Cancer: Nutrition Deficiency

nickpeace

New Blood
N
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
12
Hi everyone, first post here! I noticed this seems like the website where intelligent if conservative people like to get together and discuss what ideas are worthwhile or not. I am an intelligent person, and love to research ideas and gain knowledge.

It has recently come to my attention through an educational video, that cancer is both chronic and metabolic. Chronic meaning that it usually doesn't pass away of it's own accord and metabolic meaning it arises within the body and isn't transmittable to another person. Historically all chronic metabolic diseases have been cured by nutrition, such as scurvy. I know that the currently drug companies are profit driven, and would it be possible that their research instead focuses on drugs that can cure cancer instead of nutritional reasons which can cause it?

After showing this video to my family, I found that my grandpa had colon cancer, he somehow found out about Laetrile, went to Mexico, and got treatment there. He always had apricot seeds at home as well. His colon cancer was eradicated and he never got cancer again for the rest of his life.

So I submit to you, that cancer is a nutrition deficiency, it's simplified cause being a lack of b17, with carcinogens being the trigger. I would like some sort of scientific proof that Laetrile is harmful to the human body as it is claimed by modern doctors. I would like a study that wasn't performed by the same people who said that smoking is healthy for you done in the 1950's. If there is any misinformation I am saying please feel free to point it out, please use either facts or studys. Thanks.

The video is called "G. Edward Griffin - A World Without Cancer - The Story Of Vitamin B17" and is available for view on google.
 
Welcome to the JREF forums nickpeace.

Any debate is meaningless if it proceeds from flawed or invalid premises, so I'll point out a few of my objections here:

1) Amygdalin is not considered harmful. There is, to my (limited) knowledge, no evidence that it is dangerous in any probable doses to humans. Furthermore, its use is the same as any other unapproved drug.

Don't take my word for it though, see the folks who write these regulations:

http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia6201.html

2) Your assertion that all chronic metabolic disorders are defficiency-caused is not correct. Many are genetic.

3) Your description of cancer as a metabolic disorder does not fit standard usage. Since you provide your own definition, this is an objection of semantics and standards rather than logical coherence. However, under your definition, objection 2 remains valid.
 
Last edited:
metabolic meaning it arises within the body and isn't transmittable to another person
Click to expand...

I'm no doctor, but I don't think this is the definition of a metabolic disease...

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...+Disease&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Definitions of Metabolic Disease on the Web:
  • [SIZE=-1]
  • A disorder caused by the accumulation of chemicals produced naturally in the body. These diseases are usually serious, some even life threatening. Others may slow physical development or cause mental retardation. Most infants with these disorders, at first, show no obvious signs of disease. Proper screening at birth can often discover these problems. With early diagnosis and treatment, metabolic diseases can often be managed effectively.
    www.health.state.mo.us/NewbornScreening/Glossary.html[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]
  • A metabolic disease is a disease caused by malfunction in the human total metabolism.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_disease[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
 
neutrino_cannon said:
Welcome to the JREF forums nickpeace.

Any debate is meaningless if it proceeds from flawed or invalid premises, so I'll point out a few of my objections here:

1) Amygdalin is not considered harmful. There is, to my (limited) knowledge, no evidence that it is dangerous in any probable doses to humans. Furthermore, its use is the same as any other unapproved drug.

Don't take my word for it though, see the folks who write these regulations:


2) Your assertion that all chronic metabolic disorders are defficiency-caused is not correct. Many are genetic.

3) Your description of cancer as a metabolic disorder does not fit standard usage. Since you provide your own definition, this is an objection of semantics and standards rather than logical coherence. However, under your definition, objection 2 remains valid.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the welcome, lets start!

1) Yes I am aware of those regulations. However I was not aware that Laetrile is not specifically outlawed, but either way it is not legal in America. These regulations were apparently put in place to protect us from harmful substances, but in order to pass a drug under the FDA standards costs a lot of money, and the only source for that money is drug companies. I like that you agree with me that it isn't harmful, yet is still outlawed, to me this is just a huge flaw in Americas health care system.

2) The video I watched was quite old, possibly before the widespread use of genetics. It is currently agreed on that cancer is caused by more then just merely genetics though, so it does not fall into the category of genetic disorders.

3) Even with point two being having a flawd assumption, the fact remains that cancer originates in the body and is not contagious. In which case there is still a high possibility that cancer is a nutritional disorder.
 
Addison's disease is a chronic illness that originates in the body and is not contagious (I won't use the term metabolic here, as this isn't what it means). It is not a nutritional disorder. It is treated by replacement of the hormone which the body can no longer produce.

Asthma is a chronic illness that originates in the body and is not contagious. Although is some people diet can affect the symptoms to some degree, it is not primarily a nutitional disorder.

Want me to go on?
 
nickpeace said:
<snip>

3) Even with point two being having a flawd assumption, the fact remains that cancer originates in the body and is not contagious. In which case there is still a high possibility that cancer is a nutritional disorder.
Click to expand...

No.

1) People that are malnourished do not have a higher occurance of cancer, in fact they have a lower chance.

2) Amongst other things HPV and all of the Hepatitus virii are known to be able to cause cancer. Nothing to do with food there.

The first point should be a clear indication that cancer is not a nutricion defeciency disease, the second point indicates that there are other KNOWN causes to cancer.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
What is your evidence? Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Click to expand...

Great source, it clearly shows that the video has misinformation about the number of deaths on this Laetrile, I do not have time to check the sources for the article, but it seems to show a number of people have taking Laetrile and still ended up dieing, or with some kind of poison. Now it seems I have two very extreme views of the subject.

However, reguardless of whether Laetrile is useful or not, I guess it comes down to the apricot seeds and the vitamin b17 which is found in them. I think if a research was done of b17 instead of the specific drug, it might put this case to rest.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Addison's disease is a chronic illness that originates in the body and is not contagious (I won't use the term metabolic here, as this isn't what it means). It is not a nutritional disorder. It is treated by replacement of the hormone which the body can no longer produce.

Asthma is a chronic illness that originates in the body and is not contagious. Although is some people diet can affect the symptoms to some degree, it is not primarily a nutitional disorder.

Want me to go on?
Click to expand...

The first example seems to show a lack of something in the body, even though it is not related to nutrition.

People with asthma generally have it their whole life, making it genetic. It being chronic however, is not exactly true. I had asthma from birth, and had attacks which I almost have died from and was even in an asthma study. Being a very active person this never stopped me from playing sports and I really did hate taking those medications and inhalers. As me and my family say I simply "grew out of it" as I entered my teen years, maybe this is a scientific impossibility, but it's true. Asthma might be some form of deficiency, maybe the deficiency is actually triggered through the dna though? Maybe all genetic disorders are actually triggered because of a lack of something in the body.

Okay so I got a little ahead of myself, anyways, the definition for metabolic: "Of, relating to, or resulting from metabolism". So although originating in your body isn't exactly the definition of metabolic, it's pretty darn close because your metabolism is the bodys life functions, and originating from it would be like origination from inside your body.
 
Here's another link for you to read:

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=21859

Evidence on laetrile for treating cancer
There isn’t enough proof that laetrile is an effective treatment for cancer or any other disease. Most of the websites promoting laetrile base their claims on unsupported opinions and anecdotal evidence.

The USA’s National Cancer Institute reviews the results of clinical research into the use of laetrile for cancer on its website. One animal study claimed that amygdalin slowed the growth of cancer in animals and helped stop tumours spreading to the lungs. But repeated studies couldn’t show similar results, so the treatment remains unproven.

Amygdalin (the active ingredient in laetrile) has shown anti-cancer activity in two studies when given with enzymes. This is most probably because the enzymes cause the amygdalin to release cyanide, which killed the cancer cells grown in the lab. One website promoting laetrile includes the quote "When we add laetrile to a cancer culture under the microscope, providing the enzyme glucosidase is also present, we can see the cancer cells dying off like flies." This isn’t surprising, as the glucosidase makes the laetrile release cyanide, which is a poison. The difficulty is getting the amygdalin close enough to cancer cells, along with the glucosidase, to cause it to kill them without poisoning surrounding normal tissues or the whole body.

This mirrors the main difficulty in a great deal of cancer research – as many cancer therapies are poisons. As cancer develops initially from normal body cells, the only way to kill cancer cells would be to use treatments that are poisonous to human cells. The mainstay of research today is how to get such treatments to the cancer cells without killing or damaging too many normal cells. Or to develop treatments that are directed at the subtle differences between normal cells and cancer cells – in other words targeted treatments.

Another study claimed that amygdalin might make cancer cells more sensitive to radiation. Doctors have known for a long time that cancer cells at the centre of tumours have less oxygen than cells nearer the outside of tumours. This absence of oxygen makes the central cells more resistant to radiotherapy. Apparently, during this study, amygdalin stopped cells in a laboratory dish from absorbing oxygen. The researchers then wondered whether preventing the cells on the outside of a tumour from absorbing oxygen with amygdalin, would mean more oxygen getting to the cells in the centre. But the problem remains of how to get the oxygen into the cells at the centre of the tumour. A great deal of cancer research has been carried out for many years simply to try to find a way of doing this. Since this research was first reported in 1978, it has not been confirmed by any other research.

There have only been two published human studies testing the efficacy of laetrile as a treatment for cancer. They were both sponsored by the American National Cancer Institute in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The first study was a phase I clinical trial looking at safe levels of laetrile, and involved only 6 patients. It tested the dosage and different ways of giving laetrile. Although the researchers reported very few side effects, 2 patients developed symptoms of cyanide poisoning because they ate raw almonds while taking amygdalin.

The second study looked at whether laetrile had any effect on shrinking cancer tumours in 175 patients. Of these patients, only one person had any apparent response to laetrile and this only lasted for 10 weeks. Seven months after the study, all the patients’ cancers had continued to grow. There haven’t been any randomised controlled clinical trials using laetrile.

A systematic review was published by the Cochrane Library in January 2006 which looked at laetrile treatment for cancer. It concluded that the claimed benefits of laetrile are not supported by controlled clinical trials. You can read a plain language summary of this review on the Cochrane website.
Click to expand...
 
SomeGuy said:
No.

1) People that are malnourished do not have a higher occurance of cancer, in fact they have a lower chance.

2) Amongst other things HPV and all of the Hepatitus virii are known to be able to cause cancer. Nothing to do with food there.

The first point should be a clear indication that cancer is not a nutricion defeciency disease, the second point indicates that there are other KNOWN causes to cancer.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to respond to everyones post here! So bear with me.

1. Being malnourished does not neccessarily mean that they have less or more intake of b17, you would have to look at each populations intake of b17. If you find that they are malnourished yet in the few foods they eat they have a higher b17 intake you could actually prove a nutritional deficiency.

2. What you consider as cause might actually be a trigger. I might have to go a little more in depth into the theories of cancer explained in the video above here. When the body is exposed to prolonged damage, estrogen appears there, possibly to help trigger the bodys natural healing mechanism. The estrogen reacts with another type of cell in your body (which was never fully explained) which they called the Total Life Cell. When estrogen and this cell meet, they form cancer. The trigger will determine where in your body the cancer will form and when in your life it will form, but it's not the cause. The cause is by prolonged damage to your body and the way that certain cells and hormones react with each other.
 
nickpeace said:
The first example seems to show a lack of something in the body, even though it is not related to nutrition.

People with asthma generally have it their whole life, making it genetic. It being chronic however, is not exactly true. I had asthma from birth, and had attacks which I almost have died from and was even in an asthma study. Being a very active person this never stopped me from playing sports and I really did hate taking those medications and inhalers. As me and my family say I simply "grew out of it" as I entered my teen years, maybe this is a scientific impossibility, but it's true. Asthma might be some form of deficiency, maybe the deficiency is actually triggered through the dna though? Maybe all genetic disorders are actually triggered because of a lack of something in the body.

Okay so I got a little ahead of myself, anyways, the definition for metabolic: "Of, relating to, or resulting from metabolism". So although originating in your body isn't exactly the definition of metabolic, it's pretty darn close because your metabolism is the bodys life functions, and originating from it would be like origination from inside your body.
Click to expand...

Chronic doesn't mean it will last the whole of your life - it just means that it is "long term", many definitions define this as greater than 3 months. Many people grow out of it. Also, while asthma undoubtedly has a genetic component, it is not entirely genetic - the fact that is is dramatically increasing in its incidence is evidence of this. The other factors have not been completely uncovered yet, but it is a pretty sure thing that they exist. One candidate I have heard mentioned is the hygiene hypothesis (whereby lack of exposure to infections causes the immune system to over react to harmless substances).

Metabolic diseases are a specific set of diseases, so it makes no sense to use the term in this context. If the video you were watching used this term in the same inaccurate way, it suggests that the makers of the video haven't a clue what they are talking about.
 
Hmmm, might be worth also discussing the definition of "vitamin". There's no such thing as "vitamin B17", and amygdalin is not a vitamin by any accepted definition of the term. It appears simply to have been labelled as such as part of either a marketing campaign or an attempt to circumvent drug legislation.

Rolfe.
 
What makes you believe the claims in the video? There are countless videos and websites touting their own theories and cures for cancer. Why is this one right and the others wrong? What was so convincing about it?
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Here's another link for you to read:
Click to expand...

It's nice to see someone who seems to have somekind of actual medical knowledge, the definition I looked up comes from The Free Dictionary which I use for definitions often because of it's easy of use and thesaurus. It's suprising that it would be wrong.

The definitions of Chronic and Metabolic definitly are misused in this video, or it is possible that the definitions have changed over time, as it appears rather old. I knew it was somewhat misleading when I saw it's charts and graphs.

I think that cancer as a nutritional deficiency does need more focus though. People like my grandpa have been cured, if not by Laetrile, by apricot seeds and a change of diet and lifestyle. Since Laetrile is obviously not a cure for cancer as repeated tests have shown, I think we need to do more research on lifestyle and nutrition not only as preventative measures, but as cures as well. If apricot seeds and other natural foods have any chance to cure cancer without going through the horrors of chemotherapy, I think it is definitly worh it.
 
I think nickpeace is just a marketing goon for someone peddling b17.

He doesn't seem to want to hear anything that disagrees with their silly video.

I smell dishonesty.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
What makes you believe the claims in the video? There are countless videos and websites touting their own theories and cures for cancer. Why is this one right and the others wrong? What was so convincing about it?
Click to expand...

I doubt there are countless videos as you proclaim, nothing makes this video right and other wrong, if you would bother to read the rest of my posts you would see that I agree that the research shows Laetrile is not a cure for cancer.

What the video did show was epidemiologic evidence from people around the world that did not contrive cancer and one thing they had in commen was certain aspects of their diet. It also showed evidence of Laetrile working on large test samples, and the populations all having large quantities of b17 in their diet. It gave an explination on what cancer cells are, and why it's hard for the body to stop them. It explained how b17 works to kill cancer cells but keep other cells intack. If your really that interested watch the video for yourself.

PS. I quickly did a search for "cancer cure" on google video, i found DCA, and a bunch of possible cures. The video I watched was a full length program compared to 2-5min clips of user testimonies.
 
Rolfe said:
Hmmm, might be worth also discussing the definition of "vitamin". There's no such thing as "vitamin B17", and amygdalin is not a vitamin by any accepted definition of the term. It appears simply to have been labelled as such as part of either a marketing campaign or an attempt to circumvent drug legislation.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have no idea, I'm not in the medical profession. In fact my knowledge of vitamins is limited, I'm hoping a friend will help me out cause I heard that some might be useful even if your healthy (like me) and she's planning to work at a vitamin store like GMC.

I think though, it becomes a very iffy ground, I think there are many things in foods that we simply haven't classified yet, whether b17 even exists or not is in question, unless independent research is done into foods said to are said contain vitamin b17 and find out what exactly it is if it's there at all. I honestly have no idea how the process from becoming unkown in a food becomes a vitamin, or how it is classified. So really not the person to ask this question :)
 
There is a definition of vitamin, and amygdalin isn't one. "Vitamin B17" is a marketing term, no more.

Try the Wikipedia article on vitamins - it's a pretty good summary. You'll see no mention of anything called "vitamin B17".

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom