The Cellar - View Single Post

rtexanssane · 04-25-2006, 07:30 AM

I have just found out that there is a manmade version of Laetrile which goes under the same name.
I wonder which version was used in the experiments that showed Laetrile to be ineffective.
I find this appaling. nowhere else in medical science have i seen a manmade version of a natural treatment that is allowed to be passed off as the real thing.
How can the law allow people to be deceived in this way. It should not be allowed to carry the same name if it is not the same substance.
I knew from what Marichiko said that there were two versions of it, but i would never have guessed that the other version was manmade. If i had said that myself i would be further accused of promoting a conspiracy theory.
So i thought i would use something which is not printed by the proponents of Laetrile.

Here is the article.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/co...x_Laetrile.asp

04-25-2006, 07:30 AM	#5
rtexanssane Wiseacre Emeritus Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 35	I have just found out that there is a manmade version of Laetrile which goes under the same name. I wonder which version was used in the experiments that showed Laetrile to be ineffective. I find this appaling. nowhere else in medical science have i seen a manmade version of a natural treatment that is allowed to be passed off as the real thing. How can the law allow people to be deceived in this way. It should not be allowed to carry the same name if it is not the same substance. I knew from what Marichiko said that there were two versions of it, but i would never have guessed that the other version was manmade. If i had said that myself i would be further accused of promoting a conspiracy theory. So i thought i would use something which is not printed by the proponents of Laetrile. Here is the article. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/co...x_Laetrile.asp