Question:

        Correct me if I’m wrong here, but there seems to be a world of difference between hormone therapy and the steroid use of BBers.  Roda was referring to the latter, not the former.         (Some) BBers pop steroids the way most BBers gulp amino acids.         A wonderful book on bodybuilding, Confessions of a BodyBuilder, talks about this, and the profound state of ill-health BBers find themselves in.  Written by a Yale graduate in literature, who decided to piss off his parents for a while!  Great book, on amazon.com.  SMNers can read it on a Sat afternoon;  MFWers may need about a month, plus a good dictionary.  Good news, tho:  I think it has some pictures! —   Delivering God’s Messages on Post-Purchase Neglect Syndrome (PPNS),       Physical Concepts & HoloBarre Fitness/Stretching Systems, NY   Facts–plenty  Synthesis–glorious  Nice bodies–nice, but irrelevant – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anabolic steroids are NOT benign. Side effects have been recognized for years and include liver cysts (with a well known and significant risk of bleeding to death from hemorrhage), liver cancer, high blood pressure, abnormally high blood counts (polycythemia), etc. Perhaps the worst complication is a pschiatric syndrome called "steroid rage" where people on anabolic steroids go off the deep end — they have been known to pummel people to death and not be aware of it later on. Testosterone is an anabolic steroid which is naturally present in all humans, to greater or lesser degree.  Somehow the human race has managed to survive all these centuries despite harboring such a malignant hormone.  In fact it has been shown that a state of testosterone deficiency ("hypogonadism") INCREASES aggressiveness, while treatment of hypogonadal men with testosterone REDUCES aggressiveness:   Burris AS, Banks SM, Carter CS, Davidson JM, Sherins RJ. 1992 Jul. A   long-term, prospective study of the physiologic and behavioral effects of   hormone replacement in untreated hypogonadal men. J.Androl. 13(4):297-304.  "On mood inventories, the untreated hypogonadal men scored   significantly higher in ratings of depression, anger, fatigue, and   confusion than did infertile and normal men. During hormonal   replacement therapy these scores decreased, although the hypogonadal   men continued to score higher in "depression" than did infertile and   normal men." The reports of serious side effects come from hospital patients who already had serious diseases and who were being treated with anabolic steroids in combination with other drugs.  High blood pressure is the only side effect commonly seen among the million or so North Americans who are taking supplemental testosterone for treatment of hypogonadism, agonadism resulting from castration or removal or ovaries (oopherectomy), AIDS Wasting Syndrome and its prevention, osteoporosis and its prevention, and other medical conditions.  There is abundant information on the safety of this drug, to the extent that the United Nations is considering using it in combination with another substance as a form of birth control for men.  It is one of the safest drugs that can be prescribed. As for the alleged effects on aggressiveness which you have sensationalized above, most of those reports come from one person, a so-called scientist named Harrison G. Pope, who has been on a personal crusade against anabolic steroids for some years.  Most of his data comes from surveys, which he interprets (and he is obviously biased).  He goes into prisons and asks if anyone can blame their crimes on these drugs.  OF COURSE prisoners will blame drugs.  Then they can take a drug treatment program, get "cured", and be released early, rather than languishing in jail as they richly deserve.  Pope also interprets competitiveness as aggression, although it has been shown many times that it is *impulsiveness* and not competitive aggression which leads to criminal activity. The only one of Pope’s studies on aggression which was blinded was a study of competitiveness, which he calls aggression. There have been many reputable studies which show that therapeutic testosterone use — even at 600 mg. per week — does NOT cause aggression.  I cite some of them below, and below that are a few of the studies showing the health benefits of testosterone. Dr. Rhoda, if you are denying anabolic steroids to patients who have wasting diseases, osteoporosis or any of the other valid indications for their use, on the mistaken information that those patients are likely to get liver cancer or that they’re going to become murderously violent, then you are committing malpractice and I dearly hope you will be sued into oblivion. Tricker R, Casaburi R, Storer TW, Clevenger B, Berman N, Shirazi A, Bhasin S. 1996 Oct. The effects of supraphysiological doses of testosterone on angry behavior in healthy eugonadal men–a clinical research center study. J.Clin.Endocrinol.Metab. 81(10):3754-8.   Anecdotal reports of "roid rage" and violent crimes by androgenic   steroid users have brought attention to the relationship between   anabolic steroid use and angry outbursts. However, testosterone   effects on human aggression remain controversial. Previous studies   have been criticized because of the low androgen doses, lack of   placebo control or blinding, and inclusion of competitive athletes   and those with preexisting psychopathology. To overcome these   pitfalls, we used a double-blind, placebo-controlled design,   excluded competitive athletes and those with psychiatric   disorders, and used 600 mg testosterone enanthate (TE)/week. …   Conclusion: Supraphysiological doses of testosterone, when   administered to normal men in a controlled setting, do not   increase angry behavior. Albert DJ, Walsh ML, Jonik RH. 1993. Aggression in humans: what is its biological foundation? Neurosci.Biobehav.Rev. 17(4):405-25.   Although human aggression is frequently inferred to parallel   aggression based on testosterone in nonprimate mammals, there is   little concrete support for this position. High- and   low-aggression individuals do not consistently differ in serum   testosterone. Aggression does not change at puberty when   testosterone levels increase. Aggression does not increase in   hypogonadal males (or females) when exogenous testosterone is   administered to support sexual activity. Similarly, there are no   reports that aggression increases in hirsute females even though   testosterone levels may rise to 200% above normal. Conversely,   castration or antiandrogen administration to human males is not   associated with a consistent decrease in aggression. Gooren LJ. 1994. A ten-year safety study of the oral androgen testosterone undecanoate. J Androl. 15(3):212-5.   Of 35 men originally included in the study, 33 could be followed up   for a minimum of 10 years. In them no alteration in the biochemical   parameters of liver function could be detected. … Digital   examination of the prostate did not reveal signs of prostate tumors.   Testosterone undecanoate appears to be a safe oral androgen. Anderson RA, Bancroft J, Wu FC. 1992 Dec. The effects of exogenous testosterone on sexuality and mood of normal men. J.Clin.Endocrinol.Metab. 75(6):1503-7.   There was no evidence to suggest an alteration in any of the mood   states studied, in particular those associated with increased   aggression. Raising testosterone does not increase self-reported   ratings of aggressive feelings Bagatell CJ, Heiman JR, Matsumoto AM, Rivier JE, Bremner WJ. 1994 Aug. Metabolic and behavioral effects of high-dose, exogenous testosterone in healthy men. J.Clin.Endocrinol.Metab. 79(2):561-7.   Little change was found in self-reported sexual and aggressive   behaviors during the study. Bahrke MS, Yesalis CE, Wright JE. 1996 Dec. Psychological and behavioural effects of endogenous testosterone and anabolic-androgenic steroids. An update. Sports Med. 22(6):367-90.   Studies administering moderate doses of exogenous testosterone   for contraceptive and clinical purposes reveal essentially no   adverse effects on male sexual and aggressive behaviour. … Only   3 prospective, blinded studies demonstrating aggression or adverse   overt behaviour resulting from anabolic-androgenic steroid use   have been reported. With estimates of over 1 million past or   current users in the US, an extremely small percentage of   individuals using anabolic-androgenic steroids appear to   experience mental disturbances severe enough to result in clinical   treatment and medical case reports. Even among those so affected,   the roles of previous psychiatric history, genetic susceptibility   to addictions or mental disorders, environmental and peer   influences, and individual expectations remain unclear." Bhasin S, Storer TW, Berman N, Callegari C, Clevenger B, Phillips J, Bunnell TJ, Tricker R, Shirazi A, Casaburi R. 1996 Jul 4. The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men [see comments]. N.Engl.J.Med. 335(1):1-7.   Neither mood nor behavior was altered in any group. CONCLUSIONS:   Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined   with strength training, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and   strength in normal men Booth A, Shelley G, Mazur A, Tharp G, Kittok R. 1989 Dec. Testosterone, and winning and losing in human competition. Horm.Behav.

… read more »

Response:

Dear Alec: I have been studying about laetrile since 1974.  If I had cancer, I would certainly make it part of my treatment.  The medical establishment has too much to lose to recommend it,

    Don’t you think doctors get cancer?  Hath not a doctor eyes?  Hath not a doctor hands, organs, dimentions, senses, affections, passions? If you prick us, do we not bleed?  If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?  For what purpose are we withholding this wonderful threatment for the public, and watching ourselves and our friends and families dying of cancer as the price?  Eh?                                             Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

Well said, Steve. It really is time this tired old conspiracy theory was laid to rest. — P Moran – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear Alec: I have been studying about laetrile since 1974.  If I had cancer, I would certainly make it part of my treatment.  The medical establishment has too much to lose to recommend it,     Don’t you think doctors get cancer?  Hath not a doctor eyes?  Hath not a doctor hands, organs, dimentions, senses, affections, passions? If you prick us, do we not bleed?  If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?  For what purpose are we withholding this wonderful threatment for the public, and watching ourselves and our friends and families dying of cancer as the price?  Eh?                                             Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

HERE HERE! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anabolic steroids are NOT benign. Side effects have been recognized for years and include liver cysts (with a well known and significant risk of bleeding to death from hemorrhage), liver cancer, high blood pressure, abnormally high blood counts (polycythemia), etc. Perhaps the worst complication is a pschiatric syndrome called "steroid rage" where people on anabolic steroids go off the deep end — they have been known to pummel people to death and not be aware of it later on. Water is not benign either.  Nearly every available therapeutic pharmacological agent has side effects,  some as dire as the "reefer madness" propaganda you seem to buy into re: anabolic steroids. Most anabolic steroids have been developed with the same scrutiny as other drugs,  and they have legitimate uses.  They and many other substances are banned for amateur athletic competition, etc. and  I support this. However, the real problem with steroid use is the fact that, most of the time,  they are used without adequate medical supervision and monitoring.  Because of this, gym folklore is the primary source of information,  and steroid users commonly fall into the "more is better" trap.  Preaching the dangers of steroids is hypocritical. If the medical community would grow a backbone it could stem the abuse of anabolic steroids,  discourage their use by minors,  and engage in a frank discussion of the appropriate use of these drugs.  Instead,  it seems determined to remain mired in the collective cognitive illusion borrowed from the "war on drugs."

Response:

Anabolic steroids are NOT benign. Side effects have been recognized for years and include liver cysts (with a well known and significant risk of bleeding to death from hemorrhage), liver cancer, high blood pressure, abnormally high blood counts (polycythemia), etc. Perhaps the worst complication is a pschiatric syndrome called "steroid rage" where people on anabolic steroids go off the deep end — they have been known to pummel people to death and not be aware of it later on.

Testosterone is an anabolic steroid which is naturally present in all humans, to greater or lesser degree.  Somehow the human race has managed to survive all these centuries despite harboring such a malignant hormone.  In fact it has been shown that a state of testosterone deficiency ("hypogonadism") INCREASES aggressiveness, while treatment of hypogonadal men with testosterone REDUCES aggressiveness:   Burris AS, Banks SM, Carter CS, Davidson JM, Sherins RJ. 1992 Jul. A   long-term, prospective study of the physiologic and behavioral effects of   hormone replacement in untreated hypogonadal men. J.Androl. 13(4):297-304.  "On mood inventories, the untreated hypogonadal men scored   significantly higher in ratings of depression, anger, fatigue, and   confusion than did infertile and normal men. During hormonal   replacement therapy these scores decreased, although the hypogonadal   men continued to score higher in "depression" than did infertile and   normal men." The reports of serious side effects come from hospital patients who already had serious diseases and who were being treated with anabolic steroids in combination with other drugs.  High blood pressure is the only side effect commonly seen among the million or so North Americans who are taking supplemental testosterone for treatment of hypogonadism, agonadism resulting from castration or removal or ovaries (oopherectomy), AIDS Wasting Syndrome and its prevention, osteoporosis and its prevention, and other medical conditions.  There is abundant information on the safety of this drug, to the extent that the United Nations is considering using it in combination with another substance as a form of birth control for men.  It is one of the safest drugs that can be prescribed. As for the alleged effects on aggressiveness which you have sensationalized above, most of those reports come from one person, a so-called scientist named Harrison G. Pope, who has been on a personal crusade against anabolic steroids for some years.  Most of his data comes from surveys, which he interprets (and he is obviously biased).  He goes into prisons and asks if anyone can blame their crimes on these drugs.  OF COURSE prisoners will blame drugs.  Then they can take a drug treatment program, get "cured", and be released early, rather than languishing in jail as they richly deserve.  Pope also interprets competitiveness as aggression, although it has been shown many times that it is *impulsiveness* and not competitive aggression which leads to criminal activity. The only one of Pope’s studies on aggression which was blinded was a study of competitiveness, which he calls aggression. There have been many reputable studies which show that therapeutic testosterone use — even at 600 mg. per week — does NOT cause aggression.  I cite some of them below, and below that are a few of the studies showing the health benefits of testosterone. Dr. Rhoda, if you are denying anabolic steroids to patients who have wasting diseases, osteoporosis or any of the other valid indications for their use, on the mistaken information that those patients are likely to get liver cancer or that they’re going to become murderously violent, then you are committing malpractice and I dearly hope you will be sued into oblivion. Tricker R, Casaburi R, Storer TW, Clevenger B, Berman N, Shirazi A, Bhasin S. 1996 Oct. The effects of supraphysiological doses of testosterone on angry behavior in healthy eugonadal men–a clinical research center study. J.Clin.Endocrinol.Metab. 81(10):3754-8.   Anecdotal reports of "roid rage" and violent crimes by androgenic   steroid users have brought attention to the relationship between   anabolic steroid use and angry outbursts. However, testosterone   effects on human aggression remain controversial. Previous studies   have been criticized because of the low androgen doses, lack of   placebo control or blinding, and inclusion of competitive athletes   and those with preexisting psychopathology. To overcome these   pitfalls, we used a double-blind, placebo-controlled design,   excluded competitive athletes and those with psychiatric   disorders, and used 600 mg testosterone enanthate (TE)/week. …   Conclusion: Supraphysiological doses of testosterone, when   administered to normal men in a controlled setting, do not   increase angry behavior. Albert DJ, Walsh ML, Jonik RH. 1993. Aggression in humans: what is its biological foundation? Neurosci.Biobehav.Rev. 17(4):405-25.   Although human aggression is frequently inferred to parallel   aggression based on testosterone in nonprimate mammals, there is   little concrete support for this position. High- and   low-aggression individuals do not consistently differ in serum   testosterone. Aggression does not change at puberty when   testosterone levels increase. Aggression does not increase in   hypogonadal males (or females) when exogenous testosterone is   administered to support sexual activity. Similarly, there are no   reports that aggression increases in hirsute females even though   testosterone levels may rise to 200% above normal. Conversely,   castration or antiandrogen administration to human males is not   associated with a consistent decrease in aggression. Gooren LJ. 1994. A ten-year safety study of the oral androgen testosterone undecanoate. J Androl. 15(3):212-5.   Of 35 men originally included in the study, 33 could be followed up   for a minimum of 10 years. In them no alteration in the biochemical   parameters of liver function could be detected. … Digital   examination of the prostate did not reveal signs of prostate tumors.   Testosterone undecanoate appears to be a safe oral androgen. Anderson RA, Bancroft J, Wu FC. 1992 Dec. The effects of exogenous testosterone on sexuality and mood of normal men. J.Clin.Endocrinol.Metab. 75(6):1503-7.   There was no evidence to suggest an alteration in any of the mood   states studied, in particular those associated with increased   aggression. Raising testosterone does not increase self-reported   ratings of aggressive feelings Bagatell CJ, Heiman JR, Matsumoto AM, Rivier JE, Bremner WJ. 1994 Aug. Metabolic and behavioral effects of high-dose, exogenous testosterone in healthy men. J.Clin.Endocrinol.Metab. 79(2):561-7.   Little change was found in self-reported sexual and aggressive   behaviors during the study. Bahrke MS, Yesalis CE, Wright JE. 1996 Dec. Psychological and behavioural effects of endogenous testosterone and anabolic-androgenic steroids. An update. Sports Med. 22(6):367-90.   Studies administering moderate doses of exogenous testosterone   for contraceptive and clinical purposes reveal essentially no   adverse effects on male sexual and aggressive behaviour. … Only   3 prospective, blinded studies demonstrating aggression or adverse   overt behaviour resulting from anabolic-androgenic steroid use   have been reported. With estimates of over 1 million past or   current users in the US, an extremely small percentage of   individuals using anabolic-androgenic steroids appear to   experience mental disturbances severe enough to result in clinical   treatment and medical case reports. Even among those so affected,   the roles of previous psychiatric history, genetic susceptibility   to addictions or mental disorders, environmental and peer   influences, and individual expectations remain unclear." Bhasin S, Storer TW, Berman N, Callegari C, Clevenger B, Phillips J, Bunnell TJ, Tricker R, Shirazi A, Casaburi R. 1996 Jul 4. The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men [see comments]. N.Engl.J.Med. 335(1):1-7.   Neither mood nor behavior was altered in any group. CONCLUSIONS:   Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined   with strength training, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and   strength in normal men Booth A, Shelley G, Mazur A, Tharp G, Kittok R. 1989 Dec. Testosterone, and winning and losing in human competition. Horm.Behav. 23(4):556-71.   Testosterone and cortisol were measured in six university tennis   players across six matches during their varsity season.   Testosterone rose just before most matches, and players with the   highest prematch testosterone had the most positive improvement in   mood before their matches. After matches, mean testosterone rose   for winners relative to losers, especially for winners with very   positive moods after their victories and who evaluated their own   performance highly. Higley JD, Mehlman PT, Poland RE, Taub DM, Vickers J, Suomi SJ, Linnoila M. 1996 Dec 1. CSF testosterone and 5-HIAA correlate with different types of aggressive behaviors. Biol.Psychiatry 40(11):1067-82.   We conclude that high CSF free testosterone concentrations are   associated with competitive aggression, while low CSF 5-HIAA   concentrations are associated with severe aggression which results   from impaired impulse control, and perseverance. Wang C, Alexander G, Berman N, Salehian B, Davidson T, McDonald V, Steiner B, Hull L, Callegari C, Swerdloff RS. 1996 Oct. Testosterone replacement therapy improves mood in hypogonadal men–a clinical research center study. J.Clin.Endocrinol.Metab. 81(10):3578-83.   We conclude that T replacement therapy in hypogonadal men improved   their positive mood parameters, such as energy, well/good   feelings, and friendliness and decreased negative mood parameters   including anger,

… read more »

Response:

By the way, the cynical answer you received about dying of cynanide poisoning is laughable and shows an ignorance of the biochemistry related to amydalin.  I’ve eaten as many as 40 or 50 apricot seeds (one source of the substance) in one day and I’m still around–and in better health than before I ate them.

The enzymes breaking down cyanides are inducible, and you have obviously induced a lot of them. If you give your neighbour that dose, you will be arrested for murder.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear Alec: I have been studying about laetrile since 1974.  If I had cancer, I would certainly make it part of my treatment.  The medical establishment has too much to lose to recommend it,     Don’t you think doctors get cancer?  Hath not a doctor eyes?  Hath not a doctor hands, organs, dimentions, senses, affections, passions? If you prick us, do we not bleed?  If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?  For what purpose are we withholding this wonderful threatment for the public, and watching ourselves and our friends and families dying of cancer as the price?  Eh?

                                                Steve Harris, M.D. I am told that it’s not a ‘conspiracy’ as such. Just a few people – in extraordinary positions of wealth and power –  making sure that several tens of patents which cost up to 300 Million US$ keep their value. Lets face it all is definitely not right, when over the last ten years the cancer industry has grown in value by 10-12% each year *cumulatively*. (Frost & Sullivan). The vast majority of individual doctors are highly ethical. But would you risk your entire *career* over some damned drug that probably didnt work all that well anyway, just because it’s scientific analysis was being sabbotaged. Moss would.  And did. Doctors are benevolent puppets on a string. Alec

Response:

Anabolic steroids are NOT benign. Side effects have been recognized for years and include liver cysts (with a well known and significant risk of bleeding to death from hemorrhage), liver cancer, high blood pressure, abnormally high blood counts (polycythemia), etc. Perhaps the worst complication is a pschiatric syndrome called "steroid rage" where people on anabolic steroids go off the deep end — they have been known to pummel people to death and not be aware of it later on.

Water is not benign either.  Nearly every available therapeutic pharmacological agent has side effects,  some as dire as the "reefer madness" propaganda you seem to buy into re: anabolic steroids.   Most anabolic steroids have been developed with the same scrutiny as other drugs,  and they have legitimate uses.  They and many other substances are banned for amateur athletic competition, etc. and  I support this. However, the real problem with steroid use is the fact that, most of the time,  they are used without adequate medical supervision and monitoring.  Because of this, gym folklore is the primary source of information,  and steroid users commonly fall into the "more is better" trap.  Preaching the dangers of steroids is hypocritical. If the medical community would grow a backbone it could stem the abuse of anabolic steroids,  discourage their use by minors,  and engage in a frank discussion of the appropriate use of these drugs.  Instead,  it seems determined to remain mired in the collective cognitive illusion borrowed from the "war on drugs."

Response:

  The argument about Doctors and/or the medical community being corrupt is a very volatile one. . . just try out the Laetrile for yourself at the reccomended dosages and if it doesn’t work, go on to something else. Relying on the medical community for information about products is pointless.  Athletes (although this is not the group being discussed) have known this for years since the physicians desk reference placed the warning about anabolics not being effective for perfomance enhancement and or strength gain (the IOC only bans perfomance enhancing drugs and anabolics have been on there forever) Eric Morrison

   And this letter shows why physicians feel obligated to argue against "personal choice" medicines. Anabolic steroids are NOT benign. Side effects have been recognized for years and include liver cysts (with a well known and significant risk of bleeding to death from hemorrhage), liver cancer, high blood pressure, abnormally high blood counts (polycythemia), etc. Perhaps the worst complication is a pschiatric syndrome called "steroid rage" where people on anabolic steroids go off the deep end — they have been known to pummel people to death and not be aware of it later on. Perhaps you could argue that people have a right to make an informed choice to take a drug in spite of it’s obvious problems — but those who advocate laetrile deny that the drug has any toxicity and overstate it’s efficacy. In America — medicines are regulated with requirements to demonstrate both safety and efficacy appropriate for the condition under treatment. Anabolic steroids fail this test for most situations (there are a few appropriate indications like I.T.P. and AIDS/cancer cachexia) and thus neither the law nor responsible physicians encourage off — label use to improve atheletic performance. Similarly, conventional medicine bases it’s comments about laetrile on solid research against the drug, and the dirth of solid data showing that it helps treat cancer. DISCLAIMER: Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice, suggestions,  and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as part of any professional evaluation. No patient has been examined prior to making these comments; no professional fee has been charged by or paid to myself. The reader is advised to discuss these comments with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Medical recommendations & advise can only be generated after a complete (in person) physical examination and review of the patients history. As I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur in responding to any electronic question. Finally, the material produced by myself may be reproduced for personal use, provided that appropriate credit is given; but this material may not be reprinted or reproduced in any format for any other purpose. Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P. http://www.DoctorsOffice.org/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For heaven’s sake, let it lie already.  Laetrile has been proven useless, just like all that mess about macrobiotic eating, shark’s cartilage, and hyaluronic acid.  Why not just throw your money into a fire? If you are so deluded and paranoid as to honestly believe that the medical establishment is withholding cures, then you are a tragic case of undiagnosed mental illness. — "They’re a strange blend of evil and incompetence – kind of like the Post Office with tanks." – Emo Phillips. Laetrile has been proven useless by whom? What a red herring!  Do you know anything about the science behind laetrile?

  The argument about Doctors and/or the medical community being corrupt is a very volatile one. . . just try out the Laetrile for yourself at the reccomended dosages and if it doesn’t work, go on to something else. Relying on the medical community for information about products is pointless.  Athletes (although this is not the group being discussed) have known this for years since the physicians desk reference placed the warning about anabolics not being effective for perfomance enhancement and or strength gain (the IOC only bans perfomance enhancing drugs and anabolics have been on there forever) Eric Morrison

Response:

Laetrile has been proven useless by whom? What a red herring!  Do you know anything about the science behind laetrile?

   About fifteen years ago, the national cancer groups (I believe Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) conducted large studies of both laetrile and high dose vitamen C (separate experiments). In neither case, was activity against cancer demonstrated. Back in my training days, we had a couple of patients go to Mexico for laetrile, and return with both laetrile and standard chemo. They wanted us to continue the standard chemo in Phila (which we did) but of course thanked the laetrile for any response. DISCLAIMER: Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice, suggestions,  and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as part of any professional evaluation. No patient has been examined prior to making these comments; no professional fee has been charged by or paid to myself. The reader is advised to discuss these comments with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Medical recommendations & advise can only be generated after a complete (in person) physical examination and review of the patients history. As I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur in responding to any electronic question. Finally, the material produced by myself may be reproduced for personal use, provided that appropriate credit is given; but this material may not be reprinted or reproduced in any format for any other purpose. Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P. http://www.DoctorsOffice.org/

Response:

For heaven’s sake, let it lie already.  Laetrile has been proven useless, just like all that mess about macrobiotic eating, shark’s cartilage, and hyaluronic acid.  Why not just throw your money into a fire? If you are so deluded and paranoid as to honestly believe that the medical establishment is withholding cures, then you are a tragic case of undiagnosed mental illness. — "They’re a strange blend of evil and incompetence – kind of like the Post Office with tanks." – Emo Phillips.

Laetrile has been proven useless by whom? What a red herring!  Do you know anything about the science behind laetrile?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steven,     Well said.  Wish you doctors would address this conspiracy theme directly more often.  I would find it laughable but for the fact that it may discourage patients from seeking real help and encourage them to subscribe to all manner of hare brained schemes.     Ted. Dear Alec: I have been studying about laetrile since 1974.  If I had cancer, I would certainly make it part of my treatment.  The medical establishment has too much to lose to recommend it,     Don’t you think doctors get cancer?  Hath not a doctor eyes?  Hath not a doctor hands, organs, dimentions, senses, affections, passions? If you prick us, do we not bleed?  If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?  For what purpose are we withholding this wonderful threatment for the public, and watching ourselves and our friends and families dying of cancer as the price?  Eh?                                             Steve Harris, M.D. —

Dear Ted and Steven: What typical remarks!  The smear tactics over the years on laetrile, the physicians who administer it, and even the patients who use it with success have been so pronounced and vitriolic without addressing the scientific evidence that there is either a conspiracy or a lot of dishonest, hardheaded or simply ignorant people orchestrating the opposition. Where have the attacks come from? The American Medical Association primarily through JAMA which is financed for the most part by the major drug companies; the National Cancer Institute, often staffed by ex-drug company executives; the FDA whose tactics frequently  have been unconstitutional; the California Dept. of Health; and the California Cancer Commission, a department of the California Medical Association, to name a few. And yes, of course doctors and their love ones get cancer, and most of them being  "benevolent puppets on a string" as Alex so aptly put it, die an agonizing death.  However, those well-informed doctors not totally brainwashed by vested interests who promote the "cut, poison, and burn" regimen seek out laetrile and the proven associated treatments. The sad part is that at the same time many of them still treat their patients, for whatever reason, in the orthodox way. Fortunately for thousands of documented cancer patients, many doctors have had the courage to look at the readily available studies confirming laetrile’s efficacy and then bear the brunt of controversy, professional ostracism, and social scorn for treating their patients with the alternative therapy. Laetrile is not likely to go away as long as people see results–unless their is a conspiracy against it.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For heaven’s sake, let it lie already.  Laetrile has been proven useless, just like all that mess about macrobiotic eating, shark’s cartilage, and hyaluronic acid.  Why not just throw your money into a fire? The big problem with laetrile is that the ED50 concentration is about 10 times the LD50 for most people. (If you start ingestion with small quaties of laetrile, maybe you could induce the enzymes that break down cyanide, but then you also induce an enzyme that removes the active component. Cancer cells is more susceptible than normal cells against CN-, but the difference is very small so chances is more than 99% that you will kill the patient with CN- instead of letting him/her die of the cancer.

The chemical reactions related to natural cyanide found in apricot seeds and laetrile are far more complex than you describe.  Other enzymes come into play that indeed do make the cyanide non-toxic to non-cancerous cells, but toxic to the cancer.   Anyone truly interested without an ax to grind may find the chemical explanation in Dr. Charles Gurchot’s "Physician’s Handbook of Vitamin B-17 (Science Press International, Sausalito, Ca., 1973.

Response:

For heaven’s sake, let it lie already.  Laetrile has been proven useless, just like all that mess about macrobiotic eating, shark’s cartilage, and hyaluronic acid.  Why not just throw your money into a fire? If you are so deluded and paranoid as to honestly believe that the medical establishment is withholding cures, then you are a tragic case of undiagnosed mental illness. — "They’re a strange blend of evil and incompetence – kind of like the Post Office with tanks." – Emo Phillips.

Response:

For heaven’s sake, let it lie already.  Laetrile has been proven useless, just like all that mess about macrobiotic eating, shark’s cartilage, and hyaluronic acid.  Why not just throw your money into a fire?

The big problem with laetrile is that the ED50 concentration is about 10 times the LD50 for most people. (If you start ingestion with small quaties of laetrile, maybe you could induce the enzymes that break down cyanide, but then you also induce an enzyme that removes the active component. Cancer cells is more susceptible than normal cells against CN-, but the difference is very small so chances is more than 99% that you will kill the patient with CN- instead of letting him/her die of the cancer.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steven,     Well said.  Wish you doctors would address this conspiracy theme directly more often.  I would find it laughable but for the fact that it may discourage patients from seeking real help and encourage them to subscribe to all manner of hare brained schemes.     Ted. Dear Alec: I have been studying about laetrile since 1974.  If I had cancer, I would certainly make it part of my treatment.  The medical establishment has too much to lose to recommend it,     Don’t you think doctors get cancer?  Hath not a doctor eyes?  Hath not a doctor hands, organs, dimentions, senses, affections, passions? If you prick us, do we not bleed?  If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?  For what purpose are we withholding this wonderful threatment for the public, and watching ourselves and our friends and families dying of cancer as the price?  Eh?                                             Steve Harris, M.D. —

To answer that last sentence Dr. Harris: Because the *powers that be* – big business – make it so.  It is unfortunate that doctors have their hands tied.  It must be frustrating to try so hard to help your patients yet you must *conform* to what the higher powers tell you to do or else risk losing your license to practice medicine. The AMA and the FDA as well as the big pharmaceuticals are nothing but money hungry – only looking to line their pockets with huge profits. They use the excuse of not being able to admit there is a cancer cure because they cannot regulate herbal products – will make no money on something that is cheap to buy – and will lose tremendous money on the current expensive drugs that are used to treat incurable diseases.  They have put the almighty dollar first – even when they see their own loved ones on their death beds! All the foods I see being sold – the list of ingredients on packaged goods – the fresh vegetables being sprayed with pesticides – unless I grow it myself – everything is full of chemicals and toxins. The foods we eat are coated with toxins – the new products that are put on the market for consumption are downright suicide to ingest.  Yet the FDA approves them as safe for human consumption.  Don’t you think there’s a conspiracy to keep us all sick?   I’m convinced of it!!! Fidget

Response:

Steven,     Well said.  Wish you doctors would address this conspiracy theme directly more often.  I would find it laughable but for the fact that it may discourage patients from seeking real help and encourage them to subscribe to all manner of hare brained schemes.     Ted. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear Alec: I have been studying about laetrile since 1974.  If I had cancer, I would certainly make it part of my treatment.  The medical establishment has too much to lose to recommend it,     Don’t you think doctors get cancer?  Hath not a doctor eyes?  Hath not a doctor hands, organs, dimentions, senses, affections, passions? If you prick us, do we not bleed?  If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?  For what purpose are we withholding this wonderful threatment for the public, and watching ourselves and our friends and families dying of cancer as the price?  Eh?                                             Steve Harris, M.D.

–

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am told that it’s not a ‘conspiracy’ as such. Just a few people – in extraordinary positions of wealth and power –  making sure that several tens of patents which cost up to 300 Million US$ keep their value. Lets face it all is definitely not right, when over the last ten years the cancer industry has grown in value by 10-12% each year *cumulatively*. (Frost & Sullivan). The vast majority of individual doctors are highly ethical. But would you risk your entire *career* over some damned drug that probably didnt work all that well anyway, just because it’s scientific analysis was being sabbotaged. Moss would.  And did. Doctors are benevolent puppets on a string. Alec ==—– newsreading

   You describe a conspiracy. If you had proof, you would have a pulitzer prize. However — the claim that someone is hiding a good, cheap, natural cure for cancer has been made in various forms for the last two decades. Are you ready to name people/places/dates etc.??? If not — don’t insinuate the existance of a conspiracy without the facts to prove it’s existence! I don’t think the "conspiracy as such" doesn’t exist" which is why I doubt I’ll see names listes. DISCLAIMER: Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice, suggestions,  and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as part of any professional evaluation. No patient has been examined prior to making these comments; no professional fee has been charged by or paid to myself. The reader is advised to discuss these comments with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Medical recommendations & advise can only be generated after a complete (in person) physical examination and review of the patients history. As I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur in responding to any electronic question. Finally, the material produced by myself may be reproduced for personal use, provided that appropriate credit is given; but this material may not be reprinted or reproduced in any format for any other purpose. Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P. http://www.DoctorsOffice.org/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Does anyone have any information about Laetrile / Vitamin B17. – What is the best dose ? – Can anyone recommend any supplier ? – Is it actually legal for an MD to   treat a patient with this substance ? Yrs Alec PS the Patient has 4th stage, Large Cell, Adenocarcinoma of lung. — Venus Internet Ltd                       http://www.venus.co.uk/ 24 Denmark Street                      phone +44 (0)171 240 5858 London WC2H 8NJ, UK                      fax +44 (0)171 240 5859

Dear Alec: I have been studying about laetrile since 1974.  If I had cancer, I would certainly make it part of my treatment.  The medical establishment has too much to lose to recommend it, but some brave physicians in the United States and all over the world have used it successfully in treating patients. I believe it has been established that laetrile alone is not the whole answer.  Good nutrition with megadoses of supplements also should be a part of the treatment, as well as a healthy lifestyle. Not being a physician, I could not suggest amounts to take, but if you will research the literature on laetrile, I recommend the following books which will give you some idea of what it does, how it works, where to find a physician, where it is legal, and what other vitamins, enzymes, and foods should be consumed or avoided:         Alive and Well, One Doctor’s Experience With Nutrition in the Treatment of Cancer Patients by Dr. Philip E. Binzel, Jr. published by American Media, PO Box 4646, Westlake Village, California 91359-1646 (this book not only explains laetrile treatment, but contains case histories);         The Death of Cancer by Dr. Harold W. Manner, 1978, published by Advanced Century Publishing Corp. 4908 N Lincoln, Chicago, Ill 60625, based on research done at Loyola University (contains a physician’s protocol and an excellent bibliography);         The Fight for Laetrile–Vitamin B17:Forbidden Weapon Against Cancer by Michael L. Culbert, 1974, Arlington House Publishers, New Rochelle, N.Y., written by a journalist who does an excellent job of explaining technical aspects in a direct understandable way;         Cancer, Metabolic Therapy, and Laetrile by Douglas Heinsohn, 1977, published by the author (you may have trouble finding this book)’         World Without Cancer, The Story of B-17 by G.Edward Griffin, 1974, published by American Media (see above); and a video which has been made from portions of this book;         A New Approach to the Conquest of Cancer, Rheumatic and Heart Diseases by Howard H. Beard, Ph.D, published by the Cancer Control Society of Los Angeles, Ca., contains an early explanation of the trophoblastic thesis of malignancy–the thesis on which laetrile is based and which was first advanced by one of your countrymen, Dr.John Beard (1858-1924) who was Lecturer in Experimental Embryology at the University of Edinburgh;         Critical Survey of the State of Cancer Research with Special References to the Long-Term Medical Therapy with Nitrilosides (Laetrile, Vitamin B-17) by Dr. Hans Nieper, M.D. Hanover, West Germany, an abstract and commentary presented to the International Symposium on Cancer Control, by Dr. S.M.Jones (may be difficult to find, but Dr. Nieper is still practicing in Germany, I believe);         The Nitrilosides (Vitamin B-17)–Their Nature, Occurence and Metabolic Significance by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., biochemist who developed laetrile, a reprint from the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 22, Numbers 3 and 4, 1970. There are a number of clinics in Mexico that use laetrile in their cancer treatments.  Perhaps one of the most famous is that of Dr. Ernesto Contreras, Central Medico Del Mar, Tijuana, B.C. Mexico. At one time the phone number was 903-387-1540.  It may still be. Dr. Hans Nieper’s address in 1976 was 21 Sedanstrasse, Hanover Den, Germany, phone 73-67-73.   By the way, the cynical answer you received about dying of cynanide poisoning is laughable and shows an ignorance of the biochemistry related to amydalin.  I’ve eaten as many as 40 or 50 apricot seeds (one source of the substance) in one day and I’m still around–and in better health than before I ate them. ‘Hope some information here will be helpful to you.  Best wishes. Betty Wells The Plains, Virginia

Response:

The medical establishment has too much to lose to recommend it, but some brave physicians in the United States and all over the world have used it successfully in treating patients.

Once again the BIG, paranoid lie. Physicians have nothing to gain by hiding any effective treatment, be it chemotherapy, immunotherapy, alternative therapy, etc. DISCLAIMER: Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice, suggestions,  and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as part of any professional evaluation. No patient has been examined prior to making these comments; no professional fee has been charged by or paid to myself. The reader is advised to discuss these comments with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Medical recommendations & advise can only be generated after a complete (in person) physical examination and review of the patients history. As I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur in responding to any electronic question. Finally, the material produced by myself may be reproduced for personal use, provided that appropriate credit is given; but this material may not be reprinted or reproduced in any format for any other purpose. Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P. http://www.DoctorsOffice.org/

Response:

Hi, Does anyone have any information about Laetrile / Vitamin B17. – What is the best dose ? – Can anyone recommend any supplier ? – Is it actually legal for an MD to   treat a patient with this substance ? Yrs Alec PS the Patient has 4th stage, Large Cell, Adenocarcinoma of lung. — Venus Internet Ltd                       http://www.venus.co.uk/ 24 Denmark Street                      phone +44 (0)171 240 5858 London WC2H 8NJ, UK                      fax +44 (0)171 240 5859

Response:

Hi, Does anyone have any information about Laetrile / Vitamin B17.

   I don’t know about British law — but I would find it unethical for a physician to administer a treatment that has been clearly shown to be both ineffective and toxic. For more information, see the two sites in my response to "antineoplastins" DISCLAIMER: Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice, suggestions,  and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as part of any professional evaluation. No patient has been examined prior to making these comments; no professional fee has been charged by or paid to myself. The reader is advised to discuss these comments with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Medical recommendations & advise can only be generated after a complete (in person) physical examination and review of the patients history. As I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur in responding to any electronic question. Finally, the material produced by myself may be reproduced for personal use, provided that appropriate credit is given; but this material may not be reprinted or reproduced in any format for any other purpose. Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P. http://www.DoctorsOffice.org/

Response:

Isn’t laetrile the same as amygdalin, the toxic component of bitter almonds, the famous anticancer agent that instead of letting the patient die of cancer, let them die instantaneous of cyanide poisoning. (At least, it’s good for the statistics, lowering the incidences of cancer deaths)

   What’s in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweat" … and there’s nothing like calling spam a vitamen to create a market for it! DISCLAIMER: Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice, suggestions,  and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as part of any professional evaluation. No patient has been examined prior to making these comments; no professional fee has been charged by or paid to myself. The reader is advised to discuss these comments with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Medical recommendations & advise can only be generated after a complete (in person) physical examination and review of the patients history. As I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur in responding to any electronic question. Finally, the material produced by myself may be reproduced for personal use, provided that appropriate credit is given; but this material may not be reprinted or reproduced in any format for any other purpose. Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P. http://www.DoctorsOffice.org/

Response:

  I don’t know about British law — but I would find it unethical for a physician to administer a treatment that has been clearly shown to be both ineffective and toxic. For more information, see the two sites in my response to "antineoplastins"

Isn’t laetrile the same as amygdalin, the toxic component of bitter almonds, the famous anticancer agent that instead of letting the patient die of cancer, let them die instantaneous of cyanide poisoning. (At least, it’s good for the statistics, lowering the incidences of cancer deaths)

Response:

Related Posts