'vitamin' B17?
-
- Posts: 968
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
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...
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...
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.
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.
In this article, read the section "RELATIVE FREEDOM OF SHEEP, GOATS, AND WILD HERBIVORES FROM CANCER" and below.
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...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.
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.
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.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.
Of course there is.halfgaar wrote:In my opinion, there is no distinction between pharmaceutical and nutritional properties.
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.
Hold on, thats not a deficiency symptom.the deficiency when you don't get it? Significantly increased chance on cancer
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?
you THINK it will not hurt you.It can't hurt to eat it, so I eat it.
Good luck.
All animals are different.As I explained before, there are plenty of animals who eat those pits eagerly.
Some thrive on grasses.
Humans dont.
No, for the rabbits its not that their flesh is made attractive so that their population is kept in balance by rabbit eating predators.Rabbits need to be multiplied as well. Does that mean they no predator should eat them? It's about the balance.
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)
No, thats fundamentally different from a nutrient deficiency symptom.1 in 3 or 4 people in this society gets cancer. I call that symptom enough.
You know that.
Exactly, so you have to find the cause for that. The cause?It's the body's repair mechanism which goes out of control, and form the rapidly dividing cells.
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.
If B17 would really be such an effective DRUG, it would have been a sensation in the headlines, dont you think?as long as you take in the vitamin B17, the cancer cells can be stopped in their tracks.
I dont know the effects of cooking on iodide, but i suspect its rather insignificant, as with most minerals / trace elements.Does cooking and processing destroy iodide, or is it merely about the amount of fruits etc that I eat now, which prevents the shortage.
Shortage of iodide?
Do you know that this is extremely rare nowadays?
Im not saying that B17 cannot be effective as a drug.the result of this substance has been seen under a microscope; cancer cells dying like flies. Why would one ignore that?
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.
That has nothing to do with 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.Is there any evidence of B17 deficiency symptoms?
Please let us stick to what constitutes a nutrient deficiency symptom!!!
Otherwise you are confusing people.
Please use the proper names / categorisation.
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.No, thats fundamentally different from a nutrient deficiency symptom.
You know that.
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.
That the DNA has been damaged, that that's the root cause, is a contemporary scientific view, not a fact.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.
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 raw food cures all acne, it would be headlines, wouldn't it?If B17 would really be such an effective DRUG, it would have been a sensation in the headlines, dont you think?
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.
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, 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)
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
Thats just the way it is.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.
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.
Coincidentally, it (among others, such as serotonin and melatonin) also has to do with vitamin D...It will, however, result in a decrease in physical and mental health; conditions which are caused by sunlight deficiency, yet not fatal.
sunlight is not considered a vitamin. thats just the way it is.The same is true for vitamin B17.
Equally so, vitamin B17 is not called a vitamin.
Can we agree on that?
Lets assume that you are right.a shortage of B17 does not result in cancer, but in an increased chance of cancer.
Even then, B17 cannot be addressed as a vitamin.
It simply isnt.
No, people prefer a quick fix instead of a harsh regimen that you always need to follow very strictly.If raw food cures all acne, it would be headlines, wouldn't it?If B17 would really be such an effective DRUG, it would have been a sensation in the headlines, dont you think?
People prefer just having to swallow a (vitamin B17) pill.
that sells...
ehrrr, 1950's or so is not in the past???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 problem indeed. But of course, making the seed attractive to eat (filled with nutrients and no anti nutrients) would very well create a problem...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.
These strawberries are a relatively new variety, created by us...There are plenty of fruits of which you do eat the seeds, like strawberries
Are you sure it cannot be instinct?The fact that you find apple seeds "yucky" is just degenerate human nature.
Unless you are not much of a plant eater (like humans)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.
I dont feel stuck, but i understand you feel stuck.I feel like this discussion is stuck.
Can we now agree that 'vitamin B17' is not a vitamin when we consider the definition of vitamins?
No...Can we now agree that 'vitamin B17' is not a vitamin when we consider the definition of vitamins?
From wikipedia:
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.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.
Furthermore, about B6:
And, about B3: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.
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.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.
And the fact that it is toxic in high amounts, doesn't say anything about it's nutritional value.
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.
(...)
I don't think in such dogma's. Sometimes new empirical data necessitates reconsidering definitions and terminology. Question everything.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.
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...ehrrr, 1950's or so is not in the past???
Just Google for "seeds healthy" and see the wealth of information. Seeds are meant to be 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...
Maybe, but we didn't make them grow the seeds inside the fruit, as opposed to somewhere else, so my argument stands.These strawberries are a relatively new variety, created by us...
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.Are you sure it cannot be instinct?
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.Unless you are not much of a plant eater (like humans)
Additionally, we can eat animals which eat vitamin B17...
Could it at least be that is one of many causes?halfgaar wrote:
That the DNA has been damaged, that that's the root cause, is a contemporary scientific view, not a fact.
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...
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:
Second, telling someone to use Google for a "wealth of information" is a bit silly, and you know it.
Hence, I don't really understand your position, when you at some point go by a definition in Wikipedia, and at another point say:
Also, by your own accord, question Wikipedia, which isn't the most reliable source on the internet.halfgaar wrote:I don't think in such dogma's. Sometimes new empirical data necessitates reconsidering definitions and terminology. Question everything.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.
Second, telling someone to use Google for a "wealth of information" is a bit silly, and you know it.
Edible doesn't mean they are nutritious and/or that we should eat them.halfgaar wrote:We can't eat bladed grass, but a lot of plants are edible just fine.
It is very possible that there are multiple causes, indeed.Could it at least be that is one of many causes?
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.It seems that radiation damages DNA and causes cancer. I don't think people who get cancer after radiation poisoning are lacking B17.
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.
I'm glad you do, because I feel a bit like it's a "is not, is too" game, in all honesty.By the way, I really appreciate this thread...
@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.
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.Second, telling someone to use Google for a "wealth of information" is a bit silly, and you know it.
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.
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.Edible doesn't mean they are nutritious and/or that we should eat them.
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?halfgaar wrote:It is very possible that there are multiple causes, indeed.Could it at least be that is one of many causes?
If that was true, everybody not getting the B17 would die of cancer, because our defense constantly has to keep cells in line.So, people don't get cancer because of the lack of amygdaline, but they get it because they lack the proper defense.
If people would lack that defense, they would get cancer no matter what, as we are exposed to toxins on a daily basis.
Of course we can.I don't think one can discriminate between pharmaceutical or nutritional properties, for example.
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.
It does, because all vitamins are nutrients.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.
If its not a nutrient, it cannot be a vitamin.
Thats is what I call dogmatic.For me, anything from the orthodox cancer research is invalidated because of the enormous vested interests.
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.
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.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.
Actually, wikipedia goes on to show a list of vitamins that does not include B17.
So, if we dont consume B17 regularly, we will be B17 deficient, and our defense will not work properly.From wikipedia: "humans must consume them regularly to avoid deficiency"
Are you claiming that those who do not ingest B17 regularly are B17 deficient?
Most of your questions/statements I have already explained, multiple times. I'd rather not run in circles...
BTW, if you want to keep thinking in discrete terms like nutrient, this is from the FAQ at world without cancer:
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.Thats is what I call dogmatic.
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.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.
That's because it has not been officially labeled like that. E.T. Krebs did.Actually, wikipedia goes on to show a list of vitamins that does not include B17.
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
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.So, if we dont consume B17 regularly, we will be B17 deficient, and our defense will not work properly.
Yes. If I don't eat wood, I'm wood deficient. That's the definition of deficient...Are you claiming that those who do not ingest B17 regularly are B17 deficient?
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.
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.
No, it's not. From the Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary:halfgaar wrote:Yes. If I don't eat wood, I'm wood deficient. That's the definition of deficient...
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.
I do have one more thing to say, which I just though of yesterday.I will allow one more post of RRM and halfgaar (and others if they feel the need), then I'll close the topic.
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.