Laetrile, Modern Medicine, MSK and Steve McQueen

October 27, 2009

Yes, those with the gold, make the rules.

But, the increasing masses ( such as us!!!) , one by one, can change that and save untold lives.

All out in our group of bandits!

All of those who are working on your challenge.

Please, please, PLEASE....... gather all the information out there from those who HAVE BEEN THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To heck with those who want profit from us!

Let us stand as a solid group of information, not dictated by any one, but ourselves.

We in our bandit group, want ALL to live happily, with health and no pain. YES!

TO HELL with the others!!!!! YES!

We need to go as far underground as possible.

Yes?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All for one and one for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All for wonderful health.

Let's do it now!

Richard Glen Miller of NJ

In a message dated 10/27/2009 5:51:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, del writes:

Tony,

You obviously have much more patience than I do. A trait that serves you well. :-)

Good Luck & Good Health,

Del

Bob -

First of all, the advances in lifespan have been due primarily to better nutrition, better access to medical trauma care and, in particular, better sanitation. When it comes to drugs, modern medicine has had very little to do with it, other than the initial successes of antibiotics - and the microscopic world of pathogens is proving more each day that they are more than a match for lab created compounds.

The biggest factor which skews longevity studies is child mortality. Childbirth and childhood were pretty risky in older times. When you look back 150 years or so, once a person lived past the age of 21 their life expectancy was pretty close to what is is today. And, thanks to our lack of nutrition and, in my strong opinion, the weakening of the species due to overuse of medications (especially vaccines), for the first time ever we are seeing a decline in life expectancy in the US. We are by far the most medicated country in the world, and yet our life expectancy and infant mortality rank below over 40 other countries.

Yes, medicine has used nature as the basis for many of its patented medicines. The keyword there is "patented". The reason patented drugs isolate what they identify as the "key" compound and then either find a unique and patentable way to isolate it or either synthesize it is because they can then control and profit from it. It often has nothing to do with efficacy and everything to do with profits. It also ignores the fact that nature works synergistically and that is why natural herbs and foods are actually often more effective than the synthetics and unique isolates not found in nature without the supporting compounds.

Man has not adapted for all these millenia alongside synthetic drugs and unique isolates. And mankind itself is a synergistic organism and not merely a collection of parts. That is the great failing of modern mediciine - trying to manipulate individual parts and processes artifically and manage symptoms instead of trying to achieve overall wellness and addressing the root causes of disease and illness.

Why do you suppose it is that in the time we have gone from the covered wagon to the Space Shuttle and Mars Rovers, from flickering silent movies, black and white TV screens and two or three channels to wall sized (or football field sized) plasma screens with hundreds of channels, from rotary phone party lines where you waited for Aunt Bee to pick up the phone to satelite phones and credit card sized cell phones, from slide rules and abacuses to house sized computers to 10 inch laptops with more computing power than the first super computers, and from vinyl records to MP3 and MP4 players, that the most heavily funded scientific industry on the planet has cured virtually nothing in the past half century and produces drugs which have side effects over 90% of the time? Side effects which often lead to other conditions which require still more drugs that lead to more side effects in a never ending cycle of managed illness so that by the time an average man in the US reaches the age of 65, he takes an average of 15 prescribed and over the counter medications daily?

When your only marketplace is the human body, it is a great model for profit but a horrible one for healing and humanity. If you want to see what mainstream medicine is all about, take a look at:

Modern Medicine: How Healing Illness became Managing Illness

It is well known in academic circles that you have to play along to get along when it comes to studies funded by mainstream medicine. Those individuals and institutions which fail to return favorable results are backlisted and not chosen for further studies. You can Google it to find numerous examples and scientists who have revealed the truth. Not only that, entities like Merck and Monsanto have maintained hit lists of doctors and researchers who have published unfavorable results.

As far as the story about laetrile, Memorial Sloan Kettering and Ralph Moss - I believe the version where both Moss and the lead researcher revealed the pressure to alter and then cover up the results. MSK is one of the most ardent mainstream apologists and alternative attack organizations this side of Quackwatch. Their head of oncology actually went on record and said that no cancer had ever been cured by any method other than mainstream treatments. As far as I am concerned, there is a special corner of Hell reserved for people like that. If MSK published a study that said the sun rises in the east, I would look for it to come up in the west tomorrow.

It does not surprise me in the least to see no positive studies or reports in mainstream medicine when it comes to laetrile - after all, it is not a patentable medicine. Actually, there have been a number of positive studies and positive clinical reports when it comes to laetrile. For example:

"...the SCIND Laboratories in California conducted several experiments [with Laetrile].... In their second study on carcinoma of rats (Walker 256), with amygdalin in doses of 500 milligrams per kilogram injected intraperitoneally on days one, three and six after [transplanted] tumor take, the following results were found:

DAYS SURVIVAL TIME (number of days)

Controls:

19,19,19,19,20,20,22,22,22,22,24,24,24,25,25,26,26, 26,26

Treated:

27,28,28,28,29,29,29,30,30,30,30,30.31,32,32,32,60, 60,60,60 (U.S SENATE, 1977:419)"

The mean survival time of the control rats was thus 23 days. With the amygdalin-treated rats, mean survival time was 38 days, i.e. a 70% increase over the controls. The survival time of every Laetrile-treated animal was greater than that of every control animal.

"...in a test by Dr. Paul Reitnauer, chief biochemist of the Manfred von Ardenne Institute, Dresden (East Germany), 20 of 40 H-strain mice were given bitter almonds in addition to their standard diet. Bitter almonds contain relatively high levels of Laetrile. Fifteen days after initiation of this regimen, all 40 mice were inoculated with I million Ehriich ascites [cancer] cells. The 20 control mice lived an average of 21.9 days following this injection. The 20 mice receiving the bitter almond supplement lived an average of 25.8 days, which was statistically significant...."

"In 1977, Dr. Vern L. van Breeman of Salisbury State College, Maryland, reported that the addition of apricot kernels [rich in Laetrile] to standard food in pilot experiments with special strains of mice bred to develop breast cancer and leukemia showed impressive differences both in terns of developing the disease and increased survival times between the animals that [ate] the kernels and those that did not. When he reported his early findings... seven of the animals in the leukemia control group and five in the breast cancer [control] group had died, while none of the mice on the kernels had. Ultimately only one of the mammary cancer mice developed a slow-growing tumor, and, while the leukemia results were less impressive in terms of total symptoms, leukemia-prone mice that ate apricot kernels enjoyed life extensions up to 50% over what would normally be expected."

Veteran cancer researcher Kanematsu Sugiura (who had a 4-volume set of his collected scientific papers published in 1965) performed three sets of experiments between September 1972 and June 1973 "to determine the effects of amygdalin...upon mice with spontaneous mammary tumors." In an internal report to his colleagues at Sloan-Kettering Institute, he said that "The results clearly show that amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of lung metastases in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary tumor over the appearance of inhibition in the untreated animals."

These are just some of the Laetrile animal studies yielding positive results, while they hardly prove Laetrile to be a "cure" for cancer (which scientific Laetrile proponents have never claimed it to be), they clearly evidence some anti-cancer effect.

In 1962 Dr. John Morrone reported his results from using Laetrile with 10 patients suffering from "inoperable cancer," The treatments ranged from 4 to 43 weeks in length, and a range of 9 to 133 gms Laetrile was given through intravenous injections, Morrone concluded his report: "The use of Laetrile... in 10 cases of inoperable cancer, all with metastases, provided dramatic relief of pain, discontinuance of narcotics, control of fetor [stench from a tumor], improved appetite, and reduction of adenopathy [swollen lymph nodes]. The results suggest regression of the malignant lesion.... No other side effects [other than transient episodes of low blood pressure] were noted except slight itching and a sensation of heat in the affected areas, which was transitory in all cases."

In 1994, P.E. Binzel published his results from treating cancer patients with Laetrile between 1974 and 1991. He used a combination of intravenous and oral Laetrile. Intravenous doses started with 3 gms and worked up to 9 gms. After a period of months, oral Laetrile, I gm at bedtime, was begun in place of the injections. Binzel also used various nutrient supplements and pancreatic enzymes, as well as a low animal-protein, no junk-food diet as part of his regimen. Out of a series of 180 patients with primary cancer (non-metastasized, confined to a single organ or tissue), 138 were still alive in 1991 when he compiled his treatment results. At that time, 58 of the patients had been followed for 2 to 4 years, while 80 had a medical follow-up from 5 to 18 years. Of the 42 patients who had died by 1991, 23 died from their cancers, 12 from unrelated causes, and 7 died of "cause unknown."

Among his metastatic cancer patients, 32 of 108 died from their disease, while 6 died of unrelated causes, and 9 died of "cause unknown." Of his 61 patients still alive in 1991, 30 had a follow-up between 2 and 4 years, while 31 had been followed for 5 to 18 years.

Binzel's results are impressive. Some of the individual patients discussed in his book were still alive (and well!) 15-18 years after their initial Laetrile treatment. Binzel also notes that none of the cancer diagnoses were made by him (a small town, "family doctor") - all patients had diagnoses from other physicians. Many had already suffered the ravages of standard "cut-bum-and poison" (surgery/X-ray/chemotherapy) medicine before being given up as hopeless cases by orthodox doctors.

Other physicians who have worked with Laetrile have also reported favorable results using it. Thus Manuel Navarro, M.D., former professor of medicine and surgery at the Univ. of Santo Tomas in Manilla wrote in 1971: "1... 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."

Many of the physicians whose anti-cancer programs are detailed in Burton Goldberg's 1116 page Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide to Cancer also report positive Laetrile results as part of their cancer treatment programs. Robert Atkins, M.D., notes that "Amygdalin appears to neutralize the oxidative cancer-promoting compounds such as free radicals.... It's just one more key component for keeping cancer from growing or spreading. Contrary to what people have said about Laetrile... it should be considered an effective, entirely ' safe treatment for all types of cancer."

Dr. Emesto Contreras has used Laetrile as a cornerstone of his cancer practice since 1963. He remarks that "For the prevention of cancer and the maintenance of remission, there is nothing as effective as Laetrile.... Its nontoxicity permits its use indefinitely while surgery, radiation and chemotherapy can only be administered for a limited time.... the majority of cancers that occur more frequently, such as cancers of the lung, breast, colon, ovaries, stomach, esophagus, prostate, and the lymphomas, are much helped by Laetrile."

Dr. Michael Schachter, who has used Laetrile for 20 years with cancer patients, remarks that "As part of a comprehensive health-enhancing program, amygdalin is a useful natural; substance for fighting cancer." (17) Dr. Schachter recommends using cysteine (N-acetyl cysteine is a better-absorbed form of cysteine) along with amygdalin, to maximize the body's ability to detoxify any cyanide released from the Laetrile.

One more time, I do not consider laetrile as a panacea for cancer, but rather think that it might be a beneficial addition for some who choose to use it. I would never recommend it as a stand alone, or even a central part of, a cancer fighting protocol.

And finally, let's talk a bit about Steve McQueen. What is reported in mainstream circles is that he used laetrile to no effect and died of his cancer. Now, I have no way of knowing whether or not laetrile helped McQueen or not, but what I do know is that MCQueen was treated, evidently successfully, by Dr. Robert Kelly's metabolic program and did not die of his original pancreatic cancer. Instead, his death is listed from mesothelioma.

In actuality, Steve McQueen died in his sleep of a heart attack after a benign tumor mass was removed from his liver earlier during the evening. It is interesting to note that McQueen's death came shortly after he told Dr. Kelley that he was "going to blow the lid off this Cancer Racket."

What a fortunate bit of timing for the "cancer racket".

All the best,

oleander soup , "Bobby E Rehberg" <brehberg wrote:>> 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,> >

October 27, 2009