Cancer and vitamine B17, a simple and effective cure

moved from 1 up by mods, once they've proved to contain interesting discussions
halfgaar
Posts: 150
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Cancer and vitamine B17, a simple and effective cure

Post by halfgaar »

Hi there,

I would like to bring up something, about cancer. I have read about a lot of different causes and treatments for cancer, from making a contract with your tumor, to it being a fungus infection (Simoncini's theory). I have never really found one to be convincing, until I learned about the vitamin B17 hypotheses. It states that cancer is nothing more than a deficiency decease of vitamin B17, just like scurvy is a deficiency decease of vitamin C.

Vitamin B17's molecular structure is 2-glucose-benzaldehyde-cyanide, otherwise known as amygdaline (or laetrile in concentrated medicinal form). The idea of this is that the benzaldehyde and cyanide are harmless, because they are molecularly bonded. However, there is an enzyme, beta-glucosidase, which breaks of the benzaldehyde and cyanide, and "luck" would have it that this enzyme only exists in cancer cells, releasing the highly toxic combination of benzaldehyde and cyanide into the cell. And on the other hand, there is an enzyme (don't remember the name) which turns the free cyanide into a harmless substance, and again, "luck" would have it that this enzyme does not occur in cancer cells, but it does everywhere else

An important part of this hypotheses is the idea that cancer is simply cellular repair, using trophoblast (like) cells, which has gone out of control. Normally, the body would fight this with proteolytic enzymes, to break down the proteins around the cancer cells allowing white blood cells access to the cancer cells, but if this doesn't work anymore, when there are insufficient amounts of these enzymes available for example, the vitamin B17 mechanism is used.

The thing is, that almost no foods we eat contains any vitamine B17 anymore. In (primitive) cultures where they do eat it, like the Innowits and Hunzakuts, cancer is unheard of. Hunzakuts all reach ages like 100 or 120 years.

Two sources rich in amygdaline are bitter almonds (not the sweet ones, which are probably the ones you've ever eaten) and apricot seeds.

Griffin thinks that this system is not coincidental, and believes it's one of the primary natural means of defending against cancer. My source for apricot seeds can confirm this, because he told me story after story of people cured from cancer, including pancreatic cancer, by eating those seeds.

If this hypotheses is true, which I'm pretty convinced it is, it's important for people following the Wai diet to include vitamin B17 sources.

See this google video for a detailed presentation by Edward Griffin.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

Can you give references for your claim, " Hunzakuts all reach ages like 100 or 120 years. "


First of all, they don't *all* live that long. I thnk there are many myths about these people. Their ages are not really documentable.
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

My reference is Griffin's work. You can wade through his books to verify his claims.

Anyway, my message was not intended as fact, merely a hypotheses to which I hope people will keep an open mind. But, unfortunately, denial is the most predictable and primary of responses in humans.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

What are his references?

Here is an interesting article about the Hunzas. If addresses a lot of things that are said about them and tends to claim they are not what they seem.

Denial is one thing... Giving false hope (usually intended to sell products) is just as common in humans.

Some people seem to think that if you believe a radical theory you are crazy, but if you dont' believe you are in denial. I just like to see as much good science as I can before I conclude anything. At one time, I looked into b17 and didn't find enough evidence to conclude it is anything we need to go out of our way to consume. If I'm wrong, I would like to know. That is why I was hoping you could provide some peer reviewed medical studies.


http://www.biblelife.org/hunza.htm
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

What are his references?
As I said, my reference is his work. I haven't read his books, I've only read articles and seen presentations, by him and others. His books (world without cancer) state a lot of instances of people who got cured from their cancer. Perhaps you'd be interested in those.
Denial is one thing... Giving false hope (usually intended to sell products) is just as common in humans.
Well, the people behind the B17 hypotheses don't profit from it, Big Pharma does from their chemotherapy and similar treatments. I have found that most people like Griffin really believe in what they're doing. Whether it's true or not is a different story, but outright deceit is rare in individuals. It's much more prevalent in industry and corporations. Which is why I am far more inclined to believe Griffin than the pharmaceutical industry. When there's so much money involved in something like cancer, there of course will be corruption and conflicts of interests. That is the order of things.

You mentioned giving false hope with the intention to sell products. Remember that consensus cancer science is also trying to sell their product, and claiming all alternative treatments don't work, helps with that. They have the monopoly on cancer, and they want to keep it.

It's also somewhat peculiar that nobody questions whatever the pharmaceutical industry sells, but every alternative doctor is met with suspicion and doubt.
Some people seem to think that if you believe a radical theory you are crazy, but if you dont' believe you are in denial.
That is true, indeed. But, in my defense, I don't believe any radical theory. As I said, I've read about a lot of different theories on cancer, but this is the only one that seems plausible to me.
I just like to see as much good science as I can before I conclude anything. At one time, I looked into b17 and didn't find enough evidence to conclude it is anything we need to go out of our way to consume. If I'm wrong, I would like to know. That is why I was hoping you could provide some peer reviewed medical studies.
It's kind of a long story, but in my opinion, peer review is nothing but a way to enforce the consensus view and eradicate new ideas. I mean, what scientist is going to seriously look at an article about cancer which states that everything he knows is wrong? There is too much ego involved. Just as it took a long time before it was accepted that vitamin C deficiency caused scurvy.

As another example, can you find peer reviewed papers that the Wai diet works against acne? Perhaps there are some, but I have a strong suspicion that they are rare...

I eat apricot seats, because I don't see why not. It's not as if the one who sold them to me makes huge profits at my expense, as a year's supply only costs € 20.

Anyway, because my source for apricot seeds states so many people got cured from cancer by eating those pits, I was planning to do an experiment on rats. I need to get me a couple with cancer (shouldn't be hard to find, because rats always get cancer), and see if feeding apricot seeds has an effect.
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

Hmm, no edit button? Anyway, I wanted to add that your comment about the Hunza's is interesting. That needs further scrutiny.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

There are people who profit from selling all kinds of naturally occuring things.


I wouldn't eat seeds because they taste bad. I think we have the ability to taste bitter so we know what not to eat. I'm not saying they don't have a effect on cancer, I just saying I wouldn't eat them as part of my regular diet as a preventitive. Like I wouldn't take aspirin every day to avoid a head ache.

I wouldn't take any thing that way. I think if you eat right your body will do what it is supposed to and fight off sickness when it needs to.
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

I wouldn't eat seeds because they taste bad.
Haha, that's funny. I kind of like them :). Our dogs like them too, they eat them like it's raw meat. Grapefruits are bitter as well, but considered very healthy.
Like I wouldn't take aspirin every day to avoid a head ache.
I think that's a somewhat unfair comparison. Aspirin is not a cure for headaches, it's a symptom suppressor.
I wouldn't take any thing that way. I think if you eat right your body will do what it is supposed to and fight off sickness when it needs to.
Well, the problem with that is, what is "eating right"? You now know that you need vitamin C to avoid scurvy, and vitamin B3 and protein to avoid pellagra, but the people in the past suffering from those diseases probably thought they too were "eating right", and tried to combat it with whatever doctors prescribed.

I agree with you that if you eat right, that should be enough. But the things we modern humans eat are a far cry from what our far ancestors ate. If I know that cancer is a deficiency of a substance, I would consider myself a fool to consciencely leave that substance out of my diet.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

halfgaar wrote:Grapefruits are bitter as well, but considered very healthy.
I think grapefruits are known to be higher in antinutrients than sweeter fruits.
I think that's a somewhat unfair comparison. Aspirin is not a cure for headaches, it's a symptom suppressor.
ok, what about chemo therapy?

Well, the problem with that is, what is "eating right"? You now know that you need vitamin C to avoid scurvy, and vitamin B3 and protein to avoid pellagra, but the people in the past suffering from those diseases probably thought they too were "eating right", and tried to combat it with whatever doctors prescribed.

I agree with you that if you eat right, that should be enough. But the things we modern humans eat are a far cry from what our far ancestors ate. If I know that cancer is a deficiency of a substance, I would consider myself a fool to consciencely leave that substance out of my diet.
I believe following the wai diet will give you what you need. If I had cancer I would probably do more research on Laetrile. I just have been convinced yet, but havn't done much looking into it.
dionysus
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2006 21:54
Location: Unknown

Post by dionysus »

halfgaar wrote:But, unfortunately, denial is the most predictable and primary of responses in humans.
no, i would say fucking is.

Especially in men :lol:
Negativity is the cult of the weak
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

I'll look into the B17 thing when I have the time. What I'm wondering at the moment (aside from that so far I believe cancer is the result of harmful substances rather than a lack of beneficial ones) is how bitter almonds and/or apricot seeds would've entered our natural diet in the first place? Like John said, I don't think it's natural for us to be attracted to bitter foods. Grapefruits aren't that bitter when they are ripe (and maybe even less so in the tropics).
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

ok, what about chemo therapy?
Chemo therapy, mostly DNA chain terminators or other radiomimetic substances, inhibits any cell division. I wouldn't call that a cure for anything. Besides, alternative doctors using laetrile and/or proteolytic enzyme therapy, state that the tumor is merely the final symptom of a fundamentally flawed metabolism. In that sense, it is a symptom suppressor. It's not surprising that practically every cancer patient treated with a chemo will have a recurrence of it. Perhaps not in the five year period after which the patient is classified as "healed", but mostly it will return. 10-15% of patients don't get a recurrence within those five years, if I recall correctly.
no, i would say fucking is.

Especially in men :lol:


You could argue whether that's a response to something, but well... :)
I'll look into the B17 thing when I have the time. What I'm wondering at the moment (aside from that so far I believe cancer is the result of harmful substances rather than a lack of beneficial ones) is how bitter almonds and/or apricot seeds would've entered our natural diet in the first place? Like John said, I don't think it's natural for us to be attracted to bitter foods. Grapefruits aren't that bitter when they are ripe (and maybe even less so in the tropics).
Then you are in agreement with the vitamin B17 hypotheses. The idea is, that any substance which does much cellular damage triggers repair using trophoblast cells. The point with cancer is, that this repair can grow out of control, resulting in rapid cell devision, and the vitamin B17 is what your body using to stop it again. (Well, among other things, but this is one of the primary methods.)

This puts the label "carcinogenic" is a different perspective. Any harmful substance is a carcinogenic, but not in that it causes cancer, but that it triggers a process that can result in cancer, but that is not through any specific attribute of the substance.

Vitamin B17 occurs in about 1200 edible plants BTW, but western society hardly consumes any of them. It's just that bitter almonds and apricot pits contain a high quantity.

That's one of the reasons I don't really agree with the idea that humans should not eat plants.
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

To those who're capable of downing with bittorrent, another good move is "World without cancer". Use either one of these (if one doesn't work, try the other):

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3370167/A_W ... Edward_Gri

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3435343/G._ ... _Vitamin_B

bla
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

Dang, I pressed submit as opposed to preview. There really should be an edit button...

Ignore the last line, and when copy-pasting one of the others, make sure you include the part not underlined.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Halfgaar,

The B17-deficiency theory doesnt make any sense to me, as we naturally hardly ever (or never) ate apricot/peach kernels or bitter almonds.
If your theory was correct, our early ancestors, eating natural foods only, all had cancer.
Does that make any sense to you?

Why is that people always tend to think that we lack something when sick?
Maybe because it makes it so much easier to be healthy; just buy a supplement of that what is lacking. Health can be bought for a few $
Wishfull thinking, in my opinion.
Post Reply