'vitamin' B17?

moved from 1 up by mods, once they've proved to contain interesting discussions
johndela1
Posts: 968
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

OK, I watched the video and see that many animals eat nitrilosides.

Why doesn't someone do a controlled study on this in a lab with mice? I have no idea on how cancer is studied. If they can induce cancer then it should be easy to show that you can't induce cancer when b17 is available in adequate amounts.

This topic is very important to me. Someone very close to me has ovarian cancer and I they are starting chemo next week. I'm just skeptical.

They'll take chemo but won't try raw eggs in their smoothies...
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

The grasses dogs tend to eat outside often are (relatively) rich in B17. Dogs don't eat just any grass, they are very particular about it. Also to induce vomiting, but not always.

In this article, read the section "RELATIVE FREEDOM OF SHEEP, GOATS, AND WILD HERBIVORES FROM CANCER" and below.
Why doesn't someone do a controlled study on this in a lab with mice? I have no idea on how cancer is studied. If they can induce cancer then it should be easy to show that you can't induce cancer when b17 is available in adequate amounts.
The first thing you have to forget is that science is objective and neutral. But I don't think I have to tell you this...

Such studies have been done. In another video, Griffin mentions a study done on mice, which was invalidated because it was supposedly no longer blind, because the observer, someone who did research in favor of laetrile, could see which mice got the laetrile; they were the healthy ones...

Later, some statistical manipulation was done to show that laetrile had no more effect than salt water. The unforeseen consequence of that conclusion was, that salt water also worked better than traditional methods... I don't know the exact details of it, but the video explains it properly.

And as I mentioned, my source for these seeds and pits cured many cases of cancer, including pancreatic cancer, which is usually very deadly.
This topic is very important to me. Someone very close to me has ovarian cancer and I they are starting chemo next week. I'm just skeptical.
Skepticism is very important. The thing is, one tends only to be skeptical about uncommon/new/controversial things. Whatever the medical institutes spit out, or what is already accepted by the individual, is never questioned. I'm not specifically accusing you or anything, I'm just saying that skepticism is selectively applied. I notice it in myself as well; it's something to watch out for.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

halfgaar wrote:In my opinion, there is no distinction between pharmaceutical and nutritional properties.
Of course there is.
Nutrients are required for normal functioning. Without it, any healthy human being will eventually get sick and die.
Pharmaceutical compounds have medicinal properties, which may be beneficial to counteract a specific disease, and may also have adverse effects (to other organs / when you are not sick).
This distinction is essential.
the deficiency when you don't get it? Significantly increased chance on cancer
Hold on, thats not a deficiency symptom.
Thats is a claimed protective effect.
The difference?
If people, for example dont ingest vitamin C, eventually they all get sick and die. 100%. Thats is why vitamin C is a nutrient.
you claim that B17 has a protective effect. Not that we all die from cancer if we dont ingest it, right?
It can't hurt to eat it, so I eat it.
you THINK it will not hurt you.
Good luck.
As I explained before, there are plenty of animals who eat those pits eagerly.
All animals are different.
Some thrive on grasses.
Humans dont.
Rabbits need to be multiplied as well. Does that mean they no predator should eat them? It's about the balance.
No, for the rabbits its not that their flesh is made attractive so that their population is kept in balance by rabbit eating predators.
Every specie tries to survive and multiply. Not to keep its population moderate.
Balance is provide by other species, and is not the result of build-in negative feedback components. These are external.
The survival and multiplying aspect however IS build-in. (attractive apples, to spread seeds)
1 in 3 or 4 people in this society gets cancer. I call that symptom enough.
No, thats fundamentally different from a nutrient deficiency symptom.
You know that.

It's the body's repair mechanism which goes out of control, and form the rapidly dividing cells.
Exactly, so you have to find the cause for that. The cause?
The DNA of that cell has been damaged, causing it to create too much growth stimulators or too little growth inhibitors. When those cells divide too fast, the body cannot repair that.
as long as you take in the vitamin B17, the cancer cells can be stopped in their tracks.
If B17 would really be such an effective DRUG, it would have been a sensation in the headlines, dont you think?

Does cooking and processing destroy iodide, or is it merely about the amount of fruits etc that I eat now, which prevents the shortage.
I dont know the effects of cooking on iodide, but i suspect its rather insignificant, as with most minerals / trace elements.
Shortage of iodide?
Do you know that this is extremely rare nowadays?
the result of this substance has been seen under a microscope; cancer cells dying like flies. Why would one ignore that?
Im not saying that B17 cannot be effective as a drug.
Im just saying that it is not a nutrient.
There are many compounds that can kill cancer cells.
what drugs are most effective is not my department.
Is there any evidence of B17 deficiency symptoms?
I'll take that as a no. I suggest you do so. Start with this one. For the sake of information objectivity :) Really, if you haven't seen at least that video, this discussion won't get much further.
That has nothing to do with deficiency symptoms!!!
Please let us stick to what constitutes a nutrient deficiency symptom!!!
Otherwise you are confusing people.
Please use the proper names / categorisation.
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

No, thats fundamentally different from a nutrient deficiency symptom.
You know that.
Why should it only be a deficiency when you die 100% certain when you don't get the substance? You need sunlight as well, but not getting it won't result in your death. It will, however, result in a decrease in physical and mental health; conditions which are caused by sunlight deficiency, yet not fatal.

The same is true for vitamin B17. It provides a back-up defense mechanism against cancer. There are other ways for your body to fight against cancer, therefore, a shortage of B17 does not result in cancer, but in an increased chance of cancer. That is the symptom.
Exactly, so you have to find the cause for that. The cause?
The DNA of that cell has been damaged, causing it to create too much growth stimulators or too little growth inhibitors. When those cells divide too fast, the body cannot repair that.
That the DNA has been damaged, that that's the root cause, is a contemporary scientific view, not a fact.

I mentioned that I think that cancer is nothing more than your body's repair mechanism going out of control. It's quite a coincidence that Griffin mentions scratching on the skin as example of an action that does damage to your body, and which initiates the repair mechanism. The coincidence is that yesterday, a Drs. in biology told me that repeatedly scratching the skin on mice is a tried and true method of inducing cancer.

Does that mean scratching is damaging DNA, or that you have a higher chance of the repair mechanism going out of control, because it is invoked far more often? I think the latter makes a good hypotheses, and the evidence provided by the World Without Cancer organization supports it.
If B17 would really be such an effective DRUG, it would have been a sensation in the headlines, dont you think?
If raw food cures all acne, it would be headlines, wouldn't it?

Of course it will never be headline news. The billions of dollars, the prestige as cancer researcher, vested interests. They are not about to roll over and die. Remember, it has taken 200 years for the medical establishment to accept scurvy as a deficiency of vitamin C. 200 years, after evidence had been put forward!

And saying that such things only happened in the past is pure arrogance. As I mentioned, Pallegra was maintained as infectious disease up until the 1950's or so.
No, for the rabbits its not that their flesh is made attractive so that their population is kept in balance by rabbit eating predators.
Every specie tries to survive and multiply. Not to keep its population moderate.
Balance is provide by other species, and is not the result of build-in negative feedback components. These are external.
The survival and multiplying aspect however IS build-in. (attractive apples, to spread seeds)
My point was, that there is balance in everything. If every apple seeds turned into a tree, there would be nothing on earth but apple trees. There is no problem in the seed being eaten.

There are plenty of fruits of which you do eat the seeds, like strawberries, and yet are not concerned about the trees not being able to procreate. The fact that you find apple seeds "yucky" is just degenerate human nature.

And BTW, vitamin B17 is not just found in apple seeds. It is contained in about 1400 edible plants. In the wild, you'd have to be very picky about what you eat to avoid it. In the western world, it has been all but removed from our diet.

I feel like this discussion is stuck. I've made my point, you've made yours. People following this have enough information to choose which side of the story is more appealing to them, and also have enough information to continue their own line of investigation. So I'd rather not continue on too much, before our use of exclamation marks, bold font and capitols grows out of hand :)
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

halfgaar wrote:Why should it only be a deficiency when you die 100% certain when you don't get the substance? You need sunlight as well, but not getting it won't result in your death.
Thats just the way it is.
A nutrient is called a nutrient when it has to be absorbed through your diet, and if not, it will eventually result in death.
Why?
Why is water not called fire?
Thats just the way it is. We need such rules to be able to understand each other. If we cannot agree upon the definition of nutrients, we cannot understand each other when we talk about nutrients.
It will, however, result in a decrease in physical and mental health; conditions which are caused by sunlight deficiency, yet not fatal.
Coincidentally, it (among others, such as serotonin and melatonin) also has to do with vitamin D...
The same is true for vitamin B17.
sunlight is not considered a vitamin. thats just the way it is.
Equally so, vitamin B17 is not called a vitamin.
Can we agree on that?
a shortage of B17 does not result in cancer, but in an increased chance of cancer.
Lets assume that you are right.
Even then, B17 cannot be addressed as a vitamin.
It simply isnt.
If B17 would really be such an effective DRUG, it would have been a sensation in the headlines, dont you think?
If raw food cures all acne, it would be headlines, wouldn't it?
No, people prefer a quick fix instead of a harsh regimen that you always need to follow very strictly.
People prefer just having to swallow a (vitamin B17) pill.
that sells...
And saying that such things only happened in the past is pure arrogance. As I mentioned, Pallegra was maintained as infectious disease up until the 1950's or so.
ehrrr, 1950's or so is not in the past???
:?
My point was, that there is balance in everything. If every apple seeds turned into a tree, there would be nothing on earth but apple trees. There is no problem in the seed being eaten.
No problem indeed. But of course, making the seed attractive to eat (filled with nutrients and no anti nutrients) would very well create a problem...
There are plenty of fruits of which you do eat the seeds, like strawberries
These strawberries are a relatively new variety, created by us...
The fact that you find apple seeds "yucky" is just degenerate human nature.
Are you sure it cannot be instinct?
And BTW, vitamin B17 is not just found in apple seeds. It is contained in about 1400 edible plants. In the wild, you'd have to be very picky about what you eat to avoid it.
Unless you are not much of a plant eater (like humans)
I feel like this discussion is stuck.
I dont feel stuck, but i understand you feel stuck.
Can we now agree that 'vitamin B17' is not a vitamin when we consider the definition of vitamins?
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

Can we now agree that 'vitamin B17' is not a vitamin when we consider the definition of vitamins?
No...

From wikipedia:
A compound is called a vitamin when it cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities by an organism, and must be obtained from the diet. Thus, the term is conditional both on the circumstances and the particular organism. For example, ascorbic acid functions as vitamin C for some animals but not others, and vitamins D and K are required in the human diet only in certain circumstances.
Because I, and others, see vitamin B17, or amygdaline if you want a more neutral term, as something we need, it's a vitamin according to this definition.

Furthermore, about B6:
Vitamin B6 is usually safe, at intakes up to 200 mg per day in adults. However, vitamin B6 can cause neurological disorders, such as loss of sensation in legs and imbalance, when taken in high doses (200 mg or more per day) over a long period of time. Vitamin B6 toxicity can damage sensory nerves, leading to numbness in the hands and feet as well as difficulty walking. Symptoms of a pyridoxine overdose may include poor coordination, staggering, numbness, decreased sensation to touch, temperature, and vibration, and tiredness for up to six months.
And, about B3:
Niacin at extremely high doses can have life-threatening acute toxic reactions. Extremely high doses of niacin can also cause niacin maculopathy, a thickening of the macula and retina which leads to blurred vision and blindness.
Amygdaline was dubbed vitamin B17 by E.T. Krebs because the definition; water soluble, not needed to be ingested with co-factors, etc. I think the label is very apt.

And the fact that it is toxic in high amounts, doesn't say anything about it's nutritional value.
Thats just the way it is.
(...)
My question was rhetorical. What I meant was, that I don't agree that the term deficiency disease only applies to diseases where you die 100% certain when you don't get the substance in question.
Thats just the way it is. We need such rules to be able to understand each other. If we cannot agree upon the definition of nutrients, we cannot understand each other when we talk about nutrients.
I don't think in such dogma's. Sometimes new empirical data necessitates reconsidering definitions and terminology. Question everything.
ehrrr, 1950's or so is not in the past??? :?
In the context of what I meant, no 1950 is not the past. To think that medical science would make mistakes like not considering scurvy a deficiency dissase 400 years ago, and that we've somehow evolved beyond that, is understandable. But if someone were to think that such mistakes were common in 1950, and not anymore, is self delusional. The next generation will say the same about us...
No problem indeed. But of course, making the seed attractive to eat (filled with nutrients and no anti nutrients) would very well create a problem...
Just Google for "seeds healthy" and see the wealth of information. Seeds are meant to be eaten.
These strawberries are a relatively new variety, created by us...
Maybe, but we didn't make them grow the seeds inside the fruit, as opposed to somewhere else, so my argument stands.
Are you sure it cannot be instinct?
100% sure, no. But seeing as how beings not troubled by vaunted reasoning powers are far more likely to eat apple and apricot seeds, I don't think it's instinct.
Unless you are not much of a plant eater (like humans)
I don't agree with you on that either. We are omnivores. We can't eat bladed grass, but a lot of plants are edible just fine.

Additionally, we can eat animals which eat vitamin B17...
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

halfgaar wrote:
That the DNA has been damaged, that that's the root cause, is a contemporary scientific view, not a fact.
Could it at least be that is one of many causes?

It seems that radiation damages DNA and causes cancer. I don't think people who get cancer after radiation poisoning are lacking B17.


By the way, I really appreciate this thread...
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

I think it's a bit difficult to discuss things when there's no agreement about the terms used in the discussion. Like RRM said, we need to define things to be able to ensure we understand eachother. This has nothing to do with dogma, just basic communication skills.

Hence, I don't really understand your position, when you at some point go by a definition in Wikipedia, and at another point say:
halfgaar wrote:
RRM wrote:Thats just the way it is. We need such rules to be able to understand each other. If we cannot agree upon the definition of nutrients, we cannot understand each other when we talk about nutrients.
I don't think in such dogma's. Sometimes new empirical data necessitates reconsidering definitions and terminology. Question everything.
Also, by your own accord, question Wikipedia, which isn't the most reliable source on the internet.

Second, telling someone to use Google for a "wealth of information" is a bit silly, and you know it. ;)
halfgaar wrote:We can't eat bladed grass, but a lot of plants are edible just fine.
Edible doesn't mean they are nutritious and/or that we should eat them.
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

Could it at least be that is one of many causes?
It is very possible that there are multiple causes, indeed.
It seems that radiation damages DNA and causes cancer. I don't think people who get cancer after radiation poisoning are lacking B17.
Depending how you look at it. Radiation does cell damage, your body initiates repair, and because of the extensive damage, the chance of a repair going out of control is more likely. Should you already have a lot of amgydaline (let's use the neutral name for now...) in your system, the inert cyanide is delivered to the cell immediately, the enzyme beta-glucosidase releases the cyanide and benzeldahyde, and the cancer cell dies.

If you don't have the amygdaline, the cancer cells are free to divide.

So, my point is: the radiation causes the cancer, but indirectly, by trigging the bodies repair mechanism a lot. Then, because of the lack of amygdaline, the cancer is free to roam. So, people don't get cancer because of the lack of amygdaline, but they get it because they lack the proper defense. A defense that is not necessary in 100% of the population, hence not everybody gets cancer when they miss this substance.
By the way, I really appreciate this thread...
I'm glad you do, because I feel a bit like it's a "is not, is too" game, in all honesty.

@Oscar
You're right, that was somewhat contradictory on my part.

But about the definition of terms; I can't define any, because I don't think one can discriminate between pharmaceutical or nutritional properties, for example. In my argument, I only talk about substances we need or not. Even if the effect of amygdaline is "pharmaceutical", that does not negate my argument, simply because you can't fit it in the "nutrient" category.
Second, telling someone to use Google for a "wealth of information" is a bit silly, and you know it. ;)
Actually, I don't. Google is an objective search engine, giving you access to all opposing views. Just because it returns things you don't agree with, doesn't invalidate them. When I point someone to information, I'd rather not leave out all the things that inconvenience me, or my argument.

For example, if you search for "vitamin B17", you will invariably end up at the American Cancer Institute. They of course will state that it doesn't work. It is up to the person in question to weigh all the available data, and draw his or her own conclusion. For me, anything from the orthodox cancer research is invalidated because of the enormous vested interests. And I don't just accept their answer because they happen to be big; I don't accept authority as truth.
Edible doesn't mean they are nutritious and/or that we should eat them.
Let me put it this way: plants I consider to be nutritious, and which I eat. Sprouted alfalfa contains amygdaline as well. You could think it's anti-nutritious, but I don't.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

halfgaar wrote:
Could it at least be that is one of many causes?
It is very possible that there are multiple causes, indeed.
But, still, no matter whether the cause is smoking cigarettes or radiation exposure, still that what turned this into cancer is a lack of vitamin B17?
So, people don't get cancer because of the lack of amygdaline, but they get it because they lack the proper defense.
If that was true, everybody not getting the B17 would die of cancer, because our defense constantly has to keep cells in line.
If people would lack that defense, they would get cancer no matter what, as we are exposed to toxins on a daily basis.
I don't think one can discriminate between pharmaceutical or nutritional properties, for example.
Of course we can.
Nutrition = everybody needs it
Pharmaceutical = some may need it (not every single person on this planet)
You admit that not everybody needs B17 to prevent cancer, so 'B17' is not a nutrient.
Even if the effect of amygdaline is "pharmaceutical", that does not negate my argument, simply because you can't fit it in the "nutrient" category.
It does, because all vitamins are nutrients.
If its not a nutrient, it cannot be a vitamin.
For me, anything from the orthodox cancer research is invalidated because of the enormous vested interests.
Thats is what I call dogmatic.
Every good lie needs to contain truth. Otherwise it will never be convincing. So, all cancer research can tell us something, even when its conclusions are a lie.
If you want to fight lies, you need to understand them, and depict what part of the lie is truth. You also need to adhere to their definitions, because otherwise your argumentation will seem invalid when your terminology is incorrect.

Sure, in certain conditions 'B17' may have beneficial effects, but you cannot make that clear to people if you claim its a vitamin, when its not.
From wikipedia: A compound is called a vitamin when it cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities by an organism, and must be obtained from the diet. Thus, the term is conditional both on the circumstances and the particular organism. For example, ascorbic acid functions as vitamin C for some animals but not others, and vitamins D and K are required in the human diet only in certain circumstances.
If that was all there is about the definition, omega 3 fats and amino acids would be vitamins as well, but of course there is much more to the definition than just the quoted above.
Actually, wikipedia goes on to show a list of vitamins that does not include B17.
From wikipedia: "humans must consume them regularly to avoid deficiency"
So, if we dont consume B17 regularly, we will be B17 deficient, and our defense will not work properly.
Are you claiming that those who do not ingest B17 regularly are B17 deficient?
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

Most of your questions/statements I have already explained, multiple times. I'd rather not run in circles...
Thats is what I call dogmatic.
My previous statement about me not believing (or at the very least, taking for granted) anything from orthodox cancer research, is indeed somewhat dogmatic. It is, however, an experienced based belief, which I didn't just develop over night. Too much to go into right now.
If that was all there is about the definition, omega 3 fats and amino acids would be vitamins as well, but of course there is much more to the definition than just the quoted above.
The article also explains some of the other criteria. E.T. krebs called it a vitamin, because it suited. And because it fell within the classification of B vitamins, he called it B17.
Actually, wikipedia goes on to show a list of vitamins that does not include B17.
That's because it has not been officially labeled like that. E.T. Krebs did.

BTW, if you want to keep thinking in discrete terms like nutrient, this is from the FAQ at world without cancer:
World Without Cancer wrote:If vitamin B-17 kills cancer-using cyanide, is it possible for the cyanide to kill normal cells? Absolutely Not. Research shows that the normal cells in our organism contain an enzyme called Rodhanese which "neutralises" the Amygdalin. This enzyme does not allow the Amygdalin to release the cyanide. In this way, Amygdalin only serves as glucose to healthy cells providing energy. Malignant cells do not contain this enzyme. In the absence of Rodhanese, the Amygdalin is activated liberating the cyanide radical only inside the malignant cell causing its destruction
So, if we dont consume B17 regularly, we will be B17 deficient, and our defense will not work properly.
Refrase that to: our defense will not work as well as it can. It does work, but it can do much better, seeing as how 25% or so of the population gets cancer. Amygdaline is not the only line of defense, it's a fall-back mechanism.
Are you claiming that those who do not ingest B17 regularly are B17 deficient?
Yes. If I don't eat wood, I'm wood deficient. That's the definition of deficient...
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

Telling someone to use Google is kind of an empty argument, because one can find anything on internet, from the most ridiculous claims to scientific articles to objective information.
halfgaar wrote:Yes. If I don't eat wood, I'm wood deficient. That's the definition of deficient...
No, it's not. From the Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1 : lacking in some necessary quality or element

Key word here is "necessary". You don't need to eat wood, so you're not deficient when you're not getting it.

Anyways, it seems to me this discussion has reached the limits of its usefulness. I will allow one more post of RRM and halfgaar (and others if they feel the need), then I'll close the topic.
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

I will allow one more post of RRM and halfgaar (and others if they feel the need), then I'll close the topic.
I do have one more thing to say, which I just though of yesterday.

For the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that amygdaline works as a cancer preventative and cure. In another thread, it was argued that when eating Wai, you wouldn't need amygdaline, because you're not taking in the toxins everyone else does.

The thing to be careful about, is the amount of toxins used on fruit. Someone told me that just 200 grams of strawberries can deliver an acute dose, whatever that may be. I eat far more than that per day, and I'm still here, but it's something to think about. Other fruits I eat a lot also contain a lot of pesticides/fungicides, like nectarines and citrus fruit.

My point is, we eat a lot more fruit than most people, so also take in more dangerous pesticides.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

halfgaar wrote:My point is, we eat a lot more fruit than most people, so also take in more dangerous pesticides.
or don't eat foods that have been grown with pesticides
halfgaar
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat 23 Feb 2008 19:48
Location: The Netherlands

Post by halfgaar »

or don't eat foods that have been grown with pesticides
Of course, but to most mortals, this is too expensive... I already eat an exorbitant amount of fruit (costing an exorbitant amount of money), and when I would replace that with only organic fruit, it would be very expensive indeed...
Post Reply