Cancer cure, but FDA and doctors would rather have your cash and not the cure.

[Sprocket]

Ask yourselves a question. Be honest with your answer.

If I get cancer will I :

(a) See my doctor and demand the lastest in traditional medical treatment.

or

(b) Take B12

or

(c) Pray


For my part the answer would definitely be A.

ERS

Given the choices, I opt for '(c)' - but only 'cos you listed B12...  With your limited research, you are probably best opting for '(a)' and taking your chances   Seriously though, were I ever to get cancer (which I believe won't happen due to the B17 I already take) I would always opt for B17.

But, you are right in a way - research has shown that most (90%+) opt for conventional treatment first, but this is more than likely due to the profound ignorance of the general public!  When they turn to 'alternative treatments' such as B17 as a last resort, their body is almost destroyed thanks to 'conventional treatment', and they end up having multiple ailments instead of 'just' cancer.  But even with these odds, there have been numerous 'miracles' documented.  Now, had they opted for b17 to begin with, I believe they would have saved themselves a whole lot of suffering and ended up healthy as a consequence - like in the Mexican hospital that was also mentioned here.

That said, someone mentioned in this thread that they know someone with terminal cancer that are "afraid" to try alternative treatments - that does strike me as bizarre...

[Evil Roy Slade]

@Sprocket

Yes I should have written B17 and not B12. Thank you for correcting my error.

ERS

[Koen1]

I agree with Sprocket that most people who try the B17/laetrile thing
do it as a last resort kind of attempt, after they have already been
poisoned with chemo- and radiation-therapy, and after the traditional
doctors have told them there's nothing else they can do.

This is not surprising really, after all, the majority of the population
believes that medical doctors know best and want to cure the patients.
And in theory that is what they do, of course. But in practise they make
their money off other peoples health problems. Their primary concern is
making money, their secondary concern is helping patients.
Giving your patients a cheap and natural cure or preventative supplement
does not pay.
So they don't.

It's like the dentists: they could simply put a protective film over all your teeth
when you've turned 21 and/or your teeth have stopped growing,
to prevent any tooth decay due to plaque/tartar/whatever. But they don't,
because they can make a lot more money having you come back every six
months and re- or placing another filling, drilling another hole, intentionally
neglecting the beginning decay in order to give you an expensive root canal
the next year, etc etc.

Same with the companies producting the medicines: their R&D is aimed primarily
at making more money and not at all at producing more effective medicines to
eradicate diseases.

It is a pity that we (the people) are being lied to in the sense that we are raised to believe
the doctors and medicine producers exist and work because they want to minimise and if
possible completely eradicate disease,
while that does not appear to be their primary goal anymore.

It does seem somewhat contradictory to the Hippocratic oath that the doctors paycheck is
now more important than curing the patient...
Then again, it is obvious that anyone taking a Hippocratic oath can hardly be anything other
than a hippocrite.

[z.monkey]

Rename it the Hypocritical Oath!

They promise to swill martinis, swing golf clubs and steal your money with the best of their ability.  What is even worse is the insurance bureaucracy situation that "manages" your money to pay the medical establishment.

Blech!

[Scorpile]

Don't go against doctors.  They are only trying to help you.

They learned there are rules they can't broke, and these rules come from FDA.

Instead, go against big corporations, that controls FDA.

These corporations says FDA that drug can help, and the FDA says then to doctors.