My Malignant Melanoma

Seanty's experiences with Metastatic Malignant Melanoma. Part of www.mymalignantmelanoma.com. Email us direct at help@mymalignantmelanoma.com

Tuesday, 30 September 2008

 

Crossposting: Laetrile

Thought I'd crosspost this from a discussion we have been having on the cancerbacup forum:

"Essiac and Laetrile are useless against cancer. Laetrile gives those who take it cyanide poisoning, though whether they notice the symptoms or not might depend on the dose, and personal susceptibility.

This view is supported by the following reputable organisations, who in turn have these opinions because scientists have tested the agents and found them not to work:

Cancer Research UK

US National Cancer Institute

Cochrane Collaboration

Note that these references should not be believed simply because the organisations publishing them are mainstream. That would be to fall for the same logical fallacy as quack medicine promoters, the "argument from authority". Someone is not right because they have an impressive title, or were nominated for, or even won the Nobel prize. Check out the research backing the claims.

Linus Pauling, (double Nobel Prize winner) for example was a genius in his field, but dead wrong about the effectiveness of Vitamin C against cancer.

Here is a summary of all scientific evidence to date on Laetrile as of June last year.

An interesting article on Laetrile by a doctor, and fully backed by scientific research appears here

To summarise the research listed above, Laetrile is ineffective aginst cancer, and basically has an identical effect to cyanide. Any replies to this post which do not back claims to the contrary with research from peer reviewed scientific literature as I have will be ignored.

As the very first post in the thread says: if I am taking both chemo and Mrs Caisse's tea, who cares which cured me? And indeed who can really tell if it was one, the other, or neither?

That I took essiac or whatever and my cancer got better no more shows that it cures cancer than day causes night. Sometimes cancer just gets better. Our bodies mount a successful last-ditch defence. Just because something follows something else, does not show the first thing caused the second. Only by trying a single agent many times under controlled conditions can we see whether it works or not.

Whilst we are in education mode, we can have a look at the claims made by other posters on this thread which are contradicted by the references I have given above. You can ignore this bit if you like, point by point rebuttals are tiresome to many people:

1. "It may be that B17 is a good one to go for, as the US have banned it." Laetrile is not a vitamin. It is a poison with no effect on cancer progression. It has been banned in the US because of this. This makes it a bad "one to go for".

2. "ordinary processed sugar will kill you long before the cyanide in apricot seeds will." The cyanide produced by laetrile is the same cyanide which is in Zyklon B. There isn't some sort of natural cyanide which is good for you.

3. "The "cyanide content" of almonds, is only released on contact with the cancer cell with which it reacts, and it is not activated in any other situation." In fact the cyanide is released on contact with all parts of the body, especially the digestive system, which is why oral administration is so much more acutely harmful. There is no scientific evidence of any specificity to cancer cells as claimed.

4. "In 1950 after many years of research, a dedicated biochemist by the name of Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., isolated a new vitamin that he numbered B17 and called 'Laetrile'." Laetrile has been known since 1830. Mr Krebs was not a doctor or a biochemist at all. His father was a doctor, but he was a simple snake-oil merchant. His father the doctor was a quack too. Harold Shipman was a doctor too. Being a doctor isn't an automatic guarantee of probity. Claiming to be a doctor when you are not is however pretty much a guarantee of quackery.

Some other fallacies:

1. "How can an apricot seed, provided by nature, be called a drug" The same way as opium provided by nature might, but I'm not calling it a drug, I'm calling it a poison. The most potent poison in the world, Botulinum toxin is a natural substances.

2. "Dr Budwig was nominated for a Nobel Prize SEVEN times" I could say the same thing of myself and no-one could argue. The committee does not publicise the names of nominees.

I will ignore the meaningless waffle, paranoid hysteria (international criminal conspiracies, please spare us!) and rudeness of the posters promoting quackery. I understand that some people's beliefs are not going to be changed by any amount of rational evidence, and they then resort to bullying tactics.

My opinions are not however beliefs of this nature. Show me a valid clinical trial of these agents which shows that they work, and I will change them. They are opinions backed by solid evidence. The other posters promote irrational beliefs which are flatly contradicted by the same evidence.

So it isn't a question of respecting others, or their beliefs. It a question of not allowing others to promote their dangerous and irrational beliefs with outright lies.

I don't know the other posters from Adam or Eve. I have nothing against them. Their ideas are however dangerous nonsense, founded only on the lies of commercially interested quacks and need to be countered with facts.

I will do this as many times as it takes, but I cannot see how they can come back with anything other than more irrational nonsense. Their claims have no basis in fact, as this post now demonstrates in detail (but only of course to anyone unwilling to believe in a global conspiracy to deny us effective anti-cancer agents by subverting the whole activity of science and medicine)"

Anyone hoping that I will publish comments on this post which amount to testimonials in favour of quackery are going to be disappointed, I'm afraid. We are not in the business of publishing unproven claims which could mislead vulnerable people here. Testimonials are vastly inferior evidence to the scientific studies I have linked to above. Publishing them might make it seem to the vulnerable that there are two sides to this argument, when there are not.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

Archives

August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010   May 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   October 2010   November 2010   December 2010   February 2011   March 2011   April 2011   May 2011   June 2011   July 2011   August 2011   September 2011   October 2011   November 2011   December 2011   January 2012   February 2012   March 2012   April 2012   May 2012   June 2012   July 2012   September 2012   November 2012   December 2012   January 2013   May 2013   June 2013   July 2013   August 2013   September 2013   October 2013   December 2013   July 2014  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]