Re: Laetrile....please do your homework!

[Guest guest]

--- 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

>

=== message truncated ===

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

someone because you love them!

[Guest guest]

not sure if this went through...resending

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

> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:18:23 -0700 (PDT)

> From: Hauf <jennyhauf@...>

> Subject: Re: Laetrile....please do your

> homework!

> Hauf <jennyhauf@...>,

> cures for cancer

>

>

>

> --- 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

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

> 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!