There are thousands of known cases where homeopathy has been known to take lives - usually through convincing patients not to continue with life-saving therapies.
since this thread concerns peach and plumb extracts please
post a link to information that these take lives.
LOL, paul, dishonestly quoting people again, are we? That reply was clearly in response to your statement in post 34938, notably:
I have read that there are doctors who are silently treating cancer patients with non conventional remedies such as homeopathic treatments that have been found to cure cancer.That statement is simply false. There is
zero evidence homeopathy works, and a lot of evidence it causes harm.
These extracts, btw, are not homeopathic treatments - so why you brought up homeopathy in the first place is a mystery known only to you...
and since these are expiremental extracts that may not have been tested on paitients you can post links showing that vitamin B17 found in peach seeds and appricott seeds have taken lives as they are a current homeopathic treatment for cancer.
B17 is not a homeopathic treatment for cancer, but rather a naturopathic one. Maybe you should learn what the difference is before you start making silly claims like these.
B17 isn't experimental either - it was thoroughly tested in the 1970's and early 1980's.
And its well established that B17,
does not cure cancer - not that those facts keeps naturopaths from needlessly "prescribing" it:
Ellison NM, et al (1978). "Special report on Laetrile: the NCI Laetrile Review. Results of the National Cancer Institute's retrospective Laetrile analysis". N. Engl. J. Med. 299 (10): 549–52.
Moertel CG, et al. (1981). "A pharmacologic and toxicological study of amygdalin". JAMA 245 (6): 591–4. doi:10.1001/jama.245.6.591.
Moertel CG, et al. (1982). "A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer". N. Engl. J. Med. 306 (4): 201–6. doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0168-9.
then to balance out your findings , please post a link to the number of lives taken by common treatments.
Why not use a useful metric, like
improvements in cancer survival, based on medical methodology used:
Modern Medicine:
[img]
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/104535482/nfig002[/img]
The image doesn't show up well - follow the link. It shows the big drop in cancer mortality over the past 70-ish years...
Naturopathy and Homeopathy: there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placeboworldwide:7.6 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year.
7.3 million people die of cancer each year.
it doesnt look like the current medical practices are
doing such a great job.
Getting cancer data from natural "news" is like asking a blind man what colour your shirt is. If you think they're a valid source, then I have a bridge for sale...
Maybe try some real statistics:
USA cancer stats, 2009 AND
USA Cancer Stats, estimated, 2010,
Year | New Cases | Deaths | Cure Rate
2009 | 1,479,350 | 562,320 | 61.98%
2010 | 1,529,560 | 569,490 | 62.76% (est)
In 2008, world wide, there was an estimated 7.57 million deaths each year, and an estimated 12.68 million new cases. That's a international cure rate of 40%.
Bryan
