Why do you say that? Dr Barrett writes dispassionately and provides an
extensive bibliography. He even supplies the website (if applicable) of

the

Quoted message said:

practitioner/manufacturer/etc. to let you get their side of the story in

their

Quoted message said:

own words.

If you disagree with his assesment, would you tell us what specifically

you

Quoted message said:

disagree with?

Quoted message said:

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> >
> >All these findings coincide with that mentioned by Otto Jacobsen in

1887,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >Davidson in 1944, and Dr. Dean Burk (National Cancer Institute of the
USA)
> >in 1968. "AMYGDALIN is impressively atoxic (non-toxic) from the
> >pharmacological point of view,"
> >
> >i.e. a complete 'porky pie' laetrile is toxic
> >
> >Anth
> >
> >
>
> Uh, Anth, are you aware that rats eat a lot things that are poisonous

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> humans? These aged studies do nothing to bolster the case. Isn't the
most
> recent date in the study 1968? Geez, people didn't have 8-track tapes
back
> then!
>
> Here is some acceptible information on Laetrile. It includes a pretty
good
> bibliography as well.
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

Or even make money at the expense of peoples health like the drug cartel
did?
Anth

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In July 1980, the NCI undertook clinical trials of 178 cancer patients

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

received Laetrile, vitamins and enzymes at the Mayo Clinic and three

other

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

prominent cancer centers. The study included patients for whom no other
treatment had been effective or for whom no proven treatment was known.

All

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

patients had tumor masses that could easily be measured, but most of the
patients were in good physical condition. Since Laetrile proponents were
unable to agree on the formula or testing protocol for Laetrile, NCI

decided

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to use a preparation that corresponded to the substance distributed by

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

major Mexican supplier, American Biologics. The preparation was supplied

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the NCI Pharmaceutical Resources Branch and verified by a variety of

tests.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The dosage of Laetrile was based on the published recommendations of

Krebs,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jr., and the Bradford Foundation.

Amygdalin was to be tested again, but this time it was to be combined

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

'metabolic therapy' consisting of diet, enzymes, and nutritional
supplements - exactly what the nutritional doctors had been advocating.

The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

leading Laetrile practitioners, however bitterly objected that the

protocol

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

used was not comparable to theirs. Furthermore, there was serious doubt
about the purity of the amygdalin being used. It was suspected that the
entire experiment was carefully crafted to fail. And fail, it did. The

mayo

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

doctors reported "No substantive benefit was observed"

I doubt seriously anyone wants to put together an experiment, get funding,

put

Quoted message said:

their name all over it, and purposely fail. Also, I don't think the
researchers would be so callous as to sacrifice cancer patients in order

to

Quoted message said:

make Laetrile look bad. Still, if one where of such a sinister mind as to
recommend diet, enzymes, and nutritional suppliments as part of cancer
treatment, they could be guilty of ANYTHING!

Quoted message said:

Or even make money at the expense of peoples health like the drug cartel
did?
Anth

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In July 1980, the NCI undertook clinical trials of 178 cancer patien

Thank you for making my point! You only believe that Laetrile "works" because
you think that there is a conspiracy against it. You've yet to show me a
single well designed study showing that it works. Claiming it is being
suppressed is just plain silly. See how many MD's recommend and Aspirin a day
to help prevent heart attacks? How much do you think EOM makes off of those
patent-expired aspirin? How much more would they make off of an ER visit, Open
Heart surgery, recovery, etc by NOT recommending aspirin?

Anth, the very best medical advice for the _average_ person consists of
unpatentable, common sense practices. Eating a proper diet (loaded term, but
let's leave it at that for the moment), regular, age appropriate exercise,
moderation or abstaining from Booze, Cigarettes, recreational drugs, and
getting a routine medical check-up.

Laetrile would be used in some country, somewhere as the mainstream treatment
if it worked. The FDA does not have jurisdiction outside the USA and Mexican
clinics still use it. Think about that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: 'Laetrile' in science
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 7/30/2003 2:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Because it's one sided.
Anth

AND,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p182.htm#quack

One of the most evil people on the web is a former daycare center operator who

lashes

Quoted message said:

out
against just about every possible conventional health product or practice. It
is, in fact, a hall of fame. If you are mentioned in his pages you can
assume
you are doing a good job!

Quoted message said:

He attacks dental amalgam, of course, but he selects a "straw man" to
attack. In other words, her early explanation of how the term "Quack" works
is well proven to be false, even though many people are still repeating those
lies. But, the more harrowing thought is how she boasts of her many

fornications with Satan, endlessly elaborating on the frequency, duration, and
various positions.

Quoted message said:

Jan

No I don't think Laetrile works I simply don't know.
I do know is that there's a lot of conspiracy behind it like you say, and I
know there's a lot of claims that alternative therapies don't work.
Did you know Laetrile was condemned before it was tested?
Why is Laetrile still being researched into if it is useless, it doesn't
make any sense?
Anth

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or even make money at the expense of peoples health like the drug cartel
did?
Anth

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>In July 1980, the NCI undertook clinical trials of 178 cancer patien

Thank you for making my point! You only believe that Laetrile "works"

because

Quoted message said:

you think that there is a conspiracy against it. You've yet to show me a
single well designed study showing that it works. Claiming it is being
suppressed is just plain silly. See how many MD's recommend and Aspirin a

day

Quoted message said:

to help prevent heart attacks? How much do you think EOM makes off of

those

Quoted message said:

patent-expired aspirin? How much more would they make off of an ER visit,

Open

Quoted message said:

Heart surgery, recovery, etc by NOT recommending aspirin?

Anth, the very best medical advice for the _average_ person consists of
unpatentable, common sense practices. Eating a proper diet (loaded term,

but

Quoted message said:

let's leave it at that for the moment), regular, age appropriate exercise,
moderation or abstaining from Booze, Cigarettes, recreational drugs, and
getting a routine medical check-up.

Laetrile would be used in some country, somewhere as the mainstream

treatment

Quoted message said:

if it worked. The FDA does not have jurisdiction outside the USA and

Mexican

Quoted message said:

clinics still use it. Think about that.

--

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

Quoted message said:

No I don't think Laetrile works I simply don't know.
I do know is that there's a lot of conspiracy behind it like you say, and

I

Quoted message said:

know there's a lot of claims that alternative therapies don't work.
Did you know Laetrile was condemned before it was tested?
Why is Laetrile still being researched into if it is useless, it doesn't
make any sense?
Anth

An outcry that a therapeutic regimen is being suppressed by a conspiracy is
one of the surest indicators that it is quackery. As far as I know, there
has never been a proven conspiracy to suppress an effective therapy, but
there have been hundreds of such accusations. One would think that if such
conspiracies were that common, at least one would have been thoroughly
exposed and the conspirators discredited. Can you provide an example of this
happening? Or can you provide any proven evidence of such a conspiracy
against laetrile therapy?

Note that not only alties make these accusations. The crackpots that claim
they have a device that makes cars get hundreds of miles-to-the-gallon of
gas or run on water, and the inventors who claim to have free energy devices
also claim to be conspired against. There, again, no such conspiracy has
ever been exposed and prosecuted. Strange that.

--Rich

Anth said:

Because it's one sided.

There are issues that only have one valid side. Laetrile is one. it
murders people.

Check the cemetery.

Anth said:

The results of the trial were clear-cut. Not one patient was cured or even
stabilized. The median survival rate was 4.8 months from the start of
therapy, and in those still alive after seven months, tumor size had
increased. This was the expected result for patients receiving no treatment
at all. In addition, several patients experienced symptoms of cyanide
toxicity or had blood levels of cyanide approaching the lethal range [7]. An
accompanying editorial concluded:

Where's the follow up?

All I see is a blank. If I was a MD I would be asking for the follow ups?

Anth

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quackwatch isn't a reliable source of information.
Anth

Why do you say that? Dr Barrett writes dispassionately and provides an
extensive bibliography. He even supplies the website (if applicable) of

the

Quoted message said:

practitioner/manufacturer/etc. to let you get their side of the story in

their

Quoted message said:

own words.

If you disagree with his assesment, would you tell us what specifically

you

Quoted message said:

disagree with?

Quoted message said:

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>>All these findings coincide with that mentioned by Otto Jacobsen in

1887,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Davidson in 1944, and Dr. Dean Burk (National Cancer Institute of the

USA)

>>in 1968. "AMYGDALIN is impressively atoxic (non-toxic) from the
>>pharmacological point of view,"
>>
>>i.e. a complete 'porky pie' laetrile is toxic
>>
>>Anth
>>
>>
>
>Uh, Anth, are you aware that rats eat a lot things that are poisonous

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>humans? These aged studies do nothing to bolster the case. Isn't the

most

>recent date in the study 1968? Geez, people didn't have 8-track tapes

back

>then!
>
>Here is some acceptible information on Laetrile. It includes a pretty

good

>bibliography as well.
>
>http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

I'm not saying Laetrile is effective in people you are missing the point.
What I am saying is that in mice is showed activity in preventing
metastasis.
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

--

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

Quoted message said:

No I don't think Laetrile works I simply don't know.
I do know is that there's a lot of conspiracy behind it like you say,

and

Quoted message said:

I

Quoted message said:

know there's a lot of claims that alternative therapies don't work.
Did you know Laetrile was condemned before it was tested?
Why is Laetrile still being researched into if it is useless, it doesn't
make any sense?
Anth

An outcry that a therapeutic regimen is being suppressed by a conspiracy

is

Quoted message said:

one of the surest indicators that it is quackery. As far as I know, there
has never been a proven conspiracy to suppress an effective therapy, but
there have been hundreds of such accusations. One would think that if such
conspiracies were that common, at least one would have been thoroughly
exposed and the conspirators discredited. Can you provide an example of

this

Quoted message said:

happening? Or can you provide any proven evidence of such a conspiracy
against laetrile therapy?

Note that not only alties make these accusations. The crackpots that claim
they have a device that makes cars get hundreds of miles-to-the-gallon of
gas or run on water, and the inventors who claim to have free energy

devices

Quoted message said:

also claim to be conspired against. There, again, no such conspiracy has
ever been exposed and prosecuted. Strange that.

--Rich

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying Laetrile is effective in people you are missing the point.
What I am saying is that in mice is showed activity in preventing
metastasis.
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

Without having any evidence of it being useful in humans nor any evidence of a
conspiracy against it, you have argued that it would help some cancer patients.
Anth, this is like the Rife machine, 714x, H*lda Cl*rk, et al. It is all
smoke, mirrors, and profiteering at the expense of desperate individuals.

You don't really think all cancer is caused by one thing, do you? Do you
believe in the Progenitor Cryptocides? If you don't, then you must reject most
of the claims made by pro-alt cancer quacks. Heck, if you are willing to
accept basic cellular biology and insist on some radiographic evidence of
cancer cures, you'll end up rejecting most of the "cures" for a very good
reason. They don't treat cancer and they surely don't cure it.

With all the Rife Machines, Laetrile pushers, and Huld* Cl*rk, don't you think
there would be SOME radiographic evidence?????

Quoted message said:

Without having any evidence of it being useful in humans nor any evidence

of a

Quoted message said:

conspiracy against it, you have argued that it would help some cancer

patients.

Quoted message said:

Anth, this is like the Rife machine, 714x, H*lda Cl*rk, et al. It is all
smoke, mirrors, and profiteering at the expense of desperate individuals.

Rubbish.

Quoted message said:

You don't really think all cancer is caused by one thing, do you? Do you
believe in the Progenitor Cryptocides? If you don't, then you must reject

most

Quoted message said:

of the claims made by pro-alt cancer quacks. Heck, if you are willing to
accept basic cellular biology and insist on some radiographic evidence of
cancer cures, you'll end up rejecting most of the "cures" for a very good
reason. They don't treat cancer and they surely don't cure it.

Quoted message said:

With all the Rife Machines, Laetrile pushers, and Huld* Cl*rk, don't you

think

Quoted message said:

there would be SOME radiographic evidence?????

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Without having any evidence of it being useful in humans nor any evidence

of a

Quoted message said:

conspiracy against it, you have argued that it would help some cancer

patients.

'would' there you go again with your subversions...
Incorrect also. To my knowledge it hasn't been evaluated in humans on the
basis of anti metasasis.
It should have based on the experiments. So why and when did I quote
'would'?

Quoted message said:

Anth, this is like the Rife machine, 714x, H*lda Cl*rk, et al. It is all
smoke, mirrors, and profiteering at the expense of desperate individuals.

You don't really think all cancer is caused by one thing, do you? Do you
believe in the Progenitor Cryptocides? If you don't, then you must reject

most

Quoted message said:

of the claims made by pro-alt cancer quacks. Heck, if you are willing to
accept basic cellular biology and insist on some radiographic evidence of
cancer cures, you'll end up rejecting most of the "cures" for a very good
reason. They don't treat cancer and they surely don't cure it.

With all the Rife Machines, Laetrile pushers, and Huld* Cl*rk, don't you

think

Quoted message said:

there would be SOME radiographic evidence?????

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: 'Laetrile' in science
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 7/31/2003 10:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

I'm not saying Laetrile is effective in people you are missing the point.
What I am saying is that in mice is showed activity in preventing
metastasis.
Anth

Rich's objective is to try and trash anyone who believes in alternative
medicine, and his remarks about John Bain are on the Andrew level. In fact John
Bain is a true gentleman. It appears he has pretty much left this ng, because
of the nonsense and mud slinging.

He put Rich on the spot. He has a nack to treat people fairly, with respect and
still get down to business. When he saw through Rich's nonsense, he called his
hand.

Rich's statement:

Quoted message said:

As far as I know, there

Quoted message said:

has never been a proven conspiracy to suppress an effective therapy

Tells the whole story.

Quoted message said:

There, again, no such conspiracy has

Quoted message said:

ever been exposed and prosecuted. Strange that.

And a total lie.

Conspiracies and prosecution have been posted here many times.

Jan

(I think we need both fields, believers and non believers to get a fair
argument)
Anth

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

--

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

Quoted message said:

(I think we need both fields, believers and non believers to get a fair
argument)
Anth

Please do not count me among the believers or the non-believers. Whether
Laetrile is safe and effective for the treatment of cancer is a matter of
FACT not faith, so belief has nothing to do with it. The FACT that it is NOT
has been determined through solid scientific experimentation, and no amount
of credulous belief in conspiracies is going to change that.

--Rich

2 companies were prosecuted and another escaped fines by co-operation.
The US Justice Department, which conducted a two year investigation, said
Roche, BASF and Rhone Poulaenc conspired for nine years years to raise the
prices of vitamins and some related products, generating hundreds of
millions of dollars of extra revenue. Those nutrients, part of a $20 Billion
world vitamin market, are used in a variety of products from animal feed to
groceries.
Anth

http://www.utopiasprings.com/vitcartl.htm
"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

--

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

Quoted message said:

I have no knowledge of any studies done (in humans) on the anti

metastasis

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

aspects of Laetrile.
If you have then I will gladly read them.

(Why do people actually assume that because this thread is about

Laetrile

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it's about 'curing' cancer?)
In humans with respect to cure then a simple YES it failed.
There are arguments about these studies which is more of a grumble in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

World Without Cancer.

Conspiracies exist - they are fact and have been proven.

The 'Vitamin Cartel' is a classic example, which is well documented.
This shows that the named drug companies value money is a higher

priority

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

than peoples health.
When that sinks in it opens up many different avenues.
Are these people 'dealing in disease' rather than attempting to 'cure'
disease?
That's an important factor - some people would have you not question

these

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people and blindly follow them.
And please don't quote me as this being my number one argument for

believing

Quoted message said:

blindly in any conspiracy theory, which is illogical.
Anth

The "vitamin cartel" was a case of price fixing by two manufacturers.

That's

Quoted message said:

a LONG way from an industry-wide conspiracy to suppress alternative

medicine

Quoted message said:

therapies. And it's a long way from "dealing in disease."

--Rich