Re: Re: OFFTOPIC - cyanide and cancer

February 28, 2012

Hi ,

You keep mentioning that you are in the scientific community. What do you do?

Is this a hobby or your profession? Do you work for a private lab, gov agency,

pharmacutical company or similar? The energetic component is a huge piece of

the puzzle. Homepathy can do absolute wonders when food/nutrition are not

enough.

Have you ever heard of www.greenmedinfo.com? There are tons and tons of studies

of alternative therapies in there.

Al

Re: OFFTOPIC - cyanide and cancer

,

I am willing to read the book. However, unless it can explain exactly how B17

controls cell reproduction, through proper research, I will remain skeptical.

Cancer cells only over-produce because of mutations in our DNA. And we have

mutation (mistakes in the DNA replication) happen all the time...it's actually

very important to our history of survival because without mutation, there would

be no adaptation. But, every once in a while, a mutation happens in a bad place,

and the feedback mechanism that tells a cell when to stop reproducing gets

turned off. Fortunately, we have multiple feedback mechanisms, so more than one

must be turned off in order for cancer to begin. But, the more we live, the more

mutations we've experienced, so the likelihood of us having enough of those

mutations in bad place increases over time, which is why older people are far

more likely to get cancer than younger people.

But, mutations are totally random. We've learned in detail what causes them, and

it truly is random. I could draw you pictures if we were sitting together to

describe in very great detail how these happen, and it would show how utterly

random it is. So, I am unsure how B17 would prevent mutation from only select

areas of our DNA, but not others when, on a molecular level, DNA has the same

molecular structure everywhere...there would have to be something different

about those specific areas of the DNA that would attract the B17 so it would go

to the right place.

Anyway, I guess I'm just saying, unless the mechanism through which this happens

is demonstrated, I would have to remain skeptical. Because all other kinds of

scientific discovery require that much information...it would be unfair to

expect the scientific community to accept an idea without this information. Does

that make sense?

I'm not in any way defending big pharma...I know it is a HUGE problem in this

country, and so many people are eating like crap and then, running to doctors to

fix their health problems caused by their horrible diets with medicines instead

of just changing their diet. I'm totally with you, there. And a horrible diet

indeed can increase our chances of getting cancer a lot. We have such a low

quality of health in this country because so many people eat food that is not

good for us.

It's difficult to compare cultures, however, and then, choose a single variable

for the cause of the difference. For example, we can say in Japan, they have

better health than us and lower rates of cancer. But, there are certainly far

more variables involved than just the consumption of seeds. Obesity rates are

far lower, which alone will substantially decrease one's risk for cancer. They

tend to eat more seafood and less beef. Their lifestyles are often more active,

as an overall generalization. There are probably lots of things that create this

difference, and it would be unwise to focus in on one single thing...the biggest

thing to focus on is just generally, a healthier diet and an active lifestyle,

which is an ideal with many different components.

I also don't believe nature provides us with things in seeds to benefit us,

specifically. Yes, nature benefits us. But in the case of seeds, think about why

a plant produces them...plants cannot travel around and plant their offspring

(seeds). They need someone to do that for them or that plant will become

extinct. Plants make seeds wrapped in sweet fruit so animals will eat them.

Animals then adapted to pull the most energy out of these fruits as possible

since that is what was available to them (in areas with lots of fruit, anyway).

The animal eats the fruit and thus, the seeds. The seeds are designed to not be

digested and absorbed by the animal's body...otherwise, how would that benefit

the plant? The plant does what it does to benefit itself...not animals or you or

I. The animal then goes #2 (trying to be tactful here, lol) and because the

seeds were not digested or absorbed, they come out in a pile of fresh

fertilizer, somewhere far from its mother plant (so now, the mother plant will

not have to compete for resources with its own offspring)...the conditions are

there (hopefully, for the sake of the seed) to signal the seed to germinate and

it turns into a plant.

Nature didn't decide to make seeds to benefit us. It made seeds to benefit the

plant it is from. We adapted to benefit from what is in the fruit that surrounds

the seed and the plant adapted to provide us what we need and want so that we

would provide this service as part of their reproduction, but the purpose of

seeds, in terms of nature, has nothing to do with us other than to use as seed

movers.

That's why I suggested to consider being careful about drawing too much out of

nature's " provisions. " Mother nature is awesome...but, she can also be a *****

sometimes!

Also, if children have lots of B17, I'm confused as to where they get it

from...if a mother is deficient in a nutrient, her baby growing inside will be,

too, since she is where the growing baby gets his/her nutrients from. I'm not

intending to challenge...I am sincerely asking questions and trying to share a

little from side the scientific community takes...which is to be skeptical of

everything unless we have good reason not to be. We've seen too many people fall

for stuff that is either harmful or not beneficial (and thus, wasteful) because

they are not skeptical enough. Sure, we're a bunch that can be too skeptical at

times...and my skepticism drives my friends crazy...but, it's the way my brain

works, which is probably why I was drawn to science from such a young age. When

I was about 8, I would spend hours making slides for my microscope from all the

stuff I'd collected from around the neighborhood from trees, different grasses,

water, etc. Not normal! lol

To sum...I know I'm getting long winded here...but, this is a subject I rather

enjoy discussing because even though I do speak from the scientific community, I

also do very strongly value natural remedies, etc. if the evidence is there to

support then. To truly test what you have presented, there would need to be

placebo studies...that's really the only way to isolate a variable in order to

study it properly. In other words, have people from all kinds of backgrounds be

in your study and divide them in half, randomly. Half of the group will consume

B17 and the other half will be told they are consuming B17 when they actually

aren't. Follow them throughout life and see who gets cancer and compare if one

group has a significantly higher rate of cancer than the other. Unfortunately,

this isn't the most practical and it would be difficult if not impossible to run

such a study. But, the only other methods would involve so many, many different

variables, we couldn't possibly decide which variable is the most important...or

if all of them are equally important or whatever. There's just no way to know. I

hope that makes sense, and I certainly do not mean to offend. I am enjoying the

discussion.

But, all that said...kefir rocks! Haha

February 28, 2012

Dear ,

You are right. This belongs in our off-topic chat group. This is the last one

I'll let by here.

Thanks,

Marilyn

if our kefir community here is burdened by these posts about cancer,

please let me know and i will talk to leslie directly by email, but it is a

subject that raises great fear in almost everyone and i think it is a

good thing to relieve fear, for it is fear, ultimately, that kills. no one

needs to die of cancer. it is good to have the information and tools

to prevent and reverse it. and it's obvious that our medical industry

is caught in a loop, stuck. we need to thank it for what it can do for

us and for what it can't - we need to take the wheel before it drives

us over a cliff.

so, leslie, hi! it's good to know that you are open to reading more.

i just was reading at this modest little site: http://health.centreforce.com/ .

unfortunately, it is one of those sites that does not have each page

identified separately, so you have to poke around a bit.

on the left it says, " cancer history " . at that link you will find an essay

and explanation of vitamin b17... as well as the laetrile protocol.

at the bottom of that page are links to a speech dr. krebs gave.

he is the man who discovered laetrile - he and his son were both doctors

and they worked together on this project. ironically, the word 'krebs'

in german means 'cancer'. nice talk. good introduction for the public.

i think he explains quite well how nature and man - the

human diet - work to keep us well and also to make us ill.

you might be interested in the more technical krebs papers:

Tropoblast Theory

Nitrilosides(B17) Occurance in Nature

my concern is this: the theory that the cancer research industry is

bound to believe and follow may be a 'false lead' which has led to

many false conclusions and many millions of deaths - annually.

you know as well as i, that if a researcher does defer to that

particular belief, he will not be funded. very few can afford to do

research without big pocket funding. it is money that sets the rules

by which all research is performed.

i personally find it difficult to understand how a system with as much

talent and resources as our own has been able to not find the answer

to cancer after all these years. i can only conclude that cancer is too

profitable to allow a cure to occur.

as my friend said, " The AMA will DESTROY me! "

well, not knowing how simple it is to prevent and cure cancer is

destroying us all.

it is obvious to me that if we truly want radiant health, we have to do it

ourselves. each of us must be our own researcher and our own doctor.

i have an extensive library of books that go into detail about which

substances are required by the body to perform different functions and

the food sources for those substances. the internet is an incredible

tool! i find tons of information here. it's not hard, but it does require

stepping outside of a system that was comforting to us when we were

young. i guess it's time for us all to grow up and take charge of our

health and our world. the corruption in industry is a cancer of sorts.

the bitter pill to swallow here is to admit perhaps that the system has

gone astray. it now serves a few and not the many. our health is in

our own hands.

i can't wait to hear what you have to say after you have read krebs'

speech, his explanation of trophoblasts, and griffin's research. there

is much, much more on the web as well. but you might never find

the cure looking in AMA approved journals and websites. be brave.

be adventurous. 'take a giant step outside the conventional mind.'

Love,

http://www.Robinett.com

http://www.Auntie.com

On Feb 28, 2012, at 3:22 PM, wrote:

> ,

>

> I am willing to read the book. However, unless it can explain exactly how B17