Date:   6/4/2008 1:19:16 PM ( 16 y ago)
Hits:   7,204
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1187658

2 of 2 (100%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

That was quite the dissertation, and certainly contains a lot of good information and valid concerns.  I understand your concerns and your suspicions - there has been no end of people inside and outside mainstream medicine who have preyed on HIV/AIDS sufferers, the same as can be said for Cancer and other serious conditions.  However, I am not one of them and neither is Marc Swanepoel.  His fight against HIV/AIDS has been a labor of love for many years and he has probably given away more OPC to the poor and needy in South Africa than he has ever sold up until now.  Similarly, my own labor of love is dedicating the rest of my life to helping people beat and avoid illness, recapture lost health and live longer, healthier and happier lives.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Swanepoel has not even pursued selling his OPC outside his native South Africa.  It is ME who is trying to spread the word and tell the rest of the world outside South Africa about it after seeing the potential for all the millions of lives it could save - for cancer, for HIV-AIDS, for Hepatitis, and more.

To set the record straight, I never asked you not to comment further on his supplement or his trial.  What I said was that I have a very large track record here at CureZone and lying is not part of it.  I also said that likewise I have known Marc Swanepoel for years and have closely followed his work with oleander, HIV/AIDs and cancer.  I know him to be completely honest and ethical.  Given all that,  I said that if you continued to doubt the truth of what I am posting then you would essentially be calling both myself and Mr. Swanepoel liars and in that case I would have nothing further to debate with you.

The bottom line is that we can pick at the study, quibble about what has happened in the past, and ennumerate our concerns and fears ad infinitum. but the fact is that OPC works.  Regardless of what may have happened in the past, the simple fact is that the Sutherlania OPC herbal mix has been successful 100% of the time.  It has never failed to reverse HIV/AIDS.  Not once.  Not in many hundreds of users in South Africa over the past several years and not in the small scale clinical trial.  It was so successful in fact, that midway through the trial a pharmaceutical manufacturing company in South Africa approached Mr. Swanepoel and agreed to make a minimum of 10,000 bottles of OPC a month, with an initial production run of 50,000 bottles.

If that pharmaceutical manufacturing company wishes to go to the time, trouble and expense of a large scale, peer reviewed clinical trial, that is all well and good.  But neither they, not Mr. Swanepoel have that need because the product works and has been proven.  Frankly, I am of the opinion that peer reviewed studies are part of a path that leads to no good whatsoever when it comes to herbal supplements.  Such reviews may be necessary for mainstream acceptance - but mainstream medicine is not ever going to approve a herbal mix that is 100% effective against HIV/AIDS, and neither is it going to approve any other effective herb if it represents a threat to the billions of dollars of profits for mainstream medicines and treatments.

Personally I would stay far away from mainstream if I had a herbal product that worked.  And when it comes to the holy grail of peer reviewed studies, I think of all the peer reviewed studies for Vioxx and other mainstream killers.  As Merck and Monsanto and others have shown us - doctors and scientists and studies can be bought and faked at will.

Now, as to that study you cannot find about oncologists, maybe this will help:

"In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that in the previous year, the average oncologist had made $253,000 of which 75% was profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his/her office. Yet, surveys of oncologists by the Los Angeles Times and the McGill Cancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of ongologists would refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or their families. Why? Too toxic and not effective. Yet, 75% of cancer patients are urged to take chemo by their oncologists."

Google the above paragraph without quotation marks and you will find numerous sources, but the quote itself comes from Bill Henderson's book "Cancer Free".  You can also find those figures quoted, along with some very enlightening information about chemotherapy and those who administer it at:

http://www.whale.to/cancer/quotes1.html

OK, let's cut to the chase here.  If you and a boatful of passengers get swept into shark infested waters and a rescue boat comes by and begins throwing out lifelines with a life preserver (think OPC) on the end, and you see your fellow passengers grabbing hold and being pulled to safety while you are slowing drowning and on the verge of being gnawed by sharks (think HIV/AIDS), are you going to debate whether the life preserver has been properly tested or has the right warning label or will you grab hold and save your butt?

You wrote (regarding cancer): "Patients would take the toxic regimen if it offered a 1% chance of cure, an extra year of life, or 10% chance of symptom relief. "  In which case I would think you would see the obvious logic in taking an essentially non-toxic herbal mix that has been taken by thousands of people and which has a 100% chance of reversing HIV/AIDS, providing relief from all symptoms and allowing one to live many healthy years.

Figuratively speaking, the HIV/AIDS sufferers have been swept into the shark infested waters.  Every one of them that has grabbed the OPC lifeline is alive and well.

DQ

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.00 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1187658