Cure For Cancer.. Vitamin BH17?

[Cognition]

Theoretically' date=' women taking B17 = miscarriage[/b']

 

Studies found several cases of miscarriage in pregnant women who were taking laetrile for cancer ….. for centuries Polynesian girls have eaten a papaya seeds to avoid pregnancy …….

 

India….. Of these, the methods in most widespread popular use are raw papaya……

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/SAsia/suchana/0510/herhealingheritage2.html

 

pregnant women should avoid papaya as it may cause a miscarriage…..

http://www.bawarchi.com/health/papaya.html

 

... Due to the risk of miscarriage, pregnant women should not take passion flower ..Apricot. ...

http://www.drugdigest.org/DD/DVH/HerbsTake/0,3927,4101%7CApricot+Vine,00.html

 

K.. not the best examples but you get the idea.

 

I read some research from ages ago pointing out that in the fetus cells also divide very rapidly, just like in cancer. Is that the reason why eating b17 leads to miscarriages??

[Cognition]

There is something else I do not understand about the supposed toxicity of the seeds of (e.g.) apricots. If it is true that the hunzakuts are consuming large quantities of these seeds, I expect that they would have dropped dead by the thousands. But this presumably didn't happen. Why?

[prion]

Do any of you have extremely reliable papers in which some real research about B17 is undertaken??

 

For a quick answer, see

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16175068&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16014371&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

For a more detailed explanation of how this has been utterly debunked, you have to do a bit more searching. (by the way, the whole B17/Laetrile/amygdalin thing is just so 1970's, things have moved on to detox diets and random food intolerances...)

 

The American Camcer Society has an excellent review of all the research, summarised at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1902140&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum

For those that can't access the full thing, I will fill you in:

 

Right. Dr Krebs tried giving cancer patients apricot kernels. They contain amygdalin, which is digested by gut bacteria to release cyanide. Cyanide is obviously extremely toxic and people have died from eating apricot and cherry pits, etc. Then Kreb's son said he had modified the amygdalin into stuff called Laetrile, which he said was less toxic.

 

Amygadalin releases cyanide when it reacts with the enzyme beta glucosidase. It was theorised that cancer cells have lots more beta glucosidase than normal cells, so they release more cyanide when exposed to amygdalin (poisoning themselves). Research showed this was not true - there isn't much beta-glucosidase in tissues and there's no more of it in cancer cells. Small amounts of cyanide can be broken down by the enzyme rhodanese and it was theorised that cancer cells had less of this causing the cyanide to build up. This was shown to be false too.

 

Then the Krebs people decided that actually it's a different enzyme - beta-glucoronidase - that's more abundant in cancer cells. This was shown to be untrue. Anyway, beta-glucoronidase cannot release cyanide from amygdalin - the stuff that's in apricot stones etc. The Krebses said that the enzyme did release cyanide from their product, Laetrile. However analysis of Laetrile products have shown them to be just made of amygdalin, ie they are basically ground up apricot stones.

 

Then the Krebs (determined to make a buck somehow) declared that cancer was a vitamin-deficiency that could be cured by vitamin B17. This was just the same stuff they had been selling all along. You can't just decalare something to be a vitamin - it has to be officially classified. So there is really no such thing as vitamin B17. Apparently US FDA regulations apply to medical treatments but not to vitamins so this was just a sneaky way of trying to get round the rules.

 

Regardless of all of this, there has not been a single peer-reviewed medical trial published that shows the stuff has any effect on cancer. Probably the most well-known clinical trial is this one published in the New England Journal of Medicine (one of the world's best and most respected medical journals):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7033783&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

where 178 patients were treated with laetrile. The conclusion was: "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...Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment."

 

Of course I'm sure you can find articles and websites that say something different, but as someone has already pointed out, anyone can write any old load of rubbish on a website. The references I have given you are the reliable ones. If you're still not convinced, go to a big university library and ask the staff to help you look up the articles.

 

I have a PhD in biochemistry, I work for the UK National Health Service and I have never had anything to do with a pharmaceutical company.

 

and by the way the reason I know all this is because I researched it for a close relative who had cancer and was looking into treatments.

 

oh and

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

 

wow by chance I've just found the review to end them all

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

[mrblond5311]

Sorry, I know this is an old thread I was just wondering why does cancer go into remission and can slacking in a healthy diet cause it to start again? Also, from reading this thread it seems like the best "cure" is going to be prevention. Why don't we teach this (in depth) to kids in school? I'm sure teachers skim over it but it seems the best thing is to explain to kids why a healthy diet is so important; not just tell them it's good for them. This article alone scared me enough to make sure my family and I eat healthier (more b vitamins too).

 

Also, just something I noticed. It seems that since americans diets are targeted more towards convenience than health maybe that's why cancer has been evolving much faster than we can keep up with. Why can't the government just enforce more foods (especially "convenience" foods) be vitamin-fortified? This seems to make the most sense for prevention to me. Obviously the public won't just switch their diets overnight so you would have to make vitamins almost inevitable in foods. Although, I think I read somewhere that just vitamins alone aren't what you need it's where you get them from and how you take them.

 

Also, why can't we reverse the mutation or make the make the mutated cells mutate Again into something non-harmful? Just curious.

[MedWatcher]

So, tell me, how many BUCKS do you think the pharmaceutical industry makes on their wonderful perfectly 'safe' (haha don't make me laugh) ALL cell destroying CHEMOTHERAPIES..

 

Well?

 

So many cancer patients haven't been cured and actually have gotten worse after chemo and radiation. Many have died.

 

Think about that. There are well documented insights on the workings of vitamine B 17. It works! And tell me, how flawed is that so called study you presented? Let me guess, which company had the most vested interests? Who sponsored that study?

 

See what I mean?

 

Vitamine B-17 metabolizes in natural 'cyanide.' Don't worry because EVERY healthy cell in the body contains the enzyme 'Rhodanase' which symply neutralizes the therapeutic amounts. Now HERE comes the kicker. Cancercells do NOT have this particular enzyme and thus will eventually be destroyed by the 'cyanide' when proper doses of vitamin B-17 are taken. Natural 'chemo' however NOT destroying healthy cells as well!!

 

It's perfectly clear the almighty pharmaceutical industry couldn't make ANY buck on this perfectly natural product. IT CANNOT BE PATENTED!.. So the whole machinery against vitamine B-17 is understandable in that light..

 

Now THAT is what I call quack!... something to think about...

 

For a quick answer' date=' see

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16175068&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16014371&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

For a more detailed explanation of how this has been utterly debunked, you have to do a bit more searching. (by the way, the whole B17/Laetrile/amygdalin thing is just so 1970's, things have moved on to detox diets and random food intolerances...)

 

The American Camcer Society has an excellent review of all the research, summarised at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1902140&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum

For those that can't access the full thing, I will fill you in:

 

Right. Dr Krebs tried giving cancer patients apricot kernels. They contain amygdalin, which is digested by gut bacteria to release cyanide. Cyanide is obviously extremely toxic and people have died from eating apricot and cherry pits, etc. Then Kreb's son said he had modified the amygdalin into stuff called Laetrile, which he said was less toxic.

 

Amygadalin releases cyanide when it reacts with the enzyme beta glucosidase. It was theorised that cancer cells have lots more beta glucosidase than normal cells, so they release more cyanide when exposed to amygdalin (poisoning themselves). Research showed this was not true - there isn't much beta-glucosidase in tissues and there's no more of it in cancer cells. Small amounts of cyanide can be broken down by the enzyme rhodanese and it was theorised that cancer cells had less of this causing the cyanide to build up. This was shown to be false too.

 

Then the Krebs people decided that actually it's a different enzyme - beta-glucoronidase - that's more abundant in cancer cells. This was shown to be untrue. Anyway, beta-glucoronidase cannot release cyanide from amygdalin - the stuff that's in apricot stones etc. The Krebses said that the enzyme did release cyanide from their product, Laetrile. However analysis of Laetrile products have shown them to be just made of amygdalin, ie they are basically ground up apricot stones.

 

Then the Krebs (determined to make a buck somehow) declared that cancer was a vitamin-deficiency that could be cured by vitamin B17. This was just the same stuff they had been selling all along. You can't just decalare something to be a vitamin - it has to be officially classified. So there is really no such thing as vitamin B17. Apparently US FDA regulations apply to medical treatments but not to vitamins so this was just a sneaky way of trying to get round the rules.

 

Regardless of all of this, there has not been a single peer-reviewed medical trial published that shows the stuff has any effect on cancer. Probably the most well-known clinical trial is this one published in the New England Journal of Medicine (one of the world's best and most respected medical journals):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7033783&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

where 178 patients were treated with laetrile. The conclusion was: [u']"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...Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment."[/u]

 

Of course I'm sure you can find articles and websites that say something different, but as someone has already pointed out, anyone can write any old load of rubbish on a website. The references I have given you are the reliable ones. If you're still not convinced, go to a big university library and ask the staff to help you look up the articles.

 

I have a PhD in biochemistry, I work for the UK National Health Service and I have never had anything to do with a pharmaceutical company.

 

and by the way the reason I know all this is because I researched it for a close relative who had cancer and was looking into treatments.

 

oh and

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

 

wow by chance I've just found the review to end them all

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

[prion]

There's an excellent rebuttal of all your points written by Cancer Research UK (the main UK cancer charity):

"Why don't you tell people about Laetrile?"

 

Two points I'd like to make: firstly no-one is under the illusion that conventional chemotherapy is in any way harmless. It is by definition toxic: it makes people very sick, it doesn't work as often as people would like and it often carries a risk of further malignancies. But for chemotherapy to be prescribed then it must have been proved that compared to placebo the patient has a better chance of survival by taking it. There are many types of cancer for which we have totally inadequate therapies and so any money-grabbing pharma company has a huge market if they can find something that works better.

 

The second point, I don't understand why people think it matters that amygdalin can't be patented. Most pharmaceuticals have their origin in toxins found in nature. For example a widely-used drug for people with heart problems is digoxin, based on the toxin found in foxgloves (digitalis). I understand some chemotherapies also come from plant toxins. All the drug companies have to do is to make an artificial compound that is slightly different but does the same thing chemically, which is very easy for them. In any case, patents only last a few years, after which time anyone can make and sell a particular drug. Plenty of drug companies make big money simply making and selling drugs for which they've never had a patent.

 

Oh and if you think the NEJM clinical trial is in any way flawed I'd be glad to hear your critique. How much professional experience do you have of reviewing papers?

[zyncod]

The second point, I don't understand why people think it matters that amygdalin can't be patented. Most pharmaceuticals have their origin in toxins found in nature. For example a widely-used drug for people with heart problems is digoxin, based on the toxin found in foxgloves (digitalis). I understand some chemotherapies also come from plant toxins. All the drug companies have to do is to make an artificial compound that is slightly different but does the same thing chemically, which is very easy for them.

 

Actually, the drug companies could directly patent "Vitamin B17" as a therapy for cancer, without modifying the compound at all. Geron patented telomerase, a widely occurring natural "chemical," for use in aging therapy. Why won't laetrile die already? Exactly like creationism, the basic arguments do not change, people just repeat them more and more shrilly with each passing year.

[MedWatcher]

Oh btw... ofcourse there's another substance that works very effective in the treatment of cancer... it is called "Benzaldehyde."

 

-- Benzaldehyde, which is produced when laetrile (vitamin B-17!) is broken down by the body, has also been tested for anticancer activity in humans. In two clinical series (case reports of a number of patients who are treated consecutively in a clinic), patients with advanced cancer who had not responded to standard therapy were treated with benzaldehyde. Some patients experienced a complete response (the disappearance of all signs and symptoms of cancer), while some had a decrease in tumor size. The responses to benzaldehyde lasted as long as the treatment continued. Almost all of the patients had been treated previously with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, but it is not known how soon treatment with benzaldehyde began after the other treatment ended. --

 

Isn't it interesting that people who were treated with the ALL cell destroying (cytostatic) chemotherapie responded extremely well to benzaldehyde?

 

You know what's even more interesting? Apricot kernels (which contain high amounts of vit B17) are tremendously CHEAP! It's so laughable anyone would even dare to accuse someone offering this natural therapy of riching him/herself.

 

Their goal is simple: everyone, rich or poor, has the right to be cured. And ofcourse it's time everyone discovers the repressed truth.. repressed for decades by the pharmaceutical industry..

 

MedWatcher

[prion]

As Zyncod has just clearly explained, if any benefits of amygdalin could be shown, the pharma companies would have no reason to hesistate - they would be jumping on the bandwagon immediately.

 

Also if you're going to selectively quote chunks of text it's only fair to reference the source so that we can see it comes from an alternative health website and not a scientific publication. On the same site it says: "In 1982, a phase II study with 175 patients looked at which types of cancer might respond to treatment with amygdalin...All of the patients showed cancer progression 7 months after completing treatment." By the way "Phase II study" refers to a stage in the study of a proposed medicine which is manufactured by a pharmaceutical company.

[geezwakeup]

Raw apricot seeds (Kernels" also contain a high percentage of Cyanates (cyanide toxins) have you considered that maybe THAT is why they won`t sell them, because you`ll end up with folk taking lethal doses (5 or more can kill you!), thinking "The more the better or faster"?

 

I eat 5-10 apricot seeds a day. No negative effect. People (including some on this list) get the seeds confused with bitter almonds, which are very toxic. Bitter almonds are, actually, an entirely different thing. Google bitter almonds. They grow as and are a type of almond.

 

The only case I could find from someone who died from eating seeds is a rumor of a guy who ate a whole cup of apple seeds and died. Can't trace it though.

 

Not everybody in the cemetaries took apricot pits.

 

I've done chemo, surgery and radiation--several times. I know lots of people who have. Many of them died. I --so far--only know live people who did laetrile. Can't afford to go to Mexico, so I'm taking the apricot pits and working with a naturopath on my diet.

[kreation]

clearly the is a done and dusted subject.

 

to summerise, it is possible that some people may have reacted well to using aprecot seeds to treat cancer, although since there has been relativaly small amounts of sourcing of reliable information regarding its posative effects (and by reliable i mean studys conducted by well respected and trusted medical establishments) it is quite safe to say that it is far more reasonoble to conclude that aprecots have pretty much no effect on cancer.

 

but by all means try them if you are suffering from cancer as they are extremely cheap and if anything the placebo effect might just help, thats the only use for them i can think of.

 

in my opinion a detox diet with minimal saturated fat, lots of organic veg and fruit is the only natural thing that comes close to helping cancer patiants. now i'm certain of that as their is no such thing as certainty in life but i do know that the cancerous area on my farthers postate reduced in size considerably more when he paired a detox diet with chemo theropy as opposed to chemo theropy alone.

 

PS im sorry if somone who is far more knowlageable about this then i am disagrees with me and has meraculous proof that vit B17 does cure cancer but as far as this discussion goes i think its increasingly clear that its just another roose