Man Cures Cancer with Apricot Seeds - FDA Arrests Man for Big Pharma

Arsenic Trioxide is better treated in the oncology literature in leukemia research studies.

not an honest debate, blasting cyanide like that.

both toxins, both sides, please try to keep attacks low, ok?

Apricot seeds rumored to cure cancer is nothing new. Studies and "cures" and legality battles and people crossing borders for treatment involving laeatrlle (extracted from apricot seeds) have been around for decades now.

Guess what's new here is that this guy is just the latest target of the people who don't want us to know that the "cures" are potentially in nature and not in their expensive cash cow. It's in big pharma's interests that people keep getting sick, so this makes perfect sense.

What sucks here is more corporment control over us and our bodies and choices. Big pharma shouldn't even be allowed to talk to the FDA, never mind having them er...um...arrest people?

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Ok...so ignoring the questions I asked to show evidence of your bold assertions is sort of silly.

As for the rest, you made a silly extrapolation from my post. We know that cancer is caused by mutation, that is the mechanism by which it operates. It's like saying hiccups are spasms of the diaphragm. Now, nobody is saying that those mutations have no cause. I meant there isn't a single cause (as Hulda Clark claims). You, on the other hand, chose to ignore that I'm pointing to your empty assertions about the video. I'm not saying there is no cause, I'm saying there's no single cause.

Now, radiation is a possible cause, but cancer has been occurring since well before the modern era. Hippocrates was examining it several centuries before the common era, and it's been a well documented illness since then. Saying radiation is a sole cause (hint, it isn't, though it is a possible cause) would be preposterous. Now, if you're going to include solar radiation, sure, there's a point in that. But cancer seems to be a lot more complicated than that.

So, we can narrow down the common cause of cancer to genetic mutation. That's not a symptom, that's the operating mechanism. If we can prevent or repair that mutation, we can prevent or cure cancer.

Now, I still have a few unanswered questions:

Give me an example where they misquoted Hulda Clark.
Give me an example of where they twisted her words.
Point out words they mispronounced words.
I also asked for you to point out a single instance where they were wrong in that video.

You are following the common pattern of deflecting points while dragging out small ones. I've seen it before, though mostly from creationists.

reply to post by ~Lucidity

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Apricot seeds rumored to cure cancer is nothing new. Studies and "cures" and legality battles and people crossing borders for treatment involving laeatrlle (extracted from apricot seeds) have been around for decades now.

Yes, rumored. Not proven. Not proven at all. Not supported by a single shred of scientific evidence. In fact, all the scientific evidence shows that those are incredibly dangerous compounds to ingest.

Guess what's new here is that this guy is just the latest target of the people who don't want us to know that the "cures" are potentially in nature and not in their expensive cash cow.

The drug companies know that cures are found in nature...and that they're always better when they're refined artificially. Which is why aspirin is better than the tree bark it's based off of. If laeatrlle were really so effective, the drug companies would be the first to jump on it. They're the ones that jump on the natural world for chemical compounds to use as cures. Hell, that's why they're trying to save rain forests.

And Laetrile is $19 for 100mg...that's a hell of a profit margin.

It's in big pharma's interests that people keep getting sick, so this makes perfect sense.

Actually, it's in "big pharma's" interest to sell everyone preventive medicine rather than cures. They make more money from prevention because everyone would pay for the prevention, but only those who get sick would pay for the cure.

What sucks here is more corporment control over us and our bodies and choices. Big pharma shouldn't even be allowed to talk to the FDA, never mind having them er...um...arrest people?

The FDA arrested a guy for selling a compound which breaks down into cyanide in the human body as a cure for cancer. I'm sorry, but the guy got arrested for doing something highly illegal, that's all.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

Ok...so ignoring the questions I asked to show evidence of your bold assertions is sort of silly...

...As for the rest, you made a silly extrapolation from my post. We know that cancer is caused by mutation, that is the mechanism by which it operates. It's like saying hiccups are spasms of the diaphragm. Now, nobody is saying that those mutations have no cause. I meant there isn't a single cause (as Hulda Clark claims). You, on the other hand, chose to ignore that I'm pointing to your empty assertions about the video. I'm not saying there is no cause, I'm saying there's no single cause.

Now, I still have a few unanswered questions:

Give me an example where they misquoted Hulda Clark.
Give me an example of where they twisted her words.
Point out words they mispronounced words.
I also asked for you to point out a single instance where they were wrong in that video.

You are following the common pattern of deflecting points while dragging out small ones. I've seen it before, though mostly from creationists.

First, ignoring some questions can be a sign of politeness in a discussion. I still recall being at a party one time, and a child walked up to a "lady" and asked a very serious question: "Are you a man or a lady?"

Yes...awkward. Anyway, you keep asking, but please remember, you asked for it.

"Mispronounced words", or misspellings are not always something to analyze too much. Everyone can make mistakes. The problem I see is when someone is pretending to be knowledgeable about something, and their speech betrays levels of ignorance that go beyond simple mistakes.

While I'm sure you know there is no "zoo" in zoology (surely you have taken the course Mr. Darwin), the narrator of your "dodo" vid had no clue. Which is why he mispronounced the word a number of times, not just once. Not even a minute in, another time around 2:30, yet again at 7:15 (I only could stomach half the vid this second time around, sorry).

Another bothersome one was "intestinal track". Yeah, I'd like to think I was hearing things too, an old guy like me has trouble seeing and hearing anymore, but then he had to go and actually spell it like that. (The world is TRACT.)

Again, let me restate the fact that all of us make mistakes, however, this is a video production, not just some fast typing on ATS.

You misquote Clark too, so perhaps you picked up on the vile simplification they attempted, setting up the straw man. No, she does not say parasites cause all diseases. "If" she says this later, it is only because these a-holes cut her off in mid-sentence.

Like at around 9:22 when she begins her discussion on the risk of molds. Immediately the vid cuts to bozo the narrator who accuses Clark of not knowing her head from her arse, as he points out that mycotoxins are the real issue. Two minutes of pseudo scientistic nonsense follows, when they finally cut back into the interview, and Dr. Clark continues...and I quote..."the mycotoxins made my the molds". Pathetic.

Well, I'm out of time, but take heed. Sometimes people are just being polite when they don't answer you.

JR

you cant call something a cure if its not a cure, It would be illegal and at a simpler level it would be something like false advertisements or lying to investors technically if it was a cure he would have to go out of the country or have them sign a contract that would tell them that it wasnt a complete cure but would work having included the right variables and the right conditions involving such a potential cure, and he would have to have the liscences if he had called it a medicine, if he called it a pathological supplement to an ailment he probably wouldnt have been arrested he could fight it he might win!!! chances are that the way that he went about the processes of selling the apricot seeds or diagnosing people with apricot seeds..

reply to post by GlennCanady


Yeah Ive been aware of this cure from pits of fruits especially "dates" which once cracked open contain "lintil" I believe or some other name, forgive my memorey or lack of "research" motivation to find the correct name, but I do remember more than a decade ao reading the isolated substance in the pit of a date is a powerful cancer fighter.

Originally posted by Segador
Almost all medicine can kill you if the dosage is right. If I ever get Cancer then I will probably consider Apricot Seeds.

I second that...

Originally posted by RandalFlagg
Anyone familiar with the Rick Simspon story?

He found the cure to cancer cannabis oil! Cured himself cured many terminally ill patients, got witness statements of his patients, wrote to cancer research, they told him were to shove it!

Then this poor mans downfall, DEA bust him for growing weed! At court the patients he cured were not allowed into the court room to give statements!

The plan is simple depopulate the planet by feeding us food with junk chemicals in it. Big pharma makes lots of money marketing cancer cures that are not as effective i.e. chemo and suppresses all the natural cures!

Never asked yourself the question why has cancer increased to 1 in 3 people when 100 years ago it was a very rare condition!

Peace and health

Sorry but I must correct you, or rather present what I believe is the purpose of poisoning our boies by tptb. It isnt to depopulate the planet because that ca be achieved in a month. I believe through " entertainment" the suggestion to have children in the middle class and lower is to repopulate the earth as tptb guarantee the "worker" classes die before they can collect on Obamacare and force another fals flag attack to "reallocate" funds. A simple "plague" would depopulate the planet easiest and could be blamed on terrorists.

edit on 7-1-2011 by RandalFlagg because: (no reason given)

A friend of mine cured his cancer naturally, he:

1. Only ate organic, non chemicalized food
2. Didn't eat any sugar
3. Only drank distilled water
4. Drank sauerkraut juice

His name is Robert Fulton, lives in Colorado, he is now 70 years old and going to ride his bicycle across the USA.

i wonder if it really worked? instead of waiting time arresting this man. we should have studied his theory. the important thing isn't that it might NOT be the cure, but that it MIGHT be...

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


DONT want to step on the CARTELS toes when it comes to their business territories

i dont think they arrested him for being succesful in curing himself.. he got into trouble with them when he ADVERTIZED it as a cure and solicited it to others... which took away business from u know who

reply to post by 4nsicphd


You talk about toxicology of cyanoglucosides, perhaps you might want to have a look at the extraordinarily toxicity of Chemo poisons...it kills more people than the actual disease does.

Now, *that's* toxic..and pretty final too!

Many things are technically toxic to us, things we use every day...even water.

The key is to find a balance that is both effective and tolerable.

Cyanoglucosides found in nature may be technically toxic, although you would have to ingest a lot to achieve a LD50 does (lethal dose).

A modest quantity, taken regularly rather than a massive dose taken just once or twice is the way to go with these things...just like you take a couple of paracetamol or Aspirin spaced three or four hours apart to treat pain, rather than taking 16-20 in one very large and dangerous dose...the same thing applies with natural plant matter containing cyanoglucosides.

Originally posted by forty4one
i wonder if it really worked? instead of waiting time arresting this man. we should have studied his theory. the important thing isn't that it might NOT be the cure, but that it MIGHT be...

Exactly.

Strange then, that the FDA had *BANNED ALL* testing of the stated materials containing natural cyanoglucosides isn't it!

Why logically would an organisation that is supposed to be helping the people, ban research into a potentially effective, cheap and safe alternative to the plethora of often ineffective, very expensive and very dangerous chemicals used on cancer patients?

The only logical reason for this curious contradiction is one of protecting the assets of Pharma and the FDA themselves..in short, sickening and massive corruption of them both.

Amygdalin, the natural, or Laetrile, the synthetic, is loaded with politics that distort and influence studies.

things like - had McQueen used an experimental drug in a pharmaceutical trial and died in the treatment attempt, there would be no comments.

The Kettering "disproven rat study" is far from done, issues raised that never receive definite answers.

primary/secondary tumour differentiation, and the 2 neutral to positive studies published in the 2000's at Asian journals, by Japanese and Korean researchers.

Originally posted by NeverApologize
reply to post by romanmel

 

You are a prime example of what I mean! Look at PROVEN science. In the 20th Century alone, 12 major diseases that were cured.

- Chicken Pox
- Diphtheria
- Invasive H. Flu
- Malaria
- Measles
- Pertussis
- Pneumococcal Disease
- Polio
- Tetanus
- Typhoid Fever
- Yellow Fever
- Smallpox

...but I'm sure that you could just take some OJ and a few apricot seeds to cure it. Don't let me sway you though! Blast those Evil Pharma Profiteering Monsters!

SOURCE

Sure, that was when research scientists were in charge. Now we have corporate moguls, geared solely by profit motive, who find a cure then manufacture the malady, such as "crazy-leg-syndrome". Give me a break!

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by NeverApologize
reply to post by romanmel

 

In the 20th Century alone, 12 major diseases that were cured.

Sure, that was when research scientists were in charge. Now we have corporate moguls, geared solely by profit motive, who find a cure then manufacture the malady, such as "crazy-leg-syndrome". Give me a break!

I would suggest you contact your local university and perhaps major research hospitals, and take a good look at research programmes. You really are very wrong, and ought to set yourself straight before you go all public and such.

I say that as a 25 yr employee of a major university AND a cancer survivor.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Points taken.

Not convinced that they would ever really want a cure for anything (that's just the skeptic in me) but would rather go for the drugs that sustain or, as you stated, "prevent."

Also not convinced that they don't go out of their way to quash cost-effective alternatives that don't benefit them, all excuses about purification and effectiveness aside. Much the way the oil industry is rumored to have bought up and shelved numerous patents for things like the water-powered car.

I'm not against regulation...quite the opposite, but I do believe in separation of the regulators and the regulatees. It's common sense. And I also believe that people with terminal illnesses should, if they sign a disclaimer to not sue, have a CHOICE to access and take experimental and not yet fully tested drugs if they are available.

Thanks for the reply and clarification.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Alright, so...you're just going to say that I misquoted Ms Clark without demonstrating how I did. I took a whole quote from her own book, yet you claim I somehow misquoted her. You need to demonstrate this.

As for her claims she actually titled her books:
The Cure For All Cancers
The Cure For HIV/AIDS
The Cure For All Diseases

As for pronouncing intestinal tract, these are medical students doing these videos, surely they wouldn't be pronouncing it that way if they're insanely wrong. Or it might just be a verbal quirk. I always mispronounce Chicago, and that's as someone who grew up in St. Louis.

You pointed out one place in the video, but I just rewatched it. They never said she doesn't know her head from any part of her anatomy, they merely stated that she misstated that the list was of molds rather than mycotoxins, and this is in a video that she produced, so I don't know why they couldn't have fixed that themselves. The main thrust of the point isn't even that she was wrong about the characterization, it was about the safety of the chemicals she listed. Clearly you were watching with a biased eye.