/sci/ - Science & Math

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

>>5891460

>Cancer.org
>the truth

Pick one and only one

>Allegedly...

There are no trails or data that suggest this is a cure. On the other hand there are real reports of poisonings.

http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(98)70077-0/abstract

>A 2006 systematic review by the Cochrane Collaboration concluded: "The claim that [l]aetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by data from controlled clinical trials. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for randomised or controlled clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of [l]aetrile or amygdalin for cancer treatment."

>>5891456
Why the jewish stars on that skull, OP? Is anti-semitism really going to help us engage in a productive conversation?

>>5891496
No, but that's not what OP is interested in.

>>5891479

Implying studies are not falsified

>>5891501
>implying you have proof

>>5891502
>implying OP IS not proof

>>5891506
OP is a lot of talk without backing any of it up.

>>5891508

Everything in OP IS true. Look it up

>>5891511
I did. It's false.

>>5891520
It's true.

>>5891511
>>5891520
>>5891532
Nice links to evidence on both sides there.

>>5891532
Prove it.

>>5891536
ok

http://www.anticancerinfo.co.uk/does_it_work.html

>>5891565

Truth

>>5891456
The cure for cancer was in the hands of John Kanzius. He invented the most promising cancer treatment ever accomplished!

>>5891456
Isn't it just a less effective chemotherapy with cyanide at best?

>organic chemist doing anticancer drug design
>mfw tons of "alternative" anticancer treatments
>mfw this thread
>mfw OPic
>>>/pol/ go

>>5891456
why do you think cannabis is illegal? because it works, but healthy patient = not paying patient and no pharma company wants that

>>5892443
cannabis is hardly effective as an anticancer agent compared to various foods and spices

>>5892435
Yes, cell "suffocation". The ones that divide faster must suffocate a little faster at certain devision stages also. This is pure poison ruining whole organism with very little anticancer effect at normal cyanide-acting doses and placebo at smaller doses.
>same pissed off chemist

>>5891456
>the answer was to be found in food enzymes and vitamins.
Isn't that what Steve Jobs tried?

>>5892451
the best anticancer agent is lead.

>>5892451
Didn't mean as anticancer only but treatment for many things, just trying to explain to OP why some people with money don't want you to be healthy.

>>5892458
Steve Jobs died because he stopped this treatment. He's a loser.

AMA= death

>>5891460
>http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/laetrile
From your site:
>The consensus of available scientific evidence does not support claims that laetrile is an effective anti-cancer treatment, either in animal studies or in human clinical trials. Cancer cells do not seem to be more susceptible to the effects of laetrile than normal cells. The successes claimed by its supporters are based on individual reports, testimonials, and publicity issued by promoters.

>>5893214
(maybe that was the point, so sorry if it was)

muh peach pits

>>5892439

Face it faggot you are perpetuating a holocaust and getting paid for it

>>5892439
what do you think about giving cancer AIDS?

>>5891456
>mfw people believe that a single drug can 'cure' cancer
>mfw people believe that a cure for cancer is possible
>mfw people believe the FDA falsifies studies
>mfw people believe hearsay and conspiracy theories over hard science

but everything I say doesn't matter because I'm a big pharma shill obv.!

>>5893917
no you're just a fagot

>>5893917
basedrandi

>>5893904
Ahahahaha, tell me, how does it feel to be a non-educated paranoid ranting idiot?
Reservation for people your kind, please go: >>>/pol/

>>5893906
Can't tell. Working on chemo-agents exclusively.
>No, not those chemical war agents that make you puke, bald etc. The normal ones.

>>5893917
>people believe that a cure for cancer is possible
But it is possible in principle. Tumors _very_ slightly differentiate from normal tissues on biochem level. Yet they still do. The problem is to find a very selective drug exploiting that difference i.e. harming bad without harming good, Erlich's magic bullet.
Fully agree with everything else though.

>>5893934
Your optimism is admirable.

The pic -- swastikas and stars of david!? I thought no one but me ever came up with stuff like that. Next thing you know, someone will be posting pictures of vampire unicorns.

>>5893917

>implying James Brandi is not a faggot

In a study sponsored by the McNaughton Foundation in San Ysidro, California, laetrile was injected into laboratory animals in dosages of 500mg/kg. The mean survival time of the laetrile treated animals was 70% longer than that of the controls. This research was reported at Senate subcommittee hearing on laetrile in July 1977.
Studies conducted at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, using a mouse model with adenocarcinoma, showed that laetrile-treated mice survived over twice as long as the control mice.
In 1977 Dr Harold W. Manner released remarkable laetrile research he had conducted at Loyola University in Chicago. In a study with 84 mice, 75 underwent complete regression of mammary tumours, and the other nine showed partial regression.

>>5893969
Unicorns can't be vampires. The horn would kill them on conversion.

>>5894875
I see your point.

Nothing for us but death

>>5894857
And yet the majority of other studies have shown it to be ineffective.

>>5895185

Gee I wonder who was behind those studies

>>5895199
/pol/ pls

It may surprise most people to find out that one of the most common treatments for a variety of cancers is chemotherapy and that it actually has its origins in World Wars I and II. Given that most people consider the treatment of cancer to be a war, then it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

The fantastic science of chemotherapy began because it was noticed that Mustard Gas caused the destruction of fast growing cells. In the average human body, the fastest growing cells are hair follicles, stomach lining, immune system, bone marrow and hair follicles. This serves to explain why Mustard Gas was an effective agent of warfare damage to such major systems of the body would cause obvious illness and death.

After World War II, a number of other chemotherapy agents were developed, all of which operate in basically the same way: attacking and killing growing cells.

>>5895629

Why......

Why was I not told of this.....

>>5895635

>>5895635
how the fuck did you think it worked?

>>5894857
>500mg/kg
35 gramms must be injected into a man, awesome

Butthurt time!
How I hate these kind of papers, this is unspeakable, I can't take it anymore. Why people publish shit like this? For fame, to get money from idiots from government, to get their PhDs, why? Let me explain. I must read at least tens of new anticancer drug articles a day erryday to know what's cookin' in the world. And what is this shit I'm reading in ~80% cases?
- they took a known drug and put a methyl group somewhere and it still works, oh wow, what a surprize
- a line of new drugs kills cancer cells in adequate doses but nothing written about normal cells, well ok, I cook them, oh wow, the shit kills normal cells as fast as cancer cells
- they cooked a drug that really works in rats but with huge doses, nothing written about side effects, ok, cook it, give to rats at needed high doses, yes it stops tumor but complete liver failure in a week
- they cook a drug with some horribly inadequate perverted reactions just to show off when it could be cooked a lot easier
- their drug kills cancer cells "in a petri dish" whithout harming normal cells in good small concentration, no animal tests, sounds good, cook it, give it to rats, not working
- yields, high yields everywhere, start to cook thoroughly by given write-up, black ugly resin
I want to beat these people with my bare hands. No one cares about the actual "cure" i.e. good relatively non-toxic therapy. Everything people want (not all though, there're normal articles but little of them) is to get published. Oh, we've done a long hard work but our shit is more of a poison than a cure, oh well, publish it anyway. These people will burn in HELL!

>>5895660

So, uh, let's say nobody published that their idea didn't work...

How does another group of researchers find out that that idea is a bust? Do you want everyone trying out the same stupid shit over and over because nobody's aware of advances in the field?

>>5895660
not English or just completely blind with rage?

go back to /x/ where you belong

>>5895662
You're right. But they should write that it's a bust! Well, not like this, ok, maybe it's embarassing but somehow write that, say, their drug killed all cells - cancer and normal. I'll never believe that they tried their poison only on cancer cell lines and didn't give it to normal cells.

>>5895666
Both.

>>5895671

laetrile is a form of b17. But it is correct that is how CHEMO drugs are deceloped

>>5895675
Did you reply to the wrong post?

And do you do realize that b17 is NOT A VITAMIN?

anecdotal shit: my grandfather didn't want to do chemo for his prostate cancer, and instead took laetrile a friend of his brought down from canada. result: he died within a year and a half and I never got to meet him

>>5895660
You sir, 5 star post.
>fake high yields
They either outright lie or they don't publish parts of the process on purpose.
>>5895662
>How does another group of researchers find out that that idea is a bust?
Sure, good.
BUT DON'T TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A SUCCESS WHEN PUBLISHING.

And this is not just this one research theme, I'm positive that even though I see into chemistry related articles, the problem permeates throughout most if not all fields of science.

One of my favourite articles is about cooking acrylic acid from glycerin using mixed oxide catalysts.
Acrolein yields were 90+%, but acrylic acid? 20%.
Factually said, the first part of the process is excellent for producing acrolein. Acrylic acid? Not at all.
That's it.
No lies, no hiding of failures.
There's nothing wrong with finding something useless.
Don't try to make it a huge achievement when it is not.

>>5895737

My grandpa took it and lived

Bump

>>5895774
some people get shot in the head and live. big deal.

>>5891501
>only the studies that prove me wrong are falsified

In his 1955 paper, Dr. Jones demonstrates how cancer studies are manipulated (he politely calls them "bases" and "errors") in order to make it appear that the treated cancer patients live longer than the untreated. Referring to one particular study on breast cancer, he says: "Cases that died during treatment, or closely following treatment, were discarded because of the possible effect of the severity of treatment." (p. 316).
In 1969, before the American Cancer Society's Science Writers' Seminar, Dr. Jones pointed out that the failure of past survival studies were that they did not take into account that the worst, inoperable cases were left in the groups that were untreated. Thus many cancer studies were based on research done with operable and "healthier" cases, giving the mistaken judgment that surgery and radiation were of value in cancer treatment. When Jones corrected for such bias statistically he found that the life expectancy of untreated cases of cancer were greater than that of the treated cases. Dr. Jones concluded that "evidence for benefit from cancer therapy has depended on systematic biometric errors."
After almost 40 years as a cancer researcher, Dr. Jones found, for example, that survival in breast cancer is 4 times longer without conventional treatment. he stated, "People who refused treatment lived for an average of 12-1/2 years. Those who accepted other kinds of treatment lived an average of only 3 years. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, radical surgery on cancer patients does more harm than good." (The Naked Empress, Hans Reusch, p. 74)
It is important t

Hey mods. OP here, I accidentally posted this thread here instead of >>>/x/, could you move this please?

>>5896587
>thinking the mods can just move threads willy nilly
this isn't vbulletin anon

>>5896587
If you really were the OP, you could delete the thread and remake it on /x/
An OP can delete their own posts, you know?

>>5896582
>implying cancer treatment hasn't progressed in the last 60 years
>implying the website you pulled that quote from isn't bullshit

>>5896582
>1955
>1969
Yeah, fifty year old science sure is relevant to modern medicine.

The mid '50s was right around when we were getting our first understanding of what DNA is, and both of those sources are years before most of the critical tools and procedures of molecular biology were invented.

The vast majority of the published scientific literature on cancer and cancer research is inherently flawed and non-reproducible, reveals a new review published online in the journal Nature. Researchers C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis found that a mere 11 percent of 53 papers on cancer published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals was solid, while the other 89 percent could not be reproduced, implying that it may be false or at the very least misleading.

Preclinical studies are the basis upon which the scientific community at large determines how best to develop treatments for disease, including potential new approaches to treating cancer. But such studies, though sure to contain some minor flaws from time to time, appear to be missing the boat in major ways on a regular basis. And the end result of this intrinsic failure is a cancer treatment system that is not only outdated but potentially completely misguided.

"The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value - that although there might be some errors in detail, the main message of the paper can be relied on and the data will, for the most part, stand the test of time," wrote the authors about their findings. "Unfortunately, this is not always the case."

Based on a review of 53 published papers on cancer, Begley and Ellis discovered that only six of them could be reproduced and confirmed in a clinical setting. And the worst part was that the 53 papers were considered to be "landmark," which means they are generally recognized as having had a significant impact on cancer research due to presenting some new cancer treatment approach or novel therapy for targeting cancer cells.

>>5896602

>implying cancer treat ment has changed

It's cut, burn, and poison now.

just as it was in the 50`s

" My studies have proved conclusively that cancer patients who refuse
chemotherapy and radiation actually live up to FOUR TIMES LONGER
THAN TREATED CASES. "

Dr. Jones, formerly a physiologist with the University of California
Department of Medical Physics, has been studying cancer for more
than 23 years. He has traveled the world collecting data on the
dreaded disease and presented his findings to the American Cancer
Society and medical schools.

" Beyond a shadow of a doubt, radical surgery on cancer does more
harm than good. " As for radiation treatment -- most of the time it
makes not the slightest difference whether the machine is turned on
or not. "

Dr. Jones noted that " unfortunately, it seems to be only a question
of time, usually, before the disease pops up again all over the
body. "

" Every cancer patient who keeps in excellent physical shape may have
many good years left. The alternative is to squander those years as
an invalid through radical medical intervention, which has zero
chance of extending life. "

Dr. Jones continued, " It's utter nonsense to claim that catching
cancer symptoms early enough will increase the patient's chances of
survival. "

" Furthermore, untreated breast cancer cases show a life expectancy
four times longer than treated ones. ~ " My wife and I have discussed
what she would do if breast cancer was diagnosed in her, " Dr. Jones
continued. " And we both agreed that she would do nothing as regards
to treatment, except to keep as healthy as possible. I guarantee she
would live longer! "

Did you know that 9 out of 10 oncologists would refuse chemotherapy if they had cancer? That's up to 91% -- a huge percentage that clearly shines a light on the truth: chemotherapy kills. Conventional oncologists are not only allowing this to happen, but they're also bullying many patients into chemotherapy and surgery right after their diagnoses.

Why would that large percentage of oncologists - the ones telling so many patients to get chemotherapy - refuse to do it themselves? Because they know it's not just ineffective, but extremely toxic. Regardless, 75% of cancer patients are directed to receive chemotherapy.

>>5896610
>The vast majority of the published scientific literature on cancer and cancer research is inherently flawed and non-reproducible,
k
>>5896619
Comparing 50s chemo to modern cancer treatment is like comparing a meteor to a sniper rifle.

>>5896619
I suggest you browse wikipedia further than nitrogen mustards and nitrosoureas.
moron

>>5896650

The premise of cancer treatment now is exactly the same as it was.

Cut, radiate, and poison

>>5896653

chemotherapy stops cells from dividing.

In other words, chemotherapy works by killing you

>ITT
Water in large doses is a lethal poison.
In other words, drinking works by poisoning you.

>>5896647
Right and wrong. Yes, oncologists would refuse but no, not because it's ineffective. It's moderately good but knowing how it works and how nasty this is has something like a nocebo effect. That's why doctors usually don't tell patients about given drugs properties.
It's like trying to cure owns sudden mental illness being a psychiatrist. It won't work.
And yes, I too wouldn't take my cooked meds. This got nothing to do with efficiancy and pure physiology. It's psychology -> physiology.

>>5896667

>comparing water to mustard gas

>>5896675
Someone else started with
>chemotherapy is chemical warfare

I just haven't been posting as much similar bullshit as them.

>>5896657
Cancer kills you faster and permanently. Modern chemo kills cancer cells faster than normal cells allowing full recovery.
Listen, m8, you haven't even read anything about it, don't know basic agent types, mechanisms but arguing whole day.
I truly hate this line but I'm a specialist on that topic. Please, shut the fuck up. You're posting nonsense.
/pol/ - conspiracy schizotypals
/x/ - magic

>>5896692

The first chemotherapy literally used mustard gas. The patient died but it was called a success because the tumor shrank

>>5896693

See

>>5896642

>>5896744
Uhuh, and the first air-breathing thing died of desiccation, but we've learned since then and drowning in air rarely happens these days.

>>5896764

Enjoy your mustard gas

>>5896642
Where can we find these studies which conflict with other studies?

>>5896744
When did he die?

They are just killing us all folks

>>5897064

True

Bump

>>5896801
Enjoy your horribly caustic gases, acids and solvents you take in all the time.

Oh god

>>5895675
>vitamin B17
Good job citing a misnomer and a chemical that fails all criteria for being a 'vitamin'. You're pretty much certified retarded now.