Rod wrote:

For what reason? Maybe just to get more fibers in his diet and not for
any laetrile? (which is NOT a vitamin)

In misc.health.alternative Rod <deniecerod1@hotmail.com> wrote:

: Facts are that there may well be more to consuming seeds of fruits which
: contain B17.

If laetrile is a vitamin, then what deficiency disease is associated with
its absence from the diet? And what do you make of the claim that the
domesticated hybridized fruit that we consume doesn't have any laetrile
in it?

: But you, who profess to know all,

Either you don't know the meaning of the word "profess" or you don't know
the meaning of the word "all" or you are lying. Take your pick.

: will not admit that B17 may actually help
: people who are doomed to death by cancer and or its current treatment.
:
: Why?

What I have said is that there is no actual evidence that laetrile is
effective against cancer in living creatures, and there *is* actual
evidence that it is not. Even your main industry shill (PeterB) was unable
to come up with any studies of laetrile's effectiveness that meet the
standards that he has set for all other drugs.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

Richard Schultz wrote:

Just yesterday I listened to a podcast, the Skeptical Guide to the
Universe, where they had the editor of "The Scientific Review of
Alternative Medicine" as guest. He said that he started looking into
alternative medicine because of Leatrile, when it was first marketed.
According to him, back then, the data on efficacy of Leatrile was simply
totally fabricated. In fact, if I understood him correctly, the whole
Leatrile thing was really not about (alternative) medicine, but about a
pyramid scheme for selling Leatrile! But then, after that, Leatrile got
a life of its own, which is what we are seeing today.

Rod wrote:
Because there is not one scintilla of scientific evidence to support it.
With Laetrile being over thirty years old, where are the legions of
Laetrile survivors? Why are they not marching on Washington, Canberra,
etc. demanding that the governments allow its use?

The utter lack of clearly well documented survivors is proof of
non-efficacy.

On Feb 15, 7:48 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
The fact laetrile has anti-tumor action (already proven) means it may
reduce the risk of cancer. Most nutrients are not classified as
essential, however that doesn't mean they won't effect your risk of
disease.

Krebs said that hybridization had reduced the amount of the nutrient
available (in part because of seedless fruits), he never said it had
disappeared entirely.

Science proved the antineoplastic effects of laetrile in tumor
research decades ago. Studies which have not shown such effects have
been conflicted by charges of corruption amid press leaks of a
positive nature out of Kettering Sloan. Former head of NCI Dean Burke
himself (and Dr. Ralph Moss, who was responsible for at least one of
the leaks) said laetrile was the most promising cancer treatment they
had ever seen. Are you suggesting we should take the word of someone
who "accidentally stumbled" onto mha over that of real scientists?

I have not been discussing pharmaceutically-manufactured laetrile, but
the naturally-occuring food-based form on which the drug was modeled.
Your efforts to obscure this are quite telling. Do say hello to your
sponsors for me.

PeterB

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
: On Feb 15, 7:48 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> In misc.health.alternative Rod <deniecer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

:> : Facts are that there may well be more to consuming seeds of fruits which
:> : contain B17.

:> If laetrile is a vitamin, then what deficiency disease is associated with
:> its absence from the diet?
:
: The fact laetrile has anti-tumor action (already proven)

Funny how you are unable to come up with that proof, no matter how many
times you are asked to provide it.

: means it may reduce the risk of cancer.

That doesn't make it a vitamin, i.e. a nutrient the lack of which causes
a deficiency disease.

:> What I have said is that there is no actual evidence that laetrile is
:> effective against cancer in living creatures, and there *is* actual
:> evidence that it is not.
:
: Science proved the antineoplastic effects of laetrile in tumor
: research decades ago.

Your repeating this falsehood numerous times does not make it any
more true.

: Are you suggesting we should take the word of someone
: who "accidentally stumbled" onto mha over that of real scientists?

Do you enjoy lying, or can you really not tell the difference between a
lie and the truth? Even "real" scientists can be wrong -- and they
frequently are. "Real" scientists differ from people like you in that
they understand the nature of scientific proof, and when they are wrong,
they admit it.

:> Even your main industry shill (PeterB) was unable
:> to come up with any studies of laetrile's effectiveness that meet the
:> standards that he has set for all other drugs.
:
: I have not been discussing pharmaceutically-manufactured laetrile, but
: the naturally-occuring food-based form on which the drug was modeled.
: Your efforts to obscure this are quite telling. Do say hello to your
: sponsors for me.

Would you care to name two of my sponsors? And your evidence that they
are sponsoring me? Or do you just want them to do lunch with *your*
sponsors, who are so afraid of being identified that they won't even let
you post under your own name?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Why is it so important that you want to contact the governments of our Earth?"
"Because of Death! Because all you of Earth are idiots!"

On Feb 15, 3:39 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
You have been referred to that evidence and you ignored it. Dr.
Kanematsu Sugiura's work at Kettering Sloan is well documented and in
the public domain. You can also read the published work of Ralph W.
Moss, Ph.D., former director of public affairs at Memorial Sloan-
Kettering Cancer Center. He also authored "Questioning Chemotherapy,"
and "The Cancer Industry," as well as the award-winning PBS
documentary, "The Cancer War."

Krebs made a far more compelling argument that it is, whereas you
haven't made one at all.

It's well documented. Why should anyone take your word over that of
Dean Burke's at NCI?

So you *are* suggesting we should take the word of someone who
"accidentally stumbled" onto mha over that of real scientists. Thanks
for clarifying.

Your identity is of no consequence, nor is mine. Our words identify
our motives and even the rules of engagement won't obscure that
fact.

PeterB

On 9 Feb 2007 12:02:37 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

But they are proven. Your premise is faulty again.

Well, what other efficacy indicator other than patient survival would
you ask for?

jack

On 9 Feb 2007 20:51:20 -0800, "brightwinger" <awthrawthr@yahoo.com>
wrote:

But 135,000 are saved from suicide by their use. And that's just one
tiny but important benefit. Billions are benefitted by these
marvellous drugs. From ameliorating headaches, to freeing up arthritic
joints, to preventing coronary occlusions and brain clots.

jack

On 9 Feb 2007 20:47:31 -0800, "brightwinger" <awthrawthr@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Well, that surely depends on whether the person at the other end of
the line has a clue why. Mostly it's the case that he hasn't.

jack

On 16 Feb 2007 08:22:50 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Don't you mean Sloan-Kettering?

jack

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:18:15 +0900, spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

And most of the best are the old, inexpensive generics! Most of the
new crap coming out is no better, sometimes more toxic and always a
financial rape fest.

Many dietary supplements also can be excellent alternatives that are
almost always MUCH safer and much cheaper, if out of pocket in the US.

The drug companies are much like the dinosaur. Except dinosaurs lasted
a lot longer.

George M. Carter

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:17:13 +0900, spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

Ask Pharma!! LOL...they'll take just about any kind of tiny
improvement, even if survival is not improved in the slightest (or by
pathetic amounts like a few days or a couple of weeks). Then they can
get FDA approval and charge $50,000 or $150,000 a year for a shit drug
that costs pennies to make.

George M. Carter

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
: On Feb 15, 3:39 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

:> : The fact laetrile has anti-tumor action (already proven)
:>
:> Funny how you are unable to come up with that proof, no matter how many
:> times you are asked to provide it.
:
: You have been referred to that evidence and you ignored it.

I believe that the technical term for the above statement is "lie."

:> That doesn't make it a vitamin, i.e. a nutrient the lack of which causes
:> a deficiency disease.
:
: Krebs made a far more compelling argument that it is, whereas you
: haven't made one at all.

No one has shown that there is any deficiency disease associated with
a lack of laetrile in the diet.

:> : Science proved the antineoplastic effects of laetrile in tumor
:> : research decades ago.
:>
:> Your repeating this falsehood numerous times does not make it any
:> more true.
:
: It's well documented. Why should anyone take your word over that of
: Dean Burke's at NCI?

[usual drivel deleted]

: Your identity is of no consequence, nor is mine. Our words identify
: our motives and even the rules of engagement won't obscure that fact.

If my identity is of no consequence, then why do you keep repeating your
(demonstrably false) claim that I am a "PR grunt" for the pharmaceutical
industry? One would think that you would be able to refute my arguments
without any necessity for slandering me. On the other hand, your behavior
is difficult to explain if you are someone who has nothing to hide.


-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"If for silver, or for gold,/ You could melt ten thousand pimples/ Into half a
dozen dimples/ Then your face we might behold/ Looking, doubtless, much more
smugly,/ Yet ev'n then 'twould be damned ugly." -- Byron

On Feb 21, 1:31 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
Your identify and your behaviour are two different things. I could
care less who you are. The dynamic of our interaction has zero to do
with our identities, and everything to do with the motivation behind
our individual actions. On some level, even you must understand
that.

I do refute your arguments, however I have never slandered you. There
is nothing wrong with what you do. Have I ever said your behaviour is
illegal or morally corrupt? It's entirely your game, Schultzie, not
mine.

Your world and my world are as different as night and day. I intend
to keep it that way.

PeterB

In message <1170969596.175619.223080@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups. com>, PeterB wrote:

Granting, /arguendo,/ that the bar is set unreasonably low:

Why then is it that the alternative practicioners can't even
clear that excessively-lax hurdle?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

On Feb 15, 9:54 am, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
And you would know that because you have a nanoscope to measure your
tiny grasp of science? You should stick to reading comic books,
Markey.

There are many reasons. First, alternate cancer treatment in the USA
takes the brunt of FDA's prosecutorial efforts on behalf of the drug
makers. The drug makers are FDA's primary funding source, so this is
hardly surprising. The fear of reprisal and persecution felt by
doctors who use laetrile in their patients is hard to overcome. I
don't blame them for not wanting to sacrifice their careers on the
alter of evidence, only to have it swept away by false statements in
the press and sanctioned by government sources. So they work in
silence, and their patients are probably protecting them. Second,
cancer is not reliably cured by laetrile. The primary benefit in most
cancer patients is an improved prognosis, not complete cure. There is
evidence, though, that laetrile achieves more remissions by far than
standard treatment. It's also highly palliative, suggesting an
important boost to immune response, the key to beating cancer in the
first place. I would absolutely choose laetrile over chemotherapy,
and I would not do both. Cancer is a very difficult disease to
arrest, but individuals facing death have the god-given right to
choose the treatment they believe is right for them. Any objection to
that and you are saying to the world that you are not an American.
And when it comes right down to it, Markey, you and your friends have
proven you would all be more at home living in Cuba.

Say hello to your sponsors for me, Ok?

PeterB

PeterB wrote:

- snip -

Oh boy, that particular piece of BS again. Petey, nobody, I repeat
nobody wants to meddle with the freedom of choice of patients. Patients
are not the target here. They are victims, first of a horrible disease
and second of quacks. There is no blaming the victim here. It's the
people who claim Laetrile is an effective cancer cure, the liars, the
scumbags, who are the target.
And because it's you I'll point out the obvious: a choice between
something that works and something that does not is not a real choice.
It's a mockery of freedom of choice. A perverversion. Although peddlers
of quackery like yourself like to pretend it's not.

Snipped crap from John Duh..

On Feb 22, 9:33 am, JohnDoe <d...@spam.me> wrote:
And you would know the facts regarding laetrile because you have a
nanoscope to measure your
tiny grasp of science? You should stick to reading comic books,
Johnboy. (Different PR grunt, same message.)

So the cure for cancer has been discovered -- thanks for alerting us
to this incredible news. You get yet *another* nobel prize,
Johndopey.

What are they paying you per word these days? Or is it based on the
number of overall posts? Oh, here's what you snipped on behalf of
your sponsors a minute ago:

There are many reasons why laetrile has been denied its rightful place
in cancer treatment. First, alternate cancer treatment in the USA
takes the brunt of FDA's prosecutorial efforts on behalf of the drug
makers. Patented chemotherapy drugs have been their most lucrative
franchise. The drug makers are FDA's primary funding source, so this
is hardly surprising. The fear of reprisal and persecution felt by
doctors who use laetrile in their patients is hard to overcome. I
don't blame them for not wanting to sacrifice their careers on the
alter of evidence, only to have it swept away by false statements in
the press and sanctioned by government sources. So they work in
silence, and their patients are probably protecting them. It's also
true that cancer is not reliably cured by laetrile. The primary
benefit in most cancer patients is an improved prognosis, not complete
cure. There is evidence, though, that laetrile achieves more
remissions (and thus cure) by far than standard treatment. It's also
highly palliative, suggesting an important boost to immune response,
the key to beating cancer in the first place. I would absolutely
choose laetrile over chemotherapy, and I would not do both. Cancer is
a very difficult disease to arrest, but individuals facing death have
the god-given right to choose the treatment they believe is right for
them. Any objection to that and you are saying to the world that you
are not an American. And when it comes right down to it, Johndopey,
you and your friends have proven you would all be more at home living
in Cuba.

Say hello to your sponsors for me, Ok?