Coercion Watch: The Cure of "Quackery" (Coercion) is Worse than the Disease (Ignorance)

Stephen Barrett runs a site called "quackwatch" at ( http://www.quackwatch.org/ ) where he purports to alert people to "scams and quackery". This would be OK, except that he places 100% of his faith in collective rule, and armed authoritarianism. He makes no mention of the fact that the juries in the cases where well-meaning scientists and doctors were convicted were instructed to enforce existing unjust laws by thei judges in the trials (contrary to the Constitution's mention of "common law" and "due process").

Of particular interest is his listing of an article by Dr. Benjamin Wilson listing B-17 cancer therapies as "quackery". Online here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

If you scroll down to the bottom of the preceding link, you will note that he features a section titled: "Recent Enforcement Actions", which he presumably presents in order to get you to agree that B-17 treatment is harmful. But wait: If a person chooses B-17 against their doctor's wishes and dies, then why does anyone need to be punished? They followed a treatment that was not successful, but one that is evidenced to have greater success than established treatments for late-term cancer. Moreover, early laetrile supplementation appears to actually do better than mainstream cancer therapies. So again, why does anyone need to be punished with the force of government, and why would their being punished indicate that Barrett is correct about B-17?

And note his sources, under the "Recent Enforcement Actions" section. No mention of any pro B-17 scholarship! Only the criticisms of it (mostly by government thugs and vested interests of the status quo)!


Moreover, from the first paragraph, he leaves out several critical facts. Let's analyze just the first paragraph to see if it sets off our bullshit detectors, after we watch this video about B-17. FIRST, watch the video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507

THEN, read what Benjamin Wilson has to say while paying attention to both what he says and what he fails to say:

Laetrile is the trade name for laevo-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronoside, a
substance allegedly synthesized by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., and registered with the
U.S. Patent Office for the treatment of "disorders of intestinal fermentation."
This compound is chemically related to amygdalin, a substance found naturally in
the pits of apricots and various other fruits. Most proponents of Laetrile for
the treatment of cancer use the terms "Laetrile" and amygdalin
interchangeably.

Amygdalin was originally isolated in 1830 by two
French chemists. In the presence of certain enzymes, amygdalin breaks down into
glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide (which is poisonous). It was tried
as an anticancer agent in Germany in 1892, but was discarded as ineffective and
too toxic for that purpose. During the early 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., M.D.,
and his son Ernst, Jr., began using a "purified" form of amygdalin to treat
cancer patients. Since that time scientists have tested substances called
"Laetrile" in more than 20 animal tumor models as well as in humans and found no
benefit either alone or together with other substances. Along the way its
proponents have varied their claims about Laetrile's origin, chemical structure,
mechanism of action, and therapeutic effects [1,2]. Its place in history is
assured, however, as a focus of political activities intended to abolish the
laws protecting Americans from quackery.

So, Wilson tips his hand, in the last sentence above, as believing that Americans need to be "protected" from quackery. How protected? Look under "Recent Enforcement Actions": Silencing proponents of laetrile, shutting them up with physical violence and threats, and imprisoning them.

If B-17 treatment is "quackery", then why would one need violence to stop the sale of B-17? After all, many people believe that resveratrol supplementation prevents DNA oxidation. Others disagree. But if we follow the logic that all things that are ineffective are banned, then how will new therapies ever be developed? They won't! The research will be too expensive, and will be limited to pharmaceuticals that can be patented by large corporations. Natural substances like Stevia (a natural, safe, sugarless-but-sweet alternative to Nutrasweet) and B-17 containing aricot pits cannot be patented, and provide very little profit margin for large manufacturers of patentable synthetic molecules.

Even more amazing is Benjamin Wilson's dishonesty in criticizing B-17 therapy (at Stephen Barrett's website). He writes, "In the presence of certain enzymes, amygdalin (another name for B-17) breaks down into glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide (which is poisonous)." To which I respond: NO SHIT, ASSHOLE! 100% of B-17's benefits are caused by the fact that an enzyme found only in cancer cells releases cyanide into the cancer cells, mimicing the body's natural defenses against cancer (the killing of cancer cells by the bancreatic enzyme trypsin which also avoids healthy non-cancerous cells) killing them. So I guess that Wilson's primary intent is simply to scare people into not researching laetrile further, since his comments dishonestly ignore WHAT THE PROPONENTS OF LAETRILE SAY ARE ITS MERITS.

This is similar to a property rights advocate defending gun rights by stating that "guns save lives by allowing people to defend themselves", and being "countered" by an argument by hysterical anti-gunner that says "gangbangers shooting innocent children doesn't save any lives!". This argument is dishonest, because it doesn't address the point that the property rights advocate was making. It makes a new point, and attempts to divert the discussion down a path of lesser information. We all know guns can kill. We all know cyanide can kill. But the real discussion is about how well those things can be targeted against the negative things they are designed to fight.

In th case of guns, we want the guns to either kill or threaten criminals. In the case of Vitamin B-17, we want the cyanide molecule within B-17 to be released on contact with cancer specific enzymes into the cancer cells!

But you will NEVER find honesty in arguments in favor of big government. If they were smart enough to be reference the facts, they'd never advocate for the intercession of more force and coercion into people's lives.

The government has a holy war against freedom, lest you dare choose to experiment with harmless, and possibly life-saving alternative therapies. They dare not allow you to make your own medical decisions in a free market. After all, that would threaten the very idea that the bounds of your freedom need to be defined by an army of government-employed bureacrats.

I'm not certain that B-17 is a reliable cure for cancer. But I sure as hell intend to read G. Edward Griffin's book, and every other book I can on the subject until I find out to my own self-determined level of satisfaction!

My advice? ...Cure your ignorance by taking responsibility for it, and doing research --read a book. Don't ask the force peddlers in congress or the courts to ban certain forms of knowledge, advice, or products: when they make a mistake, it hurts innocent people.

Prostitution, Theft, and Murder in D.C.

This brave woman, DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey, threatened to tear down the hypocritical wall of prostitution prohibition. The very legislators making use of the American citizenry's fear, loathing, and ignorance of prostitution (that allowed them the power to outlaw, arrest, and prosecute prostitutes and their clientele) were the same people frequenting prostitutes.

When they cracked down on her, rather than take their abuse, their fines, their court costs, and their jail sentences, she turned it right back around on them and threatened to expose them as "johns".

...So the legislators she threatened to identify had her murdered.

Alex Jones uncovers Palfrey's pledge to defend herself in court, and not to commit suicide, from an earlier interview of his with her,right here

Some people speculate that the order came from the President or the Vice President of the United States, but that level of conspiracy, though possible, is not necessary for one to exist. The average Senator wields that much political force, and has easy access to mob, ex-KGB, ex-CIA, and ex-SAS security forces who are not always morally-restrained. There is plenty of professional muscle for hire in D.C.

But the people who really killed Ms. Parfrey were the U.S. voters (minus the libertarian vote, which supports the legalization of prostitution).

Everyone who thinks prostitution should be illegal (while ignoring the fact that it cannot be made illegal without creating a soviet-style police state) is directly at fault, as an accomplice to Parfrey's murder. This brave woman's blood is on your hands if you delusionally want to make the world's oldest and most established profession illegal. Moreover, anyone who so wishes for the impossible is at fault for betraying the American idea of a separation of church and state (since the fuel behind the desire to outlaw prostitution is religiously-motivated, and without religious superstition, prostitution would be illegal overnight).

But the fact that prostitution is not legal means that we've created a government based on prohibition: much like the one depicted in Frank Miller's "Sin City".

Has that stopped prostitution? No. It's only increased the profitability of it for those who are willing to ignore the law (as well as created a host of other "unintended consequences", such as less ability to monitor the spread of prostitution caused STDs, crime associated with those who are violent towards prostitutes, the lack of protection of prostitutes under the law --since they can't confess what they were doing at any sort of crime scene, etc...).

The evil and thoughtlessness of the public is manifested in a government that steals, cheat, and murders. In short, in a government that prohibits freedom.

And why is freedom of action prohibited? ---Authoritarian religious "thought".

The nation's churches are filled with people who are commanded not to steal and murder, and every 2 years they fill the voting booths asking for people they do not know(and have never met) to be stolen from and murdered. They rationalize this by saying "It's the only way we know how to govern" or "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" or "There's no better way to do things", but that's all false, because they have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights written in plain English, that even a child of 9 can understand, and in every election for the last 36 years, there have been libertarians on the ballot who represented capitalism and freedom (typically getting less than 1% of the vote from all these other people who would rather vote for the lesser of two extreme evils than dare to vote for the good).

If we look at the libertarian vote as the approximate total of US citizens who are honest enough, brave enough, and smart enough to resist evil commands, it does not speak well of the American people.

Creating a nation of forbidden (for no valid reason) actions and thieving (to no good end) tax laws hasn't even benefitted any of these faux-religious people, but they continue to do the same things that have led them to the edge of poverty, with state-enforced bigotry and intolerance for all (except themselves of course).

People are confused by the command to "love their neighbor as they love themselves", so I will clear things up for them:
1) "Loving your neighbor as yourself" is a bad way to phrase "the non-aggression principle". It is bad because it is not clear, and does not take into account a variety of human ability and goals(some people don't love themselves adequately, others would rather lower their self esteem than rise to the level that they value their neighbor, others interpret this fictional "command" to mean that they should value the creation of legal restrictions (that they already personally obey) that they mistakenly think will benefit their neighbor --for that neighbor's own supposed good [while ignoring the fact that everyone is different, and that laws that one person is perfectly happy to obey, other people view as tyrannical], etc.).
2) The (logically superior) nonagression principle broadly states that "The initiation of force is morally wrong." (As is theft, since theft is a form of force. As is the threat of initiating force, which is a simple corollary to initiating force. As is deception in a contract, which is simply a delayed form of theft/force.) Additionally... "Whoever initiates force(is the agressor) is morally wrong, and has lost the right to be free from retaliation. Logically, the amount of retaliation should roughly match the initiation of force, plus an additional amount necessary to prevent additional initiations of force. For instance, if a rescuer subdues a rapist, he must also handcuff him, or disable him, so that the rapist does not attack again, this time targeting the rescuer. Even though the rapist may suffer death because of this, it is a death he earned, by initiating force."
3) Truly loving your neighbor as yourself, you would need to give your neighbor his freedom (meaning his freedom to be different than you: to value and pursue different things than you value and pursue, since his standard of happiness is probably somewhat different than yours). Otherwise, you are falsely offering him only the ability to be a herd animal, while wrongfully fooling yourself into believeing that you are offering him the same right that you yourself exercise. For all you know, your neighbor may well be vastly more intelligent than you are ---and if so, he could not possibly be happy living "equally" to you. This is why laws must be written to prohibit only the initiation of force, and nothing else. The only debate that should surround the creation of a law is this one: "What kind of initiated force does it outlaw?" If the answer is "none" then the law should not be made.
4) Unfortunately, superstitious religious belief prevents the prededing logical dialogue from even taking place, much less determining course of action, because logic is always drowned out by illegitimate references to fictional beings, such as "God". Yet God is irrelevant to any debate of laws, especially in a free country that practices the legal separation of church and state.

The preceding lesson isn't a soundbite from a gospel, so no matter how much it makes sense, or is a more accurate guide than "love thy neighbor", it won't be followed by people who feel that they need to be told how to act by an external authority.

These people who don't trust their own judgement or logical ability are called "conformists". At one point in evolution, social conformity probably benefitted people, by herding them together, so they could take refuge in the strength provided by numbers.

At the time that technology and trade became significant to increase the strength of the individual, this mental characteristic became a hindrance to the evolution of mankind, and not a benefit. (We clearly see this in the actions of innovators and achievers. How similar are their actions to other people's actions? Not very similar. Not even from one innovator to the other. Their ideas could not have been dictated to them, nor could they have been the result of narrowly proscribed limits. The achievers and innovators are the people whose actions were not limited. History has shown that these people are in constant conflict with those who sought to limit their freedom of action with legal restrictions and social restrictions, often using force. )

...So stop going to church! Stop promoting bad ideas! Stop suggesting the use of force to solve problems! Stop supporting the initiation of force via the ballot box!

And start producing better products to trade, new business plans, and better ideas in conversation, so that people become richer from knowing you, not poorer. Start reading about freedom, and what it takes to make a free society. Start avoiding gossip and negativity about other people, and start avoiding people who want to initiate force against others.

A wealthy society that is governed by voluntary trade does not murder prostitutes, nor the people who solicit clients for them (and prepare their tax returns).

Let's make America into a more tolerant nation.

Let's talk about LEGALIZING: prostitution(scary private actions), drugs (scary private property), guns(scary private property), charitable giving, opting out of destructive social planning tools like the income tax, legally opting-out-of embalming and opting-in-to cryonic preservation, weapons self-defense classes, self-regulating driving speed (above or below the suggested maximums, with full responsibility on the driver, so that there is no omnipresent and unequally-enforced threat of coercion against all drivers), the exercise of superior knowledge in the stock market (so there is no threat of punishing wall-street traders for exercising their superior knowledge of coming financial transactions, and knowledge becomes an even more valuable tool than it already is, due to its ability to be legally communicated), etc...

Legalizing some of the above will make life less threatening to the poor. Legalizing others will make life less threatening to the rich. Legalizing others will make life less threatening to both groups.

Legalizing any of the above will threaten legislators who make their livings off of the initiation of force. Legalizing any of the above will not threaten police officers, but it might reduce their pay or move them into private security jobs, in areas where they are artificially supported by the legalized and immoral initiation of force. Legalizing any of the above will dramatically threaten state prosecutors, who spend the majority of their days preying on the innocent and the forcefully-disarmed.

The lawmakers, prosecutors, and the police are powerful lobbies that all oppose freedom (in their majority).

But legalization (the abolition of unnecessary laws) presents the possibility of creating an America that is as productive and innovative as the America of the industrial revolution. In addition to being as productive and innovative as the earlier America, the comfort level of all citizens (except those who initiate force) would be dramatically raised.

This is the clear and obvious result of legally banning the initiation of force, and nothing else.

This concept is also called "social tolerance". I encourage it. It brings peace and prosperity.