OnlineBookClub.org

Sylvie Beljanski sued the French government for arresting her father, shortly after his lab was seized and he was arrested. Sylvie also worked to patent the name of the Beljanski Foundation. Sylvie also wrote about how pharmaceutical companies are threatened by natural extracts, because they cannot be legally patented like a synthetic drug. It was clear that Sylvie brought a legal perspective into the conversation of natural cures for cancer. What was your opinion reading about natural cures for cancer through the voice of a lawyer? Do you think that Sylvie's perspective as a lawyer helped enhance the story behind the Beljanski Foundation and Mr. Beljanski's work? Do we need a legal perspective when we are looking at the history of natural cures for cancer? Why or why not?

I think it difinitely enhanced the book. Getting a new prespective on anything makes a book all the more interesting. In this war her war against cancer was also a legal one.

The voice of a lawyer did enhance the book from a political perspective. Since these big companies are, with no doubt, in it for the money and greed, I think it enlightened people who are unaware of this powerplay in the medical field. However, the eye of a lawyer is different than that of a scientist and doctor. It is clear in the book that the author wanted to expose these companies in an attempt also to prove her father's research. And although her father's work is indeed promising, I still use the benefit of the doubt since she sees it in a perspective of a lawyer. It is like when someone works at an insurance company versus a doctor in a car wreck scene. The insurance guy will see the car first but the doctor will ask about the people in it. Habits are difficult to drop.

Yes we need a legal perspective when we're looking at the history of natural cures for cancer. It would give it a legal voice in the society.

The legal perspective of the narrative did enhance the book overall. I also think that perspective was needed. Sylvie didn't have to come up with extracts that solved the problem - her father did that - but she did need to prove the validity of those extracts in the treatment of cancer. This is where her legal perspective helped her cause.

I believe that a lawyer is going to look at the facts, and present a case that is tight. I think it is needed as many of the shady individuals who would like to keep lining their pockets with money at the expense of those who are suffering, will use every trick in the book to do so. Our country has been good at brushing aside the claims that natural medicine can help people. It is being done to keep the money flowing in from those who become addicted to the substances prescribed (look at the Opioid crisis!), and to keep the greed going. If alternative medicine is exposed as useful, it shuts down the drug cartel of Big Pharma, and I think a lawyer is perfect to do the job. So many who are trained in the medical field are given instructions to follow, and being good students of medicine they do so. I am not saying that the doctors are doing evil, but they are following a plan that says to do something, they do it, but the results have been disastrous for many cancer patients. So, I think a party outside of the medical community is a great representative.

Yes we need a legal perspective when we are looking at the history of natural cure for cancer for posterity sake and to prevent the politics that goes on in the medical sector sometimes.

Being a lawyer helped enhance the story behind the Beljanski Foundation.We need a legal perspective for these kind of matters to stop abuse in certain aspects of the medical sector.

It seems that the side on the synthetic medicine don't want other people to discover such cheap cure so that they can still sell their products.

I absolutely think having a legal perspective in this book was crucial to understanding the entirety of the story. Sylvie could go out of her way to specify why natural cures are demonized so frequently in western medicine, and what that means for research and production of natural cures. She also gave very honest and valid reasons for why the medical model in most countries practicing western medicine is so geared towards medications that are proven to have significant, life-altering, and potentially deadly side effects. To be honest, I feel as though this book was written by both a lawyer and a scientist. Sylvie, as the lawyer, wrote this book, but she combined her work and educational experiences with those of her father's life. Between the two perspectives, I think readers were given an excellent overview of what really happens in pharmaceuticals, and what it really means to be researching and using natural medicines.

Given that large portions of the book describe legal proceedings and entanglements, I am quite happy for the legal perspective.

Sylvie wrote some serious claim in the book. We need a legal perspective to this matter.

A legal perspective definitely adds to the authenticity of the claims. I think Big Pharma should stop seeing alternative medicine as a threat. After all, they are all 'hopefully' working towards the same goal - excellent health for all. They should complete each other if they do not make pecuniary benefits their priority!

I believe a legal perspective on this matter was important. Other than adding flavour to the story, Sylvie going to court was able to fight for what she considered right and backed it with facts and not opinions.

Anyone can write a book on any topic. One of the first things I do when reading a book, especially nonfiction, is find out about the author. What are their qualifications? What are their biases? I’m this instance, we have an author who studied law, not medicine. She has a bias against the government, who tried to discredit her father. She has a bias against traditional medicine, again because of what happened to her father. When I read the book with these things in mind, it gives me a different outlook. It’s important to try to get a full picture, and I think this could be considered one part of the puzzle, but I certainly don’t think it’s the authority on every case of cancer and the associated “cures.”