Pharmaceutical companies: The Democrat Big Oil Companies.

[magnifier661]

Apricot Seeds Cure Cancer

The Medical Mafia's Suppression

Since around 1920, practitioners of alternative cancer therapies and remedies and their messengers have been marginalized, harassed, imprisoned, and even killed. Federal agencies have been used to bring about bogus charges or IRS tax liens that are enforced by US Marshals the way Dr. Gary Glum was hassled for even writing books on Essiac Tea. See Natural News article "Essiac Tea: A Cancer Cure Big Pharma Doesn't Want You To Know About." http://www.naturalnews.com/026928_cancer_Essiac_Tea_health.html.

A young Brooklyn man, Jason Vale, was imprisoned because he refused to stop telling others on TV and in lectures how he cured himself of cancer using those nasty apricot pit kernels! Jason is a more recent public example of the Medical Mafia's grip on the legal system regarding B17. Laetrile, which is non toxic, was banned by the FDA in 1971.

Shortly after the 1971 laetrile ban, a practicing physician in San Francisco, Dr. John Richardson, who had been using laetrile successfully on cancer patients, came to his friend G. Edward Griffin, a published investigative journalist, and asked Griffin if he could write up something to help him and others continue using laetrile on their cancer patients.

G. Edward Griffin's research evolved into his groundbreaking book, World Without Cancer. This book not only explained laetrile and chronicled several cancer cures, but Griffin's investigative nose led him down the rabbit hole and into the underbelly of the cancer industry's efforts at keeping alternative cancer cures from the light of day. That's how he discovered that the Sloane-Kettering Cancer Institute had buried documentation from scientists' research, which proved laetrile was "highly effective" at curing cancer.

Griffin received those documents himself from a Dr. Ralph Moss, who had been told to cover up that evidence and claim that laetrile was worthless. He refused and left his position as PR manager with Sloane-Kettering. Since that time in 1977, Dr. Ralph Moss has gone on to write or edit several books on cancer cure options. It's always encouraging to see an insider come out! Someone else filled Dr. Moss's vacant position and lied the lies about laetrile that filled the medical journals.

And what about those medical journals? Lately, the most prestigious New England Journal of Medicine dropped its standard of not allowing articles contributed to the journal from anyone who was receiving money from Big Pharma, as long as it's less than 10 grand annually. If they didn't drop that standard, there wouldn't be enough articles to fill the journal! Of course, most medical journals are glossy ad forums for Big Pharma anyway.

Both G. Edward Griffin with World Without Cancer and Phillip Day in his book Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth, make it very clear that the cancer industry does not really want a cure. Even non-profit organizations get millions in donations from the brainwashed, huddled masses along with funding for promoting Big Pharma. A non-profit organization can and will have key people working for 6 figure plus annual salaries, by the way.

Doctors mostly do as they are trained and told; medical journals contain false reports and lies. Cancer foundations have breast cancer months or whatever as PR to get people into the disease industry's money mill as early as possible, and at the top, there is Big Pharma. It's all about money and career. Not about public health and "The War on Cancer."

So far in mainstream medicine, it's been a losing battle with more getting cancer than ever. Around 1 out of 3 is destined to get cancer these days, and more are dying from cancer after conventional treatments. Talk about pandemics! All this with lots of cash going their way, enabling some to live a lush lifestyle and others hanging on to their comfy, secure jobs at the expense of our health.

Meanwhile, too many true humanitarian doctors and herbalists and writers concerned with the truth wind up being treated like criminals or nut cases, sometimes with their lives destroyed. That's tragic. And so is the fact that millions suffer and die while being conditioned against using effective and less painless procedures.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/027088_cancer_laetrile_cure.html#ixzz2CKcNfb00

It amazes me that the pharmaceutical companies have such pull in the government. I would say the oil companies have the GOP and the Pharma's have the Dems by the balls.

 

[magnifier661]

Well anyway; you can cure cancer with eating the nuts in the pits of apricots. Just FYI...

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Well anyway; you can cure cancer with eating the nuts in the pits of apricots. Just FYI...

Link?

 

[magnifier661]

Link?

http://www.1cure4allcancer.com/world_without_cancer_video.html

 

[Further]

Just bullshit. I work on cancer research, and people up here die from cancer at the same rate as those in the general public. If we were all hiding these cures, don't you think we might break them out when our daughter got cancer? Oh, and by the way, this is just off memory so I could be wrong, but I think there is cyanide in apricot pits and if ingested regularly can weaken the immune system, a bad thing while trying to fight cancer.

 

[Haakzilla]

...apricots are just the tip of the iceberg. There is a litany of "alternative" remedies that can be used for all sorts of ailments - Western medicine is a sham. Cannabis kills certain cancers and shrinks tumors, go figure.

[video=youtube;9cUC8tjoB_0]

 

[magnifier661]

Just bullshit. I work on cancer research, and people up here die from cancer at the same rate as those in the general public. If we were all hiding these cures, don't you think we might break them out when our daughter got cancer? Oh, and by the way, this is just off memory so I could be wrong, but I think there is cyanide in apricot pits and if ingested regularly can weaken the immune system, a bad thing while trying to fight cancer.

Yes it does; but is attached on a molecular form not poisonous to the human body. You should actually look it up. And just because you are in the group "spearheading the cancer research"; doesn't mean the truth is out there. Don't you think it's a bit fishy that there was a toxicology report done on apricot seeds and passed the LD50; yet there isn't a actual medical study made on the this theory? I do....

 

[magnifier661]

...apricots are just the tip of the iceberg. There is a litany of "alternative" remedies that can be used for all sorts of ailments - Western medicine is a sham. Cannabis kills certain cancers and shrinks tumors, go figure.

[video=youtube;9cUC8tjoB_0]

Cannabinoids are known to kill cancer cells. That's a fact!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

the more alarming trend is pumping our kids full of sugar and caffeine and then drugging them at 5 years old because they are too hyper

to the delight of big pharma

 

[Denny Crane]

Just bullshit. I work on cancer research, and people up here die from cancer at the same rate as those in the general public. If we were all hiding these cures, don't you think we might break them out when our daughter got cancer? Oh, and by the way, this is just off memory so I could be wrong, but I think there is cyanide in apricot pits and if ingested regularly can weaken the immune system, a bad thing while trying to fight cancer.

There was a big craze at one point (1970s?) where people with cancer would leave the country to get apricot based treatment overseas or in south america. If you have no hope for a medical cure, I suppose it can't hurt to try anything else. But I do remember the cure rate for the apricot treatments was near zero.

 

[magnifier661]

BTW... The cyanide is explained here.

[video=youtube;_j8sVdI4-_M]

 

[Further]

I don't want to talk on the actual subject of apricots or any specific "cure" since I have not researched the subject.

But, I do think there is a misunderstanding that many have regarding how "alternative" medications are viewed by researchers and doctors. First, doctors because I think that is easier. Dr's for the most part just only prescribe what the read about and what they have cover from in case of a law suit. First they are only exposed to medications that have FDA approval, so that limits most alternatives. Second, they will not prescribe what they can not defend in court so that removes most alternative cures.

Now, onto researchers. We want to see proof, or at least very strong evidence of proof. A small handful of cases that happened outside of a controllable environment does not provide evidence. That does not mean the alternative does not work. Just that it has not been sufficiently vetted. If there is a bunch of circumstantial evidence then there will be some researcher who eventually will look into the subject, but it often takes a long time for several reasons. First, most researchers are already working on something and they are not going to put down what they believe to be a worthy endeavor to chase something new. Second, money. It costs a hell of a lot of money to research a topic and in order to get funding you have to already have some evidence that the area is worth continued funding. For that reason, you will see that most researchers projects are similar to their last one or at least based in part off of some discovery from their previous research.
Now, where you are correct is that there are certain subjects that are hot and ones that are not, and if you pursue one that is not, you will likely not get funding and will be out of research before too long. This is not a conspiracy. It is based on where reviewers think the best use of money is. If there have been breakthroughs in certain areas very recently, then that area will become hot. If there is not an interest then the reviewers they won’t see the importance of the project and the grant will not get funding.

By the way, I do know someone who died while taking alternative and homeopathic cures to cancer instead of going through chemo. When you hear about someone who lived, remember that others have died and that remission happens sometimes for no known reason. Just because someone lives does not mean that whatever process they followed was the cause. One last thing, all cancers are different and will likely take different types of treatments.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't want to talk on the actual subject of apricots or any specific "cure" since I have not researched the subject.

But, I do think there is a misunderstanding that many have regarding how "alternative" medications are viewed by researchers and doctors. First, doctors because I think that is easier. Dr's for the most part just only prescribe what the read about and what they have cover from in case of a law suit. First they are only exposed to medications that have FDA approval, so that limits most alternatives. Second, they will not prescribe what they can not defend in court so that removes most alternative cures.

Now, onto researchers. We want to see proof, or at least very strong evidence of proof. A small handful of cases that happened outside of a controllable environment does not provide evidence. That does not mean the alternative does not work. Just that it has not been sufficiently vetted. If there is a bunch of circumstantial evidence then there will be some researcher who eventually will look into the subject, but it often takes a long time for several reasons. First, most researchers are already working on something and they are not going to put down what they believe to be a worthy endeavor to chase something new. Second, money. It costs a hell of a lot of money to research a topic and in order to get funding you have to already have some evidence that the area is worth continued funding. For that reason, you will see that most researchers projects are similar to their last one or at least based in part off of some discovery from their previous research.
Now, where you are correct is that there are certain subjects that are hot and ones that are not, and if you pursue one that is not, you will likely not get funding and will be out of research before too long. This is not a conspiracy. It is based on where reviewers think the best use of money is. If there have been breakthroughs in certain areas very recently, then that area will become hot. If there is not an interest then the reviewers they won’t see the importance of the project and the grant will not get funding.

By the way, I do know someone who died while taking alternative and homeopathic cures to cancer instead of going through chemo. When you hear about someone who lived, remember that others have died and that remission happens sometimes for no known reason. Just because someone lives does not mean that whatever process they followed was the cause. One last thing, all cancers are different and will likely take different types of treatments.

Was curious if you actually saw that video I posted. There is the scientific theory that explains how vitamin B17 attacks the cancer cells. It's a little ironic because you talked about cyanide being poisonous. This video explains how that poison only attacks the cancer cells and leaves others unscathed.

 

[mobes23]

I work at an oncology focused biotech and can assure you that a cure for cancer is very much the focus of everyone involved, from the top down in my company, as well as the many HCPs (that'd be health care providers, not our own forum HCP) and organizations we work with that are also trying to cure cancer. If this thread wasn't so ridiculous, I'd be offended.

First off, keep in mind that you can't make claims about an oncology product unless you present the FDA with very strong evidence of efficacy (generally placebo controlled & blinded trials) and acceptable risk profiles. My company fairly recently got a type of conditional approval from the FDA to market an oncology drug and the submission required approximately one million pages worth of documents. In other words, it's a high bar to get approval and for good reason...there are all sorts of snake oil stories in our history. If you're sick, don't you want some assurance that the claims made about your medicine have solid empirical grounding? You can argue whether the FDA is too tough or not, but I can guarantee you that it's not easy on biotechs -- you have to do your work and then some to get approved. And until you're approved, you'd better not be making wild claims.

Doctors do what they're told? Now that's a funny one. Especially when you're talking about MDs at big research institutions. Any that I've met are very passionate about treating their patients, frequently coupled with at least some god complex in them and they are very willing to be creative. Dr. House would be a better approximation than what you suggest. Also, peach pits would be a passe example...I've heard of all sorts of different chemicals taken from nature and used as potential therapies. Scorpion venom and extracts from sea slugs are a couple of the more interesting ones.

I have no idea about the alleged cover up at MSK, but the story sounds pretty fishy to me. The idea that any researcher would allow their extremely positive results to be hidden and the idea that a research institution would want to hide positive data don't match anything I've experienced.

 

[magnifier661]

I work at an oncology focused biotech and can assure you that a cure for cancer is very much the focus of everyone involved, from the top down in my company, as well as the many HCPs (that'd be health care providers, not our own forum HCP) and organizations we work with that are also trying to cure cancer. If this thread wasn't so ridiculous, I'd be offended.

First off, keep in mind that you can't make claims about an oncology product unless you present the FDA with very strong evidence of efficacy (generally placebo controlled & blinded trials) and acceptable risk profiles. My company fairly recently got a type of conditional approval from the FDA to market an oncology drug and the submission required approximately one million pages worth of documents. In other words, it's a high bar to get approval and for good reason...there are all sorts of snake oil stories in our history. If you're sick, don't you want some assurance that the claims made about your medicine have solid empirical grounding? You can argue whether the FDA is too tough or not, but I can guarantee you that it's not easy on biotechs -- you have to do your work and then some to get approved. And until you're approved, you'd better not be making wild claims.

Doctors do what they're told? Now that's a funny one. Especially when you're talking about MDs at big research institutions. Any that I've met are very passionate about treating their patients, frequently coupled with at least some god complex in them and they are very willing to be creative. Dr. House would be a better approximation than what you suggest. Also, peach pits would be a passe example...I've heard of all sorts of different chemicals taken from nature and used as potential therapies. Scorpion venom and extracts from sea slugs are a couple of the more interesting ones.

I have no idea about the alleged cover up at MSK, but the story sounds pretty fishy to me. The idea that any researcher would allow their extremely positive results to be hidden and the idea that a research institution would want to hide positive data don't match anything I've experienced.

Yes the article is a little bias; but the concept is sound. Also, the pharma companies are corrupt. Just because liberals see them as some messiah or something; they see no evil. Guess the same could be said about oil companies and the GOP. With that said; both sides are equally corrupt. And both sides have great opportunities to move forward and use nature to heal, instead of synthesizing everything.

Example of big oil companies that should invest in bio diesel. With little cost in algae ponds and small refinement reactors; you can make renewable fuel for fractions of the cost. Yet, because the profits from oil are so high; the companies try their best to retard any new development that doesn't give high revenue return for the industry.

 

[Further]

I have no idea about the alleged cover up at MSK, but the story sounds pretty fishy to me. The idea that any researcher would allow their extremely positive results to be hidden and the idea that a research institution would want to hide positive data don't match anything I've experienced.

Very good post.

I just wanted to add a personal tidbit. My father was a scientist, a professor, and a department chair at a university. He estimated that he would have made 3 to 5 times as much money guaranteed had he taken his skills to the private sector, with the potential for much more. People like him are never going to be silenced if they thought there were a cure that was being overlooked. They do what they do because they believe what they are doing. And the same goes for almost everyone in both the public and private sector. Nobody wants the deaths of millions on their hands.

 

[Further]

Was curious if you actually saw that video I posted. There is the scientific theory that explains how vitamin B17 attacks the cancer cells. It's a little ironic because you talked about cyanide being poisonous. This video explains how that poison only attacks the cancer cells and leaves others unscathed.

I watched the first 85 seconds before they were saying things proven to be incorrect. I stopped watching.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Nobody wants the deaths of millions on their hands.

not true, people can always justify atrocities as somehow for the greater good

 

[mobes23]

Yes the article is a little bias; but the concept is sound. Also, the pharma companies are corrupt. Just because liberals see them as some messiah or something; they see no evil. Guess the same could be said about oil companies and the GOP. With that said; both sides are equally corrupt. And both sides have great opportunities to move forward and use nature to heal, instead of synthesizing everything.

Example of big oil companies that should invest in bio diesel. With little cost in algae ponds and small refinement reactors; you can make renewable fuel for fractions of the cost. Yet, because the profits from oil are so high; the companies try their best to retard any new development that doesn't give high revenue return for the industry.

I don't get the democrat/pharma correlation -- at least in Washington state, both republican and democratic gubernatorial candidates said they solidly support biotechs at a WBBA breakfast right before the election. At the FDA level, I can't say I've seen much of a difference between Bush and Obama. It's never occurred to me to think of biotechs as being in bed with the democratic party or either party for that matter. I guess maybe democrats are more likely to fund basic research? That's all I can think but that's a pretty indirect link to big pharma.

How exactly are pharma companies corrupt? I can assure you that the FDA heavily fines any company that sells outside it's label, especially big pharma. Pharma doesn't impede development of other companies, unless maybe patent infringement is an issue. If anything pharma feeds on biotech companies because biotechs are better at developing new technologies. While it's annoying that pharma keeps acquiring good young biotechs, you can't call that corruption...it's their way of keeping their pipeline full. Perfectly legal M&A.

If there's a bug in the drug development system, it's that it doesn't make financial sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get a drug approved if the drug is off patent. I recently saw a presentation in which the speaker said that it takes $700 million to get a drug approved. Obviously, that's a rough number that could go up or down depending on the type of drug. Regardless, who's going to pony up that kind of money if they can't get patent protection? You better not answer the government, because even a lefty like me knows that's not the answer. Research institutions are great at research, but they also aren't the answer because they wouldn't know how to get a drug approved, manufactured and sold commercially. I know the Gates Foundation, PATH and the Infectious Disease Research institute pretty well, but those are focused on infectious disease and not oncology. If they were, I could imagine they could put something together akin to the malaria vaccine initiative structure, but that's not their focus. So who is the champion that will do all the work and spend all the money needed to get that peach pit through FDA approval? I don't think it's corruption that's the problem, it just doesn't pencil out purely in terms of being a business model.

Maybe the cancer advocacy groups would be willing to fund something like that, but they're still early in the process of being that kind of entity (interesting article: http://www.xconomy.com/national/201...-in-drug-rd-are-wearing-fluorescent-t-shirts/)

Just to put a little more color around that $700 million number -- keep in mind that most drug candidates fail. You might put a lot of money into developing the peach pit, only to find that it doesn't work. I've seen a lot of well designed therapies fall flat on their face -- you truly can't know how a drug will work until you get it into the clinic. In other words, it takes A LOT of money to eventually hit gold.

Last thing, cancer mortality is not going up. Page two of this ACS report (http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/co...rveilance/documents/document/acspc-031941.pdf) has a nice figure showing cancer mortality changes over the years. Even lung cancer is starting to drop, as people give up smoking (c'mon, Mags! you need to give up those cigs!) We have a long way to go in dealing with cancer, in all its forms, but we are making progress. Instead of plastics, targeted therapies, son, get into targeted therapies.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

APRICOTS.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Cannabinoids are known to kill cancer cells. That's a fact!

Tell that to Bob Marley

 

[magnifier661]

Tell that to Bob Marley

LOL didn't you know the CIA killed him by sticking a radio-active wire in his boot that caused his cancer?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

It's all crystals and shit.

 

[Further]

It's all ball bearings these days

 

[BlazerCaravan]

It's all ball bearings these days

Plastics, son. Plastics!

 

[Haakzilla]

...get your learn on:

http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/06/fda-cancer-industry-prevent-cure.html

[video=youtube;gWLrfNJICeM]

[video=youtube;wvzDHGLEUyw]

[video=youtube;WnaBG177VIw]

[video=vimeo;24821365]

[video=youtube;0psJhQHk_GI]

[video=youtube;sbIixJI_oa4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbIixJI_oa4[/video]

 

[Haakzilla]

...looks like Cuba is leading the way -- I suppose that will happen when illiteracy is illegal!

Cuba creates four anti-cancer vaccines, media ignores it

That Cuba has already developed four vaccines or inoculations against different types of cancer is without doubt important news for humanity. The World Health Organisation says each year about 8 million people die from this illness.

However, the international mainstream media have almost totally ignored this news.

Last year, Cuba patented the first therapeutic vaccine against advanced lung cancer in the world, called CIMAVAX-EGF. In January, the second one, called Racotumomab, was announced.

Clinical testing in 86 countries shows that these vaccines, although they don’t cure the illness, do managed to reduce tumours and allow for a stable stage of the illness, thereby increasing hope and quality of life.

--> READ MORE