Cancer should not exist. Part 1

[rtexanssane]

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

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.

The evidence that Vitamin B17 selectively destroys cancer cells while not harming the body is overwhelming and i don't need a peer reviewed paper to prove it to me..

Then you don't believe in science. Stop trying to use science to disprove science. You probably don't even understand what peer review is or the importance of getting a paper published somewhere besides the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

The FDA's guidelines do NOT tell scientists what they may or may not research. They require that scientists use accepted experimental techniques, including double blind studies to ensure that outcomes are not skewed by observer bias. They require extensive testing on laboratory animals, followed by studies on human patients who volunteer to be part of a clinical trial.

Many respected scientists work in the field of pharmacognosy - the study of substances derived from plants and herbs. Viable cancer treatments have arisen out of such work. The FDA and the pharmaceuticals did NOT interfere with the study of Madagascar Periwinkle, substances from the Yew plant, etc.

No one studies laetrile because it has already been proven to be ineffective and dangerous. It is still around because snake oil salesmen proffer it to the dying and their families who will buy it out of desperation and ignorance.

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.

If you were to stop eating all those apricot kernels for a month, I have no doubt that you would feel better than you have in a long time. Your thinking might also clear, since you would no longer be poisoning yourself.

.

Originally Posted by marichiko

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.

That is not remotely accurate.
You cannot absorb pure, manufactured calcium without a plethora of other supplements and food to go with it, but eat a piece of spinach and you absorb an amazing percentage of the calcium contained there. Something science cannot begin to replicate.
Marinol makes 40% of the people who take it more nauseous, marijuana does not, and the list goes on.