Cure found for cancer?

[Aliantha]

I've been having a think about this thread over the last couple of days and I wanted to put something to the other members besides annoyedsas.

Can you imagine how you'd feel if you did indeed have cancer? If so, if you thought you had a cure for it, don't you think you'd want to tell the world? And if it came to that and someone tried to tell you that your idea is loopy, don't you think that your reaction would be hostile simply because when you're facing death head on and someone tells you that the exit door you have in mind isn't working, you either have to go ahead and try it for yourself, or accept that there's no point and simply give up.

Which would you choose?

For my mind, I'd say if I had to choose one or the other, I'd keep charging forward, and I'm pretty sure most other people would choose that option also. This leads me to the real point of this post.

Where's the compassion? Maybe you think the particular poster is a crank or a loony, but what if he/she is not? What if this person is fair dinkum? How will you feel if your negativity causes him/her to go along with your line of thinking and they start to doubt their own treatment which leads to their death? Who can really say what might or might not cure cancer?

It seems to me there's a lot of grey area still with that particular disease, and if someone finds something that works for them, then anyone associated should either be supportive or back off, just as with cancer you either live or die. 90% of the cure is in the mind anyway, but then, that's just my opinion.

[Undertoad]

If we really want to cure cancer, we can't afford that sort of compassion, where someone is entitled to be thought of as possibly more correct simply because they have the disease.

Thousands of other diseases are no longer such mysteries and are no longer killers because we applied good science to the problem. Cancer is no longer the certain killer that it once was because we applied good science to the problem.

It seems harsh and thoughtless to tell a victim s/he is wrong. But the very worst thing that we can do is to start taking anecdotal cases seriously out of compassion. If we do, we will create more victims by pushing bad science.

It is important for us to be active participants in our own health. But when we do we should approach the problem with relentless proven facts. If the medical system fails us because it is an economic disaster, we should not abandon the medical science that was developed despite the system.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kim

I have been researching Vitamin B-17 and have followed many stories who have cured themselves from cancer. This can't be coincidental.

Yes it can. Does every cancer patient who takes B17 survive cancer? Does every cancer patient who doesn't take B17 die of cancer? If the answer to either of those questions is no, then the stories are worthless - there are other stories you aren't looking for that have B17-takers dying or non-B17-takers recovering. You need a scientific study to determine whether the B17 increases the chances of recovery or not.

You can't patent a fruit, a seed or a vitamin.

Yes you can. Not that I think you should be able to, but you can. And even if there is a non-patentable but good source, non-patented medicine is a huge business as well.

This would be the end to a multi-billion dollar business worldwide.

How about the "alternative medicine" business? They make billions, too, and they don't even have to spend any of it on research. Just marketing.

But more directly - a study of B17 would be easy. It wouldn't require the resources of a huge pharmaceutical giant. A tenured professor at a medical school could get a grant from any number of sources and do it himself. If he finds a cure, he gets a Nobel prize, almost guaranteed. Whatever school he is affiliated with becomes the school that cured cancer.

edit - ah, well. so long Kim.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

edit - ah, well. so long Kim.

I saw it too. Kim deleted her post.

[Undertoad]

Putting a link in your first post is specifically mentioned as not permitted in the registration process. Kim included several.

[glatt]

That 'splains it. Cool.

[Happy Monkey]

One further thing about the economics of cancer cures - if there were a cheap, effective cure for cancer, there would be an eonomic boom! Just think of all the products and activities that turned out to be carcinogenic!

I'm telling you, only the extremely rich and powerful would have access to it.

[Pie]

I think I may be in a unique position to comment on this thread.

My father has cancer. He was diagnosed with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in July of 2001. It is an incurable disease. Some people survive for decades with it, and some die within a year or two. He has one of the more aggresive subtypes, with a median survival of five years.

In response to his diagnosis, my mother (a PhD chemist) went on a learning binge. She studied till her eyes were bleeding. Then she started posting on ACOR and talking with the experts. She soon started her own yahoo! group (clltopics). When that became too unwieldy, she and my dad started Clltopics.org, a non-profit patient information and advocacy site.

They are currently fundraising for their second clinical trial with the Mayo Clinic. Their first clinical trial is actually targeted at exactly the type of non-pharmaceutical that Annoyed is so hung up on. EGCG does show promise as an anti-cancer agent, and the folks involved are putting up their own hard-earned cash ($129,784.06 in donations, so far) to prove it in a clinical setting.

Instead of hard and fast proven data, Annoyed gives us "vitamin B17". a 5-minute search of the web turns it up at Quackwatch (emphasis is mine):

Laetrile

Laetrile, which achieved great notoriety during the 1970s and early 1980s, is the trade name for a synthetic relative of amygdalin, a chemical in the kernels of apricot pits, apple seeds, bitter almonds, and some other stone fruits and nuts. Many laetrile promoters have called it "vitamin B17" and falsely claimed that cancer is a vitamin deficiency disease that laetrile can cure. Claims for laetrile's efficacy have varied considerably [39]. First it was claimed to prevent and cure cancer. Then it was claimed not to cure, but to "control" cancer while giving patients an increased feeling of well being. More recently, laetrile has been claimed to be effective, not by itself, but as one component of "metabolic therapy" (described below).

Laetrile was first used to treat cancer patients in California in the 1950s. According to proponents, it kills tumor cells selectively while leaving normal cells alone. Although laetrile has been promoted as safe and effective, clinical evidence indicates that it is neither [40]. When subjected to enzymatic breakdown in the body, it forms glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide [41]. Some cancer patients treated with laetrile have suffered nausea, vomiting, headache and dizziness, and a few have died from cyanide poisoning. Laetrile has been tested in at least 20 animal tumor models and found to have no benefit either alone or together with other substances. Several case reviews have found no benefit for the treatment of cancer in humans.

In response to political pressure, a clinical trial was begun in 1982 by the Mayo Clinic and three other U.S. cancer centers under NCI sponsorship. Laetrile and "metabolic therapy" were administered as recommended by their promoters. The patients had advanced cancer for which no proven treatment was known. Of 178 patients, not one was cured or stabilized, and none had any lessening of any cancer-related symptoms. The median survival rate was about five months from the start of therapy. In those still alive after seven months, tumor size had increased. Several patients experienced symptoms of cyanide toxicity or had blood levels of cyanide approaching the lethal range [42].

In 1975, a class action suit was filed to stop the FDA from interfering with the sale and distribution of laetrile. Early in the case, a federal district court judge in Oklahoma issued orders allowing cancer patients to import a six-month supply of laetrile for personal use if they could obtain a physician's affidavit that they were "terminal." In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is not possible to be certain who is terminal and that even if it were possible, both terminally ill patients and the general public deserve protection from fraudulent cures. In 1987, after further appeals were denied, the district judge (a strong proponent of laetrile) finally yielded to the higher courts and terminated the affidavit system [39]. Few sources of laetrile are now available within the United States, but it still is utilized at several Mexican clinics.

So, Annoyed, tell me again... Why should we believe you? WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC, CLINICAL PROOF?

Fuck off and die.

[Kimberley]

What?? You had to ban me from your forum and delete my message?? Shame on you!

Anyways, let me clarify some things here:

Yes it can. Does every cancer patient who takes B17 survive cancer? Does every cancer patient who doesn't take B17 die of cancer? If the answer to either of those questions is no, then the stories are worthless - there are other stories you aren't looking for that have B17-takers dying or non-B17-takers recovering. You need a scientific study to determine whether the B17 increases the chances of recovery or not.

Yes you can. Not that I think you should be able to, but you can. And even if there is a non-patentable but good source, non-patented medicine is a huge business as well.

NO, YOU CANNOT PATENT A FRUIT OR VITAMIN! And no not EVERY person who takes Vitamin B17 survives cancer. For one thing, if they have already had chemo and radiation there body has already been attacked and of course this depends on how much the cancer has spread.

How about the "alternative medicine" business? They make billions, too, and they don't even have to spend any of it on research. Just marketing.

But more directly - a study of B17 would be easy. It wouldn't require the resources of a huge pharmaceutical giant. A tenured professor at a medical school could get a grant from any number of sources and do it himself. If he finds a cure, he gets a Nobel prize, almost guaranteed. Whatever school he is affiliated with becomes the school that cured cancer.

They have done studies on Vitamin B17. Hey! It took more than 200 hundred years for people to believe that Vitamin C can get rid of Scurvy.

Alternative medicine is big business and WILL GET EVEN BIGGER! They are the people who are trying to advocate alternative methods to cancer. Hey! I have had 3 people in my family who have gone through chemo therapy so I know first hand who the hell they can do to your system! I also have another family member who more recently opted for alternative and is still alive 4 years later when she was told she would be dead within a year!!! Geez, was SHE the crazy one here!! And no, not everyone who tries alternative therapy can cure themselves from cancer just as a triple bypass surgery doesn't always cure everyone who has a heart problem!!

I think you better do your research here because it sounds as though you don't know too much about anything!

edit - ah, well. so long Kim.

Yea, so long!! What? You are going to delete this message again!! For some reason you people don't like knowing the truth.


Whatever!

[Undertoad]

As I explained twice to you in private mail already, and once in this thread, you cannot post a link on your first message, and the registration process that you have been through twice now, explains that quite clearly.

B17 advocacy, brought to you by those with no reading comprehension skills. It's no coincidence.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kimberley

NO, YOU CANNOT PATENT A FRUIT OR VITAMIN!

Tell that to Montsano. I wish you were correct. In fact, I wish you were correct about the whole thing. But wishing isn't enough.

And no not EVERY person who takes Vitamin B17 survives cancer.

Thanks. So the answer to at least one of the questions is no. Therefore, testimonials are worthless. Testimonials only refer to a single case, and there's no way to tell whether that individual would have survived without the B17. That's why you need a) a large sample size, b) a control group, c) a placebo group, and d) double-blind procedures.

They have done studies on Vitamin B17.

And the studies showed no beneficial effect. I suppose you could keep testing for 200 years, and hope the results change.

Alternative medicine is big business and WILL GET EVEN BIGGER!

No doubt. They're corporations, just as amoral as the pharmaceutical industry, and unhindered by research budgets or FDA regulation. They'll roll in dough.

And no, not everyone who tries alternative therapy can cure themselves from cancer just as a triple bypass surgery doesn't always cure everyone who has a heart problem!!

You misunderstood my point. I was saying that there will be survivors and nonsurvivors in any case, so individual stories don't give any useful information.

Just remember that the "alternative" in "alternative medicine" means "unproven."

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I'm telling you, only the extremely rich and powerful would have access to it.

What, you don't think a mining company would love to reduce medical and training costs by dosing their employees? Or power plants? Big Tobacco would jump at the chance to put it in cigarrettes or, if that's not possible, make it available over the counter. Aspartame manufacturers, too. There are all sorts of big businesses that would benefit from a cheap and effective cancer cure.

You really think it will be inexpensive?

[Happy Monkey]

No, I think that when a cancer cure is discovered, it will be the results of millions of dollars in research and a difficult and expensive manufacturing process. It will be expensive during the length of its patent, especially because of the large number of current patients who would want it. Eventually it would get cheaper with the introduction of generics and the increase of manufacturing capability.

But I think that because I don't think it is as easy as eating apricot pits. If an easy and cheap cancer cure were proven, there would be plenty of big-money sources that would benefit from its success. "Alternative medicine" isn't a victim of corporate deceit; it is a perpetrator.