TOPIC:

Laetrile has pretty much been proved to not work for most people.

99%+ of people will not need more than MMS 1 & 2. (& clay)
And a decent, GOOD, healthy diet, like the McVegan Dietary Lifestyle.

I repeat - I have seen laetrile cure liver, breast and prostate cancers in 5 people. This wasn't hearsay - they were all related to me, or close friends. They were all medically confirmed with cancer - stages 2-4 and their cancers disappeared. I do not bullshit.
For what it's worth, another friend of mine was confirmed with lung cancer last year. I did suggest that he use MMS (as laetrile imports have been banned by the medical mafia in this country. He used MMS diligently but died on 2 January this year.
If I had cancer I would definitely choose laetrile (apricot seeds) over MMS.
Perhaps you could substantiate your claim that "Laetrile has pretty much been proved to not work for most people".

DavidB wrote:

I repeat - I have seen laetrile cure liver, breast and prostate cancers in 5 people. This wasn't hearsay - they were all related to me, or close friends. They were all medically confirmed with cancer - stages 2-4 and their cancers disappeared. I do not bullshit.
For what it's worth, another friend of mine was confirmed with lung cancer last year. I did suggest that he use MMS (as laetrile imports have been banned by the medical mafia in this country. He used MMS diligently but died on 2 January this year.
If I had cancer I would definitely choose laetrile (apricot seeds) over MMS.
Perhaps you could substantiate your claim that "Laetrile has pretty much been proved to not work for most people".
 

What dosage of MMS1 was he using?

Perhaps CDS would be a better option for cancer as it is fully activated, whereas MMS1 is only 10% activated and then relies on the stomach acid to fully activate. That is how I understand it anyway.

MM1 protocol 1000 - 3 drops per hour 8 times per day. He was getting Herx reactions at a time when he was dreadfully ill.
His cancer was very aggressive, from diagnosis to passing was only 4 months, so I really don't think anything would have saved him.
I haven't had any experience with CDS, so can't say whether it would have been better.
IMHO - MMS is effective against diseases caused by external biological agents such as bacteria, viruses, fungi - but is not effective for metabolic conditions of which cancer is one.

It could have been something as "simple" as he had a Mold/Fungus infection,
which caused the MMS to not work well, or at all.
Was he eating and drinking appropriately and not consuming the known
substances that cause MMS to not work?
Was he eating WELL? (organically, ideally Vegan, etc.)
Was he doing other "modern medicine" treatments, too? (chemo, etc.)

For an "aggressive cancer", he should probably have been taking MMS2.
And he should NOT have been Herxing. There is no reason for that.
You already feel bad enough without unnecessarily feeling worse.
And in Jim Humble's "MMS Health Recovery Guidebook", there are other
protocols for such advanced and egregious situations.

MMS has "cured" MANY cancers (which are (almost?) all viral-based),
and other egregious and "terminal" diseases for MANY people.
There are hundreds of testimonials.

It is possible to start treatment too late, so that could have been a problem.

I'm not your Google Monkey, but for a QUICK Laetrile reference, you can read this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin#Laetrile

Similar to the way Ivermectin helps SOME ((very) small group?) of people with COVID-19,
but for the greater majority, it does not. (it's always possible that the people had
severe parasitical infections, and once those cleared up, their body was able to
deal with the COVID-19 --- which is why it sometimes works, but not for most people)
 

in order to be able to talk about COVID19, the SARS-COV2 virus must be proven. However, no one has done this to date. Anyone who hasn't figured out and come to the realization that COVID19 is one big bull shit, really has no help.

I love the claim that someone is fact based but then makes an uninformed statement such as "Similar to the way Ivermectin helps SOME ((very) small group?) of people with COVID-19, but for the greater majority, it does not."  

Let's check the science...
All studies (pooled effects, all stages)
Ivermectin has an efficacy rate of 62% based on 95 studies

For comparison
Quercetin has an efficacy rate of 50% based on 10 studies
Fluvoxamine --> 40% / 15 studies
Paxlovid --> 34% / 28 studies - Recommended for CV19 treatment
Budesonide --> 31% / 11 studies
Hydroxychloroquine --> 25% / 387 Studies
Remdesivir --> 11% / 52 studies - Approved for hospital CV19 treatment

Ivermectin
Early Treatment 62% from 37 studies (Hydroxychloroquine also has a 62% effectiveness as an early treatment)
Prophylaxis 82% from 17 studies

Only three interventions rank higher than Ivermectin (pooled effects, all stages) but all three have limited data (1, 4, and 4 studies respectively). Basic math dictates that 62% would provide a real world efficacy much greater than a very small group as incorrectly stated. Trust the science...or maybe start by reading it.
 

marti wrote:

in order to be able to talk about COVID19, the SARS-COV2 virus must be proven. However, no one has done this to date. Anyone who hasn't figured out and come to the realization that COVID19 is one big bull shit, really has no help.

That is ridiculous pseudo-science at its worst.

JTF wrote:

I love the claim that someone is fact based but then makes an uninformed statement such as "Similar to the way Ivermectin helps SOME ((very) small group?) of people with COVID-19, but for the greater majority, it does not."  

Let's check the science...
All studies (pooled effects, all stages)
Ivermectin has an efficacy rate of 62% based on 95 studies

For comparison
Quercetin has an efficacy rate of 50% based on 10 studies
Fluvoxamine --> 40% / 15 studies
Paxlovid --> 34% / 28 studies - Recommended for CV19 treatment
Budesonide --> 31% / 11 studies
Hydroxychloroquine --> 25% / 387 Studies
Remdesivir --> 11% / 52 studies - Approved for hospital CV19 treatment

Ivermectin
Early Treatment 62% from 37 studies (Hydroxychloroquine also has a 62% effectiveness as an early treatment)
Prophylaxis 82% from 17 studies

Only three interventions rank higher than Ivermectin (pooled effects, all stages) but all three have limited data (1, 4, and 4 studies respectively). Basic math dictates that 62% would provide a real world efficacy much greater than a very small group as incorrectly stated. Trust the science...or maybe start by reading it.



 

Your "statistics" are fake, false, and misleading BULLSHIT along the lines of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda, with much of it simple blithering blathering spread on obviously stupid, clueless, and/or invalid websites and the like, with often misquoted and misinterpreted results, usually by people who don't know what they are talking about.

Many of the studies demonstrating benefit were faulty, misleading, or fraudulent, and/or have been disavowed as in error or mistaken, and you should consider the source, as well. (and/or were not scientifically rigorous double blind studies of sufficient size and length)

For both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.

Like that one person (you?) who mentioned some study and made some claim, which I then went and looked at and read, and the results actually said the exact opposite of what the person claimed they said, and I pointed that out, and they simply did the typical "Yeah, but what about this...." BS.