Why are Laetrile and many other substances used in alternative-cancer therapy not readily available in the U.S.?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

JOHN - 24 Mar 2008 14:05 GMT

[Neat isn't it.]

http://whale.to/a/clinical_trials.html

Why are Laetrile and many other substances used in alternative-cancer
therapy not readily available in the U.S.? The short answer is that these
substances are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The full
answer, however, is a bit more complex. The reason they do not carry
approval is that they have not undergone the extensive FDA testing that all
new drugs must pass before being approved for common use. That's the law in
the United States. This process takes years of research work, requires tens
of thousands of pages of reports, and costs hundreds of millions of dollars.
The only firms that can afford this are large pharmaceutical companies. Not
even they will undertake such expense unless they can eventually make a
profit through sales, and that means they must obtain a patent on the
substance being tested. However, substances found in nature cannot be
patented, only man-made chemicals and processes can. Since Laetrile and many
other substances used in alternative-cancer treatments are found in nature,
they cannot be patented. That means they will never be tested according to
FDA protocol. Consequently, they will never be officially approved no matter
how effective they may be. That is why you often hear it said that
alternative cancer therapies are "unproven." That is a very misleading
statement. They may not have been proven by FDA protocol, but many of them
definitely have been proven as both safe and effective by actual clinical
experience in the treatment of thousands of cancer patients. Unfortunately,
until the laws are changed, the only officially approved substances we will
ever have for the treatment of cancer in the United States are man-made,
patented chemicals! G. Edward Griffin,

Reply to this Message

D. C. Sessions - 24 Mar 2008 15:34 GMT

For the same reason that Thalidomide was never available
in the United States. Goose, gander.

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |

+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

Reply to this Message

csm7532@hotmail.com - 24 Mar 2008 20:30 GMT

> For the same reason that Thalidomide was never available
> in the United States. Goose, gander.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
> +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

<newsgroups fixed>
Never? I may be being a bit pedantic here, but it has been available
in the U.S., and is now available here.

As for his claims about "natural" treatments, I believe he is
factually correct but irrelevant. Cobra venom is a natural substance,
and can't be patented. It has never undergone rigorous clinical
trials as a cancer treatment. While it may not exactly *cure* cancer,
I'm sure there are cases where it has prevented a person from *dying*
of cancer. Despite all this, I'm glad I went with the unpleasant,
toxic FOLFOX6m treatment.

---
CSM

Reply to this Message

Mark Probert - 30 Mar 2008 16:09 GMT

> [Neat isn't it.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> of thousands of pages of reports, and costs hundreds of millions of dollars.
> The only firms that can afford this are large pharmaceutical companies.

> even they will undertake such expense unless they can eventually make a
> profit through sales, and that means they must obtain a patent on the
> substance being tested. However, substances found in nature cannot be
> patented, only man-made chemicals and processes can.

OOPS! Not true. Treatment protocols can be patented. Geier did so with
his chemical castration for autistic kids protocol.

Since Laetrile and many

> other substances used in alternative-cancer treatments are found in nature,
> they cannot be patented. That means they will never be tested according to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> ever have for the treatment of cancer in the United States are man-made,
> patented chemicals! G. Edward Griffin,

If he is wrong on the fundamentals, the conclusions must be wrong.

Reply to this Message

D. C. Sessions - 30 Mar 2008 16:51 GMT

> If he is wrong on the fundamentals, the conclusions must be wrong.

No. That's the logical equivalent of assuming the converse.
You can get correct answers from wrong assumptions:
"Leap years are always rainy, this is a leap year, therefore
this is a rainy spring." Well, it's a rainy spring anyway.

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |

+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

Reply to this Message

Jan Drew - 01 Apr 2008 04:04 GMT

On Mar 24, 9:11 am, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

> [Neat isn't it.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> dollars.
> The only firms that can afford this are large pharmaceutical companies.

OOPS! Incorrect. NCCAM wil fund a wel designed study, so long as the
study will be published. The purveyors of Laetrile arfe afraid of
that, since no previousd well designed study has shown efrficacy.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
Markster, Markster.....................ROTFLOL!!!!!

Would you like to tell all again how it was not you who emailed me??

Dear Mrs. Drew:

I am using email to you since I do not wish to participate in Usenet. I
trust that you ****wil**** respect this. I ****wil**** not email you again,
except to
forward to you other emails that Rosenthal has sent to me. She had the
unmitigated gall to actually post this email to a webpage, which she
acknowledges, and has since removed. She had the nerve to post my place of
employment in the newsgroups and on that webpage.

Frankly, I am tired of your constant blaming Mark for everything that
Rosenthal has done to him. This email was sent to ME, not him, by her. He
had warned her several times not to do so, but, she went ahead and emailed
me. I have spoken with some of Mark's friends in government law enforcement,
and they tell me that this can be construed as stalking behavior, since I
have never had contact with her.

Let me be blunt: I have been fully aware of Mark's activities from day one
as we share ****verything**** in our relationship. He has NEVER posted as
Will
Ketcher, and we have not had an AOL account for a long time. However,
Rosenthal persists in accusing him.

Let me clear up this issue Mark's attempt to infiltrate her email list. He
has never denied doing so, and has clearly stated his reasons, which
Rosenthal rejects. When he mentioned that our younger son was about to have
surgery he began receiving some very nasty email which sounded quite a bit
like Rosenthal. I read them, and know that they were hate filled and
mirrored her usual verbiage. Some of them actually wished ill to our son.
Remember, I am an English teacher and I spend hours a day reading students'
work. I also felt that they could have originated with people who were
affiliated with her.

Mark was deeply offended by some of the statements in these emails, and he
attempted to locate the senders, but was unsuccessful. He then decided to
try to read her group to see if he could identify the offending individuals.
As you know, she found out what he did, and posted a message to that effect.
Mark ****immeidatrely**** acknowledged what he did, and expressed his
reasons,
which she denied and said that we never received such email, even though she
had absolutely no way of reading his email inbox.

You have been ****concistently****wrong about Mark, and even more
consistently
wrong about Mark. I have read many instances where it was clear that you did
not ***udnerstand**** what he was saying. Now that you do not read his full
messages (many times you respond to something that has been severely edited)
or his replies, you are making assumptions based on less than all the facts.
If you were my student, you would get an F.

When I first received this email I was very upset by her actions, and I
wanted to file complaints with Hotmail, RoadRunner and GoDaddy, her website
host. Mark talked me out of it, as he does not think that such actions
****wil***
***lhelp**** her. In fact, he is convinced that she ****wil**** become even
more abusive
and obsessed with "enemies." You know that I have every right to make such
complaints.

Several of my students have used her website about Mark in their
****wrtiings****
in my senior honors writing seminar. Another group has used Rosenthal in a
debate in my senior debating class. They used her to demonstrate that the
First Amendment, which is posted in Mark's study, protects even the most
vile people. I gave them an A.

I trust that this helps you get a better perspective on Mark, and on
Rosenthal.

As I said above, I will not email you again, but I will forward all of her
current messages to me.

If you wish to respond to me, please do so at SandraProb...@hotmail.com. I
am using my professional email address simply because that is the address
Rosenthal used.

Sandra Probert

________________________________

SPro...@nycboe.net

Not

OOPS! Not true. Treatment protocols can be patented. Geier did so with
his chemical castration for autistic kids protocol.

Since Laetrile and many

> other substances used in alternative-cancer treatments are found in
> nature,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> ever have for the treatment of cancer in the United States are man-made,
> patented chemicals! G. Edward Griffin,

If he is wrong on the fundamentals, the conclusions must be wrong.

Reply to this Message