I've seen it!! a REAL cure for cancer!

[MrNobody]

I am extremely sceptical of alternative therapies. [...]

Well I, for one, am very sceptical of any therapy. When I was in the hospital because of my Multiple sclerosis, the doctors "promised" me that I would be in the wheelchair permanently within two years, if I didn't take this "brandnew wonderful medicine" for the rest of my life. I asked some befriended pharmacists for information and they let me read some "internal" documents which didn't look that convincing to me.

Result: Although the pharmacists told me it was already a commonly used form of medication and seemed to have some positive effects, I didn't use this new medication and stayed with a vitamin B complex and sometimes high doses of cortisone when necessary. Today, 25 years later I'm still not in "the chair", which proves me right somehow, at least in my opinion. BTW: The "brandnew wonderful medicine" has been taken off the market by now.

However, I could have easily fallen into the "vitamin B17 trap" given that several components from the vitamin B group actually are part of my medication. I was just lucky to get to the critical information first and I wish everybody to be that lucky.

 

[RolandRB]

Well I, for one, am very sceptical of any therapy. When I was in the hospital because of my Multiple sclerosis, the doctors "promised" me that I would be in the wheelchair permanently within two years, if I didn't take this "brandnew wonderful medicine" for the rest of my life. I asked some befriended pharmacists for information and they let me read some "internal" documents which didn't look that convincing to me.

Result: Although the pharmacists told me it was already a commonly used form of medication and seemed to have some positive effects, I didn't use this new medication and stayed with a vitamin B complex and sometimes high doses of cortisone when necessary. Today, 25 years later I'm still not in "the chair", which proves me right somehow, at least in my opinion. BTW: The "brandnew wonderful medicine" has been taken off the market by now.

However, I could have easily fallen into the "vitamin B17 trap" given that several components from the vitamin B group actually are part of my medication. I was just lucky to get to the critical information first and I wish everybody to be that lucky.

So called "vitamin B17" is not a vitamin. A vitamin is a substance that the body needs and most often makes or has made in the past. Cats and dogs don't need vitamin C because they make it in their livers. We, as apes, should make vitamin C in our livers as well but our encoding got messed up so we can't make it any more and so we rely on external sources for it. We make none of it now and if we don't get enough then we die. Once, our bodies made it. In contrast, our bodies never made nor had any need for and neither did any mammal require the substance that has dishonestly been labelled "vitamin B17".

 

[MrNobody]

So called "vitamin B17" is not a vitamin. A vitamin is a substance that the body needs and most often makes or has made in the past. Cats and dogs don't need vitamin C because they make it in their livers. We, as apes, should make vitamin C in our livers as well but our encoding got messed up so we can't make it any more and so we rely on external sources for it. We make none of it now and if we don't get enough then we die. Once, our bodies made it. In contrast, our bodies never made nor had any need for and neither did any mammal require the substance that has dishonestly been labelled "vitamin B17".

How does your reply relate to my post? I didn't want to discuss whether vitamin B17 is or isn't a vitamin, maybe technically it is. I don't know and I don't care. Usually I find fighting over semantics just boring.

I just wanted to point out how easy it is to fall into some traps due to misinformation or incomplete information. If this never happened to you, you must be one lucky guy - or you just need some more "life experience".

 

[RolandRB]

How does your reply relate to my post? I didn't want to discuss whether vitamin B17 is or isn't a vitamin, maybe technically it is. I don't know and I don't care. Usually I find fighting over semantics just boring.

I just wanted to point out how easy it is to fall into some traps due to misinformation or incomplete information. If this never happened to you, you must be one lucky guy - or you just need some more "life experience".

"Vitamin B17" is a "button" for me. I'm off, as soon as I see it.

 

[MrNobody]

"Vitamin B17" is a "button" for me. I'm off, as soon as I see it.

I think I understand. Well, I have to admit I have quite a few of those "buttons" myself, on many different topics. I always try to "disable" or "remove" them.

Why do I "disable or remove" them?

Because I'll be able evaluate and discuss the topic at hand more objectively without too much prejudice or emotions involved. This leads to a more "fruitful" conversation in most of the cases.


How do I "disable or remove" them?

I don't have a "one fits all" answer for this one, but usually it begins with the realization that "a button has been pushed" (this realization alone disables/removes many "buttons"), followed by a number of questions. These could be:

- Where does this "button" come from?
- Why is it here?
- Is it of any use?
- and so on and so forth...

Most of these "buttons" disappear by asking these simple questions, but for the more persistent ones I'd have to dive deeper into my personal history and/or my "emotional household", which I will not do here.


Oh, and just for the record: "vitamin B17" has never been part of my medication or my diet. The "usual" ones (B6, B12, etc.) were.

Now I owe all ESMBers an apology for derailing this thread. You guys forgive me? Pretty please?

 

[Camille M.]

I have to agree with you. I have started studing herbs when I was 17, I am now a master herbalist. What gave me the push to invesigate plants, seeds, roots, was something that I have read in an old herbal. What I read becomes more true to me and more false for those who are connected to the AMA and Cap and Trade guys.
God said, "I have given you every plant with seeds on the face of the earth and every tree that has fruit with seeds. This will be your food." Then I read something else which said, look to the plants as they are the cure for every known illness, use them in their purest form. This means the seed must not be altered Genetically and the be used as it is without alteration. If anyone studies history of medicine they will see how the herbal industry was stolen by the AMA and all pure forms have bee altered with man made forms. The AMA has put limits and suppressed the field, so that they can further own and control humanity. This is our medicine and to believe that any studies by such men would validate the workability of nature, is to believe that the AMA is our saviors. Believe what you would like but study history and then think again. B17 is not going to be given positive feedback by the AMA, because fighting Cancer is a money making business.
I have helped many family and friends with chronic health problems using simple natural supplimentation and herbs. So I thank you for putting it out here because this is the way truth gets passed, WORD OF MOUTH, from those who aren't in it for money. You are a good man , I thank you!!!

I have read literally dozens of testimonials like this. The only negative stuff seems to be coming from the AMA and Pharms.

I use to work in a personal injury/workers comp mill, so I know the level of corruption, fraud, overpriced bullshit, and greed involved.

You can call me a conspiracy nut all you like, but I don't even put it past these multi-billion dollar industries to fudge a little (or a lot) concerning 'clinical trials' when billions of dollars are involved.

Ever see the movie 'the Fugitive'? Do you think anything like the 'provasic' cover up- except in reverse- could ever happen in real life? Especially with billions at stake? If you don't, you have a much higher opinion of people's ethics than I do.

How about marijuana? I've seen reports of studies saying it was practically a miracle drug to others claiming it has no use at all and is a 'gateway' drug to harder drugs. Apparently their opinion that it is a gateway drug is based on how many, say, heroin addicts smoked pot first.

I wonder how many drank coffee first? Would this also make coffee a gateway drug?

I've known hundreds of pot smokers. I can't think of one that advanced to heroin like the movie 'refer madness' insisted was the case way back when, and they STILL claim today.

So, with what I know about the medical field from personal experience, and what I've observed with my own eyes, I don't believe the mainstream medical profession about pot, no matter how many clinical studies they quote. They have very little credibility with me. You believe what you want.

Anne had given up on the regular docs. She was in very bad shape; she was dying. She did the one month b17 bomb and was totally cured. that carries more weight with me than if the Surgeon General swore up and down that it doesn't really work with fifty double blind studies to back him up.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there are more and more people who feel the way I do; the mainstream medicos can't always be trusted.



.

 

[RolandRB]

I have to agree with you. I have started studing herbs when I was 17, I am now a master herbalist. What gave me the push to invesigate plants, seeds, roots, was something that I have read in an old herbal. What I read becomes more true to me and more false for those who are connected to the AMA and Cap and Trade guys.
God said, "I have given you every plant with seeds on the face of the earth and every tree that has fruit with seeds. This will be your food." Then I read something else which said, look to the plants as they are the cure for every known illness, use them in their purest form. This means the seed must not be altered Genetically and the be used as it is without alteration. If anyone studies history of medicine they will see how the herbal industry was stolen by the AMA and all pure forms have bee altered with man made forms. The AMA has put limits and suppressed the field, so that they can further own and control humanity. This is our medicine and to believe that any studies by such men would validate the workability of nature, is to believe that the AMA is our saviors. Believe what you would like but study history and then think again. B17 is not going to be given positive feedback by the AMA, because fighting Cancer is a money making business.
I have helped many family and friends with chronic health problems using simple natural supplimentation and herbs. So I thank you for putting it out here because this is the way truth gets passed, WORD OF MOUTH, from those who aren't in it for money. You are a good man , I thank you!!!

I would call him a good man if what he claimed were backed up by hard evidence to support it. There isn't any.

You mention "B17". This is described by some as a "vitamin". Do you even know what a vitamin is? How is it defined? Prove your knowledge here on this message board, oh "master herbalist"?

[added] I'll make it easy for you. Explain to this message board how and why Vitamin B17 earns its description as a "vitamin". This message board awaits on your knowledgable response, oh "master herbalist".

 

[Reasonable]

I am extremely sceptical of alternative therapies. But don't mix it up with what I say about Vitamin D. There is a strong case for taking Vitamin D supplements, especially when not the summer months.

This Vitamin B17 really gets my goat. The dishonesty of even calling it a Vitamin and then saying cancer is due to the lack of this vitamin is staggering. It makes Hubbard look like an amateur liar. And the fact that many people here support this B17 crap is proof to me that there are plenty of people out there to scam if anyone feels like starting a cult, no matter how stupid the belief system is.

I am very pro alternative therapies when done by professionals who have logic and a feel for the subject not by buying something over the internet or having some one cure fits all remedy. I have seen too many people get well with alternative therapies to a greater or lesser degree to put all of it down in one fell swoop.

What I do find interesting are people who can generalize as to "alternative therapy" as if it is one thing.

I also find it intersting that there are poeple who probalby at one time were total "pro Scientology" zealots and felt they were 100% right (and couldn't understand how everyone didn't believe the same way) And now they are100% against it and feel they are right (and can't understand how everyone doesn't agree with them)

Same thing goes for their views on alternative or natural therapies.

Are there some people who just think they are always right?

 

[Type4_PTS]

A vitamin is a substance that the body needs and most often makes or has made in the past.

Would you please refer me to a reference that includes this (what I colored in red) in the definition of "vitamin", as I'm unfamiliar with this criteria being included in what constitutes a vitamin.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Do you mind posting links referring to this? In particular, the specific name of the enzyme, if it's referred to anywhere (as, with such a monumental link, it should be).

RSG, I did a quick search for the specific name of the enzyme and found this link (below). It includes this information:
The vitamin is harmless to healthy tissue for a very simple reason: Each molecule of B17 contains one unit of cyanide, one unit of benzaldehyde and two of glucose (sugar) tightly locked together. In order for the cyanide to become dangerous it is first necessary to 'unlock' the molecule to release it, a trick that can only be performed by an enzyme called beta-glucosidase. This enzyme is present all over the body in minute quantities, but in huge quantities (up to 100 times as high) at cancerous tumor sites.

Thus the cyanide is released only at the cancer site with drastic results, which become utterly devastating to the cancer cells because the benzaldehyde unit also unlocks at the same time. Benzaldehyde is a deadly poison in its own right, which then acts synergistically with the cyanide to produce a poison 100 times more deadly than either in isolation. The combined effect on the cancer cells is best left to the imagination.

But what about danger to the rest of the body's cells? Another enzyme, Rhodanese, always present in larger quantities than the unlocking enzyme beta-glucosidase in healthy tissues has the easy ability to completely break down both cyanide and benzaldehyde into beneficial body products. Predictably perhaps, malignant cancer cells contain no Rhodanese at all, leaving them completely at the mercy of the cyanide and benzaldehyde.
http://www.christianuc.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5750&mode=threaded

 

[Type4_PTS]

To: Rmack

"Many of you might have heard of 'laetrile' (spelling?) which is also called vitamin B17, and is present in many types of seeds. It is especially concentrated in apricot seeds...."

According to Edward Griffin (in World Without Cancer) the Apricot and its seed are the most prized of ALL food in Hunza, whose people are world renowned for their amazing longevity and good health. The native diet includes 200 times more Vitamin B17 than found in the average diet of industrialized societies, and their people are cancer free.
So as to not push RolandRB's button too hard, lets call it "alleged Vitamin B17". Whether it is technically a vitamin or not really isn't the key issue.
What IS the key issue (in my opinion) is whether or not it helps prevent someone from getting cancer or helps someone who already has it.



"I researched it on the net, and although I found some powerfully backed articles from doctors and the American Cancer Society debunking it, the many testimonials got me to start eating a few apricot seeds every day."

A 1953 report from the California Medical Association became the basis for almost all scientific opposition to laetrile for decades. Year later though it was discovered that the authors of this report falsified the findings.


"Can you guess why the mainstream medical establishment might not be down with this?"

In a letter that Dr. Dean Burk wrote (he was employed by the federal government as head of the Cytochemistry section of the National Cancer Institute) dated July 3, 1973, addressed to Robert A. Roe (in U.S. House of Representatives):
"You may wonder, Congressman Roe, why anyone should go to such pains and mendacity to avoid conceding what happened in the NCI-directed experiment. Such an admission and concession is crucially central. Once any of the FDA-NCI-AMA-ACA hierarchy so much as concedes that Laetrile anti-tumor efficacy was even once observed in NCI experimentation, a permanent crack in bureaucratic armor has taken place that can widen indefinitely by further appropriate experimentation. For this reason, I rather doubt that experimentation ... will be continued or initiated. On the contrary, efforts probably will be made, as they already have, to "explain away" the already observed positive efficacy by vague and unscientific modalities intended to mislead, along early Watergate lines of corruption..."
[letter reprinted in Cancer Control Journal, Sept./Oct.,1973, pp. 8,9.]

 

[Rmack]

Thank you, type 4, camille, reasonable, and all.

Roland, have you ever considered that you might be wrong about this?

Whether or not B17 is officially classified as a vitamin, does not mean it's not a nutrient. I understand that it is present in many foods, especially seeds, which have always been a part of mankinds diet. It's just unusually rich in apricot seeds. There are many substances in our diet that don't have official vitamin classification. This doesn't mean we don't need them.

I read the stuff about the Indians, as well as all the other testimonials. The AMA never approves any natural remedies as far as I know, as was mentioned a couple times, so just because we don't have some official double-blind test saying it works doesn't mean it doesn't.

Maybe you need to stop being so closed-minded and prejudiced and get educated to things outside your fixed ideas.

 

[Rmack]

Quick?

Really, I don't have the time to watch through a 55-minute video to try and find the name of a single enzyme, in the hope that I can correctly write down the spelling of its name from the voice-over.

If the video even loads. My internet connection is a piece of shit.

Any chance of a text name I can type into a search engine?

My apologies! That was my last late-night post trying to handle peoples questions and requests. What I should have said was, I quickly found the link!

It certainly isn't quick to watch, but the info is already on this thread. Thanks, type 4



.

 

[RolandRB]

Thank you, type 4, camille, reasonable, and all.

Roland, have you ever considered that you might be wrong about this?

Whether or not B17 is officially classified as a vitamin, does not mean it's not a nutrient. I understand that it is present in many foods, especially seeds, which have always been a part of mankinds diet. It's just unusually rich in apricot seeds. There are many substances in our diet that don't have official vitamin classification. This doesn't mean we don't need them.

I read the stuff about the Indians, as well as all the other testimonials. The AMA never approves any natural remedies as far as I know, as was mentioned a couple times, so just because we don't have some official double-blind test saying it works doesn't mean it doesn't.

Maybe you need to stop being so closed-minded and prejudiced and get educated to things outside your fixed ideas.

Maybe you need to stop and think.

1) Trying to label a substance as a vitamin, when it clearly is not one, is an attempt to get round legislation and to con the public into buying a cure for cancer that has been tested and has not shown efficacy. It is dishonest. It is quackery. It is a con.

2) If the body relied on a nutrient or substance to regulate cancer then it would be manufactured in the liver of most mammals just like we SHOULD be manufacturing Vitamin C except something went wrong. Dogs and cats and most mammals manufacture it.

3) This substance has never been common in man's diet. When we eat an apricot or a peach or cherries then we throw away the seed and this is normal.

4) In the field of medical health then if anyone claims "something works" then they should be able to prove it using a designed controlled experiment. If it can not be proven then the FDA or whatever regulatory authority is perfectly right to not allow it to be used in medical practise. A sick person might go down the route of relying on these unproven substances and get nowhere where proven medication and proven techniques exist. They need to be protected from quackery to protect their lives and these government agencies do just that.

 

[Rmack]

Prove your knowledge here on this message board, oh "master herbalist"?
.

Roland, your just lucky this isn't the real old days were Camille would know where you live if you were mocking her. If she had been a real herbalist back then, she might have put a few of them down your well.



.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

snip

4) In the field of medical health then if anyone claims "something works" then they should be able to prove it using a designed controlled experiment. If it can not be proven then the FDA or whatever regulatory authority is perfectly right to not allow it to be used in medical practise. A sick person might go down the route of relying on these unproven substances and get nowhere where proven medication and proven techniques exist. They need to be protected from quackery to protect their lives and these government agencies do just that.

I think this is the whole point. People can claim they tried something and it worked.

But this is not the same as a proscriptive solution for others. That comes from scientific testing.

And when science says something works they are not simply saying it works for everyone.

Their research provides the mathematical modes, means, and mediums for the effectiveness of the medicine.

Homeopathy does not do this. It is based soley on success stories.

When someone says something works while implying it works all the time for everyone or is a cure, people need to be suspicious.

There may be some studies showing the effectiveness of one thing or another.

But one study, good or bad, is not evidence in itself.

Modern medicine, however flawed, does not consider its methods absolute and eternal. That's one big difference.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Rmack]

Maybe you need to stop and think.

1) Trying to label a substance as a vitamin, when it clearly is not one, is an attempt to get round legislation and to con the public into buying a cure for cancer that has been tested and has not shown efficacy. It is dishonest. It is quackery. It is a con.

Then why are so many people reporting success, hmmmm? Are they all lying or insane? You can believe official bureaucratic doctrine and ignore mounting testimony if you wish, but I think your a fool if you do.

2) If the body relied on a nutrient or substance to regulate cancer then it would be manufactured in the liver of most mammals just like we SHOULD be manufacturing Vitamin C except something went wrong. Dogs and cats and most mammals manufacture it.

We don't manufacture lots of nutrients of all kinds and have to eat them. I think you're incorrect thinking something went wrong. All we need for health exits somewhere.

3) This substance has never been common in man's diet. When we eat an apricot or a peach or cherries then we throw away the seed and this is normal.

Haven't you been reading even this thread? The 'substance' exits in all kinds of foods. Wheat grass is another that has higher levels of it. It exists in all seeds and grains to some degree. I've read it is a large variation with regular wheat being at the low end.

So, whether or not it's a real, official fucking vitamin is irrelevant! The thing is, it's in common foods, and some of them have higher percentages, and the people who eat those are reporting drastically lower levels of cancer. Whether you like it or not, so deal with it.

4) In the field of medical health then if anyone claims "something works" then they should be able to prove it using a designed controlled experiment. If it can not be proven then the FDA or whatever regulatory authority is perfectly right to not allow it to be used in medical practise. A sick person might go down the route of relying on these unproven substances and get nowhere where proven medication and proven techniques exist. They need to be protected from quackery to protect their lives and these government agencies do just that.

I understand your concern. I wish the government really functioned like that. I fear it favors special interests over the greater good, however.



.

 

[RolandRB]

Would you please refer me to a reference that includes this (what I colored in red) in the definition of "vitamin", as I'm unfamiliar with this criteria being included in what constitutes a vitamin.

Here is one source where it is partially explained. I'll look round for other sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin

 

[Camille M.]

Hello and nice to meet you. Do I know what a vitamin is? Not sure what kind of question that is, silly, anyhow you want me to tell you how long this has been known about and who made it an actual vitamin by list. This is a little something I can share with you. This anti-tumour agent is Vitamin B-17 (commonly known as Amygdalin or Laetrile). According to Dr. Ernest T. Krebs, Jr. its components make it vital for our survival without cancer. The greatest concentration is found in the seeds of the rosaceous fruits, such as the apricot pits and other bitter nuts. Various documents from the oldest civilisations such as Egypt at the time of the Pharaohs and from China 2,500 years before Christ mention the therapeutic use of derivatives of bitter [/B]almonds. Egyptian papyri from 5,000 years ago mention the use of "aqua amigdalorum" for the treatment of some tumours of the skin. But the systematised study of Vitamin B-17 really did not begin until the first half of the past century, when the chemist Bohn discovered in 1802 that during the distillation of the water from bitter almonds hydrocyanic acid was released. Soon many researchers became interested in analysing this extract and so Robiquet and Boutron isolated, for the first time, a white crystalline substance which they called AMYGDALIN (from amygdala = almond). So this has been researched and known about for some time now, not something someone is trying to sell you just made up. By the way being a good man does mean helping others with what they know, not knocking down what you dont understand. I like to compliment others who I feel deserve one.

I would call him a good man if what he claimed were backed up by hard evidence to support it. There isn't any.

You mention "B17". This is described by some as a "vitamin". Do you even know what a vitamin is? How is it defined? Prove your knowledge here on this message board, oh "master herbalist"?

[added] I'll make it easy for you. Explain to this message board how and why Vitamin B17 earns its description as a "vitamin". This message board awaits on your knowledgable response, oh "master herbalist".

 

[Camille M.]

God said, "I have given you every plant with seeds on the face of the earth and every tree that has fruit with seeds. This will be your food."
Did you ever hear any rumor that the World Government wants to ban true knowlege, freedom of thought, belief systems (religion), etc. etc.? In fact giving any acknowledgement to the workability of such things would be against their own selfesh inhuman intentions. It really depends on who you think is on your side. Can you just chill for a minute. I mean have you ever eaten a big black watermellon seed? That is is you can find a watermellon that hasn't been genetically altered, with the little pale seeds. It is a incredible taste sensation you may be missing out on. Did you ever consider?

Maybe you need to stop and think.

1) Trying to label a substance as a vitamin, when it clearly is not one, is an attempt to get round legislation and to con the public into buying a cure for cancer that has been tested and has not shown efficacy. It is dishonest. It is quackery. It is a con.

2) If the body relied on a nutrient or substance to regulate cancer then it would be manufactured in the liver of most mammals just like we SHOULD be manufacturing Vitamin C except something went wrong. Dogs and cats and most mammals manufacture it.

3) This substance has never been common in man's diet. When we eat an apricot or a peach or cherries then we throw away the seed and this is normal.

4) In the field of medical health then if anyone claims "something works" then they should be able to prove it using a designed controlled experiment. If it can not be proven then the FDA or whatever regulatory authority is perfectly right to not allow it to be used in medical practise. A sick person might go down the route of relying on these unproven substances and get nowhere where proven medication and proven techniques exist. They need to be protected from quackery to protect their lives and these government agencies do just that.