Why alternative medicine kills

[Nearly Sane]

More than likely a result of the "fall".
You are not really thinking this through, are you? 

Were the guinea pigs just guinea pigs for this then?

[Sebastian Toe]

Were the guinea pigs just guinea pigs for this then?

No. They were perfect guinea pigs who were within earshot of the 'event' and did nothing to prevent it. So were complicit by association.
Not a lot of people know that!

[SweetPea]

Maeght, not b7 but b17 (typo.. ! should have been 1)

http://artemisinine.net/news/the-wonders-of-laetrile-vitamin-b17.html

from the article:

How does laetrile-b17 perform?

Laetrile holds a precarious ingredient -cyanide-safe and sound within it.

The benzaldehyde and cyanide inside the Amygdalin perform in a comparable manner as does Chemo-therapy; merely it is more valuable.

The single way that can get wide open and arrive out is if the laetrile gets in touch with a malignant cell. Malignant cells have an enzyme that releases that cyanide, which comes out to annihilate the malignant cells. As soon as the cyanide moves out, a counterbalancing material also moves out that inhibits the cyanide from destroying any close by fit cells. By using vitamin B17 every day, malignant cells not at all have a likelihood to build up for the reason that the laetrile obliterates them very swiftly. In all the countries across the globe, it has been used on an experimental basis for treatment of a range of diseases. Currently it has been well acknowledged in US, Europe and Asia. Dietitians call it   nitrolosides. While used for malignancy treatment, in its decontaminated mode, it is known as laetrile. Globally, laetrile is present in innate material. The most exact explanation for this marvelous material is  that more than 12,000 fit to be eaten plants across the planet enclose this amazing stuff, among which Tunis grass, Johnson grass, and arrow grass, are to name a few.

Ancient civilizations are full of this mind-blowing substance:

The ancient civilizations across the globe that are relatively free from malignancies are known to utilize this incredible material: counting
The Hunzakut of Northwest Pakistan
The Akkadians on the Black Sea
The Eskimos
The Navaho Native Americans
Clusters in Africa
Clusters in Latin America

Added by myself: taking also into account the health of the above civilisations... they are not consuming a western diet, that has a lot to answer for.

[Maeght]

Right, well b17 isn't a vitamin at all and clinical trials have shown it to be ineffective at treating cancer and potentially toxic. A classic example of the subject of this threaf but clearly not an indication of ID

[Maeght]

 From the about us page 'Artemisinine.rs is an online store in the field of selling, herbal supplements, nitritional products, vitamibs and minerals.'

[Enki]

Right, well b17 isn't a vitamin at all and clinical trials have shown it to be ineffective at treating cancer and potentially toxic. A classic example of the subject of this threaf but clearly not an indication of ID

Just to back up Maeght's remarks, there is no such vitamin as B17, it's just fancy name given to laetrile (no doubt in order to sell it). There is no laboratory evidence that laetrile works at all(except as a placebo), it is banned in U.S.A. and in Europe, I believe, it is not allowed to be sold. The reasons for this are because of the possibility of dangerous side effects.(it is a powerful source of cyanide).

I am writing this not to influence SweetPea's views at all because I don't think that is possible, but because anyone reading her post on the so called value of laetrile, especially on treating cancer, needs to be aware of the volume of criticism that this product has engendered. All evidence can be easily assessed by checking the internet.

As far as I'm concerned this product is a classic example of what the opening post is all about.

[SweetPea]

Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other type of reply from you guys.

Maeght, c'mon.... oh my goodness, the quoted site is selling herbal supplements, nutritional supplements, vitamins and minerals - how dire. If you go to your doctor about an ailment he/she will write you a prescription for some chemicals that you pay for.

Enki.... so it's the word of whoever's studies you have been reading against the word of the people on the quoted website. Yes, b17 laetrile is suggested by mainstream science as controversial because of it's nature, and guidance should be given if considering it's use, but chemotherapy is just as controversial although never 'sold' as such, a very toxic treatment with very nasty side effects.

Mainstream science is never going to recommend any other treatment, it is never going to look at or accept natural forms that may help in the treatment or prevention of cancer because that would interfere with 'the cancer machine' and Big Pharma's financial gains. We'll be very lucky to ever see a cure for cancer via mainstream precisely because of this reason. 

[Gordon]

Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other type of reply from you guys.

Maeght, c'mon.... oh my goodness, the quoted site is selling herbal supplements, nutritional supplements, vitamins and minerals - how dire. If you go to your doctor about an ailment he/she will write you a prescription for some chemicals that you pay for.

Not if you live in Scotland.

Enki.... so it's the word of whoever's studies you have been reading against the word of the people on the quoted website. Yes, b17 laetrile is suggested by mainstream science as controversial because of it's nature, and guidance should be given if considering it's use, but chemotherapy is just as controversial although never 'sold' as such, a very toxic treatment with very nasty side effects.

Chemotherapy isn't controversial: it is only prescribed by suitably qualified medics, since it is a specialist field, and is subject to disciplined review. It may well be 'nasty' and have limited effectiveness but it does have proven efficacy and research into more effective treatments continues.

Mainstream science is never going to recommend any other treatment, it is never going to look at or accept natural forms that may help in the treatment or prevention of cancer because that would interfere with 'the cancer machine' and Big Pharma's financial gains. We'll be very lucky to ever see a cure for cancer via mainstream precisely because of this reason.

Ah - the old conspiracy theory approach, which conveniently the ignores progress in medical science to date. I noted you banging on about 'design' elsewhere: so, is the biology of cancers designed?

[Maeght]

Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other type of reply from you guys.

Maeght, c'mon.... oh my goodness, the quoted site is selling herbal supplements, nutritional supplements, vitamins and minerals - how dire. If you go to your doctor about an ailment he/she will write you a prescription for some chemicals that you pay for.

The point is that the website wants to sell you stuff and is going to say it works. It is not a reliable source and anyone who just accepts what such eebsitesc tells them is very gullible.

Enki.... so it's the word of whoever's studies you have been reading against the word of the people on the quoted website. Yes, b17 laetrile is suggested by mainstream science as controversial because of it's nature, and guidance should be given if considering it's use, but chemotherapy is just as controversial although never 'sold' as such, a very toxic treatment with very nasty side effects.

The studies are not people's opinion but are properly carried out, controlled and peer reviewed. Anyone who takes anecdotes on a website over such studies is very nieve.

Mainstream science is never going to recommend any other treatment, it is never going to look at or accept natural forms that may help in the treatment or prevention of cancer because that would interfere with 'the cancer machine' and Big Pharma's financial gains. We'll be very lucky to ever see a cure for cancer via mainstream precisely because of this reason.

Classic conspiracy theory stuff as pointed out by Gordon.

[Enki]

Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other type of reply from you guys.
.....

Enki.... so it's the word of whoever's studies you have been reading against the word of the people on the quoted website. Yes, b17 laetrile is suggested by mainstream science as controversial because of it's nature, and guidance should be given if considering it's use, but chemotherapy is just as controversial although never 'sold' as such, a very toxic treatment with very nasty side effects.

Mainstream science is never going to recommend any other treatment, it is never going to look at or accept natural forms that may help in the treatment or prevention of cancer because that would interfere with 'the cancer machine' and Big Pharma's financial gains. We'll be very lucky to ever see a cure for cancer via mainstream precisely because of this reason.

It most certainly is. Not just the 'word' of course but the evidence to back it up. It  is not only rejected because of its dangerous nature, but that there is no evidence that it works.

Gordon has very adequately and clearly dismissed your point about chemotherapy so I'll pass over that.

mainstream science has its many faults, but if laetrile was so successful it would only need one person or organization to present their evidence in a peer reviewed journal. Unfortunately that has not been forthcoming.


You will notice that  the Cancer Research Uk Charity, which is not government funded and whose purpose is to pioneer research in order to help cure cancer also gives clear information on progress towards this end and gives clear guidance and caution on alternative therapies, of which yours is one. I submit that this is worth reading from start to finish, but I very much doubt if you would have the slightest interest in it.

Others, however, might be inclined to do so.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-in-general/treatment/complementary-alternative-therapies/individual-therapies/laetrile

[Sriram]

Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other type of reply from you guys.

Maeght, c'mon.... oh my goodness, the quoted site is selling herbal supplements, nutritional supplements, vitamins and minerals - how dire. If you go to your doctor about an ailment he/she will write you a prescription for some chemicals that you pay for.

Enki.... so it's the word of whoever's studies you have been reading against the word of the people on the quoted website. Yes, b17 laetrile is suggested by mainstream science as controversial because of it's nature, and guidance should be given if considering it's use, but chemotherapy is just as controversial although never 'sold' as such, a very toxic treatment with very nasty side effects.

Mainstream science is never going to recommend any other treatment, it is never going to look at or accept natural forms that may help in the treatment or prevention of cancer because that would interfere with 'the cancer machine' and Big Pharma's financial gains. We'll be very lucky to ever see a cure for cancer via mainstream precisely because of this reason.

Some people seem to think that we are living in test tubes!!   We cannot have all aspects of life tested and confirmed through clinical trials all the time.

Not that clinical trials are fool proof either!  Many of them turn out to be wrong subsequently as many dietary and drug trials are evidence of.

We live through common sense, experience, anecdotes and wisdom.  People who have greater exposure to varied experiences and ways of life will understand things that people with limited exposure will never understand and will keep questioning. 

[Gordon]

Some people seem to think that we are living in test tubes!!   We cannot have all aspects of life tested and confirmed through clinical trials all the time.

We don't: knowledge can be incremental so that once something is sufficiently understood it isn't constantly re-tested unless new knowledge casts doubt on current understanding.

Not that clinical trials are fool proof either!  Many of them turn out to be wrong subsequently as many dietary and drug trials are evidence of.

Which is why these trials, and disciplined research methods in general, are essential.

We live through common sense, experience, anecdotes and wisdom.  People who have greater exposure to varied experiences and ways of life will understand things that people with limited exposure will never understand and will keep questioning.

Depends on the nature of the 'exposure' and what such people think they 'understand': they could be wrong, they may be insufficiently informed, they might be misled by the assumptions of others and then, of course, there may be the dreaded unknown unknowns that have yet to be understood.

To keep questioning is surely a good thing in comparison to assuming certainty regarding current understandings - misplaced certainty isn't ever helpful if it inhibits questioning.

[Sriram]

We don't: knowledge can be incremental so that once something is sufficiently understood it isn't constantly re-tested unless new knowledge casts doubt on current understanding.

Which is why these trials, and disciplined research methods in general, are essential.

Depends on the nature of the 'exposure' and what such people think they 'understand': they could be wrong, they may be insufficiently informed, they might be misled by the assumptions of others and then, of course, there may be the dreaded unknown unknowns that have yet to be understood.

To keep questioning is surely a good thing in comparison to assuming certainty regarding current understandings - misplaced certainty isn't ever helpful if it inhibits questioning.

I agree Gordon....that questioning is important.   But habitual skepticism can be dysfunctional.

Also...clinical trials have limited applicability and scope. They need money, time, people and focus. Experience and exposure can bring to our understanding many things that cannot be clinically tested in a lab.

[Gordon]

I agree Gordon....that questioning is important.   But habitual skepticism can be dysfunctional.

Why?

Also...clinical trials have limited applicability and scope. They need money, time, people and focus.

By their nature clinical trials have essential limitations as part of the method(s) used in relation to the details of what is being tested. Clinical trials without such discipline would be useless in reaching informed conclusions.

Experience and exposure can bring to our understanding many things that cannot be clinically tested in a lab.

It can also bring misunderstanding and ignorance: some things really do require the structure of the research methods.

[Maeght]

Some people seem to think that we are living in test tubes!!   We cannot have all aspects of life tested and confirmed through clinical trials all the time.

Not that clinical trials are fool proof either!  Many of them turn out to be wrong subsequently as many dietary and drug trials are evidence of.

We live through common sense, experience, anecdotes and wisdom.  People who have greater exposure to varied experiences and ways of life will understand things that people with limited exposure will never understand and will keep questioning.

It is important when alternative cures are being put forward that people are aware of potential hazards and the results of clinical trials. If individuals decide to go with these alternatives it is up to them. But I think to rely on anecdotes and websites who are looking to sell stuff is gullible and nieve and certainly doesn't indicate any greater exposure to life's experiences. To habitually distrust clinical trials is not wise.

[ekim]

To habitually distrust clinical trials is not wise.

Are you agreeing with Sriram when he said "But habitual skepticism can be dysfunctional."?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

We must remember that Allopathy (modern medicine) did not drop from the skies. Modern medicine is only a recent branch of medical systems that have existed from ancient times.  Modern medicine is not something out of this world, totally unconnected to other medical systems. Just as modern foods are not unconnected to traditional foods.

Modern medicine is just a more precise system (thanks to modern technology, computers etc.) of testing, documenting, diagnosing and prescribing medicines. It has evolved from traditional systems and is not essentially different from them. 

We can also think of modern medicine mixing with traditional systems and evolving further into a more integrated system in the future.   

We should stop taking political positions and treating traditional medical systems as though they are some horribly unimaginable, primitive and bizarre systems that people need to be warned against. The fact that you people keep referring to alternative medicine as 'snake oil' shows how little you know about it. 

Maybe British people and Americans don't know much of alternative systems but most other countries do. They also have a long history of such systems.

That internet sites cannot be relied upon is obvious and does not apply only to alternative medicine. It applies to modern medicine also.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Maeght]

Hi everyone,

We must remember that Allopathy (modern medicine) did not drop from the skies. Modern medicine is only a recent branch of medical systems that have existed from ancient times.  Modern medicine is not something out of this world, totally unconnected to other medical systems. Just as modern foods are not unconnected to traditional foods.

Modern medicine is just a more precise system (thanks to modern technology, computers etc.) of testing, documenting, diagnosing and prescribing medicines. It has evolved from traditional systems and is not essentially different from them. 

We can also think of modern medicine mixing with traditional systems and evolving further into a more integrated system in the future.   

We should stop taking political positions and treating traditional medical systems as though they are some horribly unimaginable, primitive and bizarre systems that people need to be warned against. The fact that you people keep referring to alternative medicine as 'snake oil' shows how little you know about it. 

Maybe British people and Americans don't know much of alternative systems but most other countries do. They also have a long history of such systems.

That internet sites cannot be relied upon is obvious and does not apply only to alternative medicine. It applies to modern medicine also.

Cheers.

Sriram

I have used a herbalist in the past and so am not closed to traditional medicines. However when sensationalist claims of cures for cancer are made which are unsupported by anything other than anecdotes this must be challenged.

[Maeght]

Are you agreeing with Sriram when he said "But habitual skepticism can be dysfunctional."?

Possibly.

[Sriram]

I have used a herbalist in the past and so am not closed to traditional medicines. However when sensationalist claims of cures for cancer are made which are unsupported by anything other than anecdotes this must be challenged.

Sensational claims by anyone need to be checked and reviewed. No doubt about that.

However, anecdotal claims need not always be dismissed outright. Waiting for clinical trials in every case may take forever.

Anecdote and generations of experience are also evidence....(sometimes more reliable than clinical trials, as some dietary norms have shown). 

[Harrowby Hall]

Sensational claims by anyone need to be checked and reviewed. No doubt about that.

However, anecdotal claims need not always be dismissed outright. Waiting for clinical trials in every case may take forever.

Anecdote and generations of experience are also evidence....(sometimes more reliable than clinical trials, as some dietary norms have shown).

Have you not considered that what you consider to be an effective traditional treatment may have taken fifty years for it to be spread from one village to another and that for possibly every effective traditional treatment now being used there may have been thousands of people dead because their operational parameters hadn't been determined?

In comparison with clinical trials the speed of development and efficacy of traditional medical systems was slow, ponderous and uncertain. Both are certainly evidence-based methods but one can evaluate evidence in a relatively short time the other takes - possibly - centuries.

[Sriram]

Have you not considered that what you consider to be an effective traditional treatment may have taken fifty years for it to be spread from one village to another and that for possibly every effective traditional treatment now being used there may have been thousands of people dead because their operational parameters hadn't been determined?

In comparison with clinical trials the speed of development and efficacy of traditional medical systems was slow, ponderous and uncertain. Both are certainly evidence-based methods but one can evaluate evidence in a relatively short time the other takes - possibly - centuries.

Yes...modern clinical trials could be faster. But that's not what I am talking about.

[Robbie]

Here's an 'alternative' medication that has worked very well or many (I know two). Only side effect is blocked nose - which many had anyway - easily sorted with Vicks sinex nasal spray or similar.

[Rhiannon]

I'm properly allergic to corticosteroids. The only thing that heals my eczema is a balm made from plant oils and pot marigold (calendula to sound posh).

I'm also allergic to formaldehyde which means a lot of conventional stuff isn't safe for me - adhesives in dressings, preservatives in creams and some vaccines, plastics in some implants, some kinds of antiseptics, disinfectants and antibacterials to name but a few.

And like many people I'm allergic to nickel, so I was horrified to read this morning that women have been having implants made from nickel inserted into their Fallopian tubes. Wtf were the developers and doctors thinking? As a comparison nickel is banned from jewellery across the EU because so many people react to it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41011890

[Aruntraveller]

As a comparison nickel is banned from jewellery across the EU because so many people react to it.

Pah! Pesky EU regulations. Begone I say.