19 replies to this topic

[k10]

Vitamin B17 was the topic of great controversy over 30 or so years ago when some of the worlds top scientists claimed that when consumed the components of the seed make it 100 % impossible to develop cancer and will kill existing cancer in the most cases. Who here heard about this?

As you may know Vitamin BH17 is found in most fruit seeds, mainly Apricot seeds. The pharmaceuticals companies together with the medical establishments pushed the FDA into making it illegal to sell 'raw' apricot seeds or vitamin B17 with information about it's effects on cancer. Even to this day you cant get raw apricot seeds in your health food store only the sun dried ones which have all the important enzyme killed off

Is this information kept from the public? Do you think greedy Medical Associations keep it from the public for purposes of self interest? Maybe to use it in the future for financial gain?


Thoughts?

[AgeVivo]

hi, that seems interesting. could you search a few links in google and pubmed.org to convince us?

[GoodFellas]

hi, that seems interesting. could you search a few links in google and pubmed.org to convince us?

There's a video about it documentarywire.com, search for Vitamin B17 and you'll find it.

However, are there any side effects from taking B17?

[StrangeAeons]

Rorschach: "Amygdalin... phony medicine made from apricot seeds. Illegal."
Moloch: "Please don't take that away! I've got cancer, I'm trying everything."

[kismet]

Is this information kept from the public? Do you think greedy Medical Associations keep it from the public for purposes of self interest? Maybe to use it in the future for financial gain?

Yes, I'm entirely sure the Greedy Medical Association, Big Pharma and Big Brother are withholding essential treatments from us, not. But do you know why? Because The Government and The People have a vested interested in curing cancer, it's a vested interested worth about 50 trillion dollars.

You can poison yourself as much as you want with cyanide a major constituent of "vitamin b17", but it won't cure your cancer or any cancer for that matter. Then again, a little self-experimentation to find out how the death in the gas chambers must have felt (minus the sadistic torture) probably goes a long way. That could be educational.

Edited by kismet, 04 August 2009 - 12:21 AM.

[mentatpsi]

Vitamin B17 was the topic of great controversy over 30 or so years ago when some of the worlds top scientists claimed that when consumed the components of the seed make it 100 % impossible to develop cancer and will kill existing cancer in the most cases. Who here heard about this?

As you may know Vitamin BH17 is found in most fruit seeds, mainly Apricot seeds. The pharmaceuticals companies together with the medical establishments pushed the FDA into making it illegal to sell 'raw' apricot seeds or vitamin B17 with information about it's effects on cancer. Even to this day you cant get raw apricot seeds in your health food store only the sun dried ones which have all the important enzyme killed off

Is this information kept from the public? Do you think greedy Medical Associations keep it from the public for purposes of self interest? Maybe to use it in the future for financial gain?


Thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia....ancer_treatment

A study in 2006 at the Kyung Hee University, South Korea. Demonstrated increased rates of apoptosis in laboratory cultured human prostate cancer cells when exposed to increasing concentrations of amygdalin. The study published in the Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin did not mention if normal human cell reaction to amygdalin was studied.

Most interesting

Edited by mentatpsi, 25 August 2009 - 09:45 PM.

[mentatpsi]

Is this information kept from the public? Do you think greedy Medical Associations keep it from the public for purposes of self interest? Maybe to use it in the future for financial gain?

Yes, I'm entirely sure the Greedy Medical Association, Big Pharma and Big Brother are withholding essential treatments from us, not. But do you know why? Because The Government and The People have a vested interested in curing cancer, it's a vested interested worth about 50 trillion dollars.

You can poison yourself as much as you want with cyanide a major constituent of "vitamin b17", but it won't cure your cancer or any cancer for that matter. Then again, a little self-experimentation to find out how the death in the gas chambers must have felt (minus the sadistic torture) probably goes a long way. That could be educational.

This might sound retarded, but if there is a cure, releasing it at the right time is a major factor in the money generated.

To further elaborate, as the baby boomers get older and have higher incidences of cancer, releasing it at that period would create a higher value as more would be reliant for said cures, while if it is released too early, there would still exist a skepticism, especially if it is released by big pharma who are generally regarded low in the health conscious community. Thereby, if there are incidences... well it's just a random thought and only one of the factors to generated revenue.

Edited by mentatpsi, 25 August 2009 - 09:49 PM.

[kismet]

Comments in bold. I don't understand your reasoning.

To further elaborate, as the baby boomers get older [all those people will be dead and dying who could make a *killing* selling the cure for cancer right now] and have higher incidences of cancer [did you consider the possibility that those people withholding "teh cure" have friends and relatives and they don't want to seem them dying from cancer?], releasing it at that period would create a higher value as more would be reliant for said cures, while if it is released too early, there would still exist a skepticism, especially if it is released by big pharma who are generally regarded low in the health conscious community. [No, they are not! At least not lower than supplement pushers and other commercial subjects. And even if they were - doesn't matter. People would (rightly) eat shit to cure cancer.] Thereby, if there are incidences... well it's just a random thought and only one of the factors to generated revenue.

A study in 2006 at the Kyung Hee University, South Korea. Demonstrated increased rates of apoptosis in laboratory cultured human prostate cancer cells when exposed to increasing concentrations of amygdalin. The study published in the Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin did not mention if normal human cell reaction to amygdalin was studied.

Most interesting

Ok, that settles it. A toxic substance kill cells in a petri dish. 

[mentatpsi]

Comments in bold. I don't understand your reasoning.

To further elaborate, as the baby boomers get older [all those people will be dead and dying who could make a *killing* selling the cure for cancer right now] and have higher incidences of cancer [did you consider the possibility that those people withholding "teh cure" have friends and relatives and they don't want to seem them dying from cancer?], releasing it at that period would create a higher value as more would be reliant for said cures, while if it is released too early, there would still exist a skepticism, especially if it is released by big pharma who are generally regarded low in the health conscious community. [No, they are not! At least not lower than supplement pushers and other commercial subjects. And even if they were - doesn't matter. People would (rightly) eat shit to cure cancer.] Thereby, if there are incidences... well it's just a random thought and only one of the factors to generated revenue.

A study in 2006 at the Kyung Hee University, South Korea. Demonstrated increased rates of apoptosis in laboratory cultured human prostate cancer cells when exposed to increasing concentrations of amygdalin. The study published in the Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin did not mention if normal human cell reaction to amygdalin was studied.

Most interesting

Ok, that settles it. A toxic substance kill cells in a petri dish. 

Nicely done .

I remember reading that incidences of cancer are at an all time low right now. As far as your comment about "teh cure" (i'm not sure the use of this as i didn't make the spelling error and only serves as an offensive measure to signal low intelligence), it's not that difficult (with money) to withhold something and still give it to the people surrounding you that you care about. There's always that argument with Magic Johnson who is still alive even after having HIV for this long. It wasn't a well thought out argument, to which i apologize.

Regardless, as far as the study about apoptosis you've made a good point, i didn't consider that they only used human prostate cells. Congrats, twas a good burn .

[TheFountain]

Is this information kept from the public? Do you think greedy Medical Associations keep it from the public for purposes of self interest? Maybe to use it in the future for financial gain?

Yes, I'm entirely sure the Greedy Medical Association, Big Pharma and Big Brother are withholding essential treatments from us, not. But do you know why? Because The Government and The People have a vested interested in curing cancer, it's a vested interested worth about 50 trillion dollars.

You can poison yourself as much as you want with cyanide a major constituent of "vitamin b17", but it won't cure your cancer or any cancer for that matter. Then again, a little self-experimentation to find out how the death in the gas chambers must have felt (minus the sadistic torture) probably goes a long way. That could be educational.

This might sound retarded, but if there is a cure, releasing it at the right time is a major factor in the money generated.

To further elaborate, as the baby boomers get older and have higher incidences of cancer, releasing it at that period would create a higher value as more would be reliant for said cures, while if it is released too early, there would still exist a skepticism, especially if it is released by big pharma who are generally regarded low in the health conscious community. Thereby, if there are incidences... well it's just a random thought and only one of the factors to generated revenue.

Money is bullshit. We need a star trek like culture. Then all this deliberating about cures wouldn't take 50 freakin years.

[TheFountain]

I remember reading that incidences of cancer are at an all time low right now.

I remember reading the opposite.

[kismet]

I remember reading that incidences of cancer are at an all time low right now. As far as your comment about "teh cure" (i'm not sure the use of this as i didn't make the spelling error and only serves as an offensive measure to signal low intelligence), it's not that difficult (with money) to withhold something and still give it to the people surrounding you that you care about.

Actually, my point is that it is incredibly difficult. Not only do you need to find a person sadistic, cruel and fucked up enough to do it in the first place (don't tell me someone condemning hundreds of millions of people to a painful, slow and inevitable death and costing our economy trillions of dollars is anything short of a genocidal lunatic or bona fide misanthrope), but - and this is the key point - other people need to be as heartless and crazy as you, if you want to keep up the great conspiracy. Or you will have a hard time sharing teh curE with your beloved ones.
That's not even mentioning the more important points: "teh cure" does not exist (other than WILT there is not even any hypothetical approach to curing *all* cancers) and if it ever existed dozens, hundreds or more likely thousands of people would have worked on it. And it just takes one person to mess up your conspiracy, who then would go to become a billionaire and a hero. So there's enough motivation to betray your lil' misantrophic conspiracy.

There's always that argument with Magic Johnson who is still alive even after having HIV for this long.

HIV is a chronic and managable disease. His survival is not really surprising, is it?

I remember reading that incidences of cancer are at an all time low right now.

I remember reading the opposite.

Different cancer sites, different statistics. Gastric cancer is at an all time low. While lung cancer is lower than it used to be, but still much higher than pre-cigarettes. I am not sure about the overall incidence.

Edited by kismet, 26 August 2009 - 11:59 AM.

[mentatpsi]

I remember reading that incidences of cancer are at an all time low right now. As far as your comment about "teh cure" (i'm not sure the use of this as i didn't make the spelling error and only serves as an offensive measure to signal low intelligence), it's not that difficult (with money) to withhold something and still give it to the people surrounding you that you care about.

Actually, my point is that it is incredibly difficult. Not only do you need to find a person sadistic, cruel and fucked up enough to do it in the first place (don't tell me someone condemning hundreds of millions of people to a painful, slow and inevitable death and costing our economy trillions of dollars is anything short of a genocidal lunatic or bona fide misanthrope), but - and this is the key point - other people need to be as heartless and crazy as you, if you want to keep up the great conspiracy. Or you will have a hard time sharing teh curE with your beloved ones.
That's not even mentioning the more important points: "teh cure" does not exist (other than WILT there is not even any hypothetical approach to curing *all* cancers) and if it ever existed dozens, hundreds or more likely thousands of people would have worked on it. And it just takes one person to mess up your conspiracy, who then would go to become a billionaire and a hero. So there's enough motivation to betray your lil' misantrophic conspiracy.

There's always that argument with Magic Johnson who is still alive even after having HIV for this long.

HIV is a chronic and managable disease. His survival is not really surprising, is it?

I remember reading that incidences of cancer are at an all time low right now.

I remember reading the opposite.

Different cancer sites, different statistics. Gastric cancer is at an all time low. While lung cancer is lower than it used to be, but still much higher than pre-cigarettes. I am not sure about the overall incidence.

You've made your point. What industry are you majoring/working in at current?

[kismet]

You've made your point. What industry are you majoring/working in at current?

As a university student I am involved with academia (as they say), but I like to defend the pharma industry. Sure they're evil, but there's no reason to believe they're any worse than academia, supplement pushers, governemnts or big business in general - and neither of them would be able to keep up any major conspiracies for long.

[mentatpsi]

You've made your point. What industry are you majoring/working in at current?

As a university student I am involved with academia (as they say), but I like to defend the pharma industry. Sure they're evil, but there's no reason to believe they're any worse than academia, supplement pushers, governemnts or big business in general - and neither of them would be able to keep up any major conspiracies for long.

No no, it's cool. Each man is entitled to their own opinion, the exchange is quite beneficial i think. I was merely interested since your writing style suggested a science background with some sort of expertise/focus within the medical industry.

In terms of big pharma, the main issue i have is in order to compete with supplement industries who don't require the same sort of vigorous studies that big pharma requires it would make sense that at times of economic weakness they might try not to ethical marketing tactics or hiding of information. For instance, the use of anti-depressants when certain changes in diet and exercise can be just as effective. Usually i don't have a problem because capitalism sparks progression, but when it's related to health I get concerned that it could derail us rather than advance us.

[niner]

You've made your point. What industry are you majoring/working in at current?

As a university student I am involved with academia (as they say), but I like to defend the pharma industry. Sure they're evil, but there's no reason to believe they're any worse than academia, supplement pushers, governemnts or big business in general - and neither of them would be able to keep up any major conspiracies for long.

No no, it's cool. Each man is entitled to their own opinion, the exchange is quite beneficial i think. I was merely interested since your writing style suggested a science background with some sort of expertise/focus within the medical industry.

In terms of big pharma, the main issue i have is in order to compete with supplement industries who don't require the same sort of vigorous studies that big pharma requires it would make sense that at times of economic weakness they might try not to ethical marketing tactics or hiding of information. For instance, the use of anti-depressants when certain changes in diet and exercise can be just as effective. Usually i don't have a problem because capitalism sparks progression, but when it's related to health I get concerned that it could derail us rather than advance us.

You don't believe k10's crazy conspiracy theory though, do you? Everyone may be entitled to their own opinion (though not their own facts...) but some opinions are just a load. Opinions are not all created equal.

[mentatpsi]

You've made your point. What industry are you majoring/working in at current?

As a university student I am involved with academia (as they say), but I like to defend the pharma industry. Sure they're evil, but there's no reason to believe they're any worse than academia, supplement pushers, governemnts or big business in general - and neither of them would be able to keep up any major conspiracies for long.

No no, it's cool. Each man is entitled to their own opinion, the exchange is quite beneficial i think. I was merely interested since your writing style suggested a science background with some sort of expertise/focus within the medical industry.

In terms of big pharma, the main issue i have is in order to compete with supplement industries who don't require the same sort of vigorous studies that big pharma requires it would make sense that at times of economic weakness they might try not to ethical marketing tactics or hiding of information. For instance, the use of anti-depressants when certain changes in diet and exercise can be just as effective. Usually i don't have a problem because capitalism sparks progression, but when it's related to health I get concerned that it could derail us rather than advance us.

You don't believe k10's crazy conspiracy theory though, do you? Everyone may be entitled to their own opinion (though not their own facts...) but some opinions are just a load. Opinions are not all created equal.

After Kismet's interpretation of the study done in Singapore not so much on the substance itself. I still do not think very many supplement or pharmaceutical companies really care about the health of its clientele, only in regards to making sure it doesn't face any lawsuits. I think this is in order given that no large corporation within our current age of global business will have enough ties with its clients. I remember reading something along the same lines in a sociology class; that the lack of direct connection allows for crimes without the feelings of guilt that would normally ensue if we had to do business with neighbors (it might have been Foucalt, but i could be mistaken). As such it becomes the responsibility of the patient to take care of his own health and be skeptical of "good intentions". You can remark on this opinion, I'm interested in other viewpoints.

As far as cancer, I've read of compounds which have shown effectiveness in treating certain cancers and it's annoying the lack of publicity some of these herbs are given. Jiaogulan for instance has been shown to have effects on cancer as well as the immune system.

Edit: Grammar and overall tone

Edited by mentatpsi, 31 August 2009 - 05:51 PM.

[niner]

After Kismet's interpretation of the study done in Singapore not so much on the substance itself. I still do not think very many supplement or pharmaceutical companies really care about the health of its clientele, only in regards to making sure it doesn't face any lawsuits. I think this is in order given that no large corporation within our current age of global business will have enough ties with its clients. I remember reading something along the same lines in a sociology class; that the lack of direct connection allows for crimes without the feelings of guilt that would normally ensue if we had to do business with neighbors (it might have been Foucalt, but i could be mistaken). As such it becomes the responsibility of the patient to take care of his own health and be skeptical of "good intentions". You can remark on this opinion, I'm interested in other viewpoints.

As far as cancer, I've read of compounds which have shown effectiveness in treating certain cancers and it's annoying the lack of publicity some of these herbs are given. Jiaogulan for instance has been shown to have effects on cancer as well as the immune system.

I see what you're saying. When there are vast sums of money involved, a lot of people are under pressure to act in ways that are not necessarily ethical or in the best interests of patients. They may even convince themselves that what they are doing is in everyone's best interest, or something. Capitalism is a powerful tool, but requires some regulation both to keep markets healthy and to protect the interest of the public, particularly where health care is concerned. It's entirely reasonable to be skeptical of big pharma, but at the same time I don't think that they are profoundly evil. Some of the people who work in big pharma are somewhat evil; I'd certainly go that far...

All too often, when you try to track down these herbal cancer "cures", the evidence falls apart. Either it's a meaningless in vitro experiment at impossible-to-achieve-in-humans concentrations, or it's anecdotal information. The amount of compounds that have solid data behind them is small compared to all the false starts. A few of them probably should be publicized better. That's something that ImmInst might be able to help with. When promising therapies get posted here in our forums, they become visible to the world via Google. At least it's something...

[mentatpsi]

After Kismet's interpretation of the study done in Singapore not so much on the substance itself. I still do not think very many supplement or pharmaceutical companies really care about the health of its clientele, only in regards to making sure it doesn't face any lawsuits. I think this is in order given that no large corporation within our current age of global business will have enough ties with its clients. I remember reading something along the same lines in a sociology class; that the lack of direct connection allows for crimes without the feelings of guilt that would normally ensue if we had to do business with neighbors (it might have been Foucalt, but i could be mistaken). As such it becomes the responsibility of the patient to take care of his own health and be skeptical of "good intentions". You can remark on this opinion, I'm interested in other viewpoints.

As far as cancer, I've read of compounds which have shown effectiveness in treating certain cancers and it's annoying the lack of publicity some of these herbs are given. Jiaogulan for instance has been shown to have effects on cancer as well as the immune system.

I see what you're saying. When there are vast sums of money involved, a lot of people are under pressure to act in ways that are not necessarily ethical or in the best interests of patients. They may even convince themselves that what they are doing is in everyone's best interest, or something. Capitalism is a powerful tool, but requires some regulation both to keep markets healthy and to protect the interest of the public, particularly where health care is concerned. It's entirely reasonable to be skeptical of big pharma, but at the same time I don't think that they are profoundly evil. Some of the people who work in big pharma are somewhat evil; I'd certainly go that far...

All too often, when you try to track down these herbal cancer "cures", the evidence falls apart. Either it's a meaningless in vitro experiment at impossible-to-achieve-in-humans concentrations, or it's anecdotal information. The amount of compounds that have solid data behind them is small compared to all the false starts. A few of them probably should be publicized better. That's something that ImmInst might be able to help with. When promising therapies get posted here in our forums, they become visible to the world via Google. At least it's something...

I apologize for having delayed the conversation for so long. I do not know if I necessarily believe in herbal cures for cancer, but I do believe in herbal maintenance. The use of targeted antioxidants, or ensuring optimal immune & inflammation response for instance are key notions that appeal to me. It's why I hold botany and the pharmacology of herbs and supplements in high regard and research frequently. I do understand where you're coming from. It's another layer why few regard herbal medicine as highly as pharma...

I have found something though that might be of interest in the particular delay of cancer treatments, which makes a lot more sense than a crazy conspiracy:

NewsWeek: Desperately Seeking Cures
How the road from promising scientific breakthrough to real-world remedy has become all but a dead end.

Edited by mentatpsi, 21 May 2010 - 05:17 AM.

[mentatpsi]

If anyone would like to participate in a thread discussion the above article [NewsWeek: Desperately Seeking Cures] feel free @ Desperately Seeking Cures ImmInst Thread.