Although the NCI mailing had not been designed to uncover negative case reports,
220
physicians submitted data on more than 1,000 patients who had received Laetrile
without
any beneficial response.

In July 1980, the NCI undertook clinical trials of 178 cancer patients who
received
Laetrile, vitamins and enzymes at the Mayo Clinic and three other prominent
cancer
centers. The study included patients for whom no other treatment had been
effective or
for whom no proven treatment was known. All patients had tumor masses that could
easily
be measured, but most of the patients were in good physical condition. Since
Laetrile
proponents were unable to agree on the formula or testing protocol for Laetrile,
NCI
decided to use a preparation that corresponded to the
substance distributed by the major Mexican supplier, American Biologics. The
preparation
was supplied by the NCI Pharmaceutical Resources Branch and verified by a
variety of
tests. The dosage of Laetrile was based on the published recommendations of
Krebs, Jr., and the Bradford Foundation.

The results of the trial were clear-cut. Not one patient was cured or even
stabilized.
The median survival rate was 4.8 months from the start of therapy, and in those
still
alive after seven months, tumor size had increased. This was the expected result
for
patients receiving no treatment at all. In addition, several patients
experienced
symptoms of cyanide toxicity or had blood levels of cyanide approaching the
lethal range [6]. An
accompanying editorial concluded:

Laetrile has had its day in court. The evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, is
that it
doesn't benefit patients with advanced cancer, and there is no reason to believe
that it
would be any more effective in the earlier stages of the disease . . . The time
has come
to close the books. [7]

Classy indeed

Approved in Mexico? Impressive

So much for laetrile and other various "quack cures" that he wrote about.
Jhttp://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_243/ai_109946497
Dr. Robert A. Good, MD, PhD, a celebrated cancer researcher, died on June 13,
2003 at the age of 81, after a long battle with esophageal cancer.

Quite, quite mad..........

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html
23. They Claim They Are Being Persecuted by Orthodox Medicine
and That Their Work Is Being Suppressed Because It's Controversial.

The "conspiracy charge" is an attempt to gain sympathy by portraying the quack
as an "underdog." Quacks typically claim that the American Medical Association
is against them because their cures would cut into the incomes that doctors make
by keeping people sick. Don't fall for such nonsense! Reputable physicians are
plenty busy. Moreover, many doctors engaged in prepaid health plans, group
practice, full-time teaching, and government service receive the same salary
whether or not their patients are sick—so keeping their patients healthy reduces
their workload, not their income.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quacksell.html
How Quackery Sells (read it all please)

This is just an excerpt
Handling the Opposition

Quacks are involved in a constant struggle with legitimate health care
providers, mainstream scientists, government regulatory agencies and consumer
protection groups. Despite the strength of this science-based opposition,
quackery manages to flourish. To maintain their credibility, quacks use a
variety of clever propaganda ploys. Here are some favorites:

"They persecuted Galileo!" The history of science is laced with instances where
great pioneers and their discoveries were met with resistance. Harvey (nature of
blood circulation), Lister (antiseptic technique) and Pasteur (germ theory) are
notable examples. Today's quack boldly asserts that he is another example of
someone ahead of his time. Close examination, however, will show how unlikely
this is. First of all, the early pioneers who were persecuted lived during times
that were much less scientific. In some cases, opposition to their ideas stemmed
from religious forces. Secondly, it is a basic principle of the scientific
method that the burden of proof belongs to the proponent of a claim. The ideas
of Galileo, Harvey, Lister and Pasteur overcame their opposition because their
soundness can be demonstrated.

A related ploy, which is a favorite with cancer quacks, is the charge of
"conspiracy." How can we be sure that the AMA, the FDA, the American Cancer
Society, drug companies and others are not involved in some monstrous plot to
withhold a cancer cure from the public? To begin with, history reveals no such
practice in the past. The elimination of serious diseases is not a threat to the
medical profession -- doctors prosper by curing diseases, not by keeping people
sick. It should also be apparent that modern medical technology has not altered
the zeal of scientists to eliminate disease. When polio was conquered, iron
lungs became virtually obsolete, but nobody resisted this advancement because it
would force hospitals to change. Neither will medical scientists mourn the
eventual defeat of cancer. Moreover, how could a conspiracy to withhold a cancer
cure hope to be successful? Many physicians die of cancer each year. Do you
believe that the vast majority of doctors would conspire to withhold a cure for
a disease which affects them, their colleagues and their loved ones? To be
effective, a conspiracy would have to be worldwide. If laetrile, for example,
really worked, many other nations' scientists would soon realize it.

Claims of "suppression" are used to market publications as well as treatments.
Many authors and publishers purport to offer information that your doctor, the
AMA, and/or government agencies "don't want you to know about."

Organized quackery poses its opposition to medical science as a "philosophical
conflict" or "paradigm shift," rather than a clash between proven versus
unproven or fraudulent methods. This creates the illusion of a "holy war" rather
than a conflict that could be resolved by examining the facts. Another
diversionary tactic is to charge that quackery's critics are biased or have been
bought off by drug companies.

Quacks like to charge that, "Science doesn't have all the answers." That's true,
but it doesn't claim to have them. Rather, it is a rational and responsible
process that can answer many questions -- including whether procedures are safe
and effective for their intended purpose. It is quackery that constantly claims
to have answers for incurable diseases. The idea that people should turn to
quack remedies when frustrated by science's inability to control a disease is
irrational. Science may not have all the answers, but quackery has no answers at
all! It will take your money and break your heart.

Many treatments advanced by the scientific community are later shown to be
unsafe or worthless. Doctors also make mistakes. Such failures become grist for
organized quackery's public relations mill in its ongoing attack on science.
Actually, "failures" reflect a key element of science: its willingness to test
its methods and beliefs and abandon those shown to be invalid. True medical
scientists have no philosophical commitment to particular treatment approaches,
only a commitment to develop and use methods that are safe and effective for an
intended purpose. When a quack remedy flunks a scientific test, its proponents
merely reject the test.

Each of these ploys represents a basic technique called misdirection --
analogous to what magicians do to shift the audience's attention away from what
is important in order to deceive them. When faced with a criticism they cannot
meet head on, quacks simply change the topic.

How to Avoid Being Tricked

The best way to avoid being tricked is to stay away from tricksters."
J

You sure spread it as you make it up don't you.

Grateful to be back.

Eddie MD OTF

Tell us, how often have you been cured from cancer?  How often have you had
cancer?  There of those of us who have managed to live from it, and react
favorably to treatments.  Have you?  What authority do you have to address us,
other than the bottom end of your alimentary canal?

Grateful to be back.

Eddie MD OTF

Almost all yout alternatives have been disproven. Use the archives to reread
Peter Moran's post.
I know you saw it because you're in the thread on that discussion.
*tip for you for searching archives" type disproven and unproven and Peter
Moran as the author.

And see Steph's "Questions to Ask"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.cancer/msg/1b25021ba108fca1?hl=e
n&lr=&ie=UTF-8

J