LEACUL PENTRU CANCER, INTERZIS DE MAFIA INDUSTRIEI “BIG PHARMA”? De unde ne putem lua VITAMINA B17 (Amigdalina)?

63 Commentarii la “LEACUL PENTRU CANCER, INTERZIS DE MAFIA INDUSTRIEI “BIG PHARMA”? De unde ne putem lua VITAMINA B17 (Amigdalina)?”

<< Pagina 1 / 2 >> VEZI COMENTARII MAI NOI

cristian

22-05-2013 07:51

Absolut aceeaşi tactică precum în cazul vitaminei C (în doze de peste 2000 mg) în tratarea şi prevenirea poliomelitei la copilaşi la începutul anilor 1960 în SUA. de unde se vede, că istoria se repetă şi informaţia valorează aur (duhovniceşte vorbind). Dea Dumnezeu ca să afle cât mai multă lume despre acestea.

Cosmin S.

22-05-2013 08:21

Tratamentul pentru cancer descoperit in Canada si ignorat de companiile farmaceutice

“În 2007, cercetătorii canadieni de la Universitatea din Alberta, Edmonton, au anunțat că au descoperit tratamentul pentru cancer. Evangelos Michelakis și colegii săi susțineau că un medicament comun la cărui compoziţie conține dichloroacetate (DCA), utilizat pentru tratarea tulburărilor metabolice ar putea fi utilizat și pentru stoparea dezvoltării tumorilor canceroase, cât și pentru uciderea mai multor tipuri de celule canceroase.

Anii au trecut și mai toată lumea a ignorat cu desăvârșire această descoperire incredibilă. Chiar dacă oamenii de știință au făcut pasul suprem în eradicarea unei boli nimicitoare, companiile farmaceutice din întreaga lumea nici nu au băgat în seamă această descoperire. Probabil că cel mai important aspect este de ordin financiar, odată descoperit tratamentul pentru cancer, se vor înregistra pierderi imense în rândul companiilor producătoare de medicamente.”

Asadar, tineti minte: dichloroacetate (DCA)

sursa: […]
http://www.efemeride.ro/tratamentul-pentru-cancer-descoperit-in-canada-si-ignorat-de-companiile-farmaceutice

[n.n.: scuze, dar nu agream plagiatorii ca sursa]

Silvia

22-05-2013 11:16

Vai, si cati samburi de piersica mancam cand eram copil! Avea bunica piersic in curte si ce ne mai distram ca ii spargeam cu ciocanul si mancam miezul. Banuiesc ca se poate face la fel cu cei de prune si cirese?

Ina

22-05-2013 16:02

Silvia, si eu mancam samburii de caise, prune, mere. Ciresele insa, le mancam cu tot cu sambure:).

Astazi copiii se joaca pe net, noi insa aveam jocuri atat de simple, care nu includeau nici un cost ptr parinti si pe deasupra mai erau si sanatoase: saritul corzii, sotronul, ascunsa (mija), prinsa si spartul samburilor :).

Si majoritatea din astea facute cu cantec. Ce vremuri:)

Ana Elisabeta

22-05-2013 17:54

Ar fi fost prea simplu sa fie cauzat cancerul (in care denumire se includ de fapt mai multe boli destul de diferite intre ele) de lipsa unei singure substante din organism. Unele cancere au cauze foarte specifice (de exemplu fumatul), altele sunt probabil cauzate de modul de viata din ziua de azi, artificial si nesanatos. Unele cauze pot fi evitate cu un pic de vointa si efort (sedentarismul, alimentatia nesanatoasa), altele nu (poluarea aerului, apei, alimentelor etc.) Si mai exista si o componenta spirituala si de providenta in toate bolile, pentru ca de exemplu Iov nu s-a imbolnavit din cauza modului de viata nesanatos.

Iata-l pe d-l Griffin (vedeti sectiunea Health Advocacy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin

Despre Laetril:

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/laetrile

Cred ca cel putin de data asta “establishmentul” face un serviciu publicului interzicand un “tratament” care nu numai ca nu ajuta, ci chiar face rau.

Ana Elisabeta

22-05-2013 18:01

Mai in detaliu:

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

Mirela

22-05-2013 20:18

@Ana Elisabeta,

Asta este explicatia celor care contesta eficienta acestei substante, pe care ei o considera periculoasa. Am citit ca amigdalina s-ar combina in stomac cu o enzima gastrointestinala rezultand cianura (sau insasi samburii de caisa ar contine mici doze de cianura, cam 0.5 mg per sambure) si ca in cantitati mai mari ar fi toxic pt organism, ca nu s-ar recomanda mai mult de 3 samburi/zi. Desi eu tin minte ca in copilarie mancam cate 20-30 samburi de caise zilnic impreuna cu alti copii pt ca ni se pareau a fi foarte gustosi, sau uneori mancam multe migdale, care contin aceeasi substanta, si nu aveam absolut nimic.
Am mai gasit pe net urmatoarele detalii legate de aceasta substanta:

Existenta [amigdalinei] este cunoscuta de mii de ani, în China şi Egiptul antic, fiind extrasă din migdale amare (de unde vine şi denumirea). Un papirus egiptean, vechi de peste 5000 de ani, menţionează utilizarea “aqua amigdalorum” în tratamentul unor tumori ale pielii. Grecii şi romanii s-au folosit, la rândul lor, de proprietăţile terapeutice ale amigdalinei. De asemenea, numeroase triburi de indieni (Navajo, Karakorum etc) consumă frecvent băuturi preparate din sâmburi de fructe, bogate în amigdalină, în rândul acestora neînregistrându-se nici un caz de cancer.

De fapt ideea dr. Krebs de a identifica cauza cancerului…i-a venit tocmai dupa ce a studiat dieta unor triburi amerindiene si de eschimosi care nu cunosteau aceasta teribila boala. Si-a dat seama ca acestia consuma nu numai fructe ci si samburii!

Amigdalina este alcătuită din două molecule de glucoză, o moleculă de acid cianhidric (compus anti-neoplastic si care in combinatie cu potasiul formeaza cianura de potasiu ) şi o moleculă de benzaldehidă (analgezic). Comercial, amigdalina (vitamina B17) se prepară din sâmburii de caise.

Celulele normale în organismul nostru conţine o enzimă numită Rodhanese care “neutralizeaza” amigdalina. Această enzimă nu-i permite sa elibereze cianura. În acest fel, amigdalina serveşte doar ca glucoza pentru celulele sanatoase si deci furnizeaza energie. Celulele canceroase nu conţin această enzimă. În absenţa Rodhanesei, B17 activeaza eliberarea cianurii în interiorul celulei maligne care provoacă distrugerea ei.

Nu se poate consuma insa oricum ci numai sub stricta supraveghere medicala. Si asta pentru ca un consum exagerat poate fi extrem de periculos. In principiu, pentru preventie si pentru a asigura necesarul de vitamina B17 se va consuma 1 sambure caisa per kilogram corp = o persoana de aprox 70 kg va manca 7 samburi.

Gasesti amigdalina in urmatoarele surse naturale:
– samburi de: caise, cirese, migdale, piersici, prune;
– seminte de: gutui, mere si pere;
– cereale: orez brun, hrisca, orz, ovaz si secara;
– legume: mazare, fasole, conopida, varza, broccoli, spanac, ceapa si vinete;
– fructe: zmeura, coacaze negre, struguri.

Rezultatele a de vindecari au fost spectaculoase. Se mergea pe administrarea contolata de amigdalina combinata cu o dieta preponderent vegetala, suplimente de spirulina, echinaceea si cartilaj de rechin.

Ei bine si acest cercetator a fost impiedicat sa isi popularizeze metoda. S-a ajuns pana acolo incat ( ghiciti cine? FDA-ul) a interzis comercializarea amigdalinei.

Unul dintre aparatorii metodei Krebs este Edward Griffin care in 1992 a scris unul dintre cele mai faimoase best-seller- uri pe aceasta tema – O lume fara cancer Povestea vitaminei B17. Nu numai ca explica efectele curative sau prezinta cazuri de pacienti cu metastaze multiple vindecati…ci si desconspira motivul pentru care a fost interzis Krebs : nu se pot face bani din metoda lui de tratament!!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_g3T8P7TvPFc/S2MacAMjgnI/AAAAAAAABhs/QVLWA_LkHPQ/s640/world-

admin

22-05-2013 21:04

http://www.realitatea.net/a-murit-tanarul-care-a-emo-ionat-internetul-cu-un-cantec-de-adio-dedicat-celor-dragi_1187052.html

Ana Elisabeta

22-05-2013 21:28

@ Mirela

Samburii de caise contin acea substanta (precursorul de cianura) in cantitati prea mici ca sa dauneze in cantitatea pe care o poate manca un om mancand samburi de caise ca atare. Si eu am mancat foarte multi, mai ales in copilarie. Dar imi amintesc ca daca erau amari samburii (acesta fiind semnul ca substanta respectiva e in cantitate mai mare) bunica mea spunea, mai in gluma mai in serios, s-o lasam mai moale ca ne otravim. Bunica mea fiind medic, poate e indicat sa precizez.

Mecanismul acesta, cum ca substanta afecteaza doar celulele canceroase si nu si pe cele sanatoase, este in mod ironic adevarat pentru terapiile recunoscute stiintific ale cancerului, radioterapia si chimioterapia, pe care promotorii terapiilor alternative ale cancerului le denunta ca otravind organismul. Si chiar otravesc, cu diferenta ca aceastea otravesc in primul rand celulele canceroase si doar in mai mica masura pe cele sanatoase, in timp ce amigdalina nu ofera, in realitate, un asemenea avantaj.

Linkurile de mai sus le-am pus la dispozitia celor care vor sa afle un punct de vedere fundamentat stiintific cu privire la problemele prezentate, in primul rand din respect pentru acest site si administratorii lui, site care in alte privinte are standarde inalte, de excelenta as spune, in selectia si prezentarea informatiei. Am apreciat alte informatii din domeniul medical (de exemplu semnele de intrebare cu privire la vaccinul antigripal si cel anti-HVP), insa mi se pare nedemna asocierea unei publicatii ortodoxe la propaganda unei sarlatanii medicale, si inca nu una inocenta tip placebo, ci care poate ucide fie direct, fie convingand pe cei creduli (contra cost, desigur) sa renunte la tratamentele care i-ar fi putut face sanatosi.

Ana Elisabeta

22-05-2013 21:32

Articolul de pe Quack Watch:

The Rise and Fall of Laetrile
Benjamin Wilson, M.D.
Laetrile is the trade name for laevo-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronoside, a substance allegedly synthesized by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., and registered with the U.S. Patent Office for the treatment of “disorders of intestinal fermentation.” This compound is chemically related to amygdalin, a substance found naturally in the pits of apricots and various other fruits. Most proponents of Laetrile for the treatment of cancer use the terms “Laetrile” and amygdalin interchangeably.

Amygdalin was originally isolated in 1830 by two French chemists. In the presence of certain enzymes, amygdalin breaks down into glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide (which is poisonous). It was tried as an anticancer agent in Germany in 1892, but was discarded as ineffective and too toxic for that purpose. During the early 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., M.D., and his son Ernst, Jr., began using a “purified” form of amygdalin to treat cancer patients. Since that time scientists have tested substances called “Laetrile” in more than 20 animal tumor models as well as in humans and found no benefit either alone or together with other substances. Along the way its proponents have varied their claims about Laetrile’s origin, chemical structure, mechanism of action, and therapeutic effects [1,2]. Its place in history is assured, however, as a focus of political activities intended to abolish the laws protecting Americans from quackery.

Krebs, Sr.—Laetrile’s “grandfather”—worked as a pharmacist before attending the San Francisco College of Physicians and Surgeons, from which he received his medical degree in 1903. During the influenza pandemic of 1918, he apparently became convinced that an old Indian remedy made from parsley was effective against the flu. He set up the Balsamea Company in San Francisco to market the remedy as Syrup Leptinol, which he claimed was effective against asthma, whooping cough, tuberculosis and pneumonia as well. During the early 1920s, supplies of Syrup Leptinol were seized by the FDA on charges that these claims were false and fraudulent. During the 1940s, Krebs, Sr., promoted Mutagen, an enzyme mixture containing chymotrypsin, which he claimed was effective against cancer. He and his son also patented and promoted “pangamic acid” (later called “vitamin B15”), which they claimed was effective against heart disease, cancer, and several other serious ailments. Krebs, Sr., died in 1970 at the age of 94.

Ernst T. Krebs, Jr.—Laetrile’s “father”—has often been referred to as “Dr. Krebs” although he has no accredited doctoral degree. He attended Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia from 1938 to 1941, but was expelled after repeating his freshman year and failing his sophomore year [3]. After taking courses in five different colleges and achieving low or failing grades in his science courses, he finally received a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Illinois in 1942 [3]. In 1973, after giving a 1-hour lecture on Laetrile, he obtained a “Doctor of Science” degree from American Christian College, a small, now-defunct Bible college in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The school, founded by evangelist Billy James Hargis, had no science department and lacked authority from Oklahoma to grant any doctoral degrees.

Laetrile’s Origin
Several versions of Laetrile’s development have been published. In a 1962 book, Krebs, Sr., said that he had theorized that “cancer proteins” could be broken down by an enzyme he had prepared when he was a pharmacy student. When the substance proved too toxic in animal experiments, he boiled it and obtained better results. However, according to Michael Culbert, another prominent Laetrile promoter, Krebs ran a lucrative business analyzing smuggled whiskey for wood alcohol and developed Laetrile while working on a bourbon flavoring extract. During experiments with a mold growing on the barrels in which the whiskey was aged, he isolated an enzyme that he thought might have anti-tumor activity. When his supply of barrel mold was exhausted, he switched to apricot pits and used extracts (which he called Sarcarcinase) for various tests on animals and humans during the next two decades. In 1949, Krebs, Jr., modified his father’s extraction process and named the result Laetrile.

Historian James Harvey Young has noted that Krebs, Sr., presented yet another version to FDA officials during an interview in 1962. Then he dated Laetrile’s birth to 1951 and said he had tested it on patients but kept no records [1]. Noting that this version was made public much earlier than the others, Dr. Young suspects that Laetrile’s origin was backdated to try to evade new drug provisions of 1938 and 1962 FDA laws. In 1977, after thorough investigation, FDA Commissioner Donald Kennedy concluded:

While it appears that Dr. Krebs, Sr., was utilizing some substance, which apparently had the trademark Sarcarcinase, before 1938, there is no evidence that the substance is identical . . . to the present-day Laetrile [4].

Proponents’ Rationales
In 1902, a Scottish embryologist named John Beard theorized that cancer cells and cells produced during pregnancy called trophoblasts are one and the same. According to Beard, trophoblasts invade the uterine wall to form the placenta and umbilical cord. The pancreas then produces chymotrypsin, which destroys the trophoblasts. Beard postulated that if the pancreas fails to produce enough chymotrypsin, trophoblasts circulate through the body of both mother and infant, making them vulnerable throughout life to cancer.

In 1945, Krebs, Jr., founded the John Beard Memorial Foundation to “develop and apply” Beard’s theories. In 1950, the Krebs published a version of Beard’s thesis and stated that amygdalin kills trophoblast cells where trypsin has failed. They claimed that cancer tissues are rich in an enzyme that causes amygdalin to release cyanide which destroys the cancer cells. According to this theory, noncancerous tissues are protected from this fate by another enzyme which renders the cyanide harmless. After enforcement agencies began trying to ban Laetrile as a drug, the Krebs claimed that amygdalin is a vitamin (“B17”) and that cancer is caused by a deficiency of this vitamin. None of these theories is valid.

Claims for Laetrile effectiveness have also shifted. At first it was claimed to cure cancer. Later it was claimed to “control” cancer. When the “vitamin” theory was developed, it was touted as a cancer preventive. It has also been claimed to be effective in relieving pain associated with cancer and in facilitating treatment with chemotherapy.

Scientific Review
One of the first practitioners to use Laetrile was Arthur T. Harris, M.D., who had trained in Scotland and reportedly studied embryology under John Beard. Harris, who had been doing family practice in Southern California, renamed his office the Harris Cancer Clinic. Within a year he submitted a report to Coronet Magazine which claimed that he was “working on something out here that is going to be the answer to cancer if there will ever be one,” but the magazine did not report what he was doing.

By that time, the California Medical Association was receiving inquiries about Laetrile. When members of its Cancer Commission approached Krebs, Sr., he claimed that “limited” trials of toxicity in animals had been performed with satisfactory results, but that the records had been destroyed. No human trials involving Laetrile had been undertaken, but the Commission was offered case reports of patients in which spectacular results had supposedly been observed. However, the details claimed by the Krebs team could not be confirmed by other sources. The Commission was able to obtain a small supply of Laetrile for animal tests at three medical centers—all of which produced negative results.

At one point, the Krebs’ agreed to supply Laetrile for a controlled clinical investigation at Los Angeles County Hospital. But later they said they would do so only if a Laetrile advocate were put in charge—which was not acceptable to hospital authorities. The Commission then evaluated the records of 44 patients treated according to the Krebs’ recommendations. Two years had elapsed since the first of these patients had been treated with Laetrile. Nineteen had already died and there was no evidence that Laetrile had helped any of the others.

Marketing Increased
In 1956 Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., was introduced to Andrew R.L. McNaughton, who has been dubbed Laetrile’s “godfather” by its supporters. McNaughton is the son of the late General A.G.L. McNaughton, commander of the Canadian Armed Forces during World War II. General McNaughton also served as president of the United Nations Security Council and the National Research Council of Canada.

Andrew McNaughton was educated at a Jesuit College and subsequently received training in electrical engineering, geology, mining, and business administration. During the war he was the chief test pilot for the Royal Canadian Air Force. Subsequently, he made a fortune by converting cheaply obtained war surplus items into useful products for other nations. He provided arms for the emerging nation of Israel and was also a double agent for Fidel Castro, ostensibly working for the Batista government in Cuba but often arranging for purchases to be hijacked by Castro supporters. For his efforts, Castro made him an “honorary citizen of Cuba.”

McNaughton met Krebs shortly after he had incorporated the McNaughton Foundation, which was seeking projects “on the outer limits of scientific knowledge.” Intrigued by Krebs’ account of the “Laetrile Wars,” McNaughton began promoting and distributing Laetrile. In 1961, to facilitate distribution in Canada, he founded International Biozymes Ltd. (later renamed Bioenzymes International Ltd), located in the same building as the McNaughton Foundation. Eventually, he built factories in seven countries.

It has been alleged that a major Biozymes stockholder (under someone else’s name) was a New Jersey mobster who was convicted of conspiring to bribe public officials in connection with gambling. In 1977, McNaughton told American Medical News that he had treated the man’s sister with Laetrile and that the man was a “wonderful guy” who had given $130,000 to the McNaughton Foundation.

During the 1970s, McNaughton experienced considerable difficulty in his financial dealings. In 1972, he was permanently enjoined from selling Biozymes stock in the United States as a result of a suit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In 1973, he was charged by Italian police with having taken part in a $17 million swindle involving purchasers of Biozymes stock who were under the impression that they were investing in an Italian Laetrile factory. In 1974, in a Canadian courtroom, McNaughton was found guilty of stock fraud involving a company named Pan American Mines. It appears that $5 million had mysteriously disappeared. McNaughton was fined $10,000 and sentenced to serve one day in jail. A warrant for his arrest was issued after he refused to pay the fine and left Canada without serving his sentence.

Publicity Mounts
Besides overseeing production, McNaughton also sought publicity for Laetrile. He was able to convince a Jersey City surgeon, John A. Morrone, to attend a presentation that Krebs, Jr., gave in Montreal. After having lunch with Krebs, Jr., Morrone reportedly went back to New Jersey a “convinced laetrilist,” and began using Laetrile on his patients.

At McNaughton’s request, Morrone wrote a report on ten patients he had treated with Laetrile, which was published in 1962 in Experimental Medicine and Surgery, a journal no longer being published. McNaughton also arranged for a freelance writer named Glenn Kittler to write two magazine articles and a book on Laetrile. Kittler, who had studied to become a priest before becoming a journalist, had been an associate editor of Coronet magazine in 1952. The articles were published in March 1963 in American Weekly, a Sunday supplement to the Hearst newspapers. Immediately afterward, Kittler’s book, Laetrile: Control for Cancer, was rushed into print with an initial press run of 500,000 copies. The book carried a foreword by McNaughton—with his Foundation’s Montreal address. According to Kittler, the book’s publisher was so confident that publicity from the articles would boost sales that he didn’t send prepublication advertising to book distributors. When sales lagged, Kittler claimed that pressures from the AMA and FDA were partially responsible.

Support Groups
The efforts of McNaughton and Kittler were not fruitless, however. Cecile Hoffman was a San Diego schoolteacher who had undergone a radical mastectomy in 1959. After reading Kittler’s book, she visited the McNaughton Foundation in Montreal and received Laetrile. Although she was unable to find an American physician who would administer her intravenous Laetrile injections, she did find Ernesto Contreras, M.D., just across the Mexican border in Tijuana. This was perhaps the most fortunate thing that ever happened to Dr. Contreras.

Contreras was a former Mexican Army pathologist who was in private practice in Tijuana. After he administered the Laetrile, Mrs. Hoffman became convinced that it controlled her cancer and saved her life. She remained a fervent Laetrile supporter until she died of metastatic breast cancer in 1969. Hoffman’s convictions led her to form the International Association of Cancer Victims and Friends (IACVF) in 1963. (The word Victims was later changed to Victors.) IACVF’s purpose was “to educate the general public to the options available to cancer patients, especially terminal cancer patients.” Joining forces with health food industry promoters, the association began holding annual conventions in Los Angeles that drew thousands of people. These meetings provided a forum for virtually anyone who either promised or sold a cancer remedy that was not recognized as effective by the scientific community. The Krebs spoke often at these conferences. IACVF also founded the Cancer Book House, which sold literature promoting unorthodox cancer treatments. In addition, it arranged for room, board and transportation to Contreras’ clinic from a California motel near the border.

Contreras, meanwhile, expanded his clinic and added translators to his staff to accommodate the influx of American patients. Business was so brisk that in 1970 he constructed a new clinic-the Del Mar Medical Center and Hospital—which he promoted as “an oasis of hope.” (His facility is now called Oasis Hospital.)

In 1973, several leaders left IACVF to found the Cancer Control Society, whose activities are similar to those of IACVF. Another group promoting dubious cancer therapies is the National Health Federation (NHF), which supports a broad spectrum of questionable health methods. This group was founded in 1955 by Fred J. Hart, president of the Electronic Medical Foundation, a company that marketed quack devices. NHF sponsors meetings, generates massive letter-writing campaigns, and helps defend questionable methods in court cases. Four people who have served on its board of governors and the husband of its current president have been convicted of laetrile-related crimes.

Legal Problems
The first seizure of Laetrile in the United States occurred in 1960 at the former Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, which was then being operated by osteopathic physician Harry Taylor, a former Hoxsey employee. Two months before the seizure, a federal court judge had ordered Taylor to stop distributing the various Hoxsey concoctions. The seizure was not contested by Taylor.

In 1961, Krebs, Jr., and the John Beard Memorial Foundation were indicted for interstate shipment of an unapproved drug-not Laetrile but pangamic acid. After pleading guilty, Krebs was fined $3,750 and sentenced to prison. However, the sentence was suspended when Krebs and the Foundation agreed to terms of a 3-year probation in which neither would manufacture or distribute Laetrile unless the FDA approved its use for testing as a new drug.

In 1959, the California legislature had passed a law similar to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, banning commerce of hazardous foods, drugs and cosmetics within California. The California Department of Public Health then formed a Cancer Advisory Council which studied Laetrile and other dubious cancer treatments. The ten physicians and five research scientists carried out their investigation from 1960 to 1962 and issued their report in May 1963.

During 1962 and 1963, the Cancer Advisory Council examined more than 100 case histories submitted by various proponents and concluded that none provided any evidence that Laetrile was effective against cancer. The Council also reviewed the California Medical Association’s 1953 report on Laetrile, as well as a “new synthetic” Laetrile purportedly developed by Krebs, Jr. In addition, medical records of 144 patients treated with Laetrile were reviewed from physicians in both the United States and Canada.

After the Council determined that the drug was “of no value in the diagnosis, treatment, alleviation or cure of cancer,” it recommended that regulations be issued to ban the use of Laetrile and “substantially similar” agents for the treatment of cancer. Despite considerable opposition from Laetrile promoters, the regulation was issued under provisions of California’s Cancer Law and became effective November 1, 1963.

The Krebs family returned to court several more times. In 1965, Krebs, Sr., was charged with disobeying a regulatory order forbidding interstate shipment of Laetrile and pleaded “no contest.” The following year he pleaded guilty to a contempt charge for shipping Laetrile in violation of injunctions and failing to register as a drug manufacturer. He received a suspended 1-year sentence. In 1974 Ernst, Jr., and his brother Byron pleaded guilty to violating the California state health and safety laws. Each was fined $500, given a suspended sentence of six months, and placed on probation. Byron had his osteopathic license revoked the same year for “mental incompetence”, and died shortly thereafter. In 1977, Ernst, Jr., was found guilty of violating his probation by continuing to advocate Laetrile and was sentenced to 6 months in the county jail. He was jailed during 1983 after the appeals process ended.

Meanwhile, Howard H. Beard (not a relative of John Beard), who had worked with Krebs and Dr. Harris, suffered an unfavorable ruling from the California Cancer Advisory Council. For many years he had promoted various urine tests purported to measure the level of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG). Both Krebs and Beard had claimed that all cases of cancer could be diagnosed on the basis of an elevated HCG test. In 1963 Krebs, Jr., stated that the “scientific implementation” of Laetrile relied upon Beard’s test.

Beard had further claimed that an elevated HCG level was sufficient indication for treatment with Laetrile, even in the absence of clinical findings or a positive biopsy for cancer. A true believer in his test, he reportedly began taking Laetrile himself after noting that his urine test was not quite normal. Beard maintained a laboratory offering mail-order service, including measurement of the urinary HCG levels.

Beard developed at least three alleged cancer tests, the most notable of which was his Anthrone Color Test. He claimed nearly 100% accuracy if patients who were pregnant, had liver disease or diabetes, or were taking sex hormones were excluded. He also claimed that the test was so sensitive that it was able to detect the development of cancer within 2-3 weeks after malignant transformation took place.

During the early 1960s, the California Cancer Advisory Council had provided Beard with 24-hour urine specimens from 198 patients, as well as two “urine” specimens which consisted of lactose dissolved in water. Simultaneous tests were performed at the California State Public Health Laboratories. Beard was unable to identify which urine came from patients with cancer and which came from patients with other conditions. The investigation also demonstrated that Beard’s test results had nothing to do with cancer but depended mainly on the amount of lactose in the urine. Consequently, the test was banned in California as of August 1965. In 1967, Beard was indicted by a federal grand jury in Texas on nine counts of mail fraud related to the marketing of his test. After pleading no contest, he was given a 6-month suspended jail sentence and 1-year probation.

Further Efforts toward Respectability
The McNaughton Foundation persisted in trying to make Laetrile respectable. They commissioned the SCIND Laboratories in San Francisco to conduct animal studies involving a transplanted tumor system in rats. Although the Foundation had reported that weekly doses of 1 or 2 grams of Laetrile had produced “a brilliant response” in cancer patients and the rats received human equivalents of 30-40 grams, the results were negative.

Undaunted by the negative report, the McNaughton Foundation filed an Investigational New Drug application with the FDA. The FDA responded with a routine form letter giving permission—subject to further review—for investigational clinical trials involving Laetrile. However, eight days later, when the review was completed, the agency requested additional information from the McNaughton Foundation to correct “serious deficiencies” in the application. When this was not produced, the authorization for clinical trials was withdrawn.

While the McNaughton Foundation was attempting to have Laetrile recognized as a drug, Krebs, Jr., began claiming that it was a vitamin, which he called B17. (It only took him about 20 years to come to this conclusion.) Krebs apparently hoped that as a “vitamin” Laetrile would not be subject to the “safety and efficacy” requirements for new drugs. He may have also hoped to capitalize on the popularity of vitamins.

By 1974, Dr. Contreras stated that he was seeing 100-120 new patients per month, with many more patients returning to obtain additional Laetrile. Patients typically were charged $150 for a month’s supply. Contreras acknowledged that few of his cancer patients were “controlled” with Laetrile. While admitting that 40% of the patients displayed no response, he claimed that 30% showed “most definite responses” to the drug. However, these statistics may not be reliable. In 1979, he claimed to have treated 26,000 cancer cases in 16 years. Yet when asked by the FDA to provide his most dramatic examples of success, Contreras submitted only 12 case histories. Six of the patients had died of cancer, one had used conventional cancer therapy, one had died of another disease after the cancer had been removed surgically, one still had cancer, and the other three could not be located [5].

The First “Metabolic” Doctor
John Richardson was a general practitioner who began practice in the San Francisco Bay area in 1954. In 1971, after discussions with Krebs, Jr., he decided to become a cancer specialist. He had not encountered overwhelming success as a general practitioner. His 1972 income tax return revealed that he had grossed $88,000 in his medical practice, leaving a net of only $10,400 taxable income.

Richardson’s practice boomed as a result of his newly found status as a cancer “expert.” He states that “Our office soon was filled with faces we had never seen before—hopeful faces of men and women who had been abandoned by orthodox medicine as hopeless or “terminal” cases.” In 1974, he reported that his medical practice had grossed $783,000, with a net income of $172,981. By charging patients $2,000 for a course of Laetrile, Richardson managed to increase his net income 17-fold in just two years. According to his income tax returns, Richardson grossed $2.8 million dollars from his Laetrile practice between January 1973 and March 1976. The actual amount of money he received may have even been higher. In Laetrile Case Histories, he claimed to have treated 4,000 patients, with an average charge of $2,500 per patient. Culbert states that by 1976 Richardson had treated 6,000 patients. If these figures are correct, Richardson would have grossed between $10 and $15 million dollars during this time.

Richardson’s practice changed significantly after he began treating cancer patients with Laetrile. He also began treating what he termed “pre-clinical syndrome” patients with Laetrile. These were patients with no identifiable tumor or lesion who complained of feelings of “impending doom, malaise, unexplained or vague pains, headaches, bowel changes, loss of appetite, loss of energy, and depression.” According to Richardson, cancer patients reported a reduction in pain, an improved appetite, return of strength, and an improved mental outlook. In addition, high blood pressure returned to normal.

In spite of these “dramatic improvements,” Richardson admitted that most of his cancer patients died. In an attempt to overcome this, he increased the Laetrile dosage to nine grams, six days a week, and placed patients on a vegetarian diet and “massive” doses of regular vitamins. Richardson coined the phrase “metabolic therapy” to refer to this combination of diet manipulation, vitamins and Laetrile.

In June 1972, Richardson’s office was raided and he was arrested for violating California’s Cancer Law. He was convicted of this charge, but the conviction was overturned on a technicality and a new trial ordered. Two more trials followed which resulted in hung juries. Hearings before the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance in 1976 resulted in the revocation of his California medical license. He then worked at a Mexican cancer clinic. During the 1980s, he practiced under a homeopathic license in Nevada until he had open heart surgery and entered an irreversible coma.

The Political Explosion
Dr. Richardson’s arrest triggered the formation of the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy (now called the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Medicine). The group’s founder and President was Robert Bradford, a former laboratory technician at Stanford University. Michael Culbert, who at the time of Richardson’s arrest was an editor at the Berkeley Daily Gazette, became a major spokesman for the Committee, editing their newsletter, The Choice, and writing two books promoting Laetrile: Vitamin B-17: Forbidden Weapon Against Cancer (1974) and Freedom From Cancer (1976).

Culbert was assisted in editing The Choice by Maureen Salaman, wife of Committee vice-chairman Frank Salaman. The Committee’s legislative advisor was Georgia Congressman Larry McDonald, a urologist who used Laetrile. CFCCT’s activities were closely allied with the John Birch Society, to which Richardson, Bradford, Culbert, the Salamans and McDonald all belonged. Soon after its formation, CFCCT established local chapters throughout the United States and used bookshops associated with the John Birch Society to hold meetings and distribute literature.

In May 1976 Richardson was indicted, along with his office manager, Ralph Bowman, and fellow CFCCT members Robert Bradford and Frank Salaman, for conspiring to smuggle Laetrile. A year later all were convicted of the charges. Bradford was fined $40,000, Richardson $20,000, and Salaman and Bowman $10,000 each. During the trial it was disclosed that Bradford had paid $1.2 million dollars for 700 shipments of Laetrile and that Richardson had banked more than $2.5 million during a 27-month period.

The NCI Scientist
Although facing problems on some fronts, the Laetrile movement gained adherents. Dr. Dean Burk was a biochemist with a Ph.D. from Cornell Medical College who had joined the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 1939 as a research fellow. After ten years he was appointed as Head of NCI’s Cytochemistry Section, which had a staff of four persons at the time of his retirement 25 years later.

At McNaughton’s request, Burk did an experiment in which Laetrile was used to kill a tissue culture of cancer cells. He reported to McNaughton that he could “see the cancer cells dying off like flies.” Eventually Burk concluded that Laetrile was the most effective treatment available for cancer, that it relieved the pain of terminal cancer victims, and that it might be useful in preventing cancer. He also claimed in Congressional testimony that Laetrile was less toxic than sugar. Burk became fast friends with Krebs, Jr., and was given a permanent room in Krebs’ San Francisco mansion. He was soon on the “Laetrile circuit” and was given the Cancer Control Society’s “Humanitarian Award” in 1973.

Burk also became active in opposing fluoridation and spoke against it in many cities throughout the United States and Europe. An inveterate tobacco user, he claimed in Congressional testimony that he had developed a safer cigarette.

The Professor
In 1977, Harold W. Manner, Ph.D., chairman of the biology department at Loyola University in Chicago, achieved considerable notoriety by claiming to have cured mammary cancers in mice with injections of Laetrile and proteolytic enzymes and massive oral doses of vitamin A. What he actually did was digest the tumors by injecting digestive enzymes in amounts equivalent to injecting a woman with a pint of salt water containing about 1 1/2 ounces of meat tenderizer every other day for six weeks. Not surprisingly, the mice developed abscesses where the enzymes were injected, the tumors were liquefied, and the injected tissue fell off. Since no microscopic examinations were conducted and the animals were observed for only a few weeks following treatment, no legitimate assessment of this type of therapy could have been made. But Manner announced at a press conference sponsored by the National Health Federation that a combination of Laetrile, vitamins and enzymes was effective against cancer. He reported his experiments in a chiropractic journal and wrote a book called The Death of Cancer.

Manner also founded the Metabolic Research Foundation whose stated purpose was research into “metabolic diseases,” which—according to him—included arthritis, multiple sclerosis and cancer. Sponsored by the Nutri-Dyn company he held seminars throughout the country for chiropractors and unorthodox physicians [6]. Nutri-Dyn manufactured processed animal glands (“glandulars”), which Manner said would help the corresponding body parts of cancer patients. In 1982, a reporter from WBBM-TV Chicago became Metabolic Physician #219 by attending a seminar in Los Angeles and donating $200 to the Metabolic Research Foundation. To indicate his “professional” background the reporter used the initials “D.N.,” which, he later explained, stood for “Doctor of Nothing.” Manner promised to refer ten patients a year to him.

According to Manner, Loyola University officials became upset with his activities and asked him to either give them up or resign from his position at the school. During the early 1980s, he left his teaching position, became affiliated with a clinic in Tijuana that offered “metabolic therapy.” He died in 1988, but the clinic is still operating.

The Rutherford Case
Glen Rutherford was a 55-year-old Kansas seed salesman who was found to have a grape-sized polyp of the colon in 1971. When a biopsy revealed that it was cancerous, he was advised to have it removed. Fearful of surgery, he consulted Dr. Contreras, who treated him with Laetrile, vitamins and enzymes, and cauterized (burned off) the polyp. Although cauterization usually cures this type of cancer when it is localized in a polyp, Rutherford emerged from this experience claiming that Laetrile had cured him and was necessary to keep him alive. People Magazine reported that he also began taking 111 pills (mostly vitamins) costing $14 per day. In 1975, he became lead plaintiff in a class action suit to force the FDA to allow “terminal” cancer patients to obtain Laetrile for their own use.

The case was heard before Judge Luther Bohanon in the Western Oklahoma United States District Court. Bohanon was extremely sympathetic to Rutherford’s wishes. In 1977, Bohanon issued a court order permitting individuals to import Laetrile for personal use if they obtained a doctor’s affidavit stating they were “terminally ill.” Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that drugs offered to “terminal” patients should be exempted from FDA regulation [7]. However, further efforts by Rutherford and his supporters plus defiant rulings by Bohanon enabled the affidavit system to remain in effect until 1987, when it was finally dissolved.

Legislative Action
During the mid-1970s, Laetrile promoters portrayed themselves as “little guys” struggling against “big government” and began trying to legalize the sale of Laetrile. Eventually, 27 states passed laws permitting the sale and use of Laetrile within their borders. Federal law still forbade interstate shipment of Laetrile, and since it was impractical to manufacture it for use in just one state, these state laws had little or no practical effect. Proponents hoped, however, that if enough states legalized its use within the states, Congress would change the federal law as well. Although bills were introduced to exempt Laetrile from FDA jurisdiction, they were unsuccessful and petered out with the death of Congressman McDonald in 1983.

In 1977, a U.S. Senate subcommittee chaired by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) held hearings on Laetrile that developed interesting testimony. Dr. Richardson claimed that the FDA, AMA, NCI, American Cancer Society, Rockefeller family and major oil and drug companies had all conspired against Laetrile. Robert Bradford said that he would welcome a test of Laetrile but that “orthodox medicine was not qualified” to do one. However, he Krebs, Jr., and Richardson were unable to agree on the formula for Laetrile. Senator Kennedy concluded that the Laetrile leaders were “slick salesmen who would offer a false sense of hope” to cancer patients. The New York Times commented that the Laetrile promoters were regarded by the Senators “with a blend of amusement and contempt.”

Victims in the News
As Laetrile became newsworthy, several cancer victims treated with it drew widespread media scrutiny. One was Chad Green, who developed acute lymphocytic leukemia at age 2. Although he was rapidly brought into remission with chemotherapy, his parents started him on “metabolic therapy” administered by a Manner Metabolic Physician. When Chad developed signs of cyanide toxicity, Massachusetts authorities had him declared a ward of the court for treatment purposes only. His parents then brought suit to reinstitute “metabolic therapy.” When the court ruled against them, they fled with Chad to Mexico, where he was treated by Dr. Contreras. Several months later Chad died in a manner suggestive of cyanide poisoning. Dr. Contreras stated that the boy had died of leukemia, but was a good example of the effectiveness of Laetrile because he had died a pleasant death! Chad’s parents stated that he had become very depressed because he missed his grandparents, his friends and his dog.

Joseph Hofbauer was a 9-year-old with Hodgkin’s disease. Unlike Chad Green’s parents, Joseph’s parents never allowed him to receive appropriate treatment but insisted that he receive Laetrile and “metabolic therapy.” When New York State authorities attempted to place him in protective custody, his parents filed suit and convinced family court judge Loren Brown to let the parents make the treatment decision. Brown stated that “This court also finds that metabolic therapy has a place in our society, and hopefully, its proponents are on the first rung of a ladder that will rid us of all forms of cancer.” The parwents rejected standard treatment, and Joseph died of his disease two years later. Acute lymphocytic leukemia and Hodgkin’s disease both have a 95% 5-year survival rate with appropriate chemotherapy.

During 1980, movie star Steve McQueen attracted considerable attention when he was treated with Laetrile at another Mexican clinic under the supervision of William D. Kelley, a dentist who had been delicensed by the State of Texas after several brushes with state and federal law enforcement authorities. Although McQueen gave a glowing report when he began his treatment, he died shortly afterward.

NCI Studies
In response to political pressure, the National Cancer Institute did two studies involving Laetrile. The first was a retrospective analysis of patients treated with Laetrile. Letters were written to 385,000 physicians in the United States as well as 70,000 other health professionals requesting case reports of cancer patients who were thought to have benefited from using Laetrile. In addition, the various pro-Laetrile groups were asked to provide information concerning any such patients.

Although it had been estimated that at least 70,000 Americans had used Laetrile—only 93 cases were submitted for evaluation. Twenty-six of these reports lacked adequate documentation to permit evaluation. The remaining 68 cases were “blinded” and submitted to an expert panel for review, along with data from 68 similar patients who had received chemotherapy. That way the panel did not know what treatment patients had received. The panel felt that two of the Laetrile-treated cases demonstrated complete remission of disease, four displayed partial remission, and the remaining 62 cases had exhibited no measurable response. No attempt was made to verify that any of the patients who might have benefited from Laetrile actually existed. The reviewers concluded that “the results allow no definite conclusions supporting the anti-cancer activity of Laetrile.”

Although the NCI mailing had not been designed to uncover negative case reports, 220 physicians submitted data on more than 1,000 patients who had received Laetrile without any beneficial response.

In July 1980, the NCI undertook clinical trials of 178 cancer patients who received Laetrile, vitamins and enzymes at the Mayo Clinic and three other prominent cancer centers. The study included patients for whom no other treatment had been effective or for whom no proven treatment was known. All patients had tumor masses that could easily be measured, but most of the patients were in good physical condition. Since Laetrile proponents were unable to agree on the formula or testing protocol for Laetrile, NCI decided to use a preparation that corresponded to the substance distributed by the major Mexican supplier, American Biologics. The preparation was supplied by the NCI Pharmaceutical Resources Branch and verified by a variety of tests. The dosage of Laetrile was based on the published recommendations of Krebs, Jr., and the Bradford Foundation.

The results of the trial were clear-cut. Not one patient was cured or even stabilized. The median survival rate was 4.8 months from the start of therapy, and in those still alive after seven months, tumor size had increased. This was the expected result for patients receiving no treatment at all. In addition, several patients experienced symptoms of cyanide toxicity or had blood levels of cyanide approaching the lethal range [8]. An accompanying editorial concluded:

Laetrile has had its day in court. The evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, is that it doesn’t benefit patients with advanced cancer, and there is no reason to believe that it would be any more effective in the earlier stages of the disease . . . The time has come to close the books [9].

Bradford and American Biologics responded to the study with three different lawsuits against the National Cancer Institute, alleging that as a result of the study, they had sustained serious financial damage from a drastic drop in demand for Laetrile. All three suits were thrown out of court. Today few sources of laetrile are available within the United States, but it still is utilized at Mexican clinics and marketed as amygdalin or “vitamin B17” through the Internet.

Some Final Thoughts
As long as there remain crippling and fatal diseases, there will undoubtedly be individuals eager to offer “alternatives” to scientific treatment and large numbers of desperate individuals willing to purchase them. The Laetrile phenomenon started with a pharmacist-physician who developed one concoction after another for the treatment of serious diseases, especially cancer. It continued with his son, a self-imagined scientist, who spent many years in college but failed to earn any graduate degree. A man who earned his fortune from gun-running and a catholic newspaper columnist promoted it as a persecuted drug that cured cancer. A cadre of John Birch Society members saw the repression of Laetrile as a sinister plot against their basic freedoms. After it was dubbed “vitamin B-17,” an army of health food devotees promoted Laetrile, along with vitamins and diet, as nature’s answer to cancer.

After peaking in the late 1970s, the “Laetrile Movement” ran out of steam in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, the NCI study, the death of Steve McQueen, and other unfavorable publicity. But as the Laetrile fantasy faded, its prime movers added many other “miracle cures” to their arsenal and added AIDS, arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and multiple sclerosis to the list of diseases they claim to treat. Although they appear to speak with sincerity, they still fail to sponsor the type of research which could persuade the scientific world that anything they offer is effective.

A systematic review that included all reports available through 2005 concluded that the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data [10].

Recent Enforcement Actions
On April 20, 2000, the U.S. Justice Department obtained a preliminary injunction barring Christian Bros. Contracting Corp., of Whitestone, New York, and its president, Jason Vale from making or distributing amygdalin, Laetrile, “Vitamin B-17,” or apricot seeds [11]. Although Vale signed a consent decree, he continued his sales activity through a network of Internet sites, toll-free telephone numbers, and shell companies. In 2003, a federal jury in Brooklyn found him guilty of criminal contempt [12] for which he was sentenced to prison.
In July 2000, Kenneth N. Michaels and his company, Holistic Alternatives, both of Louisville, Ohio, were indicted for allegedly conspiring to distribute Laetrile and hydrazine sulfate in interstate commerce. The indictment also alleges that with intent to mislead the FDA, the defendants failed to register their drug manufacturing facility [13].
On September 1, 2000, a United States District Court Judge issued a preliminary injunction against World Without Cancer, Inc., The Health World International, Inc. of Bay Harbor Island, Health Genesis Corporation, an Arizona concern that does business in Bay Harbor Island, Florida, and David E. Arizona, an officer of the three corporations. The ruling enjoins the defendants from introducing or causing the introduction into interstate commerce of laetrile products, apricot seeds, or any other unapproved drug product as well as manufacturing, processing, packing, labeling, promoting, or distributing these or any other new drug. The order also requires the defendants to modify their Internet web sites to cease using the web sites to promote the sale of or offer for sale their laetrile products [14].
In January 2004, Jack Edwin Slingluff, D.O., of Canton, Ohio, pled guilty to one count of introducing an unapproved new drug into interstate commerce [15]. The one-count criminal information stated that he “caused thirty (30) vials of the unapproved new drug Amigdalina B-17 (AKA Laetrile) to be shipped from West Palm Beach, Florida, to Salem, Ohio; in violation of Title 21, Sections 331(d), 355(a) and 333(a)(1), United States Code.” The State Medical Board of Ohio suspended his medical license for a year and permanently revoked it in 2008 [16]. He died in 2011.

For Additional Information
Laetrile/Amygdalin: Information from the National Cancer Institute.
References
Young JH. Laetrile in historical perspective. In Merkle GE, Petersen JC, editors. Politics, Science, and Cancer: The Laetrile Phenomenon. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980.
American Cancer Society. Laetrile background information. New York: Amerian Cancer Society, 1977.
Bruzelius, NJ. The merchants of Laetrile. Boston Sunday Globe, June 17, 1979.
Kennedy D. Laetrile: The Commissioner’s Decision. H.E.W. Publication No. 77-3056.
Laetrile: The political success of a scientific failure. Consumer Reports 42:444-447, 1977.
South J. The Manner clinic. Nutrition Forum 5:61-67, 1988.
United States vs. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544 (1979).
Moertel C and others. A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 306:201-206, 1982.
Relman A. Closing the books on Laetrile. New England Journal of Medicine 306:236, 1982.
Milazzo S and others. Laetrile for cancer: A systematic review of the clinical evidence. Support Care Cancer 15:583-595, 2007.
Barrett S. Laetrile spammers facing $631,585 penalty. Quackwatch, Sept 9, 2000.
Lewis C. Online laetrile vendor ordered to shut down. Quackwatch, Nov 28, 2003.
Licking County man and his company man and his company indicted for distributing laetrile and hydrazine sulfate. U.S. Justice Department news release, July 18, 2000.
FDA takes action against firms marketing unapproved drugs. FDA Talk paper, T00-39, Sept 6, 2000.
Plea agreement. United States of America v Jack Edwin Slingluff. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division Case No. 4:04 CR 74, filed March 16, 2004.
Entry of order. In the matter of Jack Slingluff, D.O. Before the State Medical Board of Ohio, Dec 10, 2008.
This article was revised on June 22, 2012.

daniela

22-05-2013 22:23

“Celulele canceroase nu conţin această enzimă.” (rhodanese)

Aceasta afirmatie este falsa! Celulele canceroase contin enzima rhodanese in concentratii comparabile cu celulele normale. In cancerul de san concentratiile sunt chiar ridicate. Doar in cancerul de plaman s-au observat concentratii reduse semnificativ fata de celulele normale.

Mirela

22-05-2013 23:17

Doctorii nu vor aproba niciodata solutiile naturiste.

@Ana Elisabeta,

Articolele fundamentate “stiintific” pot fi usor manipulabile, in special daca servesc intereselor marilor companii farmaceutice, caci stim cu totii ca traim intr-o lume in care profitul este principalul obiectiv al oricarei companii, iar ‘Big Pharma’ nu face exceptie, ba dimpotriva, si exemple sunt nenumarate.

The results of the trial were clear-cut. Not one patient was cured or even stabilized. The median survival rate was 4.8 months from the start of therapy, and in those still alive after seven months, tumor size had increased.
[…]
Laetrile has had its day in court. The evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, is that it doesn’t benefit patients with advanced cancer, and there is no reason to believe that it would be any more effective in the earlier stages of the disease

“doesnt’ benefit patients with advanced cancer” – nu de pacientii cu cancer avansat era vorba in propozitie.

Companiile farmaceutice incearca sa ne convinga cu argumente asa-zis stiintifice sa renuntam la metodele alternative de tratament. De ce as crede pe unii in defavoarea altora, cu atat mai mult cu cat Big Pharma are tot interesul sa prezinte date defavorabile oricaror tratamente naturiste? Eu nu cred deloc in aceste date oferite de catre o parte intersesata (e usor sa platesti o “cercetare”), sa dovedeasca ineficienta metodelor naturiste, caci cine le mai cumpara altfel medicamentele exagerat de scumpe…

Pe de alta parte, n-am vazut nicaieri in articolul postarii specificarea renuntarii la terapiile conventionale, dar mi s-a parut ca se doreste mai mult preventia, nu atat vindecarea. Evident consumul acelor samburi, nu e cazul sa fie exagerat, ci mai degraba ar fi recomandat in cantitati suficient de mici pentru a nu dauna sanatatii. Nu vad de ce ar fi periculosi acei samburi (de caisa in special), daca nu se iau cu pumnul, ci moderat.

[…] insa mi se pare nedemna asocierea unei publicatii ortodoxe la propaganda unei sarlatanii medicale, si inca nu una inocenta tip placebo, ci care poate ucide fie direct, fie convingand pe cei creduli (contra cost, desigur) sa renunte la tratamentele care i-ar fi putut face sanatosi.

Contra cost? Costul a ce? A 1 kg de caise??
Faptul ca va pronuntati atat de categoric, imi intareste parerea ca sunteti doctor, si precum multi majoritatea doctorilor, aveti tendinta nu doar de a nega eficienta metodelor naturiste de tratament alternativ, ci de a le categorisi drept ‘sarlatanii’. Daca gresesc, va rog sa ma iertati.

Ina

23-05-2013 19:50

Mirela, sunt de aceeasi parere cu tine.

“Nu vad de ce ar fi periculosi acei samburi (de caisa in special), daca nu se iau cu pumnul, ci moderat.”

Si ma gandesc daca Domnul a creat o fructa comestibila care sa aiba in interior o mica otrava…

Ar trebui sa intrebam doctorii credinciosi.

Ana Elisabeta

29-05-2013 22:52

@ Mirela si Ina

Intr-adevar, ar trebui intrebati medicii credinciosi. Eu sunt doctor, dar in arhitectura. Nu trebuie sa-mi cereti mie scuze, decat eventual pentru ca ati comentat fara sa fi citit tot ce am postat (ce-i drept, articolul este lung, pentru ca este plin de date si de argumente).

Daca cineva vrea sa manance samburi de caise pe langa tratamentul recomandat, nu cred ca se poate aduce vreo obiectie. Problema este cu “clinicile” unde se fac tratamente cu extrasul de samburi, pe bani grei.

Va recomand sa cititi articolul postat de mine in comentariu si sa cantariti datele prezentate acolo contra celor din articolul principal (pe care il comentam). Sper ca stapaniti suficient de bine limba engleza pentru asta. De asemenea, poate fi utila sinteza erorilor de logica (din pacate tot in engleza):

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/04/logical-fallacies-infographic.html

Mirela

30-05-2013 10:07

@ Ana Elisabeta,

In postare, eu am inteles ca se vorbeste despre vit. B17 asa cum se gaseste in forma naturala, in fructe si samburi de fructe, nu de un concentrat de substanta in diverse combinatii de enzime, despre care face vorbire articolul in engleza. Posibil ca vit. B17 sa nu dea rezultate in niciun fel, nu am studiat prea multe legat de acest tratament, dar dau credit tratamentelor naturiste .

Articolul in care este combatuta influenta pozitiva impotriva cancerului a acestei substante (laetril) si pe l-ai postat aici nu este insa in niciun fel “fundamentat stiintific” precum ai afirmat intr-un comentariu. Nu se prezinta argumente stiintifice ci, pe langa istoricul substantei + povestea celor care au promovat-o (dintre care unul a fraudat o companie cu niste sume de bani si altii au fost condamnati pt trafic cu laetril si alte substante), se mentioneaza unele cazuri de persoane care nu au raspuns la tratament si despre unele teste fara rezultate convingatoare pe pacienti de cancer, realizate de catre comisii medicale din SUA. Tratamentul respectiv nu doar ca nu a fost aprobat de FDA, ci substanta a fost si interzisa de la comercializare (fapt care ar putea ridica semne de intrebare).

Although it had been estimated that at least 70,000 Americans had used Laetrile—only 93 cases were submitted for evaluation. Twenty-six of these reports lacked adequate documentation to permit evaluation. The remaining 68 cases were “blinded” and submitted to an expert panel for review, along with data from 68 similar patients who had received chemotherapy. That way the panel did not know what treatment patients had received. The panel felt that two of the Laetrile-treated cases demonstrated complete remission of disease, four displayed partial remission, and the remaining 62 cases had exhibited no measurable response. No attempt was made to verify that any of the patients who might have benefited from Laetrile actually existed.)

In acest exemplu, din 70.000 cati s-a estimat ca ar fi folosit substanta, doar 93 au fost luati sub observatie, 68 dintre ei au avut documentatia necesara spre a fi evaluati, 62 de cazuri “no measurable response”. In alta parte se vorbeste despre “220 physicians submitted data on more than 1,000 patients who had received Laetrile without any beneficial response.” – fara macar a se mentiona un raport anume, fara a se da detalii. Sunt doar concluzii si atat (fara date explicite, nume de rapoarte si doctori). Pe langa asta, rezultatele testelor e foarte posibil sa fi fost falsificate. Nu ar fi prima oara cand doctori platiti de anumite companii farmaceutice ar oferi rapoarte false, la fel, comisiile care investigheaza sa fi cercetat problema avand dinainte rezultatul. Mafia economica si grupurile de interese, mai ales in domeniul acesta farmaceutic, exista si poate influenta rapoartele, studiile si rezultatele testelor medicale. Nu putem fi atat de naivi incat sa luam de bun chiar tot ce se publica in domeniu avand in vedere aceste influente corporatiste, cand e vorba de un domeniu atat de profitabil, ca cel farmaceutic.
Increderea oarba in aceste rapoarte “medicale” fara a lua in considerare falsificarea datelor spre manipularea opiniei publice avand in aceste interese ale unor companii puternice, ar putea intra si ea la erorile de logica despre care faceai referire.

Ana Elisabeta

31-05-2013 22:16

@ Mirela

Articolele postate de admini par intr-adevar sa fie o pledoarie pentru samburii de caise, dar daca cititi mai cu atentie, o sa vedeti ca nu este chiar asa. De exemplu, afirmatia ca:

“vitamina B17 nu este utilizată în medicina convenţională nu din raţiuni de ordin ştiinţific, ci din cauza politicii elitei mondiale în domeniul oncologic”

nu se refera la “vitamina B17” din samburi, ci la varianta concentrata, asa cum ne referim si la vitamina C. Cand spunem ca vitamina C este folosita ca tratament, ne referim la o forma concentrata, altfel spunem ca am luat sirop de catina sau zeama de lamaie sau orice altceva. Iar Griffin (care este citat pentru aceasta afirmatie) chiar face apologia tratamentului cu forma concentrata a substantei. Griffin nu vinde/administreaza tratamentul) ceea ce il face sa para dezinteresat), insa a scris o carte despre acesta in 1974, care se vinde si acum.

De asemenea, substanta interzisa de FDA (Food and Drug Administration), este tot cea concentrata, caisele fiind inca de vanzare si deci tratamentul naturist cu samburi de caise putand fi aplicat de oricine doreste. E adevarat ca unul dintre articole pretinde ca s-ar fi interzis “vânzarea unor categorii de fructe proaspete şi sâmburi de caise”, dar trebuie sa recunoasteti ca asta e genul de stire care, daca ar fi fost adevarata, nu ar fi trecut neobservata.

Observ ca criticati calitatea stiintifica a articolului de pe Quack Watch, in care eu as avea “incredere oarba”, dar in acelasi timp “dati credit” tratamentelor naturiste, in opinia mea in mod gratuit. Eu personal prefer sa “dau credit” specialistilor si refuz sa am “incredere oarba” in afirmatii nefondate, chiar daca printre afirmatii se amesteca si cuvantul “naturist”. Ca tratamente naturiste, le prefer pe cele traditionale, verificate de sute si mii de ani.

Articolul de pe Quack Watch postat de mine este unul de popularizare, insa are la sfarsit ca referinte bibliografice mai multe articole stiintifice. Si mai multe asemenea referinte se gasesc pe articolul mai concis de pe http://www.cancer.org (American Cancer Society), pe care nu l-am postat in extenso, ci doar ca link, in primul comentariu pe care l-am facut. De asemenea, mai exista articolul si mai detaliat, cu si mai multe referinte bibliografice stiintifice, de la National Cancer Institute (prima pagina este un rezumat, trebuie apasate butoanele de pe meniul din stanga):

http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/HealthProfessional

Dar bineinteles ca daca plecam de la premisa ca toate datele stiintifice sunt masluite pentru ca pacientii sa nu se trateze cu samburi de caise si sa apeleze la terapiile conventionale, atunci mai bine nu le citim, pentru ca datele de-acolo ne-ar putea impiedica sa “dam credit” tratamentelor “naturiste” asa cum ne dorim.

Apropo de interese: in domeniul medical si farmaceutic sunt intr-adevar interese puternice. Oamenii bolnavi, mai ales cei in pragul mortii, sunt dispusi sa faca orice si sa plateasca oricat ca sa aiba o sansa de vindecare. De aceea si exista organisme care supravegheaza aceste activitati si verifica daca produsele si tratamentele intr-adevar au efectele benefice pretinse, daca nu au cumva efecte secundare periculoase sau daca, in cazul conflictului intre beneficii si riscuri, cel putin beneficiile cantaresc mai mult ca riscurile. Altfel, as putea inventa si un un tratament naturist anti-cancer pe baza de cucuta si sa resping orice critica cu slogane anti-“big Pharma”. Cucuta nu este, poate, cel mai bun exemplu; ar trebui sa aleg o planta folosita traditional in tratamentul leziunilor de pe piele si sa fac din ea un tratament administrat intern, in ciuda toxicitatii cunoscute.

Ana Elisabeta

31-05-2013 23:06

Promovez in continuare sinteza erorilor de logica postata (ca link) de John Sanidopoulos pe blogul sau (Mystagogy). Printre acestea se numara:

– Apelul la natura (“Appeal to nature”): faptul ca un lucru este natural nu il face neaparat mai bun, mai sanatos etc. Si cucuta este naturala.

– Argumentul originii (“Genetic”): nu credem argumentele aduse de cercetatorii din domeniu si de institutiile abilitate, pentru ca sunt manipulati de interesele marilor companii farmaceutice si incearca sa ne manipuleze si pe noi! Desfiinteaza, oare, cateva scandaluri intreaga stiinta medicala? Daca tot ce spun medicii e de rau, atunci de ce ne suparam ca statul inchide spitalele? Ar trebui sa fim de acord, doar nu fac altceva acolo decat sa incerce sa ne otraveasca si sa ne distraga atentia de la adevaratele tratamente.

– Incredulitatea personala (“Personal incredulity”): nu credem ca in ceva atat de inocent ca un sambure de caisa, din care am mancat cu totii la un moment dat in viata, se poate ascunde o substanta toxica, potential mortala.

– Inrudit cu aceasta, dovezile anecdotice (“Anecdotal”): am mancat ocazional samburi de caise si n-am murit, deci nimeni nu poate muri din asta, nici chiar daca ar manca o cantitate mare zi de zi (sau echivalentul concentrat), o perioada lunga de timp.

– In sfarsit, “si tu” (“Tu quoque”): am atras atentia fanilor naturisti cu privire la posibilele erori de logica; am primit acuze ca fac si eu erori de logica aratand “incredere oarba” in argumentele aduse de specialisti, spre deosebire de ceea ce ar face orice om de bine, adica sa aiba incredere oarba in afirmatiile neargumentate sau argumentate subred pentru orice include cuvantul “naturist”.

Ana Elisabeta

31-05-2013 23:36

Cred ca am mai scris si mai sus: problema cancerului este una complexa si este putin ridicol sa credem ca mancam in fiecare zi samburi de caisa si gata, l-am prevenit. Samburii de caisa pot face parte, bineinteles, dintr-o dieta echilibrata, bazata cat mai mult pe alimente neprocesate si putin procesate, din care organismul sa-si poata lua toate substantele de care are nevoie, si care este unul dintre mijloacele de prevenire a cancerului recomandate de toate acele institutii mult-hulite care nu recunosc laetrilului pretinsele calitati terapeutice. Alte mijloace de prevenire tin si ele tot de o viata echilibrata din punct de vedere lumesc (evitarea fumatului, a sedentarismului etc.) In sfarsit, se pare ca unele dezechilibre la nivel sufletesc provoaca si ele cancer, incat se poate spune ca echilibrul interior, care poate fi inteles intr-un sens psihologic lumesc, dar pentru noi ortodocsii si duhovnicesc, este un mijloc de prevenire a cancerului.

Sigur ca aici lucrurile sunt ceva mai complexe decat pacate si patimi = boala. La modul general, asa este. Daca ne uitam la cazuri particulare, din cate am citit (inclusiv aici pe site), Dumnezeu nu da bolile neaparat proportional cu gravitatea pacatelor, ci le da boli grave doar unora dintre credinciosi carora le este de folos sa se curateasca de patimi (sau doar sa se desavarseasca, ca Iov) prin aceste boli. Altii pot avea aceleasi conditii de viata (incluzand aici si factorii favorizanti interni, ca de exemplu mostenirea genetica) si sa nu se imbolnaveasca. Iar despre Parintele Paisie Aghioritul se spunea un lucru pe care nu stiu daca l-am inteles bine, si anume ca a cerut in rugaciune sa se imbolnaveasca de cancer, ca sa sufere si el alaturi de credinciosii (multi) pe care Dumnezeu alesese sa-i mantuiasca prin “boala secolului”. Tot parintele Paisie (sper ca nu-l confund) spunea ca daca s-ar gasi tratamentul (universal eficient, nu ca cele de acum cu care scapa cine poate) pentru cancer, Dumnezeu ar da oamenilor o alta boala mortala incurabila, ca mijloc de mantuire.

Deci asta cu oamenii rai care ascund adevaratul tratament al cancerului ca sa le bage pe gat radiatii si chemoterapii scumpe nu prea tine, e cusuta cu ata alba, mai ales atunci cand cei care spun sa mancam alimente care contin x ca sa prevenim cancerul sunt intamplator cei care ne pot pune la dispozitie un tratament anti-cancer pe baza de x, care e departe de a fi gratuit.

Mirela

01-06-2013 09:52

De asemenea, substanta interzisa de FDA (Food and Drug Administration), este tot cea concentrata, caisele fiind inca de vanzare si deci tratamentul naturist cu samburi de caise putand fi aplicat de oricine doreste. E adevarat ca unul dintre articole pretinde ca s-ar fi interzis “vânzarea unor categorii de fructe proaspete şi sâmburi de caise”, dar trebuie sa recunoasteti ca asta e genul de stire care, daca ar fi fost adevarata, nu ar fi trecut neobservata.

Era evident ca FDA a interzis substanta concentrata si nu caisele (institutia se numeste Federal Drug Administration nu Federal Fruit Administration), iar eu la substanta m-am si referit cand am spus ca “Tratamentul respectiv nu doar ca nu a fost aprobat de FDA, ci substanta a fost si interzisa de la comercializare”, si nu la caise.

Observ ca criticati calitatea stiintifica a articolului de pe Quack Watch, in care eu as avea “incredere oarba”, dar in acelasi timp “dati credit” tratamentelor naturiste, in opinia mea in mod gratuit. Eu personal prefer sa “dau credit” specialistilor si refuz sa am “incredere oarba” in afirmatii nefondate, chiar daca printre afirmatii se amesteca si cuvantul “naturist”.
[…]
Dar bineinteles ca daca plecam de la premisa ca toate datele stiintifice sunt masluite pentru ca pacientii sa nu se trateze cu samburi de caise si sa apeleze la terapiile conventionale, atunci mai bine nu le citim, pentru ca datele de-acolo ne-ar putea impiedica sa “dam credit” tratamentelor “naturiste” asa cum ne dorim.

Nu v-a cerut nimeni sa aveti incredere oarba in ceva anume, poate doar sa va puneti un semn de intrebare in ceea ce priveste opinia contestatarilor terapiei respective. Pe de alta parte, nu inteleg de ce va deranjeaza atat de mult afirmatia mea legata de faptul ca dau credit tratamentelor naturiste, incat sa o citati in mod repetat. Fiecare e desigur liber sa creada ce vrea si sa faca ce doreste. Cu totii avem pareri diferite, nu e obligatoriu sa cadem de acord intr-o privinta sau alta. Evident, nu am vorbit de “toate” datele stiintifice ca fiind masluite, ci am pus la indoiala doar cele legate de subiectul in cauza, o sa detaliez mai jos de ce.

In orice caz, si in medicina, ca si in alte domenii exista terapii aprobate (mainstream) si terapii alternative dovedit eficiente, dar care, de regula, nu sunt promovate/aprobate de catre medici si gasesc ca e firesc sa fie asa. Daca toti oamenii ar fi sanatosi tratandu-se cu plante, cine s-ar mai duce la medic si cine ar mai cumpara medicamente? Dar asta nu inseamna ca neg rolul medicinei alopate, a medicilor in general, dar nici nu as nega efectul benefic al unei plante, daca acesta exista, fiecare are rostul sau.

am primit acuze ca fac si eu erori de logica aratand “incredere oarba” in argumentele aduse de specialisti, spre deosebire de ceea ce ar face orice om de bine, adica sa aiba incredere oarba in afirmatiile neargumentate sau argumentate subred pentru orice include cuvantul “naturist”.

Va place sa infloriti :), n-am spus ca orice om de bine ar trebui sa aibe incredere in terapiile naturiste, ci ca orice om intelept ar trebui sa puna la indoiala ceea ce spun unii si altii, fie ei medici si specialisti, atat timp cat sunt interese mari la mijloc, si deci de multi, foarte multi bani. Oamenii sunt dispusi sa sustina orice le serveste propriilor interese. Cu adevarat naiv (nu zic ridicol) nu este atat sa credem ca am prevenit cancerul mancand in fiecare zi samburi de caisa (caci nu stim ce efecte (pozitive) pot avea, asta chiar nu gasesc a fi ridicol), ci naiv este sa credem ca avand in vedere aceasta industrie atat de profitabila a farmaceuticii, sa avem convingerea ca acei medici sceptici care dau verdicte si fac rapoarte negative, ar fi intr-adevar obiectivi si total dezinteresati dpv material, pt ca, nu-i asa, doresc binele umanitatii, pace pe Pamant, si in general, sa fie bine ca sa nu fie rau.

Argumentul originii (“Genetic”): nu credem argumentele aduse de cercetatorii din domeniu si de institutiile abilitate, pentru ca sunt manipulati de interesele marilor companii farmaceutice si incearca sa ne manipuleze si pe noi! Desfiinteaza, oare, cateva scandaluri intreaga stiinta medicala? Daca tot ce spun medicii e de rau, atunci de ce ne suparam ca statul inchide spitalele? Ar trebui sa fim de acord, doar nu fac altceva acolo decat sa incerce sa ne otraveasca si sa ne distraga atentia de la adevaratele tratamente.

Exagerati foarte tare, rastalmacind sensul spuselor mele, m-ati inteles gresit, nu am afirmat ca ceea ce spun medicii, in general, e de rau, si nu am facut o pledoarie impotriva tratamentului alopat, nu am afirmat nicio clipa ca acestia ne otravesc – cu medicamente probabil, de unde si pana unde concluzia asta? (desi daca tot ati adus vorba, radioterpia si chimoterpia au facut mai mult rau decat laetrilul). Terapia cu laetril este intr-adevar, cunoscuta ca fiind controversata, insa cu rezultate la unii pacienti. E mai intelept sa pastram o rezerva si sa nu fim prea categorici in niciuna din situatii.

Pe de alta parte, nu am pus la indoiala argumentele stiintifice ale cercetatorilor in domeniu (sublime dealtfel, dar care, lipsesc cu desavarsire, caci nu pe argumente stiintifice, ci pe teste isi bazeaza concluziile lor), ci pun la indoiala veridicitatea unora din rezultatele publicate ale acelor teste, ca si a celor care realizeaza astfel de articole, pt ca nu pot exclude posibilitatea ca acestia sa fie cumparati si dispusi spre compromisuri (manipuland in acest caz cititorii, prin prezentarea de rezultate false, incomplete sau omitand rezultatele pozitive, daca acestea au existat). Nu spun ca sigur este asa, dar exista totusi posibilitatea. Poate sunt eu paranoica, dar cand exista interese atat de mari si cand omul e coruptibil (indiferent de functia pe care o detine), imi pot pune macar un semn de intrebare.

Nu putem exclude beneficiile tratamentelor naturiste, aducand ca argument o exceptie, adica o planta otravitoare, desi inteleg de ce s-a facut comparatia, pt ca nu tot ce e natural e si benefic. In afara de pericolul toxicitatii, exista, de asemenea, precum spuneati, si pericolul sarlataniei, al dorintei de imbogatire nu doar de catre cei care sustin interesele celor cu putere financiara, ci si a celor care inventeaza tratamente. In acest caz au fost mai multe voci care au sustinut efectele benefice ale laetrilului (si amigdalinei). S-a spus ca nu ar da rezultate, insa exista insa si destule pareri diferite. In Statele Unite, cel putin, oricum nu s-ar fi aprobat ca si tratament, pt ca mai intai ar trebui patentat, iar substantele care sunt naturale nu pot fi patente, ci doar cele rezultate din combinatii chimice de sinteza. Mai detaliat (tot in engleza):

Why are Laetrile and many other substances used in alternative-cancer therapy not readily available in the U.S.?

The short answer is that these substances are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The full answer, however, is a bit more complex. The reason they do not carry approval is that they have not undergone the extensive FDA testing that all new drugs must pass before being approved for common use. That’s the law in the United States. This process takes years of research work, requires tens of thousands of pages of reports, and costs hundreds of millions of dollars. The only firms that can afford this are large pharmaceutical companies. Not even they will undertake such expense unless they can eventually make a profit through sales, and that means they must obtain a patent on the substance being tested. However, substances found in nature cannot be patented, only man-made chemicals and processes can. Since Laetrile and many other substances used in alternative-cancer treatments are found in nature, they cannot be patented. That means they will never be tested according to FDA protocol. Consequently, they will never be officially approved no matter how effective they may be. That is why you often hear it said that alternative cancer therapies are “unproven.” That is a very misleading statement. They may not have been proven by FDA protocol, but many of them definitely have been proven as both safe and effective by actual clinical experience in the treatment of thousands of cancer patients. Unfortunately, until the laws are changed, the only officially approved substances we will ever have for the treatment of cancer in the United States are man-made, patented chemicals!

Deci in Statele Unite se pare ca nu se aproba terapiile alternative datorita legislatiei in vigoare. Pe langa asta, FDA-ul american este cunoscuta ca fiind o institutie total corupta, care face jocul marilor corporatii (vezi concesiile facute fata Mosanto in privinta organismelor modificate genetic, doar un exemplu).

Dar sa spunem ca laetril-ul intr-adevar nu da rezultate, ca este o inselatorie. Sa facem totusi un exercitiu de gandire si sa presupunem ca s-ar descoperi o substanta organica, care ar vindeca cancerul, si care nu ar fi asa toxica, sa zicem un compus din planta Aloe Vera (cunoscuta pt nenumaratele ei efectele terapeutice), ca sa dau un exemplu. Va imaginati cumva ca FDA si toate comisiile de specialitate ar recunoaste aceasta, sau mai exact, ca ar fi lasate sa recunoasca aceasta in mod oficial? Atentie, nu vorbim de orice fel de tratament, ci nici mai mult nici mai putin decat de leacul pentru cancer! Caci este cunoscut faptul ca medicamentele anti-cancer sunt printre cele mai scumpe. Apropo de asta, interesul unor apologeti ai terapiei cu B17 (precum Griffin si castigul realizat de pe urma publicarii unei carti) este cu totul insignifiant pe langa interesul Big Pharma, care se ridica la ordinul a zeci de miliarde de dolari de pe urma medicamentelor anti-cancer… Si eu la asta ma refer, nu la castigul promotorilor substantei, ci pierderile mari pe care Big Pharma le-ar suferi. Daca nu constientizati aceasta realitate, faptul ca la nivel oficial nu s-ar permite sa le fie periclitate interesele acestor mari companii, inseamna ca nu realizati faptul ca profitul dicteaza totul si ca deciziile se iau intotdeauna in favoarea celor care detin puterea financiara, iar marile companii au suficienta putere pentru a influenta si plati pe oricine pentru a le sprijini interesele. Nemaivorbind de faptul ca organizatiile oculte, masoneria, au tot interesul ca sa murim pe capete, pentru a ne stapani mai usor si nu vor permite niciodata sa se descopere vreun medicament revolutionar care sa ne salveze de boli grele (nu vorbesc aici neaparat de laetril). Cam cu asta ne confruntam si aceasta este situatia in care ne gasim, de aceea sunt de regula sceptica la reactiile anti – terapii alternative.

Si apropo de terapiile naturiste, pe care am vazut ca le dispretuiti, un Sfant Parinte contemporan spunea ca leacul cancerului se gaseste in natura. Deci nu stiu daca e chiar asa ‘gratuit’ faptul ca am incredere in tratamentele naturiste, mai ales ca oamenii s-au folosit de-a lungul timpului de ajutorul plantelor in tratarea diverselor afectiuni. Si in afara de asta, oare Dumnezeu cel Atotputernic si milostiv nu a avut grija sa ne lase leacuri in natura? Daca dvs., ca si crestin, aveti mai multa incredere in medicamentele de sinteza, realizate de ‘specialisti’, nu se cheama ca aveti mai multa incredere in om? Caci in Scriptura ni se spune:

“Mai bine este a te increde in Domnul decat a te increde in om.” (Ps.117,8)

si de asemenea:

“Aşa zice Domnul: “Blestemat fie omul care se încrede în om şi îşi face sprijin din trup omenesc (…)” (Ieremia, 17:5)

In ceea ce priveste articolul de pe Quack Watch, mi s-a parut de cand l-am citit, a fi partinitor. Am facut si eu o investigatie pe internet (pt ca tot mi se aducea ca argument “explicatiile stiitifice”), si am descoperit ca autorii sunt cunoscuti pentru opozitia lor la tratamentele alternative de orice fel, nu doar la acesta. Mie mi se pare evident ca acestia se portavocea Big Pharma, pentru propriul lor interes si… buzunar. Unul este ortoped (Benjamin Wilson), iar altul este psihiatru (Stephen Barrett), deci judecand dupa specializarile lor, nu par sa aibe cine stie ce competenta in domeniu, nu sunt oncologi, nici medici generalisti.
Stephen Barrett a publicat si lucrarile: “Vitamins and Minerals: Help or Harm?” si “Reader’s Guide to “Alternative” Health Methods” prin care pune la indoiala pana si rolul vitaminelor si mineralelor (din suplimentele naturale banuiesc) si la fel, al terapiilor alternative de orice fel, asadar vorbim de niste sceptici prin excelenta, asadar partinitori. Am gasit si urmatoarea caracterizare legata de acest doctor, facuta de catre o anume Heidi Stevenson (dr. homeopat) – http://www.gaia-health.com/articles251/000277-quackbusters-are-busted.shtml, citez cateva pasaje:

“Stephen Barrett claims to be a retired psychiatrist and hires himself out as an “expert” to testify against non-mainstream medical practitioners.
[…]
He has done enormous harm to anyone who advocates or practices non-mainstream medicine. He has hired himself out as an expert to testify against such practitioners, and he has been the mouthpiece for Big Pharma’s attack on anything that isn’t manufactured and sold by them.

Barrett’s Machinations for Self-Enrichment

Barrett and Wallace Sampson MD were involved in Quackbusters’ sister organization, National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). Through it, they sought to enrich themselves by suing 43 different alternative health practitioners and suppliers, claiming that their products and methods didn’t work. By some magical thinking, they expected their victims to make restitution by paying penalties to NCAHF. The first case was against King Bio, a supplier of homeopathic remedies.

The judge in the case raked them over the coals.(2) The court ruled:

– Neither Barrett nor Sampson was qualified to act as expert witnesses in the case.
– No evidence documenting the claims against King Bio was offered. The case was intended to be based on nothing more than the testimony of the two self-styled experts.
– Most damning was the court’s finding that both Barrett and Sampson were tainted because they stood to gain financially if they’d won. Here is the relevant portion of the court’s statement:
(…) It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation…

In other words, the California Supreme Court found that Barrett and Sampson were using the court system to operate a self-enrichment scam! Barrett and his partner in crime, Sampson, were attempting to enrich themselves by destroying the reputations and livelihoods of alternative healthcare practitioners.

Where Has Barrett’s—and Quackbusters’—Funding Come From?

Barrett has launched at least 14 expensive legal actions at a single time, cases that can be assumed to cost at least $100,000 each to pursue. In the Federal Court in Oregon, he was forced to respond to questions about his income.

In two years’ time, Barrett had made a total of $54,000.

Where did Barrett get the money to pursue so many cases? Thus far, no one seems to have found the hard proof, but it’s obvious that the backing for his nefarious machinations has been Big Pharma and Big Medicine, which seek to drive any and all competition out of business and make them illegal.

Quackbusters’ Websites

Quackbusters quickly set up a series of interlinked websites and mastered the art of getting first-page listings on Google. These sites include NCAHF, Quackwatch, Acupuncturewatch, Allergywatch, Autismwatch, Bioethicswatch, Cancer Treatment Watch, Casewatch, Chelationwatch, Chirobase, Credentialwatch, Dentalwatch, Device Watch, Diet Scam Watch, Homeowatch, Infomercialwatch, Internet Health Pilot, Mental Health Watch, MLMwatch, Naturowatch, NCCAMwatch, Nutriwatch, Pharmwatch, and Quackwatch.

Each of these sites is set up on an identical layout with exactly the same image on the main page. They consist primarily of text lifted from other sources, mainly sites like government agencies. There is precious little original material. Most of the sites appear not to be updated or updated only rarely. They were created largely by reproducing articles published elsewhere. These sites have a life of their own. Once created, they simply sit there as their notoriety grows—and deluded people read them in the belief that they offer legitimate information.
[…]
In 2004, Cavitat Medical Technologies, sued Aetna insurance company and named Quackwatch, along with Stephen Barrett, for “disseminating and publishing information regarding what it purports to be ‘health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies.”
[…]
In their lifetime, they’ve spawned equivalent organizations in the UK, including the similarly-named HealthWatch, which originally called itself the Campaign Against Health Fraud (CAHF). This group has had more success, having been front and center in the Wellcome (now called GlaxoSmithKline) battle to eliminate all HIV drug competitors with their infamous product, AZT.(7) They were largely successful in that endeavor. They have utilized the press to harrass and destroy several good and dedicated alternative health practitioners.

Then again, what’s happening may be that Big Pharma and Big Medicine have their claws so deep into the regulatory system that they no longer need Quackbusters. It’s obvious that they own the FDA and USDA. Is that why Quackbusters hasn’t been able to launch a defense against The Doctor’s Data Library? Have they been deserted by their sponsors, in favor of more effective tools?”

Asadar, pe langa altele mentionate in aceste dezvaluriri, vedem ca Barret (unul din autorii articolului, contestatar al terapiei cu laetril) obisnuieste sa intenteze procese unor societati care practica in medicina neconventionala, si ca este asadar direct interesat sa nu dea credit niciunei forme de terapii alternative. El este si detinatorul site-ului Quack Watch si a altor site-uri care au acelasi scop, de a contesta terapiile alternative, asadar din asta isi castiga el traiul, pe langa banii despre care se vorbeste ca i-ar primi de la Big Pharma pentru aceste servicii ale sale.

Deci asta cu oamenii rai care ascund adevaratul tratament al cancerului ca sa le bage pe gat radiatii si chemoterapii scumpe nu prea tine, e cusuta cu ata alba mai ales atunci cand cei care spun sa mancam alimente care contin x ca sa prevenim cancerul sunt intamplator cei care ne pot pune la dispozitie un tratament anti-cancer pe baza de x, care e departe de a fi gratuit.

Faptul ca unii castiga bani de pe urma terapiei respective nu exclude neaparat si eficienta acesteia, dar inchideti totusi ochii cand e vorba de interesele mult mai mari al adversarilor acestei terapii. Dar daca dupa toate acestea, avand in vedere si miza mare care este in joc (de unde si influenta marilor companii Big Pharma asupra unor institutii ca FDA si a unor medici) tot vi se mai pare “cusut cu ata alba” ca unii sa ascunda adevaratul tratament al cancerului (in cazul in care acesta ar exista) desi exista atatea interese si traim intr-o lume in care banul dicteaza, atunci eu chiar nu mai am nimic de adaugat…

P.S. Nu sunt foarte convinsa de eficienta terapiei cu Laetril, dar nici de contrariu.

mihai

14-06-2013 21:25

eu inceput sa o comercilizeze si in faramcii http://lataifas.ro/medicina_naturista_alternativa/6049/vitamina-b17-in-farmacii-si-in-alimente/, cu toate astea au aparut si magazine online care vand samburi de caisa .

Paul

15-06-2013 21:24

Din pacate pe internet este o destul de mare confuzie intre amigdalina si vitamina (asa-zisa) B17, si care este laetril-ul. Ele nu sunt acelasi lucru, desi sunt asemanatoare. Nu mai vorbesc de faptul ca exista epimeri ai amigdalinei, in functie de metoda de extractie, care au alte proprietati (sau nu le au.

In ceea ce priveste samburii de caise, as spune ca este indicata prudenta la consumarea lor, mai ales in cantitate mare. Ce e drept, ma uimeste faptul ca multe persoane spun ca mancau samburi de caise in cantitate mare cand erau copii. Emulsinul din acestia ii face destul de periculosi, desigur nu atunci cand mananci unul sau poate 10. Exista studii, pe soareci si pe caini, care arata asta. Se pare ca exista si constatari clinice pe oameni. Sincer, nu stiu ce sa spun, sunt date contradictorii si de aceea as fi prudent.

Amigdalina se extrage din samburi de caise, nu foarte dificil, dar ce e drept nu o poate face oricine acasa. Cu toate acestea, dupa extractie ea nu mai contine emulsin si, de aceea, ea nu mai este toxica decat daca intalneste beta-glucozidaza, care se gaseste in intestinul subtire. Totusi, ea este foarte variabila ca si concentratie, in functie de ce mananca fiecare, in functie de flora (ea este produsa de o serie de bacterii sau se poate lua din hrana (se zice, pe asta nu sunt sigur).

Ca atare, desi stiu ca se recomanda administrarea orala a unor tablete, eu personal nu as avea curaj.Iarasi, din discutiile cu oameni care fac asta se pare ca nu este chiar asa cu toxicitatea, insa… exista si studii care dovedesc contrariul. Eu nu as face-o, decat poate daca as urmari simultan si nivelul de cianuri din sange. Slava Domnului, nu sunt inca in situatia asta!

Studiile legate de administrarea intravenoasa arata insa ca este sigura. Totodata, este posibil ca administrarea anala, sub forma de clisma, sa fie de asemenea sigura (aici nu sunt sigur, desi este recomandata in unele locuri). E drept, amigdalina praf este mai ieftina decat dea sub forma injectabila, dar nu stiu pe nimeni care sa fi incercat.

Vindeca sau nu cancerul? Hai sa reformulez: CE TRATAMENT LA ORA ACTUALA VINDECA ACEASTA BOALA???

Ii imbogateste pe unii? PAI LA FEL E SI CU CHIMIOTERAPIA, etc.

Este drept ca s-au perfectionat o serie de aparate de terapie cu radiatii (ciberknife), e drept ca se studiaza terapia directionata cu nanoparticule si ajutata eventual de hipertermia cu laseri sau radiofrecventa, sau chiar direct cu agenti chimioterapeutici. SI la noi in tara se fac astfel de cercetari, cu care eu personal sunt… la curent in mod semnificativ sa zicem.

Cu toate acestea, oamenii mor, iar ”establishment-ul” prefera excrocheria nu mita chimioterapie, altor practici, fie ele mai mult sau mai putin excrocherii.

In ceea ce priveste amigdalina, trebuie sa stiti ca exista si cercetari reale, cu rezultate reale, atat in vitro cat si in vivo. Pe acestea nu le poti gasi daca nu esti specialist si daca nu ai un abonament la o librarie online cu specific stiintific, si chiar si atunci costa sa le inchiriezi sau sa le cumperi. Pentru mine nu este o problema nici una nici alta, si ca atare le am la dispozitie.

Lucreaza amigdalina insa in cazul oamenilor bolnavi de cancer?

Hmmm. Am un amic. Mai zuz el, dar istet. Discutam cu el zilele trecute si imi spunea cam asa:

”Pai acum, conform observatiilor tale, le-am marit doza la pacienti, si le-am adaugat unele suplimente si rezultatele sunt exceptionale.”

Marirea dozei fusese datorata observatiei mele ca produsele importate de la firma X au cantitatea de amigdalina la 1/2…1/3 din cat ar trebui sa fie, caci 1 gram de amigdalina se dizolva la temperatura ambianta in 10-12ml apa sau ser fiziologic. Ma rog astea sunt amanunte. Omul imi spune ca merge.

A, nu va suparati va rog ca nu ii dau numele. A pus deja un medic vestit politia pe urmele lui. De ce? Pai pentru ca un fost pacient de-al medicului respectiv, caruia medicul ii daduse doar 6 luni de trait sau ceva de genul, sa dus dupa doi ani la el si i-a reprosat: ”pai bine domle, uite ca traiesc”. Doctorul l-a intrebat cum, si a trimis politia la ”vraci”.

”Establishment”.

Sincer, nu stiu ce sa cred. Sunt oameni care au murit de cancer, chiar cu amigdalina cu tot. E clar ca nu raspunde la toate cancerele. Eu personal am o prietena bolnava de cancer. Chimioterapie in Germania, Spania, degeaba. I-am trimis niste amigdalina si zic: ”da Doamne”. Ce pot sa fac mai mult?

De fapt pot. Poate nu pentru ea dar… Pentru inceput am luat un domeniu, amigdalina.ro. In doua saptamani or sa fie gata primele articole. Si pro, si contra. Si in categoria celor pro, si in categoria celor contra, sunt articole bune, precum si articole mizerabile. Din pacate, pe internet se gasesc aproape doar cele mizerabile, din ambele categorii. Poate o sa facem cat de cat lumina in chestia asta.

Nu stiu daca tot acolo sau in alta parte o sa aducem la cunostinta articole legate de terapiile directionale cu nanoparticule de aur si argint. Unele sunt de 10 ori mai eficiente decat cele clasice. As spune ca inseamna ceva. Nimeni nu se grabeste insa. In mod firesc, caci daca nu sunt patentate, nu aduc bani nimanui. Iar unele sunt EXTREM DE SIMPLE si aplicabile chiar acum. Eu personal le pot sintetiza in laboratorul de acasa. Aparatura suplimentara, acolo unde este necesara, exista. Dar nimeni nu se grabeste.

Substante chimice periculoase trec de forurile de ”control” (a cui?) foarte rapid. Daca un medic ar vrea azi sa incerce pe un pacient (care ar fi de acord) o astfel de terapie, ar ajunge instant in puscarie, sau cel putin i s-ar ridica dreptul de libera practica.

E drept ca sunt si multi sarlatani. Cred insa ca profesionalismul ar putea invinge daca i s-ar da mana libera. Daca s-ar petrece asta, pretul amigdalinei insa ar scadea la un sfert. Pretul cannabis-ului ar scadea mult mai tare, si asa mai departe…

Cui ar folosi insa, corect???

Paul

15-06-2013 21:28

Ca o nota la un comentariu anterior, FDA interzisese la un moment dat si vanzarea samburilor de caise, nu doar a laetril-ului sau amigdalinei. Mai ramanea sa interzica si vanzarea caiselor, ar fi fost nostim, dar daca au facut-o cu canepa, caci isteria mondiala impotriva canepei a pornit de la americani si, ca si in cazul amigdalinei, despre cannabis se spunea de catre ”specialisti” ca nu are nici o utilizare farmaceutica (si se mai spune inca),iar ca rezultat, cel putin o companie farmaceutica daca nu mai multe, au propriile lor culturi de cannabis. Urmeaza caisele?

Mihai Zamfiroiu

28-06-2013 20:14

buna seara,

am un prieten cu urmatorul rezultat la iesirea din spital:
CARCINOMATOZA PERITONEALA, diagnostic secundar: ASCITA CARCINOMATOASA.

trebuie sa mai precizez ca deja i-a fost extirpat stomacul.

va rog sa imi comunicati daca ar putea fi de folos vitamina B17 (amigdalina), cum se poate face tratamentul si pretul acestei vitamine.

p.s. doctorul i-a mai dat doar 6 luni de viata…
orice informatie i-ar putea fi de ajutor!

p.s. 2 v-am trimis si un mail pe adresa specificata in site-ul dvs.: amigdalina.ro

va multumesc.

Paul

01-07-2013 17:33

@ Mihai Zamfiroiu

amigdalina.ro este abia acum online, cu o serie de articole care va vor interesa foarte mult, si care dupa cum veti constata nu seamana cu folclorul de pe internet (decat in mica masura).

In ceea ce priveste e-mailul, nu pe adresa site-ului trebuie trimis, ci pe adresa de e-mail de la pagina Contact.

Totusi, as vrea sa intelegeti ca nu sunt terapeut. Sunt interesat in aceste terapii, este drept, deoarece eu personal am prieteni care sunt deja bolnavi si, la o adica, nu se stie niciodata… Ca atare nu va pot recomanda un tratament anume.

Puteti sa imi scrieti totusi pe adresa de e-mail de pe site, si voi urmari sa va pun in legatura cu un terapeut cu experienta. Pana atunci, sunt articole pe site care va pot da indicatii suficiente.

Amigdalina gasiti de vanzare online in Romania. Nu este de cea mai buna calitate, asa cum am explicat intr-un articol, dar… se poate folosi. In curand, speram sa poata fi pus sub o forma sau alta la dispozitia publicului si un produs de calitate, chiar daca el nu va putea fi comercializat ca produs pentru tratarea cancerului.

Tineti cont totodata ca tratamentele cu amigdalina sunt complexe. Nu in ultimul rand, nu sunt ieftine. In comparatie cu chimioterapia ele sunt ieftine, dar nu sunt ”acoperite” de casele de asigurari de sanatate, si atunci, in mod inerent, devin scumpe, pentru buzunarul majoritatii romanilor.

Un asemenea tratament costa cam 1000 de euro pe luna, si nu se face doar o luna, se face de la un an in sus. Cu atat mai mult cu cat fiolele de maigdalina care sunt vandute in Romania contin jumatate (maxim) din cat ar trebui sa contina! Deocamdata insa nu gasiti nicaieri pe planeta altceva. In mod ciudat. Vom urmari sa corectam aceasta situatie, dar va mai dura.

Pana atunci, cititi site-ul, dati-l si amicului sa il citeasca si, cu Dumnezeu inainte. Tinand cont ca deja i-a fost extirpat stomacul, imi voi spune parerea astfel: …

Mihai Zamfiroiu

01-07-2013 19:45

va multumesc pentru raspuns!
ii voi comunica cele spuse de dvs.

sanatate!

Mirela

01-07-2013 23:47

@Mihai Zamfiroiu,

Eu daca as cunoaste pe cineva in acea situatie, i-as recomanda urmatoarele:

1. In primul rand rugaciuni catre Sfantul Nectarie (sfantul a vindecat multe cazuri de cancer), si sa citeasca acatistul sau de catre bolnav sau rude, si daca poate sa se unga cu ulei sfintit de la biserica unde sunt moastele sale (Man. Radu Voda din Bucuresti). Se mai gaseste mir sfintit de la sfant, in pernite atasate de icoane, la pangare (daca/cine gaseste).

De citit acatistul Maicii Domnului “Pantanassa” – care este pt bolnavi de cancer in special

2. CURCUMA (sau Tumeric)

3. Vitamina C sau suc de lamaie (daca suporta aciditatea)

4. Capsule cu extract de ANANAS (se gaseste la plafare) – contine bromeliana, despre care se spune ca are efect terapeutic pt pacientii de cancer

5. Bautura Miracle Drink – suc din combinatia: sfeclar rosie, morcov, mar

(http://www.unica.ro/detalii-articole/articole/bautura-distruge-cancerul-31661.html#top)

5. Ghimbir, suc de RODII, vasc, ceai verde

http://www.descopera.ro/dnews/10919975-descoperire-extraordinara-eficacitatea-superalimentelor-in-lupta-contra-cancerului-demonstrata-in-premiera

http://www.provincianews.ro/cel-mai-sanatos-fruct-din-lume-trateaza-cancerul_23419.html

http://sanatate.bzi.ro/ghimbirul-leac-pentru-cancer-21049

http://www.realitatea.net/compusi-naturali-care-ucid-celulele-canceroase_1011972.html

http://www.antena3.ro/externe/studiu-sucul-de-rodii-eficient-in-lupta-impotriva-cancerului-115009.html

http://www.taifasuri.ro/taifasuri/farmacie-verde/1163-vascul-distruge-celulele-canceroase.html

http://www.paradisulverde.com/Noutati/Articole-noi/ciuperca-minune-agaricus-blazei-murill.html

http://www.valeriu-popa.santamia.ro/retetetrad/cancer.htm

Ana Elisabeta

08-07-2013 21:25

@ Paul

“Vom urmari sa corectam aceasta situatie.”

Sa inteleg ca urmariti sa vindeti amigdalina/laetril “de buna calitate” in Romania?

@ Mirela

Eu personal nici nu m-as uita la un articol de pe un site care se cheama “gaia-health”. Dar totusi, vad ca ajungeti la concluzia ca: “Nu sunt foarte convinsa de eficienta terapiei cu Laetril, dar nici de contrariu”, ceea ce e de fapt o pozitie echilibrata. Inseamna ca n-o sa va aruncati cu capul inainte in “terapii alternative”.

@ Mihai Zamfiroiu

Nu stiu daca ii faceti un bine prietenului recomandandu-i cura de amigdalina (care vedeti ca nu e chiar in regula). Nadejdea trebuie sa fie la Dumnezeu, indiferent ca Dumnezeu va lucra prin medici sau in mod minunat, prin moastele sfintilor facatori de minuni, ulei sfintit sau rugaciuni. Iar daca medicii isi declara neputinta, ramane Dumnezeu. Dar trebuie sa fie o intoarcere catre Dumnezeu corecta, adica ne-egoista, ne-patimasa, ne-…, cu sfatul duhovnicului, cu Sfintele Taine. Altfel, omul in acele clipe risca sa-si faca idol din “tratamentul-minune” nascocit de sarlatani si/sau new-age-isti.

Ana Elisabeta

08-07-2013 22:24

Eu personal nu inteleg de ce trebuie sa se asocieze un site de marturisire a credintei ortodoxe (nu e cazul numai aici) cu terapii alternative dubioase. In caz de boala grava, eu tot unui medic m-as adresa (pe langa duhovnic si sfintii facatori de minuni). Sunt atatea cazuri in care rugaciunile sfintilor au lucrat complementar cu stiinta, asigurand de pilda succesul unor operatii dificile, aproape imposibile.

“Terapiile alternative” sunt uneori intemeiate pe ideologii dubioase (a se vedea cazul homeopatiei) sau chiar pe sarlatanie pura. Nu e vorba, bineinteles, de a bea un ceai de tei cu miere si lamaie la o raceala, ceea ce cred ca orice medic de bun-simt ar sustine, ci de lucruri mai subtile si care se pot vinde pe bani mai multi. Daca nu dau rezultate convingatoare la testele stiintifice, sustinatorii lor pretind imediat ca sunt victimele unei conspiratii. Dati-mi voie sa aleg explicatia mai simpla, si anume ca rezultatele chiar nu sunt convingatoare, uneori. Teoria conspiratiei spune ca terapiile alternative le strica afacerile marilor companii farmaceutice. Ceea ce se scapa din vedere este ca si terapiile alternative sunt afaceri, si inca unele foarte profitabile. Discursul despre “big Pharma” este o strategie de marketing formidabila. Sigur ca ii ajuta si unele probleme si scandaluri care chiar au avut loc…

admin

08-07-2013 22:51

@ Ana Elisabeta:

Pentru ca nu avem competenta in domeniu si e bine sa ridicam totusi astfel de probleme, sa le dezbatem cumva si sa incercam sa ne lamurim.

Ilie

17-07-2013 22:31

Conform unor obiceiuri romanesti, care probabil nu vor dispare niciodata, toti ‘comerciantii’ nostrii cu site-uri in limba romana distribuie produsul ‘amigdalina’ la un pret aproape dublu fata de pretul lui de 81 – 85 dolari cu care se poate comanda de la Cyto Pharma, adica de la producator. Cu alte cuvinte, hai sa ne imbogatim rapid si de pe urma celor muribunzi !
Deci atentie de unde comandati !!! Mare minune ca acest comentariu sa fie ‘aprobat’ de administrator. Si cu o taxa de 24% tot nu ajunge produsul la 350 lei pentru o cutie de 100 tablete de 500 mg. Cutia de 100 tablete de 100 mg costa 21 dolari !

mihai

08-08-2013 08:41

foarte bun pentru cancer este si bicarbonatul de sodiu cu lamaie , care poate inlocui cu succes chimioterapia http://lataifas.ro/boli-si-tratamente-naturiste/12322/bicarbonat-de-sodiu-si-lamaie-pentru-cancer-cum-se-prepara/

Sunt foarte multe produse naturale care pot ajuta sanatatea omului , dar nu sunt promovate pentru profitul unor firme producatoare de medicamente

L.D.Stefan

09-10-2013 14:39

Sunt medic pensionar crestin si cred ca la varsta mea am suficienta echidistanţă si discernamant sa pot evalua cand se poate recurge doar la un tratament naturist si cand este nevoie sa adaugam medicatie de sinteza, ca sa nu punem in pericol viata bolnavului.
Alarmismul asta nu este deloc potrivit unor crestini. Ce este ,, Mafia din medicina Big-Pharma”? Este un fel de bau-bau lansat ca lozinca de Small-Pharma. Terapiile naturale pot fi preventive si adjuvante intr-o mare masura. Hai sa nu mai cadem in capcana ignorantei … Cand cineva drag sufera de o boala ce-i pune viata in pericol, il lasati sa moara dandu-i ceai de laba-gastii si samburi de caise?!
Cu cancerul ne luptam si noi medicii crestini care voim sa nu sufere fratii nostri; daca ceva ar fi evident util in vindecarea vreunui tip de cancer credeti ca ne-ar putea impiedica vreun complot international Big sau small- pharma?

admin

09-10-2013 15:56

@L.D. Stefan:

Lucrurile sunt elementar de simple: big sau small pharma, daca logica este profitul, atunci actiunile vor fi in concordanta – nu interesul pacientului, ci al companiei. Asadar, nu e vorba de “complot”, ci de interes.

H.L. Adrian

15-10-2013 18:13

Cei care au medici in cercul de cunostinte sau in familie, stiu foarte bine ca majoritatea medicilor accepta o serie de avantaje materiale sau nu, in schimbul promovarii multor medicamente si prescrierii acestora, in functie de “recomandarile” reprezentantului companiei farmaceutice.
Ce sa te mai astepti atunci de la un Big Pharma.
In ziua de azi totul este marketing. Cine nu aduce bani poate sa se…duca

Efectele samburilor au fost dovedite si in triburile Hunza din Himalaya, unde nu s-a întâlnit nici un caz de cancer. Exista documentare facute despre ei.

Din pacate la un moment dat a aparut si la ei marea dezvoltare care le-a adus si lor cancerul, bineinteles in ultimele decenii

Ana Elisabeta

23-10-2013 22:03

@ admin

Referitor la problema pusa asta-vara: inteleg bunele intentii, dar nu stiu daca s-au materializat. Domnu’ Paul a postat aici ca sa-si faca trafic la propriul site unde promoveaza acest asa-numit tratament. Altii sunt gata convinsi, daca nu e Big Pharma inseamna ca e de bine. A postat intre timp si o persoana care spune ca e medic si crestin, si si-a exprimat scepticismul, dar i-ati inchis gura cu argumentul interesului (profitului). Unde e dezbaterea lamuritoare, deci?

admin

23-10-2013 22:09

@ Ana Elisabeta:

Iertati-ne, va rugam. Chiar e greu de discernut, lucrurile par foarte amestecate in oricare directie.

Ana Elisabeta

24-10-2013 01:13

@ admin

Nu e cazul sa va cereti scuze. Lucrurile sunt intr-adevar greu de discernut si e bine ca va dati seama. Daca lucrurile stau asa cum scrie in titlu, adica daca “mafia industriei Big Pharma” tine sub obroc adevaratul tratament pentru cancer, atunci cu acest articol sprijiniti niste adevarati eroi anti-sistem. Daca lucrurile nu stau asa, atunci cu acest articol sprijiniti niste sarlatani care nu se rusineaza sa profite de pe urma unor oameni care se apropie de moarte, ba chiar sa-i si omoare indirect, daca le prezinta tratamentul ca otrava (terapiile conventionale) si otrava ca tratament (extractul de samburi). Mi se pare ca aveti responabilitatea de a gasi acei specialisti care sa poata sa evalueze competent informatiile contradictorii care circula, de preferinta unii de credinta crestina. Asta e tot…

Domnul sa ne lumineze!

L.D.Stefan

06-11-2013 23:07

Revin cu alte cuvinte: daca Big-Pharma cumpara constiintele unor medici , in detrimentul bolnavilor de cancer, ganditi-va ca mai exista medici cu inimi crestine care nu isi calca peste constiinta. Daca plecam de la premiza nerealista ca toti medicii sunt cumparati /vanduti si prescriu medicamente otravitoare bolnavilor de cancer, atunci riscam sa aruncam pe toti bolnavii in bratele multor sarlatani sau vraci. Mai mult, nedreptatim pe medicii constiinciosi si competenti.
Eu sunt medic iesit la pensie , asa ca nu ma mai simt vizata de nici un fel de conflict de interese.
Asa cum nu este usor sa gasim duhovnicul priceput si potrivit personalitatii fiecaruia, asa este greu de gasit un medic necorupt-crestin-neinselat de unele idei ale vindecatorilor holisti ce aiuresc bolnavii cu filozofiile lor necrestine ( vindeca trupul-mintea si sufletul cu apa , bobite de zahar, mangaieri energetice, etc).
Toate aceste substante ( ca amigdalina, diclor-acetatul de Na, vitamina C in doze mari, etc) trebuie sa treaca prin furcile caudine ale cercetarii stiintifice ( trialuri randomizate, dublu-orb, studii de cohorta).Daca aceste substante ar fi cu adevarat eficiente in vindecarea cancerelor , cine ar putea impiedica un concern Big-Pharma sa stabileasca ce pret ar vrea pentru aceste substante? Daca ele ar vindeca realmente cancerele, fara sa aiba efecte adverse, va dati seama ce vanzari ar face ! Sa fiti siguri ca substantele care ajung sa fie medicamente autorizate sunt a suta parte dintre substantele care intra in cercetare. Cele mai multe substante testate cad ,, la examen”in faza de eperiment pe animale sau pe culturi de celule.
Crestinii care se roaga lui Dumnezeu cu credinta si nadejde, primesc si ajutorul medicului scos in cale de El.

Ileana M.

27-11-2013 19:27

E logic ca sa vrea toata lumea sa ascunda aceste informatii. Natura ne ajuta de multe ori aproape pe gratis. Am gasit samburi de caisa cu continut ridicat de Vit B17 produsi de Doctor Bio aici: http://enzimatic.ro/B17%20Samburi%20de%20Caisa%20Raw%20(Amari)%20Boga%C8%9Bi%20%C3%AEn%20Vitamina%20B17%20(Raw%20Apricot%20Kernels)

Radu

16-02-2014 10:07

Ana Elisbeta este o ghita-contra care inca nu a aflat ca jurnalele academice din domeniu sunt DETINUTE (atentiem nu FINANTATE, ci DETINUTE!) de catre companiile farmaceutice si printre principalii sponsori runt industriile cauzatare de cancer – tutun, agricultura, etc.

Si vrea sa ne convinga cu un link de pe “quackwatch” hahahah :))

Ana Elisabeta, sa iti spun ceva – chimioterapia te omoara, radiatiile te omoara, si studiile (oficiale & publicate) arata ca pacientii care nu fac aceste terapii traiesc mai mult.

Adevarul e ca doctorii (si companiile farmaceutice pt care lucreaza) nu au nici o solutie pentru cancer. Dar nici una. Singurele solutii cat de cat eficiente sunt cele pe care Ana Elisabeta le combate – gerson therapy, B17, etc.

Sper sa nu aveti vreodata cancer in familie, dar daca veti avea, va asigur ca site-uri ca “quackwatch” nu vor mai intra in lista dvs de surse de informatii vreodata si veti invata sa judecati impartial, sa nu mai aveti increderea oarba, si sa nu mai atacati pe coneva doar de dragul de a fi ghita-contra, d-na Ana Eliaabeta.