It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What the FDA doesn't want you to know

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:52 PM
I will be the first to surrender that those are intangibles I don't have a frame of reference. However, I was under the impression that the FDA hides the fact that Vitiman C is the safest deterrant to getting cancer, considering cancer can't survice in an oxogen enriched environment. True? AAC

[edit on 28-3-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:57 PM
How can the FDA "hide" the vitamin's abilities when it is not their job to publish those abilities? The FDA, as much as I understand your government, is meant to analyze proposed food or drug substances for safety and suggest maximum dietary amounts. They are not meant to catalogue every possible use of every vitamin, mineral, drug, and food. They don't list the fact that chocolate helps headaches, but that's because it's not their job. Same goes for vitamin C.


posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:09 PM
You're right about not knowing our givernement. The cronyism and special interest lined in our polital agendas in the US have ulterior motives in all matters concerning to money. If the american people would to find out that they could prevent cancer "in a sense" with nutrients and suppliments, they lose BILLIONS of dollars in phamecutical sales, plus the millions of dollars in campaign donations. I would think that you in your education would entertain such foilbles in our evasive politican scene. h-hazette-blog/fda-hides-benzene-find-in-softdrinks-from-consumers

The Vitamin C Connection
Vitamin C is a "natural" HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor.
  • It was observed experimentally that when vitamin C levels are low, cholesterol becomes elevated, and when more vitamin C is consumed, cholesterol levels decline. The mechanism by which vitamin C lowers cholesterol was discovered circa 1985. High Vitamin C levels inhibit the same the HMG-CoA Reductase enzyme as the statin drugs. The inescapable conclusion is that vitamin C does what statins do - lowers cholesterol -- without side-effects. If the statin drugs were patterned after Vitamin C, they lack many other benefits of the vitamin. For example, vitamin C promotes the production of coenzyme Q10 and lowers Lp(a).
    It is interesting that in addition to vitamin C, our bodies require many B vitamins to synthesize CoQ10. Voluminous research has found beneficial effects from ascorbic acid supplementation similar to the effects found from smaller dose CoQ10 supplementation. For example, in a recent study, hydro soluble CoQ10 supplementation was shown to lower circulating levels of Lp(a). We speculate that some of these similar effects may be due to increased endogenous CoQ10 synthesis induced by the ascorbic acid along with generally better all around nutrition.
    Every human body makes up to 500 mg of CoQ10 daily; no human body can make vitamin C. As important as CoQ10 is for health, vitamin C is more important, perhaps an order of magnitude. That fact is that most mammals synthesize ten times more vitamin C than they do CoQ10, when adjusted for body weight. Under normal circumstances the daily amount of ascorbic acid produced by mammals lies between 3,000 mg and 15,000 mg, with an average of 5,400 mg, when adjusted for comparison to the weight of the average male human being.
    We conclude that everyone should supplement 3,000 mg to 6,000mg vitamin C daily from birth, including during pregnancy. On the other hand, healthy, well-nourished children will usually synthesize their own CoQ10. With the possible exception of athletes, persons taking vitamin C should not have to supplement CoQ10 until the fourth or fifth decade of life. Athletes have a high requirement for CoQ10 and may benefit from supplementation earlier in life.

    Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

    [edit on 28/3/2006 by Mirthful Me]

    posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:21 PM
    You're missing my point. The FDA is not a research facility, nor is it an organization geared towards finding cures in any way. It's mission statement is:

    The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.

    See? The FDA is not funded or aimed at finding cures. They are meant to act as a check and balance for new drugs and foods being produced, and find the most efficient ways of funding efficiency projects. No where in their mission statement does it say "develop new drugs, find cures, develop vaccines, profit from sales of drugs" etc.


    posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:29 PM

    They are meant to act as a check and balance for new drugs and foods being produced, and find the most efficient ways of funding efficiency projects.

    I'm not discussing what they are "meant" to be. The CEO isn't "Meant" to dissolve your 401k's and pensions. The software companies aren't "meant" to create viruses. Militaires are "meant" to conquer and rule "anymore." So my point is, The FDA approves ar disproves drugs. I am in the medical industry for I own and operate and Imaging Center with x-ray CT, MRI, and I know that some centers pay for their referrals. So the idea that pharmacutical companies to "greese" the hands of FDA officials isn't far-fetched. Especially when they stand to lose money in the alternitive. 200 years ago they had no pharmecutals. We were healed by the Earth. That was the beauty then.

    posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:36 PM

    I'm not discussing what they are "meant" to be. The CEO isn't "Meant" to dissolve your 401k's and pensions. The software companies aren't "meant" to create viruses. Militaires are "meant" to conquer and rule "anymore." So my point is, The FDA approves ar disproves drugs. I am in the medical industry for I own and operate and Imaging Center with x-ray CT, MRI, and I know that some centers pay for their referrals. So the idea that pharmacutical companies to "greese" the hands of FDA officials isn't far-fetched. Especially when they stand to lose money in the alternitive. 200 years ago they had no pharmecutals. We were healed by the Earth. That was the beauty then

    Soo...can you show me a source that shows the FDA did not approve the use of vitamin C? I know some osteopathic doctors who do give early stage cancer patients medications containing high levels of vitamin C to try to boost the immune response. No where does the FDA say "DO NOT USE VITAMIN C FOR CANCER". They published a report saying that there are a few studies that support this, but they have not performed their own study. The FDA seems to even support and encourage higher vitamin C intake to prevent cancer:

    U.S. diets tend to be high in fat and low in fruits and vegetables. Studies in various parts of the world indicate that populations who habitually consume a diet high in plant foods have lower risks of some cancers. These diets generally are low in fat and rich in many nutrients, including, but not limited to, dietary fiber, vitamin A (as beta-carotene), and vitamin C. Current dietary guidelines from Federal Government agencies and nationally recognized health professional organizations recommend decreased consumption of fats (less than 30 percent of calories), maintenance of desirable body weight, and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables (5 or more servings daily), particularly those fruits and vegetables which contain dietary fiber, vitamin A, and vitamin C.


    posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:48 PM
    In my first post you can see that clearly my assertion was not definitive, however, I have a pharmacy friend (He's in my medical building) and he told me a story of a friend who was shut down by federal agents and the FDA on frivilious charges, he advocated that 3500 mg of Vitiman C would eliminate the chance of Cancer. The vitimen shop was closed down. (this was 2 decades ago, way before all the vitimen shops of today). It's like the lobbying against marijuan in the 40's. They said it would drive you to murder and rape, to keep the public from doing it, all the while the elitists had private smoke-shops in the suburbes of Ney York. Now I have a medical marijuana shop three blocks from my Medical building on the Sunset Strip in LA. Things do change, but to think that pharmecutical companies would pressure the FDA "with money" to keep their profits up, you're naive. The FDA has all the power in the world, they decide on what drugs get approved. In that profitable ideology, you wouldn't assume that they'd do preventive work?

    posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:51 PM

    Originally posted by stompk
    Recently, I've been working on a cure to cancer.

    [edit on 28-3-2006 by WyrdeOne]

    This is so funny!

    posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:58 PM

    Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
    he advocated that 3500 mg of Vitiman C would eliminate the chance of Cancer.

    Isn't that the NO-NO according to the FDA?

    A person or organization is not allowed to claim that a vitamin, mineral or substance can cure a disease or condition, or if they do, that they have to classify that substance as a drug?

    I think that is why that Kevin someone-or-other is in trouble with the FDA for his book that claims there are cures the drug companies or government doesn't want us to know about.



    [edit on 3/29/2006 by BlueTileSpook]

    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:06 AM
    That was it! I don't understand how someone could be that arbitrary when it concerns our health. AAC

    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:50 AM

    I think the government, tied directly with the medical industry, is keeping us sick and taking our money.

    I don't get it.

    Your government would make far more money by keeping you healthy and let you generate tax money.

    Besides your government couldn't cover up such an obvious/simple thing...I think.

    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 02:08 AM

    There is ONE thing that is common to all cancer-victims, and that is that their BLOOD-pH is ACIDIC!

    Cancer THRIVES in ACIDIC environments! Eating acids, will only make you more susceptible to BOWEL CANCER. Your method has no backing in REALITY.

    People with balanced pH levels right between acidic and alcaline, or have alcaline blood-pH, (which means their BODY has the same pH roughly..) do generally NOT contract cancer.

    But I will tell you where cancer comes from. RADIATION POLLUTION that is INGESTED, as we have seen with the recent posts here on this forum, the americans are putting uranium oxide into the worlds weather systems, and it is ending up everywhere.

    I was exposed to Chernobyl fallout in 1986, but luckily I didn't become affected. But it seems like they want us to BREATHE the stuff now.
    I know what's going on. And I don't worry. I just do everything I can to stop it, or to be one of the survivors.

    EDIT: EHHH!! it's not the government, it's the MOLES inside government. These are the partys that make money from suffering and death and war and disease and crime:
    Private jails and privatized law enforcement and security companies
    The pharmaceutical and medical industry
    The petroleum industry, (partially because of what medicines contain)
    The military industry
    The banking industry

    [edit on 29-3-2006 by Aztecatl]

    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:26 AM
    I agree with the Doc (bsl4doc)- the chemical reactions you mentioned are totally incorrect.

    Yes - onions are healthy - but you are adding 2+2 and coming up with 2000.

    Sorry to burst your bubble - but you need the facts sorted from the fantasy fiction before you can state that you know the answers. May I ask - in what capacity where you 'working on a cure from cancer'?? How did you approach your work.? A few plagarised internet sites? Perhaps a few chapters of selected book? Or were you working in a clinical capacity - with proper research techniques and guidelines?

    I am not slating you hypothesis that onions a re beneficial to health - but to say that they prevent and cure cancer is spirilus. However what is SCANDALOUS is that you are trying to impersonate and manifest yourself to others as scientifically knowlegable. I am sorry to inform you that my 8 year old son seems to have a better grasp of biology than you!!



    [edit on 29-3-2006 by psyfly7]

    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:07 AM
    The concept of using a balanced diet to either prevent disease or cure it certainly has some merit, but you can't postulate chemical X or fruit Y effectively cures ailment Z, because first of all you need to know what you're lacking. Most of the time, it's not just one substance or micronutrient, but several factors running low or otherwise unhealthy levels.

    Supplying a single vitamin may or may not be effective, depending on your overall condition, but most of the time, it's not. Since Vitamin C (ascorbate) was mentioned here - Ascorbate is, among other things, vital for the synthetisation of Collagen, but so are several amino acids, and you need all cofactors or your ascorbate megadose isn't going to accomplish much. Combine that with an increased requirement of essential minerals during healing, such as K, Mg, Se, Mo, or what have you and it becomes clear that things are not all that easy. (see 'mineral deficiency' in my sig why there's a problem)

    Finally, optimal nutrition doesn't necessarily cure an existing illness, alternative cancer treatments are of course, very appealing because they usually have less side effects, but take it all with a grain of salt, pls. I'll stop now but if you like i can go through my collection of links and post some 'quack cures'.

    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:57 AM
    You say you have been taking raw onion with water and salt with astounding effects.
    Could you elaborate?
    More energy, more strength, more mental awareness, more focus, faster, less sore, balanced-----what do you mean Stompk



    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:02 AM
    I would recommend interested parties go to the Marketplace (news magazine show) homepage at the CBC Television website, and view the show about cancer. The host, Wendy Mesley, is a breast cancer sufferer, and she takes a look at the cancer industry, and the Canadian Cancer Society. The interview with the head of the CCS in particular is telling.

    In case you decide not to watch, the general gist is this - cancer drugs are a huge industry, growing like wildfire. There's no profit in finding preventative measures, but great profit in drugs that treat the disease (I'm not sure if any of the interviewees even mentioned looking for a cure). The CCS' best literature for prevention says eat well, excercise, and don't smoke - and that's all. The message they are sending is 'if you get cancer it's all your fault' (watch the show and see why this is so wrong).

    It's food for thought, to be sure. My own personal experience with cancer involves my mother, who was diagnosed 4 years ago. While she has been lucky and had great doctors and nurses throughout her ordeal, I have been frustrated with the system's one track mind when it comes to treatment and controlling the existing cancer. Not once has any doctor asked her about her diet, about her water intake, about any significant environmental factors. When I suggested she take a multivitamin, or extra vitamin C, they all said 'it couldn't hurt'. Don't we need certain levels of key vitamins and minerals to have a healthy immune system, which could only help the body kill the cancer? That has never been of interest to my mom's doctors.

    She had the chemo, the radiation, and the surgery. The cancer kept coming back. I got her on an alternative treatment and since then the cancer has been under control. In no way can I say that the alternative treatment did what the conventional couldn't - for all I know they are acting in concert. That said it wasn't until she began taking the alternative treatment that the cancer began to digress. She still sees her docs, and I laugh (and get angry) when they say they are surprised to see her - they said she should have been dead 18 months after her first diagnosis (they never told us that when she went for surgery - you can imagine how angry I was). Never have they asked her if she is doing anything in addition to the treatment they are giving her.

    Point is - there are 1000s of great doctors and other medical professionals out there, but they are all educated to ignore or distrust alternative methods (at least that's the impression I've got). They are called Uni-Verse-ities for a reason. There's a never ending profit stream coming to the pharmas if they have treatments for cancer, but only a one-time windfall if they find a cure.

    You're seeking a cure for cancer in your basement? Good for you. Once upon a time you would be lauded for your efforts. Nowadays only the 'experts' are expected to do such a thing. I wish you good luck.

    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:05 AM
    Jimmy, you have a valid point about the pharma companies. I believe that often they create diseases and perpetuate then in order to cash in on supposed 'treatments'. The classic example is ADHD. They choose the most common symptoms of emotional stress in children and label it a disease. (No symptoms on the diagnostic list are subjective) Then pharma wheels out the toxic drugs. Ritalin,etc. these drugs then suppress the inate urges of the 'patient' and cause lots of other iatrogenic (medicine-induced) ailments (in some case death and cardiovascular disease in children!!) So, I get the point of how pharma manipulates and controls health issues and disease and there are many examples (statins, etc).

    However - there is still a valid point to be raised about some-one POSTULATING that onions cure whatever. Fine if it is backed up - but the point is some of the stuff that was on the first page of these threads is INACCURATE. The problem is that some-one could be blinded by the pretend scientific knowledge and actually take it seriously. I do not really have faith in some-one hypothesising a nutritional cure for illness (onions) if they are torally ignorant of the function of human digestion. Come on, they thought that nutrients were absorbed in the stomach and that the stomach is part of the intestional tract.

    Put it like this - would you give your car over to a mechanic who was not sure what part of the engine the spark plug was???

    On the issue of alternative cancer treatments - there is a lot there. Homeopathy has great results, either on its own or alongside conventional medicine. Many other therapies are successful. In certain cases research is difficult as alot of the research facilities are funded by pharma - as well as the scientifuc publications. While it is great to applaud some-one trying to find an alternative -USE YOUR INTEGRITY in decifering whether it is resonates. (also check if there is an alternative motive! If a product or book is on sale, often the motive is economic!) Also beware of reaserch itself. It is very easy to prove OR disprove something.

    I should point out - I have nothing personal against the humble onion. Onions have been used medicinally for centuries. Allium Cepa is a homeopahtic remedy made from onion which works wonders in many situations. Also ayurvedic medicine has used onions for centuries. A teaspoon of water from boiling an onion is a wonderful medicine for a very young baby suffering from colic. Herbalists used onions for various complaints.

    Many plants/ minerals, etc have curative properties when applied in the correct way. The best research is that done on humans for centuries. Just look up allium cepa in any homeopathic materia medica and it will list all the therapeutic uses of the humble onion!!!!

    herbal materia medica:
    homepathic materia medica (brief one):

    [edit on 29-3-2006 by psyfly7]

    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:35 AM

    Originally posted by sparkyloveandlight
    You say you have been taking raw onion with water and salt with astounding effects.
    Could you elaborate?
    More energy, more strength, more mental awareness, more focus, faster, less sore, balanced-----what do you mean Stompk



    Sparky, all of the above. More focus is a big one. More energy. Higher sex drive. Better bowel movement.
    If we want to limit ourselves to chemical formulas, that as far as I know, havent benifited any cancer patient, then I guess my research is useless. But I have tested this on myself. Show me a doctor that does this. What is the FDA doing going into peoples businesses armed to the teeth and taking the battery acid (sulfuric acid) they had. Yes, this is true. I have the link.

    My father died from cancer 20 yrs ago. We donated as much as we could toward cancer research. 20 yrs later, cancer is worse! So I decided to look into it myself. Sulphuric acid + salt = Hydrochloric acid. You folks can correct me all you want, and tell me how wrong I am, instead of pointing out the benefits. I think vitamin C does have healing properties. But not in a pill. It needs to be ingested in its natural state. Hot peppers have excellent health benefits. But the quest for money and power causes people to be blinded by the truth. If I were trying to sell you something, I could understand your disbelief. But I'm trying to help people, at my own expense. There are many out there suffering. If your on your deathbed, who visits you. Someone trying to sell you a burial plot. If those same people were working as hard on a way to make you health again, the world would be a better place. The FDA is keeping us sick. They're supposed to protect us, but more people keep dying from side effects of drugs. But thats OK, because the drug companies make their money from it. And we are blindly allowing it to happen.

    It's time we open our eyes to this abuse, before they show up at your door. I'm a master electrician. I understand electricity. Our bodies work on electricity. Too much, we die. To little, we die. Balance, balance. If we are out of balance, what I'm working on can bring us back into balance. I don't claim to have the cure, just that I'm working on it. And I come to this site to discuss my findings, and the right off the bat, a doctor jumps on the thread and attacks my character, trying to discredit me. Imagine that.

    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:02 AM
    Much good info in this post.

    My research over the years has led me to believe that to prevent, and sometimes cure cancer, is PROBABLY (not surely) Vitamin C and B-17.

    Please look in those area's.

    posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:12 AM
    Treating the disease isn't the only concern regarding cancer...

    it is perhaps one of the most "mind-body" connective diseases we as humans can fall victim to...

    Retirement causes cancer... almost immediately in some people... (never retire, it's healthier)
    Docs cant explain why, but i have a theory...

    If people have been working at a job, that gives them most of the fullfillment of life... then when it stops, it takes away their main reason to live...
    (lesson: never put all your reasons to live, in one basket)

    Docs do say that staying strong and determined to live will help you survive, and its true... creative visualization, biofeedback, and other mind over matter tyoe treatments seem to significantly improve chance of survival...

    And bsl4doc: thanks for your input, and thank you for remembering to keep the lingo plain for all of the "non medicals" to understand...
    not everyone went to med school

    new topics

    top topics

    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in