> Hi Jay;
>
> Unfortunately there is no scientific analysis to back up your claims - in
> fact a lot of evidence to suggest that Laetrile has no effect on existing
> cancer;

The couple of honest-to-goodness real trials I have seen of it were
seriously flawed...and of course, if you go by the quacks at
somewhere like quackwatch.com, they are going to shout it from
the rooftops that it doesn't work.

BUT, absolutely *nothing* was said of the Hunza taking Laetrile,
anyway. The Hunza ate *foods* that were high in natural nitrilosides
and, as long as they stayed on that diet, didn't develop cancer
(it is much easier to not get cancer than it is to get rid of it
after you get it). When Western foods were introduced into
their diets, cancer rates went up.

As mentioned in what I posted, very low to almost non-existent
cancer rates were common in many and varied hunter-gather
groups before they adopted our Western diet.

This is both common knowledge among paleo diet supporters
and accepted as the gospel, lack of scientific data be damned
(unless the hunter-gathers in question didn't eat meat 14 times
a day...then it is all based on unscientific dribble!). But this fact
also wasn't missed by Dr. Krebs, an award winning biochemist,
who spent many years analyzing the difference between farmed
foods and their wild ("paleo") counterparts.

What goes over so many people's heads is that Dr. Krebs
validated and proved the paleo diet using actual science
and modern chemistry. His work was nothing short of
brilliant. When everyone else was curious about why the
Eskimos didn't get cancer, Krebs was busy analyzing their
food in the laboratory. Instead of just dreaming about
how great the Hunza's cancer rates were, he was
putting their food under a microscope.

But as smart as Krebs was, his downfall into obscurity
was that he just wasn't smart enough to work the word
"paleo" into his discovery. Had he had the forethought to
do that, he would be considered a sub-god today and
worshipped by the masses!

> Additionally, people must be careful ingesting it as it could have a toxic
> effect on the body:

Dr. Halstead then took the stand. He carried with him a book which he put in
his lap. Under direct questioning from Mr. Coe, Dr. Halstead explained how
all substances known to man can be toxic. He showed that while some oxygen
is necessary to maintain life, too much oxygen can be fatal. He went through
the same procedure with water, salt, and other substances. He then showed
that aspirin, sugar and salt were, milligram-for-milligram, more toxic than
Laetrile. He further pointed out that chemotherapeutic agents which are
commonly used in the treatment of cancer are, milligram-for-milligram,
hundreds of times more toxic than Laetrile.

On cross-examination, the FDA attorney asked Dr. Halstead to give the
toxicity figure for some substance (I don't remember what the substance
was). Dr. Halstead said, pointing to the book in his lap but never opening
it, "On page 311, Table 2, in this book you will find that the toxicity of
that substance is .... "(whatever it was). The FDA attorney then named
another substance and asked for its toxicity figure. Dr. Halstead answered,
"On page 419, Table 3 shows it to be .... "(whatever it was). The attorney
tried a third time. Again, Dr. Halstead came up with the page number, table
number and toxicity.

The three FDA attorneys-stared at each other for a minute, then one of them
said, "How do you know all of this?" Dr. Halstead calmly replied, "Because I
wrote the book." "Impossible!" yelled the attorney. Without saying a word,
Dr. Halstead took the book from his lap and handed it to Judge Bohanon. The
Judge opened the book to its first page and read the following, "Textbook of
Toxicology, written by Dr. Bruce Halstead, as commissioned by the Food and
Drug Administration of the United States." The Judge said to the FDA
attorneys, "You fellows should have known that. You didn't do your homework
very well." The FDA attorneys had enough of Dr. Halstead. They dismissed him
from the stand.