Guy Chapman – losing all ability to be rational?

Skeptic unguided missile and irrational bully Guy Chapman seems to have seriously lost the plot. A piece from WDDTY covered in Junk Science prompted a 9 page rabid rant from wacko Chapman …. about Chris Woollams and me!

But this was nothing compared to his 24 page – yes, twenty four page – suicide note about an article Woollams had written, in which Chris dared to mention that Guy Chapman had an affiliate marketing business. Firstly, I think (I was bored after the first two paragraphs) Chapman said he was not an affiliate marketer, then he said he was but didn’t make much money at it (?)

Guy, I really suggest you get out a bit more. Staring at those big internet screens and your dashboards all day could well be causing serious mental stress. And make some real friends, don’t just keep inventing them.

Here’s a little reminder of what your business is about from an investigative journalist in 2008 ( Note important phrases like ‘his Commercial affiliate advertising links page’, and, ‘making money out of advertising products’.

Keep taking the medication Guy – it would be sad to lose someone who is always good for a laugh.

, , , , ,

Skeptic conspiracy – it’s no theory

When Professor David Colquhoun erroneously suggested in his 2012 blog that Chris Woollams was using the charity CANCERactive for ‘Private Gain’, it precipitated a chain of events that could be followed easily by anyone with a twitter account. Ironically, it has exposed the skeptic community. Some are shills, stooges, with interests in ‘action groups’ funded by big Pharma, while others are clearly using their anti-CAM websites as money making ventures, capturing personal data from innocent visitors – those coming through the attacks on Woollams, almost certainly with cancer. It’s a sorry, sad mess and only the genuine patient suffers. It begs the question ‘Dare any sensible person visit any of their websites’? To do so is to read a biased, sometimes absurd, inaccurate and even defamatory report at best, whilst potentially exposing your personal data and identity far more than you could ever imagine. The worst case scenario is that your data could even be sold on to third parties.

The claim by Colquhoun was clearly not an issue about science – Woollams took it as personal defamation. Some might call it a lie. Chris didn’t run the charity, he gives his many hours for free, the related ‘business’ he was claimed to be running was no such thing but a dormant company that had never even traded and used to park a trading company whilst a buyer was found. All this would have been scrutinised by Colquhoun’s expert lawyers. Worse for Colquhoun, the accountants for all the relevant companies provided evidence that Woollams took no funding from anywhere. Colquhoun’s lawyers told him to take his claims down – he then made a formal apology to Woollams, even at one point tweeting that the ‘research’ on which he had based his claims was flawed and he wanted to move on.

Most rational people would think that should be the end of the matter.

Selektive attacks?

But Colquhoun is a Skeptic, one of a gang of Skeptics totally focussed on rubbishing complementary therapies and their messengers. Colquhoun also has ‘form’. In the past he has called Patrick Holford, ‘Holfraud’ (more lawyer involvement) but more usually he likes to pick on little people; Dr Alan Lakin and his wife were another example of his ill considered claims. They just wrote to the Provost of UCL where Colquhoun is employed. Their complaint resulted in a formal joint statement with UCL saying that Colquhoun could carry on using the UCL website providing he stuck to being sceptical about science and didn’t attack individuals. Some while later, he was kicked off the UCL server. Attacks on individuals have never stopped.

It is a common theory that Skeptics are funded by Big Pharma. There is, of course, little evidence of payments to individuals. Only recently the attacks on What Doctors Don’t Tell You again focussed attention on Sense about Science, a Pharma-funded skeptic organization in the United Kingdom. At least 40 per cent of their funding in the years 2004-10 came from Big Pharma, according to detailed analysis by a consumer group, H:MC21. This amount increased when attacks were strengthened against homeopathy.

The orchestration of misleading and inaccurate disinformation

When Colquhoun was threatened with legal action by Woollams, the tweets flew. Twitter is a medium much used by Skeptics and trolls alike and it has been described as an ‘Echo chamber’ because it is often used by people who want to verbally pat each other on the back. It is not unusual for some people to send hundreds of tweets a day. The tweets are public.

Colquhoun was on record tweeting Simon Singh. Singh is a mathematician, writer, journalist and has been a leading light in Sense about Science. He had a squabble with some Chiropractors and ended up in the High Court where a judge correctly ruled the High Court was no place for a scientific argument and slung the combatants out. The Skeptics consider this a ‘win’ because he didn’t have to pay a hefty damages bill to the chiropractors. What they don’t want is a ‘loss’ and Colquhoun at this point must have looked rather a liability.

Singh then tweeted openly to the Skeptics and received responses from several, for example Josephine Jones and Lecanardnoir. An interesting tweet came from Alan Henness, a colleague of Singh’s and a ‘pal’ from Sense about Science, who tweeted ‘Poor Chris Woollams’, as plans for attack were drawn up. Henness, who has an IT background, runs the Nightingale Collaboration, an ‘organisation’ that attacks complementary therapists throughout Britain if he feels they make inaccurate claims. It is probably irrelevant to Henness that Florence Nightingale used complementary therapies, natural sunshine, herbs and homeopathy to treat patients. Instead, he and his cronies try to suppress complementary therapists with threats about reporting them to the Advertising Standards Authority and Trading Standards. Many supporters who meet in pubs are probably blissfully unaware of their new-found Pharmaceutical company connections.

Josephine Jones
is also a prodigious production line for complaints, but has already been politely told by the ASA to ‘limit’ her energies. ‘Josephine Jones’ is a figment of someone’s imagination – a nom de guerre. Jones is made out to be a ‘former scientist’. So ‘she’ could be a ‘he’ and could be Claire from Liverpool or Edward from California with a diploma in ‘computer sciences’ and IT like most of the key skeptics; ‘She’ could even be a Pharmaceutical company shill, we have no way of knowing. ‘Her’ writings have been inaccurate, misleading and even downright dangerous as we all saw in ‘her’ ridiculous critique of Woollams book and ‘her’ frightening ignorance over glucose. ‘She’ appears to have no serious credentials in medicine or the biological sciences.

With Lecanardnoir, and Guy Chapman it is simpler. They have definitely have none. Of course, that doesn’t stop them pontificating on the perils of homeopathy and other complementary therapies.

With many of the skeptic gang, there may well be inaccuracy or exaggerated claims, and even defamation and the occasional lie.

Sometimes their comment is absolutely factually wrong, for example: The title says it all.

Lecanardnoir turned up to a debate in Dartington where he was on a panel of commentators about ‘Integrative’ approaches to medicine. ( Who invited him when there are genuine experts all over Britain, goodness knows. According to another panellist, he had to be repeatedly corrected for his inaccuracies by Simon Mills, a Cambridge graduate and founder of the School of Complementary Medicine at Exeter University, Penninsular. But then, poor love, lecanardnoir is really Andy Lewis who works in computing. Not that this stops him from running a blog which features a ‘Quackometer’ no less, allowing him alone to decide who is a quack and who isn’t. The irony seems to be lost on him.

Guy Chapman is a self-confessed ‘computer nerd’ according to his LinkedIn site. He seems to write blogs 24/7. Why does he have so much time? He is an Affiliate Marketer by trade. What’s one of those? Well, Affiliate Marketers aim to capture personal data (for example, by using cookies), profile it, and then ‘groom’ people until they click on advertisements for products that might be relevant to them. The Affiliate Marketer then gets paid by click, and/or by commission from sales. It is business – and for some, very big business. So, apart from any personal convictions he may have, it’s Chapman’s ‘job’ to write blogs – they fuel his business with the replies they receive.

Chapman immediately wrote four blogs in three days on Woollams and CANCERactive. He became Colquhoun’s new best friend with the confused Colquhoun both apologising to Woollams while simultaneously providing links to Chapman’s verbose vitriol. Not that Chapman confines his defamatory comments to Woollams – you should see what he writes about Burzynski and Errol Denton (a blood analyst who accused him of racism). Four-letter words abound in uncontrolled rants.

But then this is also the case at RationalWiki, a website that seems to repeat many of the musings of Chapman almost verbatim. Chapman did originally ‘work’ for the real Wikipedia as an administrator but parted company with them in less than perfect circumstances. RationalWiki has been dubbed ‘Irrational Wacky’ and it is easy to see why. Just read their vitriol on the Daily Mail where every journalist merits a four letter expletive and you will instantly understand that this website is a spider’s web, there to trap innocent visitors erroneously thinking it might have sensible views on science.

Colquhoun took his rambling and inaccurate blog on CANCERactive down from the internet. It was replaced almost instantly by a similar load of garbage with the same title from Josephine Jones. The Skeptics try to build blogs which climb to positions right under the subjects they are attacking on Internet search engines so that, in this case, people with cancer will click on their website articles to read what they say by design or accident. This serves a double purpose – it aims to discredit the attacked (CANCERactive), whilst increasing the importance of the attacker’s website in the ‘eyes’ of the search engines. Thus the Skeptics use subjects like Burzynski, Denton, The Daily Mail and CANCERactive to power their own feeble websites up the Google rankings.

Next and unsurprisingly, after about a dozen positive 5-star reviews on Chris Woollams’ excellent book ‘Everything you need to know to help you beat cancer’, there were suddenly two negative reviews by – you’ve guessed it – alias Jones and Chapman.

Woollams was even attacked by another ‘secretive’ website – the Daily Quack. This usually attacks a small healer in Yorkshire or an acupuncturist in Manchester, people who can’t afford to defend themselves. But the writers had a pop at Chris Woollams, also claiming he lived on a sprawling estate in Buckinghamshire (he lives abroad and has done for 20 years) and that he was their new lead writer, which he is not. Of course, again, some innocent followers of Woollams – people with cancer – will click on this website thinking they really will find words of wisdom from him there.

One of the, now devalued, Colquhoun’s recurrent attacking themes against CANCERactive was that they ‘repeatedly’ broke the 1939 Cancer Act and that Trading Standards were useless in doing nothing. This theme was then taken up vociferously by Guy Chapman. Indeed, the sceptics organised a number of formal complaints to Trading Standards. The Trustees of CANCERactive then asked Trading Standards for a once-and-for-all definitive ruling and the matter was referred to the Government body, the MHRA.

The outcome? Both the MHRA and Trading Standards concluded that the 3600 page CANCERactive website was perfectly legal. Yet Chapman still has inaccurate blogs posted about CANCERactive breaking the law.

False identities aim to fool readers

A number of these skeptic websites are anonymous – Skeptics frequently use monikers. Why?

1. Some of the people have credible jobs and their employers might not like them using four letter words to rubbish people doing their best to help cancer patients for no personal reward.
2. Some of the Skeptics clearly lie about their subject. The legal word is defammation. If you use a moniker, hide your IP address with a proxy server etc, you are virtually untraceable if a lawyer comes looking for you. Hiding in rat holes somehow seems appropriate.
3 Some of the secret skeptics could well be paid directly or indirectly by Big Pharma. They could even currently work in a pharmaceutical company. How would any members of the public know?
4 A number of websites may be owned by just one person writing under several monikers. It was a tactic employed, for example, by Guy Chapman when at Wikipedia. If you have proxy accounts in false names, you can build a web of ‘people’ who seem to agree with you. This provides heightened credibility for your claims when in reality they may be devoid of evidence and complete trash.
5. You can also launch co-ordinated attacks. Chapman spent several weeks claiming Woollams was dishonest, while the message from Jones was that he used no research. Neither is true (Colquhoun took their posts down off his site after Woollams suggested he asked his lawyers for a view!)
6 No one knows which websites are linked. Affiliate marketers use a dashboard to see all their accounts in different names. It is possible that the fabricated Jones, Guy Chapman’s Blahg, Chapman Central (, RationalWiki and more are all linked. An innocent cancer patient clicks on one website to read something about homeopathy and their data is collected by someone else.

This anonymity is supported by the use (abuse) of media contacts and of the word ‘experts’ and such-like. For example, ‘experts’ are appalled by the increasing use of complementary therapies in Britain. Actually real experts are not!

Collecting personal data for Private Gain

So, you visit a website mistakenly thinking Woollams is a contributor. The ‘secret’ owner captures your e mail address. They then put a ‘spider’ on this. A spider can profile you and provide basic information – age, male/female etc simply from the ‘secret’ information you gave when you signed up for an e mail account. BUT. Other spiders can use your e mail address to provide lists of all your contacts’ e mails over the years – all your friends and colleagues and their contacts. And they get profiled too. Some clever spiders cross-link all the social media websites and can thus provide data of your likes and far more about you. And this all goes into the Affiliate Marketer’s database and you are categorized by your age, interests, diseases, likes, whatever. All ready to then use the innocent ‘victim’ for personal gain.

How ironic that this all started because Woollams was accused of using a charity for personal gain.

Affiliate Marketers court controversy – if they write that Burzynski is a good man and raises money for the poor, no one will read their blogs. They need to write vitriolic attacks. Who cares whether it is true or defamatory. The newspaper, the Sunday Sport, showed the way with absurd headlines – so let’s hear it Guy … ‘Errol Denton ate my Hamster’. And that’s what the affiliate marketing skeptics are about.

Complementary Therapy is potentially big business

Complementary and Alternative medicine is a rich seam of leads for them. 80,000 practitioners in the UK alone; but of course blogs reach a worldwide audience, so the real figure is far higher. Also a staggering two thirds of patients now use a complementary therapy.

Even if a secret Skeptic is not an affiliate marketer, lists of profiled potential customers derived from their websites could be sold for approximately 8 pounds a thousand names. Some websites can accumulate a million names a year. It is not illegal to create and sell data lists.

Add it all up – it is huge business. So who is involved? Colquhoun, Singh, Jones, Jones, Henness, Chapman? Who knows? Maybe none apart from Chapman? Maybe the rest are just gullible innocents? Maybe they all genuinely think all CAM is quackery? But, really, in this secretive world of Pharma funding and false names and proxy websites, can you trust any of their websites not to collect and, even unwittingly, pass on your data?

Chapman is a top affiliate marketer. He gives speeches around the world. His website uses cookies which will become embedded into your computer to take data. He even sells spiders.


True scepticism and the emergence of non-drug therapies

What a sorry mess: Big pharma sponsoring ‘action groups’; lackeys and shills co-ordinating attacks on subjects like What Doctors Don’t Tell You and CANCERactive, while other skeptics simply fuel their own businesses capturing your personal details.

And, in all this, what happened to true scepticism? Where people with honest opinions could ask if Photodynamic Therapy (just going into Clinical Trials) was a genuine non-invasive alternative to drugs; or, similarly, Ablation (the use of energy from sources such as Ultrasound to heat up and kill cancers)? It has been used successfully with both prostate and breast cancers. Then there is the use of virotherapy and Dr Moira Brown’s successful clinical work with brain cancers. Or Dendritic Cell therapy and a few more coming fast.

It is easy to see why the skeptics are out in force. We could be witnessing the start of the last days of the Pharma Empire. The momentum of non-invasive alternative therapies (at significant savings both financially and in terms of patient stress) is almost too hard for them to stop.

Thank goodness.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Scientists blow the whistle on drug and vaccine fraud

It seems some scientists at least are feeling guilty about their role in vaccine and drug research. And Big Pharma is on the receiving end of some pretty hefty fraud payouts. Some people think that’s not enough and that corrupt CEOs should even go to jail.

Just a decade ago Dr. Allen Roses the worldwide Vice President of genetics and a top executive of the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline stated simply that “The vast majority of drugs – more than 90% – only work in 30 to 50% of the people.” If that’s the case, how could such large volumes of drugs be sold worldwide?

It’s not just drugs that might be ineffective. In 2010 two Merck scientists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, both former Merck virologists, filed a False Claims Act which has just been opened – in it claiming that vaccine manufacturer Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test data, spiked blood samples with animal antibodies, sold a vaccine that actually promoted mumps and measles outbreaks, and ripped off governments and consumers who bought the vaccine thinking it was ‘95% effective’. Forbes Magazine (June 2012) stated, “scientists claim Merck defrauded the U.S. government by causing it to purchase an estimated four million doses of mislabelled and misbranded MMR vaccine per year for at least a decade, and helped ignite two recent mumps outbreaks that the allegedly ineffective vaccine was intended to prevent in the first place”.

In July 2012 The New York Times was reporting yet more Pharmaceutical company fraud: “In the largest settlement involving a pharmaceutical company, the British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKlein agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a top diabetes drug, federal prosecutors announced Monday. The agreement also includes civil penalties for improper marketing of a half-dozen other drugs”.

“What we’re learning is that money doesn’t deter corporate malfeasance,” said Eliot Spitzer, who, as New York’s attorney general, sued GlaxoSmithKline in 2004 over similar accusations involving Paxil. “The only thing that will work in my view is C.E.O.’s and officials being forced to resign and individual culpability being enforced.”

This case was brought to light by four former Glaxo scientists, Greg Thorpe, Blair Hamrick, Thomas Gerahty and Matthew Burke who were in line to receive a share of the fine under the Federal False Claims Act, a US law dating back to the Civil War that allows whistleblowers to receive a portion of money the government recovers when prosecuting fraud.

Skeptics silent while Rome burns

But it gets worse. While self-opinionated Skeptic trolls like pharmacologist Professor David Colquhoun, IT nerd Guy Chapman and his joined-at-the-hip muse Josephine Jones hardly mention a word about such underhand practices yet bore the world with their subjective views on naughty homeopathy and complementary therapies, people in the real world have to suffer repeated attacks by errant pharmaceutical companies, out to profit from illness and misfortune.

Now Big Pharma turns its attentions to South East Asia

Now Erika Kelton, a lawyer who specialises in whistleblower cases, writing in Forbes shows that Big Pharma has turned its attentions to South East Asia and China, where life seems a little easier for Big Pharma to follow their dodgy practices. In an article entitled ‘Is Big Pharma addicted to fraud?’ she writes “First, Chinese authorities announced they were investigating GlaxoSmithKlein and other pharma companies for bribing doctors, hospitals and government officials to buy and prescribe their drugs. Glaxo is accused of using a Shanghai travel agency to funnel at least $489 million in bribes.

Then The New York Times revealed last week the alarming news that an internal Glaxo audit found serious problems with the way research was conducted at the company’s Shanghai research and development center.

Last year Glaxo paid $3 billion to resolve civil and criminal allegations of, among other things, marketing widely used prescription drugs for unapproved treatments and using kickbacks to promote sales.
And in 2009, Glaxo paid $750 million to resolve civil and criminal charges that quality failures led to serious contamination of drug products at its manufacturing operations in Puerto Rico.

Chinese officials say they are investigating other foreign companies for similar charges. Merck, Roche Holding and Sanofi SA confirm they used the same travel agency as Glaxo, but they haven’t been accused of wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, AstraZeneca — which previously reported that it is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department — said last week that police in Shanghai questioned two company sales managers, but “we have no reason to believe it is related to the other investigations.”

If the bribery accusations are true, the pharma companies could face charges in the US for violating the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, an anti-bribery law, as well as charges by Chinese authorities. Last year, Pfizer paid $60.2 million and Eli Lilly & Co. paid $29.4 million to the US to settle allegations they had bribed government officials, including hospital administrators and government doctors, in China and other countries to approve and prescribe their products.”

Perhaps it is about time ‘skeptics’ like Colquhoun, Josephine Jones and Homeopathy troll Guy Chapman started writing blogs that reflect real patient concerns.

According to online Biospectrum : In the last three years, global pharma giants have paid fines to the tune of $11 billion for criminal wrongdoing, including withholding safety data and promoting drugs for use, beyond any licensed condition. ( This website also provides the ‘Six Stories that have scarred the Pharmaceutical Industry forever’

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Now lemons beat cancer

People come up to me (usually the moment I have finished a speech) and ask if I have heard about B-17, Shark Cartilage; Coral Calcium as a ‘cancer cure’. I sigh.

Recently I have received more than 20 copies of an e mail doing the rounds. It’s about lemons. It suggests that eating whole lemons is a cancer cure – all you have to do is freeze them and then you can eat them as some sort of delicacy. Job done. Now, it is true that lemon skins contain limonene (not mentioned in the article) and that does have an effect in research on cancers. It is a natural oil that seems to be able to detoxify the liver and parts of the intestine from certain carcinogens and animal studies show an effect with mammary tumours. And lemons are very alkalising and research shows alkaline bodies tend to stop metastases while acid bodies promote it. But eating a frozen lemon to cure a cancer? Oh dear.

I know of no single compound – drug, natural compound, vitamin, whatever – that is a cancer cure. If you push me I can think of a couple of treatments with potential for solid tumours like ablatherm; and I can think of some natural compounds like vitamin D and curcumin that can play an important part in an integrated treatment programme (which might include a drug or surgery too).

I find research; and it (via links to over 100 cancer centres around the world) finds me.

So let’s start:

Coral calcium: Your body does need calcium. If you have polyps in your intestine it seems to help reduce the risk of them becoming cancerous.
There is research showing that mass market calcium supplements can increase heart problems (see but then I detest high street cheap supplements – they are usually synthetic, often deficient and poorly absorbed.

Which takes me to Coral Calcium. There is no research that I have come across that says it cures or helps cure cancer. Its proponents normally provide half a dozen pieces of random information and try to join the dots. Yes. Okinawans live a long time and much of this has been scientifically linked to calorie restriction and a diet high in natural minerals (they probably came late to mobile phones, EMF’s, and environmental toxins too). Some salts (rather than the refined table salt or sea salt) contain not just sodium chloride but up to 20 per cent as other minerals (like calcium, magnesium and other salts). All are essential to our health and, yes, research shows the general population to be deficient.

Then there’s the acid body argument. Let’s be clear. A normal healthy body is slightly alkaline. If it becomes slightly acid, if its oxygen levels are lowered, there will be a health risk. But just taking coral calcium is not going to change that dramatically. Inside the centre of a tumour the pH is about 6.2 caused by the inefficient energy production process. Research has shown that in more acidic conditions there is more metastases and the metastases tend to form new cancers more. Could coral calcium help? Possibly as a part of a total package of activities to correct your acid body, Yes. But is it a cure for cancer, No. There is also no research that shows lobbing in supplements or minerals on their own can alkalise the body sufficiently to stop the cancer reaction centre inside the tumour, although there are some clinical trials about to start with sodium bicarbonate.

So, is coral calcium a cure for cancer? No. It could play a small part in a much, much greater integrated package if you had a body deficient in calcium, and minerals in general, and you were acidic.

B-17: Let’s get a few things straight. There is research on B-17, but not much, and mostly with animals. And there are no phase III clinical trials; but then there aren’t for chemotherapy treatments for the under 12s, cyberknife or brachytherapy for breast cancer, but that doesn’t seem to stop orthodox medicine men using them.

Krebs did a research study claiming it cured people, which he presented to the Senate, but they were unimpressed. I know there are conspiracy theories over this and the Sloan-Kettering Trial.

Krebs called it a vitamin, but that’s debatable.

I have looked into B-17 in some depth. I have also spent a long time talking to people who use it, notably Contreras at the Oasis of Hope.

The biochemical logic is reasonably sound, that an enzyme unique to cancer cells (glucosidase) breaks down the molecule of B-17 to benzaldehyde and cyanide which promptly kills the cell. Looking for unique proteins and enzymes in a cancer cell is exactly what drug companies are doing right now.

The skeptic mantra (as trundled out by the fictitious Josephine Jones) of ‘it contains cyanide and kills people’ is ignorant. Run away, if someone says that to you. Many natural compounds could be equally said to contain cyanide in the plant world if you use their duff science. And we need these compounds for our health. Contreras has never heard of anyone dying of cyanide poisoning from B-17.

The other Skeptic point of ignorance is that none of them (the fictitious Josephine Jones and troll Guy Chapman) seems to have sufficient science knowledge to distinguish between natural B-17 (amygdalin) and synthetic (laetrile). The fact is that, correctly, the FDA has refused to pass/banned laetrile for general use because it is synthetic and is thus a drug. It ain’t got any research to support it, so it can’t be approved. Full stop.

The natural compound is called amygdalin. I have talked to loads of people who eat apricot kernels – I take 6 a day with my breakfast. We need nitrilosides in our diet. And there is some very general evidence that they are helpful.

Contreras uses B-17 but as a part of a ‘Metabolic Therapy’ package. This is a bit like chucking the alternative therapy kitchen sink at a cancer, and can include B-17, Intravenous vitamin C, pancreatic enzymes, oxygen therapy and more. Which bit works (there is little doubt that they do have satisfied customers) – no one seems to know! But Contreras himself says that B-17 has no effect with brain tumours, liver cancer or sarcomas.

I have had grown men come up to me who were visibly yellow/grey – they were trying to consume 50 apricot kernels for breakfast as they had prostate cancers. The problem is that you need a healthy liver to detoxify the by-products of B-17 and cancer patients don’t have a healthy liver. Also Nutrition Almanac recommends no more than 35 a day, nor 5/6 in a 90 minute period.

So does B-17 cure cancer? No sorry. No evidence to support it at all. Could it play a role in your anti-cancer programme? Yes, a small role but be very, very careful. Heed the Nutrition Almanac advice and have someone qualified watch over you.

Shark Cartilage: There was research done using a ground concentrate of shark cartilage that showed some evidence of preventing blood supplies forming in cancer tumours. BUT. The guy who did the research had a TV documentary made on his work, and this prompted a hundred supplement companies to turn out shark cartilage tablets. But ‘Sharks don’t get cancer’ – who says? And they don’t use toxic toothpaste and carry mobile phones either.

One report I read was that, if the shark cartilage was ground to the original standards, you would anyway have to consume three bottles or more of the pills a day just to come close to the original research. And anyway, it could be the calcium levels in the cartilage. Didn’t that shark just swim past some coral?

The American Cancer Society States: One shark cartilage product, called AE-941, was studied as an investigational new drug. Although some laboratory and animal studies have shown that some components in shark cartilage have the ability to slow the growth of new blood vessels, these effects have not been proven in humans. The clinical studies of shark cartilage products published to date have not proven any benefit against cancer.
I could talk about zeolite, vitamin C, and acai berries but I’d get bored. And so would you.

, , , , , , ,