Re: Doctors Don't pre-scribe Laetrile because it is HOGWASH

[Guest guest]

: You simply do not know what you talk about. Have you ever heard of

research? God made me write this...............

[Guest guest]

You should do your homework before making such a

statement that laetrile does not work. My son, in

1991, at the age of 13 was diagnoised with terminal

brain cancer, given 3 months to live. I am one of

those people that took him to Mexico to receive

laetrile. I am happy to say he is now a very healthly

29 year old young man! He did not receive chemo or

radiation. Is laetrile effective for everyone? No.

In my opinion, it is a persons biological response to

ANY type of treatment, that determines its success.

What works for one, may not work for another! I have

been witness to many, many successful cases with the

use of laetrile. Be careful about making such

statemts! Below is additional information on

latetrile. I welcome your additonal comments.

A doctor from the United States FDA once said that

Laetrile contains ‘free’ hydrogen cyanide [HCN] and,

thus, is toxic. I would like to correct that

misconception. There is no ‘free’ hydrogen cyanide

[HCN] in Laetrile. When Laetrile comes in contact with

the enzyme beta-glycosidase [the cancer cell], the

Laetrile is broken down into four molecules:

(a) Two molecules of glucose

( One molecule of benzaldehyde

© One molecule of hydrogen cyanide [HCN]

Within the body, the cancer cell and only the cancer

cell contains that enzyme, beta-glycosidase,

therefore, if no cancer is in the body, no hydrogen

cyanide can be released.

The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It

is not found floating around freely in the Laetrile

and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme

beta-glycosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable of

manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there is no

beta-glycosidase, no HCN can be formed from the

Laetrile.

“Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical [CN]. This

same cyanide radical is contained in Vitamin B-12 and

in berries such as blackberries, blueberries and

strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting cyanide

poisoning from B-12 or any of the above-mentioned

berries, because they do not. The cyanide radical [CN]

and hydrogen cyanide [HCN] are two completely

different compounds, just as pure sodium [Na+]--one of

the most toxic substances known to mankind--and sodium

chloride [NaCl], table salt, are two completely

different compounds.”

When the medical community first explored the

possibility of using Laetrile as a cancer drug in the

1920s, they discovered that amygdaline secreted

cyanide. They just didn’t understand what triggered

it, and they were clueless why it was important.

Cyanide was, after all, a poison that killed people.

That was enough.

Hydrogen cyanide [HCN] is a chemical that kills cancer

cells and leaves healthy cells intact. While the NCI

found HCN in the patients in the NCCTG study, the FDA,

a couple of years later found no evidence that

Laetrile contained cyanide. Of course, the FDA tested

the Laetrile extract. Cyanide, Dr. Binzel discovered,

does not appear until Laetrile comes into contact with

a cancer cell. At that point, cyanide is present.

The reason the FDA flip-flops so much on whether or

not Laetrile is a toxic element is that when they

alleged that Laetrile was toxic in the first

Vale hearing, Vale’s lawyers challenged their claim

and asked them to present evidence to that fact. The

FDA admitted they had none. Nevertheless, they still

insist that a minimum lethal dose of HCN is 100 mg per

150 lbs. In 1984 the FDA determined that an apricot

seed contains 2.92 mg/g of HCN and a peach pit

contains 2.50 mg/g. This is interesting since a later

FDA test revealed that Laetrile, the serum form of

amygdaline contains no HCN at all, and thus, is

worthless as an anticancer agent.

It is clear that the Laetrile debate will continue for

the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the

pharmaceutical industry continues to test anticancer

medicines derived from artificial amygdaline, claiming

that it is much safer, and much more stable, than

organic amygdaline. It’s a safe bet, however, that

before the pharmaceutical industry introduces an

effective cancer-fighting amygdaline drug which will

cost the consumer much, much more than a bag of

apricot seeds, serum and tablet forms of Vitamin B-17

will be regulated by the FDA and Laetrile will be

classified as a prescription drug.

The FDA banned vitamin B17 years ago

although it is banned, it is not illegal

You Ask: What's the Difference

What it means is that ~ If any hospital uses laetrile

the law says that they jeopardize any grants from the

government as well as any monies from Medicaid and

other hospital insurance originating from the

government. Since nearly all of hospital revenues come

from patient insurance, not one hospital in the U.S.

will take the chance and use any banned substance

including, Amygdaline (also called vitamin B17 and

Laetrile.)

Any Doctor, in the United States, that wants to use

the substance from apricot pits, must have their

patient fill out a form and then the doctor must

submit the form to the FDA... Again, doctors don't

want to get involved in this and would rather keep

their names off of the FDA lists. Additionally, the

doctor's malpractice insurance will not be valid if

they prescribe laetrile (B17, amygdalin) to a patient.

The American Medical Association (AMA) treats any

Doctor that prescribes laetrile to be a renegade

(traitorous) and that he has violated the AMA's

membership policies and will be subject to membership

termination. Therefore any Doctor that prescribes

laetrile may destroy his career as a Doctor.

Any individual that sells laetrile must not claim that

it does anything in his place of business. Many health

food stores in the past were raided and had to give up

their supplies of B17 because the B17 was near books

that claimed that the B17 was the answer to

cancer...In other words the books were near the B17 in

the stores and was therefore considered " labeling "

which is a term used by the FDA. Labeling according to

the FDA is against the law and can be prosecuted.

However on the Internet, it is different. Internet law

is tricky and not the same as U.S. commercial law. In

one case, Ken Kholas took the FDA to court and won his

B17 back. That court case proved it wasn't wrong for

him to have or to sell it thought it cost Ken's father

a tremendous amount of money.

What THIS MEANS TO YOU is that you can purchase, use

and have B17 and you will not have violated any law.

--- Puffer48@... wrote:

>

> HUMBUG! Laetrile is NOT effective! If it was, the

> CURE would be making the

> health circuit WORLDWIDE and there is absolutely NO

> WAY that kind of news

> could be held back! Instead, they have researched

> B-17 and found this CURE to

> be nothing but the usual false claims by snake oil

> salesmen trying to make

> money. What is sad is that people actually go to

> Mexico (to these clinics) only

> to to die when PERHAPS they would have lived had

> they gone through

> traditional treatment(s) in the states. Alternative

> medicines THAT HAVE VALUE are

> KNOWN through research and/or proven results. The

> PAW PAW tree and CURIOLUS

> mushroom are a few that show promise in cancer

> treatments. ALSO, Dr. Shally's

> cure needs to be completely looked at.

>

> Ms.

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

Immature love is loving someone because you need them, mature love is needing

someone because you love them!

[Guest guest]

--- Hauf <jennyhauf@...> wrote:

> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 04:53:15 -0700 (PDT)

> From: Hauf <jennyhauf@...>

> Subject: Re: Doctors Don't pre-scribe

> Laetrile because it is HOGWASH

> cures for cancer

>

> You should do your homework before making such a

> statement that laetrile does not work. My son, in

> 1991, at the age of 13 was diagnoised with terminal

> brain cancer, given 3 months to live. I am one of

> those people that took him to Mexico to receive

> laetrile. I am happy to say he is now a very

> healthly

> 29 year old young man! He did not receive chemo or

> radiation. Is laetrile effective for everyone? No.

> In my opinion, it is a persons biological response

> to

> ANY type of treatment, that determines its success.

> What works for one, may not work for another! I have

> been witness to many, many successful cases with the

> use of laetrile. Be careful about making such

> statemts! Below is additional information on

> latetrile. I welcome your additonal comments.

>

> A doctor from the United States FDA once said that

> Laetrile contains ‘free’ hydrogen cyanide [HCN] and,

> thus, is toxic. I would like to correct that

> misconception. There is no ‘free’ hydrogen cyanide

> [HCN] in Laetrile. When Laetrile comes in contact

> with

> the enzyme beta-glycosidase [the cancer cell], the

> Laetrile is broken down into four molecules:

>

> (a) Two molecules of glucose

> ( One molecule of benzaldehyde

> © One molecule of hydrogen cyanide [HCN]

>

> Within the body, the cancer cell and only the cancer

> cell contains that enzyme, beta-glycosidase,

> therefore, if no cancer is in the body, no hydrogen

> cyanide can be released.

>

> The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It

> is not found floating around freely in the Laetrile

> and then released. It must be manufactured. The

> enzyme

> beta-glycosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable

> of

> manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there is no

> beta-glycosidase, no HCN can be formed from the

> Laetrile.

>

> “Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical [CN].

> This

> same cyanide radical is contained in Vitamin B-12

> and

> in berries such as blackberries, blueberries and

> strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting

> cyanide

> poisoning from B-12 or any of the above-mentioned

> berries, because they do not. The cyanide radical

> [CN]

> and hydrogen cyanide [HCN] are two completely

> different compounds, just as pure sodium [Na+]--one

> of

> the most toxic substances known to mankind--and

> sodium

> chloride [NaCl], table salt, are two completely

> different compounds.”

>

> When the medical community first explored the

> possibility of using Laetrile as a cancer drug in

> the

> 1920s, they discovered that amygdaline secreted

> cyanide. They just didn’t understand what triggered

> it, and they were clueless why it was important.

> Cyanide was, after all, a poison that killed people.

> That was enough.

>

> Hydrogen cyanide [HCN] is a chemical that kills

> cancer

> cells and leaves healthy cells intact. While the NCI

> found HCN in the patients in the NCCTG study, the

> FDA,

> a couple of years later found no evidence that

> Laetrile contained cyanide. Of course, the FDA

> tested

> the Laetrile extract. Cyanide, Dr. Binzel

> discovered,

> does not appear until Laetrile comes into contact

> with

> a cancer cell. At that point, cyanide is present.

>

> The reason the FDA flip-flops so much on whether or

> not Laetrile is a toxic element is that when they

> alleged that Laetrile was toxic in the first

> Vale hearing, Vale’s lawyers challenged their claim

> and asked them to present evidence to that fact. The

> FDA admitted they had none. Nevertheless, they still

> insist that a minimum lethal dose of HCN is 100 mg

> per

> 150 lbs. In 1984 the FDA determined that an apricot

> seed contains 2.92 mg/g of HCN and a peach pit

> contains 2.50 mg/g. This is interesting since a

> later

> FDA test revealed that Laetrile, the serum form of

> amygdaline contains no HCN at all, and thus, is

> worthless as an anticancer agent.

>

> It is clear that the Laetrile debate will continue

> for

> the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the

> pharmaceutical industry continues to test anticancer

> medicines derived from artificial amygdaline,

> claiming

> that it is much safer, and much more stable, than

> organic amygdaline. It’s a safe bet, however, that

> before the pharmaceutical industry introduces an

> effective cancer-fighting amygdaline drug which will

> cost the consumer much, much more than a bag of

> apricot seeds, serum and tablet forms of Vitamin

> B-17

> will be regulated by the FDA and Laetrile will be

> classified as a prescription drug.

>

> The FDA banned vitamin B17 years ago

> although it is banned, it is not illegal

> You Ask: What's the Difference

> What it means is that ~ If any hospital uses

> laetrile

> the law says that they jeopardize any grants from

> the

> government as well as any monies from Medicaid and

> other hospital insurance originating from the

> government. Since nearly all of hospital revenues

> come

> from patient insurance, not one hospital in the U.S.

> will take the chance and use any banned substance

> including, Amygdaline (also called vitamin B17 and

> Laetrile.)

> Any Doctor, in the United States, that wants to use

> the substance from apricot pits, must have their

> patient fill out a form and then the doctor must

> submit the form to the FDA... Again, doctors don't

> want to get involved in this and would rather keep

> their names off of the FDA lists. Additionally, the

> doctor's malpractice insurance will not be valid if

> they prescribe laetrile (B17, amygdalin) to a

> patient.

> The American Medical Association (AMA) treats any

> Doctor that prescribes laetrile to be a renegade

> (traitorous) and that he has violated the AMA's

> membership policies and will be subject to

> membership

> termination. Therefore any Doctor that prescribes

> laetrile may destroy his career as a Doctor.

> Any individual that sells laetrile must not claim

> that

> it does anything in his place of business. Many

> health

> food stores in the past were raided and had to give

> up

> their supplies of B17 because the B17 was near books

> that claimed that the B17 was the answer to

> cancer...In other words the books were near the B17

> in

> the stores and was therefore considered " labeling "

> which is a term used by the FDA. Labeling according

> to

> the FDA is against the law and can be prosecuted.

> However on the Internet, it is different. Internet

> law

> is tricky and not the same as U.S. commercial law.

> In

> one case, Ken Kholas took the FDA to court and won

> his

> B17 back. That court case proved it wasn't wrong for

> him to have or to sell it thought it cost Ken's

> father

> a tremendous amount of money.

> What THIS MEANS TO YOU is that you can purchase, use

> and have B17 and you will not have violated any law.

>

>

>

>

> --- Puffer48@... wrote:

>

> >

> > HUMBUG! Laetrile is NOT effective! If it was, the

> > CURE would be making the

> > health circuit WORLDWIDE and there is absolutely

> NO

> > WAY that kind of news

> > could be held back! Instead, they have researched

> > B-17 and found this CURE to

> > be nothing but the usual false claims by snake oil

> > salesmen trying to make

> > money. What is sad is that people actually go to

> > Mexico (to these clinics) only

> > to to die when PERHAPS they would have lived had

> > they gone through

> > traditional treatment(s) in the states.

> Alternative

> > medicines THAT HAVE VALUE are

> > KNOWN through research and/or proven results. The

> > PAW PAW tree and CURIOLUS

> > mushroom are a few that show promise in cancer

> > treatments. ALSO, Dr. Shally's

> > cure needs to be completely looked at.

> >

> > Ms.

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> >

> >

>

>

> Immature love is loving someone because you need

> them, mature love is needing someone because you

> love them!

>

Immature love is loving someone because you need them, mature love is needing

someone because you love them!

[Guest guest]

" Tell you how many to eat " My God just do a google on A pits, Laetrile,

or Dr. Krebs. Why do you need someone to tell you how many to eat??

[Guest guest]

I bougt apricot kernels but cannot find anyone to tell me how many to eat, also

what clinic in mexico did you take your son and what did they give him?

thanks

B

Hauf <jennyhauf@...> wrote:

You should do your homework before making such a

statement that laetrile does not work. My son, in

1991, at the age of 13 was diagnoised with terminal

brain cancer, given 3 months to live. I am one of

those people that took him to Mexico to receive

laetrile. I am happy to say he is now a very healthly

29 year old young man! He did not receive chemo or

radiation. Is laetrile effective for everyone? No.

In my opinion, it is a persons biological response to

ANY type of treatment, that determines its success.

What works for one, may not work for another! I have

been witness to many, many successful cases with the

use of laetrile. Be careful about making such

statemts! Below is additional information on

latetrile. I welcome your additonal comments.

A doctor from the United States FDA once said that

Laetrile contains ‘free’ hydrogen cyanide [HCN] and,

thus, is toxic. I would like to correct that

misconception. There is no ‘free’ hydrogen cyanide

[HCN] in Laetrile. When Laetrile comes in contact with

the enzyme beta-glycosidase [the cancer cell], the

Laetrile is broken down into four molecules:

(a) Two molecules of glucose

( One molecule of benzaldehyde

© One molecule of hydrogen cyanide [HCN]

Within the body, the cancer cell and only the cancer

cell contains that enzyme, beta-glycosidase,

therefore, if no cancer is in the body, no hydrogen

cyanide can be released.

The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It

is not found floating around freely in the Laetrile

and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme

beta-glycosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable of

manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there is no

beta-glycosidase, no HCN can be formed from the

Laetrile.

“Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical [CN]. This

same cyanide radical is contained in Vitamin B-12 and

in berries such as blackberries, blueberries and

strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting cyanide

poisoning from B-12 or any of the above-mentioned

berries, because they do not. The cyanide radical [CN]

and hydrogen cyanide [HCN] are two completely

different compounds, just as pure sodium [Na+]--one of

the most toxic substances known to mankind--and sodium

chloride [NaCl], table salt, are two completely

different compounds.”

When the medical community first explored the

possibility of using Laetrile as a cancer drug in the

1920s, they discovered that amygdaline secreted

cyanide. They just didn’t understand what triggered

it, and they were clueless why it was important.

Cyanide was, after all, a poison that killed people.

That was enough.

Hydrogen cyanide [HCN] is a chemical that kills cancer

cells and leaves healthy cells intact. While the NCI

found HCN in the patients in the NCCTG study, the FDA,

a couple of years later found no evidence that

Laetrile contained cyanide. Of course, the FDA tested

the Laetrile extract. Cyanide, Dr. Binzel discovered,

does not appear until Laetrile comes into contact with

a cancer cell. At that point, cyanide is present.

The reason the FDA flip-flops so much on whether or

not Laetrile is a toxic element is that when they

alleged that Laetrile was toxic in the first

Vale hearing, Vale’s lawyers challenged their claim

and asked them to present evidence to that fact. The

FDA admitted they had none. Nevertheless, they still

insist that a minimum lethal dose of HCN is 100 mg per

150 lbs. In 1984 the FDA determined that an apricot

seed contains 2.92 mg/g of HCN and a peach pit

contains 2.50 mg/g. This is interesting since a later

FDA test revealed that Laetrile, the serum form of

amygdaline contains no HCN at all, and thus, is

worthless as an anticancer agent.

It is clear that the Laetrile debate will continue for

the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the

pharmaceutical industry continues to test anticancer

medicines derived from artificial amygdaline, claiming

that it is much safer, and much more stable, than

organic amygdaline. It’s a safe bet, however, that

before the pharmaceutical industry introduces an

effective cancer-fighting amygdaline drug which will

cost the consumer much, much more than a bag of

apricot seeds, serum and tablet forms of Vitamin B-17

will be regulated by the FDA and Laetrile will be

classified as a prescription drug.

The FDA banned vitamin B17 years ago

although it is banned, it is not illegal

You Ask: What's the Difference

What it means is that ~ If any hospital uses laetrile

the law says that they jeopardize any grants from the

government as well as any monies from Medicaid and

other hospital insurance originating from the

government. Since nearly all of hospital revenues come

from patient insurance, not one hospital in the U.S.

will take the chance and use any banned substance

including, Amygdaline (also called vitamin B17 and

Laetrile.)

Any Doctor, in the United States, that wants to use

the substance from apricot pits, must have their

patient fill out a form and then the doctor must

submit the form to the FDA... Again, doctors don't

want to get involved in this and would rather keep

their names off of the FDA lists. Additionally, the

doctor's malpractice insurance will not be valid if

they prescribe laetrile (B17, amygdalin) to a patient.

The American Medical Association (AMA) treats any

Doctor that prescribes laetrile to be a renegade

(traitorous) and that he has violated the AMA's

membership policies and will be subject to membership

termination. Therefore any Doctor that prescribes

laetrile may destroy his career as a Doctor.

Any individual that sells laetrile must not claim that

it does anything in his place of business. Many health

food stores in the past were raided and had to give up

their supplies of B17 because the B17 was near books

that claimed that the B17 was the answer to

cancer...In other words the books were near the B17 in

the stores and was therefore considered " labeling "

which is a term used by the FDA. Labeling according to

the FDA is against the law and can be prosecuted.

However on the Internet, it is different. Internet law

is tricky and not the same as U.S. commercial law. In

one case, Ken Kholas took the FDA to court and won his

B17 back. That court case proved it wasn't wrong for

him to have or to sell it thought it cost Ken's father

a tremendous amount of money.

What THIS MEANS TO YOU is that you can purchase, use

and have B17 and you will not have violated any law.

--- Puffer48@... wrote:

>

> HUMBUG! Laetrile is NOT effective! If it was, the

> CURE would be making the

> health circuit WORLDWIDE and there is absolutely NO

> WAY that kind of news

> could be held back! Instead, they have researched

> B-17 and found this CURE to

> be nothing but the usual false claims by snake oil

> salesmen trying to make

> money. What is sad is that people actually go to

> Mexico (to these clinics) only

> to to die when PERHAPS they would have lived had

> they gone through

> traditional treatment(s) in the states. Alternative

> medicines THAT HAVE VALUE are

> KNOWN through research and/or proven results. The

> PAW PAW tree and CURIOLUS

> mushroom are a few that show promise in cancer

> treatments. ALSO, Dr. Shally's

> cure needs to be completely looked at.

>

> Ms.

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

Immature love is loving someone because you need them, mature love is needing

someone because you love them!

---------------------------------

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

Do you think you need to be so harsh?

I thought we were sharing and helping each other.

How hard would it be to suggest nicely that the

information was available on different web sites that

can be found by..........

--- GloWeeza@... wrote:

> " Tell you how many to eat " My God just do a

> google on A pits, Laetrile,

> or Dr. Krebs. Why do you need someone to tell you

> how many to eat??

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I've been to several sites and none that i saw told me exactly how many to eat,

otherwise I wouldn't be asking, so sorry to bother everyone

Marsh <marshnmarsh@...> wrote: Do you think you need to be

so harsh?

I thought we were sharing and helping each other.

How hard would it be to suggest nicely that the

information was available on different web sites that

can be found by..........

--- GloWeeza@... wrote:

> " Tell you how many to eat " My God just do a

> google on A pits, Laetrile,

> or Dr. Krebs. Why do you need someone to tell you

> how many to eat??

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

why not just help someone out? perhaps this person

was not sure where to look for the information. the

majority of us are on this forum to help each other

out.

--- GloWeeza@... wrote:

> " Tell you how many to eat " My God just do a

> google on A pits, Laetrile,

> or Dr. Krebs. Why do you need someone to tell you

> how many to eat??

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

Immature love is loving someone because you need them, mature love is needing

someone because you love them!

[Guest guest]

YEAH.....................I've heard of research! I also have written (on

thise site) GOOD writings of alternative medicine such as PAW PAW cell reg and

immune stimulator from Natures Sunshine! THIS is based on RESEARCH and the

altnernative medicine chart which shows which ones work and which do not!

Laetrile is very in-effective on this chart.