Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned

[One Brow]

I looked up Laetrile and saw the most frequently cited article. I laughed when I saw they used the disreputable shill of the Big Pharma, the Quatchwatch doctor, Stephen Barrett as a source.

Is anything in that article inaccurate?

I know about Laetrile because I once thought I had melanoma and used it to clear up my own symptoms, as well as the Budwig Protocol -- It was how I got involved in that alternative cancer treatment podcast.

So, you misdiagnosed yourself with having a melanoma, engaged in a bunch of quackery to treat yourself for a disease you didn't have in the first place, and now credit all that quackery with have cured you of a disease you never had. OK.

I also found through my own use that the claims of cyanide intolerance were much lower than the level I was using. In fact, if these peer-reviewed studies were correct, I would've been dead.

So, you want me to trust that you were accurately measuring the amount of laetrile you were taking, and that you understand enough biology and chemistry to properly convert that into the level of cyanide in your blood? No, I don't think so.

This is the problem with capitalism, people will lie to advance their profits; they will skew studies; they will pay to get the results they want.

Whereas, all the quacks offer their services for free? Both the quacks and the medical practitioners charge for their services. The difference is the medical practitioners used services that have received outside verification for their effectiveness and and are subject to government review, unlike the quacks.

Why do you think they are paying billions of dollars in fines each year because of putting products on the markets that harm or even kill people, products which the studies indicated that they are safe?

Because there products come with medical purposes and medical approvals, unlike the quacks who make few actual promises and market their junk as nutritional supplements.

 

[Getting Traded]

Is anything in that article inaccurate?



So, you misdiagnosed yourself with having a melanoma, engaged in a bunch of quackery to treat yourself for a disease you didn't have in the first place, and now credit all that quackery with have cured you of a disease you never had. OK.



So, you want me to trust that you were accurately measuring the amount of laetrile you were taking, and that you understand enough biology and chemistry to properly convert that into the level of cyanide in your blood? No, I don't think so.



Whereas, all the quacks offer their services for free? Both the quacks and the medical practitioners charge for their services. The difference is the medical practitioners used services that have received outside verification for their effectiveness and and are subject to government review, unlike the quacks.



Because there products come with medical purposes and medical approvals, unlike the quacks who make few actual promises and market their junk as nutritional supplements.

Too many rebuttals to make. But as to my possible misdiagnosis, I agree it was never diagnosed by a medical professional, only that I had many symptoms and did have a mole removed that was considered pre-cancerous. It's not true though that Laetrile doesn't kill cancer, it does. According to the primitive science that was explained to me, is that it's the cyanide that kills the cancer and why you have to be careful about dosage because of that. However, some chemical mechanism in the Laetrile causes it to more readily bind with malignant cells and kills them not harming the rest of the body. Apparently, there must be some residual effect or you wouldn't have to be careful about dosage.

And yes, I was measuring dosage based on recommendations I had read about in an alternative medicine journal or website. I don't recall exactly how much, but I think started at 4 crushed apricot seeds blended in an organic fruit smoothie, slowly increasing it until I reached 20 or so, which is near, I believe, is close to the maximum recommended dosage. It was then I felt some fatigue as if I had reached my ceiling with it. One journal article that I found I believe on the American Cancer Society website said that 12, I think it was, of these apricot seeds would cause death because of cyanide poisoning. And as you see, I had already nearly doubled that. I did it everyday for about a month or so. In any case, my symptoms did diminish. But I have no clinical evidence.

All I know is that conventional cancer treatment is very toxic, and that if you can find ways to avoid it, then you should. Natural methods, if they don't cure you, at least offer a much less painful existence. In any case, your chances of surviving cancer are probably just as good with much less of the horrid pain caused by barbaric chemo and radiation.

Some may disagree with that. They think that natural treatments are as good as doing nothing. That's their prerogative. I'm on the side of doing as much as you can to make yourself healthy, and not doing unhealthy things like chemo and radiation that burn and fry your whole body, not just the cancer.

 

[LogGrad98]

Too many rebuttals to make. But as to my possible misdiagnosis, I agree it was never diagnosed by a medical professional, only that I had many symptoms and did have a mole removed that was considered pre-cancerous. It's not true though that Laetrile doesn't kill cancer, it does. According to the primitive science that was explained to me, is that it's the cyanide that kills the cancer and why you have to be careful about dosage because of that. However, some chemical mechanism in the Laetrile causes it to more readily bind with malignant cells and kills them not harming the rest of the body. Apparently, there must be some residual effect or you wouldn't have to be careful about dosage.

And yes, I was measuring dosage based on recommendations I had read about in an alternative medicine journal or website. I don't recall exactly how much, but I think started at 4 crushed apricot seeds blended in an organic fruit smoothie, slowly increasing it until I reached 20 or so, which is near, I believe, is close to the maximum recommended dosage. It was then I felt some fatigue as if I had reached my ceiling with it. One journal article that I found I believe on the American Cancer Society website said that 12, I think it was, of these apricot seeds would cause death because of cyanide poisoning. And as you see, I had already nearly doubled that. I did it everyday for about a month or so. In any case, my symptoms did diminish. But I have no clinical evidence.

All I know is that conventional cancer treatment is very toxic, and that if you can find ways to avoid it, then you should. Natural methods, if they don't cure you, at least offer a much less painful existence. In any case, your chances of surviving cancer are probably just as good with much less of the horrid pain caused by barbaric chemo and radiation.

Some may disagree with that. They think that natural treatments are as good as doing nothing. That's their prerogative. I'm on the side of doing as much as you can to make yourself healthy, and not doing unhealthy things like chemo and radiation that burn and fry your whole body, not just the cancer.

Wow. Just. Wow. Just. Wow. Just......wow.

 

[Getting Traded]

Wow. Just. Wow. Just. Wow. Just......wow.

You disagree that the chemo isn't horrible? I guess though if it means staying alive, you do it. I just don't know if you could have been spared that. It's moot now and I'm sure you would do it again. You had a happy ending.

 

[Gameface]

My goodness.

EM, for every post that redeems you there are 100 that condemn you.

I deem you the WORST poster in jazzfanz history.

I'm no fan of Dutch, and his crimes are far more ban-worthy than yours, but you are easily a worse person than he is.

Not just the anti-vax horse ****. But the stalking, and the "write-4-you" username when you are one of the worst writers on the site. The insecurity driven nonsense, the sensitivity to reasonable criticism. You make milktoast look bold.

 

[Gameface]

 

[Archie Moses]

My goodness.

EM, for every post that redeems you there are 100 that condemn you.

I deem you the WORST poster in jazzfanz history.

I'm no fan of Dutch, and his crimes are far more ban-worthy than yours, but you are easily a worse person than he is.

Not just the anti-vax horse ****. But the stalking, and the "write-4-you" username when you are one of the worst writers on the site. The insecurity driven nonsense, the sensitivity to reasonable criticism. You make milktoast look bold.

I'm going to have to step up my game.

Hehepeepeecaca.

 

[One Brow]

It's not true though that Laetrile doesn't kill cancer, it does. According to the primitive science that was explained to me, is that it's the cyanide that kills the cancer and why you have to be careful about dosage because of that.

They have tested laetrile. It didn't work. The person who explained the primitive science to you was some combination of deluded and and dishonest.

However, some chemical mechanism in the Laetrile causes it to more readily bind with malignant cells and kills them not harming the rest of the body. Apparently, there must be some residual effect or you wouldn't have to be careful about dosage.

No such mechanism exists.

And yes, I was measuring dosage based on recommendations I had read about in an alternative medicine journal or website. I don't recall exactly how much, but I think started at 4 crushed apricot seeds blended in an organic fruit smoothie, slowly increasing it until I reached 20 or so, which is near, I believe, is close to the maximum recommended dosage. It was then I felt some fatigue as if I had reached my ceiling with it. One journal article that I found I believe on the American Cancer Society website said that 12, I think it was, of these apricot seeds would cause death because of cyanide poisoning. And as you see, I had already nearly doubled that. I did it everyday for about a month or so. In any case, my symptoms did diminish. But I have no clinical evidence.

Nothing about dosage here: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/laetrile-pdq

Since the toxicity of any poison is in part a factor of dosage compared to body weight, it's not a surprise you could exceed a potentially lethal dosage.

No one has clinical evidence for the effectiveness of laetrile, even when they go looking for it.

All I know is that conventional cancer treatment is very toxic, and that if you can find ways to avoid it, then you should.

I suppose it depends upon how much you enjoy living. Conventional treatments will generally prolong your lifespan, occasionally by decades, in return for several months of discomfort during therapy.

Natural methods, if they don't cure you, at least offer a much less painful existence.

So would taking lots of baths, but that doesn't cure cancer, either.

In any case, your chances of surviving cancer are probably just as good with much less of the horrid pain caused by barbaric chemo and radiation.

They are not "probably just as good", they are much worse. This has been studied. This is a known fact. By repeating the lie, you are encouraging other people to shorten their lives based on a lie. Doesn't that bother you?

Some may disagree with that. They think that natural treatments are as good as doing nothing. That's their prerogative.

Yes, it is my prerogative to state what all scientific studies have revealed to be true, and to encourage people to understand that their lives are likely to be shorter if they use alternative therapies. Now, if people want to choose a probably shorter life, that is their call. However, it should be a properly informed call on their part.

I'm on the side of doing as much as you can to make yourself healthy, and not doing unhealthy things like chemo and radiation that burn and fry your whole body, not just the cancer.

I understand you are on the side of having a shorter life. I'm just asking you to be honest with yourself about this consequence.

 

[Stoked]

They have tested laetrile. It didn't work. The person who explained the primitive science to you was some combination of deluded and and dishonest.



No such mechanism exists.



Nothing about dosage here: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/laetrile-pdq

Since the toxicity of any poison is in part a factor of dosage compared to body weight, it's not a surprise you could exceed a potentially lethal dosage.

No one has clinical evidence for the effectiveness of laetrile, even when they go looking for it.



I suppose it depends upon how much you enjoy living. Conventional treatments will generally prolong your lifespan, occasionally by decades, in return for several months of discomfort during therapy.



So would taking lots of baths, but that doesn't cure cancer, either.



They are not "probably just as good", they are much worse. This has been studied. This is a known fact. By repeating the lie, you are encouraging other people to shorten their lives based on a lie. Doesn't that bother you?



Yes, it is my prerogative to state what all scientific studies have revealed to be true, and to encourage people to understand that their lives are likely to be shorter if they use alternative therapies. Now, if people want to choose a probably shorter life, that is their call. However, it should be a properly informed call on their part.



I understand you are on the side of having a shorter life. I'm just asking you to be honest with yourself about this consequence.

Didn’t bother him when he was trying to link vaccines and autism.

 

[LogGrad98]

Chemo and radiation extended my life, by nearly 2 decades now (treatment ended 20 years ago this coming October), but as I have documented in here quite a bit, it did not leave me unscathed. I deal with severe clinical depression brought on by PTSD from a year of brutal treatments, multiple surgeries, and entirely too many prescription narcotics. I'll live with that and permanent low- to mid-level pain the rest of my life, and right now they are looking at possible skin graft onto my back where they did 2 surgeries and the skin is too thin so I'm having metal plates starting to poke through the skin. But the alternative was a less than 15% chance of living, and considering my tumor was growing into my spinal column and had started to encroach against the dura of my spinal cord it would have killed me outright before long. I'm very grateful for modern medicine. I have a fantastic daughter because of it (conceived and born after my treatments ended), I got to see my kids grow up and have a beautiful grand daughter. Thanks to actual medicine. I really worry about people who put their faith in these alternative treatments and risk their lives, but I also get the pain and despair of traditional treatments and why people would so desperately want another choice. But there is no magic bullet. It's all a very dangerous, if appealing, lie.

 

[Hotdog]

They have tested laetrile. It didn't work. The person who explained the primitive science to you was some combination of deluded and and dishonest.



No such mechanism exists.



Nothing about dosage here: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/laetrile-pdq

Since the toxicity of any poison is in part a factor of dosage compared to body weight, it's not a surprise you could exceed a potentially lethal dosage.

No one has clinical evidence for the effectiveness of laetrile, even when they go looking for it.



I suppose it depends upon how much you enjoy living. Conventional treatments will generally prolong your lifespan, occasionally by decades, in return for several months of discomfort during therapy.



So would taking lots of baths, but that doesn't cure cancer, either.



They are not "probably just as good", they are much worse. This has been studied. This is a known fact. By repeating the lie, you are encouraging other people to shorten their lives based on a lie. Doesn't that bother you?



Yes, it is my prerogative to state what all scientific studies have revealed to be true, and to encourage people to understand that their lives are likely to be shorter if they use alternative therapies. Now, if people want to choose a probably shorter life, that is their call. However, it should be a properly informed call on their part.



I understand you are on the side of having a shorter life. I'm just asking you to be honest with yourself about this consequence.

Im not going to pretend to know anything about this science, but Im curious to what you think about fasting for trying to cure cancer or even just taking sugar out of your diet. Ive watched some Ted talks and read some articles about this, and seems to make some sense. Its believed by some that sugar is causing cancer and if you starve the cells of sugar you can reverse cancer.

I practice fasting as much as possible. I still have yet to go on a really long prolonged fast such as a week or two, but Im trying to build up to it. Im also doing as much as I can to not eat any sugar. I dont have any current medical issues. Its more of just preventative measures.

Im just wondering if you consider this quak science as well?

 

[Hotdog]

Chemo and radiation extended my life, by nearly 2 decades now (treatment ended 20 years ago this coming October), but as I have documented in here quite a bit, it did not leave me unscathed. I deal with severe clinical depression brought on by PTSD from a year of brutal treatments, multiple surgeries, and entirely too many prescription narcotics. I'll live with that and permanent low- to mid-level pain the rest of my life, and right now they are looking at possible skin graft onto my back where they did 2 surgeries and the skin is too thin so I'm having metal plates starting to poke through the skin. But the alternative was a less than 15% chance of living, and considering my tumor was growing into my son's column and had started to encroach against the dura of my spinal cord it would have killed me outright before long. I'm very grateful for modern medicine. I have a fantastic daughter because of it (conceived and born after my treatments ended), I got to see my kids grow up and have a beautiful grand daughter. Thanks to actual medicine. I really worry about people who put their faith in these alternative treatments and risk their lives, but I also get the pain and despair of traditional treatments and why people would so desperately want another choice. But there is no magic bullet. It's all a very dangerous, if appealing, lie.

Thats brutal Log. Sorry you had to go through that. What do you think about what I just asked Brow?

 

[LogGrad98]

Thats brutal Log. Sorry you had to go through that. What do you think about what I just asked Brow?

I've been reading a lot about fasting the last few years. There are a lot of studies out of Russia about it, including DNA analysis, measuring changes in hormones, blood studies, etc. I think there is real promise there, but I seriously doubt the efficacy against something like cancer, especially localized tumors. I just don't think the body can generally be spurred to produce the antigens or antibodies or whatever the mechanism would be that would be necessary to actually stop cancer growth and remove tumor tissue.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think sugar is a straight up toxin, especially in the way it triggers insulin response and all the other attendant ills. Sugar is a bane imo.

 

[One Brow]

Im not going to pretend to know anything about this science, but Im curious to what you think about fasting for trying to cure cancer or even just taking sugar out of your diet. Ive watched some Ted talks and read some articles about this, and seems to make some sense. Its believed by some that sugar is causing cancer and if you starve the cells of sugar you can reverse cancer.

I practice fasting as much as possible. I still have yet to go on a really long prolonged fast such as a week or two, but Im trying to build up to it. Im also doing as much as I can to not eat any sugar. I dont have any current medical issues. Its more of just preventative measures.

Im just wondering if you consider this quak science as well?

Table sugar is made of a glucose-fructose pair, and your body will convert the fructose into glucose. Glucose is the energy transfer medium of your body. It powers the neurons in your brain and the muscles everywhere else.

If you don't eat any type of sugar, your body will still produce glucose. It convert starch into glucose easily. It can convert fat into glucose (that seems to be a major reason we store fat in the first place), or as a last resort, protein. Converting fat or protein into glucose uses up energy and has some other biological side effects. Going without sugars/starches is biologically risky.

However, if you are simply avoiding table sugar (I was not sure what you meant by "taking taking sugar out of your diet", you are probably eating plenty of other types of sugars. Fruit, dairy products, etc. all have sugars; grains and tubers have starches, etc. So, you might be eating plenty of sugar or starch without using table sugar, and then giving up table sugar is probably a good thing (most of us in the US eat too much sugar).

Regarding cancer specifically, the glucose in your blood doesn't get tagged for one part of the body or another. If you drop the level of glucose in your blood (called the blood sugar level) to the point where cancer cells can't find glucose in the blood to use, then that would mean your brain cells and muscles cells would also be running on little or no sugar. The muscles can do that for a little while, the brain is very bad at running without glucose.

That said, I may have misunderstood something or just missed something. I would take what you presented with a very skeptical eye, and insist on it being researched pretty thoroughly before I tried to starve a cancer by not eating any sugars/starches at all. There are good reasons to cut back on sugar, but I find it unlikely cancer is one of them.

 

[One Brow]

I think sugar is a straight up toxin, especially in the way it triggers insulin response and all the other attendant ills. Sugar is a bane imo.

The way we use it in the US, you are correct. As with almost anything else, the poison is in the dosage.

 

[One Brow]

Chemo and radiation extended my life, by nearly 2 decades now (treatment ended 20 years ago this coming October), but as I have documented in here quite a bit, it did not leave me unscathed. I deal with severe clinical depression brought on by PTSD from a year of brutal treatments, multiple surgeries, and entirely too many prescription narcotics. I'll live with that and permanent low- to mid-level pain the rest of my life, and right now they are looking at possible skin graft onto my back where they did 2 surgeries and the skin is too thin so I'm having metal plates starting to poke through the skin. But the alternative was a less than 15% chance of living, and considering my tumor was growing into my spinal column and had started to encroach against the dura of my spinal cord it would have killed me outright before long. I'm very grateful for modern medicine. I have a fantastic daughter because of it (conceived and born after my treatments ended), I got to see my kids grow up and have a beautiful grand daughter. Thanks to actual medicine. I really worry about people who put their faith in these alternative treatments and risk their lives, but I also get the pain and despair of traditional treatments and why people would so desperately want another choice. But there is no magic bullet. It's all a very dangerous, if appealing, lie.

I'm fairly sure the world is better for you still being in it.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm fairly sure the world is better for you still being in it.

Thank you

 

[fishonjazz]

Table sugar is made of a glucose-fructose pair, and your body will convert the fructose into glucose. Glucose is the energy transfer medium of your body. It powers the neurons in your brain and the muscles everywhere else.

If you don't eat any type of sugar, your body will still produce glucose. It convert starch into glucose easily. It can convert fat into glucose (that seems to be a major reason we store fat in the first place), or as a last resort, protein. Converting fat or protein into glucose uses up energy and has some other biological side effects. Going without sugars/starches is biologically risky.

However, if you are simply avoiding table sugar (I was not sure what you meant by "taking taking sugar out of your diet", you are probably eating plenty of other types of sugars. Fruit, dairy products, etc. all have sugars; grains and tubers have starches, etc. So, you might be eating plenty of sugar or starch without using table sugar, and then giving up table sugar is probably a good thing (most of us in the US eat too much sugar).

Regarding cancer specifically, the glucose in your blood doesn't get tagged for one part of the body or another. If you drop the level of glucose in your blood (called the blood sugar level) to the point where cancer cells can't find glucose in the blood to use, then that would mean your brain cells and muscles cells would also be running on little or no sugar. The muscles can do that for a little while, the brain is very bad at running without glucose.

That said, I may have misunderstood something or just missed something. I would take what you presented with a very skeptical eye, and insist on it being researched pretty thoroughly before I tried to starve a cancer by not eating any sugars/starches at all. There are good reasons to cut back on sugar, but I find it unlikely cancer is one of them.

I'm taking from this that I shouldn't drink much soda pop

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

I'm taking from this that I shouldn't drink much soda pop

As with everything, that depends on your life style, the rest of your diet, and how much sugar is in the soda you do drink. It's very easy to drink too much.