Actually, laetrile IS included as an option in the anti-cancer protocol

[Guest guest]

Actually Bobby, I have to disagree with you for the most part.

First of all, laetrile IS included as a suggestion in my anti-cancer protocol:

Vitamin B-17, also known as laetrile, is a very potent and proven cancer fighter that is highly recommended although difficult to find (the best source is apricot pits). Note: laetrile by itself, or even as the primary element of a cancer fighting protocol, is best used by people who have been given 12-18 months or longer survival estimates, as it normally works best when taken for a prolonged period of time.

Secondly, Memorial-Sloan Kettering conducted studies on Laetrile which found that it was indeed effective against cancer. Twice, they ordered the lead researcher to re-do the study and then finally ordered him to change his results. Dr. Ralph Moss, who was working at the time as a public information specialist at MSK outed them for the cover up and was promptly fired, which launched the now famous career of Dr. Moss as an anti-establishment cancer crusador (though he has been moving back into their fold in recent years as has sadly been true of many CAM figures).

Though it may be questionable to call laetrile a vitamin, unlike doorknobs it is found naturally in a great many plants, including the pits of many fruits (in particular, apricot pits), raw nuts, millet, wheatgrass, buckwheat and more. Mankind has been consuming such food items since we first put down footprints on the sands of time.

Now, I will agree that there were some unscrupulous characters as well as some overly optimistic ones who promoted laetrile as THE answer for cancer. It is those folks, particularly the unscrupulous ones who sought to make tons of money from overzealous marketing and over-hyped claims, who have primarily given laetrile a bad name.

I personally have no doubts whatsoever, based on MY research, that laetrile can be effective, but I note that in most instances it has been effective over a long term rather than a short term and that it has also been most effective when combined with an overall protocol that included lots of other supplementation, vitamins, juicing, etc.

I do not consider laetrile to be an essential part of my suggested protocol, though I think it could be a worthy addition for many people. I would also caution against over-doing it, especially for those who are using high doses of Vitamin C, as that can increase the side effects, and I would personally never depend on it alone or even as the featured item of a protocol to beat cancer - though I am aware of several people who have successfully done so.

As a final note, though I have always been a lover of science I have very little faith in "scientifically based studies" these days which purport to show no benefits or even harm from vitamins, minerals and other compounds found in nature. Almost invariably you will find links to Big Pharma and mainstream medicine in the funding and design of such studies. Which may explain why studies have been shown to produce favorable results on behalf of the funders as much as 8 times as often as similar studies performed with no bias or connection to the outcome of the study.

Sound like you are using a very good protocol yourself, btw, and I congratulate you on your success.

All the best,

 

oleander soup , "Bobby E Rehberg" <brehberg wrote:>> I have not found any scientifically based studies that show it has any> benefit at all and can be lethal. Cyanide is about as toxic as it gets and> to call it a "vitamin" is the height of ridiculousness. It is about as much> a vitamin as a doorknob. There are a host of proven natural substances that> deter cancer spread and growth. I currently am using Oleander at 4 capsules> per day along with Curcumin, Lovastatin+gamma vitamin E, Fish Oil, Budwig,> Quercetin, Selenium, Iodine, Astragalus, and some other items along with> conventional chemo for metastatic Melanoma of the lung with excellent> results. There has been no spread and the tumors have all shrunk, some> significantly. > > My aunt took laetrile 20 years ago for cancer and the disease steadily> progressed until her death, which did not take long. I have spent a career> in biological R & D and laetrile is a farce that has been promoted by those> who prey on people searching for a solution to their cancer problems and> want to believe in anything that they hope will help them. > > > > Bob Rehberg

[Guest guest]

Does anyone know a good place to buy good organic apricot pits?

Thanks, Robyn

 

 

 

TonyI oleander soup Sent: Mon, October 26, 2009 12:16:56 PM Actually, laetrile IS included as an option in the anti-cancer protocol

 

Actually Bobby, I have to disagree with you for the most part.

First of all, laetrile IS included as a suggestion in my anti-cancer protocol:

Vitamin B-17, also known as laetrile, is a very potent and proven cancer fighter that is highly recommended although difficult to find (the best source is apricot pits). Note: laetrile by itself, or even as the primary element of a cancer fighting protocol, is best used by people who have been given 12-18 months or longer survival estimates, as it normally works best when taken for a prolonged period of time.

Secondly, Memorial-Sloan Kettering conducted studies on Laetrile which found that it was indeed effective against cancer. Twice, they ordered the lead researcher to re-do the study and then finally ordered him to change his results. Dr. Ralph Moss, who was working at the time as a public information specialist at MSK outed them for the cover up and was promptly fired, which launched the now famous career of Dr. Moss as an anti-establishment cancer crusador (though he has been moving back into their fold in recent years as has sadly been true of many CAM figures).

Though it may be questionable to call laetrile a vitamin, unlike doorknobs it is found naturally in a great many plants, including the pits of many fruits (in particular, apricot pits), raw nuts, millet, wheatgrass, buckwheat and more. Mankind has been consuming such food items since we first put down footprints on the sands of time.

Now, I will agree that there were some unscrupulous characters as well as some overly optimistic ones who promoted laetrile as THE answer for cancer. It is those folks, particularly the unscrupulous ones who sought to make tons of money from overzealous marketing and over-hyped claims, who have primarily given laetrile a bad name.

I personally have no doubts whatsoever, based on MY research, that laetrile can be effective, but I note that in most instances it has been effective over a long term rather than a short term and that it has also been most effective when combined with an overall protocol that included lots of other supplementation, vitamins, juicing, etc.

I do not consider laetrile to be an essential part of my suggested protocol, though I think it could be a worthy addition for many people. I would also caution against over-doing it, especially for those who are using high doses of Vitamin C, as that can increase the side effects, and I would personally never depend on it alone or even as the featured item of a protocol to beat cancer - though I am aware of several people who have successfully done so.

As a final note, though I have always been a lover of science I have very little faith in "scientifically based studies" these days which purport to show no benefits or even harm from vitamins, minerals and other compounds found in nature. Almost invariably you will find links to Big Pharma and mainstream medicine in the funding and design of such studies. Which may explain why studies have been shown to produce favorable results on behalf of the funders as much as 8 times as often as similar studies performed with no bias or connection to the outcome of the study.

Sound like you are using a very good protocol yourself, btw, and I congratulate you on your success.

All the best,

 

oleander soup, "Bobby E Rehberg" <brehberg wrote:>> I have not found any scientifically based studies that show it has any> benefit at all and can be lethal. Cyanide is about as toxic as it gets and> to call it a "vitamin" is the height of ridiculousness. It is about as much> a vitamin as a doorknob. There are a host of proven natural substances that> deter cancer spread and growth. I currently am using Oleander at 4 capsules> per day along with Curcumin, Lovastatin+gamma vitamin E, Fish Oil, Budwig,> Quercetin, Selenium, Iodine, Astragalus, and some other items along with> conventional chemo for metastatic Melanoma of the lung with excellent> results. There has been no spread and the tumors have all shrunk, some> significantly. > > My aunt took laetrile 20 years ago for cancer and the disease steadily> progressed until

her death, which did not take long. I have spent a career> in biological R & D and laetrile is a farce that has been promoted by those> who prey on people searching for a solution to their cancer problems and> want to believe in anything that they hope will help them. > > > > Bob Rehberg

[Guest guest]

Tony:

The Sloan Kettering story has several versions. They say

that a researcher obtained a positive result and other researchers in the same

department were unable to duplicate the results, even after several tries, so

they did not want the results published. I assume that Moss published the

original studies without explaining subsequent trial that were negative and was

fired. If this is true and I had been the administrator, I would have

done the same thing. It would have been intellectually dishonest. In

fact the whole Laetrile story has a history of intellectual and scientific

dishonesty. It is not a vitamin by any definition and although some may

eat apricot pits on a regular basis, I do not think it is a component of most people’s

diets as with peach pits---they usually go in the garbage can.

The National Cancer Institute conducted a study of

178 people with cancer who were reasonably ambulatory and could eat and

function. They used the protocols of the Laetrile developers.

Several developed the symptoms of cyanide poisoning and out of the 178 people,

no one was cured or showed signs of tumor regression. As I related

earlier, my beloved aunt used laetrile and the protocols with no success, as

did the actor Steve McQueen. Now, I am about as anti-government regulation

as you can get and worry very much about the current direction of our country,

but we have to trust someone and I think the NCI is more trustworthy than a bunch

of promoters who stand to make millions of dollars from sales of laetrile---it

is all about motive.

I miss your point about the compound being in certain

foods. I could say the same thing about sugars or chlorophyll or starches

or amino acids. That does not make the components good or bad.

The sponsorship of drug research by drug companies does raise

doubts, especially with Vioxx and some of the other debacles we have seen

lately, however if we expect to have new drug chemistry it will necessarily need

to be funded by Pharma. It costs many million$ to screen thousands of

compounds and develop a new medicine. Much of the cost has to do with

government regulations. Many regulations are necessary but many are

totally insane, but have to be done anyway at great cost, so Pharma alone is

not driving up the costs of drugs. New and safer pesticides, many that

target biochemical systems found only in insects or fungii and are innocuous to

mammals have the same cost challenge.

I do have a problem with you assertion that sponsored research

is necessarily biased. I conducted that kind of work in agricultural

applications for a career and can assure you that the worst thing that can

happen is to get false positives that you would spend a lot of time and

marketing money for some product or concept that might be flawed. We conducted

research at numerous locations for several years to feel confident that the

results were valid and replicatable. The other factor in the “good

results” from sponsored research is that it is so expensive to conduct

that the sponsor will always be taking his best shot with a compound or protocol

that he thinks has a good chance of success. The screening work would

have been done.

On the other hand, we as people

are living longer every year and much of that is due to advances in

medicine. We could do better and live longer with life style changes,

more exercise, less TV, better food choices, etc. But remember, we are all

terminal at the time of birth---it is just a matter of when.

 

Bob Rehberg

 

 

 

 

 

oleander soup oleander soup On Behalf

Of TonyI

Monday, October 26, 2009 2:17 PM

oleander soup

Actually, laetrile IS included as an option in

the anti-cancer protocol

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually Bobby, I

have to disagree with you for the most part.

First of all,

laetrile IS included as a suggestion in my anti-cancer protocol:

Vitamin B-17, also known

as laetrile, is a very potent and proven cancer fighter that is highly

recommended although difficult to find (the best source is apricot pits).

Note: laetrile by itself, or even as the primary element of a cancer fighting protocol,

is best used by people who have been given 12-18 months or longer survival

estimates, as it normally works best when taken for a prolonged period of time.

 

Secondly,

Memorial-Sloan Kettering conducted studies on Laetrile which found that it was

indeed effective against cancer. Twice, they ordered the lead researcher

to re-do the study and then finally ordered him to change his results.

Dr. Ralph Moss, who was working at the time as a public information specialist

at MSK outed them for the cover up and was promptly fired, which launched the

now famous career of Dr. Moss as an anti-establishment cancer crusador (though

he has been moving back into their fold in recent years as has sadly been true

of many CAM figures).

Though it may be

questionable to call laetrile a vitamin, unlike doorknobs it is found naturally

in a great many plants, including the pits of many fruits (in particular,

apricot pits), raw nuts, millet, wheatgrass, buckwheat and more. Mankind has

been consuming such food items since we first put down footprints on the sands

of time.

Now, I will

agree that there were some unscrupulous characters as well as some overly

optimistic ones who promoted laetrile as THE answer for cancer. It is

those folks, particularly the unscrupulous ones who sought to make tons of

money from overzealous marketing and over-hyped claims, who have primarily

given laetrile a bad name.

I personally have no

doubts whatsoever, based on MY research, that laetrile can be effective, but I

note that in most instances it has been effective over a long term rather than

a short term and that it has also been most effective when combined with an

overall protocol that included lots of other supplementation, vitamins,

juicing, etc.

I do not consider

laetrile to be an essential part of my suggested protocol, though I think it

could be a worthy addition for many people. I would also caution against

over-doing it, especially for those who are using high doses of Vitamin C, as

that can increase the side effects, and I would personally never depend on it

alone or even as the featured item of a protocol to beat cancer - though I am

aware of several people who have successfully done so.

As a final note,

though I have always been a lover of science I have very little faith in

" scientifically based studies " these days which purport to show

no benefits or even harm from vitamins, minerals and other compounds found in

nature. Almost invariably you will find links to Big Pharma and

mainstream medicine in the funding and design of such studies. Which may

explain why studies have been shown to produce favorable results on behalf of

the funders as much as 8 times as often as similar studies performed with no

bias or connection to the outcome of the study.

Sound like you are

using a very good protocol yourself, btw, and I congratulate you on your

success.

All the best,

 

oleander soup , " Bobby E Rehberg "

<brehberg wrote:

>

> I have not found any scientifically based studies that show it has any

> benefit at all and can be lethal. Cyanide is about as toxic as it gets and

> to call it a " vitamin " is the height of ridiculousness. It is

about as much

> a vitamin as a doorknob. There are a host of proven natural substances

that

> deter cancer spread and growth. I currently am using Oleander at 4

capsules

> per day along with Curcumin, Lovastatin+gamma vitamin E, Fish Oil, Budwig,

> Quercetin, Selenium, Iodine, Astragalus, and some other items along with

> conventional chemo for metastatic Melanoma of the lung with excellent

> results. There has been no spread and the tumors have all shrunk, some

> significantly.

>

> My aunt took laetrile 20 years ago for cancer and the disease steadily

> progressed until her death, which did not take long. I have spent a career

> in biological R & D and laetrile is a farce that has been promoted by

those

> who prey on people searching for a solution to their cancer problems and

> want to believe in anything that they hope will help them.

>

>

>

> Bob Rehberg

[Guest guest]

Bobby,

 

Considering the nocebo effect is 30% or more of medicine, it appears you personally would not be well served to take Laetrile. I and numerous other's with personal experience using laetrile will gladly accept the positive results we received. Should you be stricken with a serious cancer challenge I would recommend you visit M D Anderson for your personal cancer treatment.

 

Del

 

 

-

Bobby E Rehberg

oleander soup

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:39 AM

RE: Actually, laetrile IS included as an option in the anti-cancer protocol

 

 

Tony:

The Sloan Kettering story has several versions. They say that a researcher obtained a positive result and other researchers in the same department were unable to duplicate the results, even after several tries, so they did not want the results published. I assume that Moss published the original studies without explaining subsequent trial that were negative and was fired. If this is true and I had been the administrator, I would have done the same thing. It would have been intellectually dishonest. In fact the whole Laetrile story has a history of intellectual and scientific dishonesty. It is not a vitamin by any definition and although some may eat apricot pits on a regular basis, I do not think it is a component of most people’s diets as with peach pits---they usually go in the garbage can.

The National Cancer Institute conducted a study of 178 people with cancer who were reasonably ambulatory and could eat and function. They used the protocols of the Laetrile developers. Several developed the symptoms of cyanide poisoning and out of the 178 people, no one was cured or showed signs of tumor regression. As I related earlier, my beloved aunt used laetrile and the protocols with no success, as did the actor Steve McQueen. Now, I am about as anti-government regulation as you can get and worry very much about the current direction of our country, but we have to trust someone and I think the NCI is more trustworthy than a bunch of promoters who stand to make millions of dollars from sales of laetrile---it is all about motive.

I miss your point about the compound being in certain foods. I could say the same thing about sugars or chlorophyll or starches or amino acids. That does not make the components good or bad.

The sponsorship of drug research by drug companies does raise doubts, especially with Vioxx and some of the other debacles we have seen lately, however if we expect to have new drug chemistry it will necessarily need to be funded by Pharma. It costs many million$ to screen thousands of compounds and develop a new medicine. Much of the cost has to do with government regulations. Many regulations are necessary but many are totally insane, but have to be done anyway at great cost, so Pharma alone is not driving up the costs of drugs. New and safer pesticides, many that target biochemical systems found only in insects or fungii and are innocuous to mammals have the same cost challenge.

I do have a problem with you assertion that sponsored research is necessarily biased. I conducted that kind of work in agricultural applications for a career and can assure you that the worst thing that can happen is to get false positives that you would spend a lot of time and marketing money for some product or concept that might be flawed. We conducted research at numerous locations for several years to feel confident that the results were valid and replicatable. The other factor in the “good results” from sponsored research is that it is so expensive to conduct that the sponsor will always be taking his best shot with a compound or protocol that he thinks has a good chance of success. The screening work would have been done.

On the other hand, we as people are living longer every year and much of that is due to advances in medicine. We could do better and live longer with life style changes, more exercise, less TV, better food choices, etc. But remember, we are all terminal at the time of birth---it is just a matter of when.

 

Bob Rehberg

 

 

 

 

oleander soup oleander soup On Behalf Of TonyIMonday, October 26, 2009 2:17 PMoleander soup Subject: Actually, laetrile IS included as an option in the anti-cancer protocol

 

 

 

 

Actually Bobby, I have to disagree with you for the most part.

First of all, laetrile IS included as a suggestion in my anti-cancer protocol:

Vitamin B-17, also known as laetrile, is a very potent and proven cancer fighter that is highly recommended although difficult to find (the best source is apricot pits). Note: laetrile by itself, or even as the primary element of a cancer fighting protocol, is best used by people who have been given 12-18 months or longer survival estimates, as it normally works best when taken for a prolonged period of time.

Secondly, Memorial-Sloan Kettering conducted studies on Laetrile which found that it was indeed effective against cancer. Twice, they ordered the lead researcher to re-do the study and then finally ordered him to change his results. Dr. Ralph Moss, who was working at the time as a public information specialist at MSK outed them for the cover up and was promptly fired, which launched the now famous career of Dr. Moss as an anti-establishment cancer crusador (though he has been moving back into their fold in recent years as has sadly been true of many CAM figures).

Though it may be questionable to call laetrile a vitamin, unlike doorknobs it is found naturally in a great many plants, including the pits of many fruits (in particular, apricot pits), raw nuts, millet, wheatgrass, buckwheat and more. Mankind has been consuming such food items since we first put down footprints on the sands of time.

Now, I will agree that there were some unscrupulous characters as well as some overly optimistic ones who promoted laetrile as THE answer for cancer. It is those folks, particularly the unscrupulous ones who sought to make tons of money from overzealous marketing and over-hyped claims, who have primarily given laetrile a bad name.

I personally have no doubts whatsoever, based on MY research, that laetrile can be effective, but I note that in most instances it has been effective over a long term rather than a short term and that it has also been most effective when combined with an overall protocol that included lots of other supplementation, vitamins, juicing, etc.

I do not consider laetrile to be an essential part of my suggested protocol, though I think it could be a worthy addition for many people. I would also caution against over-doing it, especially for those who are using high doses of Vitamin C, as that can increase the side effects, and I would personally never depend on it alone or even as the featured item of a protocol to beat cancer - though I am aware of several people who have successfully done so.

As a final note, though I have always been a lover of science I have very little faith in "scientifically based studies" these days which purport to show no benefits or even harm from vitamins, minerals and other compounds found in nature. Almost invariably you will find links to Big Pharma and mainstream medicine in the funding and design of such studies. Which may explain why studies have been shown to produce favorable results on behalf of the funders as much as 8 times as often as similar studies performed with no bias or connection to the outcome of the study.

Sound like you are using a very good protocol yourself, btw, and I congratulate you on your success.

All the best,

 

oleander soup , "Bobby E Rehberg" <brehberg wrote:>> I have not found any scientifically based studies that show it has any> benefit at all and can be lethal. Cyanide is about as toxic as it gets and> to call it a "vitamin" is the height of ridiculousness. It is about as much> a vitamin as a doorknob. There are a host of proven natural substances that> deter cancer spread and growth. I currently am using Oleander at 4 capsules> per day along with Curcumin, Lovastatin+gamma vitamin E, Fish Oil, Budwig,> Quercetin, Selenium, Iodine, Astragalus, and some other items along with> conventional chemo for metastatic Melanoma of the lung with excellent> results. There has been no spread and the tumors have all shrunk, some> significantly. > > My aunt took laetrile 20 years ago for cancer and the disease steadily> progressed until her death, which did not take long. I have spent a career> in biological R & D and laetrile is a farce that has been promoted by those> who prey on people searching for a solution to their cancer problems and> want to believe in anything that they hope will help them. > > > > Bob Rehberg

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob,I will let Tony reply to the majority of your post, but I want to comment on a couple of things here. First:We could do better and live longer with life style changes, more exercise, less TV, better food choices, etc. You bet. This is where it starts. If we led a healthy lifestyle to begin with, we would cut down all types of illness and not be dependent on pharmaceutical drugs.As for living longer due to mainstream medicine....... I don't know. I firmly believe that if I had known about natural health while caring for my mother, she would be alive today. I still look back as to what I did and how I could have addressed her condition naturally. I know so much more now. I have no doubt it would have worked. While she was at home under hospice care one day it dawned on me. It is these very medicines that are killing her. But by then, it was too late for me to do anything about it and I still knew nothing about natural healing. Drugs keep people going to a point. It's merely a bandaid. True healing does not take place. One's functioning in life depends on their doctor and the treatment. As for myself, I was once a pretty sick lady. I didn't have cancer, but suffered from a few chronic conditions. Always under a doctor's care, taking a variety of medications, but never felt really well. Upon learning about natural healing, I addressed my various conditions naturally, the result being that where I thought I would never be truly healthy, I regained my complete health and shed every prescription drug. Where I was told that the conditions I had could not be healed and that I would need medication for the rest of my life, they were indeed healed. And because of this, I firmly believe that my life span will be longer. The medical profession would have shortened it, as it did with my own mother.One more thing. But remember, we are all terminal at the time of birth---it is just a matter of when. Yes, we are born mortal and I could go on and argue that life does not stop when we are no longer on this earth, we simply move on, and so forth. And I do help people with this aspect of life when it is their time to transition. However, when we deal with living our lives in the here and now, this attitude is defeatist. The truth is, God doesn't promise anybody tomorrow. There are people who woke up with the sunrise this morning not having a clue that by sunset they will no longer be a part of life as we know it. Yet, we must appreciate each day and live life to the fullest. This includes taking care of one's health and doing everything possible to achieve total healing. And the majority of the time, drugs are not the answer. Maybe in extreme cases to gain a foothold on the problem. Even then, it should be a temporary measure. Natural healing is what truly works. Lastly, I give no credence to test results done by mainstream medicine, as in many instances they are flawed. Profit and politics, too often is the name of the game. There is also a war waging to discredit natural healing with misinformation abounding as to the health benefits and hazards of various supplements, all hoping to lead the public to the "safety" of drugs.Natural healing has no "scientific facts." We don't have the funding. Even if we had, it would not be taken seriously because there is no profit involved. Our studies and facts come from observing those that are truly healed, and I must say that I have seen the benefits of Laetrile. Of course, any supplement must be used correctly. I am so very sorry about your aunt, but again, something that works for someone may not work for someone else. Sometimes it is a combination of things. We are all different and must find our own healing path. That is also what this group is here for, to guide in one's own healing path.Unfortunately, there are charlatans in every field and many times people are out to scam the public and make a profit. Of this we must be wary. That is why it is so important to do your own research as to what works, what works for you. and avoid these charlatans.My very best to you Bob,

[Guest guest]

Having been in the business of research and product development

for many years (not Medicine) I know there are a great many honest and totally

dedicated scientists who conduct unbiased research. I think you need to

separate the sales and marketing segment of drugs from the R & D and

testing segment. Certainly, the S/M folks are going to slam natural cures

at every turn in order to increase their sales, but I think most test work is

by necessity rather unbiased. The consequences of fraud at most

universities are rather severe with loss of reputation, and often their

position----but there are always people who will sell their souls.

I would remind you that natural remedies must have a

chemical/molecular basis. If they are impacting cancer or other illness then

they have some molecules that are acting on the underlying

condition. All of Chinese, native American Indian, Asian Indian and folk

medicine other cultures have relied on these naturally manufactured chemicals cure

various maladies. Much of modern medicine has evolved from taking the

observations and skill of folk medicine and isolating the active components---aspirin

is a classic example. Of course, many times the milieu of compounds

is such and the synthesis so complex that it is better to use the “natural”

compounds. I think red rice yeast is another example. It contains

the statin known as Lovastatin, which has strong anti-cancer properties

especially when combined with gamma vitamin E. The natural material which

contains several isomers, has considerably more activity than the synthetic

form---so I use red rice yeast.

 

Bob Rehberg

 

 

 

 

oleander soup oleander soup On Behalf

Of M

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:45 AM

oleander soup

Re: Actually, laetrile IS included as an option

in the anti-cancer protocol

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Bob,

 

I will let Tony reply to the majority of your post, but I want to comment on a

couple of things here. First:

 

We could do better and

live longer with life style changes, more

exercise, less TV, better food choices, etc.

 

You bet. This is where it

starts. If we led a healthy lifestyle to begin with, we would cut down

all types of illness and not be dependent on pharmaceutical drugs.

 

As for living longer due to mainstream medicine....... I don't

know. I firmly believe that if I had known about natural health while

caring for my mother, she would be alive today. I still look back as to

what I did and how I could have addressed her condition naturally. I know

so much more now. I have no doubt it would have worked. While she

was at home under hospice care one day it dawned on me. It is these very

medicines that are killing her. But by then, it was too late for me to do

anything about it and I still knew nothing about natural healing. Drugs

keep people going to a point. It's merely a bandaid. True healing

does not take place. One's functioning in life depends on their doctor

and the treatment.

 

As for myself, I was once a pretty sick lady. I didn't have cancer, but

suffered from a few chronic conditions. Always under a doctor's care,

taking a variety of medications, but never felt really well. Upon

learning about natural healing, I addressed my various conditions

naturally, the result being that where I thought I would never be truly

healthy, I regained my complete health and shed every prescription drug. Where

I was told that the conditions I had could not be healed and that I would need

medication for the rest of my life, they were indeed healed. And because

of this, I firmly believe that my life span will be longer. The medical

profession would have shortened it, as it did with my own mother.

 

One more thing.

 

But remember, we are all terminal at the time of birth---it is just a

matter of when.

 

Yes, we are born mortal and I could go on and argue that life does not stop

when we are no longer on this earth, we simply move on, and so forth. And

I do help people with this aspect of life when it is their time to

transition. However, when we deal with living our lives in the here and

now, this attitude is defeatist. The truth is, God doesn't promise

anybody tomorrow. There are people who woke up with the sunrise this

morning not having a clue that by sunset they will no longer be a part of life

as we know it. Yet, we must appreciate each day and live life to the

fullest. This includes taking care of one's health and doing everything

possible to achieve total healing. And the majority of the time, drugs

are not the answer. Maybe in extreme cases to gain a foothold on the

problem. Even then, it should be a temporary measure. Natural

healing is what truly works.

 

Lastly, I give no credence to test results done by mainstream medicine, as in

many instances they are flawed. Profit and politics, too often is the

name of the game. There is also a war waging to discredit natural healing

with misinformation abounding as to the health benefits and hazards of various

supplements, all hoping to lead the public to the " safety " of drugs.

 

Natural healing has no " scientific facts. " We don't have the

funding. Even if we had, it would not be taken seriously because there is

no profit involved. Our studies and facts come from observing those that

are truly healed, and I must say that I have seen the benefits of Laetrile.

Of course, any supplement must be used correctly. I am so very sorry

about your aunt, but again, something that works for someone may not work for

someone else. Sometimes it is a combination of things. We are all

different and must find our own healing path. That is also what this

group is here for, to guide in one's own healing path.

 

Unfortunately, there are charlatans in every field and many times people are

out to scam the public and make a profit. Of this we must be wary.

That is why it is so important to do your own research as to what works, what

works for you. and avoid these charlatans.

 

My very best to you Bob,