# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Proof that Vitamin B17 cured Cancer

## Magicman

*http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Industr.../dp/1881025098

This book is an expose by Ralph Moss who was a whistleblower who found laetrile to work for Cancer and he was in a primary leading job position at the Sloan-Kettering Institute, a front research organization for the American Cancer Society, the leading Cancer Institute in America, which is used to discredit alternative therapy and in most cases orthomolecular medicine. Ross was told to lie about the results, his conscience made him leave the job and he told Edward Griffin, author and videoclip of the World Without Cancer.*



The Sloan-Kettering) Cover-up 

Ralph W. Moss gives an excellent overview of the political and scientific controversy that has surrounded laetrile in his book The Cancer Industry. He states, "Although spokespersons for orthodox medicine continue to deny that there have been any animal study data in favor of laetrile, this is contradicted by a number of studies, including—but not limited to—those at Sloan-Kettering." (15) 

Moss should know, because he was discharged by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center when he revealed an apparent cover-up by authorities at Sloan-Kettering of positive findings about laetrile. 

Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura 

In the 1960s Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, one of the world's most widely known and most highly respected cancer research scientists, officially retired from Sloan-Kettering. He continued to carry out cancer research as an emeritus associate. Ten years after his official retirement, officials at Sloan-Kettering asked Dr. Sugiura to begin testing laetrile. 

Researchers at Sloan-Kettering had already found laetrile to be ineffective in animal models with transplanted tumors. However, Dr. Sugiura pointed out that laetrile could not be expected to be effective against transplanted tumors. 

Dr. Sugiura's research showed that laetrile had a substantial effect on inhibiting the growth of secondary tumors in mice, although it did not destroy the primary tumors. He also reported that some of his studies showed that laetrile can produce a 60-percent reduction in lung metastases. The laetrile-treated mice appeared healthier and more active than the saline-treated controls. This would support some of the claims that laetrile can improve the quality of a patient's life. 

Dr. Richard Passwater also reported that some of the positive findings in Sloan-Kettering's laetrile studies were selectively not reported. Also, it appears that some of the laetrile research was deliberately designed to fail. (18) 

Controversy and Confusion 

According to Ralph Moss, who worked at Sloan-Kettering for several years before being discharged, five years of testing laetrile at Sloan-Kettering ended in controversy and confusion—not a pleasing outcome for the leaders of the world's most prestigious private cancer center. In summary, about twenty experiments with laetrile produced positive results, while only a few experiments produced negative findings. 

The contradictory findings and the controversy surrounding laetrile was creating a problem at Sloan-Kettering. A group of dissenters within Sloan-Kettering, who called themselves Second Opinion, wrote a memo on the subject of releasing results of the laetrile research: 

If on the one hand, they publish the truth about laetrile, they will have to say something like this: we have been unable to reach any definitive conclusion on this substance. Dr. Sugiura, one of the most experienced researchers, has done many studies showing positive effects. Other researchers have claimed negative results. We think this issue can only be settled through a study on willing human volunteers with cancer, and we would like to conduct such a study here at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. 

That would be honest, but it would also be disastrous from a fund-raising point of view, since it would bring down the wrath of the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute, from whom MSKCC receives most of its research funds, not to mention the Food and Drug Administration.... 

The other choice is to publish a totally one-sided report. ... This is the most likely prospect.... (15) 

There was increasing pressure on Sloan-Kettering to release their findings on laetrile. 

Sloan-Kettering's Laetrile Report 

Finally, at a press conference in June 1977, Sloan-Kettering officials announced to the world the results of over five years of laetrile research. The verdict on laetrile from the respected laboratories of the world's most prestigious cancer research center turned out to be completely one-sided and negative. 

Some of the comments by Sloan-Kettering's top administrators at the laetrile press conference (13) were: 

We have no evidence that laetrile possesses any biological activity with respect to cancer, one way or the other.  —Lewis Thomas, president of Sloan-Kettering 

We have no reproducible evidence that amygdalin, or laetrile, is active. —Robert Good, director of Sloan-Kettering 

Laetrile has been found absolutely devoid of activity, period. —Daniel Martin, prominent cancer researcher 

Essentially, laetrile was pronounced completely ineffective in treating cancer, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. 

Worldwide Research 

Research has continued in other countries, where the PDA and NCI have much less influence. Dr. David Rubin of Israel has reported using high dosages of laetrile (70 gm/day) and getting good results with breast cancer and bone cancer patients, though leukemia patients did not respond. (19) 

Dr. Manuel D. Navarro, professor of medicine and surgery at the University of Santo Tomas in the Philippines, is one of the world's leading advocates of laetrile. In 1962 he presented a paper at the Eighth International Cancer Congress, describing several case histories and reporting that much higher doses of laetrile than previously used were proving to be much more effective. (16) 

HCI Studies 

In 1978 the National Cancer Institute published the results of a retrospective case review oflaetrile-treated cancer patients, asking for documented case histories of patients who had benefited from laetrile. (3) However, the selection criteria were so strict that almost all the reports were rejected and the study was inconclusive. 

Despite these disappointing results, NCI decided to proceed with prospective clinical trials, which were conducted by the Mayo Clinic. After a Phase I trial examining dosage and toxicity, a Phase II trial, involving 178 patients with advanced cancers, was conducted. This study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1982, claimed that laetrile was ineffective as a treatment for cancer. (14) 

Laetrile advocates pointed out that many of the patients selected for the trial (66 percent) had already been subjected to toxic chemotherapy. Another important question involved the quality of the laetrile being used in the study. In an effort to ensure a proper trial, one of the clinics using laetrile offered to provide free laetrile of known quality for the study. This offer was refused. Dr. James Cason of the University of California at Berkeley reportedly tested the substance used in the NCI study and found that it did not contain any amygdalin (laetrile). (18) 

Robert Bradford, founder of the Committee for Freedom of Choice, stated, "The whole thing, as far as we are concerned, is a put-up to discredit laetrile." At this time it appears laetrile has not yet received a fair, unbiased trial. 

Current Status 

Laetrile therapy is one of the first alternative cancer therapies that tended to polarize the emotional issue of freedom of choice for Americans in health care. It became a fight between the "quacks" and the medical establishment. 

Laetrile is one of the naturally occurring substances that cannot be patented, making it a true orphan drug. No drug company is interested in committing money to research laetrile's potential. The only answer is good, unbiased government-sponsored research without the type of controversy that accompanied the Sloan-Kettering studies. 

Another problem with setting up appropriate research studies is that laetrile is not meant to be a stand-alone therapy. Proponents of laetrile have always emphasized that it is effective only when used in conjunction with a healthy diet, pancreatic enzymes, and nutritional supplements. 

There are thousands of patients who have been treated with laetrile in the past thirty years or so. I have personally met many individuals who claim that laetrile was primarily responsible for curing them or one of their family members. However, it must be emphasized that anecdotal evidence is not scientific proof. 

Some alternative cancer clinics use laetrile regularly and claim to have a steady stream of patients who respond well. On the other hand, there do not appear to be overwhelming numbers of laetrile-cured cancer patients. It seems that laetrile has become just one of many ingredients in holistic cancer treatment programs. 

The published research seems to indicate that laetrile does have a role to play. It is probably more effective with early-stage cancers rather than with terminally ill patients. It is apparently more effective when used together with other factors. In summary, laetrile may be beneficial when properly administered in a complete treatment program, but it is not the miracle cancer cure that its early proponents hoped it would be. 

Side Effects and Toxicity 

There have been reports of death and illness in children who took laetrile tablets accidentally. (1, 5) However, these incidents are not the result of therapeutic administration of the drug. There are also reports of muscular weakness and respiratory difficulties in patients taking laetrile. (20) Usually these side effects are seen in patients who6 self-administer excessively high doses or who directly consume apricot kernels, which can be quite toxic. (6) 

Oral laetrile is converted to cyanide in the intestines by bacteria. Intravenous laetrile, in the most common form of administration, appears not to lead to the uncommon side effect of cyanide toxicity. (3) 

On the whole, cyanide poisoning does not appear to be a major problem in laetrile therapy. Some patients have reported experiencing occasional episodes of toxemia, such as weakness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and fever. It is believed that these symptoms are related to the patient's impaired ability to dispose of the toxic products, as a result of tumor breakdown. In any case, no one should take laetrile without appropriate supervision and monitoring.

----------


## Magicman

*Case Studies that proved Laetrile's effectiveness in Cancer
*

Animal Studies 

In a study sponsored by the McNaughton Foundation in San Ysidro, California, laetrile was injected into laboratory animals intraperitoneally in dosages of 500 mg/kg. The mean survival time of the laetrile-treated animals was 70 percent longer than that of the controls. This research was reported at Senate subcommittee hearings on laetrile in July 1977. (21) In addition, studies conducted at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, using a mouse model with adenocarcinoma, showed that laetrile-treated mice survived over twice as long as the control mice. (15) 

The Manner Studies 

In September 1977 Dr. Harold W. Manner, chairman of the Department of Biology at Loyola University in Chicago, released to the world the results of some remarkable laetrile research. In mice prone to developing breast cancer, Dr. Manner found that laetrile in combination with vitamin A and pancreatic enzymes produced a very high cure rate. Of eighty-four treated mice, seventy-five underwent complete regression of mammary tumors, while the other nine mice showed partial regression. (10) 

Dr. Manner has often been criticized for announcing the results of his research publicly instead of waiting for publication in a scientific journal. Peer-reviewed journal publication can often take as long as eighteen months, and Dr. Manner reportedly felt that this information was so important that he decided to bypass the time delay required for scientific publication and to break the story publicly.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

I always thought it was weird that people call it "vitamin B17" when it's not a vitamin, but I digress.  I hear the stuff is very dangerous, but then again, so is cancer.  So is radiation, for that matter.  If I were staring death in the face, I'd probably let a doctor give it to me.

----------


## Magicman

> I always thought it was weird that people call it "vitamin B17" when it's not a vitamin, but I digress.  I hear the stuff is very dangerous, but then again, so is cancer.  So is radiation, for that matter.  If I were staring death in the face, I'd probably let a doctor give it to me.


You're parroting another false misconception created by the FDA. All of their claims have been proven untrue and not substantiated. Do you honestly think a substance that comes from an apricot seed would be highly toxic? Did you know food stores in Europe carry apricot seeds and at no time has there ever been an epidemic of deaths associated with apricot seeds that cause Laetrile. Also, this article helps clear up that misconception.



> http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/lae...ndcyanide.html
> 
> Laetrile and the Life Saving Substance Called Cyanide
> by Philip Binzel, Jr., M.D.
> 
> A doctor from the U.S. FDA once said that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide and, thus, is toxic. I would like to correct that misconception:
> 
> There is no "free" hydrogen cyanide in Laetrile. When Laetrile comes in contact with the enzyme beta-glucosidase, the Laetrile is broken down to form two molecules of glucose, one molecule of benzaldehyde and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide (HCN). Within the body, the cancer cell-and only the cancer cell-contains that enzyme. The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It is not floating around freely in the Laetrile and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme beta glucosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable of manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there are no cancer cells in the body, there is no beta-glucosidase. If there is no beta-glucosidase, no HCN will be formed from the Laetrile (1).
> 
> ...

----------


## kah13176

> Do you honestly think a substance that comes from an apricot seed would be highly toxic?


Well, apple seeds have arsenic.  Do you honestly think a substance that comes from apple seeds could be toxic?

Flawed logic, though I don't know anything about this B17 stuff.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Well, apple seeds have *arsenic*.  Do you honestly think a substance that comes from apple seeds could be toxic?
> 
> Flawed logic, though I don't know anything about this B17 stuff.


Actually, that's cyanide.  

I've eaten seven apricot kernals every day for years and never had any problem with cyanide poisoning.   That's right, apple seeds have B-17 in them too.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> Well, apple seeds have arsenic.  Do you honestly think a substance that comes from apple seeds could be toxic?
> 
> Flawed logic, though I don't know anything about this B17 stuff.


Damn, beat me to it.  However, they have cyanide, not arsenic.

----------


## Magicman

This video is explaining the ridiculous false conceptions of seeds in fruits. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q51waJJ5D9c

----------


## Birdlady

B17 is what's in apple seeds too. You are all talking about the same thing. Chemo is poison and toxic and people don't even question it. Why? Because the god in the white coat says it's ok.

Now if you also ask these same types of questions when it comes to chemo, then great! However if you aren't, and you would blindly accept chemo as a treatment yet discredit something natural, then you are only biased due to conditioning from the medical industrial complex. 




> Do you honestly think a substance that comes from an apricot seed would be highly toxic?


Strawman argument. I agree with you on this topic, but when you say something like this it discredits your other info.

----------


## Magicman

> Actually, that's cyanide.  
> 
> I've eaten seven apricot kernals every day for years and never had any problem with cyanide poisoning.   That's right, apple seeds have B-17 in them too.



That is true, the people on this site are falling for scare tactics if B-17 was so highly toxic like Shaneenochs' said we would have a world crisis in recalled food and many people would be sick. It's obvious the FDA saw that B-17 worked and then they falsified documents. 

Here is all the foods that contain B-17 if it was toxic you would know that there would be a lot of naysayers in the food industry.




> In addition, there are many foods that contain Vitamin B17. These include: Apple seeds, alfalfa sprouts, apricot kernels, bamboo shoots, barley, beet tops, bitter almond, blackberries, boysenberries, brewer’s yeast, brown rice, buckwheat, cashews, cherry kernels, cranberries, currants, fava beans, flax seeds, garbanzo beans, gooseberries, huckleberries, lentils, lima beans, linseed meat, loganberries, macadamia nuts, millet, millet seed, peach kernels, pecans, plum kernels, quince, raspberries, sorghum cane syrup, spinach, sprouts (alfalfa, lentil, mung bean, buckwheat, garbanzo), strawberries, walnuts, watercress, yams.

----------


## Magicman

> B17 is what's in apple seeds too. You are all talking about the same thing. Chemo is poison and toxic and people don't even question it. Why? Because the god in the white coat says it's ok.
> 
> Now if you also ask these same types of questions when it comes to chemo, then great! However if you aren't, and you would blindly accept chemo as a treatment yet discredit something natural, then you are only biased due to conditioning from the medical industrial complex. 
> 
> 
> Strawman argument. I agree with you on this topic, but when you say something like this it discredits your other info.




Actually no it doesn't discredit my other info because of the last thing I wrote which proves that logic.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> That is true, the people on this site are falling for scare tactics if B-17 was so highly toxic like Shaneenochs' said we would have a world crisis in recalled food and many people would be sick. It's obvious the FDA saw that B-17 worked and then they falsified documents. 
> 
> Here is all the foods that contain B-17 if it was toxic you would know that there would be a lot of naysayers in the food industry.


Now hold on a second.  All I said was that I _heard_ that it's dangerous.  I also said that chemo is dangerous, and that if I had cancer and given the option, I'd be fine with taking B17.  Don't make me out to be a fearmonger.

I have no expertise, and very, very limited knowledge on the subject.  I was just throwing my opinion in the ring, not trying to invalidate your information.

----------


## donnay

*World Without Cancer - By G. Edward Griffin*

----------


## Magicman

*G. Edward Griffin received documents from Ralph Moss the whistleblower behind the B-17 sham at the Sloane-Kettering Cancer Institute. (A front organization for the American Cancer Society, the institute which forces chemo, surgery and radiation on all Cancer patients and attacks alternative therapy)*







> *World Without Cancer - By G. Edward Griffin*


"G. Edward Griffin's research evolved into his groundbreaking book, World Without Cancer. This book not only explained laetrile and chronicled several cancer cures, but Griffin's investigative nose led him down the rabbit hole and into the underbelly of the cancer industry's efforts at keeping alternative cancer cures from the light of day. That's how he discovered that the Sloane-Kettering Cancer Institute had buried documentation from scientists' research, which proved laetrile was "highly effective" at curing cancer.

Griffin received those documents himself from a *Dr. Ralph Moss*, who had been told to cover up that evidence and claim that laetrile was worthless. He refused and left his position as PR manager with Sloane-Kettering. Since that time in 1977, Dr. Ralph Moss has gone on to write or edit several books on cancer cure options. It's always encouraging to see an insider come out! Someone else filled Dr. Moss's vacant position and lied the lies about laetrile that filled the medical journals."


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/027088_ca...#ixzz1gBAFQkGh

----------


## PatriotOne

> Actually, that's cyanide.  
> 
> I've eaten seven apricot kernals every day for years and never had any problem with cyanide poisoning.   That's right, apple seeds have B-17 in them too.


Serious question.  How does one prepare an apricot seed to eat?

----------


## donnay

> Serious question.  How does one prepare an apricot seed to eat?


The apricot pit has a seed inside it.  You crack it open (I use a meat mallet) and it looks like an almond.  They call it a bitter almond.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Serious question.  How does one prepare an apricot seed to eat?


I buy mine by the pound from the local health food store.   They have already been shelled and are ready to eat.
Saving apricot pits and cracking them is too much work for me.

----------


## PatriotOne

> The apricot pit has a seed inside it.  You crack it open (I use a meat mallet) and it looks like an almond.  They call it a bitter almond.


Ahhhhh.  Did not know there was a seed inside.  Thought the pit was the seed .  Thanks.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I buy mine by the pound from the local health food store.   They have already been shelled and are ready to eat.
> Saving apricot pits and cracking them is too much work for me.


Sounds like a good option unless one has some frustrations to release.  I can totally see myself using a mallet on a pit while envisioning it is, say, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh or ????? .

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Serious question.  How does one prepare an apricot seed to eat?


Just don't eat too many- they do contain cyanide too- or rather an enzyme the body converts into cyanide. 


http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supple...RICOT%20KERNEL


> Apricot kernel is the inner part of the seed of the apricot fruit. The kernel is used to produce oil and other chemicals used for medicinal purposes.
> 
>  Despite serious safety concerns, apricot kernel is used for treating cancer. It is taken by mouth or given as an injection.
> 
> 
> 
> How does it work?
> 
> Apricot kernel contains a toxic chemical known as amygdalin. In the body this chemical is converted to cyanide, which is poisonous. There was interest in using apricot kernel to fight cancer because it was thought that amygdalin was taken up first by cancer cells and converted to cyanide. It was hoped that the cyanide would harm only the tumor. But research has shown that this is not true. The amygdalin is actually converted to cyanide in the stomach. The cyanide then goes throughout the body, where it can cause serious harm, including death.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> Ahhhhh.  Did not know there was a seed inside.  Thought the pit was the seed .  Thanks.


Don't feel bad.  I thought the pits of fruit were seeds as well.

Do peaches have seeds in their pits?

----------


## Magicman

> Just don't eat too many- they do contain cyanide too- or rather an enzyme the body converts into cyanide. 
> 
> 
> http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supple...RICOT%20KERNEL


I wish you would stop parroting pharmaceutical-based journals like WebMD which are intellectually dishonest and have no interest in orthomolecular theory. There is even a New York Times article on it being a shill for Big Pharma. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/ma...r=1&ref=health

The dishonest article from WebMD, begins by not thoroughly explaining that nutrient B17 dense foods other then apricots are used standardly in society, and it also neglects the fact that Vitamin B-12 pills contain Vitamin B-17. Where are all of the deaths? The pharmaceutical industry came up with 3 obscure deaths that weren't even substantiated. You would think if something is so prevalent in society that we would all have a clue about the dangers of it. 

It is IMPOSSIBLE for cyanide to go throughout the body and be 'unlocked' to cause harm like the article states because if that were true then all the countless foods that contain cyanide would be recalled off of the shelves and would be considered poisonous. 

This is a much better explanation that is not biased:




> In order for the cyanide to become dangerous it is first necessary to 'unlock' the molecule to release it, a trick that can only be performed by an enzyme called beta-glucosidase. This enzyme is present all over the body in minute quantities, but in huge quantities (up to 100 times as high) at cancerous tumor sites.
> 
> Thus the cyanide is released only at the cancer site with drastic results which become utterly devastating to the cancer cells because the benzaldehyde unit also unlocks at the same time. Benzaldehyde is a deadly poison in its own right, which then acts synergistically with the cyanide to produce a poison 100 times more deadly than either in isolation. The combined effect on the cancer cells is best left to the imagination.
> 
> But what about danger to the rest of the body's cells?
> 
> Another enzyme, rhodanese, always present in larger quantities than the unlocking enzyme beta-glucosidase in healthy tissues has the easy ability to completely break down both cyanide and benzaldehyde into beneficial body products. Predictably perhaps, malignant cancer cells contain no rhodanese at all, leaving them completely at the mercy of the cyanide and benzaldehyde.



Just so you have an idea and you can stop reiterating bogus claims about cyanide, please look at the expansive list of Vitamin B17-rich foods that are used prevalently in society and note that you are not seeing anybody claiming they are toxic. The body produces *rhodanese* so cyanide is broken down and is not toxic.

http://www.vitaminb17.org/foods.htm




> Fruits  Range* 
> blackberry, domestic low 
> blackberry, wild high 
> boysenberry  med. 
> choke cherry  high 
> wild crabapple  high 
> market cranberry  low 
> Swedish (lignon) cranberry high 
> currant  med. 
> ...

----------


## donnay

> Ahhhhh.  Did not know there was a seed inside.  Thought the pit was the seed .  Thanks.


This is still in the pit:

http://www.apricotpower.com/specials.asp



http://www.apricotpower.com/store/it...ils.asp?id=374

----------


## Zippyjuan

Thank you for the info on WebMD. I will have to reconsider that as a source in the future. 
The National Cancer Institute conducted Phase 1 and Phase 2 testing of laetril in treating cancers. Phase 1 was very small (six patients) so no real results can be taken from that. Phase 2 involved 175 patients. 
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...essional/page5



> In 1978, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) requested case reports from practitioners who believed their patients had benefitted from laetrile treatment.[12] Ninety-three cases were submitted, and 67 were considered evaluable for response. An expert panel concluded that two of the 67 patients had complete responses and that four others had partial responses while using laetrile.[13] On the basis of these six responses, NCI agreed to sponsor phase I and phase II clinical trials.
> 
> The phase I study was designed to test the doses, routes of administration, and the schedule of administration judged representative of those used by laetrile practitioners.[3] The study involved six cancer patients. The investigators found that intravenous and oral amygdalin showed minimal toxicity under the conditions evaluated; however, two patients who ate raw almonds while undergoing oral treatment developed symptoms of cyanide poisoning.
> 
> The phase II study was conducted in 1982 and was designed to test the types of cancer that might benefit from laetrile treatment.[2] Most patients had breast, colon, or lung cancer. To be eligible for the trial, patients had to be in good general condition (not totally disabled or near death), and they must not have received any other cancer therapy for at least 1 month before treatment with amygdalin. Amygdalin, evaluated for potency and purity by NCI,[14] was administered intravenously for 21 days, followed by oral maintenance therapy, utilizing doses and procedures similar to those evaluated in the phase I study. Vitamins and pancreatic enzymes were also administered as part of a metabolic therapy program that included dietary changes to restrict the use of caffeine, sugar, meats, dairy products, eggs, and alcohol. A small subset of patients received higher-dose amygdalin therapy and higher doses of some vitamins as part of the trial. Patients were followed until there was definite evidence of cancer progression, elevated blood cyanide levels, or severe clinical deterioration. Among 175 evaluable patients, only one patient met the criteria for response. This patient, who had gastric carcinoma with cervical lymph node metastasis, experienced a partial response that was maintained for 10 weeks while on amygdalin therapy. Fifty-four percent of patients had measurable disease progression at the end of the intravenous course of treatment, and all patients had progression 7 months after completing intravenous therapy. Seven percent of patients reported an improvement in performance status (ability to work or to perform routine daily activities) at some time during therapy, and 20 percent claimed symptomatic relief. In most patients, these benefits did not persist. Blood cyanide levels were not elevated after intravenous amygdalin treatment; however, they were elevated after oral therapy.[2]


If anybody can provide any other large studies of patients (hopefully 100 or more- ten or twenty are simply not enough to be able to show much) treated with laetril, I would like to take a look. 

There is not a dispute (so far as I know) that apricot seeds do conain a chemical which can be transformed to cyanide in the body. The question is how many apricot seeds are required to cause problems?  Yes, few deaths have even been atributed to this.  The only one I can find specific information says the person who died had consumed 42 seeds in one day (or was it one sitting?) so it does seem to require quite a bit. There are toxins in everything we eat, drink, and breath- the question is are they at a level which is harmful?

----------


## SkarnkaiLW

Yep, that is the fundamental rule of toxicology, it is the dose that determines the poison

----------


## Magicman

> There is not a dispute (so far as I know) that apricot seeds do conain a chemical which can be transformed to cyanide in the body. 
> 
> The question is how many apricot seeds are required to cause problems?  Yes, few deaths have even been atributed to this.  The only one I can find specific information says the person who died had consumed 42 seeds in one day (or was it one sitting?) so it does seem to require quite a bit. There are toxins in everything we eat, drink, and breath- the question is are they at a level which is harmful?


How come you are so _adamant_ about proving that excess amounts of cyanide can cause toxicity with extreme cases. Most of which are not substantiated. Why aren't you spouting the dangers of drinking too much mouthwash, cough medicine or tylenol if your going to go off on a trivial tangent? Your logic here is asinine. Our bodies wouldn't naturally produce rhodonese and turn cyanide into a glucose if it wasn't meant to consume. I really think your not being genuine about your concerns of helping people and your intentions of disproving Laetrile always are mixed with similar motives, which is typical of people like yourself who support vaccines laced with formaldehyde, bovine extracts and mercury. You seem to unexceptionably defend poisonous vaccines in your posts yet your sooooo concerned about a relatively safe substance found in nature that we consume. If your nonsensical falsified reports of someone eating 42 apricot seeds and dying which is completely insane to believe. If it had any merit then millions of people would die from eating hundreds of berries and our ancestors would never have been able to survive off of living a 'nuts and berries' livelihood because their diet was consumed with cyanide.

For someone so concerned about proving a mute point you sure seem to heavily rely on sources like WebMD and National Cancer Institute who use DANGEROUS methods like radiation, and chemotherapy and charge anywhere from tens of thousands compared to a method that is relatively cheap. 

If your going to talk about the _extreme_ dangers of a relatively safer substance then aspirin MAKE sure not to get your sources from organizations like the ones you have which use dangerous (I.E. Inactive ingredients in prescriptions) methods as their protocol. It kind've makes you sound hypocritical.

Sorry for being an $#@!, but I really don't like it when people are disingenuine like you have in your posts.

----------


## dustinp

> Do peaches have seeds in their pits?


yes, they do. Something i learned recently was, nectarines are peaches that have a recessive "hairless" gene. I learned that the seeds were inside the pit when i was eating a nectarine, and the pit had split open, exposing the seed inside. I removed the seed and planted it, and now have a nectarine tree growing that is about 4 inches tall

----------


## Zippyjuan

> How come you are so _adamant_ about proving that excess amounts of cyanide can cause toxicity with extreme cases. Most of which are not substantiated. Why aren't you spouting the dangers of drinking too much mouthwash, cough medicine or tylenol if your going to go off on a trivial tangent? Your logic here is asinine. Our bodies wouldn't naturally produce rhodonese and turn cyanide into a glucose if it wasn't meant to consume. I really think your not being genuine about your concerns of helping people and your intentions of disproving Laetrile always are mixed with similar motives, which is typical of people like yourself who support vaccines laced with formaldehyde, bovine extracts and mercury. You seem to unexceptionably defend poisonous vaccines in your posts yet your sooooo concerned about a relatively safe substance found in nature that we consume. If your nonsensical falsified reports of someone eating 42 apricot seeds and dying which is completely insane to believe. If it had any merit then millions of people would die from eating hundreds of berries and our ancestors would never have been able to survive off of living a 'nuts and berries' livelihood because their diet was consumed with cyanide.
> 
> For someone so concerned about proving a mute point you sure seem to heavily rely on sources like WebMD and National Cancer Institute who use DANGEROUS methods like radiation, and chemotherapy and charge anywhere from tens of thousands compared to a method that is relatively cheap. 
> 
> If your going to talk about the _extreme_ dangers of a relatively safer substance then aspirin MAKE sure not to get your sources from organizations like the ones you have which use dangerous (I.E. Inactive ingredients in prescriptions) methods as their protocol. It kind've makes you sound hypocritical.
> 
> Sorry for being an $#@!, but I really don't like it when people are disingenuine like you have in your posts.


It is interesting to see that in this thread the amount of a potentially toxic substance is considered to be not worth worrying about because it is present in only small amounts (which I agreed with) yet in threads on vaccines (mercury or aluminum at millionths of potentially dangerous amounts) or the sodium benzoate ANY level is considered to be bad and people should be alerted about and scared of. To use the same argument used here, people should be dropping dead from all that mercury or aluminum poisioning.  I consider that to be disingenious as well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the issue. 

Anybody able to come up with any other large studies showing how well laetril (vitamin B17) works as a cancer treatment?

----------


## Magicman

> It is interesting to see that in this thread the amount of a potentially toxic substance is considered to be not worth worrying about because it is present in only small amounts (which I agreed with) yet in threads on vaccines (mercury or aluminum at millionths of potentially dangerous amounts) or the sodium benzoate ANY level is considered to be bad and people should be alerted about and scared of. To use the same argument used here, people should be dropping dead from all that mercury or aluminum poisioning.  I consider that to be disingenious as well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the issue. 
> 
> Anybody able to come up with any other large studies showing how well laetril (vitamin B17) works as a cancer treatment?


This is a completely stupid argument why on earth would you need to put inactive ingredients with no known medical value like lubricants and coal tar, carcinogens - cancer causing agents, DNA and mitochondria damaging substances, poisons, soft metals that block organs and cause liver damage to the immune system in all that you have listed which are PROVEN to cause health problems for because basically evil purposes but use that to compare to a substance that is naturally meant for the body as a cancer-killing agent and also is reduced to being non-toxic and naturally meant to consume. Basically, all of that stuff you mention is put in there for eugenics and money-making symptomization purposes and NONE of it is necessary for the function of the substance and in the small cases that it is there is always another safer substance that can replace it. 

Please show how any human being on earth that has digested hundreds of berries has a long-term effect on their health by digesting CYANIDE. It's because it is broken down by rhodonese. Now, all of the stuff that you listed they are all LONG-TERM effecting dangerous substances that were never meant to take orally or be injected. Nothing of that nature is meant to be digested and phased out short-term. BIG DIFFERENCE!

----------


## Magicman

> Thank you for the info on WebMD. I will have to reconsider that as a source in the future. 
> The National Cancer Institute conducted Phase 1 and Phase 2 testing of laetril in treating cancers. Phase 1 was very small (six patients) so no real results can be taken from that. Phase 2 involved 175 patients. 
> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...essional/page5
> 
> 
> If anybody can provide any other large studies of patients (hopefully 100 or more- ten or twenty are simply not enough to be able to show much) treated with laetril, I would like to take a look. 
> 
> There is not a dispute (so far as I know) that apricot seeds do conain a chemical which can be transformed to cyanide in the body. The question is how many apricot seeds are required to cause problems?  Yes, few deaths have even been atributed to this.  The only one I can find specific information says the person who died had consumed 42 seeds in one day (or was it one sitting?) so it does seem to require quite a bit. There are toxins in everything we eat, drink, and breath- the question is are they at a level which is harmful?



This is another ridiculous case study that was again funded by the same institutions that milk the entire industry and do not want a cure. Ralph Moss was working for the Sloane-Kettering Institute which is a research group funded by the the ACI and he saw proof that Vitamin B17 worked and they dumped all the studies. How on earth are you going to trust a case study that is bought out by these same interests that are biased and also a case that was done AFTER Vitamin B17 was banned. Samuel Epsteine proves in his book that these institutions like the Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and Sloane-Kettering are all corrupt.

If you notice your citations ALL of them are generally created around the same time, in the late 70s' and early 80s', which proves that these institutions were on an aggressive mission to wipe Laetrile away by funding bad research results. Very suspicious, considering there is no results like this before this time period.

 "The medical writer Ralph W. Moss, PhD, has written or edited twelve books and three film documentaries, mostly on the question of cancer research and treatment. He is a graduate of New York City public schools, New York University (BA, cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1965) and Stanford University (MA, 1973, PhD, 1974, Classics). The former science writer and assistant director of public affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York *(1974-1977)*"

So basically, Ralph Moss PROVED it in 1977 then a couple of years that a fake Laetrile study was done by the SAME powers that want it banned. This is not surprising that these people before 1977 couldn't prove that it didn't work then all of a sudden have a huge case study when they find Vitamin B17 a threat. They couldn't find any result before this date but they do now! Well, gee you think that maybe they don't want a cure.

Look at the date of that so-called case study it was *1982* that's pretty much around the date that Ralph Moss spoke out. Now this case study is done to curb the threat. *This same researcher,Moertel, who you cited as the one who did negative Laetrile studies ALWAYS used orthodox treatments in his research and its proven those who use chemotherapy should NOT be used in the results because it skewers the information. Now, he has proven to falsify documents and lie about them in the case of vitamin C and Cancer and all of a sudden this guy is trustworthy in the case of Laetrile. He is also funded by the National Cancer Institute which time and time again has no interest in anything other then chemotherapy yet they profit off of the Cancer industry through taxes.*

Moertel has no credibility in finding patients free of chemotherapy proven here.




> Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Rubin J, et al.: A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer. N Engl J Med 306 (4): 201-6, *1982*.


http://www.naturalnews.com/032700_Na...l_Epstein.html




> National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society skewered in new book by leading cancer expert
> 
> Tuesday, June 14, 2011 by: Neev M. Arnell
> 
> 
> 
> (NaturalNews) A new book by leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, skewers the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society and blames the organizations for America losing the war against cancer.
> 
> *In the book, "National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest," Epstein argues that the NCI and ACS have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars focusing on treatment to the exclusion of prevention, which has allowed cancer rates to skyrocket, with the disease now affecting nearly one in two men and more than one in three women. Furthermore, the author claims that not only do numerous conflicts of interest exist within the NCI and ACS, but the NCI and ACS are also withholding a mass of information on avoidable causes of cancer.*
> ...

----------


## Magicman

*More proof that your case study is false. Moetrel and Fleming caught falsifying their research in their studies. How can you trust the same people who are used time and time again for attacking alternative therapies and are caught falsifying their documents?*

Clinical Studies and Controversy
*Due to widespread interest (and demand) from cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) funded what eventually turned out to be a series of three randomized trials known as the Moertel studies.* The primary objective of these studies was to confirm or disprove Drs. Cameron and Pauling’s research. *Dr. Pauling wanted to consult on the protocol and design for the first of these studies so that no mistakes could be made. Moertel and his colleagues ignored his offer.* Dr. Pauling learned that the study had been completed when he read headlines in the newspaper announcing the “Failure of High-Dose Vitamin C Therapy to Benefit Patients with Advanced Cancer.” Both doctors vigorously questioned the results.* They pointed out major flaws in all of the Moertel/Mayo Clinic studies, such as the selection of patients who had previously been aggressively treated with chemotherapy (nearly 90 percent).* The Vitamin C was administered orally instead of intravenously - a huge difference. Also there was a lack of testing for compliance, shorter duration of treatment and a return of the patients to chemotherapy. In fact, in one of the Mayo/Moetel studies, patients were abruptly taken off Vitamin C, which probably caused a rebound effect that hastened their demise. Why was so much time and money spent to test the Vitamin C without giving proper attention to following their exact and previously established protocols? Unfortunately, this is the research that now stands out in most doctors’ minds. A study of terminal Japanese cancer patients by Morishige and Murate also concluded that when treated with Vitamin C, these patients survived almost five times longer than the controls and the authors of the study stated that their study “may be considered to substantiate the observations reported by Drs.Cameron and Pauling.”


Creagan ET, Moertel CG, O'Fallon JR, et al. Failure of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid) therapy to benefit patients with advanced cancer. A controlled trial. N Engl J Med 1979;301:687-90.

*
This article basically proves Moetrel was biased against alternative therapies such as laetrile and intravenous vitamin C and was a drug pusher who pushed levamisole which was hyped by the media and which later was found to not be very ineffective toward Cancer. A researcher like him should not have been used as the case point for abandoning safe Cancer treatments such as Laetrile and Intravenous Vitamin C. Case study here. His research has a lot of loopholes in it.*

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/conte...2/lang,english

New Doubts About Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer - Part II	 	 
Tag it:?
Sunday, 19 September 2004

Last week we revealed that a definitive clinical trial has shown that a regimen containing 5-FU conveys no long-term survival benefit, when given after surgery, in stages II and III colon cancer. This week we conclude our discussion. –Ed.


CAM Comparisons


*When an alternative cancer treatment fails in a clinical trial it is generally finished—that failure is quickly made the basis for official scorn or even a government clampdown. Anyone who doesn’t accept the negative results of such a clinical trial is considered recalcitrant. By contrast, notice with what kid gloves the chemotherapy establishment handles its own treatments, even when clinical trials prove beyond doubt that the treatments in question do not prolong life.*

These latest findings have additional importance when considered in their historical context. At the time that 5-FU-based adjuvant therapy was approved, alternative cancer treatments such as Laetrile and high-dose vitamin C were presenting a determined challenge to mainstream medicine. Oncology was a relatively new discipline and was struggling to fend off the competition from alternative clinics in Mexico and elsewhere.

*Dr. Moertel, of the Mayo Clinic, was an outspoken critic of alternative medicine. He called Laetrile one of the "dominant unresolved problem[s] for American medicine today" (Moertel 1978). Many cancer leaders were less than enthusiastic about doing clinical trials, which are apt to have uncertain outcomes. But Moertel passionately argued that clinical trials be done on Laetrile, not in order to arrive at the truth about its efficacy—he knew that already—but as a political weapon. Laetrile, he told his fellow doctors, "can only be successfully combated if we fight on familiar grounds, using the tools that we have known to be most trustworthy: a tightly controlled clinical trial performed in competent and experienced hands" (Moertel 1978).*

*Not surprisingly, it was Dr. Moertel who supervised the "tightly controlled" clinical trials of these alternative treatments and announced to the world that they had proven to be abject failures (Creagan 1979, Moertel 1982, Moertel 1985).*

*Yet his approach to 5-FU/levamisole was just the opposite. He prematurely claimed that this treatment was highly beneficial to patients and lobbied for its adoption by the general medical community. It was hard to avoid the implicit message that whereas alternative treatments such as Laetrile and vitamin C did little but generate false hope, 5-FU based chemotherapy genuinely saved lives.*

*Some readers may feel that Dr. Moertel (who himself died of cancer a few years ago)* may have sincerely believed that chemotherapy worked well, while alternative treatments were mere quackery. There certainly are many in oncology who sincerely believe in chemo, just as there many practitioners who are convinced of the efficacy of alternative treatments. However, in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1978, Dr. Moertel revealingly wrote:

"...[I]t must be concluded that there is no chemotherapy approach to gastro-intestinal carcinoma valuable enough to justify application as standard clinical treatment. By no means, however, should this conclusion imply that these efforts should be abandoned. Patients...and their families have a compelling need for a basis of hope. If such hope is not offered, they will quickly seek it from the hands of quacks and charlatans" (Moertel 1978).

*Read these words carefully. As Dr. Moertel saw it, chemotherapy should be prescribed for its political, socio-economic and psychological benefits, since by his own admission there was no solid medical justification for its use as an adjuvant to surgery in colon cancer.*

He was not the only one to voice such sentiments. Stanford University surgeon Victor Richards, MD, put it still more bluntly. In 1972, he wrote that even ineffective chemotherapy "serves an extremely valuable role in keeping patients oriented toward proper medical therapy, and prevents the feeling of being abandoned by the physician...Judicious employment...of potentially useful drugs may also prevent the spread of cancer quackery...Properly based chemotherapy can serve a useful purpose in preventing improper orientation of the patients" (Richards 1972:215).

*So positive news about 5-FU-based chemotherapy had more than medical significance: it had great propaganda value in conventional medicine’s war on alternative approaches.*

The medical establishment continues to this day to prescribe chemotherapy even in circumstances in which they know it does not work well. Consider the clinical practice guidelines for stage II colon cancer proposed by Dr. John McDonald, Professor of Medicine at New York Medical College and chief of the division of medical oncology at St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Center, New York. In a 2004 review of adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer, written for the medical website Medscape, Dr. McDonald candidly admits that there is "no convincing evidence that therapy with adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy benefits patients with stage II disease." But that’s not the end of the story. He concludes:

"...[F]or clinicians dealing with individual patients, the reason to treat or not to treat is based upon a panoply of factors, most of which are not associated with hard evidence-based data. These include ... the desire of the patient in many instances to ‘do something,’ even if the benefit is small" (McDonald 2004).

*In other words, if people opt for chemotherapy, they should be given it, despite the fact that oncologists professionally acknowledge that this is an unproven treatment that might harm or even kill their patients. When it comes to chemotherapy, oncologists show an unfamiliar solicitousness and respect for their patients’ freedom of choice. However, as readers may have discovered, it is a different story when patients request something as innocuous as antioxidant supplements. Then many oncologists adopt a censorious or openly hostile approach.*


Accepting Negative Results


A past director of the National Cancer Institute once complained to me that CAM advocates lose scientific credibility when they refuse to accept the conclusions of negative clinical trials. But the same criticism can certainly be leveled against many advocates of chemotherapy. Notice what happens when a proposed chemotherapy regimen does not make the grade. Numerous friends of the pharmaceutical approach rush to its defense, parsing statistics and splitting hairs in an attempt to wrest the slimmest suggestion of benefit from stark evidence of its ineffectiveness. They point to short-term gains (in the absence of long-term benefit); to the "outdated" nature of the regimen in question (yet 5-FU continues to be a commonly used colon cancer drug); to the need for changes in "surrogate markers" (which can be deftly foreshortened when the data on overall survival prove negative over the long haul).


Role of Media


Medical ethicists do not censure these gross violations of scientific protocol. The mass media fail to provide the public with even a rudimentary understanding of chemotherapy’s failures and limitations. Experts - including biostatisticians, who certainly know better - say nothing that might upset their clinical colleagues. *When favorable news about 5-FU and levamisole was triumphantly announced by Dr. Moertel, the media were all over the story like white on rice. For example, Time magazine called the Mayo Clinic treatment "death defying," and said Moertel’s drug therapy could hold cancer "at bay" (October 16, 1989).* Since then, the mass media have continued to report favorably on the supposed benefits of chemotherapy to the exclusion of more nuanced interpretations of the treatment’s worth.

For example, when I scoured the 4,500 sources in Google News to gauge media coverage of the recent NSABP report on colon cancer, I found a total of four articles on the topic, none of which had appeared in a major newspaper or media outlet. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has not featured the NSABP study in its News Highlights, despite the fact that it was published in the NCI’s own medical journal.

Is it any wonder, then, that the general public continues to think that great progress is being made in the war on cancer, since only positive news about chemotherapy filters down through the mass media?

The British politician Arthur Ponsonby observed in 1928, "When war is declared, truth is often the first casualty." Welcome to the war on cancer.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *More proof that your case study is false.*
> 
> Clinical Studies and Controversy
> *Due to widespread interest (and demand) from cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) funded what eventually turned out to be a series of three randomized trials known as the Moertel studies.* The primary objective of these studies was to confirm or disprove Drs. Cameron and Pauling’s research. *Dr. Pauling wanted to consult on the protocol and design for the first of these studies so that no mistakes could be made. Moertel and his colleagues ignored his offer.* Dr. Pauling learned that the study had been completed when he read headlines in the newspaper announcing the “Failure of High-Dose Vitamin C Therapy to Benefit Patients with Advanced Cancer.” Both doctors vigorously questioned the results.* They pointed out major flaws in all of the Moertel/Mayo Clinic studies, such as the selection of patients who had previously been aggressively treated with chemotherapy (nearly 90 percent).* The Vitamin C was administered orally instead of intravenously - a huge difference. Also there was a lack of testing for compliance, shorter duration of treatment and a return of the patients to chemotherapy. In fact, in one of the Mayo/Moetel studies, patients were abruptly taken off Vitamin C, which probably caused a rebound effect that hastened their demise. Why was so much time and money spent to test the Vitamin C without giving proper attention to following their exact and previously established protocols? Unfortunately, this is the research that now stands out in most doctors’ minds. A study of terminal Japanese cancer patients by Morishige and Murate also concluded that when treated with Vitamin C, these patients survived almost five times longer than the controls and the authors of the study stated that their study “may be considered to substantiate the observations reported by Drs.Cameron and Pauling.”


Refers to a Vitamin C study- not laetril. Having read a summary, it does appear that the Pauling study was not very well designed. (Pauling did receive a Nobel Prize for his work on Vitamin C).  It says nothing about the other study. Can you provide any valid alternative studies on Vitamin B-17?

----------


## donnay

> Refers to a Vitamin C study- not laetril.  It says nothing about the other study. Can you provide any valid alternative studies on Vitamin B-17?


http://alternativecancer.us/laetrile.htm#Studies
http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/laetrile.asp
http://laetrile.amygdalin.biz/laetri...s-on-laetrile/

----------


## Magicman

> Refers to a Vitamin C Study - Not Laetrile


Of course, it does it proves that they use the same researcher for all of their inconclusive studies towards alternative treatments which is is very suspicious considering the fact that Moetrel was caught falsifying documents with the Pauling study. I wouldn't take his research seriously when he is anti-orthomolecular medicine and is a drug peddler for ineffective treatments which he failed at and if this man was so great at researching Cancer he died of it which proves he never had the answers.

----------


## Magicman

*Dr. Sigiura was finding conclusive studies from the Sloane-Kettering Institute, which caused an uproar that is when others tried to do the same and their case studies were dumped that were positive. "In my opinion, these results are more credible than something that can be worked up in a laboratory such as the falsifying case of Moetrel. The proof of whether Laetrile works or not is undisputed by eyewitness accounts from these highly respected physicians who have had many years of seeing people recover from their cancer by using Laetrile therapy.

Remember, laboratory experiments can be manipulated to produce any result that the researcher is looking for. Unscrupulous men have used these reports for their own gain and benefit, not for the cancer patient's.

Laetrile is a vitamin that cannot be patented. It is not worthy to be used in cancer treatment since it is not making the conglomorate pharmaceutical companies, research centers, etc., any money. To them, the only solution is drugs, even though they know without any doubt that these drugs do not work.*

The official report about Laetrile 
from *Dr. Sigiura* reads:

"The results clearly show that Amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary tumors… Laetrile also seemed to prevent slightly the appearance of new tumors… The improvement of health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to controls is always a common observation… Dr. Sugiura has never observed complete regression of these tumors in all his cosmic experience with other chemotherapeautic agents." (A Summary of the Effect of Amygdalin Upon Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Mice, Sloan-Kettering report, June 13, 1973.)


During a visit to the U.S. in 1972, Dr. Nieper told news reporters, "After more than twenty years of such specialized work, I have found the nontoxic nitrilosides-that is Laetrile-far superior to any other known cancer treatment or preventative. In my opinion, it is the only existing possibility for the ultimate control of cancer."


In 1971 *Dr. Navarro* wrote:

I ... have specialized in oncology [the study of tumors] for the past eighteen years. For the same number of years I have been using Laetrile--amygdalin in the treatment of my cancer patients. During this eighteen year period I have treated a total of over five hundred patients with Laetrile & amygdalin by various routes of administration, including the oral and the I.V. The majority of my patients receiving Laetrile--amygdalin have been in a terminal state when treatment with this material commenced.

It is my carefully considered clinical judgment, as a practicing oncologist and researcher in this field, that I have obtained most significant and encouraging results with the use of Laetrile & amygdalin in the treatment of terminal cancer patients, and that these results are comparable or superior to the results I have obtained with the use of the more toxic standard cytotoxic agents. (Letter from Dr. Navarro to Mr. Andrew McNaughton, The McNaughton Foundation, dated January 8, 1971, published in the Cancer News Journal, Jan./April, 1971, pp. 19 -- 20.)

*Dr. Contreras* was introduced to Laetrile in 1963 by a terminal cancer patient from the United States who brought it to his attention and urged him to treat her with it. The woman recovered, and Dr. Contreras began extensive investigation of its properties and use. Since that time he has treated many thousands of cancer patients, most of whom are American citizens who have been denied the freedom to use Laetrile in their own country.

*Professor Etore Guidetti*, M.D., is of the University of Turin Medical School in Italy. Dr. Guidetti spoke before the Conference of the International Union Against Cancer held in Brazil in 1954.

He revealed how his use of Laetrile in terminal cancer patients had caused the destruction of a wide variety of tumors including those of the:

Uterus
Cervix
Rectum
Breast
"In some cases," he said, "one has been able to observe a group of fulminating and cauliflower-like neoplastic masses resolved very rapidly." He reported that, after giving Laetrile to patients with lung cancer, he had been "able to observe, with the aid of radiography, a regression of the neoplasm or the metastases."

After Guidetti's presentation, an American doctor rose in the audience and announced that Laetrile had been investigated in the United States and found to be worthless.

Dr. Guidetti replied, "I do not care what was determined in the United States. I am merely reporting what I saw in my own clinic." (Cancer News Journal, Jan./April 1971, p. 19)

*Dr. Pablo*

http://www.xyz-wellbeing.com/xyz-wel...-hernando.html

Dr. Pablo has studied in the wellness industry since 1995 and became full time working in the Cancer industry since Jan 2000.  He is referred to as Doctor, but is not an MD -  he is a naturalist or Naturopathic Therapist and scientific-researcher.   In Colombia, we call all people who work with patients or have a specialized expertise, Doctor.   He heads up and runs all the Wellbeing and Cancer Workshops, training of medical staff, and he headed up the team that designed this XYZ- Wellbeing Cancer Trial and Wellness Programs after the publication of the manual we now use with all patients.

Stage 1

Starts with a detoxification and strengthening preparation program for 21 days.  Ozone and Vitamin B17, also referred to as Laetrile or amigdalina in a synergistic combination. DMSO is added to increase absorption and also its antioxidant effects and the added side effect of pain reduction.  Massage, Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy, Colonic Hydrotherapy, poultices, radiant heat sauna, IV vitamins, mind clearing, stress clearing and meditation programs are just a few of the services you will experience.

This program usually gets our clients to feeling much better; cancer pain is reduced along with any morphine and other pain killing drugs.  This is a good preparation for any operations that are coming up, and also for the preparation of the introduction of Cesium - MINERAL HIGH pH THERAPY.  Cesium High pH Therapy is in stage two and you will find more information in the Why Choose Us link at the top of this screen.

Stage 2

Following on from the late Keith Brewer's research; we use DrPablo's many years of experience using High pH therapy  with cesium, rubidium, and the other carefully-balanced 20 minerals. We continue Ozone and laetrile / amigdalina and a few prescribed therapies based on your individual requirements.  We have devised an approach that allows the maximum levels of Cesium to be used safely and with the most effect.

With one client with cancer, Dr. Pablo witnessed in the early days of these pre-trials the shrinking of an apple-sized mouth cancer completely going in 7 days.  Again, this does not constitute a cure, and time and ongoing evidence is needed under a controlled environment to determine if cesium in combination is a cure, if Cesium Therapy is effective with all cancers, if cesium and rubidium is a long-term solution, a medical miracle, or it is a placebo effect.  He states how exciting it is to visually see on the outside in real time the cancer dissipating.  Also note that pretreatment, this cancer was growing at a rate of 10% every few days, and only three weeks before was a small marble-sized cancer.  These trials will give us the answers we are looking for, and this stage two cancer treatment is exciting to say the very least!

Stage 3

A Recharge and Rebuild Program that included very high levels of IV Vitamin C, Hyperbaric Oxygen, Colonic Irrigation, Immune stimulants, Enzyme Therapy, and we add in 3 unique therapies that we are testing that have the most promising potential, just to name a few of the services.  These NEW and not released therapies are unique.  They will be introduced in stage one, and intensified to this last stage.

This, with the High Vitamin C over three hours and the low levels 24 hours a day... are designed to clean up any dead tissue, find and destroy any servicing cancer cells that have avoided the High pH Therapy, and detoxify the body of remaining heavy metals while assisting the antioxidant levels in the blood and boosting the immune system...

With a relaxing pampering week in between with organic food, massage and many qualified Alternative Practitioners, Medical staff, and supportive personal assistance staff members looking after your every need, this clinic is unique.  The XYZ-Wellbeing ReTreat Facility is located in a country environment. 

His Youtube site full of Cancer survivors

http://www.youtube.com/user/DrPabloXYZ

----------


## zeloc

Magicman, I realize that you believe in this substance and think that it cures cancer, but all of these references are from the 70s and 80s and the book on Amazon was published in 1996!! There are so many medical advances today that many treatments that were thought to be effective in the past have been discovered not to be effective. Stuff from 1996 is like the stone age. If this substance really worked I'd like to see a study done within the past 5 years. Any doctor who found the cure for cancer would be an overnight celebrity, the fact that there would be a cover-up of a beneficial substance just doesn't hold water.

----------


## Magicman

Zeloc, have you not read what I wrote?

First off, they banned the substance so no doctors can legally use it in the United States. 

Secondly, they put out falsified documents all around the same time to undermine its credibility

Thirdly, if your looking for someone recent. I provided Dr. Pablo on my last post who uses it and has treated people using laetrile

Fourth, I already provided many doctors who have treated thousands of patients

Fifth, the fact that it's relatively cheap discourages doctors from using it

Sixth, all of the main institutions that do research for Cancer are anti-orthomolecular and have no interest in Vitamin B17 and have put out bad studies, thrown away good studies along with fired any pro-laetrile workers.

...and lastly, what difference does it make when the references were done? If it works it works. The doctors would still be using it today if the treatment wasn't banned.

Your claim that any doctor who found a cure would be an overnight celebrity is completely unsubstantiated as there have been many cures from doctors and most of those people are banned from their practice. These same orthodox organizations put out dangerous, expensive ineffective treatments and use dangerous inactive ingredients in their prescriptions and vaccinations.

There's one thing to note you seem to be pro vaccine and yet have no idea of what they do to them


http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pin...nt-table-2.pdf

----------


## Danke

> Actually, that's cyanide.  
> 
> I've eaten seven apricot kernals every day for years and never had any problem with cyanide poisoning.   That's right, apple seeds have B-17 in them too.


That explains the Grumpiness.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> http://alternativecancer.us/laetrile.htm#Studies
> http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/laetrile.asp
> http://laetrile.amygdalin.biz/laetri...s-on-laetrile/


Thank you for the links. The firs two are the exact same information.  From the third:



> *No controlled clinical trials which compare groups of patients who received laetrile and those who didn’t have never been reported.*
> 
> In 1962 a study was done on *10 people* and the results showed a decrease in swelling and tumor size. The study also showed that Laetrile worked well as a pain reliever. However there was no long-term follow-up done to confirm the positive effectiveness of Laetrile.
> 
> Benzaldehyde was tested in 2 clinical studies on patients with advanced cancer who had not responded to Chemotherapy. *Some* of these patients recovered completely with all signs and symptoms of cancer completely gone.
> 
> There have also been other reports of case studies where the patients recovered when given Laetrile and Chemo.
> 
> *Yet other reports and studies done by the National Cancer Society conclude that laetrile had little or no effect on cancer.*


Ten is too small of a sample and in the second "some" is also not any significant amount. 

From the first two links:



> A large paper on Laetrile, "Amygdalin Monographic Analysis" contains information on:
>  ■The pain relieving aspect of Laetrile, 65% of patients experienced significant payment reduction and old patients on the morphine are able to stop using narcotic painkillers.
> ■A more than two fold increase in the survival time for patients with inoperable lung cancer.
> ■An increase in the survival time for patients with Glioblastoma Multiform
> 
> McNaughton Foundation Study 
> 
> In a study sponsored by the McNaughton Foundation in San Ysidro, California, Laetrile was injected into laboratory animals intraperitoneally in dosages of 500 mg/kg. The mean survival time of the Laetrile-treated animals was 70 percent longer than that of the controls. This research was reported at Senate subcommittee hearings on Laetrile in July 1977. (21) In addition, studies conducted at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, using a mouse model with adenocarcinoma, showed that Laetrile-treated mice survived over twice as long as the control group.


Does show improvement in symptoms but no cure indicated. Patients still died. 




> Metastases 
> 
> In the 1970s Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, a highly respected cancer research scientist at Sloan-Kettering, tested Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura's research showed that Laetrile helped prevent the growth of secondary tumors (metastases) in mice, although it did not destroy the primary tumors. He also reported that *some of his studies* showed that Laetrile can produce a 60-percent reduction in lung metastases. The Laetrile-treated mice appeared healthier and more active than the saline-treated controls. This would support some of the claims that Laetrile *can improve the quality of a patient's life*.


Improved quailty but again, does not claim cured patients. Again, that word "some" for the amount of patients who experienced reduced (not eliminated) metastases. How many are some?  Two out of 100? More than half (I would think they would use the term "most" if it was more than half)?


And finally:



> Indications 
> 
> There are some reports of muscular weakness and respiratory difficulties in patients taking Laetrile. *Usually these side effects are seen in patients who self-administer excessively high doses or who consume large amounts of apricot kernels, which can be quite toxic*. 
> 
> Other side effect indications include dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and fever. It is believed that these symptoms are related to the patient's impaired ability to dispose of the toxic products, as a result of tumor breakdown. In any case, no one should take Laetrile without appropriate supervision and monitoring.
> 
> Oral Laetrile is converted to cyanide in the intestines by bacteria. Intravenous Laetrile, in the most common form of administration, appears not to lead to the uncommon side effect of cyanide toxicity. 
> 
> Death
> ...


Thank you again for sharing the links.

----------


## Todd

> Well, apple seeds have arsenic.  Do you honestly think a substance that comes from apple seeds could be toxic?
> 
> Flawed logic, though I don't know anything about this B17 stuff.


Agreed.  There's lot's of "Natural" things that can kill you.

----------


## Magicman

> Agreed.  There's lot's of "Natural" things that can kill you.


WELL I'LL SAY SHERLOCK HOLMES. That's why we have these amazing things called grocery stores which are meant to put in the things that DON'T kill you. (With the exception of all the excipients, poisons, preservatives, sterilizers, hormones, etc. that were never meant to be in the foods.)

----------


## donnay

> Thank you again for sharing the links.


You're welcome but I will have agree with Magicman on the reasons why there is not a lot of recent information available in the US is because government banned any further research:




> First off, they banned the substance so no doctors can legally use it in the United States.
> 
> Secondly, they put out falsified documents all around the same time to undermine its credibility
> 
> Thirdly, if your looking for someone recent. I provided Dr. Pablo on my last post who uses it and has treated people using laetrile
> 
> Fourth, I already provided many doctors who have treated thousands of patients
> 
> Fifth, the fact that it's relatively cheap discourages doctors from using it
> ...


One has to look at this information and think, whom are the people that have a lot to lose if Laetrile cured cancer?  If God-forbid you have cancer or a loved one does, what other alternative options do people have, presently?  Cancer treatments is a huge money maker--It's a billion dollar-plus Industry.  They have billion dollar cancer hospitals all over the country and cancer specialist, by the dozens, and the Pharmaceutical company makes billions on treatments as well.

----------


## Magicman

> Thank you for the links. The firs two are the exact same information.  From the third:
> 
> 
> Ten is too small of a sample and in the second "some" is also not any significant amount. 
> 
> From the first two links:
> 
> Does show improvement in symptoms but no cure indicated. Patients still died. 
> 
> ...




Are you really that stupid? There were doctors that treated THOUSANDS of patients and you ignored that and you focus on any info that suites your agenda. The science of the Cyanide explains pretty simply that it attacks the cancer cells and leaves healthy ones alone so it's not a question that it works. Why aren't you making any statements about chemotherapy which actually attacks HEALTHY cells? Also, the people who cured Cancer used Metabolic Therapy and some used oxygen therapy to follow up on the Vitamin B-17 treatment.

You are even more disingenuine when you used the original article which has ALREADY been proven wrong by OBVIOUS reasons and never backed up its claims which means the evidence is hearsay simply put, when you cannot explain simple logic like why our ancestors consumed hundreds of berries and never died and survived off a vitamin B-17 diet and also that a HUGE portion of our food industry has Vitamin B-17 in it and there has never been any claims of toxicity or deaths reported then you need to quit being a scumbag and forcing your toxic vaccination, prescription, pharmaceutical interests views on everyone on this board.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> You're welcome but I will have agree with Magicman on the reasons why there is not a lot of recent information available in the US is because government banned any further research:
> 
> 
> 
> One has to look at this information and think, whom are the people that have a lot to lose if Laetrile cured cancer?  If God-forbid you have cancer or a loved one does, what other alternative options do people have, presently?  Cancer treatments is a huge money maker--It's a billion dollar-plus Industry.  They have billion dollar cancer hospitals all over the country and cancer specialist, by the dozens, and the Pharmaceutical company makes billions on treatments as well.


A cancer cure would also be worth millions of dollars.

----------


## dannno

The Science and Politics of Cancer by G. Edward Griffin

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...07988644640556

----------


## donnay

> A cancer cure would also be worth millions of dollars.


A cancer cure such as this would only benefit (monetarily) the one person and the colleagues that found the cure.  The Cancer Industry has many tentacles--therefore the money is in treatments and for patients to come back needing more treatments.  As with much that goes wrong in our society the scales are not equal.

Look what the government did to *Doctor Stanislaw Burzynski*.  If you do not know about this man, you should do some research, it is very enlightening.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Are you really that stupid? There were doctors that treated THOUSANDS of patients and you ignored that and you focus on any info that suites your agenda.
> 
> You are even more disingenuine when you used the original article which has ALREADY been proven wrong by OBVIOUS reasons and never backed up its claims which means the evidence is hearsay simply put, when you cannot explain simple logic like why our ancestors consumed hundreds of berries and never died and survived off a vitamin B-17 diet and also that a HUGE portion of our food industry has Vitamin B-17 in it and there has never been any claims of toxicity or deaths reported then you need to quit being a scumbag and forcing your toxic vaccination, prescription, pharmaceutical interests views on everyone on this board.


The information I just quoted was from a pro-leatril site with the link posted by Donnay. Are you saying it is an erronious site? 

Can you provide valid numbers of success rates? Do we have controls to compare those to? Were these patients given any other treatments as well?  What percent were cured- in total remission? Ten percent?  Ninety percent? I would like to take a look at them but haven't seen any such figures. Remember that the person behind the treatment (whether that is pharma or a doctor) has an incentive to promote what they offer. I have asked for valid proof and studies but haven't been offered any. Anecdotal reports are not proof.

----------


## dannno

> A cancer cure would also be worth millions of dollars.


How would a cancer cure found in nature be worth millions of dollars?

----------


## Tod

> Ahhhhh.  Did not know there was a seed inside.  Thought the pit was the seed .  Thanks.


I believe pit = seed, although often used to refer to the meat, or kernel of the pit w/o the shell, or hull.

Outer part = shell = hull (with SOME things, like black walnuts, the hull refers to the coating that starts out green w/ yellow interior then as it rots it turns black.  The the shell is the hard coating inside the hull, and the meat is inside the shell)

Inner part = meat = kernel

----------


## Zippyjuan

> How would a cancer cure found in nature be worth millions of dollars?


Antibiotics are found in nature and are worth millions. Many medicines are found in nature. Did you know that Dr Krebs actually patented his laetrile? 
http://boobboutique.com/aboutbreastc...s/Laetrile.htm



> Laetrile, patented by Ernest T. Krebs, Jr. in the late 1940s, is a purified derivative of amygdalin, a naturally occurring cyanoglucoside.

----------


## dannno

I've been eating these things on and off for a while.

Anybody who is thinking about trying them, they are very bitter. It is an interesting first experience. I have found that over time eating these the bitterness subsides a bit as you get used to it and there is actually a very crisp, nice flavor behind it. 

I still have a glass of water or something on hand to wash them down.

----------


## dannno

> Antibiotics are found in nature and are worth millions. Many medicines are found in nature. Did you know that Dr Krebs actually patented his laetrile? 
> http://boobboutique.com/aboutbreastc...s/Laetrile.htm


Anti-biotics are an illegal substance unless prescribed by a proper authority. 

They require manufacturing and they are patented. It would be difficult, I believe, for myself to procure anti-biotics on my own.

An apricot pit can be procured and sold by anybody with an apricot tree.

There is a very big difference logistically between profiting off of anti-biotics in a restricted market vs. profiting off a seed in a market that would be nearly impossible to restrict.

----------


## Zippyjuan

If it works, the chemical can be synthesized and purified and patented (as Dr Krebs did) and sold.

----------


## donnay

*"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny."*
~Thomas Jefferson (1778)

*"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship....The Constitution of this Republic shall make special provision for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."* 
~Benjamin Rush MD, signer of the Declaration of Independence

----------


## Magicman

One has to think in the whole process of nature, we all consume cyanide on a daily basis so we need to stop looking at Cancer as this seperate disease and understand why nature contains all the elements we need to stop it. If you look up the definition of Cancer many times you will see that a cancer cell is nothing more then a cell that has lost oxygen and is still in its production. This is called anaerobic activity. 

So *Anaerobic cell death* is what *Cancer* really is and it's common in all diseases so if you look at God's plan in nature just consider the fact that Vitamin B17 is so present in nature so its usefulness for cyanide is to remove anaerobic activity in all diseases. Anaerobic activity makes all diseases get progressively worse.

This is also why Glutathione is also used in the treatment of Cancer as well as oxidative therapies. ...Because in order to save a person going through anaerobic cell death what would be the most practical thing to do? It would be to repair the bad anaerobic cells into aerobic cells and to remove free radical and oxidative stress to prevent more cells from regenerating into an anaerobic state. This is why high-grade oxygen is used because it can put the oxygen back into the cells.

Is it a coincidence God gave us oxygen, cyanide and glutathione in all of our environment or nature and atmosphere it is because the treatments for all diseases are everywhere and no person with bad intentions can ever ban these substances they are prevalent everywhere.

Many indigenous tribes never have cancer because of a diet high in either glutathione or Vitamin B17 and they don't have pesticides ruining the nutrients, yet our society the rates are rising it probably has to do with the fact that they are loading more carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) in our products and environment.

----------


## Magicman

> *"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny."*
> ~Thomas Jefferson (1778)
> 
> *"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship....The Constitution of this Republic shall make special provision for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."* 
> ~Benjamin Rush MD, signer of the Declaration of Independence


Hey Donnay, look who tried to save us from the tyranny of the FDA and FTC.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026810_he...peech_FTC.html

The FTC has basically attacked any product that has tried to do research on any food so they can destroy the credibility of any health claims even though nutrition is proven to have health benefits.

----------


## donnay

> Hey Donnay, look who tried to save us from the tyranny of the FDA and FTC.
> 
> http://www.naturalnews.com/026810_he...peech_FTC.html
> 
> The FTC has basically attacked any product that has tried to do research on any food so they can destroy the credibility of any health claims even though nutrition is proven to have health benefits.


Yes, Ron Paul gets it!  It's just sad that a lot of people don't.

----------


## zeloc

> Zeloc, have you not read what I wrote?
> 
> First off, they banned the substance so no doctors can legally use it in the United States. 
> 
> Secondly, they put out falsified documents all around the same time to undermine its credibility
> 
> Thirdly, if your looking for someone recent. I provided Dr. Pablo on my last post who uses it and has treated people using laetrile
> 
> Fourth, I already provided many doctors who have treated thousands of patients
> ...


3. 1 person hardly qualifies as evidence.
4. If doctors have treated thousands of patients with it with good results, where are the publications? There are medical journals all over the world, just because it is banned in the U.S. doesn't mean that it couldn't be done in other countries. If there are publications, are these from the 70s also? Most likely there were studies that came afterward that refuted it. 
5. Cheapness doesn't prevent doctors from using it, doctors are not compensated by the medications, patients get them from a pharmacy or other source. Many doctors prescribe generic medications anyway, how do you explain this?

The vaccines has nothing to do with this, those are all inactive ingredients anyway, and either removed, or present in trace quantities. These vaccines have been around for DECADES and there are no ill effects from them. Think about the fact that smallpox killed 300 MILLION PERSONS. That's basically the population of the entire U.S. You can't possibly argue that there is more evidence to this B17 than vaccines. Life on Earth could very well have been extinct without vaccines. Influenza killed close to half the population of the world at one point. 

I'm not saying that B17 doesn't work but there doesn't seem to be much evidence to say that it does work and it's just dangerous to be proselytizing without proof or evidence when this substance is potentially harmful. If it was banned in the U.S. it is one thing, but for the entire world not to use it?

I looked on Pubmed to see any recent publications and what did I find? Here are 2 recent articles. In the first one the author looked at close to 100 studies and found no randomized controlled trial or even quasi-randomized controlled trial comparing laetrile to anything else. If it's never been compared to anything else how can you possibly say that it works? There should at least be some positive studies that it works, even if not randomized trials. The 2nd article claims not that there is not enough evidence or that it is unproven, but that it has been DISPROVEN. I also found a case of cyanide intoxication caused by taking laetrile. 1 of the authors of the first group is from a complementary medicine practice in Belgium! Is he part of the cover-up too? There aren't ANY positive articles in the world literature for at least a decade. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=22071824
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15061600

Why do you believe that it works?

----------


## Magicman

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15061600




> 3. 1 person hardly qualifies as evidence.
> 4. If doctors have treated thousands of patients with it with good results, where are the publications? There are medical journals all over the world, just because it is banned in the U.S. doesn't mean that it couldn't be done in other countries. If there are publications, are these from the 70s also? Most likely there were studies that came afterward that refuted it. 
> 5. Cheapness doesn't prevent doctors from using it, doctors are not compensated by the medications, patients get them from a pharmacy or other source. Many doctors prescribe generic medications anyway, how do you explain this?
> 
> The vaccines has nothing to do with this, those are all inactive ingredients anyway, and either removed, or present in trace quantities. These vaccines have been around for DECADES and there are no ill effects from them. Think about the fact that smallpox killed 300 MILLION PERSONS. That's basically the population of the entire U.S. You can't possibly argue that there is more evidence to this B17 than vaccines. Life on Earth could very well have been extinct without vaccines. Influenza killed close to half the population of the world at one point. 
> 
> I'm not saying that B17 doesn't work but there doesn't seem to be much evidence to say that it does work and it's just dangerous to be proselytizing without proof or evidence when this substance is potentially harmful. If it was banned in the U.S. it is one thing, but for the entire world not to use it?
> 
> 
> ...






> The vaccines has nothing to do with this, those are all inactive ingredients anyway, and either removed, or present in trace quantities



No, you're caught in a lie, first when you made the statement about it being inactive ingredients and not worrying it means you have no understanding of what inactive ingredients means, either you're lying assuming I think that inactive means its not working or haven't looked up the definition, next the documentation said nothing about it being *EITHER* removed, there happens to be no choice, next when you say trace quantities all that means is a small amount the relevance of how small is never determined inside of the vaccine and the documentation fails to say whether that amount is safe or not. Plus, there is non-biased research that documents the effects of these "inactive" ingredients.




> Includes vaccine ingredients (e.g., adjuvants and preservatives) as well as substances used during the manufacturing process,
> 
> including vaccine-production media, that are removed from the final product and present only in trace quantities.
> 
> In addition to the substances listed, most vaccines contain Sodium Chloride (table salt).





> I also found a case of cyanide intoxication caused by taking laetrile. 1 of the authors of the first group is from a complementary medicine practice in Belgium


Why don't you post it and also your statement makes no sense as someone who is only in complementary medicine has nothing to do with laetrile therapy. Complementary medicine is like acupuncture, qi-gong, breathing techniques, etc. Also, would you care to explain the fact that our diet consists of cyanide from Vitamin B17 and you never hear anything about people suffering toxicity from these diets? Also, why is it indigenous tribes such as the Hopis and Hunza, their diet consists of mainly apricots they even eat the seeds and they rarely have Cancer? Why is it always the same research groups who have a vested interest in removing Laetrile always attempt to falsify documentation about these deaths yet they fail to explain how the food industry never has any. Any researcher who is paid off can skew data it isn't very difficult especially when those people are paid off by the same interests who have no interest in a natural treatment.

You talk about trace amounts of substances yet claim there are no ill effects from them. First, you provide absolutely no reason why vaccines should carry these toxic substances which means you are very disingenuine and not concerned about the baby's safety. You fail to state that babies receive over 30 shots in a quick session, (which is enormous compared to years ago) all with several toxic substances in each vaccine, these substances are not necessary and have no medical value. Also, you provide no proof that vaccines cause no harm when there are thousands of cases of babies with compromised immune systems, DNA damage, mitochondria damage, chemical damage, neurological problems, and inflammation reported. Many of these reports are buried by the Vaccine industry because vaccines have unscrupulous laws and most parents are unaware of the dangers of vaccines so they are not reported. Also, when you make asinine claims like these substances cause no harm you show that you have little understanding of the nature of the poisons and their effects. I can use non-biased information to prove that all of your statement is false and that information comes from sources not getting paid by the vaccine industry to create falsified reports.

Your statement is very inconsistent, you claim to be all for the benefits of vaccines, yet you are pushing for the dangerous substance in them as well. If you were genuine, you would try and be on a mission to remove these toxic substances from the vaccines. That is the issue, if you really want to get scientific yes, vaccines have saved a lot of lives, but your investing so much time in the vaccine your not understanding that there are far more effective methods to prevent any of those diseases then using vaccines like glutathione, silver, B12 just for starters. Plus, many of these substances pro-long life and make life more efficient and healthier and they seem to work so well with natural substances. 

"From Dr. Mercola - It is also important to understand that autism was virtually unheard of before vaccinations; its emergence precisely parallels mass vaccination programs.  ADD and learning disorders in children are also now being traced to childhood vaccinations.  Brain damage, at any age, is by far the most common adverse reaction associated with vaccinations, although their actual numbers are not often reported accurately.
Furthermore, all vaccines are immunosuppressive, meaning that they lower your immune functions. 

The chemicals and adjuvants in the vaccines depress your immune system;
The virus present depresses immune function, and
The foreign DNA/RNA from animal tissues depresses immunity."


*Now, let's talk about why your laetrile documents should not be used. You have to wonder why if a substance doesn't work how come these same institutions after being caught falsifying reports have to keep attacking it years later to create more falsified reports and repeat the mantra.*

Your first website should not be taken seriously at all because it comes from the Sloane-Kettering Institute which Ralph Moss exposed as being a front for the American Medical Society which has no interest in Laetrile as a Cancer remedy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15061600

Your second website has falsified data and claims that laetrile has _adverse dangerous side effects_, the entire case study is intellectually dishonest, which shows that the researcher is making this up from other falsified data, repeating this mantra and basically using scare tactics to dismay people from using the substance. Both biased reports which show little understanding of the data. If they were honest they would explain that cyanide is a beneficial substance that is found in our diet that attacks cancer cells and is broken down by the bodie's rhodonese. Instead, they resort to the usual skewing data tactics. All of the "sound clinical data" that they made up is not referenced so they are using a scientific mantra proven wrong to substantiate that claim and expecting you to take their word for it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=22071824

BACKGROUND:
Laetrile is the name for a semi-synthetic compound which is chemically related to amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside from the kernels of apricots and various other species of the genus Prunus. Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. *Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous*.


AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by *sound clinical data*. *There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin*, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.


*Here are publications of Laetrile. If you notice that all of the bad research towards Laetrile comes after the positive results which proves the fact that they want to bury its effectiveness. If Laetrile didn't work you would find bad results around this time period that other researchers found positive results on.

On another note, the only time when serious consideration towards research was when there was positive research at the Sloane-Kettering Institute, the researchers then continued to find more positive studies instead of printing those out they dumped them and that is when Ralph Moss spoke out and was fired from the research company.

*


Peer-Reviewed Professional Publications

• Burk, D.,et al. Hyperthermy of cancer cells with Amigdaline glucosidase and synergistic action of derivated cyanide and benzaldehyde. Minerva Chir. 24:1144- 1145, 1969.
• Navarro, M. et al. Mechanism of action and therapeutic effects of Laetrile in cancer. J. Phillip. Med. Assoc. 33:620-627., 1957.
• Reitnauer, P. Prolonged survival of tumor-bearing mice following feeding bitter almonds. Archiv Geschwulstforschung. 42:135, 1973.
• Summa H. M. Amygdalin. A physiological active therapeutic agent in malignancies. Krebsgeschehen, a., Jossa-Arznei, Steinan, Germany, 1972.

Laypersons’ Publications

• Culbert, Michael F. Freedom from Cancer: The Amazing Story of Vitamin B-17, or Laetrile. 76 Press.
• Culbert, Michael. Vitamin B-17: Forbidden Weapon Against Cancer; The Fight for Laetrile. Arlington House Publications. November 1974.
• Diamond, W. J., et al. (editors). An Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide to Cancer. Future Medicine Publications. Tiburon, California, USA. 1997.
    Amygdalin appears to neutralize the oxidative cancer-promoting compounds such as free 
    radicals. Laetrile should be considered an effective, entirely safe treatment of all types of 
    cancer. Laetrile is useful for the prevention of cancer and for maintaining its remission. Some 
    contributors to this book claim that “there is nothing as effective as laetrile”. Laetrile can be 
    used indefinitely and if necessary, in conjunction with surgery, radiation therapy and 
    chemotherapy. Specific types of cancer mentioned as being responsive to laetrile include lung 
    cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, stomach cancer, esophageal cancer, prostate cancer and 
    lymphomas. Some contributors recommend using n-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) in conjunction with 
    laetrile for cancer therapy. This is because cysteine maximizes the body’s ability to detoxify the 
    cyanide released from Taetrile. Some contributors have found that laetrile reduces the 
    requirement for painkillers in cancer patients.
• Griffin, G. E. World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17.
• Hill, Rick. Too Young to Die: Dramatic Use of Laetrile to Conquer Terminal Cancer. Rick Hill Publications. June 1979.
• Inozenzov, F. Two fungus like tumors healed without operation, by oral Amigdalin. Gazet Med. de Paris. 37, 1845.
• Kittler, Glenn D. Laetrile Control for Cancer. Astor Honor. June 1963.
• Knaus, H. Laetrile Control for Cancer. Astor Honor. March 1963.
• Moss, Ralph W. Cancer Therapy: the Independent Consumer’s Guide to Non-Toxic Treatment & Prevention. Equinox Press, Brooklyn, New York, USA. 1992:267-274.
• Prince, Patricia. The Contreras Clinic Laetrile Cookbook. Devin-Adair Pub. September 1979.
• Richardson, John and P. Griffin. Laetrile Case Histories. Bantam Books. June 1977.
• South, J. Laetrile: the answer to cancer? Anti-Aging Bulletin. 4(7):10-20, 2000.
Laetrile may kill cancer cells via a synergistic cytotoxic reaction between its breakdown products - cyanide and benzaldehyde.
• Timms, Moira. Natural Sources: Vitamin B-17/Laetrile. Celestial Arts. March 1978.
• Politics, science, and cancer: the laetrile phenomenon. Westview Press for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington.

----------


## Magicman

*You wonder why you never hear reports of Laetrile helping Cancer patients and it's because it's banned from the USA and European Union. There goes any chances of honest research. Is it any wonder people are flocking to Mexico and finding amazing results.*

Here is a treatment center in Mexico who uses Laetrile

http://www.oasisofhope.com

Cancer
Despite promising in vitro experiments, the use of amygdalin to treat cancer has not been validated by any rigorous clinical trials. The National Cancer Institute sponsored phase 1 and 2 clinical trials in the 1980s but found no evidence to support the use of laetrile in cancer treatment. 8 Interest in the efficacy of laetrile/amygdalin in cancer treatment continues; a Cochrane meta-analysis found no controlled clinical trials from which judgment might be formed. 7 *Laetrile is banned from use in cancer therapy by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Union.* 7 , 9 An experiment has been reported on the effect of apricot extract on intestinal P-glycoprotein substrates with a view to a potential role in multidrug-resistant cancer.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Thank you for the link to the clinic. 

Can you provide any sort of data as to their success rate in treating patients with laetrile at this clinic?  Did these patients receive any other treatments along with the leatril? If they have treated "thousands" of patients, they should have lots of data.  If it has been successful, I would think they would like to rave about the success rates they have been able to achieve- that would help them attract even more patients.

Update: I do find that they post success rates but do not say anything about which portion was due to laetrile and what was via other treatments. 
http://www.oasisofhope.com/patient-s...statistics.php

For example, they list multiple treatment protocols for breast cancer patients.  When given multiple treatments, it is difficult to say which one or ones "cured" the patient.  



> Measures which include ozone autohemotherapy, laetrile treatments, the oxygen-carrier Perftec, high-dose biotin, salsalate, bicarbonate tumor alkalinization, and melatonin *are employed in conjunction with conventional therapies* with the intent of boosting tumor cell uptake offsetting the resistance of poorly-oxygenated tumor regions, and suppressing signaling pathways within the cancer that promote treatment resistance – all while minimizing risk for dangerous or unpleasant side effects. Ultra-aggressive protocols that would be likely to induce severe side effects are avoided, in line with Oasis' principle of "first do no harm". 
> 
> For patients who have become resistant to chemo drugs that previously were effective for them, a strategy employed at Oasis known as epigenetic therapy, involving the safe drugs valproate and hydralazine, has the potential to re-establish treatment sensitivity to these drugs. Patients on the IRT-Q also receive several courses of intravenous vitamin C therapy, in an effort to kill more of the cancer cells with severe tumor-specific oxidative stress. 
> 
> For patients who do not elect to have chemotherapy, or for whom chemotherapy would appear to be a poor option, the IRT-C protocol offers a more intense series of intravenous vitamin C sessions. Intravenous vitamin C therapy at Oasis is distinguished by novel adjunctive features such as ozone autohemotherapy and administration of Perftec, vitamin K and laetrile which are intended to boost tumor oxygenation and catalyze oxidant generation so as to maximize cancer cell kill.


If Laetrile was a proven cure I would think they would start with that as a treatment and skip the costs and risks of other ones like chemo- which even here seems to be the first form of treatment. Chemo still seems to be the emphasized primary treatment.  Even this clinic does not use laetrile by itself to treat cancer but use it along with "other conventional therapies".  If it was a cure alone, this would not be necessary.

----------


## Magicman

> Thank you for the link to the clinic. 
> 
> Can you provide any sort of data as to their success rate in treating patients with laetrile at this clinic?  Did these patients receive any other treatments along with the leatril? If they have treated "thousands" of patients, they should have lots of data.  If it has been successful, I would think they would like to rave about the success rates they have been able to achieve- that would help them attract even more patients.
> 
> Update: I do find that they post success rates but do not say anything about which portion was due to laetrile and what was via other treatments. 
> http://www.oasisofhope.com/patient-s...statistics.php
> 
> For example, they list multiple treatment protocols for breast cancer patients.  When given multiple treatments, it is difficult to say which one or ones "cured" the patient.  
> 
> ...



Firstly, you will never see any real doctor or any other expert in the practice or selling a cure anywhere in the world that will call any treatment a cure, even if patients have been cured because they will be arrested or kidnapped. This is a prime example of this happening. Other examples of this are here and here. Here is a prime example of someone who cured himself with Laetrile here. There are many factors to cancer and not all patients could cure themselves with just laetrile, especially those in later stages of cancer, poor diets, keep using carcinogens, have rare forms of cancer, with severe tumor growth, and those who have done chemotherapy.

Here are the statistics given from the treatment center. You have to wonder how many people came in as chemotherapy patients that dropped down the statistics as well. 

http://www.oasisofhope.com/survival_statistics.php


Also, based on findings by Dr.Gonsalez

In the earlier cases submitted in 1993 to the NCI, Gonzalez had treated a variety of cancers in a variety of patients. Based on this presentation, the NCI suggested he pursue a pilot study with patients diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer - the theory being that because of the seriousness of this cancer, clear results would be quick to obtain. *Cancer of the pancreas is rarely curable and five-year survival rates are only 4 per cent in the USA.

Gonzalez and Isaacs completed a pilot study, published in 1999, showing that patients on the Gonzalez regime lived on average 17.5 months - or three times longer than those taking conventional chemotherapy. So this is political dynamite.* 

*The follow-up clinical trial used a nutritional therapy of supplements (from vitamins to animal glandular products), plus coffee enemas and pancreatic enzymes in patients diagnosed with Grade II, III and IV pancreatic cancers. And it competed with a control group of patients taking standard chemotherapy. 

Though initially a minimum of 72 patients were to be enrolled in the study, far fewer eventually were admitted by the Principal Investigator at Columbia University.

The published paper from that trial, written without Dr. Gonzalez´s knowledge or consent, according to Gonzalez ´misrepresented´ the findings and claimed that chemotherapy had worked better when, in fact, the majority of patients on the nutritional arm were unable or unwilling to follow their treatment."*


Gonzalez published reports of how Laetrile was more effective then chemotherapy but the NCI published falsified data trying to prove that chemotherapy was more powerful then Laetrile.

Gonzalez argues entered in the nutrition arm needed to be more carefully screened for suitability, mental health, dedication to the regimen, etc. In order to avoid major bias, patients in both arms have to be screened according to exactly the same criteria. This is very difficult to do in a study in which patients choose their own treatment regimen. Also the report is even more bias when Dr Gonzalez was excluded from the screening process to avoid preferential screening (cherry-picking) for the “nutritional arm”.
He also argues that patients who did not comply with the demanding nutritional protocol be excluded from the analysis. One possible reason for noncompliance is progression of the cancer Excluding these patients would introduce certain bias. This is exactly why an Intent-to-Treat analysis is necessary.

*This science proves that orthodox methods don't work well. It also explains why glutathione, oxidative therapies should be a must which are not used in orthodox treatment.*

"Experiments in this century, and particularly in the past thirty years, have suggested that the body has natural 
immune mechanisms against cancer analogous to those that function in microbial infections. The corollary of this view 
is that cancer can be controlled by enhancing the body's normal immune functions, which orthodox methods tend to 
destroy."

*Here is a case study proving that Gonsalez methods of using enzymes such as Glutathione works on Cancer.*

http://www.turkjcancer.org/pdf/pdf_TJC_61.pdf

----------


## zeloc

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15061600
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're caught in a lie, first when you made the statement about it being inactive ingredients and not worrying it means you have no understanding of what inactive ingredients means, either you're lying assuming I think that inactive means its not working or haven't looked up the definition, next the documentation said nothing about it being *EITHER* removed, there happens to be no choice, next when you say trace quantities all that means is a small amount the relevance of how small is never determined inside of the vaccine and the documentation fails to say whether that amount is safe or not. Plus, there is non-biased research that documents the effects of these "inactive" ingredients.
> ...


It seems that you just want to believe that laetrile works and you will ignore anything that is contradictory to that hypothesis. Your post is rambling and doesn't make sense. Why is it that the last positive peer reviewed professional publication is more than 30 years ago?? If this stuff worked there should be a lot more physicians using it. 

There's no evidence that glutathione, silver, or B12 prevent the diseases that vaccines prevent. I don't know where you are getting your knowledge. If 99% of persons are vaccinated and it is truly as dangerous as you claim then there should be far more adverse cases when the number of adverse cases is tiny. Why doesn't everyone in the world have autism?

As I mentioned before, there have been 0 studies linking autism with vaccines. Why would you believe something when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for it?

It would be interesting if the increase in autism paralleled vaccines but this is simply false. Vaccines have been around for over 200 years. 

I don't see why it is at all unusual that there are trace and inactive ingredients in vaccines. Vaccines are enormously complicated, I mean they actually activate the human immune system to produce antibodies against disease, unless you've studied the subject why would you think it is unusual? 

There is far more evidence against all of the stuff you are espousing than for it. If this stuff about a doctor Gonzalez is true I'd like to see a paper on it, where is the reference for that?

----------


## Magicman

> It seems that you just want to believe that laetrile works and you will ignore anything that is contradictory to that hypothesis. Your post is rambling and doesn't make sense. Why is it that the last positive peer reviewed professional publication is more than 30 years ago?? If this stuff worked there should be a lot more physicians using it. 
> 
> There's no evidence that glutathione, silver, or B12 prevent the diseases that vaccines prevent. I don't know where you are getting your knowledge. If 99% of persons are vaccinated and it is truly as dangerous as you claim then there should be far more adverse cases when the number of adverse cases is tiny. Why doesn't everyone in the world have autism?
> 
> As I mentioned before, there have been 0 studies linking autism with vaccines. Why would you believe something when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for it?
> 
> It would be interesting if the increase in autism paralleled vaccines but this is simply false. Vaccines have been around for over 200 years. 
> 
> I don't see why it is at all unusual that there are trace and inactive ingredients in vaccines. Vaccines are enormously complicated, I mean they actually activate the human immune system to produce antibodies against disease, unless you've studied the subject why would you think it is unusual? 
> ...





> It seems that you just want to believe that laetrile works and you will ignore anything that is contradictory to that hypothesis. Your post is rambling and doesn't make sense. Why is it that the last positive peer reviewed professional publication is more than 30 years ago?? If this stuff worked there should be a lot more physicians using it.


The science proves that Laetrile works as well as non-biased studies. My post makes perfect sense I think it points out that you're a dishonest establishment goon that knows little about medical research and treatments except for creating falsified data on vaccines. Provide me anything that isn't supported by the Billion dollar cancer industry that has no interest in Laetrile that is a non-biased study and doesn't put out falsified data. You also conveniently ignored the fact that it has been banned by the European Union and U.S. and you wonder why your not hearing anything about it. The illegitimate excuses for it being banned prove that the Cancer industry is lying and has no interest in it being a legitimate alternative.




> There's no evidence that glutathione, silver, or B12 prevent the diseases that vaccines prevent. I don't know where you are getting your knowledge. If 99% of persons are vaccinated and it is truly as dangerous as you claim then there should be far more adverse cases when the number of adverse cases is tiny. Why doesn't everyone in the world have autism?


I could tell already that you have no idea what you're talking about you can find case studies that are linked to every disease and glutathione on pubmed, silver has always been used throughout history to remove bacteria and viruses, and B12 is in tons of pubmed studies as well and even used by neurologists and B12 deficiency is common, this shows you have done no research on any of the therapies I listed and you have no sincerity about finding out the real data. Your last argument is a strawman argument and basically does not make sense as to why we should put mercury or formaldehyde in vaccines. It also dodges the fact that everyone's neurological and immune system is different. 1 in 166 is a pretty significant number for autism, and they have been directly linked to vaccine toxicity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mar..._b_497047.html

*In response, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Autism released an "Autism Alarm" stating that 1 in 166 children in the US have autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).* 

If you were sincere about stopping diseases you would look into what boosts the immune system like the therapies I listed not suppress it like in the case of vaccines and their preservatives, and poisonous and immune suppressive inactive ingredients. If you had any morals which you clearly do not you would at least give a system on how to remove any of the side effects and poisons from the toxicity of the vaccines like I have provided instead you defend them, you basically are defending the use of toxic substances on innocent children, (P.S. Go kill yourself) and you clearly ignore that data and just expose your motives more and more on this board, oh great Reptilian overlord. 




> As I mentioned before, there have been 0 studies linking autism with vaccines.


Bull$#@!. Your lies are bigger then pinochio. I already provided plenty as well as Donnay. Keep trollin' $#@!. Go read the article from the Huffingtonpost, that clearly shows how to treat Autism and its toxic vaccine agents. The doctor knows A LOT more then you and has had mercury poisoning, I would trust his methods over your ineffective methods any day.





> Why would you believe something when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for it?


When you can disprove biomedical therapy and that it has results on Autism by chelating the agents used in vaccines then please shut up your an idiot. Noone on this board wants to hear a liar reiterate the same argument over and over again when their full of $#@! to begin with. "In people with a genetic susceptibility, such as a defect in the enzymes responsible for detoxifying heavy metals, prenatal and early postnatal exposure to mercury leads to neurologic damage resulting in autistic symptoms". That explains why some people are susceptible while others are not.




> It would be interesting if the increase in autism paralleled vaccines but this is simply false. Vaccines have been around for over 200 years. 
> 
> I don't see why it is at all unusual that there are trace and inactive ingredients in vaccines. Vaccines are enormously complicated, I mean they actually activate the human immune system to produce antibodies against disease, unless you've studied the subject why would you think it is unusual?


Give it up, you eugenicist supporting troll. You were caught in a lie defending poisons, noone should take your argument seriously.




> There is far more evidence against all of the stuff you are espousing than for it. If this stuff about a doctor Gonzalez is true I'd like to see a paper on it, where is the reference for that?


If that were the case then why not let honest research prevail and also allow it to be unbanned? It simply is dishonest to allow the same agencies to fund research to falsify data then let honest research happen. I provided the research it's your job to look it up. Don't be lazy.

----------


## donnay

Morpheus: "I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door.
	        You're the one that has to walk through it."

----------


## Magicman

> Morpheus: "I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door.
> 	        You're the one that has to walk through it."



Basically, these goons are anti-Ron Paul policies such as health freedoms, and support government agencies to control our life, Ron Paul argues for free markets and is against chrony capitalism. The reason why we have been so blinded is we've allowed the information and regulations to be controlled by a select few, this has made standards of evil proportions reflect our businesses as a whole where almost every industry is compromised to suite their agency practice. When these agencies provide standards where it is at the point where our own innocent children are being laced with toxic agents you know that our society is immoral and corrupt and if we continue to allow it to be this way in what has been a small amount of history of these evil practices we will surely imagine a future society where our grandchildren are genetically altered to be complacent with the NWO's plans of complacency, power and control.

These trolls are part of the hierarchy of big government, they need little busy worker bees to do their bidding for them. Their a lot like the agents from the Matrix they all think alike and act alike. It's too bad Neo and Morpheus kicked their asses.

----------


## donnay

> Basically, these goons are anti-Ron Paul policies such as health freedoms, and support government agencies to control our life, Ron Paul argues for free markets and is against chrony capitalism. The reason why we have been so blinded is we've allowed the information and regulations to be controlled by a select few, this has made standards of evil proportions reflect our businesses as a whole where almost every industry is compromised to suite their agency practice. When these agencies provide standards where it is at the point where our own innocent children are being laced with toxic agents you know that our society is immoral and corrupt and if we continue to allow it to be this way in what has been a small amount of history of these evil practices we will surely imagine a future society where our grandchildren are genetically altered to be complacent with the NWO's plans of complacency, power and control.
> 
> These trolls are part of the hierarchy of big government, they need little busy worker bees to do their bidding for them. Their a lot like the agents from the Matrix they all think alike and act alike. It's too bad Neo and Morpheus kicked their asses.


Once you free your mind, and do your own research, it will amaze you how much we have been lied to!!

+rep

----------


## Magicman

> Once you free your mind, and do your own research, it will amaze you how much we have been lied to!!
> 
> +rep


Ron Paul's system (Austrian economics, free trade, constitution, bill of rights, libertarian ism) is one way to break out of the establishment system, but it's a lot bigger then that. The problem is that people who free their mind and have the knowledge lack the resources to awake others so it's the duty of those who have the knowledge to unselfishly accept that duty and give it their hardest.

----------


## donnay

Being that we are on the movie the Matrix, I think of this part where everyone is eating foods laced with Monosodium Glutamate (which tricks our brains), Preservatives and other chemicals which are slow kills too...ignorance is bliss.

----------

