Re: 'Laetrile' in science

And many studies replicate the results also?

And hear this I know that some negative results were poorly conducted
experiments.

(1) One that I know of was a double blind study of mice, where the scientist
guessed the control group and knew the other group.
Simply because one group was showing a massive anti tumour effect.
(Therefore comically it wasn't double blind anymore, so it was failed
as he could have been selective in the treatment of the poor mice)
(2) Another one was inconclusive because the mice had been mixed up and both
groups were showing anti tumour activities.

I bet Barret's site didn't tell you that?
If you can get hold of the papers I'm sure you would verify that.
I can post the names of them if you wish?
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

>No I don't think Laetrile works I simply don't know.
Let me help you with that one, it doesn't.

Your opinion? (see below)

Quoted message said:

>I do know is that there's a lot of conspiracy behind it like you say,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I

Quoted message said:

>know there's a lot of claims that alternative therapies don't work.

Some do and some don't, it really is a case-by-case basis, not a

blanket

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"all

Quoted message said:

alt-med works".

Why do you believe that there is a conspiracy against Laetrile? What
specifically makes you think this is true as opposed to saying that

there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is

Quoted message said:

always a general conspiracy?

Because there was a suppression of the truth behind it. There's a

conspiracy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to cover up the truth.
Ralph Moss was sacked from his position at Memorial Sloane Kettering

because

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he was told to tell lies about Laetrile.
The lab reports showed it was active and yet he was told to tell the

public

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the opposite.

---------------
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Reviews/moss.html

Insinuating that an executive-level position made him privy to the inner
workings at Sloan-Kettering Institute, Moss represents that he was

assistant

Quoted message said:

director of public affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

during the

Quoted message said:

mid-1970s. However, documents I have from Sloan-Kettering officials

indicate

Quoted message said:

that his only title was "science writer."
Moss suggests that a Sloan-Kettering researcher, Kanematsu Sugiura, found

that

Quoted message said:

laetrile was effective against cancer in mice and that his work was never
repeated or refuted. The book fails to mention that at least six major

cancer

Quoted message said:

research institutions did repeat Sugiura's experiments and had negative
results.

*****Read that again, Anth. Six Major cancer research institutions did

repeat

Quoted message said:

Sugiura's experiements and had negative results!!!!!!

-----------

Quoted message said:

His ethics crushed him

That should read "lack of ethics." He's a liar. See above, the part

about

Quoted message said:

claiming that Sugiura's experiements were never repeated. They were

repeated

Quoted message said:

SIX times, each with negative results!!!

!>and he blew the whistle on the organisation that was

Quoted message said:

his bread and butter - he's a decent guy in that respect.

Nope, he's a liar, see above yet again. Six negative repeats on the

trials and

Quoted message said:

he still claims its never been repeated!

Quoted message said:

There's high power liars in high positions - either that or they are

pretty

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

stupid and shouldn't be in their job.

Stupid? How's this for stupid?

------
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Reviews/moss.html

Moss endorses the work of the late Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler, who

claimed

Quoted message said:

that cancer is caused by a bacterium she named Progenitor cryptocides. He
neglected to mention that scientists don't believe her hypothesis because

there

Quoted message said:

is no proof that the organism exists. Neither Dr. Wheeler nor anyone else

has

Quoted message said:

been able to produce a cancer by injecting her alleged organisms into
experimental animals. Independent researchers have found numerous cases

where

Quoted message said:

cancer tissues did not contain the organism. In addition, cultures of
"Progenitor cryptocides" from Dr. Wheeler's own lab, which were grown in

other

Quoted message said:

labs, turned out to be common forms of Staphylococci that inhabit the

skin.

Quoted message said:

--------

Well, I'm sorry that your "decent guy in that respect" is really a

shameless

Quoted message said:

huckster and lying sack of [censored]. Oh, I forgot to mention that he's a

fruitcake

Quoted message said:

for believing that cancer is caused by Progenitor cryptocides. Geez,

Anth,

Quoted message said:

quit hitching your wagon (belief system) to the dimmest bulbs, most

obvious

Quoted message said:

liars, and most contemptable [censored]!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Did you know Laetrile was condemned before it was tested? (see above)
By whom? Did it GET tested? Did it pass those tests? Were those

tests

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

well

Quoted message said:

designed and controlled? Anyone willing to work in Mexico could resume

trials

Quoted message said:

of it....

Laetrile was tested in mice and it was shown to halt metastasis in a high
%age of cases. (see above - condemed)

No, see above where the results were negative in the six attempts to

replicate

Quoted message said:

the study.

Quoted message said:

(Now if that isn't valuable what is? Was this tested in humans or even
researched? Not to my limited knowledge!)

See above, it was re-tested and failed all 6 times.

Quoted message said:

What pisses me off is that there's people dieing from metastasis in

surgery

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and this substance might have helped them.

Put your mind at ease on that point, it would have injured, not helped

them.

Quoted message said:

So, in summation, Ralph Moss is a remorseless liar. He's lied about the

most

Quoted message said:

basic of his claims in his employment, the replication of the Laetrile
experiments, and his claim that all oncologists are in on a grand

conspiracy to

Quoted message said:

let their patients, friends, family, and own selves die due to a lack of
laetrile.

This thread is getting big so I will snip some.

Quoted message said:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Reviews/moss.html

Insinuating that an executive-level position made him privy to the inner
workings at Sloan-Kettering Institute, Moss represents that he was

assistant

Quoted message said:

director of public affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

during the

Quoted message said:

mid-1970s. However, documents I have from Sloan-Kettering officials

indicate

Quoted message said:

that his only title was "science writer."
Moss suggests that a Sloan-Kettering researcher, Kanematsu Sugiura, found

that

Quoted message said:

laetrile was effective against cancer in mice and that his work was never
repeated or refuted. The book fails to mention that at least six major

cancer

Quoted message said:

research institutions did repeat Sugiura's experiments and had negative
results.

*****Read that again, Anth. Six Major cancer research institutions did

repeat

Quoted message said:

Sugiura's experiements and had negative results!!!!!!

Might be a good idea to list those six experiments?
I've emailed Dr Barret and asked him for details of these experiments and
see how they tie up with my book.
(There's no references on Quackwatch)

Quoted message said:

-----------

Quoted message said:

His ethics crushed him

That should read "lack of ethics." He's a liar. See above, the part

about

Quoted message said:

claiming that Sugiura's experiements were never repeated. They were

repeated

Quoted message said:

SIX times, each with negative results!!!

(see above)

Quoted message said:

!>and he blew the whistle on the organisation that was

Quoted message said:

his bread and butter - he's a decent guy in that respect.

He lied about his position. However in my experience at work. I know of one
person who had a position which was unofficial.
(see above)

Quoted message said:

Nope, he's a liar, see above yet again. Six negative repeats on the

trials and

Quoted message said:

he still claims its never been repeated!

Quoted message said:

There's high power liars in high positions - either that or they are

pretty

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

stupid and shouldn't be in their job.

Stupid? How's this for stupid?

------
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Reviews/moss.html

Moss endorses the work of the late Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler, who

claimed

Quoted message said:

that cancer is caused by a bacterium she named Progenitor cryptocides. He
neglected to mention that scientists don't believe her hypothesis because

there

Quoted message said:

is no proof that the organism exists. Neither Dr. Wheeler nor anyone else

has

Quoted message said:

been able to produce a cancer by injecting her alleged organisms into
experimental animals. Independent researchers have found numerous cases

where

Quoted message said:

cancer tissues did not contain the organism. In addition, cultures of
"Progenitor cryptocides" from Dr. Wheeler's own lab, which were grown in

other

Quoted message said:

labs, turned out to be common forms of Staphylococci that inhabit the

skin.

Quoted message said:

--------

No proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This sounds like Hulda's 'fluke' to me.

Quoted message said:

Well, I'm sorry that your "decent guy in that respect" is really a

shameless

Quoted message said:

huckster and lying sack of [censored]. Oh, I forgot to mention that he's a

fruitcake

Quoted message said:

for believing that cancer is caused by Progenitor cryptocides. Geez,

Anth,

Quoted message said:

quit hitching your wagon (belief system) to the dimmest bulbs, most

obvious

Quoted message said:

liars, and most contemptable [censored]!

Attack the man and then send this into off topic mode.
(See what comes back from Barret - if anything)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Did you know Laetrile was condemned before it was tested? (see above)
By whom? Did it GET tested? Did it pass those tests? Were those

tests

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

well

Quoted message said:

designed and controlled? Anyone willing to work in Mexico could resume

trials

Quoted message said:

of it....

Laetrile was tested in mice and it was shown to halt metastasis in a high
%age of cases. (see above - condemed)

No, see above where the results were negative in the six attempts to

replicate

Quoted message said:

the study.

Quoted message said:

(Now if that isn't valuable what is? Was this tested in humans or even
researched? Not to my limited knowledge!)

See above, it was re-tested and failed all 6 times.

Quoted message said:

What pisses me off is that there's people dieing from metastasis in

surgery

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and this substance might have helped them.

Put your mind at ease on that point, it would have injured, not helped

them.

No it may have helped them.
Why is Laetrile being researched even today - albeit piggybacked on a
different molecule?
(It's useless remember - I wonder who is funding this research)

Quoted message said:

So, in summation, Ralph Moss is a remorseless liar. He's lied about the

most

Quoted message said:

basic of his claims in his employment, the replication of the Laetrile
experiments, and his claim that all oncologists are in on a grand

conspiracy to

Quoted message said:

let their patients, friends, family, and own selves die due to a lack of
laetrile.

But he didn't lie about what he was seeing in Sloan?
(And most of the other people who saw it also.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=347176&dopt=Abstract

Show me details of these experiments - mail Barret and get them!
Anth

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: 'Laetrile' in science
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 7/30/2003 5:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

This thread is getting big so I will snip some.

Quoted message said:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Reviews/moss.html

Insinuating that an executive-level position made him privy to the inner
workings at Sloan-Kettering Institute, Moss represents that he was

assistant

Quoted message said:

director of public affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

during the

Quoted message said:

mid-1970s. However, documents I have from Sloan-Kettering officials

indicate

Quoted message said:

that his only title was "science writer."
Moss suggests that a Sloan-Kettering researcher, Kanematsu Sugiura, found

that

Quoted message said:

laetrile was effective against cancer in mice and that his work was never
repeated or refuted. The book fails to mention that at least six major

cancer

Quoted message said:

research institutions did repeat Sugiura's experiments and had negative
results.

*****Read that again, Anth. Six Major cancer research institutions did

repeat

Quoted message said:

Sugiura's experiements and had negative results!!!!!!

Might be a good idea to list those six experiments?
I've emailed Dr Barret and asked him for details of these experiments and
see how they tie up with my book.
(There's no references on Quackwatch)

Good luck in getting an answer.

For the real facts, I will look it up in Racketeering in Medicine when time
permits.

Quoted message said:

His ethics crushed him

Quoted message said:

That should read "lack of ethics." He's a liar

As is Andrew Kingoff, who is ilsa.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: 'Laetrile' in science
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 7/30/2003 6:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Show me details of these experiments - mail Barret and get them!
Anth

Here is an example of his record is answering.

ka&g (boy I miss her) was talking with lackey for Barrett, Mark Thorson.

From: ka&g ([email hidden])
Subject: Re: Quackwatch is a very biased website.
View: Complete Thread (129 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2002-03-24 17:30:31 PST

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

Quoted message said:

ka&g said:

then we could go into what 'present evidence' means....sigh.

Did you read the web page I cited?

i've read QW before. about two years ago. has anything changed?? is that
page on G&C new?

Quoted message said:

Dr. Barrett discusses the
scientific evidence that makes the case for glucosamine and
chondroitin. That's the evidence I was referring to. He thinks
more evidence is needed, but it would be a reasonable choice
for you to use glucosamine and chondroitin based on the
evidence which exists now.

awesome.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is this the ONLY example that you could find of something 'alternative'

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

barrett gives credence to? wouldn't you say that makes him appear somewhat
biased?

You asked for "a link to QW which SUPPORTS *any*
alternative medical treatment as 'valid'". You didn't specify
how many. I gave you two. That's one extra.

no, not two. glucosamine and chondroitin for joint pain are hand-in-hand as
an 'alt' therapy. that's just ONE.

but whatever. the guy is OBVIOUSLY biased, mark!!!

i am rather amused that you think that he is at all objective in his
presentation.

again i wonder why you are such an ardent defender of barrett and QW.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do you HONESTLY think that his efforts are helping those who are prone to
believing in 'quackery' ?!

Very much. It's one place you can go which will have the
scoop on nearly any form of alternative medicine that's
got a large following. The articles are concise, easy-to-read,
and hard hitting. It's all fact-based, with references to his
sources.

last time i visited, he certainly didn't list all 'sources'. it was
basically an opinion thang.

there were all of these dead links to 'sources' and whatnot. when
questioned, via private email, about these dead or non-existent links, he
said that it didn't matter---he hadn't gotten around to writing them yet.
if *he* said it was bogus, then it was bogus.

that sounded pretty dang biased to me. not to mention arrogantly
egotistical.

=========================

I wrote to him once, he wrote back and said, if you want to get quacked, get
quacked.

Bout like the arrogant debunkers here.

Jan

Fair enough a lot of the information on the quackwatch site is accurate but
there is some disinformation.
Typical words were 'had negative results' with no citations to back the
statement up.
What the hell does had negative results mean? It could mean anything.
It could mean the experiment went well, showing no response on the tumours.
It could mean the experiment was a total mess up and nothing conclusive
could be drawn from it.
That's not reliable in my books.
(I should halt this all here because my aim was to find conspiracy in
medicine. I found it with the vitamin cartel)
I find it with Moss being sacked for telling the truth about an experiment
that he and his colleagues observed.
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: 'Laetrile' in science
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 7/30/2003 6:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Show me details of these experiments - mail Barret and get them!
Anth

Here is an example of his record is answering.

ka&g (boy I miss her) was talking with lackey for Barrett, Mark Thorson.

From: ka&g ([email hidden])
Subject: Re: Quackwatch is a very biased website.
View: Complete Thread (129 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2002-03-24 17:30:31 PST

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

Quoted message said:

ka&g said:

then we could go into what 'present evidence' means....sigh.

Did you read the web page I cited?

i've read QW before. about two years ago. has anything changed?? is that
page on G&C new?

Quoted message said:

Dr. Barrett discusses the
scientific evidence that makes the case for glucosamine and
chondroitin. That's the evidence I was referring to. He thinks
more evidence is needed, but it would be a reasonable choice
for you to use glucosamine and chondroitin based on the
evidence which exists now.

awesome.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is this the ONLY example that you could find of something

'alternative'

Quoted message said:

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

barrett gives credence to? wouldn't you say that makes him appear

somewhat

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

biased?

You asked for "a link to QW which SUPPORTS *any*
alternative medical treatment as 'valid'". You didn't specify
how many. I gave you two. That's one extra.

no, not two. glucosamine and chondroitin for joint pain are hand-in-hand

as

Quoted message said:

an 'alt' therapy. that's just ONE.

but whatever. the guy is OBVIOUSLY biased, mark!!!

i am rather amused that you think that he is at all objective in his
presentation.

again i wonder why you are such an ardent defender of barrett and QW.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do you HONESTLY think that his efforts are helping those who are prone

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

believing in 'quackery' ?!

Very much. It's one place you can go which will have the
scoop on nearly any form of alternative medicine that's
got a large following. The articles are concise, easy-to-read,
and hard hitting. It's all fact-based, with references to his
sources.

last time i visited, he certainly didn't list all 'sources'. it was
basically an opinion thang.

there were all of these dead links to 'sources' and whatnot. when
questioned, via private email, about these dead or non-existent links, he
said that it didn't matter---he hadn't gotten around to writing them yet.
if *he* said it was bogus, then it was bogus.

that sounded pretty dang biased to me. not to mention arrogantly
egotistical.

=========================

I wrote to him once, he wrote back and said, if you want to get quacked,

get

Quoted message said:

quacked.

Bout like the arrogant debunkers here.

Jan

Quoted message said:

And many studies replicate the results also?

No, they were negative.

Quoted message said:

And hear this I know that some negative results were poorly conducted
experiments.

See below.

Quoted message said:

(1) One that I know of was a double blind study of mice, where the scientist
guessed the control group and knew the other group.
Simply because one group was showing a massive anti tumour effect.
(Therefore comically it wasn't double blind anymore, so it was failed
as he could have been selective in the treatment of the poor mice)
(2) Another one was inconclusive because the mice had been mixed up and both
groups were showing anti tumour activities.

I bet Barret's site didn't tell you that?
If you can get hold of the papers I'm sure you would verify that.
I can post the names of them if you wish?

Please post the studies. It shocks me that you knew the study had been
repeated.

By telling me that you KNEW the Sugiura studies were repeated (with negative
results), you are telling me that you know Moss is lying about the studies
never being repeated. You are also damaging your own credibility because YOU
claimed the studies were never repeated.

Moss was a science writer, not a scientist. He lied about his employement,
lied about the Sugiura research not being repeated, & believes in a mythical
bacterium that is supposedly the cause of cancer.

His credibility is Zero. His entire premise is a lie. Do you think his
conclusion is to be accepted based on that and the FACT that Laetrile had
negative results in at least 6 attempts to replicate Sugiura's results?

The only way you can believe Moss is to believe that his lies are totally
irrelevant and that everyone associated with oncology is in on a broad sweeping
conspiracy for which they are willing to sacrifice their own family, friends,
patients, and selves.

Quoted message said:

Anth

Moss irrelevant to the whole thing, apart from the aspect he was told to lie
about what he had seen in Laetrile.
I think you are side tracking the issue with Moss

The Moss issue proves that there was a cover up and a conspiracy with
Laetrile.
Cancell proves that there was a conspiracy to hide results.
The vitamin cartel proves that there is a conspiracy - their number one
priority is in money and not peoples health.

I've pretty much found what I wanted to find.
Conspiracy.
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Moss irrelevant to the whole thing, apart from the aspect he was told to

lie

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

about what he had seen in Laetrile.

No, the only lies we can confirm that he told were those relating to his
employment and about the Saguira experiments never being repeated.

Quoted message said:

I think you are side tracking the issue with Moss

You are overlooking what you acknowledge, that Moss is a liar.

What difference does it make if I quote Moss as being a liar or not?
Do you want to discredit the guy? Does it make you feel better belittling
people on the basis of them being a liar?
Do you think by my admission that Moss lied it will make 'things all
better'?
What would this prove? Moss is a liar?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Moss issue proves that there was a cover up and a conspiracy with
Laetrile.

No, the word "alleges" is not synonymous with "proof".

No proves.
He was told to lie and he didn't so he got sacked for it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cancell proves that there was a conspiracy to hide results.

[censored].

No proves.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The vitamin cartel proves that there is a conspiracy - their number one
priority is in money and not peoples health.

Who is this "cartel"?

Drug companies. Proved.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've pretty much found what I wanted to find
Conspiracy.

And you are one clueless, credulous, dolt.

And by your own standards you are are a credulous namecalling bitter
hypocrite who lies. Sad isn't it?
And don't ask me to prove this because I already have in past posts.
Now crawl under the rock you came from.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anth

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Moss irrelevant to the whole thing, apart from the aspect he was told to

lie

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

about what he had seen in Laetrile.

No, the only lies we can confirm that he told were those relating to his
employment and about the Saguira experiments never being repeated.

Quoted message said:

I think you are side tracking the issue with Moss

You are overlooking what you acknowledge, that Moss is a liar.

What difference does it make if I quote Moss as being a liar or not?
Do you want to discredit the guy? Does it make you feel better belittling
people on the basis of them being a liar?

Does his pathological lying inspire your confidence in him or will you simply
believe EVERY conspiracy story?

Quoted message said:

Do you think by my admission that Moss lied it will make 'things all
better'?
What would this prove? Moss is a liar?

It proves that he is not a reliable source. Why would you take it from a
pathological liar that everyone in the oncology field and most everyone in
medicine is in on a conspiracy? Why do you think that EVERYONE trained to deal
with cancer patients is a liar who only wants to steal the victims' money
instead of giving them good 'ole vitamins?

You condemn Barrett as being one sided, but even you and Jan won't call him a
liar. He may have differing views and conclusions, but he does document his
claims. Why do you take the view of a non-medically trained person who lied
about his employment, lied about the very experiements he touts, and believes
in Progenitor Cytocryptes over people who are trained in medicine (especially
oncology) who don't lie about their employment and document their claims?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Moss issue proves that there was a cover up and a conspiracy with
Laetrile.

No, the word "alleges" is not synonymous with "proof".

No proves.
He was told to lie and he didn't so he got sacked for it.

Where is the proof of that? The only thing we know about his employment is
that he LIED to exaggerate his importance. He claimed as a newly hired science
writer that HE was privvy to all the inner workers of Sloan. He wasn't. The
only lie we have proof of is his about his employment. Show proof he was fired
for NOT lying.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cancell proves that there was a conspiracy to hide results.

[censored].

No proves.

How so?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The vitamin cartel proves that there is a conspiracy - their number one
priority is in money and not peoples health.

Who is this "cartel"?

Drug companies. Proved.

Proved? Do show this proof. I have a feeling that your "proof" exists only on
the pages of R*cketeering in M*dicine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've pretty much found what I wanted to find
Conspiracy.

And you are one clueless, credulous, dolt.

And by your own standards you are are a credulous namecalling bitter
hypocrite who lies. Sad isn't it?

Where have I been credulous or dishonest? Even you accept that Moss is a
liar...and can't wait to discount that in order to believe in conspiracies.

Quoted message said:

And don't ask me to prove this because I already have in past posts.

Your standard of proof is less than most people's standards for feces.

Quoted message said:

Now crawl under the rock you came from.

I only hope that your ignorance is as painful to you as it is obvious to the
rest of the world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anth

Enjoy your angry, fear, and paranoia. You quite deserve every bit of it. Stay
up tonight and re-read R*cketeering in M*dicine and agonize over every single
line. Agonize for all the diseases which would no longer exist IF only H*lda,
L*etrile, C*ncell, et al were met with your credulousness!

You really deserve the admiration of Jan Drew and to live with yourself.

The negative experiments as you would quote (which were inconclusive) were
repeated under supervision from Dr. Sugiura and repeated this time there
were constant with Dr. Sugiura's experiments in Sloan.
(See World without cancer.)
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And many studies replicate the results also?

No, they were negative.

Quoted message said:

And hear this I know that some negative results were poorly conducted
experiments.

See below.

Quoted message said:

(1) One that I know of was a double blind study of mice, where the

scientist

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

guessed the control group and knew the other group.
Simply because one group was showing a massive anti tumour effect.
(Therefore comically it wasn't double blind anymore, so it was

failed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as he could have been selective in the treatment of the poor mice)
(2) Another one was inconclusive because the mice had been mixed up and

both

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

groups were showing anti tumour activities.

I bet Barret's site didn't tell you that?
If you can get hold of the papers I'm sure you would verify that.
I can post the names of them if you wish?

Please post the studies. It shocks me that you knew the study had been
repeated.

By telling me that you KNEW the Sugiura studies were repeated (with

negative

Quoted message said:

results), you are telling me that you know Moss is lying about the studies
never being repeated. You are also damaging your own credibility because

YOU

Quoted message said:

claimed the studies were never repeated.

Moss was a science writer, not a scientist. He lied about his

employement,

Quoted message said:

lied about the Sugiura research not being repeated, & believes in a

mythical

Quoted message said:

bacterium that is supposedly the cause of cancer.

His credibility is Zero. His entire premise is a lie. Do you think his
conclusion is to be accepted based on that and the FACT that Laetrile had
negative results in at least 6 attempts to replicate Sugiura's results?

The only way you can believe Moss is to believe that his lies are totally
irrelevant and that everyone associated with oncology is in on a broad

sweeping

Quoted message said:

conspiracy for which they are willing to sacrifice their own family,

friends,

Quoted message said:

patients, and selves.

Quoted message said:

Anth

Quoted message said:

The negative experiments as you would quote (which were inconclusive) were
repeated under supervision from Dr. Sugiura and repeated this time there
were constant with Dr. Sugiura's experiments in Sloan.
(See World without cancer.)
Anth

I'm asking for a URL, not some oblique reference from Moss's website.
How about a URL to the studies?

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And many studies replicate the results also?

No, they were negative.

Quoted message said:

And hear this I know that some negative results were poorly conducted
experiments.