Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Scott Marsland, FNP-C's avatar

Hi Judy and Michelle,

Thank you both for reading and your lengthy comments. I think that history is important. Cochrane served up robust meta-analyses for years, and helped guide many clinical decisions for the better. 2015 was nine years and in some ways, a galaxy away from the present moment. When Cochrane crossed over to the dark side, from which it maligned IVM, is a matter of debate. And so, a 2015 review of Laetrile in which it didn't even meet inclusion criteria, should not be dismissed out of hand. In his protocol, Dr Marik offers a more robust discussion of the controversial history and risks of Laetrile.

Comparison of IVM and Laetrile, is, well, like comparing an Olympian with a toddler. By this point there may be more than 100 studies showing IVM's clinical efficacy against all things COVID. The evidence for Laetrile is tenuous by comparison. But more importantly, there is the safey profile of IVM. A French company commissioned the esteemed French Toxicologist, Dr Jacque Descotes, to perform a literature search on the safety of IVM. With 357 references, and after >4 billion doses over 40 years, he not only found it exceedingly safe, but even questioned the validity of the minscule number of deaths attributed to its use. As of the most recent iteration of Dr Marik's protocol, we have seventeen therapeutic choices with strong evidence and safety profiles. Most of them are very inexpensive. Given that there is no magic bullet, we have so many options, and we are using layered therapy, what reason is there to choose a lower-tier therapy with uncertain safety such as Laetrile?

In several Substacks I have written about how clinical expertise had an expiration date, somewhere around November of 2019, and clinicians who didn't update their knowledge re: spikopathy are missing a huge component of diagnosis and treatment. If Laetrile had clinical benefit before COVID, that benefit is likely to be less now, specifically because the mitochondria of the human population took a huge hit. Therapies such as the Arc Microtech have helped so many patients, particularly because of their restorative effect on mitochondria. With the insight that cancer is a metabolic rather than genetic disease, and that the central issue is defective mitochondria, this topic becomes very weighty. A therapy which could further undermine the electron transport chain is less than ideal, and that is precisely what cyanide does. If that effect is marginal, why be so concerned? This makes me think of a large study of Eastern Indian vegetarians and Pakistani meat-eaters, which compared the two available forms of Vitamin B-12, methylcobalamin and cyanocobalamin. Methylcobalamin's benefit was far superior, and the marginal concern about a cyanide molecule included within Cyanocobalamin turned out to have an impact.

You and I spoke re: Fenbendazole at the last FLCCC Conference. At the Leading Edge Clinic, we rely upon our trusted colleagues at Vitahealth Apothecary in NYC, who sit directly across the street from Sloan Kettering. Their experience has been that patients who have used Fenbendazole may get good clinical benefit initially, but if their cancer returns, it rip-roars through their body and nothing can stop it. That isn't a study; it's just expert opinion based upon extensive clinical experience over the last nineteen years. So, if we have a choice between Mebendazole with Polymorph C and Fenbendazole, I'll choose and recommend Mebendazole.

Thankfully, science is not yet dead. It is thrilling to be part of this five year study of how a keto diet and repurposed therapeutics can be used as adjunctive therapy for cancer. And, it's a huge undertaking. Other clinicians and their patients are free to organize studies using other therapetuics, including Laetrile. I assume, or at least hope, that there will be a robust informed consent discussion of evidence and safety, which should always include alternatives to the treatment offered.

Expand full comment
Scott Marsland, FNP-C's avatar

Thank you for sharing your thoughts Hilary. You underestimate my familiarity with Dr Makis, and overstate my language and words by characterizing them as unkind or disrespectful. There can be honorable disagreement among clinicians. In honoring my oath to do no harm, I find it necessary to speak up and counter one of his assertions. He garners my attention and mention because our patients, staff and clinicians read him on X, and want to try his suggestions, so we have to explain to them why we don't think that Laetrile is safe or evidence-based.

Expand full comment
140 more comments...

No posts