A World Without Cancer - The Story Of Vitamin B17

[PersianPaladin]

I'm not so sure it's to do with diet PP, more likely to do with all the chemicals we are subjected to/subject ourselves to.

That's part of it and leaves our immune systems weak and open to illness but it's only one of various factors, and i understand that diet is just as important. Who knows how much western society has sacrificed it's health for technological advances and comfortable lifestyles. We as western societies have an annoying habit of over-congratulating ourselves for being the sole possessors and inheritors of most of the world's knowledge and science. We still have some things to learn from these so-called 'primitive' tribes about lifestyle and wellbeing. Scientific positivistic research is often funded by those who have a lot of power, and drug companies like to keep us sick to make lots of money from illness.

[crimsone]

Oddly enough, there was a scare not very long ago (albeit not a very scary one) that suggested that the household chemicals we all use, or more specifically the exposure of young children to them, may contribute to an increased incidence of gender identity problems in those children. In other words, it suggested childrens everyday exposure to household chemicals inhibited or confused the development of those childrens internal gender identity.

It's not really all that far fetched to be honest (unless you read something into it that isn't there). There are many such scares over simple household chemicals. When you think about it, there are so many preservatives in our food that we actually take a few years longer to decay when we die than we used to 50 years ago.

On the other hand, maybe cancer really is often caused by overheat powerlines and radio frequencies. The "*undeveloped" (*a relative term) countries of the world don't have as many of those either.

To the best of my knowledge, we don't really know what causes cancer other than "carcinogens" and high doses of radiation.

[PersianPaladin]

PP,

We would all much rather that. I would much rather that someone sent me £500 in the post everyday, rather than having to get out of bed and actually go and earn the money. That's not the point. The question is DOES THAT SUPPLEMENT work. What we have here is one person saying it does. I watched the video (well, listened to the monologue in the background); it presents no more science than Mystic Meg used to when forecasting the lottery numbers years ago.

That's totally untrue, and that's proof that you haven't watched the video for more than 5 minutes.

Edited August 21, 2006 by PersianPaladin

[Coopsy]

That's totally untrue, and that's proof that you haven't watched the video for more than 5 minutes.

Not sure if you realise but you were told to change your signature and you still havent.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

G. Edward Griffin marshals the evidence that cancer is a deficiency disease - like scurvy or pellagra - aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man’s diet. That substance is vitamin B17. In its purified form developed for cancer therapy, it is known as Laetrile.

This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery. Yet the evidence is clear that here, at last, is the final answer to the cancer riddle.

Why has orthodox medicine waged war against this non-drug approach? The author contends that the answer is to be found, not in science, but in politics - and is based upon the hidden economic and power agenda of those who dominate the medical establishment.

With billions of dollars spent each year on research, with other billions taken in on the sale of cancer-related drugs, and with fund-raising at an all-time high, there are now more people making a living from cancer than dying from it. If the solution should be found in a simple vitamin, this gigantic industry could be wiped out over night. The result is that the politics of cancer therapy is more complicated than the science.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=43...dfeed&hl=en

PP.

Although anything that could potentially help in the battle against serious health, I would be very sceptical of this study.

I myself, as part of my job, work within the healthcare industry. I read many a journal, trade amagazine, and e-mail news links. Every month, I see similar articles, but unfortunately, there is often no substantial research to back it up. And along with that, any drug, vitamin, mineral, probiotic, propolis, herbal extract, excipient (and they have all had similar type studies), needs to have backing from the correct regulatory authorities.

Without it....it will never be accepted from a medical point of view. Look at all the Omega-3 claims...the rush of products on to the shelf. Now. There is concerns whether the initial research was correct.

I've seen products too that are being researched for HIV (Its called Propolis, is extracted from bees, and has anti-viral properties). Pro-biotics is another example where they are researching into Cancer Defensive Porperties.

However, it takes more than just research to prove something (Do you remember the lycopene claims of tomatoes in supermarkets?). Without the accepetance by the authorities, companies will never buy it. It will never become mainstream. Why? Because the research is not substantional enough to be classified as proof.

I also believe, that with such claims on a serious health, there has to be research based on humans. Animal testing is not sufficient.

Just another question. Is it a cure for cancer once developed, or does it claim that it stops cancer forming in the first place (the latter being an impossible statement).

And sorry that I havent read the article (yet), but does it go into how individual B vitamins actually only have the desired and optimised effect, when delivered in a B-Complex form? Does it go into how other vitamin, minerals etc effect its work within the body?

As I said, I see many an article on such claims...but until there is research upon research, and acceptance at all levels, then it will not make it to the shelves.

BTW...how long did the research last?

Edited August 21, 2006 by ChrisL

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

That substance is vitamin B17. In its purified form developed for cancer therapy, it is known as Laetrile.

My first point. The guy speaks about wiping out the current industry of cancer treatments, yet, who would produce Vitamin B17? A drugs company (i.e. pharamceutical, as the production method, for human consumption as a drug, would need to be produced under pharma conditions (Temperature, humidity control, specific cleaning methods etc). And trust me, these methods dont come cheap.

Another interesting read Here, based on research, rather than conspiracies.

Another link Here, which tells of Cyanide poisoning using B17 (not all vitamins are good for you when taken in excessive amounts!).

[crimsone]

Here, which tells of Cyanide poising using B17 (not all vitamins are good for you when taken in excessive amounts!).

Vitamin D being a perfect example - Its other use is as a rodenticide.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Vitamin B12 I think...quite nice with a coconut undertone.

Also for PP - Have you ever wondered why vitamin B17 is not widely (if at all) available? I have searched both Quest and BASF, two large players in the industry, and they dont sell it.

[parmenides3]

B 17 - Flying Fortress! I built an Airfix one & stuck all the transfers on.

P

[parmenides3]

B 52 was the Stratofortress. The Airfix model for that was much more boring , though, bizarrely, they provided 'Enola Gay' transfers with it, just to celebrate Hiroshima. Oh, how times change.

Wasn't Marie Wilson in the B 52's?

[VillagePlank]

I find the fact that various isolated tribes who have never had a case of cancer in their societies (apart from when they settled into western lifestyles) very convincing when it comes to diet and cancer prevention. The food of western society is the KEY factor which leaves us exposed to cancer.

I couldn't be bothered to read the rest of the thread, but the simple biological answer to why isolated tribes do not appear to suffer from cancer is genetics. It would be much better, according to my understanding, to investigate the differences in their genome, against the differences in the genome of, say, a society that has a large cancer suffering rate. It could well be that B17 (if it exists) protects the genome from cancer, but that, I suspect, is yet to be empirically demonstrated.

[PersianPaladin]

http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/whatisinb17.html

[Stratos Ferric]

I find the fact that various isolated tribes who have never had a case of cancer in their societies (apart from when they settled into western lifestyles) very convincing when it comes to diet and cancer prevention. The food of western society is the KEY factor which leaves us exposed to cancer.

There may well be something in that, but as I said, there are THREE ways of looking at the isolation effect. Your man is assuming that the difference is not just spurious - i.e. without cause. The simple coincidence of two divergent or independent trends does not of itself imply any causation. Thereafter, assuming that there is in fact causation, your man assumes that it is to do with something eaten by Eskimo / Himalayan tribes but not by the rest of the world, and which prevents cancer. My point was that it might actually be the other way around, that the rest of the world is eating something that causes cancer. That is why regular science sets up control tests to validate hypotheses statistically. Of the top of my head I'm pretty sure that there have been many studies into Eskimo diet (at least before McDonalds arrived pole-side) and that other factors have also been identified: they eat a lot of omega oils having a cold water white fish diet; they don't eat a lot of fatty red meat; they eat very little processed food, and I think I'd be right in saying they aren't big smokers.

Given the amount of chemical crap in all processed foods it would be astonishing in the extreme if our boders were not, over time, reacting to these. Personally I far more favour the "something in our diet" driving cancer argument than ever I do "something in theirs preventing it".

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/whatisinb17.html

Still cant see any proof though that the 'extra' suppliments taken have any effect or not. In fact, have they any evidence of B17 on its own?

My point on synergistic effects with other vits/mins/herbals etc is whether they effect the way the B17 works.

But the other point is, is their proof it works on its own? Have they tested methods by removing one or more of the other suppliments (i.e. to eliminate the possability that eny effects are down to one of the other suppliments).

I'm sorry PP, i'm not one for conspiracy theories. Why is B17 not mass produced? Maybe there isnt a market? Why isnt there a market? Because it has not be proven to a reputable state?

I'm still not convinced, least because that site is rather biased.

[Stratos Ferric]

That's totally untrue, and that's proof that you haven't watched the video for more than 5 minutes.

I stand by my comment. I didn't watch but I was listening. There is a lot of opinion masquerading as scientific fact. What there is NOT is any robust, independent analysis or peer challenge. The basic standards required of all accepted hard science simply were not there. If I missed them then perhaps you might tell us where in the video they are, and provide a transcript.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Have you also looked at the price PP.

One of the most expensive vitamins/mineral son the market is Co-Enzyme Q10. This is no more than £1000 per kg. Now that is an over estimate.

The cost of buying these 'tablets' is stupid:

Phase 1 - Cost per kg = £30,952 per kg

Phase 2 - Cost per kg = £16,129 per kg

Now considering the majority of the tablet will be made up of something like Pharma Lactose, maltodextrin et al (one of the cheapest bullk materials available), the price above is actually alot lower than the price of pure B17 (the price I have given is pure Q10, and I can actually source for around £500-700 per kg).

So if they say they are being compressed by the governement, and other drug companies, so they dont lose money, how do they justify the cost of these tablets?

[parmenides3]

For those of you who haven't already guessed, I would like to point out that all of the threads initiated by PP, which masquerade as 'science', have direct connections with far-right-wing political organisations of one description or another.

This individual is clearly engaged in a campaign of disinformation, presumably with the intention of promoting a belief in some kind of conspiracy or other amongst members of this, and probably other forums.

None of the strands has the remotest connection with real science, or the truth. It is possible that PP may be naive, rather than malicious. I respect his right to his opinions. I would advise caution to anybody reading his posts.

Please note, I am not Jewish, a Zionist, a Communist or an anythingelseist. I just hate deception.

P

[PersianPaladin]

Have you also looked at the price PP.

One of the most expensive vitamins/mineral son the market is Co-Enzyme Q10. This is no more than £1000 per kg. Now that is an over estimate.

The cost of buying these 'tablets' is stupid:

Phase 1 - Cost per kg = £30,952 per kg

Phase 2 - Cost per kg = £16,129 per kg

Now considering the majority of the tablet will be made up of something like Pharma Lactose, maltodextrin et al (one of the cheapest bullk materials available), the price above is actually alot lower than the price of pure B17 (the price I have given is pure Q10, and I can actually source for around £500-700 per kg).

So if they say they are being compressed by the governement, and other drug companies, so they dont lose money, how do they justify the cost of these tablets?

I think it's disgusting that they sell tablets at that price. I infact argue that tablets and pure laetrile greatly reduce the synergetic effect of B17 in natural foods. It is better to consume good amounts of natural foods that contain B17 then to take such supplements that are less reliable. Oh, and i've been eating almond seeds for quite a few years now with no ill side effects.

[flagpole]

For those of you who haven't already guessed...

I think most of us have

[PersianPaladin]

For those of you who haven't already guessed, I would like to point out that all of the threads initiated by PP, which masquerade as 'science', have direct connections with far-right-wing political organisations of one description or another.

This individual is clearly engaged in a campaign of disinformation, presumably with the intention of promoting a belief in some kind of conspiracy or other amongst members of this, and probably other forums.

None of the strands has the remotest connection with real science, or the truth. It is possible that PP may be naive, rather than malicious. I respect his right to his opinions. I would advise caution to anybody reading his posts.

Please note, I am not Jewish, a Zionist, a Communist or an anythingelseist. I just hate deception.

P

I am neither right wing or left wing, i consider myself a libertarian in values. I believe the biggest conspiracies are by governments, powerful drug companies and arms companies in keeping the masses ignorant and in their control. But these companies and people have names and addresses and i'm not one of those paranoid conspiracy theorists - i know who the guilty people are and they should be publically shamed.

Eat lots of watercress every day and you will have a good basis for cancer prevention. Also note from this website that it contains a good amount of B17: -

http://www.herbsarespecial.com.au/free-her...watercress.html

[parmenides3]

I am neither right wing or left wing, i consider myself a libertarian in values. I believe the biggest conspiracies are by governments, powerful drug companies and arms companies in keeping the masses ignorant and in their control. But these companies and people have names and addresses and i'm not one of those paranoid conspiracy theorists - i know who the guilty people are and they should be publically shamed.

Eat lots of watercress every day and you will have a good basis for cancer prevention. Also note from this website that it contains a good amount of B17: -

http://www.herbsarespecial.com.au/free-her...watercress.html

I appreciate that you may have strong beliefs about government and corporate ethics. I also appreciate that you may view yourself as a libertarian. But if you do, you will recognise that the most important weapon against 'their' disinformation is the truth. If you intend to 'publish' the truth to a wider audience, why do you not check the authenticity or validity of the material you present as 'science'? If other people keep checking what you post and demonstrate its failings, it does not serve your cause, as it makes you appear to be either a fool or deliberately peddling disinformation. Rather than rely on the nonsense that some organisations with their own political or moneymaking agendas put out, why do you not simply say what you, personally, think, perhaps in a blog?

P

[PersianPaladin]

I appreciate that you may have strong beliefs about government and corporate ethics. I also appreciate that you may view yourself as a libertarian. But if you do, you will recognise that the most important weapon against 'their' disinformation is the truth. If you intend to 'publish' the truth to a wider audience, why do you not check the authenticity or validity of the material you present as 'science'? If other people keep checking what you post and demonstrate its failings, it does not serve your cause, as it makes you appear to be either a fool or deliberately peddling disinformation. Rather than rely on the nonsense that some organisations with their own political or moneymaking agendas put out, why do you not simply say what you, personally, think, perhaps in a blog?

P

That's the problem! They don't! They jump to their own prejudiced scepticism by looking at criticisms of the research rather than giving it a chance and analysing it from both sides.

:blush:

[parmenides3]

That's the problem! They don't! They jump to their own prejudiced scepticism by looking at criticisms of the research rather than giving it a chance and analysing it from both sides.

:blush:

Perhaps the assumption that other people are 'prejudiced' or 'sceptical' is unfair; it assumes that only you are being 'fair'; why not assume instead that others are intelligent and are at least as capable as you of evaluating evidence? If readers of your posts look at your evidence, then at critiques of your evidence, and decide for themselves that the material you present is not reasonable, then they are looking at it from both sides, then choosing to disagree with you. Do you refuse to believe any of the criticisms of the material you post, on the grounds that other people don't share your opinion? Personally, I believe we should challenge all assumptions, but most particularly the ones we ourselves make; this way, we can learn.