The prime cause of Cancer explained here .

[Cthulhu]

And correlation does not equal cause.

 

Please let's be very careful about dispensing and/or following highly debatable nutritional suggestions online. Some nutrional opinions make their rounds on different forums and websites without sound research to back them up. Just a suggestion.

 

 

There is plenty of research I have done on Vitamin B-17- much like the scientists/biochemists and doctors before me. That is what I am attending school for. In fact, there has been much research poured into laetrile since the 1950's. I do not know the difference between a doctor giving you nutrtional information and a biochemist/nutritionist giving you one. In fact, most doctors don't know much, if anything, to do with nutrition because they are not taught that in Medical School, so I don't see how they can apply biochemisty to nutrition if that is not what they studied.

 

Although the nutrtion information posted seems somewhat debatable, Vitamin B-17 is completely safe- I already went into great detail on this in my earlier post.

 

Laetrile is made and used as a cancer treatment in Mexico and over 20 other countries. It is allowed and has been proven to be completely safe and effective for both cancer prevention and cancer treatment. Studies show that. Patients being cured of cancer show that. The Mexican Government allowing it shows that. It is complete madness how the Mexican Government allows it with great success, but our Goverment won't. If anyone studies the facts they'd see that it's politics and money: The root of all evil when combined in the same equation in this country.

 

Here is just one of the many clinics in both Mexico and all around the world that cures cancer without chemo and radiation:

 

http://www.sanoviv.com/

 

A fact is only a fact when you have all of the facts.

[Guest]

Skin cancer is a different issue and it highly related to race. Also Asians do get cancer but they get cancer of the stomach more than anything else. Cancer of the stomach is something many people manage to endure as it often spreads very slowly.

As for a stressful life causing cancer...simply living long is stressful on the body which is on reason why older people are more likely to get cancer than younger people. I believe that most people would eventually get cancer if we all lived to be over 100.

[Cthulhu]

Skin cancer is a different issue and it highly related to race. Also Asians do get cancer but they get cancer of the stomach more than anything else. Cancer of the stomach is something many people manage to endure as it often spreads very slowly.

As for a stressful life causing cancer...simply living long is stressful on the body which is on reason why older people are more likely to get cancer than younger people. I believe that most people would eventually get cancer if we all lived to be over 100.

 

 

I would have to somewhat disagree with you. While race is a factor as far as skin cancer goes, I believe it is not the main factor. Americans get skin cancer more than Africans do. If race were the main factor, then that would mean genetics are the main factor. Genes however, can be turned on and off. People forget what role HABITS play in cancer. Yes, the Asians may get gastric cancer more than some countries do, but that is the most popular form of cancer they do get. That still does not mean that the cancer rates are high among their race. When I see two obese parents feeding Burger King to their obese kids and the " Western Medical community" saying that obesity may be genetic, I laugh. They seem to forget that Parents are the BIGGEST influence on their kids and therefore habbits have something to do with that.

 

I am not saying that there aren't any flaws to the African or the Asian diet, but when compared to the western diet, there is a far cry between flaws and down right ignorant, mass suicide, which is what our country is currently committing with the heavy use of drugs to somehow replace or "correct" the deficiencies in the Standerd American Diet.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Cthulhu

[Guest]

I think you would also find African Americans are far less likely to get skin cancer than Anglo Americans. Dark skin simply means more natural protection...this is why Africans can get away with not getting skin cancer in mass yet they have more holes in the ozone above their continent...I also doubt the people of the poorest continent on the planet thinks of spending money on sunscreen.

[Cthulhu]

I think you would also find African Americans are far less likely to get skin cancer than Anglo Americans. Dark skin simply means more natural protection...this is why Africans can get away with not getting skin cancer in mass yet they have more holes in the ozone above their continent...I also doubt the people of the poorest continent on the planet thinks of spending money on sunscreen.

 

Darker skin is a factor, but yor skin produces enough Vitamin D when you tan. Sun tan lotion may actually block the absorbtion, thus causing your skin to be open to the UVB rays without any actual "real" protection.

 

Obviously, the general rule of thumb is to never burn. No doubt can sun burn cause DNA damage, but many kids who have a unbalanced omega 6 to omega 3 ratio-which, as I posted earlier, has been proven to be a major cause in skin cancer rates in many studes- will go straight to using san tan lotion and not absorbing enough Vitamin D from the sun, which protects the skin from the UVB rays.

To make things worse, since they don't get enough Vitamin D from the sun, they don't build up enough melanin, which is what causes them to burn from the UVB rays so easily.

 

Melanin and Vitamin D is the main factor as to why they have lower skin cancer rates. If you produce enough melanin, you won't burn so easily, thus preventing DNA damage and basal cell carcinoma.

Oh, and the Vitamin D you get from milk and the Vitamin D you get from the sun are totally different. You can't overdose on the Vitamin D you get from the sun. However, on Vitamin D supplementation you can.

Minerals also play an important role. L-tyrosine supplementation can also help.

[DV]

Please read this very informative report from Quackwatch - Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions. Laetrile and Vitamin B17 have been making rounds on the snake oil circuit for decades.

 

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

[Cthulhu]

Please read this very informative report from Quackwatch - Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions. Laetrile and Vitamin B17 have been making rounds on the snake oil circuit for decades.

 

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

 

 

 

 

That is a flawed study. Low toxicity huh?

Oh, whats this? Another study they never mentioned.

 

Since early 1970, El Centro Medico y Hospital Del Mar has carried out the studies of Phase I which proved AMYGDALIN's nontoxicity in therapeutic dosage through intravenous and oral application. Phase II studies performed on 1,200 cancer patients, the majority of whom were not considered candidates for conventional treatment, proved objectively and subjectively, the anti-tumor effect of AMYGDALIN already suggested by Phase I studies. Several Phase III type studies are currently being completed. The research performed on patients with inoperable lung cancer has shown that apart from reporting well documented complete and partial remission and stabilization, the average survival of the patients was increased to more than 59 weeks from the diagnosis and more than 35 weeks from the initial application of AMYGDALIN. These figures compare favorably with the 25 weeks that is the average survival rate of these patients from diagnosis.

 

"No human studies have been undertaken". They mean " No "known" human studies have been undertaken." In other words, any study accepted by the board of directors is a study. If it IS NOT accepted by the board of directors, it will not be a published study. So, now you can see that is a down right lie. Do you actually believe that I am going to listen to what that website says anway?

The quackwatch.com website has a "visit our affiliates link". If you go there, they have homowatch- for homeopathy medicine, Acupuncture watch- for acupuncure, Nutriwatch- for flawed nutrition information, etc. All of those links are related to debunking natural, alternative medicine or nutrition! They're probably funded by the big pharma or FDA.

I don't see a link saying "drugwatch", for drug fraud.

 

The Pharmaceutical companies have been using the term "quack" since the 1920's. People being mislead by the drug companies isn't health fraud?

150,000 people dying from the drug vioxx, when the FDA said it was safe and effective, isn't fraud? The FDA voting to put the drug Vioxx back on the market after 150,000 people died so that they could make money isn't fraud?

That website is probably started by someone who works for them. They love using the word "snake oil". And the doctors who are consistantly given bonuses for prescribing drugs for the drug companies isn't "snake oilish?" Do you even know how the Pharmaceutical companies were formed and the history behind this?

Before you even think about trying to construct an educated conversation, research who John D. Rockefeller.

 

For any of those who know about rockefeller-yes, the rockefeller who was the guiding force behind the creation and development of the Standard Oil Company- the greedy rockefeller family, and John D. Rockefeller junior, I will continue.

Sloan Kettering falsified the research reports. I find it hilarious how much- and I mean much- they left out of the article. Memorial sloan ketering cancer center was where the study was conucted.

 

 

A series of tests began and was turned over to their labatory technician, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, who was very well known by the medical community. After conducting his tests, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura came to five conclusions:

 

1. It improved the general health of the mice

 

2. It appeared to relieve their pain

 

3. It inhibited the growth of tumors

 

4. It stopped the spread of tumors-prevented them from metastasising

 

5. It acted like a cancer prevention

 

These was his official finding. At the end of the report, he said, quote, "Dr. Sugiura has never observed complete regresion of these trumors in all his cosmic experience with other chemotherapeutic agents."

 

John D. Rockefeller senior and his son John D. Rockefeller II began donating money to sloan keetering in 1927 and during the 1930's they donated the block of land on which Memorial Sloan Keetering now stands. At the time of the laetrile trials there were three rockefellers on the board of directors: James, lowrance, and william.

 

Somehow, Sugiura's findings did not please the board of directors and was pulled from the project. He was told by the board to "remain quiet" about his findings."

Now you know why his study wasn't published. So when they say "no" study, that means no "published studies." That does not, however, mean that there weren't any conducted.

 

Thats not all! Two other doctors who contucted studies found that it had cured cancer, much like Dr. Sugiura's findings. They too were pulled from the project and their studies were never released either.

 

Then their flawed study was modified. Their study did not even use the recommended dosage that was needed for cancer patients in the first place! Studies are twisted around all the time. Like when the studies said too much sun exposure causes skin cancer. Now they're saying the sun causes skin cancer, when the studies said only "too much MAY" cause skin cancer, because they twisted them around.

 

 

Why was Dr. Sugiura pulled from the project? Because they were not interested in a cure for cancer that cannot be patented. If you patent a drug, you make money off of it so other pharma companies cannot make a ganeric form of that drug, thus making your company lose profits. They do this to:

 

1. Pay back shareholder value

 

2. Get a drug license, which costs 800 millian dollars/ apply for a patent

 

3. INCREASE PROFITS

 

They HAVE to increase profits by law. This is where the evil lies within. No cancer foundation wants a cure because they'll lose their jobs. No drug company wants a cure because they won't be able to sell their drug and increase profits to pay back so other competing drug companies can't make a generic form of that drug for a lower price, thus making them lose profits.

 

But there is one problem: ANYTHING that comes from nature CANNOT be patented because it requires a drug license, which no one can buy because they're almost ONE BILLION DOLLARS. So, if an orange cured cancer, I would go to prison for the rest of my life because I am selling a drug without a license. They're not interested in that because there is no money to be made. But, perhaps they can find something in nature that has a subcomponent that they can extract to make a generic form of and make it into a manmade chemical that works the same way. Then they can patent it so they can make money. That is the law the FDA has set. Kind of like the law "Only drugs can cure, prevent, or treat a disease." The law was made so only drug compaines can mass produce drugs, that are expensive, to treat- I like to use the word babysit- that disease, so they can make a profit off of it. Just go to their annual stock holder meetings and you'll hear it come right out of their mouths.

 

Congressman John Kelsey used the "Freedom of information act" to obtain a copy of the minutes of the board of directors of Slaon Kettering, dated July 2, 1974.

 

From the minutes it said, quote," Sloan Kettering IS NOT enthusiastic about studying Amygdalin, but would like to study " CYINIDE RELEASING DRUGS"

 

Out of their own mouths they said that they were not interested in Amygdalin, but would like to make a cyinide releasing drug-which is a generic form of that drug. Once again, they only want something they can patent so they can make money off of it. Well, Laetrile is cyinide releasing.

 

Yes, but it's also natural and natural substances CANNOT be patented.

 

It's all about money, not your or my health. The FDA and Pharma will put up websites to debunk holistic websites and doctors. Anything they can do to spread their lies. It was reported by a news paper that Holistic Doctors have a higher success rate at curing cancer than Western medical doctors.

 

The formor FDA commisioner said out of his own mouth before he died, when he was put on trial in the 1950's, quote,"The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is

protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what

the people think it's doing are as different as night and day".

 

That was the Former FDA Commissioner!

 

The FDA make their money testing drugs because it costs 20-30 MILLION dollars do to so. Who is going to spend that much testing the safetiness of apricot seeds or laetrile? Better yet, what small, independent company will or can spend that much testing the "safetiness" of an apricot seed? None.

 

And that is one way how the FDA make their money.

 

 

 

Please, find a more credible source of information.

 

Oh, wait a second. Anything that uses demoralizing words like "quack", referring to doctors who actually care about their patients and cure cancer, is probably ran by the FDA or the Pharma companies.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Cthulhu

[Cthulhu]

Here is a video of This is Edward G. Griffin, who wrote "world without cancer".

He talks about what happened to laetrile, why the studies were twisted, and the studies they got a hold of with the "freedom of information act".

You HAVE TO watch the whole thing to understand the facts of how and why the FDA did not pass laetrile, and the studies that were twisted.

It's only 35-45 minutes long. VERY interesting though. It also talks about the rockefellers, which will make you sick. These are all recorded facts too.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3957307988644640556&sourceid=searchfeed

[Kon]

i hate that quackwatch site.. >_<

whenever i give someone seom information, i've always had people show me links like that.

unfortunately, im not as knowledgeable as cthulhu to be able to explain anything in depth..

[Guest]

The general rule is not actually to never burn because your skin burns to protect you. Its when your skin peels that you've gotta worry. Skin burns and gets darker to protect you from the sun and warn you to tell you to wait to heal before you go out again.

[Cthulhu]

The general rule is not actually to never burn because your skin burns to protect you. Its when your skin peels that you've gotta worry. Skin burns and gets darker to protect you from the sun and warn you to tell you to wait to heal before you go out again.

 

 

While it is true that light sun burn isn't going to hurt you, or a darker tan, severe sun burn will cause skin to peel after it has been burned. There is a difference between developing a tan and severe sun burn.

Severe sun burn will also radiate and be very red. A tan will not be very red, but will slowly darken, nor will it radiate or cause the skin to peel.

If you have fair skin, the key is to slowly build up the melanin so that you don't burn so easily after only being in the sun for a short amount of time. That way they'll develope more of a tan.

[Guest]

Supposedly a very fair person can develop a tan that provides an 8spf protection level on average. As for the peeling I said its a bad sign when you peel...thats when you need to avoid the sun.

[DV]

 

 

 

Please, find a more credible source of information.

 

Oh, wait a second. Anything that uses demoralizing words like "quack", referring to doctors who actually care about their patients and cure cancer, is probably ran by the FDA or the Pharma companies.

 

The site has had that unwarranted criticism numerous times. However, if you actually visit it you will discover that it is run by volunteers from different science and medical fields - not the FDA or pharmaceutical companies.

 

I understand that you are a big believer in laetrile because you believe it has helped your mother. I hope that she stays well. However, there are many reasons for cancer to go into remission, to re-emerge and to disappear - and they're most likely too complex for us to understand at this time, indeed if ever. I wouldn't trumpet laetrile or vitamin B17 as a cure any more than I would call chemotherapy a cure. They're all just options and they're all of dubious worth.

[Guest]

I just watched this video and I've seen similar videos saying how green tea, noni, fish oil, and all kinds of things being definitive cures for cancer...all with evidence, all stating complete superiority to chemotherapy. Then there's the idea that the average person that gets treated for cancer with chemo doesn't live any longer than someone who gets no treatment due to the fact that some people live longer and some die from the stress of treatment...however living in the most cancerous county in the US I've had many friends and their family push their cancer into remission with standard chemo/radiation treatments...aka proof of effectiveness. All these things can be effective and are but all are likely equally ineffective. Also each has evidence/proof of superiority over the others...doesn't make sense but it just depends on how you look at things.

 

Back to the video the Doctor stated cancer is not caused my something...its caused by the lack of something...this is complete stupidity. I don't care what you eat...if you smoke 3 packs of cigarettes every day you'll probably get cancer. Same goes for radiation...if you live your whole life on an x-ray table you can take all the laetrile in the world but chances are you'll still get cancer. To me it seems like this guy may just be lobbying to get this stuff in the US...sure maybe it works but lots of things do. However, I do like the fact that he mentions a vegan diet as being effective to combat cancer but that only goes so far.

[Cthulhu]

 

 

 

Please, find a more credible source of information.

 

Oh, wait a second. Anything that uses demoralizing words like "quack", referring to doctors who actually care about their patients and cure cancer, is probably ran by the FDA or the Pharma companies.

 

The site has had that unwarranted criticism numerous times. However, if you actually visit it you will discover that it is run by volunteers from different science and medical fields - not the FDA or pharmaceutical companies.

 

I understand that you are a big believer in laetrile because you believe it has helped your mother. I hope that she stays well. However, there are many reasons for cancer to go into remission, to re-emerge and to disappear - and they're most likely too complex for us to understand at this time, indeed if ever. I wouldn't trumpet laetrile or vitamin B17 as a cure any more than I would call chemotherapy a cure. They're all just options and they're all of dubious worth.

 

 

Cancer just doesn't go into "remission". My Mothers cancer did not just go into remission either. There is not a trace of cancer in here body and it has been that way for over eight years.

Now, if you want to talk about remission, that is probably what chemotherapy does. It doesn't cure cancer, nor does it get to the root-cause of cancer. It ends up killing your healthier cells and your immune system, leaving you open to developing cancer again. People may live after chemotherapy, but that doesn't mean they get better. It means they die longer.

 

Cancer is not too complex for us to never understand it. I've been in school studying it for the last four years. I think I'd know that.

I am a big believer in Laetrile because I have both studied the science behind it and have seen it first hand how it works. Alternative Medicine has a higher success rate in curing cancer. That is a fact.

 

I am not saying Vitamin B-17 is a cure all for all. But it is effective, otherwise other countries would not be using it. It's that simple.

The science behind cancer is complex, but, as I stated earlier, it is not as complex as the politics behind medicine.

[Cthulhu]

I just watched this video and I've seen similar videos saying how green tea, noni, fish oil, and all kinds of things being definitive cures for cancer...all with evidence, all stating complete superiority to chemotherapy. Then there's the idea that the average person that gets treated for cancer with chemo doesn't live any longer than someone who gets no treatment due to the fact that some people live longer and some die from the stress of treatment...however living in the most cancerous county in the US I've had many friends and their family push their cancer into remission with standard chemo/radiation treatments...aka proof of effectiveness. All these things can be effective and are but all are likely equally ineffective. Also each has evidence/proof of superiority over the others...doesn't make sense but it just depends on how you look at things.

 

 

 

Back to the video the Doctor stated cancer is not caused my something...its caused by the lack of something...this is complete stupidity. I don't care what you eat...if you smoke 3 packs of cigarettes every day you'll probably get cancer. Same goes for radiation...if you live your whole life on an x-ray table you can take all the laetrile in the world but chances are you'll still get cancer. To me it seems like this guy may just be lobbying to get this stuff in the US...sure maybe it works but lots of things do. However, I do like the fact that he mentions a vegan diet as being effective to combat cancer but that only goes so far.

 

I don't remember ever seeing any videos of people saying fish and green tea cures cancer, although Omega 3's do play a VERY important roll in cancer prevention and does help for those who are fighting it.

This video isn't some quack video. It is a real video, with real science, real doctors, real biochemists, and real studies.

 

No doubt you can push cancer into remission with Chemo and Radiation.

Thats all it does. Like I stated above, it doesn't cure their cancer. It leaves them with retarded cell structure, a weak immune system, and a mass suicide of healthy cells. More people die from Chemotherapy than cancer itself. In fact, over 60% of cancer patients, who take chemotherapy, die from opportunistic illnesses like pneumonia, the common cold, etc. instead of the cancer itself because, like I said earlier, they have no immune system left to fight anything.

 

 

First of all, G. Edward Griffin was referring to a healthy, modern man's diet: Someone who doesn't smoke and do drugs, obviously.

Obviously, smoking causes cancer. We all know this. But smoking is unatural and shouldn't be either. Same goes for drugs, smoke, x rays, etc. It's not smoking itself that actually causes cancer, but the Carcinogens in the cigarettes- although not everyone who smokes gets cancer either. Carcinogens cause damage to our DNA, or cause cells to divide faster than their normal rate, thus causing cancer. But more importantly, it more like determins where the cancer will end up. That is what Carcinogens do.

 

All of the science and proof was provided on Vitamin B-17. It is up to people if they want to apply the science to their life. My Mothers cancer was in stage 3 too. The doctors told her she has a good chance of it returning. Ever since her laetrile treatment and taking Vitamin B-17 every single day, over eight years later, it has not returned.

Anyway, like I said, the proof is there. It's up to people if they want to apply that knowledge.

[Guest]

Yes they are scientists and doctors but you will just as easily find biochemists and doctors saying the Atkins diet is optimal...and they will find ways to make evidence. As for videos promoting tea, fish oil etc...I don't really mean videos...I meant TV programs on Discovery Health, CNN medical programs and various other programs. These were all done with real studies...however they seemed to be more legit than this video. I'm sorry but this video looks like it was filmed in either a somewhat lit basement or a conference room at a Motel 6. It also sounds like less than 50 people were there. Not that numbers mean everything but Brendan Brazier could schedule a presentation at a high school without any real press and I'm sure over 100 people would show up and he has no degree other than maybe a high school degree...also his theories(which I and many here agree with for the most part) are not backed by multi million dollar studies.

 

By the way...I'm no moron when it comes to science/bio/chemistry. I was a bio major for a while and had a world renowned neurologist as a teacher(graduated top of his class at U Penn) as well as a teacher(botanist) that was on a research team nominated for a Nobel Prize. My chem teachers weren't slouches either.

[Cthulhu]

Sure there are scientists that avocate the Aktins diet, but they're usually on their pay roll, much like the scientists that work for drug companies. Thats was also over thrity years ago. Science changes so much. Anyone who knows anything about science will know that the Atkins not is not for optimal health anyway. But dying of a heart attack at the age of 60 is normal in this country, so I want more than optimal health.

 

The first studies were indepent studies on laetrile. They were not funded by any big company that sells drugs or supplements. There was no company selling a product. The Video was held at a conference of over 80 people. In fact, those large stock holder meeting is where the lies are. Those quite conferences that people go to from all around the world is usually where you'll find the truth, since you won't find it on TV or on the radio.

 

G. Edward Griffin holds conferences every year and he is an advocate for health freedom. He is not selling anything. He writes his own books on health care and laetrile. Anyone who grew up in the 1950's, 60's, or even the 70's usually know who he is. He has been doing this for over 50 years and is not some hippy quack. He is very well respected in medical communites all around the world and has been invited to teach his theory at the best hospitals, including hospitals that use laetrile, with much success. There is no way to modify the truth with lies. Studies can be twisted around, like most are all the time. But when something like laetrile is being used all around the world in clinics like the one in Mexico that I posted about, with very much success, facts speak for themselves.

 

Nevertheless, we are at a time where people will argue with even someone who has studied the subject their whole life and facts will be the only way of showing people the truth in true healthcare.

 

I will, however, continue to spread the information and believe in it because it makes perfect sense scientifically, but more importantly, I 've seen what it does first hand. Do some research on Nobel Prize winners and you'll find most of them are called "quacks". That just tells me that those "quacks" are smarter and don't have drugs to always sell.

 

By the way, if you think I am coming across to you as someone who thinks you are a idiot, I am not. It sounds like you're very smart and open minded.

 

Yes they are scientists and doctors but you will just as easily find biochemists and doctors saying the Atkins diet is optimal...and they will find ways to make evidence. As for videos promoting tea, fish oil etc...I don't really mean videos...I meant TV programs on Discovery Health, CNN medical programs and various other programs. These were all done with real studies...however they seemed to be more legit than this video. I'm sorry but this video looks like it was filmed in either a somewhat lit basement or a conference room at a Motel 6. It also sounds like less than 50 people were there. Not that numbers mean everything but Brendan Brazier could schedule a presentation at a high school without any real press and I'm sure over 100 people would show up and he has no degree other than maybe a high school degree...also his theories(which I and many here agree with for the most part) are not backed by multi million dollar studies.

 

By the way...I'm no moron when it comes to science/bio/chemistry. I was a bio major for a while and had a world renowned neurologist as a teacher(graduated top of his class at U Penn) as well as a teacher(botanist) that was on a research team nominated for a Nobel Prize. My chem teachers weren't slouches either.

[Guest]

Thing is a lot of times these independent studies are run by people trying to get products into a new market. I'm not saying thats the case here but most of the time it is. I know this is completely different but it reminds me of people promoting the health benefits of cannabis. They are often independent studies...but well funded studies. I'm not saying there aren't any benefits but a lot of these groups want cannabis legalized as a controlled substance(most major drug companies are against it) meaning they want to figure out how to temporarily monopolize it while they can, in order to hit the jackpot before the major companies start selling it or before its legal for everyone over 18.

 

As for the conference if he were so legitimate(as he once was) lots of people would want to listen to him. Just look at Dr. Weil, Dr. Chopra and Jack Lalanne. Their simple presence will grab hundreds, and they don't seem to be people making truth out of lies. The medical community embraces them now...not 30yrs ago. This is despite the fact that a lot of what they promote goes against big pharm and invasive medical practices.

[antagony]

This is absurd. Why are you listening to the idiot claiming something disproven over and over again by study after study -- that a high fiber intake increases the incidence of colorectal cancer?

[Cthulhu]

This is absurd. Why are you listening to the idiot claiming something disproven over and over again by study after study -- that a high fiber intake increases the incidence of colorectal cancer?

 

Who said that a a high fiber intake increases the incidence of colorectal cancer?

[Cthulhu]

Remember that the drug companies are the ones who fund the studies and basically put doctors through Medical School. A lot of doctors today are actually starting to somewhat rebel against the Conventional dogma because they know that what they've been taught-to use drugs- is not making their patients better in the long run. Most independent studies are much more credible than those that are funded by drug companies. Keep in mind that the first series of these indepentent studies were conducted in the 1950's and the 1960's. This was at a time where supplement companies weren't as greedy. They were also conducted by the founder of laetrile, who is a doctor, so that says a lot. It's not like the study was funded only 10 or 20 years ago by some snake oil drug or supplement pusher. In fact, no doctor who studied laetrile has ever tried selling the supplement. They often got it as a cancer treatment for their patients from Mexico, etc.

 

 

 

Thing is a lot of times these independent studies are run by people trying to get products into a new market. I'm not saying thats the case here but most of the time it is. I know this is completely different but it reminds me of people promoting the health benefits of cannabis. They are often independent studies...but well funded studies. I'm not saying there aren't any benefits but a lot of these groups want cannabis legalized as a controlled substance(most major drug companies are against it) meaning they want to figure out how to temporarily monopolize it while they can, in order to hit the jackpot before the major companies start selling it or before its legal for everyone over 18.

 

As for the conference if he were so legitimate(as he once was) lots of people would want to listen to him. Just look at Dr. Weil, Dr. Chopra and Jack Lalanne. Their simple presence will grab hundreds, and they don't seem to be people making truth out of lies. The medical community embraces them now...not 30yrs ago. This is despite the fact that a lot of what they promote goes against big pharm and invasive medical practices.

[antagony]

Who said that a a high fiber intake increases the incidence of colorectal cancer?

 

It was stated in the PDF linked in the first post. Along with other uncredible statements such as, "Fruits and vegetables do not protect against cancer." Maybe he's right with the whole "lack of oxygen causing cancer" thing, but I think you'd have to be an imbecile in order to take what he's saying without an entire ocean of salt, seeing as he promotes one of those wacko Weston A. Price-esque diets that we KNOW cause all sorts of chronic and life-threatening diseases.

[Guest]

Maybe no doctor had tried getting money because they know that if the FDA approves it...they will get money. Its a nice way to not look greedy once the money comes in. Granted they may deserve it but if it comes in legally someone in the US will profit and who do you think thats gonna be???

[Cthulhu]

Who said that a a high fiber intake increases the incidence of colorectal cancer?

 

It was stated in the PDF linked in the first post. Along with other uncredible statements such as, "Fruits and vegetables do not protect against cancer." Maybe he's right with the whole "lack of oxygen causing cancer" thing, but I think you'd have to be an imbecile in order to take what he's saying without an entire ocean of salt, seeing as he promotes one of those wacko Weston A. Price-esque diets that we KNOW cause all sorts of chronic and life-threatening diseases.

 

I do agree you. That guy does sound like a quack. Some people get so over-indulged in what they believe in, they start to go crazy. Some people are so close-minded that that only look at their theory as a whole and do not except or study other theories. Lack of oxygen is part of the puzzle, but it is not the prime cause of cancer.