Dr. talks about his 92% cancer cure rate on C2C AM

reply to post by ProjectJimmy[/url]


Thank you, and I have to agree.

It almost seems that the chemo makes it worse, which is part of the reason why I am getting desperate for alternative treatments.

It's funny though, my grandfather seems to be the most upbeat out of my family, and he has to live with it.

Edit: How I responded to the wrong post ? ... I don't know

[edit on 25-8-2010 by peck420]

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy

I sir, am a member of the British media. Insults and having them turned are not something that surprises me in the least. I am also a product of English culture, and the insulting if idiocy is in fact something that is highly expected here.

that doesnt justify it as productive in anyway

thats like if i was to say, i've been killing people for hundreds of years so theres no reason to stop.

That said, again, my mother is an oncologist, that is a doctor who specializes in treating cancer. I come from a long line of scientists, and government officials, I am well aware of how the system works and I do still stand by my assert that the vast majority of doctors, nurses, medical researchers and, in my country at least, administrators, do genuinely enter the field and practice their craft for a desire to help their fellow human being.

theres a chance thats true but is it relevant if they dont actualy control the industry? thats like saying the soldiers in the war meant well when they were sent against their will to slaughter innocents,

only comparing their lack of control over the system, not the slaughter part.
if you think the same about big pharma and their associations, well agree to disagree then and good luck to you.

I understand the process by which a discovery is turned into a treatment. The idea of a "cure" as you put it does not really enter into this debate as even the idea of the so-far quack doctor in the OP is not a universal cure but instead a treatment. Even if you wish to look at this from a profit motivated standpoint, there is great potential in treatments for income.

a cure is not how I put it, i was paraphrasing, the one i paraphrased is the one who put it that way.
i disagree with your reasonless assertion that he's a quack, but i'll accept that he could be.

sure treatments can bring profit, just like chemotherapy, thats the reason there is no interest by the medical community to bring an end to said profitable chemo. and yet you insist that it is more profitable to end cancer then to let it thrive on this world.

this doc does not produce or sell anything, just may refer you to places which things can be purchased but he isnt selling it himself. and none of it is new, like i said before he hasnt created anything to sell he simply is broadcasting his ideals about a perfect diet as well as making the claim that it will cure cancer, again paraphrasing.

As the quack is in fact flying in the face of current medical understanding here, the burden of proof rests with him, not the established, peer-reviewed and tested methods currently in use.

sure the burden of proof lies with him, but not here in this thread! or with me either, but with him, if you want to see his 'burden of proof' then you must research his resources and the direction he points, which is not this thread so again i say research him.

As such, I will reiterate my call for him to publish his findings for peer-review. I must also question why you, are in fact so defensive about him not doing so? What is your agenda here and your issue with medical professionals in general? I have found that usually and distrust of doctors or their methods mostly comes from a lack of knowledge rather than any actual mistreatment.

were in the hell did you see me defending him NOT getting peer reviews? you assumed that, besides this would be reviews of dieting materials, not some mystical cure he created, and im sure these things that have been sold legaly in the us for purpose of diet have already been reviewed, or else wouldnt it be illegal to sell them under the guise of diet?


my only point to you has been and still is this,

you came to this thread to question the man, but this thread is only a means to refer you to his own resource, and that is were the questioning should be done,

because in this thread, the only ones your questioning is anyone attracted to the information.

i remember the Doctor saying that the whole Medical Profession
is committed to administering 'drugs' and other potions accepted by big Pharma--- they are not required to do anything else or they lose their license to Prctice...

the Doctor said that Rockefeller was behind the medical paradigm of committing to the full spectrum of chemical & drugs manufactured for 'health' rather than programs or processes that help prevent diseases,

natural treatments for cancers are verbotten by the medical community,

BTW, i'm still searching for the particular type od ~hydrogen peroxide~
which is food safe and is also known as a 'Pharmaceutical, hydrogen peroxide'
i.e.: not laced with the heavy metals found in the health aisle assortment of tinctures for the lay-person health, practicioner... the pharmacist at Bi-Lo said they had none & could not order any such product...

i heard that the 'safe' peroxide could be diluted to acceptable levels so that the extra oxygen atom would help your plants roots to grow.
(well... along with carbon dioxide being pumped into your cash crop,
which can be gotten at welding suppliers)

just saying...

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


So your defense here is that you are merely presenting his information and I shouldn't shoot the messenger so to speak?

I'm sorry but that does not hold weight (was that polite enough for you?). In doing so you are presenting an alternative treatment that is potentially very dangerous and has not been published in any accredited medical journals.

This action can give false hope to cancer sufferers and their families, that is quite a nasty thing to do in my opinion.

Also to say then that the burden of proof is not placed upon the doctor in question because you arbitrarily say so when there is a history of cancer treatment dating back to the 1940s in accepted medicine is laughable.

When one can simply do an hour's research on something such as Wikipedia and come up with a better understanding of cancer and the treatment thereof than this man's site would provide to give such information may prove quite lethal at worst and and best worthless.

In regards to your view on my tone and responses I would then ask if according to your view on decorum I should then treat someone saying for example "the Moon is made of cheese and it will solve world hunger" with the same level of intellectual respect that I would someone making a fully rational and well reasoned argument?

This is not new information.

Anyone interested in this should do some searches on the following:

Dr. Max Gerson

The Gerson Therapy

Hippocrates

And anyone even commenting on this thread should watch 'The Beautiful Truth'.

Dr. Gerson found (70 Years ago!) that Cancer is a degenerative disease, and it cannot prevail when the body AS A WHOLE is weak and cannot heal.

His therapy was a fully body detox which ensured the Liver and other organs could operate as they should.

The body needs Pottasium and to eliminate Sodium, thats it.

Our body is bombarded by toxins and poisons and cannot cope, leading to cancers.

He also highlighted the consequences of not looking after our soils which he referred to as our 'external' metabolism.

Sorry for the summary post, I was thinking of putting a thread together looking into the therapy but time after time I put a thread together and then the board gets swamped with rubbish and buries it and no-one gets to see it.

Anyone who wants more info I will put a more detailed post/thread together.

To finalise, this is the secret Big Pharma dosn't want you to know, because you might finally act on your lifestyle and diet and then yes, they wouldn't make any money.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy

So your defense here is that you are merely presenting his information and I shouldn't shoot the messenger so to speak?

defense?! so then you confess your are being offensive. you can only defend from an offensive,

and to answer, NO, i am not the messenger because i am not presenting his info, i am simply talkin about the dude in a thread on the internet and getting attacked by you as if you thought i was his personal assistant.

i havnt presented his info i have simply talked about the fact that he has info he is presenting and it interested me,

so jeeze im soooo sorry that i liked the info hope it didnt upset you to much.

if anyone here is the messenger presenting his info wouldnt it be the OP, i didnt make this thread. i was only trying to contribute to it, so sue me.

I'm sorry but that does not hold weight

like i care if you care, you dont like the info then bug off, if you care about the info itself and want to debate it as true false etc, then research it and do so, instead of just attacking me.

(was that polite enough for you?).

am i supposed to pretend that isn't snide? whatever.

In doing so you are presenting an alternative treatment

i am not presenting anything, i am not involved in alternative treatment, again you act like im the doctor himself,

potentially very dangerous and has not been published in any accredited medical journals.

did you just make that up? or decide its most likely the case so decided to post it here as fact? do you even know if he has published etcetteras in 'accredited medical journals'? thx for your opinion i guess, i already told you a few posts ago it wont make a difference to me, not the way you are presenting yourself anyhow.
all opinion without reason or basis, oh yeah except your wonderful 'my mom is in the practice' experience.

This action can give false hope to cancer sufferers and their families, that is quite a nasty thing to do in my opinion.

suddenly the topic of cancer is taboo and it is forbiden to branch outside the normal routine of chemo? after all i only came here to talk about it, and you say that is giving people false hope? i think i feel more sorry for you then them now.

Also to say then that the burden of proof is not placed upon the doctor in question because you arbitrarily say so

that is actualy EXACTLY the opposite of what i said, what i said is that the burden of proof IS placed upon the doctor in question i also have reminded you multiple times, i am not him.

when there is a history of cancer treatment dating back to the 1940s in accepted medicine is laughable.

its laughable that cancer treatment is that old? i dont think its a laughing matter at all. perhaps i misunderstood this point.

When one can simply do an hour's research on something such as Wikipedia and come up with a better understanding of cancer and the treatment thereof than this man's site would provide to give such information may prove quite lethal at worst and and best worthless.

this man does nothing but recomend a diet that is anticarcinogenic, a diet that is healthy for everyone not just cancer patients, and you see that as possibly lethal? if they were lethal or harmfull i'd be dead or atleast sure of it, cause i follow many of these suggestions myself with my own diet, i have for years, and ever since i began i've never felt better, i havnt gotten sick at all, i lost my lethargy and insomnia, but hey whatever im not here to tell you about that, just know that through experience i know these diet suggestions are the opposite of harmfull. so you wont convince me of these lie's or maybe they arent lies and you realy are that far off base here.

you asked me why i care so much about defending him, well i dont, for the most part im defending myself, as your attacks are aimed at me and not him as they ought to be, i dont represent or even know him in anyway, it is impossible for you to direct something at him towards me, i dont know why you havnt figured that out yet. your last response to that point was "thats not good enough". WTH is that?!

you asked me my motives and i answered honestly, so i ask you your motives? although last time i did that with those exact words i was told it was a T&C violation, so though you violated them against me, i wont complain i dont mind, being an honest person, and for fear of another violation, dont answer that question.

In regards to your view on my tone and responses

in case you havnt noticed my own tone, i stoped caring about being diplomatic with you, i tried but you threw it in my face so 'again' whatever.

I would then ask if according to your view on decorum I should then treat someone saying for example "the Moon is made of cheese and it will solve world hunger" with the same level of intellectual respect that I would someone making a fully rational and well reasoned argument?

i dont care how you want to handle a sittuation like that, but since you asked, i would remain polite. yes.

even though you think thats stupid, i dont think there is anything wrong with being polite, no matter who towards, however i have my limits, and you are trying to push them.


in summary, i dont care how you feel, or about your opinions, if you want to qoute the doc and debate the reasoning and evidence he has, then by all means, please, but if you want to continue to debate ME and not the doctor then please dont bother,

i would have stoped long ago if you werent continuing to insult me, i dont want to be the topic here, and i dont know why you are making me so,

perhaps its a disinfo tactic.



EDIT - turns out i can upload pdfs to the media portal, so i did,

media.abovetopsecret.com...

thats what i was sent from leonards website, despite what you hear in this thread whether should or should try it, that doesnt matter in regards to wether you should read it,

read it if it interests you, dont let someone disencourage you from investigating things which catch your interest, the only important opinion to anyone is your own, as should be.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by pryingopen3rdeye]

There is something that is concerning about the Cancer Cure threads and the responses they receive. Let me just give you a brief history of my cancer and how alternative therapies would have been useless.

By the time my Brain Tumor was diagnosed, it was the size of an orange, pushing the right hemisphere of my brain into the left half of my skull. The treatment was Brain surgery followed by Radiotherapy and Chemo. That was over 8 years ago. My Tumor did return in 2007 where I had more surgery and more chemo. I was given a prognosis of 3-5 years 1st time round and 18 months when it returned as more aggressive tumor.

When you find out you have cancer, if you are of the mindset that Oncologists and other doctors are not there to help you and that you would rather try and alternative route, you are putting your life in great risk. These alternative therapies can be used alongside the conventional medicine, but to go down the alternative route alone would be madness in my opinion.

It's very easy to say what you would or wouldn't do if you are diagnosed with cancer while you are a healthy individual, but when the chips are down, you want to know your making the right decisions. Going down an alternative route could lose you precious time in the inevitable fight.

I just hope if people are diagnosed with cancer they are not too influenced by these type of threads that they question the good work of cancer specialists and go down a route that has had little to no testing

[edit on 26-8-2010 by woodwardjnr]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by woodwardjnr]

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

Curing cancer wouldn't lead to big money? Are you serious?

Here we go...again!

The answers to this particular question and the reasons as to the why's and wherefores, have been extensively flogged to death, on IgnoranceIsntBliss's terrific thread about alternative and natural Cancer preventions and cures.

Essentially, you were given the primary reason in the post above,...money.

To explain,

What you and almost everyone else who's shocked by this statement fail to take into account, is the vast majority of these 'other' steps a person can take regarding preventing or eradicating cancer are completely or very nearly free and easy to self administer.

Hence, no money. I say 'no' money, but of course there would be some money for the drugs companies, even vitamins that are easy to make for ourselves, make a fair amount of money, such as Vitamin C.

BUT, the earnings potential from a natural, non-patentable substance will not prop up the many, mega highly profitable pharmaceutical companies, in fact nowhere near it.

People will say, well, if they push the cures for cancers, they can move on to making money from the myriad other diseases and ailments out there that afflict humanity...well...yes, but folks have to remember, that they are already doing that! and doing very nicely thank you very much.

All curing cancer would do for Pharma, would be to take away a huge chunk of their shareholders dividend. Great for humanity, bad for the sharks.

Big Pharma, is only part of the picture though...there is a money machine that surrounds cancer worth trillions annually. Trillions.

Millions of careers and jobs, are specifically centered around cancer treatments, cancer research, patient aftercare, supplies for the industry and hospice care.

These millions of jobs and careers internationally, represent a huge amount of revenue. HUGE.

Then we have the donations and charities 'market', who specifically attract donations in regards cancer.

These charities are businesses, much like any other. They have executives, earning 4 or 5 figure salaries, then all the lower management earning large amounts too..then the actual donations from the public, from the likes of you and me, approx 25-35% of which is left over after all the above people take their slice of the action, goes primarily into research (the jobs and infrastructure) or goes into aftercare (again jobs and facilities/infrastructure).

You, me or a business gives one $ or £ to a cancer charity...about 25-35c goes to another business involved with providing services directly tied into cancer, whether than be the companies selling and maintaining mini buses for terminal kids to have days out, or for the upgrading and wage costs of a hospice for them to dies in, or the various pharma and independent cancer research institutes that are allocated the funds.

It's mostly all about money. Lots and lots and lots of it.

Are we to assume (considering what website we are reading folks), that all the people involved with cancer, in one way or another, would be happy to forget about these huge amounts of money, and are going to suddenly and voluntarily give it all up, because a herb or a natural plant folks can grow in their back gardens has been found to kill most types of cancer? Or a some other simple, cheap and easily obtainable and administered compound has been found to do the same?

These are the reasons...in my opinion, you may disagree, but the facts are the facts. If cancer is 'cured' by simple, cheap means...Trillions of $/£ every year, worldwide will stop overnight.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

...why isn't he publishing his findings in peer-reviewed medical journals and spreading this knowledge on something more mainstream than Coast 2 Coast AM/?

Peer review is not all it is cracked up to be. Indeed, the very nature of the term gives some insight into how the process works, or at the very least how one would imagine it should work, and that is a process where peers review each others work.

There are several problems associated with peer review. First, and in the context of this thread, the scientist has no control over which committee will be reviewing the paper, or research, and the committee ultimately reviewing the application may very well be an inappropriate committee. Next, a careful analysis of peer review groups, and again in this context, not all members of a peer review group are actually scientists, thus not at all "peers" reviewing.

The peer review process is also rife with politics. Consider this article from TheScientist.com, titled Peer Review Trickery?

In an open letter to the editors of major scientific journals published last year, a group of 14 researchers, including Smith, argue that "papers that are scientifically flawed or comprise only modest technical increments often attract undue profile. At the same time publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected." Read more: Peer review trickery? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences www.the-scientist.com...

To balance this claim, the articles cites two editors, one from Nature Magazine, and the other from Science, who claim:

Nature editor Philip Campbell denied that "there's some privileged clique" mistreating the review process, and Monica Bradford, executive editor of Science, told the BBC that they "have not been convinced to switch" to a system involving the open review of the quality of peer-review feedback. Read more: Peer review trickery? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences www.the-scientist.com...

Their defensive stance only underscores the reality that peer review is not an open process where the reviewers are open to review. Another article published by The Scientist, titled Radical Journal's Fate at Risk reported:

Medical Hypotheses is currently Elsevier's only non-peer-reviewed journal. Its mandate is to publish interesting theoretical papers, including radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas. But a hubbub surrounding the publication of two AIDS denialist papers last July has the publisher considering adopting a peer review system for the journal -- a change that the journal's editor-in-chief sees as a travesty that will destroy its value. Read more: Radical journal's fate at risk - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences www.the-scientist.com...

The irony of this is that the controversy is over the questioning of the HIV=AIDS paradigm, and when HIV was first advocated as the causative agent of AIDS it was done so by Robert Gallo who stood beside Health and Human Services Secretary, Margret Heckler, in 1984 to make the announcement to the world that it was HIV that caused AIDS. Gallo made this announcement without any peer review what-so-ever!

Another more recent issue is the scandal of "Climategate" that certainly raises many questions in regard to peer review. If that is not enough to convince you that peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, there is the mater of the Schon scandal, where a German physicist passed the peer review process, received several prizes and awards for his apparent "breakthrough", only to later be revealed as fraudulent. There is also the matter of Micheal Bellesiles and his dubious book Arming America passed a peer review process only to ultimately wind up creating a firestorm of criticism and ethics charges brought against Bellesiles that culminated in his resignation of his Emory professorship.

Then there is the article put out by Public Citizen called Hospitals Drop the Ball on Physician Oversight. This article is in regards to the National Practitioner Data Bank, (NPDB), established by the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986. This legislation required hospitals to report to the NPDB all physicians who had their hospital privileges revoked for more than 30 days. It was estimated that approximately 5000 reports would be submitted by hospitals to the NPDB annually. However, for the 17 years that followed the passage of the HCQI Act of 1986, only an average of 650 reports had been submitted by hospitals annually.

The Public Citizen report is an investigation into this disturbing discrepancy and here are some of their findings:

Our review identified and focused on two factors associated with under-reporting: failure of hospitals to report and failure of hospitals to take action on questionable physicians. For example, a HRSA funded study reported in the American Journal of Public Health noted that, to avoid reporting, hospitals imposed disciplinary periods of less than 31 days thereby avoiding the need for reporting physicians to the NPDB;

a medical board official informed Public Citizen that some hospitals avoid reporting by changing their bylaws or by having physicians take a “leave of absence.” In one of the most egregious recent examples of the breakdown of hospital peer review, two physicians at Redding Medical Center in Redding, California performed clearly unnecessary bypass and valve surgeries between 1992 and 2002 on hundreds of patients.

Consider this disturbing finding:

...our analysis of the NPDB Public Use File found that almost 1,000 physicians who had at least two adverse clinical privilege reports to the NPDB did not have any subsequent licensure board disciplinary action. One physician had nine adverse clinical privilege reports but no licensure board actions.

On reporting on the factors affecting hospital reporting and the failure to report, Public Citizen offers:

In October 2005, the California legislature, because of concerns about under-reporting to the state medical board, requested an independent review of peer review in the state. The final report, issued in July 2008, involved a sample of 245 California health care entities (hospitals, health plans, professional societies, medical groups) and was based on the following methodology: on-line survey, analysis of peer review minutes, peer review cases, interviews and site visits. The report noted the following:

* There are inconsistencies in the way health care entities conduct peer review, select and apply criteria, and interpret the [state] law.[33]
* These variations can result in physicians continuing to provide substandard care (at times for years) impacting the protection of the public.[34](emphasis added)
* The tracking of cases over time in most entities is poor or lacking.[35]
* Entities try numerous remedial interventions (peer counseling, education, training, mentoring, observation, behavior counseling, UCSD Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program) before informing the physician that a “final proposed action” is being taken. The process is almost never shorter than one year.[36]
* The most common reasons for cases being referred for peer review were (1) disruptive behavior/impairment, (2) substandard technical skills and (3) failure to document/record patient treatment.[37]


In 1995 the President of the California Medical Board stated:

The issue of 805 (peer review) reporting is one of the most important and most misunderstood Medical Practice Act requirements. Over the past year we have noted a deterioration in the cooperation required between hospitals and the Board in protecting consumer/patient safety. We have experienced incomplete reports […] and, on some occasions, excuses for not reporting at all.

The Public Citizens report is a lengthy read, but well worth reading in order to gain some insight into the peer review process and the many problems that have come with the cozy nature of peer review, which increasingly is seemingly just another word for cronyism. Dismissing someone's medical claims simply because they have not passed the application of peer review misses some hard points in regards to the scientific method. There is an implication that comes with the term "peer review" that is more and more honestly called inference, rather than implication, since peer review is a vetting process that does not do what many people seem to infer it does.

For papers that rely on empirical work complete with data sets that are often time painstaking in their methodology, if a peer review process were to be considered reliably it is arguable that this peer review membership would go back and duplicate the process that is described in the paper seeking application for review. Of course, this is not at all the process of peer review, which only points to yet another problem with the process of peer review.

Peer review, in spite of its many missteps and mistakes, is a prestige factor, but it is not the end all and be all of scientific inquiry.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Sorry to hear about your health troubles mate.

I don't think anyone is saying that in your situation, with a tumor the size of an orange growing in your brain, that you should ignore conventional treatment.

I'm not even saying that there are not success stories, because there obviously are.

We are talking about the likely suppression (or lack of research into) of cheap, natural and widely available treatments and cures, in opposition to the established 'conventional', very expensive and difficult to obtain and administer treatments offered by the traditional cancer businesses, and citing financial reasons for that.

I certainly would go to a doctor if i had cancer, even though i know the big boys are primarily interested in money rather than me.
But i wouldn't overlook these other, (in some cases lab tested and peer reviewed) treatments and preventatives either.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Peer review is not all it is cracked up to be. Indeed, the very nature of the term gives some insight into how the process works, or at the very least how one would imagine it should work, and that is a process where peers review each others work.

The implication being somewhat similar to one of 'the police investigating the police'.

Well, peers tend to be jealous, petty and competitive..this is evident in many walks of life. It's not a given that scientist A would automatically endorse scientist B, simply because they both happen to be scientists.

One only has to look around this website of 'peers', to discover the same petty, competitive component of human nature.

Add to that profitable business interests, and it seems clear that 'peers' would not automatically endorse each other willy nilly. Especially since that endorsement can be laid bare and picked apart for accuracy or lack of it, by all and sundry.

Peers have their masters to answer to, and careers to consider too.

reply to post by spikey


I understand the debate, just concerned people may be getting the wrong impression from some of these potential cure's and being put off a conventional route.

Like some other members of ATS with cancer, I am still waiting for someone to come on and say how they cured their own cancer with alternative therapies. I see people talking anecdotal evidence, but little in the way of hard facts.

And for the record I do use some alternative therapies for my Brain Tumour, just not allowed to talk about it on ATS if you know what I mean

reply to post by carlitomoore

Anyone who wants more info I will put a more detailed post/thread together.

I for one would be interested in reading such a thread.

If you want to do it, go for it.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

And for the record I do use some alternative therapies for my Brain Tumour, just not allowed to talk about it on ATS if you know what I mean

I understand precisely..'nuff said mate. (and good for you, i say!)

Have you watched a video called 'Run from the cure'?

Google it, and you can download (legally, if that's a concern for you) a high quality copy of the movie.

It might be of interest and help to you, considering 'what we can't talk about'.

And yes, i agree that much of what is talked about is anecdotal and the majority untested properly.

That's the problem really though...if someone started another cancer research charity, specifically funding research and lab testing of these 'alternative' aspects of cancer treatments and cures, i wonder if it would have support?

This is what this needs. Well funded, independent clinical research and trials, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Nobody has answered the question as to why countries like Canada and the UK (which is very amenable to alternative medicine) are not jumping at the chance to use this treatment. Both of these countries are running huge deficits in their national health care systems and would gladly accept a new, cheaper cancer therapy. Add to that all the other countries that are drowning in debt and countries with high cancer rates, and this therapy would be a godsend, were it true.

Dr. Coldwell States That Cancer Can be Cured in Weeks

Really interesting. Get the body to a certain level of alkaline, and he talks about how they tell you the opposite of what you need. For example, salt. High Blood Pressure, reduce, well, thats only table salt. 1/2 tsp a day of sea salt is absolutely needed and its needed for your blood pressure.

Table salt has glass in it, and it cuts your arteries within so you bleed. And the so called dreaded cholesterol is your bodies natural healer to try and stop you from bleeding to death inside.

They are going to stop us from getting C. We don't need artifical vitamins or chemicals, but real C and real E.