What's new

Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned

You are such a sophist, and you know, it was because Aint argued points exactly like you on your website that I realized you were the same guy.

The moderators of this forum have asked me to longer respond to you on this point, so I'll stop talking to you now.
 
You are such a sophist, and you know, it was because Aint argued points exactly like you on your website that I realized you were the same guy. Deny all you want. I know it, but that's ok with me. We all have our own truths. And you realize the arguments you make are not based on any evidence just your own personal supposition. About the measles, some are saying it came from Israel where a lot of people are not vaccinated. But if you actually look at the titles of the voluminous number of studies and reports in that huge pdf, you will see there have been quite a few suspicious measles outbreaks in the last 20 years. I'm a skeptic and actually I thought you were too ... so why argue with such certitude in favor of an industry that has trillions of dollars invested in their treatments?
Holy ****.

Sigh
 
People on both, or neither, sides of the aisle use the ignore function.



It's so laughable, why don't you go into the thread titled "A Place for Liberals" and comment on how they shouldn't need a safe space?



I don't believe you are that stupid. Safe spaces were started by the powerful to protect themselves from the masses. They were throne rooms, court rooms, legislatures, and fortresses/castles for thousands of years. They were men's clubs and whites-only sleeping cars. Conservatives only started deriding them when minorities started doing the same thing.



Who's stopping you from speaking, snowflake? Why are you so scared of criticism that you shut up?



You're the one whining about liberals using tactics that conservatives used for centuries.



Why don't you go into the thread titled "A Place for Liberals" and comment on how they shouldn't need a safe space?



I can think of people who started one particular thread on this board.

How can the "right" or "conservatives", be the ones who started safe spaces or need safe spaces, and simultaneously be 'oppressing' everyone in the world? How can you be a bully and be hiding at the same time?
 
How can the "right" or "conservatives", be the ones who started safe spaces or need safe spaces, and simultaneously be 'oppressing' everyone in the world? How can you be a bully and be hiding at the same time?

That's called rhetoric. But I suspect you're familiar with the concept, considering how you chose to frame those questions.
 
How can the "right" or "conservatives", be the ones who started safe spaces or need safe spaces, and simultaneously be 'oppressing' everyone in the world? How can you be a bully and be hiding at the same time?

You don't do it at the same time. Any halfway intelligent bully picks the times that they are a bully, when their target is the most vulnerable.
 
I will say this about the placebo affect. Doctors really don't understand exactly how it works or how powerful it can be.

It's a calculated risk and no two diseases take the same track. But the odds are much greater with modern medicine than it is with "ancient medical-ish secrets". I predict if every cancer patient abandoned their modern treatments for laetrile and accupuncture you would see cancer morality rates sky rocket.
Your prediction is not science-based but purely speculative. I never said acupuncture is a treatment for cancer. Laetrile you might be surprised to learn was used by President Reagan to treat his cancer.
 
The moderators of this forum have asked me to longer respond to you on this point, so I'll stop talking to you now.
But you can respond to my other comment, that you use your twisted logic to argue your points instead of using actual facts and evidence to support your points.
 
It is science-based, because we can track actual survival rate for those who use real medicine and those who use laetrile and/or fake medicines.
Really, show me the evidence. I do know that there are stats that say most people who are treated conventionally don't survive more than five years. I don't believe there are any such studies done with Laetrile because doctors in the U.S. are not legally allowed to use it. However, you can use it yourself by preparing apricot seeds. Treatment by a medical professional would involve injection.
 
But you can respond to my other comment, that you use your twisted logic to argue your points instead of using actual facts and evidence to support your points.

I have been asked to avoid discussing a particular topic with you, and I have agreed to do so. If you want to put that particular topic into into every single post you make, so as to avoid my responses, you can certainly take advantage of this agreement to avoid have your arguments rebutted by me. I am done with discussing both that particular topic and the moderators request regarding it.
 
Really, show me the evidence. I do know that there are stats that say most people who are treated conventionally don't survive more than five years. I don't believe there are any such studies done with Laetrile because doctors in the U.S. are not legally allowed to use it. However, you can use it yourself by preparing apricot seeds. Treatment by a medical professional would involve injection.

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

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.
 
Back
Top