Modified Citrus Pectin

GaryinUK said:

Question
Scam

I am in the UK, I can see MCP for sale on Amazon but when i looked at the contents of the bottle only a small proportion was actually pectin, most of the rest being sodium or pottassium, is that what your stuff consists of or is it pure?

Anyone chip in here

Gary

unknown said:

This comment has been removed by the Moderator

John23 said:

Blake -
There had been a time in my life that I was as cynical as you!
Now not as much so, but I still habitually question everything,
and always look for what "makes sense" in claims made.

Sometimes though, things may not "make sense", but still be
as valid as anything that's been "scientifically proven".

I haven't formed an opinion of "modified citrus pectin", not that
my personal opinion should matter...... however...

I'm sure you've heard about Homeopathic medicine?

The compounds are so diluted, that there isn't a trace of the
original ingredient after the dilution process. There is absolutely
no "scientific data" that would indicate that any homeopathic
substance can possibly be of value biologically.

Homeopathic compounds have been described by the well educated,
as being nothing more than a placebo! That concept makes sense,
and is quite believable, isn't it.

What can't be explained away scientifically or biologically, is that
homeopathic compounds work quite well when used to resolve
an animal's health problem! What does an animal know about
psychosomatic conditions? How can the compounds resolve
an animal's health problem, when a "placebo" is tried and does
not work, while the homeopathic compound does?

Homeopathic medicine continues to be used, and continues
to resolve many human health problems, and does so without
any "logical" explanation, and without being supported by any
scientific study.

MCP (modified citrus pectin), and/or any other alternative can
be denounced away by using any "scientific" means, just as
homeopathic medicine has been, but just who is being helped
by those doing the denouncing?

The first rule of the Hippocratic oath, is to: "Do No Harm".

How closely do modern-day physicians follow that important
rule, when they pump carcinogenic, toxic compounds into
an already sick body?

Does -that- make sense? Or should we only trust what can
be "proven with scientific study" and "clinical trials"?

I prefer Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), since it's been
used for four thousand years, and has served billions upon
billions of people for that entire time and continues to be used
successfully.

And like you, I never put too much faith into things that "don't
make sense" while serving the financial gain of some entity.

The herbs I had used, cost an average of $5 per pound. I used
eight different herbs, with one pound lasting at least one month,
while one pound of the herbs would last up to three months.

The cost of MCP is apparently an awful lot more than any
imported medicinal strenght herb I've used, but neither is "approved"
by our medical industry. That does not mean it doesn't work,
or can't be beneficial to someone taking it.

I dislike the "profit-grabbing" atmosphere surrounding MCP,
and have always been skeptical of such things that appear
to be dollar driven. Most people likely feel the same way,
yet trust the multi-trillion dollar cancer industry and their
chemical compounds that are promoted as "the only way"
to fight cancer.

There are many ways to better health, but choosing a route
that causes harm, simply does not make any sense, regardless
of any "study" otherwise.

Best of health to you!

John

Buckwirth said:

My math may be wrong
But as I have it figured, to get the effect of the high dose pectin you would need to consume 3.8oz a day if you weigh 150lbs.



A couple of teaspoons on your cereal in the morning ain't going to cut it.

PGLGreg said:

truth versus reason
John writes: "Sometimes though, things may not "make sense", but still be
as valid as anything that's been "scientifically proven"."

I agree, and would like to point out that it works the other way, too: things may make sense, but not be proven, or even be provable. I see this as the difference between medieval philosophy and modern science. To the schoolmen of older times, the way to the truth was reasoning about discoverable facts. That's gone out of fashion. In the present discussion, it's a very pretty theory that MCP may act on cells in such a way that our immune system can better discover cancer cells. There seems to be some evidence for this, and it "makes sense", but is it true that MCP will have any beneficial effect in curing or preventing cancer?

In modern conventional "evidenced based" medicine, as I understand it, the answer is: not necessarily. We will need to show, not just that MCP makes sense as a cancer therapy, but that it's actually true that it works as a cancer therapy (or preventative). And we should keep open the possibility that a remedy for cancer might work, even though it seems to make no sense.

--Greg