Vitamin B17 and Cancer

[bylto]

I would be interested to know if anyone else has heard of vitamin B17 and its supposed ability to prevent cancer. There is even a book about it called 'world without cancer' but I haven't read it. I have heard though, that the book claims that cancer is a huge industry and many companies are making massive profits from it (drugs and hospital equipment probably), and that this is the reason why the research into B17 is being stifled. For some reason any multivitamin you buy won't contain B17. This is the website

World Without Cancer - worldwithoutcancer.org.uk - B17 Laetrile Vitamin B-17

The following is from the site:

Vitamin B-17 is one of the main sources of food in cultures such as the Eskimos, the Hunzas, the Abkasians and many more. Did you know that within these tribes there has never been a reported case of cancer? According to Dr. Krebs, we need a minimum of 100 mg of vitamin B-17 (the equivalent of about seven apricots seeds) too nearly guarantee a cancer free life. Foods that contain vitamin B-17 are as follows:

* KERNELS OR SEEDS OF FRUIT: The highest concentration of vitamin B-17 to be found in nature, aside from bitter almonds. Apple, apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, prune.
* BEANS: broad (Vicia faba), burma, chickpeas, lentils (sprouted), lima, mung (sprouted), Rangoon, scarlet runner.
* NUTS: Bitter almond, macadamia, cashew.
* BERRIES: Almost all wild berries. Blackberry, chokeberry, Christmas berry, cranberry, elderberry, raspberry, strawberry.
* SEEDS: Chia, flax, sesame.
* GRASSES: Acacia, alfalfa (sprouted), aquatic, Johnson, milkweed, Sudan, minus, wheat grass, white dover.
* GRAINS: oat groats, barley, brown rice, buckwheat groats, chia, flax, millet, rye, vetch, wheat berries.
* MISCELLANEOUS: bamboo shoots, fuschia plant, sorghum, wild hydrangea, yew tree (needles, fresh leaves).

Someone could possibly benefit from this info which is why I am posting it although I'm not 100% sure of its accuracy. Anyone heard of this before or have any thoughts on the matter?

[Yuvi]

Yes, I heard the same information and was taking bitter apricot kernels myself (that's one the best source of B17).
BTW, your hair analysis is a very good indicator of what defficiencies your body has...
The lady who does these hair tests was diagnosed with cancer herself and was given only a year to live so she's done loads of research on this matter, she was taking B17 herself and other things (sorry, cannot be very specific but vitamin B17 was the main thing) - she is alive and helping many people today...
Thanks, bylto

[impaul99]

What in the world is vitamin B17? I've only heard the B vitamins go up as far as B12.

[WanderingOak]

Originally Posted by bylto

I
Vitamin B-17 is one of the main sources of food in cultures such as the Eskimos, the Hunzas, the Abkasians and many more. Did you know that within these tribes there has never been a reported case of cancer? According to Dr. Krebs, we need a minimum of 100 mg of vitamin B-17 (the equivalent of about seven apricots seeds) too nearly guarantee a cancer free life. Foods that contain vitamin B-17 are as follows:

* KERNELS OR SEEDS OF FRUIT: The highest concentration of vitamin B-17 to be found in nature, aside from bitter almonds. Apple, apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, prune.
* BEANS: broad (Vicia faba), burma, chickpeas, lentils (sprouted), lima, mung (sprouted), Rangoon, scarlet runner.
* NUTS: Bitter almond, macadamia, cashew.
* BERRIES: Almost all wild berries. Blackberry, chokeberry, Christmas berry, cranberry, elderberry, raspberry, strawberry.
* SEEDS: Chia, flax, sesame.
* GRASSES: Acacia, alfalfa (sprouted), aquatic, Johnson, milkweed, Sudan, minus, wheat grass, white dover.
* GRAINS: oat groats, barley, brown rice, buckwheat groats, chia, flax, millet, rye, vetch, wheat berries.
* MISCELLANEOUS: bamboo shoots, fuschia plant, sorghum, wild hydrangea, yew tree (needles, fresh leaves).

Someone could possibly benefit from this info which is why I am posting it although I'm not 100% sure of its accuracy. Anyone heard of this before or have any thoughts on the matter?

I have to question a number of the statements from the site. What first came to my attention was the very broad statement that nobody of the Eskimos, the Hunzas, or the Abkasians people have ever gotten cancer. That sounds highly improbable, but the site at least doesn't give any statistical data to back it up. Then, it gave a list of sources for B-17, all of which are plant based. The Eskimos, at least, are a paradox, able to thrive on their traditional diet which consists primarily of meats and fat. Again, the list of sources for B-17 was all plant based, and I doubt many of which would thrive in the arctic. Second, many of the items on the list are toxic, including bitter almonds, apricot kernels, peach and plum pits, apple and pear seeds, and yew. While yew may have some anti-cancer properties, I wouldn't consider them to be the result of some secret vitamin that nobody else knows about.

[escapee]

Thanks for for post regarding B17 . However I believe just B17 alone would not be enough to combat the disease.

As a matter of fact , the treatment session actually involves quite a few nutrients like

Phase 1 - The First 21 Days

The initial phase consists of a 21-day therapy in which clinics include the intravenous form of B17, sometimes combined with the tissue-penetrating agent DMSO and high doses of Vitamin C. However 500mg amygdalin (B17) tablets, together with apricot kernels, are often employed for home use if intravenous treatment is not available. Supplementary therapies in Phase 1 include pancreatic enzymes, Vitamin C, antioxidants, emulsified vitamins A & E, BarleyGreen powder, shark cartilage (100% pure), multivitamins, Pangamic Acid (vitamin B-15), AHCC and actual whole foods that contain B17 (e.g. apricot seeds). Detoxification and full nutritional supplementation procedures are also rigorously followed.

Phase 2 - The Next 3 Months

The second phase consists of Vitamin B 17/amygdalin tablets, apricot seeds, enzymes, Vitamins A, C and E, shark cartilage and the continuing detoxification and nutritional procedures initiated in Phase 1.

I believe every single of them(nutrients/Antioxidant/B vitamin) are important to build up the body defense system .

[bylto]

Good critical thinking wonderingoak. All I know is that it's best to take apricot seeds. I guess the best thing would be speak with someone who had cancer and survived whilst taking b17 (although this doesn't actually mean b17 was the cure). Medical opinions would be great too. Found the book here

Amazon.co.uk: World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17: Books: G. Edward Griffin

Positive comments there but again, not from Doctors.

[spirited]

See quackwatch for a critical note. And be wary of all books that say they have found the one and only cure for cancer.

See also wikipedia:
While no double-blind clinical trials may have been conducted, a clinical trial was carried out in 1982 by the Mayo Clinic [1] and three other U.S. cancer centers under NCI sponsorship. Laetrile and "metabolic therapy" were administered as recommended by their promoters to 178 patients with advanced cancer for which there was no proven treatment. None were cured or stabilized or had any improvement of cancer-related symptoms. The median survival rate was about five months. In survivors after seven months, tumor size had increased. Several patients suffered from cyanide poisoning.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by spirited

See quackwatch for a critical note. And be wary of all books that say they have found the one and only cure for cancer.

Not that I know anything about this Vitamin B17 right now, but did you hear that "QuackWatch" is a scam? Apperently they are being sued because they are part of a conspiracy against any type of "Alternative Medicine" paid for by the pharmecutecal agencies.

You can see an article here: BOLEN REPORT: "In the battle of medicine against health, I choose health!" Time Bolen

Here's a quote:

There is a major revolution brewing in the US, and the pot is at boil. There is no question America is angry - and well it should be, for the rip-off has been of major proportion, and its time to point fingers and issue arrest warrants.

One of the more despicable facets of the conventional health care system is the New York ad agency run "quackbuster" scheme, designed to vilify America's emerging health care leaders - those offering new paradigms. For years the New York ad agency's "black-ops" division, whose obvious front-man de-licensed MD Stephen Barrett, operating out of his Allentown, Pennsylvania basement, railed against "alternative medicine," or anything competing for health dollars against the "drugs, drugs, and more drugs" offering.

Here's another link talking about it: Tim Bolen's "Millions of Health Freedom Fighters- Newsletter"

[bylto]

Wow impaul99, thanks for posting that. I thought you had it wrong and that quackbusters was a different entity from quackwatch but I found this on the link to the quackbusters page

PART THREE of the plan, was a propaganda gambit. It was in two parts (a) create a so-called "information base." Websites appeared, sounding authoritative, like Stephen Barrett's sleazy "quackwatch.com," and others. The questionable organization, the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), was to provide so-called "expert witnesses" for testimony. The FSMB was to act as a clearinghouse, both for names of people suggested for prosecution (persecution), and for where to find "information" and "expert witnesses."

It seems the site was set up to demonize proponents of alternative medicines, in order to keep the money flowing to big pharmaceutical companies. Eye opener - If the Bolen report has their facts right

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by bylto

Wow impaul99, thanks for posting that. I thought you had it wrong and that quackbusters was a different entity from quackwatch but I found this on the link to the quackbusters page

PART THREE of the plan, was a propaganda gambit. It was in two parts (a) create a so-called "information base." Websites appeared, sounding authoritative, like Stephen Barrett's sleazy "quackwatch.com," and others. The questionable organization, the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), was to provide so-called "expert witnesses" for testimony. The FSMB was to act as a clearinghouse, both for names of people suggested for prosecution (persecution), and for where to find "information" and "expert witnesses."

It seems the site was set up to demonize proponents of alternative medicines, in order to keep the money flowing to big pharmaceutical companies. Eye opener - If the Bolen report has their facts right

Pretty crazy stuff eh? I was shocked when I read it too. I never really believed those Quackwatch people anyways, but I thought they were just skeptics with time on their hands, but I never thought the pharmecuticals would be funding it with major cash. Definitely an eye opener. The power of this type of "black-ops" is that it's so easy to instill doubt in people, and when you instill doubt, people stick with what they know which is not good. You can have a totally legit natural alternative that has saved 20,000 people's lives, totally scientifically proven, and all it takes is one fake story from someone who says "Oh yeah, I know someone who followed that plan when they were pregnant and they ended up losing the baby." and people will stay away from it, even if the story is totally false, just in case. It's crazy.

[JOE]

I don't know and am certainly not clever enough to offer an opinion here but I do know that if I were diagnosed with something so frightening, I would eat horse ************ if I thought it would make me better.

I have heard the efficacy of apricot kernels myself from several different sources but it could just be a huge urban myth that has been promulgated on the net and gotten out of hand.

But it couldn't harm if you had a terminal diagnosis to try in my opinion, unless it was contraindicated with the allopathic treatment. Doctors are as guilty as anybody, make no bones about it, they are only human and whilst they are trained in looking at statistical analysis, we all know how stats can be made to lie and I believe laziness and indoctrination, make them as guilty as anybody at looking at the world from a blinkered (allopathic) viewpoint.
Only today, I heard an elderly doctor with whom I work comment to a lady with whom we work, that she would be more at risk from osteoporosis because she doesn't like milk. This struck me as strange as from what little I have read, calcium can be obtained from numerous sources (even in the western diet) such as fish, green leafy vegetables NOT ONLY MILK

In fact some sources I have read (and again, I am not stating I am right or the sources I quote are) state that milk can actually strip the body of calcium as quickly as it delivers it. The argument was that the Japanese up until the last 20-30 years, hardly had any incidence of Osteoporosis and it has been an increasing problem since their diet was westernised and the introduction of dairy products increased.

Who knows, could be a number of factors......but this guy stating this with such positive assertion, was shocking as he is undoubtedly an increditbly clever man, yet even I with my piss poor education and arrogance, wouldn't commit myself to such an opinion if I thought there was any doubt. Then again, he is a doctor and maybe he has researched it but I just intuitively felt that this intelligent man was repeating the Dairy mantra verbatim without giving it much thought. I might be wrong but I suspect that many MD's do this over numerous matters, whether out of laziness or pressure of work or the repeated indoctrination of the drug and medicine industries and even as far back as their initial training. There is also the fear of losing their license to practice if they offer any treatment that might be considered heretical from the allopathic and drug centred norm

Wewwwwww

bored even myself there!

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by JOE

Only today, I heard an elderly doctor with whom I work comment to a lady with whom we work, that she would be more at risk from osteoporosis because she doesn't like milk. This struck me as strange as from what little I have read, calcium can be obtained from numerous sources (even in the western diet) such as fish, green leafy vegetables NOT ONLY MILK

In fact some sources I have read (and again, I am not stating I am right or the sources I quote are) state that milk can actually strip the body of calcium as quickly as it delivers it. The argument was that the Japanese up until the last 20-30 years, hardly had any incidence of Osteoporosis and it has been an increasing problem since their diet was westernised and the introduction of dairy products increased.

Who knows, could be a number of factors......but this guy stating this with such positive assertion, was shocking as he is undoubtedly an increditbly clever man, yet even I with my piss poor education and arrogance, wouldn't commit myself to such an opinion if I thought there was any doubt. Then again, he is a doctor and maybe he has researched it but I just intuitively felt that this intelligent man was repeating the Dairy mantra verbatim without giving it much thought.

You are totally correct about doctors. Did you know that during the time they earn their Medical Degree they don't have to take a single nutrition course? Did you know that 50% of patients in North American hospitals become deficient in nutrients after a few weeks of eating HOSPITAL food? Did you know that even that hospital dieticians were found to be deficient in some of the B vitamins?

Traditional doctors are not in the business of promoting health or preventing disease. Doctors are in the business of treating patients AFTER they have already developed symptoms, and even then they are treating the symptoms not the CAUSE of the symptoms. They use drugs made by pharmeceutical companies instead of natural remedies. The whole medical industry is screwed up. There is a new documentary coming out by Michael Moore that will expose this.

You can't totally blame the doctors for this as medical students are taught this while earning their degree's so it's not totally their fault; they are not taught any preventative measures. I also heard somewhere that 10% of doctors and nurses in hospitals are addicted to illegal substances (Morphine, etc.) since they have access to that stuff. I can't remember the name of it but there is a name for when you go to a doctor and the treatment prescribed actually makes you sick and you die. Whatever that is called, it is the fastest growing cause of death in NA.

Slowly, changes are being made, but not fast enough for our generation.

There is only one solution, and that is to stop giving the power and responsibility for your health to your doctor. It is YOUR responsibility for you to be healthy, not his. Do your own research, listen to your body, trust your intuition, go see a Naturopathic Doctor who is interested in preventative medicine, not a symptom treater. If you insist on going to a regular doctor, ask him about his nutritional training and when it was taken. Even if he has had some nutritional training, it might be totally obsolete if he learned it in 1963 or even 1990. There are a lot of things we know about healthy nutrition today that we didn't know even as little as 15 years ago.

Don't be afraid to ask questions of your doctor. The whole medical office system is setup to make the doctors seem important. ie. Making you wait in the waiting room for a long time before you see them, like their time is so much more important than yours. THen they talk to you like they know everything. This is done on purpose so that you believe in their treatments, as that's what people want when they give away their power. Imagine if your doctor "wasn't sure"? That would be disaster for most people. THey need doctors that just tell them what pill to take to make them better. They are not interested in improving their diet, quitting smoking, or drinking etc.

Anyway, your example of the doctor prescribing Milk is a good example. He's obviously speaking based on teachings taught by the Dairy Foundation, not based on science or medical research.

[bylto]

and even then they are treating the symptoms not the CAUSE of the symptoms.

Hit the nail on the head there impaul! I couldn't tell you how many times I have thought about that in my life. Personally, in my late teens, my doctor used to give me drugs in ever-increasing strength for chronic acid reflux. I knew that this was to stop acid refluxing up my throat (they had very limited impact) but I always wondered what the cause was. It was only when I started to get peaceful and happy in myself did it disappear - spontaneously! Isn't it amazing that his solution was to always increase the dosage or strength! This is pandering to symptoms, not dealing with causes. I'm confident things will improve in the future though.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by bylto

Hit the nail on the head there impaul! I couldn't tell you how many times I have thought about that in my life. Personally, in my late teens, my doctor used to give me drugs in ever-increasing strength for chronic acid reflux. I knew that this was to stop acid refluxing up my throat (they had very limited impact) but I always wondered what the cause was. It was only when I started to get peaceful and happy in myself did it disappear - spontaneously! Isn't it amazing that his solution was to always increase the dosage or strength! This is pandering to symptoms, not dealing with causes. I'm confident things will improve in the future though.

When I was 19 I went to my doctor for a physical. Since I was skinny due the fact that I was playing basketball on an almost daily basis, the doctor told me I am healthy as a horse. I felt good about myself.

Meanwhile, my diet consisted of McDonalds Big Macs, Quarter Pounders, 3-4 Cans of Coke per day, 7/11 Slurpies, chocolate bars, and anything else that's packed full of sugar and candy and disgusting grease.

I wasn't HEALTHY! I was FIT! Most doctor's are too ignorant to know the difference between the two. As soon as I got a full time job, and stopped playing sports every day and I began to put on weight. If that doctor even asked me what my diet/nutritional plan was it could have helped me change some of my habits. Of course she didn't. I could have been drinking 15 cups of coffee per day and she wouldn't even know because she didn't ask. Instead, the doctor just re-affirmed a stupid belief I had at the time that "YOu can eat anything as long as you exercise!".

I don't blame the doctor, as she just did what her job is to do. It wasn't her responsibility to keep my body healthy, it is mine. I just didn't know that at the time. I thought if a doctor tells me I'm healthy, my candy bar and coke diet must be right!

[spirited]

But it couldn't harm if you had a terminal diagnosis to try in my opinion

.
Of course it can harm! Did you read my links? The people did not only not improve, they now got cyanide poisoning to deal with as well. If you have a terminal diagnosis, you should definitely try alternative methods, but they are not all alike.

Paul, do you have anything to say about this particular QuackWatch article? I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but, like with Steve's articles, I just take from it what I find useful. Anyway, just forget about the quackwatch link, and read the medical journals for yourself:

One hundred seventy-eight patients with cancer were treated with amygdalin (Laetrile) plus a "metabolic therapy" program consisting of diet, enzymes, and vitamins. The great majority of these patients were in good general condition before treatment. None was totally disabled or in preterminal condition. One third had not received any previous chemotherapy. The pharmaceutical preparations of amygdalin, the dosage, and the schedule were representative of past and present Laetrile practice. No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement or stabilization of cancer, improvement of symptoms related to cancer, or extension of life span. The hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range. Patients exposed to this agent should be instructed about the danger of cyanide poisoning, and their blood cyanide levels should be carefully monitored. Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment.

(source: PubMed)

How do the vitamin B17 supporters explain this?

My opinion is that these miracle drugs are very dangerous because they led people to believe that there is some magical cure for cancer that does not involve serious lifestyle change. If you want to prevent cancer, start living healthy as young as possible. If you want to cure cancer, eat a very healthy diet, full of antioxidants (green vegetables, pomegranates, cruciferous vegetables, beans, etc.), stay at a healthy weight, exercise, and depending on how far the cancer has progressed, you may have a chance. But there is no magic cure.

If the book tells you you have to combine the B17 with the healthy diet, it may be the healthy diet that helps somewhat, not the B17. It is just like with all those diet scams that say: "for best results, combine with a healthy diet and exercise". Duh.

[elainevdw]

Regarding certain peoples never having gotten cancer -- as wonderful as it would be to find a people who are immune to cancer, I'm convinced that they don't exist.

Do a Google search on "Inuit, cancer." There is concern that cancer cases in the Inuit population is rising due to environmental pollution post 1988, but a study done prior to 1988 shows plenty of cancer cases in several circumpolar Inuit communities:

The results of an international, collaborative study of cancer in Circumpolar Inuit in Greenland, Canada, Alaska and Russia are summarized. A total of 3 255 incident cancers were diagnosed from 1969 to 1988 among 85 000-110 000 individuals. Indirect standardization (SIR) based on comparison populations in Connecticut (USA), Canada and Denmark showed excess risk of cancer of the lung, nasopharynx, salivary glands, gallbladder and extrahepatic bile ducts in both sexes, of liver and stomach cancer in men, and renal and cervical cancer in women. Low risk was observed for cancer of the bladder, breast, endometrium and prostate, and for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, leukaemia, multiple myeloma and melanoma. Age-standardized incidence rates (ASRs) of cancer of lung, cervix, nasopharynx and salivary glands among Inuit were among the world's highest as were rates in women of oesophageal and renal cancer. Regional differences in ASRs within the Circumpolar area were observed for cancer of the cervix, lung, colon and rectum, liver, gallbladder and breast. The differences in the Inuit cancer incidence pattern to some extent reflect known variations in lifestyle, diet and other exposures, as well as implementation of cancer control measures. Future research addressing possible individual differences are needed to evaluate environmental and genetic factors in etiology and evaluate intervention studies.

[esn]

I've seen compelling research on the use of laetril, focused on the unique relationship between cyanide and specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells. Google is your friend.

Health science (aka medicine) is an area of knowledge where critical thinking is crucial - we need more than the facts.

I've tried apricot kernals (carefully) without ill effect (to the best of my knowledge). And maybe they work. And that's the rub - how to prove what works and what doesn't without having complete knowledge or control of the experiment.

Over the years, but largely due to the internet, mankind's collective conscious of health concerns has been drawn into a vortex of do-it-yourself-health techniques. Good golly. I have read about some genuinely bizzare practices (intraveneous hydrogen peroxide) and some reasomably rational (vitamins, micro-nutrients, whole foods). Some work, some don't, some will kill you.

Illness and suffering are always a priority, and imaginative solutions are limited only by what the health-mindshare-market will bear.

Best wishes,
Eric

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by spirited

.
My opinion is that these miracle drugs are very dangerous because they led people to believe that there is some magical cure for cancer that does not involve serious lifestyle change. If you want to prevent cancer, start living healthy as young as possible. If you want to cure cancer, eat a very healthy diet, full of antioxidants (green vegetables, pomegranates, cruciferous vegetables, beans, etc.), stay at a healthy weight, exercise, and depending on how far the cancer has progressed, you may have a chance. But there is no magic cure.

If the book tells you you have to combine the B17 with the healthy diet, it may be the healthy diet that helps somewhat, not the B17. It is just like with all those diet scams that say: "for best results, combine with a healthy diet and exercise". Duh.

I agree, there is no one nutrient that will cure everything like a magic bullet. If you eat like crap, constantly destroy your liver by drinking excessive alcohol, and then smoke like a chimney and then pop a Vitamin B17 (or whatever) thinking it will save you from cancer, good luck with that.

What does help is if you're already eating a wholesome diet and getting all your nutrients, then supplementing with additional things to help the body heal itself might offer help. Like for example when you feel a flu coming on, taking additional Vitamin C for a few days etc.

Bottom line is this. If you're already eating a healthy diet, you might want to look into these additional things like special juices, special herbs or vitamins or whatever to add to your foundation. If you don't have a foundation of eating well yet, forget about all of that stuff and focus on setting a good foundation first.

Paul

[esn]

Are magic bullets are analagous in health (self-healing) miracles and success (self-help) techniques ?

[spirited]

Bottom line is this. If you're already eating a healthy diet, you might want to look into these additional things like special juices, special herbs or vitamins or whatever to add to your foundation. If you don't have a foundation of eating well yet, forget about all of that stuff and focus on setting a good foundation first.

It seems I agree with you
I would add that it is always wise to thoroughly research the special herbs and juices etc. though. Also research what the anti-people have to say about it. Is their research wrong? Did they jump to conclusions? Who funded the research? Are there other peer reviewed studies that contradict their claims? Etc. I think that that is the only way to make a good decision when it comes to health.