Has anyone had surgery to remove a brain tumor, 95% - 98% of it, and if so has it grown back? If so please fill me in on how you thought or felt it was growing back besides headaches and seizures ...
I have non invasive cancer and atypical hyperplasia and I'm taking tamoxifen. Do you think I should be seeing an oncologist on a regular basis, and how often should I be seen or not seen? ...
I've read all the comments on yahoo answers regarding cigar smoking, cancer and other health risks. To be totally honest though, none of the comments are really informative. Most people have ...
okay,, i know this may sound wierd, but do you ever think that the cure for cancer is a simple thing, like eating a elephants poo, and then everyone is spending soo much money trying to find one, ...
My doctor said that I have a cyst, but she didn't elaborate. She didn't suggest an ultrasound or mamogram, or any treatment. She just said to avoid caffiene, because that could make the ...
I ask this question because my oncologist said that I will gain weight during chemo treatment but she says that it will be less than 5lbs. I have a feeling that I may gain more weight than just 5ibs....
I woke up this morning and my upper stomache started hurting really bad, yesturday I didn't eat breakfast, but I ate a sandwich for lunch and chineese for dinner, later I snacked on my left over ...
Is it possible for someone with Stage 4 cancer to recover? I have a friend whose father is suffering from Stage 4 cancer and he's undergoing chemo now. He was stuck in hospital for a long time ...
You guys do realize that a lot of people profit from all the money that's put into the RESEARCH and TREATMENTS for cancer. A cure would ultimately defeat that purpose.
My dad lied to me when i was six and i believed him he said he stopped smoking. i later found out he has a pack of ciggarets every week i am very sad because his dad died of lung cancer. i don't ...
I am 35 years old. My mother died of lung cancer one year ago. She didnt have any symptoms, just got sick one day, we took her to the hospital, she was diagnosed and died 6 months later. She had ...
Cancer, does anyone recall a drug called Layatrill?
Back in the 70's my mother had cancer. She went to Mexico and used a drug called Layatrill, At least I believe that is the spelling, Anyway I remember she got in alot of trouble for bringing it into the states (my mom the drug trafficker) It really seemed to work, Why would our government stop something that worked?
Yes. Derived from peach pits. ~
The drug companies deep sixed it and the government is in their pockets.
schazjmd
Laetrile
(Amygdalin)
from apricot kernels
oncogenomics
There is no such thing as Vitamin B-17. It is not in any biology text books. All other vitamins and minerals have more than one source. "Vitamin B-17" only comes from apricot pits? That's because it is a term made up to try to sound scientific.
As for the effectiveness of Laetrile/Vitamin B17 against cancer, there is none. It is probably the biggest cancer cure fraud/hoax out there right now.
Anyone who thinks there is one treatment to cure all cancers is ignorant of what cancer is and how it works.
Cancer is not one disease. It is a collection of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different disease with one similar symptom: uncontrolled cell growth. The common cold is not one disease either but, the symptoms are similar. There is no cure for the common cold either. Each cancer can be defined by a specific set of genetic mutations and the cell type involved.
There is not one hereditary disease that has a cure. Hereditary diseases are disease of the abnormal genes that are inherited. In addition, cancer is a disease of the genes too but, the genes become abnormal during ones lifetime instead of inheriting them.
Do fool yourself. There is currently NO cure for cancer and one will not be simple or cover all cancers.
Panda
It's not a drug. It's a poison. Cyanide.
Clinical trials conducted with it showed no benefit to people who had cancer and in some cases people ended up with cyanide poisoning.
Bottom line - no scientific documented evidence exists that laetrile works for those suffering from cancer.
American Cancer Society: Laetrile
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Laetrile.asp
"The side effects of laetrile treatment are like the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. These symptoms include:
Nausea and vomiting.
Headache.
Dizziness.
Blue color of the skin due to a lack of oxygen in the blood.
Liver damage.
Abnormally low blood pressure.
Droopy upper eyelid.
Trouble walking due to damaged nerves.
Fever.
Mental confusion.
Coma.
Death.
The side effects of laetrile appear to depend on the way it is given. More severe side effects develop when laetrile is given by mouth than when it is given by injection. These side effects may be increased by:
Eating raw almonds or crushed fruit pits.
Eating certain types of fruits and vegetables, including celery, peaches, bean sprouts, and carrots.
Taking high doses of vitamin C."
The one lady who advocated the legalization and use of laetrile, Maureen Salaman claimed that with its use no one would ever get cancer again. Ironically she died of pancreatic cancer . . guess it didn't work for her.
Quackwatch: The rise and fall of laetrile
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html
Wendy C
Laetrile
Other common name(s): amygdalin, vitamin B17
There is no reliable scientific evidence that Laetrile is effective in treating cancer or any other disease. It contains a small portion of cyanide, and several cases of cyanide poisoning have been linked to its use. The FDA has not approved Laetrile as a medical treatment in the United States.
In 1971, the FDA placed sanctions against the sale of Laetrile. In 1977, the FDA commissioner stated that there was no evidence for the safety or effectiveness of Laetrile. Because of the risk of cyanide poisoning, the government has banned the transport of Laetrile into the US or across state lines, as well as the use of Laetrile in states without laws specifically allowing it.
The use of Laetrile has been linked to cyanide toxicity and death in a few cases.
Description:
Laetrile is a purified form of amygdalin, a naturally occurring substance found mainly in the kernels of apricots, peaches, and almonds. The terms amygdalin and Laetrile are often used interchangeably. The name Laetrile is also used to describe a closely related, man-made substance. Laetrile is promoted as an alternative cancer treatment.
How is it promoted for use?
Supporters once called Laetrile "the perfect chemotherapeutic agent" since it was alleged to selectively kill cancer cells while being non-toxic to normal cells. Promoters claim that societies with diets rich in amygdalin, such as the Hunza and the Karakorum, are "cancer-free peoples." Supporters also say that Laetrile can prevent cancer from occurring and can help patients stay in remission. It is also promoted to provide pain relief to people with cancer. Other reported uses for Laetrile have been in the prevention and treatment of high blood pressure and arthritis.
There are 2 proposed explanations for how Laetrile works. Supporters claim that cancer cells have more of a certain enzyme in them which splits Laetrile molecules and releases the cyanide within it. This is said to cause the death of the cancer cells due to cyanide poisoning. Normal cells supposedly do not have as much of this enzyme, but instead have more of another enzyme that renders the Laetrile harmless. Therefore they are not affected. There is no reliable scientific evidence to support this claim.
The second theory is that cancer is really a "vitamin deficiency" and that Laetrile is the missing "vitamin B17." Laetrile does not meet the widely accepted scientific definition of a vitamin – it has not been proven to be essential to achieving or maintaining good health.
What does it involve?
Laetrile is most commonly extracted from apricot pits. There is also a man-made version of the substance whose chemical structure differs slightly.
It is usually taken as part of a metabolic therapy involving a specific diet with high doses of vitamins (see Metabolic Therapy). Although no standard treatment plan exists, a typical treatment consists of injecting Laetrile into a vein each day for 2 to 3 weeks, followed by taking oral tablets as a maintenance therapy. Laetrile is also used in enemas and in solutions applied directly to skin lesions.
Laetrile treatments may cost thousands of dollars per week. Laetrile is commonly used in some hospitals and clinics in northern Mexico because it is difficult to get in the United States.
What is the history behind it?
"Bitter almonds" have been used for thousands of years by cultures as diverse as the ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Pueblo Indians as a medical remedy. In 1802, a chemist discovered that the distillation of the water from bitter almonds released hydrocyanic acid. In the 1830s, the source of this hydrocyanic acid was purified and called amygdalin. It was thought to be the active ingredient in bitter almonds.
The current use of Laetrile can be directly attributed to the theories of Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., MD, first proposed in the 1920s. Krebs tested an extract from apricot pits to treat cancer, but the pills proved too toxic for human use.
Around 1952, his son, Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., modified the extraction process of amygdalin from apricot pits and named the product Laetrile. He claimed that the new extract was more potent as an anticancer drug than previously believed. So, what is actually used in Laetrile is amygdalin, and these terms are used interchangeably in many reports.
Beginning in 1957, Laetrile was repeatedly tested against tumor cells implanted in animals. At least a dozen separate sets of experiments were done at seven institutions. Targets included several different types of cancers. No anti-tumor activity was found in any of these studies with the use of Laetrile.
What is the evidence?
From the 1950s through the 1970s, Laetrile grew in popularity in the United States as an alternative treatment for cancer. For this reason, and despite the lack of scientific evidence that Laetrile was effective, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) studied it in 1978 through a retrospective case review. The NCI sent out letters to more than 400,000 doctors and other practitioners, asking them to submit positive results from cases involving Laetrile. While an estimated 75,000 people in the US had taken Laetrile, only 93 “positive” cases were submitted, and only 6 of these were found to have evidence of major tumor shrinkage.
A clinical trial of Laetrile was performed between 1979 and 1982 at medical centers around the country. About 175 patients with different types of cancer were treated with a commonly used regimen of Laetrile plus metabolic therapy. One patient had major tumor shrinkage, and all patients had their cancer grow within 8 months of starting treatment.
In contrast to the findings by the NCI, one of the leading proponents of Laetrile claims to have treated nearly 30,000 cancer patients in several studies of the drug with promising results. However, these results have not been reviewed nor repeated by the scientific medical community.
There is no reliable scientific evidence that Laetrile is an effective anti-cancer treatment, either in animal studies or in 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 anecdotal reports, testimonials, and publicity issued by promoters.
This treatment should be avoided by women who are pregnant or breast-feeding. Relying on this type of treatment alone, and avoiding conventional medical care, may have serious health consequences.
Please click on this link for more info: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Laetrile.asp
greydoc6
It is spelled Laetrile.
First of all, the promoters of Laetrile never submitted the drug to qualified medical centers for rigorous investigation. Instead, they stonewalled serious research, all the while claiming persecution by the FDA and other government authorities.
The track record of the FDA is far from perfect and recent news items suggest that they might be too close to certain big pharma companies. Nevertheless, they have had more than a modicum of success in keeping worthless nostrums off the market. The whole Laetrile story is too long to present here. You will find a vast number of articles on your search engine ranging from government conspiracy to fraud on the part of the promoters. Personally, I believe that Laetrile has no consistent anti-cancer therapeutic value and most responsible medical opinion supports this view. Ask yourself, why would the medical profession want to keep a legitimate therapeutic agent off the market? So we can make more money treating patients? That's so bogus.
spadesentrapment
I'll give the same answer I gave in another question about the same substance before it was blackballed by users (which doesn't surprise me because nobody wants to see the truth of any situation). The bottom line to Laetrile is yes, it does work, and no, it's not proven by "science" simply because if it was proven and they allowed it to be sold there would be no more chemo or radiation treatments. Chemo itself has a base of laetrile, that's where chemo is derived from... why would they put laetrile in Chemo drugs if it didn't work? Makes you say "hmmm..." doesn't it? Ask any oncologist about laetrile, they'll tell you to stay away from it, then ask them if it's in Chemo drugs, they'll tell you yes, then inject you with what they've told you to "stay away from". Chemotherapy drugs are one of the largest money making drugs for several pharma companies, if you took chemo from their stock many would be so devastated they would be forced to file bankruptcy, not to mention the oncologists, radiologists and surgeons that would instantly be out of work. My father had a very rare form of cancer, Nasopharyngeal carcinoma, rare here, but not in Asia. He was treated by three "specialists" who were highly regarded in their field here in St Louis (surgery, chemo and radiation), and they declared him in remission after treatment was over. He was "in remission" for a little over 3 years, then poof, its back, even though he did everything he was supposed to do (diet, exercise, vitamins). After much review, the "specialists" missed something major about his form of cancer... it has a very strong link to the virus Epstein-Barr (EBV). To make a long story short, my father went to Houston for a clinical study to rid his system of EBV, he chewed apricot seeds and took enzymes daily (enzymes are a must for anyone on Laetrile to break down the protein wall around the cancer cell) and he is now completely cancer free with no side effects from any drugs, simply because he did not take any conventional treatment for a cure. Apricot seeds has the highest concentration of Amygdalin (or as it's called Laetrile and B17) of any food on earth. Other foods that has trace Amygdalin include cherries, plums, apples, grits, spelt and most sprouts. Do you consume any of these foods? If so, have you died yet from the "dangerous" Amygdalin? Apple seeds are extremely good to consume because they have concentrated Amygdalin in them as well. Our entire family (more than 25 people in our family including aunts, uncles and cousins as well as both my parents and my wife) chew apricot seeds religiously, one for every 10 pounds of body weight as a preventative, and we've never been healthier. I think it's hilarious that some say (as one user put it in another thread) "it has cyanide in it!" True, but it's not that simple. The compound is cyanidic, however the cyanide IS NOT released until it meets a cancer cell, and at that time the cancer cell gobbles up the cyanide as it would sugar in your system, in effect, killing the cell, which your body then disposes of. If there is no cancer in your system, the cyanidic properties of the seed is flushed through your system, never released, no harm, no foul. ANYTHING can kill you if taken in huge doses, including the most consumed items including water. If you need proof that Laetrile/Amygdalin/B17 works (and a much better explanation than what I just gave!), and the cover-up behind the entire system, read "A World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin with an OPEN MIND. Forget everything you think you know, because it's true, I've lived it for years. The worst part of medicine is that it has taught the modern world that cancer is a tumor, which couldn't be further from the truth. It's a tumor, so we have to cut it out, or burn it out, or poison it! Cancer IS NOT a tumor, it is a immune abnormality in your system, and the tumor is a bi-product of that abnormality. Get rid of the tumor, get rid of the cancer? Sorry. It doesn't work, never has, and it never will. You have to get to the root of the problem, correct the underlying issues in your system to cure cancer, and yes, cancer can, and is, cured every single day in and out of this country. Just ask my father, and apparently, your mother, as well as the thousands of cancer patients cured every year by the use of Laetrile all.across the world. Are you honestly going to trust a health care system that is currently ranked 37th in the world, yet NUMBER ONE in health care COSTS? Not me, sorry. My family's health is too important to be left to some politician who decides what I can and cannot take in this "free" country of ours.
Homepage 
Health
Forum 
Cancer 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
