|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
 Posted - 09/03/2006 : 12:43:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
elevate:
Did you know that chemo is only effective in 3% of patients treated?
Okay, I did a bit of looking around and actually there are some pretty impressive statistics on improvements in prognoses with chemo as and adjunctive or primary therapy. The results vary depending on the kind of cancer being treated of course, but full remission and cures are on a generally upward trend. The results of my search were listed by the type of cancer being treated so a comprehensive list would be rather time consuming. I used as my search parameter “chemo is only effective in 3% of patients treated” and chose to include the first result on the google page that came up. That would be:
stage III or C rectal cancer.
What would be helpful is if you would provide a source for your assertion that “chemo is only effective in 3% of patients treated.” Without source, your 3% is a meaningless statistic. And since you made the claim, it is incumbent upon you to back it up.
Good points in the last couple of posts, Kil. Of course, as a hematology/oncology consultant for a biotech company, I'm just the kind of biased, evil, data smothering wretch that elevate is raging against. So I guess my bias outweighs my expertise in this area.
Thanks for bringing up the points about laetrile, etc. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
 |
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 12:48:32 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I do have some love of this particular B-17, because it was effectively used for years.  |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
elevate
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 18:05:07 [Permalink]
|
Hi thanks for your comments and time to reply...
A few things... you guys are skeptics and hence it seems you dont trust people from what ive read in other threads here. You need me to post evidence of my 3% success claim for chemo, well it is true as a general statement, sure there has been some successes in one or two out of the 200 or so different forms of cancer, but generally and when the stats are averaged 3% was an accurate assesment of the overall effectiveness of chemo..
i dont recall where i read this unfortuantely and when i find it i will be sure to post it here... u can choose to trust that i really did read this or you can choose not to, up to you :)
but for now a few things...
The reason extracts and compounds from apricot and apple seeds are been tested for their anti-cancer effect is due to the widespread use of the raw unprocessed fruit as an anti-cancer treatment. So to say that there is no evidence that eating the kernels for example will work is simply not true. There is a connection there, once again its common sense to see this...
As far as the way in which b17 works, u guys have obviously not looked into the process. It is not toxic to ordinary cells because the cyanide is only released in the presence of the cancer cell where the enzyme rhodanese is NOT present.
I quote...
"B17 attacks only the cancerous cells. When B17 is eaten and absorbed by normal cells, an enzyme called rhodanese detoxifies the cyanide, which is then excreted through the urine. But because cancer cells are completely deficient in rhodanese and are instead surrounded by another enzyme, beta-glucosidase, which releases the bound cyanide from the B17 at the site of malignancy, B17 attacks only the malignant areas."
Rhodanese is present throughout the entire human body EXCEPT in cancerous cells.
This same process happens when u eat a whole apple for example. The apple flesh contains rhodanese which helps to break it down where it is not needed and the apple seeds contain the cyanide moloecularly bound and it is only released where needed at the site of the cancer. Its the same with apricot kernels. Sure if u eat a cup of apple seeds or a cup of kernels u could die from it! because u wont have enough enzyme available immediately to break it all down... you could also die if u eat a cup of salt! because the body couldnt cope with such a huge amount of salt in a short time... but we use salt every day and no ones silly enough to eat a cup of it.
Once again its common sense. Some people have died from eating massive amounts of cassava (high in B17) in countries where its the staple diet or when there was little else available to eat and thats all they had due to food shortages. Once again its common sense.
I understand medical science very well thank you. In your responses i see assumptions been made about the history of scurvvy for example without backing it up. You guys are guilty of the same assumptions that you claim I am guilty of.
But it is a relavant point i made because doctors were ridiculed back then for suggesting fruit might cure scurvvy regardless of what you guys say it was just a minor example that i made and they were called quacks even though it was obvious that fruit was working. anyway...
Some quotes from u guys...
"Pharmaceutical companies are marketing vitamins and food supplements too these days, ya know? "
--yes because they realise that they can make a lot of money if they take control over the growing demand fot vitamins and mineral products, that is the only reason. I could count on my hand the amount of people who have died from taking vitamin or supplement medicines in the last 100 years! yet every day people die from taking pharmaceutical medicines. Did u know that every day someone dies from taking paracetamol and other so called safe over the counter drugs? Did u know that pharmaceutical medicines have a terrible track record of fatal reactions and deaths. That ever |
| Edited by - elevate on 09/04/2006 18:12:14 |
|
|
|
elevate
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 18:08:14 [Permalink]
|
| did u know that pharmaceutical companies are tring to take complete control over the vitamin industry so that in the future you might need a script just to get vitamins? yup its all about control of natural resources and profits.. |
|
|
|
elevate
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 18:32:47 [Permalink]
|
| Hi there, I also forgot to add that with the specific case of B17, there has been significant profit-driven motives to not research B17 further due to the fact that people would then catch onto the idea that they could just buy apricot kernels and would have no need to buy the over priced synthetic alternative if their was one. Also since B17 was developed by a doctor who had good ethical standards and was not interested in patents or selling to a pharma company there really is no opportunity for a drug company to profit from B17 UNLESS they make their own version of it without others realising the source, but even then it would mean less profits for the cancer industry because people would always realise that the source (apricots, apple seeds)ie: the nutritonal option is the cheapest and SAFEST way to access B17 for treatment, so thats just a further note to that question you seemed to think i wouldnt have trouble answering. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 18:46:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by elevate
I understand medical science very well thank you. In your responses i see assumptions been made about the history of scurvvy for example without backing it up. You guys are guilty of the same assumptions that you claim I am guilty of.
But it is a relavant point i made because doctors were ridiculed back then for suggesting fruit might cure scurvvy regardless of what you guys say it was just a minor example that i made and they were called quacks even though it was obvious that fruit was working. anyway...
Huh? Perhaps the links I used were bad. If so, let me know. Otherwise, I can find some books on the history of medicine and cite those for you. In any case, multiple sourcs note that the Brits understood to some extent scurvey back in the late 1700s and likewise understood that eating citrus fruits prevented it.
I have yet to read of major ridicule of the British Navy from, say, 1750 to 1950 for including citrus in the diet of its sailors. Can you?
And on a side note, your posts are rather hard to digest. Perhaps you could work a bit to make them easier to follow. For instance, breaking your thoughts into smaller paragraphs, and paying attetion to capitalization and punctuation would be good.
I don't normally bother with such things-- this is an internet forum after all!-- but since your posts are rather long, I thought I'd make the suggestion. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 18:46:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by elevate
did u know that pharmaceutical companies are tring to take complete control over the vitamin industry so that in the future you might need a script just to get vitamins? yup its all about control of natural resources and profits..
That's a great conspiracy theory you have there.
Can you back it up with reliable evidence to support your claim? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 19:10:57 [Permalink]
|
Provide evidence, elevate! Not testimonials, not post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments such as a pit-eating tribe supposedly not having cancer. Peer-reviewed, scientific evidence. If you got none, shut up. I'm a guy whose Hodgkin's Lymphoma was stopped dead in its tracks by chemo in 1984. I refused to follow the woo-woo advice of a friend who told me I should not take the chemo, but do "visualization therapy" instead.
You should be more careful, elevate! If even one cancer sufferer takes your advice, you may be killing him. Don't you feel responsible for what you advise? Shame on you!
[BTW, people, the Wikipedia article, "Apricot kernels" is presently merely a collection of pro-"B17" statements, with the heading, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." This article desperately needs attention from someone in science or medicine!]
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/04/2006 19:14:32 |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 19:47:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Provide evidence, elevate! Not testimonials, not post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments such as a pit-eating tribe supposedly not having cancer. Peer-reviewed, scientific evidence. If you got none, shut up. I'm a guy whose Hodgkin's Lymphoma was stopped dead in its tracks by chemo in 1984. I refused to follow the woo-woo advice of a friend who told me I should not take the chemo, but do "visualization therapy" instead.
You should be more careful, elevate! If even one cancer sufferer takes your advice, you may be killing him. Don't you feel responsible for what you advise? Shame on you!
[BTW, people, the Wikipedia article, "Apricot kernels" is presently merely a collection of pro-"B17" statements, with the heading, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." This article desperately needs attention from someone in science or medicine!]
This guy is just a crank, frankly. And he doesn't know jack about medicine OR chemistry, let alone biology and pharmacology. But the real reason for posting this is to ask you, HalfMooner, which regimen you received. My son is undergoing his 3rd cycle of ABVD and seems to be doing well. My wife is, hopefully, on her last round of radioiodine for thyroid cancer.
Glad to know of one more person whose life was saved by chemo, contrary to what elevate thinks.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 20:00:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by elevate
Hi thanks for your comments and time to reply...
A few things... you guys are skeptics and hence it seems you dont trust people from what ive read in other threads here. You need me to post evidence of my 3% success claim for chemo, well it is true as a general statement, sure there has been some successes in one or two out of the 200 or so different forms of cancer, but generally and when the stats are averaged 3% was an accurate assesment of the overall effectiveness of chemo..
i dont recall where i read this unfortuantely and when i find it i will be sure to post it here... u can choose to trust that i really did read this or you can choose not to, up to you :)
Well, Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World (page 233), cites the spontaneous remission rate for all forms of cancer at between one in 10,000 and one in 100,000. Why, in the face of that fact (much better than your "I read it somewhere"), would you think that you couldn't possibly be one of those, and instead that your remission is due to something else? It's not like you beat one-in-a-billion odds. For every million cancer patients, between 10 and 100 of them will have a spontaneous remission of the disease. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 20:50:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Provide evidence, elevate! Not testimonials, not post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments such as a pit-eating tribe supposedly not having cancer. Peer-reviewed, scientific evidence. If you got none, shut up. I'm a guy whose Hodgkin's Lymphoma was stopped dead in its tracks by chemo in 1984. I refused to follow the woo-woo advice of a friend who told me I should not take the chemo, but do "visualization therapy" instead.
You should be more careful, elevate! If even one cancer sufferer takes your advice, you may be killing him. Don't you feel responsible for what you advise? Shame on you!
[BTW, people, the Wikipedia article, "Apricot kernels" is presently merely a collection of pro-"B17" statements, with the heading, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." This article desperately needs attention from someone in science or medicine!]
This guy is just a crank, frankly. And he doesn't know jack about medicine OR chemistry, let alone biology and pharmacology. But the real reason for posting this is to ask you, HalfMooner, which regimen you received. My son is undergoing his 3rd cycle of ABVD and seems to be doing well. My wife is, hopefully, on her last round of radioiodine for thyroid cancer.
Glad to know of one more person whose life was saved by chemo, contrary to what elevate thinks.
I got the horrible (but effective) old MOPP treatment, without added radiotherapy. You'll know what MOPP stands for, but for others, it included Mustragen (an analogue of WWI's mustard gas), Oncovin (the alkaloid vincristine from the Madagascar periwinkle), Procarbazine, and Prednisone (the powerful immunosuppressant corticosteroid).
When I got the treatment in 1984, it had already been saving lives for some 40 years. I was originally staged at Stage II, but later this was changed to Stage III. After a few gut-wrenching months of chemo (which included a heart attack and appendicitis), I never had cancer symptoms again. (Maybe because I wouldn't dare.)
Good wishes to your son and your wife! My infidel prayer-analogs are with them, and with you.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/04/2006 21:15:38 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 21:34:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by elevate
It is not toxic to ordinary cells because the cyanide is only released in the presence of the cancer cell where the enzyme rhodanese is NOT present.
Really?
quote:
The comparison between the activity of rhodanese in the normal and cancerous tissues revealed variable results; the activity was higher in the breast cancer group while it showed significantly (p<0.05) reduced activity in the lung cancer.
From: Rhodanese and Arginase Activity in Normal and Cancerous Tissues of Human Breast, Esophagus, Stomach and Lung
Akram Jamshidzadeh PharmD*, Mahmoud Aminlari PhD**•, Hamid-Reza Rasekh PhD*
Archive of Iranian medicine
quote:
Cancer tissues contain the enzyme rhodanese in amounts comparable to that of liver and kidney and hence, cannot be attacked selectively by cyanide release through beta-glucosidase action on amygdalin.
From:The case against laetrile: the fraudulent cancer remedy.
Greenberg DM.
Cancer. 1980 Feb 15;45(4):799-807.
These articles do not seem to support your assertion. You then state:
quote:
"B17 attacks only the cancerous cells. When B17 is eaten and absorbed by normal cells, an enzyme called rhodanese detoxifies the cyanide, which is then excreted through the urine. But because cancer cells are completely deficient in rhodanese and are instead surrounded by another enzyme, beta-glucosidase, which releases the bound cyanide from the B17 at the site of malignancy, B17 attacks only the malignant areas."
Rhodanese is present throughout the entire human body EXCEPT in cancerous cells.
It seems that you have quoted someone. Care to share with us who and where these quotes are from? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 05:34:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Provide evidence, elevate! Not testimonials, not post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments such as a pit-eating tribe supposedly not having cancer. Peer-reviewed, scientific evidence. If you got none, shut up. I'm a guy whose Hodgkin's Lymphoma was stopped dead in its tracks by chemo in 1984. I refused to follow the woo-woo advice of a friend who told me I should not take the chemo, but do "visualization therapy" instead.
You should be more careful, elevate! If even one cancer sufferer takes your advice, you may be killing him. Don't you feel responsible for what you advise? Shame on you!
[BTW, people, the Wikipedia article, "Apricot kernels" is presently merely a collection of pro-"B17" statements, with the heading, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." This article desperately needs attention from someone in science or medicine!]
This guy is just a crank, frankly. And he doesn't know jack about medicine OR chemistry, let alone biology and pharmacology. But the real reason for posting this is to ask you, HalfMooner, which regimen you received. My son is undergoing his 3rd cycle of ABVD and seems to be doing well. My wife is, hopefully, on her last round of radioiodine for thyroid cancer.
Glad to know of one more person whose life was saved by chemo, contrary to what elevate thinks.
I got the horrible (but effective) old MOPP treatment, without added radiotherapy. You'll know what MOPP stands for, but for others, it included Mustragen (an analogue of WWI's mustard gas), Oncovin (the alkaloid vincristine from the Madagascar periwinkle), Procarbazine, and Prednisone (the powerful immunosuppressant corticosteroid).
When I got the treatment in 1984, it had already been saving lives for some 40 years. I was originally staged at Stage II, but later this was changed to Stage III. After a few gut-wrenching months of chemo (which included a heart attack and appendicitis), I never had cancer symptoms again. (Maybe because I wouldn't dare.)
Good wishes to your son and your wife! My infidel prayer-analogs are with them, and with you.
Yeah, MOPP was brutal. You also didn't get to benefit from the outstanding anti-emetics available today. My son's regimen, ABVD,is pretty tolerable in comparison to MOPP, but still no walk in the park. My hat is off to you for just being a survivor. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 08:45:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by elevate
did u know that pharmaceutical companies are tring to take complete control over the vitamin industry so that in the future you might need a script just to get vitamins? yup its all about control of natural resources and profits..
Actually, the FDA is trying to control the quality of aforementioned vitamin suppliers due to the extreme differences in processing and content. Likewise, they are trying to reign in unscientific curative claims by the vitamin industry.
The fearmongering over needing a script for vitamins is unfounded and absurd in light of some common real medicines available over the counter without prescription that one can overdose on.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 10:45:20 [Permalink]
|
My problem with your post elevate is you make claim upon claim without citation. No links supporting your assertions and nothing at all that we can look at and evaluate. Anecdotal evidence does not really make the cut here. Please try to understand, saying you heard that 3% figure but can't remember where you heard it means absolutely nothing if we can't check it out.
I did look for it and could not find it, but at least I tried.
People make a lot of claims about cancer cures, do a lot of hand waving about how the pharmaceutical industry conspires to protect its profits, and so on. And some of those cures would probably raise the hair on the back of your neck and yet they are using precisely the same arguments that you are for why their particular favorite cure is not being considered. It is the mantra of every crackpot out there. So really, the only way to separate what you say and what they say is for you to actually provide the evidence to support your assertions.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I am aware that problems exist in the marketing of drugs. I am also aware that drug companies operate for profit. In short, I didn't just fall off the back of a turnip truck. But where there is an allegation of wrongdoing or unethical practice there also needs to be evidence for that. Not speculation based entirely on the fact that they operate for profit.
Again I will state that these alleged conspirators and their family members also get cancer. Do you really believe they prefer death over a loss in profit?
Also, it is correct to say that people who take pharmaceutics sometimes have serious and even deadly adverse reactions to them. What you miss here is the risk/benefit ratio. How many people are saved versus deaths due to treatment? How many would die without the treatment? These are important numbers when evaluating the risk of taking any drug. Including Laetrile. Simply saying that some people die taking pharmaceuticals does not come close to telling the whole story. Without the risk/benefit figures just saying people die is a meaningless statement. On the other hand, I can make that statement about Laetrile because the studies that exist do not support your assertions. You say those studies were no good but again you didn't support that allegation with anything more than your word. Why has no one bothered to do comprehensive studies in the countries where Laetrile is legal? I am baffled by that.
Anyhow, this is a science site so really, you must do better than providing anecdotes.
Also, I never accused you of arrogance. I said it is irresponsible to suggest to others that Laetrile is the way to go…
One other thing. More than you know, I would like you to be right. I would like to see cancer wiped out. And if B17 were the cure, that would be fine with me. The only ax I have to grind is when the science is really pseudoscience and the methods for evaluation efficacy, beyond what has been studied are non-existent or anecdotal.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
