Cancer should not exist. Part 2
 

NOTE. When the medical authourities tell you that there is no evidence that Vitamin B17 prevents cancer all that means is that it has not been proven to the satisfaction of the FDA and NOT that insufficient research has been done. Vitamin B17 was first isolated in 1810 and was first used in cancer therapy as early as 1845 so there is well over 100 years of research.
The problem is that to for a new treatment to be approved by the FDA will cost upward of 250 million dollars in research which makes all medical research the exlusive domain of the large pharmecutcal corporations.
These corporations never carry out research on anything which cannot be patented or that you can buy on asupermarket shelf. When was the last time you picked up a prescription for fruit an vegetables if you dont beleive me.
In the 100 or so years since the isolation of B17 it has been demonstrated that cultures who have a diet rich in this vitamin are cancer free. The Huzas, The Escimos, The Abkasions, The Hopi and Navaho Indians of North America and some native populations of South America and South Africa all have in common that the degree to which they are free from cancer relates directly to the degree to which they have Vitamin B17 in their diet.
In other words as long as the adher to there native diet the cancer rate is zero. It is only when they become westernised and take on our diet that they become prone to cancer.
The Hunza's are of particular interest because they are an Apricot culture and their favourite delicacy is the the Apricot kernal. Although B17 is found in over 1200 different foods the kernals of fruit seeds other than citrus contain the highest concentration of B17 known to man Bitter Almonds being the richest source.
The Average Hunza has 200 times the intake of B17 in their diet than that of the average American.
At one time Millet used to be the staple grain for cattle. It is rich in B17 but has been replaced by wheat which is virtually devoid of it so there is no longer ressidual B17 in the meat we eat. Our Great grandmothers used to grind up the seeds of fruit in jams an preserves which they no longer do and mass production certainly does not utilise it in our food.
So over the last hundred years or so B17 has been gradually whittled out of the western diet and its during this same period that cancer has risen to the point where one in three people will be affected either directly or through a loved one.
In fact its more than one in three because the figure is only relevant if you count only those individuals whose cancer will develop to the point where it is diagnosible before they die by other means. There is an alarming number of autopsied males that are found to have prostate cancer after they have died by other means.

Before explaining how B17 tackles cancer i am going to go into a bit of detail about how cancer works and the first defence that our body has against this disease and then show how B17 works as the secondary back up.

THE TROPOBLASTIC THESIS OF CANCER

In 1902 Professor John Beard an embriologist from Edinburgh University discovered that there is no discernable difference between cancer cell and Trophablast cells which occur in early pregnancy.
If you could see a speeded up film of trophablast in early pregnancy you would see it behave in exactly the same way as cancer. It does not become a part of the individual it is purely parasytic in nature. It grows and multiplies as it eats its way into the Uterice to prepare a place for the phoetus. This is the difference between a malignant lump and a benign one. The benign lump pushes away the sorrounding tisses wheras a milignant tumour eats its way into the surrounding tissue.
So why is it then that every pregnant woman does not end up with cancer.
Beard noted that aroud week 8 of early pregnancy that these cells begin to die off: Why.. He discovered that after 8 weeks the phoeutes pancreas becomes functional and that the pancreas secreates the enzyme Tripsin which plays a vital role.
normally the white cells responsible for fighting off didease will attack anything foreign to the body but because trophoblasts are not foreign the outer membrane contains a negative electro-static charge which the white cell also carries and so they repel each other like two magnets.
The enzyme Tripsin eats through the outer wall of the trophoblast leaving it fully exposed to the white cell which then destroys it.
With reguard to this it is interesting to note that the upper intestine near the point where the pancreas enters into it is the one place in the human body where cancer is almost never found and that also diabetics who suffer from a pancreas malfunction are 3 times more likely to contract cancer than non-diabetics.
Different cancer tumours have varying degrees of malignancy but baird noted that the more malignant the tumour the more it took on the characteristics of pregnancy trophoblast and that the most malignant tumours of all are indistinguishable from trophoblast or as Professor beard pointed out over 100 years ago they are one and the same.
So when the Stem cell combines with eastrogen to produce trophoblast in pregnancy the result is an ambilical cord and a placenta, but when this process occurs as part of the general healing process where tissue has been damaged by carcenogens then the result is cancer.
Well not quite. To be more accurate when this alternative healing process produces more trophoblast cells than the bodies natural defences can keep up with then the result is cancer.
And this is where Vitamin B17 comes in. This is natures secondary back should the first one fail. Here is how it works.

The B17 molecule contains 2 units of sugar 1 unit of Hydrogen Cyanide (Not to be confufused with industrial pottasium Cyanide) and 1 unit of Benzaldehide.
These ingredients are locked inside a membrane and are completely inert until the molecule comes into contact with a cancer cell.
There is only one enzyme that can unlock these ingredients. It is called Beta Glucosidase the unlocking enzyme and it does not appear in living tissue to any great decree except at the cancer cell where it appears in large quantities.
There is another enzyme called Rhodenese the protecting enzyme which occurs in all living tissue except the cancer cell which is consequently unprotected.
So when the B17 molecule comes into contact with a cancer cell the Cyanide and benzaldehide are released. Cyanide which as everyone knows in large enough quantities is deadly as too is benzaldehide. In fact these two acting together are 100 times more toxic than either acting alone. The toxicity is so great that it has been observed under a microscope that no cancer cell can survive, whereas when these ingredients come into contact with heathy normal tissue the Rhodenese breaks down these deadly toxins and converts them into by-products that feed and nourish the healthy cell.
It is a perfectly balanced mechanism of nature that has been observed for over 100 years that could not have been an accident.

It should be noted at this point that the greatest strengh of B17 is in its ability to prevent cancer from ever ocurring in the first place.
When you conduct research into its effectiveness in cancer therapy although there have been many astounding results there are factors that limit its success and this is mainly due to the politcs of cancer therapy.
In 1952 Dr Earnst T Krebbs junior was the first person to develop the concentrated form of B17 for cancer therapy which he caled Leatrille.
He personally reported almost 100% success rate for virgin cases which means cases where the patient had no prior treatment from conventional medicine.
And there is the problem. Most of the people who have been treated with Leatrille are not virgin cases, many of them being cases that have been told they have only a short time to live after conventional treatment has failed. When they die as many of them do they are counted as statistical failures for Leatrille when in reality it is a victory for Leatrille that any of them survive under these circmstances.
Added to this is the fact that early diagnosis is rare because in order to to diagnose cancer under current medicine you need a biopsy which is an expensive proceedure for which you cannot nip down to your local GP and have as part of a routine medical. Even in Britain where we have a health service you will have to go on a waiting list unless you have the money to go private.

For anyone who is suffering from cancer or knows somebody who is check out Metabolic Therapy (not to be confused with nutritional therapy)
It combines the use of Leatrille and enzyme therapy i was talking about earlier. The one is to boost the bodies own natural defence specifically against cancer while the Leatrille adds a huge backup.
If you cannot afford such treatment you can always ask the therapist for a recommended daily intake of Apricot kernels to give you the best chance possible.

Because of these factors relating to therapy i urge people to focus on the original statement that i made at the beginning.

CANCER WOULD NOT EXIST IF WE ALL HAD VITAMIN B17 AS PART OF OUR DAILY DIET.

Dont wait to get cancer and then be cured. By applying this knowledge now cancer can become a disease of the past like Scurvy and Co.

Good health to you.

ahhh thanks...really

Vitamin B17: cancer cure or con?
22 December 2003
Reporter: Amanda Paterson

For many terminally ill cancer patients, an alternative treatment derived from apricot kernels is believed to be the last hope. But the controversial tablets are considered dangerous in some medical circles, with Queensland health officials banning their sale in that state. Today, ACA explores the pros and cons.

Twenty-one-year-old Mark Capadona has a brain tumour. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy have both failed. He’s now too weak to speak and doctors say he’s got 6-12 months to live.

Four months ago his mother Dorothy took him to the controversial Gold Coast clinic Fountain of Life, where he was intravenously fed an alternative cancer treatment called laetrile — a very intensive dose of vitamin B17 derived from apricot kernels.

According to Dr Michael Tait, who runs the Fountain of Life clinic, patients come to him when the system says there’s nothing more they can do. For Mark, the treatment showed an unbelievable change in his aggressive tumour.

"My son’s back’s better," says Mark’s mum Dorothy. "He’s put on weight and he is stronger. Without the B17, my son probably wouldn’t be here today."

Now, Mark is walking and is strong enough to eat. He takes laetrile tablets five times a day.

But chief medical officer with Queensland Health, John Scott, claims the tablets are dangerous.

"We’re dealing with a substance which basically contains a number of poisons and the most significant of those is cyanide," he says.

The laetrile is imported from Mexico and too much of it causes cyanide poisoning. As a result, Queensland Health has made it illegal to buy them there. Dr Tait, however, argues that if it’s controlled properly, taking the tablets should only have beneficial effects.

Laurel Johnson, 67, has a tumour on the side of her face, and cancer in her breasts, lungs, liver and spleen. She’s only been given months to live. But she believes laetrile will save her.

"I don’t feel I’ve been poisoned," she says. "It’s not going to kill me any faster than the cancer is."

Laurel claims the three-week intravenous treatment stabilised her cancer. But because she lives in Queensland, it’s illegal for her to import the follow-up tablets from Mexico. So, she’s forced to crush up massive amounts of apricot kernels to get the laetrile she needs.

Since the 1970s, laetrile has been clinically trialled as an anti-cancer treatment by the National Cancer Institute, the Mayo Clinic and the National Institute of Health in the US, and it failed all those tests.

Dr Paul Mannering, from Brisbane’s Mater Hospital, believes the health improvement in cancer victims is due to the power of positive thinking.

"The only explanation for patients saying that they’re receiving some benefit from laetrile must be through the placebo effect," he says.

According to Richard Clapham, who has inoperable brain and lung cancer, if it’s all in the mind, so what? He claims laetrile is keeping him alive but like Laurel, he’s forced to get his fix from crushed apricot kernels.

While there’s much scepticism surrounding laetrile, Laurel reckons what could be potentially false hope is better than no hope at all. That is as long as you can pay the price — the three-week treatment at the clinic alone costs about $8700.

For people like Mark’s mum Dorothy, she’d be willing to pay anything.

"He’s my son,” she says. “I told him in the beginning, we’ll sell everything to save him."

Where's part I? If you want a better explanation of the theory set forward in the OP without all the mis-spellings, try here.

I am the queen of mis-spelled words, but when someone puts forth a scientific theory and includes such spelling atrocities as the following, I begin to have grave mis-givings if the person has the faintest idea what they are talking about:

benzaldehide
phoeutes
eastrogen
ambilical
Uterice

People are hired to make posts like this one all over the Internet. Its a subtle form of advertising. If anyone bites on the OP, I'm sure the poster will helpfully give us all a site where we can purchase B17.

The Navajo, by the way, were as impacted by cancer as any of the other uranium workers in the 4 Corners region. Many of them died of the "red sickness" as they called uranium induced lung cancer. So much for native immunity to cancer.

I don't need to get cancer. One more post like that first one in this thread, and I'm going to drink Draino.

Didn't Steve McQueen try laetrile. He's dead?

I dont know about Steve McQueen personally, but i do know and have covered why this often happens, and have also stressed the need to view B17 as the prevention for cancer not the cure.
You cannot cure chronic metabolic deseases, you can only prevent them through adequate nutrition.
B17 is to cancer what Vitamin C is to Scurvy. This is a fact based on 200 years observation and experiment.

Bullshit. Many, many people 200 years ago and more never ate an apricot in their lives, and millet was an unknown grain to a large percentage of the world's people. Native American tribes did not eat apricots or grow millet. You can still buy preserves that have seeds in them - ever eat strawberry, blackberry or any number of other preserves? Plenty of seeds, straight from the supermarket shelves. Our grandmothers tried to strain the worst of the seeds out, BTW. Mine did when she made raspberry preserves, anyhow. I used to help her.

I could make the equal claim that the rise in the incidence of cancer is due to the introduction and popularity of Siamese cats. Did the native Americans have Siamese? No. Most still don't, therefore they remain cancer free. Look at the parts of the world where the Siamese has become prevelent - Europe, the US, and Thailand. WOW! Lots of cancer! Yep, its the wicked Siamese, alright. My argument makes as much or more sense than yours.

Sorry, I'm not going to run down and buy myself some natural cyanide. Nice try.

come on mari! everyone knows cats are a high source of cancer. dating back to the egyptians. they worshiped cats for their ability to inflict sickness on the non believers.

Marichiko. Maybe we will have to agree to differ on this. All i will say is dont yet rule out the possibility that B17 could make cancer a disease of the past just as vitamins have ruled out other chronic metabolic diseases.
Millet and Apricot Kernals are just 2 out of over 1200 different types of food that it is to be found in, including certain types of grasses that graizing animals in these countries will naturally select when not in captivity, so the meat that those natives eat will contain B17 from the animals diet. Such is the case with the Eskimos who eat Caribou which is known to have a diet rich in Vitamin B17.
It is not relevant that these tribes dont know about the foods that contain Vitamin B17, what is relevant is that all the tribes i mentioned have been studied and found to have diets that include a good quantity of it.
I only mention Apricot Kernals because they are such a rich source and easily accessible for anyone who can be bothered to google.

When does the sales pitch come?

My only question is why Ündertoad did not catch this as the spam it obviously is.

I know that you get paid by the number of posts that you make to various boards per hour. I don't know if they monitor what sort of response you get, but here's a helpful tip. Introduce yourself as a new board member, first; post a couple of inane replies to whatever people are talking about, and THEN jump in with your sales pitch. You will be fractionally more believable that way if anyone whom you work for cares.

Lets now pan the camera out to the American West on a herd of cattle - Beef! Its what America eats! Notice those cattle gobbling down every last native grass, forb, and shrub in sight. The cows spend long summer days grazing in mountain meadows on public lands, eating exactly what the deer and antelope eat when they aren't busy playing. Sure, those animals get fattened up at the stock yards before they are delivered to your kitchen in handy plastic wrapped packs, but they grew up and spent their entire lives out gobbling down all those things you are talking about. Apricots, hell! Give me a nice juicy steak, any time! :yum:

marichiko. I am just an ordinary person making a contribution to the correct forum. I made the mistake of thinking that offering life saving information would go down well.

It wont happen again.

OK, if I start to see you post to other discussions around here and become a regular member, I'll apologize. Its highly unusual to have a new member just jump right in with two lengthy posts about laetril, though. :eyebrow:

Sorry marichiko. I am seeing your point now.
I am Adrian from Audiogalaxy. one of the many who have come here as a result of the AG forums dying.
I posted the exact same topic there because somebody had a friend dying from Cancer. I re-posted it here because it was lost and i cant put it back up there.

OK, Adrian, I apologize then, even if you ARE from AG! LOL! I disagree with your science, but my heartfelt sympathies go out to the person suffering from cancer and his loved ones. I hope the doctors can help him. :(

Steve McQueen did in fact go to Mexico for Laetrile treatment, as have many other now dead people.

Episode forget Laetrile. Its for people who have left things too late. Its like living on a diet devoid of Vitamin C until you get Scurvy, then waiting until the scurvy is months away from killing you before finally taking tablets containing 500mg of vitamin C per day.
If the cancer spreads too far and causes irreversible damage then even a person who has had their cancer destroyed by Laetrile can still die just as a person who has been shot can have the bullet removed and still die because of the trauma to the body.
I dont understand why it is so difficult for people to ditinguish between prevention and cure. It becomes so clear when you look at those diseases that no longer exist now that the links with nutrition have been firmly established.
I guess its because a world with cancer is all that we have ever known in our short lives.
Well it took 400 years for medical science to accept the solution to Scurvy, but they didnt have multi-national corperations making billions of dollars from it every year, so i suspect that even if i am right it will never be common knowledge.

Ummm, scurvey and other nutritional diseases do respond pretty quickly to vitamin intake unless the person is literally within a day or two of dying.

You are assuming that all scientific research is being done by the big pharmaceutical companies. You forget all the universities with those bright young graduate students just dying for a thesis topic and those professors who would love to gain tenure with a break through article published in Science or the Lancet.

Your theory would be a relatively inexpensive one to undertake to test in any university biochem lab that could afford a few hundred lab rats or white mice. Construct a double blind study where one group of mice was fed apricot kernels and the other group a regular diet. When the mice reached maturity, expose them all to some known carcinogen. Compare the survival rates of the mice after a year. Easy instant fame for some kid working on his PhD, never mind his advisor who would take the credit for it all.

It hasn't happened because it doesn't work. Very simple.

My advice: Move to an area as free of environmental pollutants as possible and eat only organic foods. Don't eat fish of any sort. Get a really good water purifier. Never drink water from the tap. Don't join the US military where you will exposed to God knows what chemical and biological weapons. Avoid becoming an uranium miner or living anywhere near mine tailings of ANY sort. Stay away from microwave relay towers and ovens, just in case. Wear only natural fabrics and have bare wood floors in your home or else carpets made of only wool or cotton. Avoid harsh chemical cleaning supplies. Have your home checked for abestos if its an older structure. Build a pond and stock it with salamanders. Check on their well being daily. Amphibian's are the environment's canaries. They're the first to go south if anything nasty is around.

Most people can't manage the above life style, so they turn to things like apricot pits.

Oh, yeah, pick parents and grandparents who never had cancer. Genetic susceptibility is a key factor, :cool:

can we still smoke and drink until we pass out?

its a good thing australia is selling its uranium to china then!!

Hell, Kagen, I eat beef, smoke cigarettes, drink Jack Daniels, swam in the Dolores River which is full of run off from Uranium tailings, and I was poisoned by carbon monoxide gas for three years or so. Other than the spatial difficulties I now have thanks to the CO poisoning, I am still disgustingly healthy. My father lived to be 80 and I never saw him eat a single apricot. He died of lung failure after being given general anaethestic when he broke his hip. The Momster is 86 and will most likely live to 106. She doesn't eat apricots, either.

If genetics are on your side and you personally are not a uranium miner, party on sez I. One of my friends is 10 years older than me and has an absolutely pathological fear of cancer because her Mom died of it. She is now older than her Mom was when she died, but she lives such a constricted, fear based life that it hardly seems worth it. If I die tomorrow, I'll go knowing I had a decent run at things for good and for bad, and we all share the same eventual fate. Party hearty and see you on the other side! :beer:

if you start to think youre going to get cancer, your cells will start thinking "well...i guess he/she really wants it" and start cancerizing the place. (no im not saying this is the only way to get cancer thats just silly)

i smoke and drink all the time and i can still run at least 16km without stopping. (as i painfully found out on sunday)

It would be nice if B-17, or any other easy thing, for that matter, were the answer. When my daughter was dying of cancer, I met several other children who were fighting it. At that time, a good friend of mine was diagnosed with Hodgkins disease. He kept partying, drinking way too much, - daily - smoking (smoking lots of things), he actually started partying more after he was diagnosed - he missed some chemo treatments, and quit radiation after only two of the ten scheduled treatments. He is alive and doing fine, still partying. And my 2 1/2 yr old daughter, along with many other kids (and adults) are dead.
As for the diagnosed person's attitude being the cure, what about young ones? I've met kids with cancer who were 3 months old, 6 months, etc..
And I agree - cancer should not exist.

"Ummm, scurvey and other nutritional diseases do respond pretty quickly to vitamin intake unless the person is literally within a day or two of dying."

The same is true with Cancer, B17 will rapidly destroy the cancer, but if the cancer has allready destroyed the patient then they will still die.
You must also consider the fact that most people who turn to B17 do so when conventional treatments have failed.
These treatments are highly toxic and do massive damage to the patient.
Scurvy sufferers were not subjected to many months treatment of highly toxic
medicine until they were declaired incurable. Most of the were at sea when they got the disease. For goodness sake Radiotherapy!!!!! when it is a proven fact that exposure to radiation actually induces cancer. What are they thinking. Do you not find it incredible that this is still used for cancer patients?

Consider also that it is not publicised when somebody makes a dramatic recovery with Leatrille after being sent home to die. You have to go digging to find that evidence.
I am not saying that the big pharmaceutical companies are the only ones doing research. I am saying that only they can afford the 250 million dollars research to satisfy the FDA and that they only carry out research on that which can be patented.
The experiments you speak are not difficult and have been carried out but not by these companies. The most telling experiment of all is the fact that the millions of people who live in cultures where the diet is rich in B17 do not get cancer and you dont need lab rats or a lab to prove this.
The FDA will never approve anything which is natural as a treatment for disease, it is against their basic philosophy that disease can only be treated with drugs.
Until people start looking at B17 as the prevention rather than the cure they will continue to be blinded by the complex politics of cancer therapy.
These companies are not going to give up their multi-billion dollar industry. It has to be taken away from them by a public that is willing to empower itself with knowledge.

The history of medicine is people believing all sorts of nonsense. Medicine only improved when people applied science and proved causes.

"They took X and got better!" "They took X and didn't get sick!" ...is not sensible thinking. Anyone with the tiniest sense of the history of medicine knows. Correlation means nothing, cause means everything.

For example, radiation is well-understood. A little of it damages cells. A lot of it destroys them. (Similarly, you can blow on your hands to warm them, and then blow on your soup to cool it. Duh?)

So do not use your broken, instinctive correlation thinking to suggest that radiation should not be used to cure cancer. You don't know what you're talking about, and spreading uninformed nonsense is wrong.

Who? The "alternative medicines" industry? Heck, homeopaths sell tap water for prices that the most snooty of bottled water companies would cringe at.

Not very good at preventing cancer.

Undertoad i am afraid i do know what i am talking about. The success rate of conventional treatments is appaling and yet nobody complains about that.
I challenge you to name a single disease that no longer exists because of modern medicine. Once cancer has spread to a secondary location the success rate of conventional medicine and surgery is virtually Zero. Radiology kills the normal cells in a tumour while the malignant ones remain. Consequently you can reduce the mass of a tumour by 80% and at the same time increase its malignancy by 80%. Great job, now the cancer is even more deadly than it was before the treatment and the the body is damaged by radiation on top of this. The more you subject the body to things which are foreign to our biology the more your body will produce trophablast which is why the cancer started in the first place. What the hell do you think a carcenogen is ?
Mad made medicine does not cure disease, it merely treats the symptoms.
There is nothing that is foreign to the biological experience of any living organism that can improve it. To believe so is to believe that man is a better designer than God himself.
I am past the point of trying to convince anyone who has posted in this thread. I am only posting now for the benefit of those who will read it from here on and they can make up their own minds as to whose arguments are the more logical.
You have all approached this subject in such a way that anyone who agrees with me will not post because they will be viewed as gullible so the lack of support i am getting means nothing as far as i am concerned.

Polio? Smallpox? Diphtheria?

You beat me to it.

No, the problem is that you're one of the wacky conspiracy theorists out there that think there is a coverup. For anyone not familiar with this, simply Google "b-17 cancer" and you'll find a slew of books about various government and pharm companies purposely covering up the "secret cure".

So, of course, you cannot trust sites like this.

Even if we accept this goofy premise, you could apply it to the disease organism. Applying a "foreign experience" to a bacterium can kill it, and cure the disease.

Does anyone know of a website where I could find out more information about this lifesaving treatment that teh pharmaceutical companies don't want me to know about?

Cancer is not a virus and is not going to cured by a vaccine. How many times do i have to tell you that i am talking about Chronic metabolic diseases.
Just because i dont state so at the end of every sentence is no excuse, you just have to look at the context of everything else i said to know what i am referring to.

mrnoodle i know plenty of websites but i dont want to fuel the idea that i might be a salesman so i will just say type any of these words into google.

Apricot Kernals
Laetrile (the correct spelling this time)
Vitamin B17

No, the problem is that you're one of the wacky conspiracy theorists out there that think there is a coverup.

Way to go Kitsune. The sceptics favourite buzz word "conspiracy theory"
Its beatifull isnt it. If you dont like something you just slap this label on it and nobody dares talk about it again. Well i am not one of those weak minded puppets who is scared off by name calling and the very fact that you use such a term proves my point.
The truth IS being witheld and lied about and the only conspiracy theory is that this truth is a conspiracy theory.

Actually, my favorite buzz word as a skeptic is "scientific method" and I'm having a difficult time finding any of it with positive regards to "metabolic therapy". It'd be nice, you know, to see some results that are up for peer review. The National Cancer Institute did some studies and their findings can be found in The Rise and Fall of Laetrile by Benjamin Wilson, M.D.:

Try flipping through it. You can even read the case study about how the treatment killed Chad Green. For those that it does not kill and seems to have positive effects on, the results are no better than the placebo effect.

It's all about spam sales, anyway, and I'd think twice before ingesting that apricot seed extract. There is no scientific evidence to support the claims you make.

Riiiight. I have some medication suggestions for you and they're not vitamin B supplements nor do they deal with cyanide homeopathy.

You can apply it to cancer cells, too.

Kitsune why do you insist on looking at the complex politics of cancer therapy when even those who perform metabolic therapy admit that there is no cure as such for cancer. Only prevention through adequate nutrition.
I am not surprised that those who eat the kernals AND have a course of laetrile show sighns of cyanide poisoning like the article you quote says.
Thats like wearing a nicotine patch and smoking at the same time.
This is the kind of bullshit analysis that you subject yourself to when you read such sites.
If you eat between 5-10 Apricot kernals per day then you wont ever need cancer therapy in the first place. You can also eat millet and linseed meal if you would rather get your B17 from a variety of sources rather than just one.
There is to much floored reasoning in that article for me to list it all and i am not interested in the political jargen of cancer therapy, only in cancer prevention.

Because even that suggestion is holds no weight what-so-ever. There is no evidence to these "benefits" at all:

Again, you show me some clinical trials, peer reviewed publications, or any decent scientific evidence and I'll consider it. Otherwise, the 1974 label of "quackery" holds tight and I stand by my words that you're subscribing to some Grade A Bullshit.

Why must she cram it down our throats? If we wanted info on it we would ask, or better yet, look it up ourselves.....!

[quote=MaryMary]Why must she cram it down our throats? /QUOTE]

Coz she's a crank.

Kitsune the only evidence that you need is from the cultures around the world who are cancer free because of the B17 in their diets.
Dont rely on the reports of those who stand to lose their multi-billion dollar industry if this becomes common knowledge.
Ok thats my last post here because you are all just getting irritated now, and so am i so nobody benefits from any further discussion.

No cure for cancer? Some cancers are indeed difficult to treat and some are incurable - for example, lung cancer is a nasty one, so is pancreatic cancer. I have a friend who HAD (note past tense) breast cancer and got chemo as well as a lumpectomy to have the tumor removed. She has been cancer free for 10 years now. Skin cancers can be cured early on, simply by cutting out the malignancy. This happened to my Dad who had a small mole on his face turn cancerous. The doctors cut it out and he lived for another 20 years to die of something NON-cancer related at age 80.

Cancer which has metastasized is generally a death sentence. But catch the cancer early enough, and there are now very good survival rates with appropriate medical treatment.

You have made the premise that cancer is caused by lack of the "nutrient" B17. You give the cancer free lives of earlier peoples as proof of your statement, and offer the hypothesis that they got more B17 from their diets than modern man currently does.

Dear Virginia,

There is NO Santa Claus! Life is not fair, and we can't make the false true by shouting, "We believe" at Tinker Belle when we go see the play, "Peter Pan" at age 40.

There is no such thing as "vitamin" B17.

Laetrile is the trademark of a compound of two parts glucose and one part cyanide. There is no vitamin B17, "B17" is a trade name created for laetrile by a laetrile proponent. It is naturally present in the kernels of apricot pits and a number of other stone fruits and nuts. There is no RDA but doses vary from 0.25 g to 1.0 g a day.

It is believed to have cancer controlling and preventative properties. Apparently normal cells can tolerate small quantities of cyanide but cancer cells succumb to it.

Cyanide has no value in sustaining human life. In small amounts it injures, in larger amounts it kills. No law prevents promoters from trade-naming nutritionally worthless or poisonous substances.

Cyanide is rapidly absorbed from the intestine and diffuses throughout the body, knocking out respiration in cells. Eating about 25 apricot kernels can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, drowsiness, a sharp fall in blood pressure, breathing difficulties, coma and death.

There have been documented cases of people dying after taking as few as five laetrile tablets. Not more than 1.0 gram should be taken at any one time.
-[Herbert, J., (Chief Hematology & Nutr. Lab. Bronx VA Medical Center) : Nutrition Cultism - Facts & Fictions. 1981]

I feel a bit floored, myself. You call the scientific method "political jargen"? You are not interested in anything which might disprove you your favorite pet superstition. If you, personally, wish to ignore the findings of modern science and medicine, that is YOUR problem. However, when you post this superstitious propaganda on the Internet for who knows what gullible and desperate person to read, then you may be contributing to their unnecessary or early death. From what University did you get your degree in science from? What was your field of study?

Please, please, please - to anyone who might chance across this thread now or in the future; if you have been diagnosed with cancer, seek treatment from a licensed MD. Do NOT throw your life away over some quack theory.

If you are concerned about cancer prevention, do some of the things I outlined above: Eat organic foods, check your home for asbestos, quit smoking, avoid contact with strong chemicals of any sort, try to live in the least polluted environment possible, and have a yearly check up from your licensed MD. Woman over 40 should get mammograms, and woman of any age need yearly pap smears, men should get checked for prostrate cancer. If you have a mole which changes shape or color, call your doctor. Eat a variety of nutritious foods with an emphasis on whole grains. Please.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Jeb's reply drew my attention to your response, Mr. Noodle. Since Jeb does not frequent the board as much as I do, he may not be aware of your story.

I truly hope as Jeb implied, that your comment was in jest.

I don't know that we've ever agreed on a damn thing on this board, Noodle. But I suspect that we are both in full agreement that your Dad should have the best possible treatment which hopefully leads to a full remission of his cancer, and the best quality of life possible.

Please don't go out there chasing false hope offered by unscrupulous snake oil salesmen who only want your money.

If the pharmaceutical companies have become so powerful and so ruthless as to suppress all understanding of treatment, cure, and prevention of cancer that does not directly benefit them, we are ALL lost anyhow.

Laetril contains a deadly poison which kills ALL living cells. Radiation therapy and chemo therapy is directed at cells that actively divide - i.e. cancer cells. Other cells in the body also actively divide like the ones which line your intestinal tract and are responsible for hair growth. These are called epidermal cells - cells which actively divide but are not cancerous. That is why people undergoing chemo may loose their hair or get very nauseated. But unlike cyanide, chemo does not kill every last cell in the body. Cyanide WILL. It is an effective and deadly poison which has been known for centuries.

If you are interested in the latest avenues of cancer research done by respected scientists and doctors and carried out at real medical institutions, PM me. I recently did a ton of research for a friend on this same subject, and I still have bookmarked quite a few extremely helpful and informative links.

In addition, the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver is engaged in active, cutting edge cancer research. Their projects are sponsored by the NIH and other reputable outfits. I can tell you how to get more information on what is going on there, as well.

Please, please, please don't poison your Dad in an effort to help him.

All the best,
Mari

Coincidence?...I don't know...but the only thing I know about laetrile is this - my uncle is the only cancer patient who was treated with it, along with the other conventional cancer drugs, out of everyone I've known who has died of cancer,and he is the only one who was not in pain when he died, unlike my daughter, grandmother, other uncle, best friend's brother, great-uncle, ex-mother in law, ex-step father in law, I know I'm forgetting someone....
The Hospice nurse who attended my uncle's death commented on the fact that the people whose death she attended who were treated with laetrile did not suffer with pain like those who were not.
Anyone else know a similar story? It may have not been the laetrile, who knows...but I would like to know more about this...

And mrnoodle - not EVERYONE diagnosed with cancer dies of the disease. I must admit that out of the ten kids I got to know with cancer (and that # includes my kid), only one is alive today. But she is my hope...the proof that it can be beat. And I know more adults than children, it seems, who survive cancer. (maybe it's caught earlier, more routine checks for it maybe...?) But when you're dealing with a loved one fighting cancer, it is natural to search out every single thread of hope out there. Nothing wrong with that, you're in the position where you'd try anything reasonable to help them, whether it is to beat the cancer, or to be more comfortable.
When my uncle was sick, not eating and feeling bad, his son asked around at work one day for some pot for his Dad to smoke. A co-worker who smoked rolled him up a couple, he took his dad outside that evening and had his dad smoke about 1/2 of one, my uncle felt better than he had in weeks and he ate for the first time in 2 or 3 days. (He was a cigarette smoker and he didn't have any trouble smoking it, seemed to enjoy it, actually.)
Good luck. If I come across anything that I think you may want to check out, I'll certainly send it to you.

Marichiko. You have said some things that have forced me back into the thread because i am wandering about something now which is going to force me to do more research.
One of us has been misinformed. Essentially i am interested in the truth and not in being right so i have to consider the possibility that it is you that are right and me that is misinformed, but i am not set either way just now.
Here is the point of contention for me. You quoted from an article that said.

"Laetrile is the trademark of a compound of two parts glucose and one part cyanide. There is no vitamin B17, "B17" is a trade name created for laetrile by a laetrile proponent. It is naturally present in the kernels of apricot pits and a number of other stone fruits and nuts. There is no RDA but doses vary from 0.25 g to 1.0 g a day."

I have not come accross the statement even from the opponents of Laetrile that B17 does not exist. It was originally identified as part of the Nitriloside family and is a complete molecule locked inside a membrane.
The molecule itself consists of 2 units of Glucose, 1 unit of Hydrogen cyanide and 1 unit Benzaldehide.
So what concerns me is the part of the statement that says that Laetrile consists of 2 units and 1 part Cyanide.
G. Edward Griffin as a result of his research says in his book and documentary "World without Cancer" that Benzaldehide and cyanide acting together are 100 times more toxic than either acting alone and it is this which kills the cancer cell.
This makes sense to me because Vitamin B12 which also contains cyanide has as far as i know never been considered for treating cancer.
If this be the case then the concentrated form of B17 Laetrile is lacking a vital compound.
Also the article referred to by Kitsune said that there is more than one type of Laetrile. That Mexican Laetrile is not the same as the Laetrile originally developed by Krebs in the USA.
If these things are true then i am willing to concede that there could be a problem with Laetrile and that this concentrated form of B17 may be a misuse of a naturally occuring compound in many foods.
I am not a crank who just accepts any conspiracy theory. I was motivaed to do some research into B17 when i first heard about it for the simple reason that millions of people are still dying despite the efforts of conventional medicine. It makes sense to look at other possibilities under such circumstances.
I am not willing to dismiss the possibilty that B17 in its natural form in various foods can prevent cancer, but i am thankful to you all for forcing me to take a second look at the whole picture.
I need more research.

oops, I should really check in more often.....

Yes, I was kidding. Dad's cancer seems to be gone. He's continuing with chemo for 5 months to make sure they've killed the last of it, but his "count", which is supposed to be less than 5 (cancer free), has been at 2 for the last couple of blood tests. Of course, the 5-year point is the one we're shooting for -- after that, if he's still cancer-free, they call it "cured".

Thanks for your concern though mari :heartpump: . I was making fun of the tinfoil hat guy (no real offense intended, though - just playin)

That, sir, is news worth celebrating. I'm glad to hear all is working out so far!

And remember, always spay or neuter your pets! :lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry Marichiko, it just reads like a public service announcement. The more you know...

I'm going to point how that the same crap you're trying to push here, is on many, many websites trying to sell the same stuff. The same exact crap. Do a search on google for "B17 studies". Click the first link at the top (no, I'm not going to link it here so that website can get a higher pagerank). Try some of the links at the bottom of the site, like "Microwater". What the fark?

I remember my (ex) mother-in-law telling me how her mom is/was interested in "coral calcium". All she would talk about was that and how it was amazing and so helpful. Guess what coral calcium really is? Limestone, aka " calcium carbonate, with some magnesium and trace amounts of many other minerals":http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...DSH/coral.html

But back on topic. As stated 32 years ago, Laetrile/B17 was and still is "quackery". It's the same thing as a travelling salesman claiming to make rain (one of the best Quantum Leap episodes :P). Laetrile/B17 prescriptions are currently banned in the U.S.

Heh! Yeah, it does now that you mention it. I just felt the need to re-iterate some common sense here for those "future readers."

Noodle, I should check in on this thread more often, myself. That's great news about your Dad! YAY! I suspected you were joking, but one never knows, eh?

rtexanssane, the substance which has been given the trade name "B17" exists, but it is no more a vitamin than H2O would be if I got a trademark for "B18" and sold bottled water under that name.

Unfortunately, laetrile is POISON, unlike water. Cyanide is toxic, alright. It kills everything in sight, including cancer cells. At least modern cancer treatments are aimed at destroying cells which divide, ie cancer cells. Radiation treatments can be directed at the tumor itself, unlike taking a nice cyanide tablet which is going to adversely effect every cell in the body.

Hell, if you want to take something that kills off cells pretty indiscriminately and is hard on the liver, start drinking alcohol. At least you'll get a buzz in exchange for the damage you're doing your body. Laetrile will just make you sick.

"Unfortunately, laetrile is POISON, unlike water. Cyanide is toxic, alright. It kills everything in sight, including cancer cells. At least modern cancer treatments are aimed at destroying cells which divide, ie cancer cells. Radiation treatments can be directed at the tumor itself, unlike taking a nice cyanide tablet which is going to adversely effect every cell in the body."

Marichika that is so grossly inacurate that you leave me almost speachless.
It is Kemo that is not target specific and poisons all living cells while B17 and Laetrille are target specific only releasing Hydrogen Cyanide and Benzaldehyde in response in response to Beta-Glucosidase which cancer cells have 3000 times as much of as normal cells. Why do you think Kemo can only be used for a limited period.
This is the problem with modern medicine. IT only offers relief during therpy and has no value in terms of prevention. You cannot have Kemo as part of a carefull balanced diet for the rest of your life because you die very quickly whereas B17 is naturally occring in over 1200 foods around the world. You are not seriously suggesting that all these 1200 foods should be banned from the human diet because they will poison you to death.
You keep harping on about cyanide as if it were the only compinent of which B17 is made. It is a highly complex molecule which does not contain the free cyanide radical that is found in Vitamin B12. They are two completely different compounds.
You are paying far to much attention to the findings that have resulted from the smear campaign unleashed by the FDA since 1952 and not enough attention to what has been uncovered around the globe.
In connection with this i would like to direct you to my comments in part 1 of this double thread.

BTW. That rhodanese which is found in healthy cells and not in cancer cells neutralises cyanide by converting it into thiocyanate is supported by organised medicine outside of cancer research.
If you look up information on cyanide antidotes you will see what i mean.

Here is one such article

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

For more detail on how B17 behaves in response to healthy and cancer cells read this little snippet plus view the nice little diagram that demonstrates in detail how it works.

http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk...ndcyanide.html


Finally. I may be wrong about Kemo because i have not done much research there. Could you direct me to some articles on this that you have read.
Has Kemo over the years been revised and improved or is it the same treatment as when it first started?

A good starting point for information on Chemotherapy can be found in Wikipedia.

CHEMO targets cells that are under going active division - ie cancer cells. As I have mentioned before, the lining of the digestive tract and hair follicles are also cells that under go active division, hence the side effects of chemo. However, more specialized anti-cancer agents are being experimented with. There are now some drugs out that target cancer cells specifically.

Cyanide kills everything - dividing cells or not. If you don't beleive me, go drink some. No, don't.

Many of the substances used in accepted cancer treatment protocols are derived from - guess what? Naturally occuring substances in plants like yew, may apple, and periwinkle. Where was your FDA when these experiments were going on? Tisk, tisk! How dare modern medicine make use of substances found naturally in plants? Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, modern medicine does this all the time - WHEN THE SUBSTANCE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO GIVE RESULTS.

Thanks for that link Marachico.
A very enlightening article that is also honest about the limitations and side effects of this treatment, there must have been tons of research going into this approach.
The only thing i would say is that it is no use to me personally as a means of preventing cancer from ever occuring.
This is the whole reason for my exploring the nutrition and enzyme aproach to cancer.

Just out of interest what is your proffesional opinion of the trophoblastic thesis of cancer.
I know that metabolic therapists will not treat women who are in the early stages of pregnancy because they know that the B17 will attack the trophoblasts that occur in early pregnancy in the same way that it attacks what they are saying are those same trophoblasts that occur as part of the general healing process when the pancreas is unable to supply sufficient levels
of the pancreatic enzymes that shut down the healing process upon completion of its task, the same way that pregnancy trophoblast is killed off after 8 weeks once the baby's pancreas becomes functional.

What do you think ?

I think that sentence sounded better in your head. :eek:

laebedahs. What holds as being scientifically truthful does not become untruthful just because 30 years have elapsed reguardless of whether anyone restates those truths or not.
I cant believe i am having to explain this to you. That vitamin C prevents Scurvy is as true today as it was hundreds of years ago and it does not need to be restated unless people systematically start to exclude it from their diets which is not going to happen.

About that doctor. I think you are just nit picking here.

I was also challenged to find modern day proponents of Laetrile which has proved difficult because the opponents of Laetrile dont give their names they just refer to them as "Proponents of laetrile" so it is only those who have written books who become prominent and easy to find

Philip E. Binzel, Jr., M.D. Is one such doctor who wrote the Book "Alive and well" in 1994
He is a graduate of the Medical School at St. Louis University in Missouri and did his internship at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Dr Harold Manner died in 1988 but in another interview with PLOWBOY he reveals something which sheds some light on why it so difficult to find those proponents of Laetrile.

Here is a clipping.

PLOWBOY: And the individuals who arranged these "secret meetings" were researchers?

DR. MANNER: A lot of them were. Many were people from the other universities which were conducting studies that I felt might provide data I could use. This sort of information exchange goes on regularly . . . but not, apparently, when laetrile is involved.

PLOWBOY: They didn't even want to be associated with it?

DR. MANNER: Right. And they still don't. Peer pressure is a funny thing. I believe it's killing this country. We researchers are subjected to this pressure by what is called "peer review". Which means that if we want to get a grant-say, from a government agency-we submit our proposals and they're passed on to a group of our peers. Now, these men and women-these peers-have ideas about the directions they want research to take, and if it happens that the proposal leans another way. . . well, the grant is rejected. This has happened to even the giants in the field . . . researchers like Linus Pauling.

We also have to deal with the editorial boards of the medical journals. If a researcher's work happens to run against the grain of any of the peer reviewers on a medical journal, he will never get a paper-no matter how good printed in that publication. I could write the best paper on laetrile in the world, for example, and I know it wouldn't get into the Journal of the American Medical Association. Because of this pressure, I've been publishing in smaller journals lately . . . those that are, at least, willing to listen. It's funny, though: Over the years, I've had more than 50 reports printed in the front-line journals. If I were working on anything but laetrile I could publish my results anywhere.