|
| Thread: Cancer should not exist. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
posted March 17, 2006 11:46 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
Cancer should not exist.
I want to talk about something that i have been studying on and off for about 4 years now. Some of you will allready have heard something about it but maybe not paid to much attention to it due to the lack of publicity, because of these facts not being supported by organised medicine.
It is difficult to know where to start because there is so much to tell, but i will start by making what might seem like an unlikely claim and then build from there. Here it is.
CANCER WOULD NOT EXIST IF WE ALL HAD VITAMIN B17 AS PART OF OUR DAILY DIET.
I know that people will be thinking that if this were the case we would all know about it by now, after all the medical authoutities have been battling this disease for well over 100 years.
well its not the first time that current science has failed to recognise the cure for a disease for over 100 years.
First lets define what cancer is. It has been categorised as a Chronic metabolic condition which means that being chronic it will not usually pass away of its own accord and being metabolic means it arrises within the body and is not transmittable to other humans, it also means that it relates to that which we injest in our daily lives and since cancer is triggered by what we call carcenegens which cannot be metabolised by the body it is categorised as a chronic Metabolic
In 1952 Dr Earnst T Krebbs jnr a biochemist from San Francisco put for ward The theory that cancer is not caused by a virus or bacteria but by the lack of an essential food compound in modern mans diet and he made the very important point that in the histry of medical science there has never been a chronic metabolic condition that could be cured, controlled or prevented by medicine or any form of mechanical manipulation of the body.
To back up his statement lets look at the history of these diseases. I will list the five that i know of.
1: Scurvy
2: Pellagra
3: Pernicious emia
4: Ricketts
5: Beri Beri
All of these diseases have the same things in common. They have upward of a 90% mortality rate and most importantly they none them exist as part of the human experience due to the discovery of factors relating to diet.
SCURVY most people know about killed over 1 million sailors in the the British navy alone between 1600 - 1800 and yet the cure had been dicoverd long before this.
French explorer Jacque Cartier in the eary fifteen hundreds was near the arctic coast on the St Lawrence river when Scurvy began to take its toll. Out of a crew of 110 25 had died and the rest were not expected to live.
But the local tribesmen recognised the symtoms and made up a mixture from the Bark and Needles of the White Pine both rich in ascorbic acid or Vitamin C. Stirred into a drink this produced immediate relief followed by swift recovery.
When Cartier returned home he reported this to the medical authorities who laughed at him and said they were not interested in witch doctor cures of ignorrant savages, but the record was kept and only over 200 years later did they finally bow down but even then in 1747 John Lynn a surgions mate in the Brithish navy recommended that all ships carry citrus fruits and it was another 48 years before this was put into effect.
The 19th and 20th centuries has been no exception to the dismisal by the medical authourities of the link between chronic metabolic disease and nutrition so i will briefly go over the other 4
PELLAGRA was dessimating large portions of South America and was epidemic amoung the poor maize eating peasants in southern Europe from as far back as 1735 before coming to the attention of the US in 1902.
Again it was thought to be caused by an as yet undiscovered virus
In 1914 Joseph Goldberger had demonstrated that this condition could be cured and prevented by liver or yeast. The chief factor being Niacin (Vitamin B3) But not until the 1940s 30 years later was Pellagra fully accepted as a Vitamin B3 defficiency.
PERNICIOUS ENEMIA perhaps the deadliest of all had a 98% mortality rate but was erradicated by the introduction of raw liver to the diet. The chief factor here being Vitamin B12.
RICKETS a bone disease which due to the lack of Vitamin D especially amoung those workink indoors in the larger industrial towns where smog was cutting off the sunlight and women heavily clothed so that only hands and face were exposed.
BERI BERI reached epidemic proportion in Dutch colonies in the 1880s and it took almost until the middle of last century to be fully accepted that this disease is prevented by Thiamin (Vitamin B1)
In Thailand between 1987 - 1990 (no thats not a typo, 19 years ago) was responsible for 40% of all infant deaths despite the fact that it has been known for nearly a century that Thiamin prevents this disease.
Bear in mind that when i speak of mortality rate i am not talking about the literal number of a population that die but the percentage of those contracting the disease that will die as a result of the nutritional factors not being known.
Do you see the pattern here? In every case medicine was no use. In every case it was a single vitamin that erased the problem.
Cancer is a Chronic metabolic condition and there is no reason to believe that the solution will be any different from above.
However i am not content with the strength of this logic and neither i hope will you be so some scientific evidence is needed here.
NOTE. When the medical authourities tell you that there is no evidence that Vitamin B17 prevents cancer all that means is that it has not been proven to the satisfaction of the FDA and NOT that insufficient research has been done. Vitamin B17 was first isolated in 1810 and was first used in cancer therapy as early as 1845 so there is well over 100 years of research.
The problem is that to for a new treatment to be approved by the FDA will cost upward of 250 million dollars in research which makes all medical research the exlusive domain of the large pharmecutcal corporations.
These corporations never carry out research on anything which cannot be patented or that you can buy on a supermarket shelf. When was the last time you picked up a prescription for fruit an vegetables if you dont beleive me.
In the 100 or so years since the isolation of B17 it has been demonstrated that cultures who have a diet rich in this vitamin are cancer free. The Hunzas, The Escimos, The Abkasions, The Hopi and Navaho Indians of North America and some native populations of South America and South Africa all have in common that the degree to which they are free from cancer relates directly to the degree to which they have Vitamin B17 in their diet.
In other words as long as the adher to there native diet the cancer rate is zero. It is only when they become westernised and take on our diet that they become prone to cancer.
The Hunza's are of particular interest because they are an Apricot culture and their favourite delicacy is the the Apricot kernal. Although B17 is found in over 1200 different foods the kernals of fruit seeds other than citrus contain the highest concentration of B17 known to man Bitter Almonds being the richest source.
The Average Hunza has 200 times the intake of B17 in their diet than that of the average American.
At one time Millet used to be the staple grain for cattle. It is rich in B17 but has been replaced by wheat which is virtually devoid of it so there is no longer ressidual B17 in the meat we eat. Our Great grandmothers used to grind up the seeds of fruit in jams an preserves which they no longer do and mass production certainly does not utilise it in our food.
So over the last hundred years or so B17 has been gradually whittled out of the western diet and its during this same period that cancer has risen to the point where one in three people will be affected either directly or through a loved one.
In fact its more than one in three because the figure is only relevant if you count only those individuals whose cancer will develop to the point where it is diagnosible before they die by other means. There is an alarming number of autopsied males that are found to have prostate cancer after they have died by other means.
Before explaining how B17 tackles cancer i am going to go into a bit of detail about how cancer works and the first defence that our body has against this disease and then show how B17 works as the secondary back up.
THE TROPOBLASTIC THESIS OF CANCER
In 1902 Professor John Beard an embriologist from Edinburgh University discovered that there is no discernable difference between cancer cell and Trophablast cells which occur in early pregnancy.
If you could see a speeded up film of trophablast in early pregnancy you would see it behave in exactly the same way as cancer. It does not become a part of the individual it is purely parasytic in nature. It grows and multiplies as it eats its way into the Uterice to prepare a place for the fetus. This is the difference between a malignant lump and a benign one. The benign lump pushes away the sorrounding tisses wheras a milignant tumour eats its way into the surrounding tissue.
So why is it then that every pregnant woman does not end up with cancer.
Beard noted that aroud week 8 of early pregnancy that these cells begin to die off: Why.. He discovered that after 8 weeks the baby's
pancreas becomes functional and that the pancreas secreates the enzyme Tripsin which plays a vital role.
normally the white cells responsible for fighting off didease will attack anything foreign to the body but because trophoblasts are not foreign the outer membrane contains a negative electro-static charge which the white cell also carries and so they repel each other like two magnets.
The enzyme Tripsin eats through the outer wall of the trophoblast leaving it fully exposed to the white cell which then destroys it.
With reguard to this it is interesting to note that the upper intestine near the point where the pancreas enters into it is the one place in the human body where cancer is almost never found and that also diabetics who suffer from a pancreas malfunction are 3 times more likely to contract cancer than non-diabetics.
Different cancer tumours have varying degrees of malignancy but baird noted that the more malignant the tumour the more it took on the characteristics of pregnancy trophoblast and that the most malignant tumours of all are indistinguishable from trophoblast or as Professor beard pointed out over 100 years ago they are one and the same.
So when the Stem cell combines with estrogen to produce trophoblast in pregnancy the result is an umbilical cord and a placenta, but when this process occurs as part of the general healing process where tissue has been damaged by carcenogens then the result is cancer.
Well not quite. To be more accurate when this alternative healing process produces more trophoblast cells than the bodies natural defences can keep up with then the result is cancer.
And this is where Vitamin B17 comes in. This is natures secondary back should the first one fail. Here is how it works.
The B17 molecule contains 2 units of sugar 1 unit of Hydrogen Cyanide (Not to be confufused with industrial pottasium Cyanide) and 1 unit of Benzaldehide.
These ingredients are locked inside a membrane and are completely inert until the molecule comes into contact with a cancer cell.
There is only one enzyme that can unlock these ingredients. It is called Beta Glucosidase the unlocking enzyme and it does not appear in living tissue to any great decree except at the cancer cell where it appears in large quantities.
There is another enzyme called Rhodanese the protecting enzyme which occurs in all living tissue except the cancer cell which is consequently unprotected.
So when the B17 molecule comes into contact with a cancer cell the Cyanide and benzaldehide are released. Cyanide which as everyone knows in large enough quantities is deadly as too is benzaldehide. In fact these two acting together are 100 times more toxic than either acting alone. The toxicity is so great that it has been observed under a microscope that no cancer cell can survive, whereas when these ingredients come into contact with heathy normal tissue the Rhodenese breaks down these deadly toxins and converts them into by-products that feed and nourish the healthy cell.
It is a perfectly balanced mechanism of nature that has been observed for over 100 years that could not have been an accident.
It should be noted at this point that the greatest strengh of B17 is in its ability to prevent cancer from ever ocurring in the first place.
When you conduct research into its effectiveness in cancer therapy although there have been many astounding results there are factors that limit its success and this is mainly due to the politcs of cancer therapy.
In 1952 Dr Earnst T Krebbs junior was the first person to develop the concentrated form of B17 for cancer therapy which he caled Laetrile.
He personally reported almost 100% success rate for virgin cases which means cases where the patient had no prior treatment from conventional medicine.
And there is the problem. Most of the people who have been treated with Laetrile are not virgin cases, many of them being cases that have been told they have only a short time to live after conventional treatment has failed. When they die as many of them do they are counted as statistical failures for Laetrile when in reality it is a victory for Laetrile that any of them survive under these circmstances.
Added to this is the fact that early diagnosis is rare because in order to to diagnose cancer under current medicine you need a biopsy which is an expensive proceedure for which you cannot nip down to your local GP and have as part of a routine medical. Even in Britain where we have a health service you will have to go on a waiting list unless you have the money to go private.
For anyone who is suffering from cancer or knows somebody who is check out Metabolic Therapy
It combines the use of Laetrile and enzyme therapy i was talking about earlier. The one is to boost the bodies own natural defence specifically against cancer while the Laetrile adds a huge backup.
Because of these factors relating to therapy i urge people to focus on the original statement that i made at the beginning.
CANCER WOULD NOT EXIST IF WE ALL HAD VITAMIN B17 AS PART OF OUR DAILY DIET.
Dont wait to get cancer and then be cured. By applying this knowledge now cancer can become a disease of the past like Scurvy and Co.
Good health to you.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2006 12:57 AM |
|
|
Very interesting...I agree with all those remarks about
drug companies. I have talked with a psychologist who
uses vitamin b complex to treat stress, anxiety and
depression. There cetainly is more to B then people
like to give credit for.
____________
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted March 18, 2006 01:48 AM |
|
|
|
Of course Cancer should not exist, i hate it, nobody likes it.
|
|
sick_46_boy
Known Hero
*Lord of the bones*
|
posted April 23, 2006 06:17 PM |
|
|
|
Of course theat cancer should exist,it kills soo much poeple ower the world and it is so easy to get him.Ewery time when you buy something for eat or drink,read it on the product what contain,and if contain some aditivs like E330,E134 theat is things witch can cause cancer!!
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted April 23, 2006 11:19 PM |
|
|
Yes. I agree that part of fighting cancer should include avoiding know carcenagens, but sinse nobody can know all the things that go into our bodies that contribute to causing cancer, then it is important to eat those things that are known to selectively destroy cancer cells or that aid the imune system to do so.
EG. Pineapple and Papaya fruits contain Pancreatic enzymes which help strip away the outer membrane of the cell thus allowing it to be recognised as a foreign body for the imune system to attack.
remember that nothing can ever be as effective as the immune system at fighting disease in general.
It occurs to me now that i did not put any links in what i wrote which i should have done, so here is a good all round article to read on the subject.
http://www.campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/230304/CTM-cancer%20the%20new%20approach.htm
I also have dozens more on this.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Trogdor
Legendary Hero
Words in a custom title
|
|
posted April 24, 2006 08:31 AM |
|
|
Cancer exists due to addiction. Alcoholics are prone to liver cancer. Chainsmokers are prone to lung cancer. Cancer needs to be cured before people get worse.
____________
"Through the power of the dollar you can communicate with the dead." - Artu
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted April 25, 2006 05:07 AM |
|
|
Trogdor. Cancer is a chronic metabolic condition. You cannot cure it as such you can only prevent it.
If it were not know that vitamin c prevents scurvy and the foods which contain it had been gradually wittled out of our diet then scurvy would be killing as many people as cancer.
Remember that the orthadox medicine was battling against scurvy for 400 years.
he current thinking behind every generation has always been "How can a simple vitamin solve a problem that respected medical scientists with all their research cannot solve.
When they stop adding poisons to our food and water and Vitamin B17 is universally recognised and given an official RDA then cancer will go away.
The paranoia over it containing cyanide is part of the smear campaign by the FDA to discredit Laetrile the concentrated form of B17 used in cancer therapy.
If nobody were making the claim that vitamin B17 prevents cancer then there would be no fuss about the hydrogen cyanide.
You dont hear the FDA making a fuss about Vitamin B12 which actually contains the free cyanide radical which B17 does not.
They are simply protecting the major drug companies strangle hold on what has become a multi-billion dollar industry.
They know perfectly well that B17 or Laetrile does not contain free cyanide and that it only releases its toxins (Hydrogen cyanide and Benzaldehyde) it comes into contact with a cancer cell.
For more on this and a nice little chart that shows exactly how Vitamin B17 operates within the body.
http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/laetrileandcyanide.html
This information is the result of 176 years of research which started in Russia where B17 was identified in 1835 and used in cancer therapy in 1845 long before the smear campaign in the US started in 1953.
Laetrile is highly approved in Metabolic therapy clinics all around the world. They are the most successful clinics on the planet.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 30, 2006 06:18 AM |
|
|
|
You shouldn't be spreading this pseudoscience around the net. You are just doing a disservice to society by conveying information that is clearly wrong and by trying to discuss a topic about which you obviously know absolutely nothing.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted April 30, 2006 07:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You shouldn't be spreading this pseudoscience around the net. You are just doing a disservice to society by conveying information that is clearly wrong and by trying to discuss a topic about which you obviously know absolutely nothing.
BOOYAH!!
I'm glad someone finally called him on all this BS.
You know you really should spend some more time here Corribus.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted April 30, 2006 11:15 AM |
|
|
He didnt exactly call me, he just i "obviously" know nothing about it.
Its a word that people like to use when they cant back up what they are saying so they try to add weight to what they say with dogmatic terms, and he proved this by not expanding on that statement.
Come on then if you think your able. Call me on it. I think you will find that i am more than up to the challenge.
i have done a mountain of research sinse that post so you better be prepared.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2006 12:46 PM |
|
|
I know nothing about the B17 issue specifically. But, in general, I have a problem with both sides of this type of thing.
On one side the medical community, and the scientific community in general, have a strong tendency toward the idea "if it's not proven to be true, then it's not true". Yes, it's a generalization, but the attitude is still there. Western medicine is highly reluctant to admit there is any validity to non-traditional medicines.
On the other hand, those involved in non-traditional medicine, as a practitioner or patient, take almost the opposite point of view. The practitioners may admit that some cases require traditional medicine, but only extreme cases.
The problem with alternative medicine is that the people go too far with it. They may start with knowledge of things they know for a fact are valid. But when the medical community doesn't acknowledge it, they throw out traditional medicine altogether. They begin to embrace the latest fad therapy simply because it's non-traditional, even though there is little or no evidence that it works.
Then the traditional medical people see all the whako fads and throw out all non-traditional medicine.
Both sides go on the defensive, with neither one willing to admit the other side might be right about at least some of the things.
I was a strict vegetarian and somewhat into "health foods" for several years. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a vegetarian diet is much more healthy. For me, this is a fact and I don't need scientific studies to tell me so. My own body tells me it's true. As for "health foods", it depends on the definition and there isn't really a good definition of what that means. As a whole, the health food industry has both good and bad points.
The thing about "health foods" is that it basically becomes a hobby for the people who are into it. It almost becomes a way of life. People who are into this hobby, tend to pay a lot more attention to their bodies than the average person. They become much more aware of the effects of the foods they eat. So they learn as they go.
In addition to paying more attention, there are changes to the body itself which aid in identifying the effects foods have. One of the more obvious changes is the greatly reduced time required for digestion with a vegetarian diet (I'd guess about 1/4 - 1/6 the time). With decreased digestion time, there is less variety of food in the system at any given time. This makes it much easier to identify the effects of specific foods because it doesn't get mixed with the last meal.
Another change is that the body becomes more efficient at utilizing the nutrition it takes in. This tends to amplify the effects of the foods by increasing the effective dosage of nutrients. Again, this makes it easier to identify cause and effect.
I would speculate that very few, if any studies on nutrition take into account increased efficiency achieved through proper diet. An example is the pineapple and papaya Dodd mentioned. I haven't read on this for a number of years, but the studies I read about orally taken enzymes were non-conclusive. The controversy was not whether the enzymes had any effect, but whether they were absorbed when taken orally. The general belief was that enzyme therapy could be effective if given in very high doses...with some small percentage actually being absorbed. If the studies were made with people from the general population, it may show less effect than with people who have higher efficiency digestive systems.
My personal experience with pineapple and papaya have nothing to do with cancer, but with the breakdown of inflamation/swelling caused by physical injury. 1-2 liters of pineapple juice would have dramatic effects within maybe 4-6 hours. Papaya was less effective and took about a full day.
As with other non-traditional medicine, health food people tend to go too far with it. They tend to latch on to the latest fad or something they read in a book, or worse, something they read on the internet. They've gone beyond healthy diets that make sense. The latest fad or bit of information has simply become part of their health food hobby. A coin collector looks for a specific coin as part of his/her hobby. The coin may have no intrinsic value whatsoever, but they want it anyway...it's just part of the hobby. The health food crowd does essentially the same thing. It no longer matters so much if the latest dietary supplement has any intrinsic value, it's simply part of the hobby.
With all the time I spent with my hobby, with all the reading and studying I did, I learned one very important thing. I learned that I was never going to figure it out. It's too damn complicated.
There is very little factual knowledge about this stuff. Neither the traditionalists, nor the non-traditionalists truly understand it. They understand SOME things, but not nearly enough. That's not saying the stuff we read isn't true just because it hasn't been proven. It just means it's not known for sure one way or the other. And there is even less known about side effects and interactions between the various nutrients.
Just because there is "evidence" something may be beneficial, doesn't mean it's true. Evidence means it MIGHT be true. Even if true, it doesn't mean it is always beneficial under every circumstance. And it doesn't mean more is better. For example the vitamin B complex has a lot of benefits. But in large amounts you can overdose on it. (I've done it before, and done enough experimenting to know the B vitamins caused it)
I'm completely convinced diet has a major impact on the health of the body. But I also know it's too complex to figure out every detail. I strongly believe in the benefits of a vegetarian diet. But beyond that, all the study I've done, and "experiments" with my own body point to one very simple concept everyone already knows....we should eat right. A good diet with a LOT of FRESH vegies and fruit. Grains and other sources of carbs. And a small amount of protein sources.
It's all very simple. Too many people eat garbage and don't get any exercise their entire lives. Then when they get diagnosed with cancer or some other disease, they suddenly search for anything that might be a miracle cure. But by then it's probably too late.
I have no idea if B17 is a preventative for cancer. But simple common sense says that a healthy well rounded diet and exercise promote good overall health. And good overall health is the best preventive for just about everything. Plus, a well rounded diet probably will have B17....just in case.
Mega doses of the latest fad nutrient could potentially do harm. But a good diet with more reasonable quantities of a wide variety of nutrients is more likely to have good benefits without any adverse effects. Mega doses of any nutritional suppliment should never be taken without using caution.
____________
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted April 30, 2006 05:26 PM |
|
|
Yes agreed. Megadoses of anything is harmfull. I personally believe that vitamin pills are a waste of money for the simple reason that all vitamins require the presence of either a particular enzyme or mineral for their absortion, and so once they are isolated in pure form the body cannot absorb them adequately.
Foods that have multiple vitamins added to them are little better.
Take for example a bowl of cornflakes.
On the cereal box you will see a big list of all the vitamins that it contains plus the RDA for each vitamin and the percentage of those RDA that say 100grammes will provide.
It all sounds very reassuring until you realise that your body cannot absorb those daily amounts without the proper enzymes.
There is no substitute to getting nutrients from their natural sources.
I agree also that it is easy to task the conspiracy theory route and
discredit modern medicine beyond all reason.
We must not forget how medicine has cured such conditions as Polio, Teburculosis, Small pox and other viral infections.
My contention in this thread however is that chronic metabolic conditions is an area of diseases which falls outside the expertise of modern medicine and should be left to the experts in nutrition.
Historically it has been demonstrated time and again that you cannot control cure or prevent a chronic metabolic condition with factors that are outside those normal to the biological experience of the organism.
this is true of all those diseases i listed and why should it be any different for cancer.
http://www.koolpages.com/hokuspokus/B17.html
Thanks for taking the time to write such a long and balanced post and reminding me that there are two sides because i often find myself in attack mode against pharmacutical giants and somtimes forget that not all diseases have escaped their good research.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 30, 2006 10:42 PM |
bonus applied. |
Edited by Corribus at 22:45, 30 Apr 2006.
|
Quote:
He didnt exactly call me, he just i "obviously" know nothing about it.
Quite right. You don't.
Quote:
Come on then if you think your able. Call me on it. I think you will find that i am more than up to the challenge.i have done a mountain of research sinse that post so you better be prepared.
(sigh) Alright, then, if you insist. I doubt you are "up to the challenge" at all. Considering that your original post was on March 17 2006, just over a month ago, I doubt how you could really have done a "mountain of research" since then. By research, of course, I assume you are referring to reading spurious websites and maybe checking out a book or two from your local library written by people with questionable credentials. That, incidentally, is not research. Research is reading accredited peer-reviewed journals, and doing your own experiments in a controlled lab setting. Oh, just FYI I'm a chemist with quite a bit more than a month of experience doing real scientific research. And I know shoddy science when I see it. Debunking scientific quackery like this is a bit of a hobby of mine and I think it's terrible when people spread such filth around. All they do is end up confusing people who are susceptible to such nonsense and who actually might want to really know the truth about the world in which they live. What you charlatans do borders on the criminal: some of you, mostly those out to make a profit, do it maliciously, knowing full well that what they are saying are complete lies, but most of you (you included, I imagine) do it out of simple ignorance. You read something somewhere, something written by one of the former sorts of people, accept it without questioning its validity, and then spread it out to thousands of other people, many of whom do the same in turn.
In any case, since you asked, here we go.
First, some general observations about your posts.
(1) You don't cite anything. Wow, what a surprise. Probably because you are just vomiting forth what you read on one of the many stupid websites you link to (we'll get to those in a bit) . Likely either you don't have access to real scientfic journals, or you have access but are too lazy or lack the expertise to try to understand them. This usually should be the biggest cue to ANYONE that what you are saying is probably worthless. Not that citations alone are enough to lend credibility to an article - I have seen many cases where pseudoscientists cite journal articles which had little to nothing to do with what they were being cited for. But if you are really doing "mountains of research", you would think that you would have come across SOME real primary scientific source to back up what you are claiming. So again, either you are too lazy to do so or there IS NO scientific source to back up what you are claiming. Probably a combination of both.
(2) You speak of Cancer as if it is a single disease, but in fact there are thousands of unrelated varieties that have all kinds of geneses, symptoms, treatments, causes, etc. Saying someone is dying of cancer is as vague and unspecific as saying someone is dying of heart disease, or old age, or infection. Thus, claiming that a single "nutrient" (of which the chemical you speak is certainly not one) is responsible for every single type of cancer is as silly as claiming that every type of infection is caused by a single bacterium. "Wipe out strep , and nobody would ever be sick!"
Now, let me be clear that I in no way believe that cancer is not, to some extent, preventable. Certainly I believe you can improve your chances of staying cancer-free by leading a healthy lifestyle. This means eating a balanced diet, not smoking, getting exercise, etc. Although I don't think I'd go so far as to agree with Binabik that vegetarianism is the end-all be-all of healthy diet, certainly avoiding copious amounts of fatty meats also helps. But to suggest that if everyone took a single chemical, then they could smoke a pack and a half an hour and avoid lung cancer is just absurd.
Oh, and backing up to point one, let's just nip this one in the bud right now: citing a work from 1902, 1846, 1957 does really count as citing scientific literature. Science, particular biotech and medicine, has changed immensely over the last few decades. Really, to lend any credence to your claims, you need to cite works from the last two decades.
Ok, now, before getting to your error-laden post, what I usually like to do is take a look at the source. Unfortunately, I couldn't access some of the pages you cite, but this one did load:
http://www.koolpages.com/hokuspokus/B17.html
Now, before I analyze the content of the page, let's just spend a microsecond on the actual URL. Let me get this straight: you're getting your scientific information from a website whose domain name is "koolpages"? Are you kidding me? Subdirectory: hokuspokus. Wow. I'm getting more unimpressed by the second.
Loading the page up, I see, "Vitamin B-17: The Ultimate Cancern Conspiracy" in big bold sickly green letters. No mention of who is pushing this conspiracy, nor why. Interesting. Now, the text. I hope you like reading, Dodd, because this is going to take a while. Of course, you like doing "mountains of research", so you should find this interesting.
Quote:
There is a vitamin found in most fruit seeds called vitamin B-17.
Wrong. It's not a vitamin. Show me a real scientific study that shows this chemical is necessary to live. Oh, right. You can't.
Quote:
It's components are said to make it vital for our survival without Cancer.
Said by whom? I've seen essays in middle school that were more convincing.
Quote:
Vitamin B-17, and information about it had been banned from most of the U.S. for over 15 years now.
Source?
Quote:
Warning! B 17 has not been approved by the FDA for the prevention, mitigation or treatment of any disease including Cancer, Diabetes or Heart disease
What a shock. Oh, but the FDA is evil, right?
Quote:
The Federal Government has a law that states "Only a drug can cure a disease".
If it has such a law, then it should be easy to tell the rest of us where this law is written down so the rest of us can read the entire "law". So why isn't it cited?
Quote:
Vitamin B-17 was the subject of great controversy 18 years ago when some of the world's top scientists claimed that nutrients in certain seeds make it 100 % impossible to develope cancer and can kill off existing cancer cells in a matter of days to months. This is true yesterday, today and tomorrow.
This does not mean that vitamin B-17 will save the life of stage 4 cancer patients, but it will help stop the cancer or diminish the pain say the scientists.
Which top scientists? If scientists claim something, they do so in a peer-reviewed journal. What's the source? What's the source? What's the source? What's the source? What's the source? Do you see a pattern here? These sites don't cite anything. They just spew this crap and don't back it up. And people like you actually believe this garbage?
Quote:
The pharmaceutical companies pounced on this claim immediatly and demanded that FDA studies be conducted.
Pharmaceutical companies conduct studies on patented chemicals they invent so that at the end of there study, if the drug gets approved, they have sole rights on its sale. Just imagine all the money the pharmaceutical companies would loose if they didn't need Cancer related drugs?
Ah, the crux of the matter. Those evil pharmaceutical companies. They don't WANT you to know that a NATURAL SUBSTANCE may be good for your health because then YOU won't PAY for their MEDICINE? So what do they do? They use their POWER to HIDE from YOU, the INNOCENT CITIZEN, the TRUTH that EATING ALMONDS COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE. They WANT you to be SICK so they can make MONEY.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.... A few points on this one, because this really sets up the tone of the rest of the article. Even if it were true that there was some magical natural substance out there that could cure every cancer, pharmaceutical/chemical companies would still profit greatly from it. Why? Because they would sell it as supplements, just like they do every other vitamin. Vitamin C, Vitamin A, Vitamin D, etc., etc., are all natural substances, and they are also billion dollar industries. Go into any drug store and you'll see shelves upon shelves of these. Not to mention most commercial foods these days are fortified with all these vitamins as well. Where do these additives come from? Labs. Where are the labs? Chemical and pharma companies. Not only do pharma companies patent new drugs, but they also patent new ways to artificially synthesize natural substances, which is just as lucrative. So you see, this whole "the evil pharma companies don't want you to discover the truth of a natural substance that will heal you" argument is flawed from the beginning.
Quote:
B17 is found in all fruit seeds such as apple, peach, plum, cherry, orange, nectarine and apricot.
Can we stop calling it B17 already? The chemical is Amygdalin. And yes,it is found in all of these seeds, including bitter almonds. And yes, all of those seeds are also toxic to some degree, partly because of this chemical. By the way, bitter (wild) almonds are not cultivated because they are toxic. It is a defense mechanism of the plant. And why are they bitter? Because through evolution we have developed protection mechanisms. Things that are bitter are usually not good for us. Oh wait, you probably don't believe in evolution, do you?
Quote:
Did you know that within these tribes there has never been a reported case of cancer. There are doctors and scientists from the U.S. living with in these tribes right now studying this phenomena.
Never a reported case of cancer, huh? Doctors and scientists RIGHT NOW living with these tribes? Which doctors, and scientists, pray tell?
Quote:
The difference between Malignant and Benign tumors is that malignant cancer eats normal healthy cells next to it as it grows and B 17 stops this.
How? I'd like a mechanism, please.
Quote:
Benign tumors push normal cells away as it grows.
Now read about how scurvy, rickets, pellagra and Beri Beri were simple deficiencies of vitamin C and B which also took decades and killed millions before Kings and the medical industry of the time accepted the simple solution of vitamins.
This is true. However, the author of this article is asking you to draw a parallel between the discovery of vitamin C and it's therapeutic properties wrt scurvy and modern medicine's putative refusal to accept "B17" therapeutic properties for cancer. The problem with this analogy is that the two refusals have different geneses. The former was caused by the fact that diseases, from a molecular biological and biochemical standpoint, were poorly understood at the time. The latter is caused by the fact that there is no evidence to support the classification of amydalin as an essential nutrient. We know what vitamins are now, and why they are important. If there was evidence to suggest that amygdalin was a vitamin, it would be accepted as one. But there just isn't.
Quote:
For example, we know the Hunza's represent a population that has been cancer free for over 900 years of its existence.
I'd be surprised if there are records that go back this far. It's not like there are documents that say, "November, the Year 1265. No cancer again this year. Hopefully the trend will keep up!" Considering that many types of cancers could not be diagnosed until the advent of modern medicine and molecular biological techniques, I'm not sure how one can assert that a certain culture has been wholly cancer free for 900 years.
Quote:
As a result we're in the midst of a fulminating deficiency of Vitamin B17 or Laetrile Nitriloside, the anti-neoplastic vitamin. Its absence from our diets accounts for the fact that cancer on our population has reached such a pandemisity as to account for its occurrence in one in 3 American families.
Nice statistic (where did you get it?). This is a classic case of taking two facts and connecting them, while neglecting the hundreds of other potential contributing factors. I.e., if A is true and B is true, then A must be related to B. As an example of how absurd this is, I submit to the following analogy:
In the last twenty or so years, AIDs has become a big problem. So many more people are getting AIDs these days than before 1980. Strangely, in 1982, compact discs were released onto the market, and their use has increased exponentially during the last two decades. Therefore, AIDS IS CAUSED BY COMPACT DISC USE!! STOP LISTENING TO MUSIC RIGHT NOW!!! THE DEADLY RADIATION FROM COMPACT DISC PLAYERS IS INFECTING YOU WITH A LETHAL VIRUS. YOU WILL DIE!!!!!
Sounds stupid? That's because it is. So because Americans don't consume apricot pits, cancern is becoming pandemic? Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Before I debunk that further, answer me: have we been consuming LESS apricot pits than we did 30 years ago? Probably not - we've been eating just as few apricot pits as we always did, so if this connection exists, cancer cases should be steady, right? They shouldn't be GROWING. Maybe, instead of being due to not eating apricot pits and bitter almonds, the increase in cancer cases may be due to advances in diagnostic medicine and our understanding of carcinogens? Maybe it's also due to the fact that average lifespans these days are significantly longer than they once were? For that matter, if the Hunza's are so healthy, why is their average lifespan 15 years shorter than our own?
Quote:
Cancer is a chronic, metabolic disease ... that is obvious. It isn't an infectious disease, which is caused by bacteria of viruses.
Wrong. Actually, some forms of cancer are caused by viruses. HPV (Human PapillomaVirus) is one of the major causes of cervical cancer in women. (Don't believe me? There are a list of references at the bottom of the wikipedia entry for HPV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus. THey are REAL journals, too, so they are reliable source of info, unlike this webpage I'm tearing apart.) Yeah, so I guess that's another sign that this person (and you) have no idea what they're talking about.
Quote:
It is a disease that is metabolic in origin. A metabolic disease is a disease that is linked with our utilization of food. Most metabolic diseases have as their basis specific vitamins and minerals.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what to say, here. This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.
Quote:
Let me give you a categorical or axiomatic truth to take with you. One that is totally uncontradictable, scientifically, historically and in every other way.
Oh geez, I can't wait.
Quote:
There have been many fatal devastating diseases that now have become virtually unknown. They have been prevented and cured by ingesting the dietary factors and there by preventing the deficiencies, which accounted for these diseases.
The one in which you are probably most familiar is Scurvy. A fatal disease that killed mankind by the thousands.(yadayada)..it wasn't uncommon for three-fourths of the crew to become seriously ill by the end of a long voyage and then those who didn't die would mysteriously recover after hitting shore because they would have access to fresh fruits and vegetables rich in Vitamin C.
So? Nice exposition. Nothing to do with your miracle chemical, though.
Quote:
Then we have Pernicious enemia, which had a mortality rate of 98 or 99 percent.
While working at the University of California they discovered a very simple remedy for preventing and curing this disease. They simply said to their patients, "go down to your butcher shop and get a quarter pound of fresh liver. Take the quarter pound, grind it up and cook it lightly by just singing the surface and use this as a ration of a tablespoon every day for three days." When the patients followed this advice without exception, those with Pernicious enemia made complete recoveries. Despite this these men were censored by the Medical Establishment at the time and were criticized for engaging in what was alleged to be Medical Quacke .
Really, Dodd. Don't you see anything wrong with this? "They" at the "University of California" "discovered a very simple remedy". Who the hell are THEY? WHICH University of California school? How can you be so stupid as to buy into this when the author can't even be specific enough to tell you who the hell did the study? It blows my mind. Of course, they were censored by the "medical establishment". What medical establishment? Censored how? What year was this? ANY INFORMATION WOULD BE HELPFUL.
Quote:
The chemistry of raw liver was studied it was discovered that the factors responsible were Vitamin B12 and Folic Acid. So Vitamin B12 and Folic Acid are now a part of our normal dietary experience.
The first sentence isn't even a sentence. You would think a respectable scientist could at least write correctly. Chemistry of raw liver? What does that mean? Who studied it? How was it studied? What is the source? What is the source? What is the source?
Anyway, I'm skipping the next several paragraphs, because this is becoming boring. The author goes on to describe several more vitamin deficiency diseases. This is all nice, but what's the point? Shouldn't the author be spending more time trying to convince you that cancer is a vitamin deficiency disease itself? Isn't that the point? God I had these people.
Quote:
Let's make it clear by what we mean by biological experience to the organism. We refer to the experience the of the organism has had over the million years of its evolution. The organism was exposed to water, air, carbohydrates, fats, amino acids and various salts and these factors became integrated with the evolving organism. The evolving organism became integrated with these factors. These factors with the evolving organism were incorporated into the beautiful machine of "life." The vital mechanism of life runs just like the parts of a fine Swiss watch only infinitely more complex.
Huh? What the hell does that even mean?
Quote:
We have become over-civilized. We are inclined in out deluso thinking to feel that here and there there must be a magic out. That there must be a simple way, a short cut, that somehow or other medical science or some other man-made forces beyond our comprehension will do for us those things we must do for ourselves. d it is slowly dawning on us, perhaps too slowly that this hinking is fraudulent; that it is unsound.
If anyone here is looking for a "magic out", it is you. After all, who is the one that is claiming that a single molecule can prevent every type of cancer with 100% efficiency? Now THAT is ironic.
And down below, we end with this:
Quote:
You can get apricot seeds in your health food store, get only the dried ones which don't have all the important enzymes killed off.
uhhh... what important enzymes? Do you even know what an enzyme is?
Ok, Mr. Dodd. That was one article. Now let's do yours. I'll make this brief. I hope.
Quote:
First lets define what cancer is. It has been categorised as a Chronic metabolic condition which means that being chronic it will not usually pass away of its own accord and being metabolic means it arrises within the body and is not transmittable to other humans, it also means that it relates to that which we injest in our daily lives and since cancer is triggered by what we call carcenegens which cannot be metabolised by the body it is categorised as a chronic Metabolic.
(1) I'd like to know where you go this categorization from - and who categorized it as such.
(2) Metabolic does not mean relating to what we inGest in our daily lives. Metabolism refers to how our cells break substances down into smaller components. It's a subtle but important distinction.
Quote:
In 1952 Dr Earnst T Krebbs jnr a biochemist from San Francisco put for ward The theory that cancer is not caused by a virus or bacteria but by the lack of an essential food compound in modern mans diet and he made the very important point that in the histry of medical science there has never been a chronic metabolic condition that could be cured, controlled or prevented by medicine or any form of mechanical manipulation of the body.
Widely regarded as a quack, Earnst Krebs (you could at least spell it correctly) was the one who originated this B17 nonsense. As I've already said, some forms of cancer are caused by viruses (Yeah, I know, you don't believe in medicine, but sorry, it's a fact), so that proves that wrong.
Quote:
To back up his statement lets look at the history of these diseases. I will list the five that i know of.
1: Scurvy
2: Pellagra
3: Pernicious emia
4: Ricketts
5: Beri Beri
That doesn't back up his statement at all. All it does is list five vitamin deficiencies. Deficiencies of VERIFIED vitamins. So what? I could just as easly claim that cancer is caused because we don't eat enough cardboard. To back up my statement, let's look at Scurvy, Pellagra, BeriBeri, etc. See how stupid that is? I won't bother to quote all your descriptions of these diseases, except to say that while it is true that many of the original people who original hypothesized that ingestion of certain chemicals could prevent these diseases, you cannot draw the parallel that the same thing is going on today with amygdalin. It's an unfair comparison, because science back then was not a well developed discipline. We barely knew what molecules were in the first place.
Quote:
Do you see the pattern here? In every case medicine was no use. In every case it was a single vitamin that erased the problem.
So? That's because they were vitamin deficiencies. I'm not sure I see your point. And why can't a vitamin be a medicine?
Quote:
Cancer is a Chronic metabolic condition..
Again, says who?
Quote:
However i am not content with the strength of this logic and neither i hope will you be so some scientific evidence is needed here.
Well it's about time!
Quote:
NOTE. When the medical authourities tell you that there is no evidence that Vitamin B17 prevents cancer all that means is that it has not been proven to the satisfaction of the FDA and NOT that insufficient research has been done. Vitamin B17 was first isolated in 1810 and was first used in cancer therapy as early as 1845 so there is well over 100 years of research.
Um.... ok. You do realize that in 1845:
(1) The electron hadn't been discovered.
(2) DNA hadn't been discovered.
(3) Light was a wave.
(4) Leaches were still a primary therapeutic tool.
(5) Antibiotics hadn't been discovered.
(6) The very molecular basis of cancer was unknown.
Thus, I'm not sure how relevant any research conducted in 1845 is. Got anything, say, in the last decade?
Quote:
The problem is that to for a new treatment to be approved by the FDA will cost upward of 250 million dollars in research which makes all medical research the exlusive domain of the large pharmecutcal corporations.
Care to cite that figure? Probably not.
Quote:
These corporations never carry out research on anything which cannot be patented or that you can buy on a supermarket shelf. When was the last time you picked up a prescription for fruit an vegetables if you dont beleive me.
I've discussed this above, but it doesn't hurt to point it out again. Pharmaceutical companies DO carry out research on new ways to synthesize natural products for commercial use. Because amygdalin is toxic, if indeed it is a cancer therapeutic, pharma companies could research similar chemicals that have the therapeutic properties but are not toxic. Patents also only last a short period of time, and so pharma companies are always trying to develop new versions of their drugs. Your argument does not hold water.
Quote:
In the 100 or so years since the isolation of B17 it has been demonstrated that cultures who have a diet rich in this vitamin are cancer free. The Hunzas, The Escimos, The Abkasions, The Hopi and Navaho Indians of North America and some native populations of South America and South Africa all have in common that the degree to which they are free from cancer relates directly to the degree to which they have Vitamin B17 in their diet.
Source?
Quote:
At one time Millet used to be the staple grain for cattle. It is rich in B17 but has been replaced by wheat which is virtually devoid of it so there is no longer ressidual B17 in the meat we eat.
Source?
Quote:
Our Great grandmothers used to grind up the seeds of fruit in jams an preserves which they no longer do and mass production certainly does not utilise it in our food.
You are leaning towards making a bad connection between modern lack of amygdalin in our diet and increase in cancer rate, which, as I said above, is a bad comparison. Advances in cancer diagnosis and longer lifespans increase the number of cases that are diagnosed.
Quote:
So over the last hundred years or so B17 has been gradually whittled out of the western diet and its during this same period that cancer has risen to the point where one in three people will be affected either directly or through a loved one.
And there it is... aside from the poor conclusion, do you have a source for the 1 in 3 statistic? Oh and btw just because I ask if you source, that doesn't mean I necessarily disbelieve the statistic (though for many of them I do). It's just poor form to write a scientific article, quote statistics, and then not tell anyone where you got them from.
Quote:
In fact its more than one in three because the figure is only relevant if you count only those individuals whose cancer will develop to the point where it is diagnosible before they die by other means. There is an alarming number of autopsied males that are found to have prostate cancer after they have died by other means.
Source?
Quote:
Before explaining how B17 tackles cancer i am going to go into a bit of detail about how cancer works and the first defence that our body has against this disease and then show how B17 works as the secondary back up.
THE TROPOBLASTIC THESIS OF CANCER
In 1902 Professor John Beard an embriologist from Edinburgh University discovered that there is no discernable difference between cancer cell and Trophablast cells which occur in early pregnancy.
Stop right there. 1902? Are you frickin' kidding me? Yeah, because our understanding of medicine and biology hasn't changed in 104 years. You're going to describe cancer to me using a study in 1902. That's pathetic. We didn't even know what DNA was in 1902, and wouldn't for another half century. Oh, and while I'm at it (not that I care, really), do you have the source?
(skipping a bunch of biology that you obviously don't understand, and have just regurgitated from somewhere disreputable)
Quote:
The B17 molecule contains 2 units of sugar 1 unit of Hydrogen Cyanide (Not to be confufused with industrial pottasium Cyanide) and 1 unit of Benzaldehide.
Actually, hydrogen cyanide is much more toxic than potassium cyanide. The former is a gas; the latter is a salt. Amygdalin does not "contain" hydrogen cyanide. It does contain a nitrile group that can, in metabolism, be broken down in HCN, hence why this chemical is toxic and why bitter almonds are both bitter and poisonous. And HCN is industrial, too, so I don't know why you throw that term in there other than to scare the uninformed. Finally, amygdalin also contains a phenyl ring. Aromatic compounds like phenyl rings are highly carcinogenic. Oh did you see what I just did? I just stated something that isn't really correct but which you probably wouldn't know better, just like what you've been doing. Actually, aromatic compounds ARE carcinogenic but there are also many of them that are natural substances in biology, such as phenylalanine. Benzaldehyde, by the way, is also very toxic. Pure benzaldehyde smells a lot like almonds, by the way. But there's no benzaldehyde in amygdalin, although amygdalin is BROKEN DOWN into benzaldehyde. I thought you did a lot of research? I couldn't tell... oh and that's a real nice collection of toxins packed into one molecule. Since it's ingested in small doses usually, it's probably not enough to kill you, but still, it could certainly make you sick. Oh, well, I guess if you DIED taking amygdalin, you'd kill the cancer to, so maybe that's what you mean by a "cure"? Heh, excuse my sarcasm.
Quote:
These ingredients are locked inside a membrane and are completely inert until the molecule comes into contact with a cancer cell.
Huh? Wow this is really bad. I've read some bad science before, but this is just... laughable.
Quote:
There is only one enzyme that can unlock these ingredients. It is called Beta Glucosidase the unlocking enzyme and it does not appear in living tissue to any great decree except at the cancer cell where it appears in large quantities.
Source? Do you even know what an enzyme is? Just to inform you, beta glucosidase is an enzyme that cleaves a beta linkage between two carbohydrates. The beta refers to the manner in which two carbohydrates are attached to one another. It is unclear to me why you think that this enzyme does not appear in living tissue except in cancer cells, where it is abundant. Other enzymes are likely requires for the liberation of cyanide and benzaldehyde.
Quote:
There is another enzyme called Rhodanese the protecting enzyme which occurs in all living tissue except the cancer cell which is consequently unprotected.
Protects against what? Do you even know? Well, I'll tell you - Rhodanase metabolizes cyanide to thiocyanate in the body. But there are other components that are needed, such as thiosulfate. You are in way over your head. Oh, did you know that all cancer cells are different? Could you please tell me a source that says that all cancer cells lack rhodanase? Also, I'd like to know the amount of rhodanase in other parts of the body. I'm sure you must know, right? And thiosulfate, where is that located, please? And if we are so protected by rhodanase against cyanide, then why is cyanide toxic?
Quote:
So when the B17 molecule comes into contact with a cancer cell the Cyanide and benzaldehide are released. Cyanide which as everyone knows in large enough quantities is deadly as too is benzaldehide. In fact these two acting together are 100 times more toxic than either acting alone.
Care to explain why their toxity increases in tandem? By the way, most likely these enzymes are inside the cells, so the amygdalin would have to be absorbed into the cell first. Just thought you'd like your nonsense to be accurate.
Quote:
The toxicity is so great that it has been observed under a microscope that no cancer cell can survive, whereas when these ingredients come into contact with heathy normal tissue the Rhodenese breaks down these deadly toxins and converts them into by-products that feed and nourish the healthy cell.
Who observed this? Source? Rhodanase only breaks down cyanide; not benzaldehyde. Besides which, you already stated that beta glucosidase is only present in cancer cells, so there would be no need for rhodanase elsewhere because unless you have beta glucosidase, you don't produce cyanide and benzaldehyde, right? You're contradicting yourself. Assuming for a second that you are right, though, what about the benzaldehyde? That's still around. Also, the byproduct of cyanide metabolism using rhodanase is thiocyanate, which certainly isn't a nutrient, so you're certainly not nourishing surrounding cells. It's discarded from the body in your urine. Talk about coloring your lies with more lies.
Quote:
It is a perfectly balanced mechanism of nature that has been observed for over 100 years that could not have been an accident.
Pardon me while I go puke.
Quote:
In 1952 Dr Earnst T Krebbs junior was the first person to develop the concentrated form of B17 for cancer therapy which he caled Laetrile.
He personally reported almost 100% success rate for virgin cases which means cases where the patient had no prior treatment from conventional medicine.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Well that about does it. Once you find all those sources and address all my questions, we can discuss further. But don't even bother until you find the sources. I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.
C.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted April 30, 2006 11:28 PM |
|
|
holy crap
I was considering throwing my my little bit of knowledge into this fray but I can see that it would have just been plain spammy next to your post there Corribus.
ROFLMAO btw
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 01, 2006 06:47 AM |
|
|
Ok thats a lot of stuff and i will get back to you with those sources.
You point is a valid one in that i did not give any links to the original post.
The idea was to encourage discussion and then bring up the links one by one as the questions arose.
People retain stuff better that way.
later.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted May 01, 2006 10:18 AM |
|
|
Look Dodd, as long as you keep asserting that this molecule cures all cancer then you are going to look like a fool. That assertion is just plain Oort cloud out there I mean as whack as whack can get.
I am actually interested in turning this into a real thread. Dodd, in your researches please concentrate on the following: How does amygdalin get absorbed into cells, what function does it serve in a normal cell, and how (if) does it affect certain types of cancer. And if you're going to regurgitate jargon from internet or other sources please try to convert it into plain english.
-thankyou
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 01, 2006 03:18 PM |
|
|
What do you mean by different types of cancer ? If you are talking about the different locations in which they occur within the body then that is just geography.
Tumours only differ as reguards the degree to which they are malignant, but the malignancy itself is made up of those same cells that divide. All malignant tumours are made up of cells that divide to some degree or other, so in reality there is no such thing as different types of cancer if you are talking about how cancer actually behaves.
They all eat their way into surrounding tissue and vital organs once they start spreading.
You wanted an explanation of how Amygdalin is absorbed by the body.
Here is a link to a chart that shows how.
http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/laetrileandcyanide.html
You will have to scroll down for the chart, but also what he has written is worth a read because it dispels the commonly accepted Cyanide paranoia that has been spread by organised medicine.
The info is provided by Philip Binzel Jr. M.D.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 01, 2006 03:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That assertion is just plain Oort cloud out there...
Hilarious!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 01, 2006 03:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you mean by different types of cancer ? If you are talking about the different locations in which they occur within the body then that is just geography.
Tumours only differ as reguards the degree to which they are malignant, but the malignancy itself is made up of those same cells that divide. All malignant tumours are made up of cells that divide to some degree or other, so in reality there is no such thing as different types of cancer if you are talking about how cancer actually behaves.
They all eat their way into surrounding tissue and vital organs once they start spreading.
Dodd, cancer is way more complicated than you seem to think it is. Rather than researching some spurious magic cure to cancer, if you are really interested, I suggest you try to learn some *real facts* about cancer itself. It is way more than just a question of geography - different cancers arise through different mutations. Even all cancers that affect a single organ are not the same, and two cancers which bear the same name may be quite different in two different individuals. There is not a single treatment for cancer because every cancer is different, and that's why billions of dollars are poured into research every year (and many of those dollars are by private, nonprofit organizations - which kind of shoots your conflict-of-interest theory right out of the water, by the way). Look, I do commend you for being interested in the topic, because it's an important one, but you are doing yourself - and everyone else - a disservice by "learning" about the topic in the way you thus far have done. You need real sources of information, and judging by the level of your knowledge, you need basic ones. I think you'll find that once you learn a little bit about this disease from a real source, you'll be in a much better position to make wise, personal decisions about how to best protect yourself through healthy lifestyle choices. You might want to start at the wiki article for cancer (although, wiki is generally speaking not the most reliable source for information; it is still orders of magnitude more reliable than the websites you have been using those far), which is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer
Then I suggest going to a library or bookstore and buying/renting an elementary book about cancer. There's probably something in the "idiots guide to" or "for dummies" line of books that would be appropriate for someone just trying to learn some basic information. You must be careful: there is a lot of crap out there and it is often hard for the layperson to distinguish between reliable and nonreliable sources of information. If the connections between nutrition and cancer is a topic that really interests you, I would happy to do a little work for you and find a book or two that looks reliable to me. Since I am a scientist, I have a lot of experience distinguishing between the respectable and the not respectable.
C.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 01, 2006 04:52 PM |
|
|
Fair enough Corribus. I will not rule out the possibility that i am wrong about all of this.
Actually even that link that i gave states at the bottom that Laetrile has limitations with certain cancers which must mean that they are not all the same.
My main interest though is in cancer prevention and sinse treatments by orthadox medicine are not aimed that way but in treating cancer once it has arrisen this is why i dont do a lot of the kind of research you have done. Maybe i should though. Understanding how cancer works has to be crucial whether you look at cure or prevention.
I wiil value any links you provide from your own research.
BTW. How did you come to do the amount of research you have done on all of this ? I was a bit surprised that you knew about thiocyanate.
EDIT: OOps sorry i just noticed you said you are a scientist.
You are still due a long post from me  Likely i will have to conceed to some of your points, because i underestimated your knowledge and overestimated my own.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
| |
|
|
