The Cellar - View Single Post

rtexanssane · 04-25-2006, 04:09 PM

"I cannot argue science with a person who has no use for its techniques. You have no use for the scientific method because it disproves what you want to believe."

Untrue. The scientific method is sound but the problem is that it has been abanbdoned with reguard to Laetrile.
You did not read the interview with Dr Manner which i posted or you would know that the experiments with mice conducted by Sloan Kettering and the NCI were not scientifically sound.
Twice i have posted the link and you have all stayed clear of mentioning it so i am going to call you on it.
First of all if you are going to use mice to determine whether or not Laetrile works on humans then you need mice that develop the disease the way humans do and not mice that have cancer implanted into them in such a way that they die within 18 days.
Dr Manner was having success until he started using the mice that these institutions were using. I am going to quote you what he said after duplicating What these institutions did to their mice.

"We stopped and talked about it for several weeks. Two things emerged. One, there was the type of tumour we were using. We would buy the mice from Jackson laboratory up in Maine. These were healthy mice. They dined on Purina Lab-Chow formulated by nutritionists. I'm convinced if the American public ate like my mice we would have far less disease in this country.

Anyway, these mice came to our lab in perfect condition. Then I ordered a couple of mice with a tumour. I'd take that tumour out of those mice, put them in a little glass jar and break the tumour into free cells---then take a hypodermic needle with about a million of those cells and inject it directly into the animal's body, and they multiply. Within about 18 days they die of the tumour. So I submit to you that a human being does not get cancer that way. You don't go to a doctor and say "doctor I feel terrific", and he says, "I'll take care of that" and gives you a shot of something so you get cancer. No way does that happen. This is a transplanted tumour. This was the type of tumour we used, also Sloane Kettering and NCI."

If you read the interview further you will note That DR Harold Manner had a 90% rate once he started using mice that develop cancer in later life with whatever is happening in their bodies like humans do
and when he used the full Metabolic therapy programme as opposed to just Laetrile.

Furthermore if the experiments that these institutions used on mice had zero success then what buisness did they have starting clinical trials on humans. but did that stop them as it would in any other branch of medicine. No it did not.
Thousands of humans were used by these institutions with the same tragic results. Some of you will have heard about these experiments.

I would submit to you therefore that these institutions did not follow the same proceedure as those therapists who were having success.
Obviously if one group is having success and another is not then one of the two parties is lying or covering something up.

When Dr manner was carrying out his toxicity tests and proved the non_toxisity of Laetrile how did the FDA respond did they admit they were wrong? No, this is what they did.

"at every meeting I was opposite an FDA representative, Dr Young.....this time it was different as we had finished the toxicity studies. We had shown it to be non-toxic. This was published and sent to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and to Sloane Kettering. Then at the next legislature meeting I heard Dr Young say to the senators, "Gentlemen, the FDA cannot support the use of laetrile because it is an unsafe substance." I looked at him and said how can you say that? You have my report that it is non-toxic. Oh, I didn't say it was toxic, I said it was unsafe. So you see they are changing the definition. He said "We mean by unsafe that if a person uses it they might not use orthodox therapy", and so for this reason the FDA considers it unsafe."

Again the tests run by these institutions reported toxicity problems so again somebody is lying or covering something up.

So you see i am not using science to disprove science, i am using scientific ineptitude to demonstrate the abandonment of logic and the scientific method.

QUOTE
"The FDA's guidelines do NOT tell scientists what they may or may not research. They require that scientists use accepted experimental techniques"

And just who decides what is an accepted experimental technique?
again you miss the point.
The FDA do not need to pull the plug on any experiment. They did not need to do this with Laetrile, they simply made it a banned substance so that anyone choosing to work with it becomes discredited as a quack and is forced by peer pressure to abandon their research or lose credibility in the scientific community.
Also anyone choosing to market it becomes a "Snake oil salesman" as you so kindly put it.

QUOTE
"First of all, it doesn't matter if a substance is derived from a natural source or synthesized in the lab. Calcium is still calcium whether it comes from an oyster shell or a pharmaceutical company. If it wasn't, it would be called something else, not calcium Molecules don't care where they came from. They still follow the same laws of chemistry and physics, regardless."

Explain to me the reason for messing around with it in the first place and how do we know when the altered version is or is not being used in experiments.
If you tell me that this sort of thing goes on in scientific medical experiments
in general then you are giving me more reason than ever to mistrust organised medicine, and if you tell me that it is not a common practice then i want to know why an exception is occuring with reguard to Laetrile.
I am afraid to say that they have backed themselves into a corner on this one.

04-25-2006, 04:09 PM	#12
rtexanssane Wiseacre Emeritus Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 35	"I cannot argue science with a person who has no use for its techniques. You have no use for the scientific method because it disproves what you want to believe." Untrue. The scientific method is sound but the problem is that it has been abanbdoned with reguard to Laetrile. You did not read the interview with Dr Manner which i posted or you would know that the experiments with mice conducted by Sloan Kettering and the NCI were not scientifically sound. Twice i have posted the link and you have all stayed clear of mentioning it so i am going to call you on it. First of all if you are going to use mice to determine whether or not Laetrile works on humans then you need mice that develop the disease the way humans do and not mice that have cancer implanted into them in such a way that they die within 18 days. Dr Manner was having success until he started using the mice that these institutions were using. I am going to quote you what he said after duplicating What these institutions did to their mice. "We stopped and talked about it for several weeks. Two things emerged. One, there was the type of tumour we were using. We would buy the mice from Jackson laboratory up in Maine. These were healthy mice. They dined on Purina Lab-Chow formulated by nutritionists. I'm convinced if the American public ate like my mice we would have far less disease in this country. Anyway, these mice came to our lab in perfect condition. Then I ordered a couple of mice with a tumour. I'd take that tumour out of those mice, put them in a little glass jar and break the tumour into free cells---then take a hypodermic needle with about a million of those cells and inject it directly into the animal's body, and they multiply. Within about 18 days they die of the tumour. So I submit to you that a human being does not get cancer that way. You don't go to a doctor and say "doctor I feel terrific", and he says, "I'll take care of that" and gives you a shot of something so you get cancer. No way does that happen. This is a transplanted tumour. This was the type of tumour we used, also Sloane Kettering and NCI." If you read the interview further you will note That DR Harold Manner had a 90% rate once he started using mice that develop cancer in later life with whatever is happening in their bodies like humans do and when he used the full Metabolic therapy programme as opposed to just Laetrile. Furthermore if the experiments that these institutions used on mice had zero success then what buisness did they have starting clinical trials on humans. but did that stop them as it would in any other branch of medicine. No it did not. Thousands of humans were used by these institutions with the same tragic results. Some of you will have heard about these experiments. I would submit to you therefore that these institutions did not follow the same proceedure as those therapists who were having success. Obviously if one group is having success and another is not then one of the two parties is lying or covering something up. When Dr manner was carrying out his toxicity tests and proved the non_toxisity of Laetrile how did the FDA respond did they admit they were wrong? No, this is what they did. "at every meeting I was opposite an FDA representative, Dr Young.....this time it was different as we had finished the toxicity studies. We had shown it to be non-toxic. This was published and sent to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and to Sloane Kettering. Then at the next legislature meeting I heard Dr Young say to the senators, "Gentlemen, the FDA cannot support the use of laetrile because it is an unsafe substance." I looked at him and said how can you say that? You have my report that it is non-toxic. Oh, I didn't say it was toxic, I said it was unsafe. So you see they are changing the definition. He said "We mean by unsafe that if a person uses it they might not use orthodox therapy", and so for this reason the FDA considers it unsafe." Again the tests run by these institutions reported toxicity problems so again somebody is lying or covering something up. So you see i am not using science to disprove science, i am using scientific ineptitude to demonstrate the abandonment of logic and the scientific method. QUOTE "The FDA's guidelines do NOT tell scientists what they may or may not research. They require that scientists use accepted experimental techniques" And just who decides what is an accepted experimental technique? again you miss the point. The FDA do not need to pull the plug on any experiment. They did not need to do this with Laetrile, they simply made it a banned substance so that anyone choosing to work with it becomes discredited as a quack and is forced by peer pressure to abandon their research or lose credibility in the scientific community. Also anyone choosing to market it becomes a "Snake oil salesman" as you so kindly put it. QUOTE "First of all, it doesn't matter if a substance is derived from a natural source or synthesized in the lab. Calcium is still calcium whether it comes from an oyster shell or a pharmaceutical company. If it wasn't, it would be called something else, not calcium Molecules don't care where they came from. They still follow the same laws of chemistry and physics, regardless." Explain to me the reason for messing around with it in the first place and how do we know when the altered version is or is not being used in experiments. If you tell me that this sort of thing goes on in scientific medical experiments in general then you are giving me more reason than ever to mistrust organised medicine, and if you tell me that it is not a common practice then i want to know why an exception is occuring with reguard to Laetrile. I am afraid to say that they have backed themselves into a corner on this one.