Re: OFFTOPIC - cyanide and cancer

[Guest guest]

,

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

>

> > To whomever said you cannot soak raw almonds from the U.S., I always buy

almonds labeled " raw " that I'm sure were treated with heat or whatever, and they

are just fine after I soak them. I've left mine for a little over a day once,

soaking and they were fine. The one time I made almond milk from toasted almonds

(because they were out of raw), I tasted a huge difference (and definitely NOT

for the better), and make sure I get raw almonds, even if I have to run to a

different store.

> >

> > Regarding " natural aresenic, " be careful with that. It's not exactly

" nature's " way. The almonds we eat now are domesticated almonds...domesticated

by our ancestors. Wild almonds that are not a product of domestication...the

ones that only nature makes...are highly toxic.

> >

> > Many foods that have " just the right amount " of something do so because of

domestication, not because nature made it that way for us.

> >

> > This is not a campaign against nature...I'm all for eating natural foods as

much as possible. There are no processed foods in my apartment with artificial

or " weird " ingredients, so I'm not in any way suggesting eating natural foods

like whole fruits and vegetables is not important. BUT...most of the " natural "

foods are there because our ancestors domesticated them to be as good for us as

they are. We took products out of nature and over time, adjusted them through

artificial selection to best suit our needs.

> >

> > Bear in mind, nature doesn't revolve around us. The earth doesn't produce

what it does because it helps us. The earth produces what it does based on the

process of natural selection (it's based on which plants are most likely to

survive...not on which plants are most beneficial to humans). We're lucky enough

to be smart enough to have discovered domestication and other things like kefir

and other probiotic foods that help our bodies.

> >

> > I'm a little skeptical of the idea that having small amounts of arsenic

kills cancer cells. Chemotherapy kills cancer cells...and it makes people so

sick because it also kills healthy cells, too...it kills cells in general,

though chemotherapy treatments are tailored to spend more time killing cells

with specific markers on their surface. But, different kinds of cancer have

different kinds of cancer markers on them, which is why there are different

treatments for different kinds of cancer. Also, cancer cells change and adapt

after treatment begins...they can actually change the markers on their surfaces

over the generations, which is why a treatment may work for a while, but then,

it stops. I am skeptical of the idea that a single element, whether natural or

otherwise, is capable of identifying and attaching to specifically every type of

cancer cell in existence and working on it, despite the tremendous variety in

cancer cells and that can also continue to kill cancer cells e ven after they

change the markers on their surfaces.

> >

> > Cell surface markers have very unique shapes, and things that kill those

cells basically work like a lock and key...if the shape isn't exactly

complimentary to the marker shape, it won't interact with the cell in any way.

So I don't know how a shape could possibly fit into every kind of marker on

different cancer cells, but never fit into the marker of non-cancer cells.

> >

> > It seems the real direction cancer research is going that could possibly

find a cure is the development of treatments that get the immune system to

recognize that the cancer cells should not be there. I went to an immunology

conference a couple of years ago, and there actually are developments in this

area. Basically, getting a marker to attach to a cancer marker (for a specific

type of cancer)...and the marker you attached to it is a marker that tells the

immune system, " Hey, kill this thing. " Imagine if you were diagnosed with

cancer, and you simply had to take something like an antibiotic and just make

sure you were getting very good nutrition so your immune system was plenty

strong to fight the cells the treatment was signaling to your immune system to

fight. That would be uber cool!

> >

> > Lastly, I work in the field of science and have for years...please do not

paint scientific researchers in such a negative light. Most of them are honest,

hard working people that work for very little money just to find answers that

will benefit mankind. I know plenty of university professors that work on

research projects on the side for no financial compensation whatsoever. I'm

currently working on 2 research projects myself for no financial compensation or

other reward besides just wanting to help find answers that will improve the

lives of others. That's why most people do research in the first place.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wonderfully! I could not have said it any better . I would like to

chat with you privately.

Al

OFFTOPIC - cyanide and cancer

hi, leslie.

wow! you wrote a lot.

i respect and admire that you work in the field of science.

i have known others who have too and i respect and admire them.

i fear that science can have a tendency to be a belief system that

protects its turf to an extent that can be nonproductive.

in the field of health, the AMA really rules the science field.

if the AMA does not approve, then the 'science' does not matter.

there have been many effective remedies for cancer.

laetrile, or nature's cyanide, in apricot pits and bitter almonds is

one of the best tested. a friend of mine was going in that direction

and opted out once he realized he was 'rediscovering' laetrile. not

only was he clear on the concept that the AMA would destroy him,

but he had also been on the committee at the NIH that outlawed

laetrile. he told me the story of how laetrile was tested:

the head of the committee came into the room, a dish of

the substance laetrile, which is also called B17, was in the center

of the oval table around which sat numerous doctors, researchers,

scientists. the head of the committee put his finger in the bowl,

tasted the substance and spat it out. " THAT's CYANIDE! " he said.

and that was the full extent of the research and testing that went

into laetrile. the end. your tax dollars at work.

the US is 37th in the world in health. japan and sweden are first

and second - or at least these are the positions they held when i

looked last at this subject. laetrile is used in japan and sweden.

as i said before, there are many, many remedies for cancer. it is

criminal that the AMA still blocks them. it has persecuted MDs who

dare to cure cancer. the history is quite appalling. fishbein, who

started the AMA and JAMA, took charge of the medical world long

ago and with a tyrannical, dictatorial hand told doctors what they

could and could not do. he might even be thought of as the head

of the medical mafia. he was ruthlessly competitive. he drove the

'alternative' fields out of business for a very long time. it has

taken decades for them to finally come back and gain stature in

the eyes of the public. now, in fact, more dollars go to alternative

healing fields than to medicine. people have learned that the

'AMA approved' stamp might be their own death certificate...

especially if they have cancer.

what i have deduced from my studies of all the different remedies

is this: americans eat foods that are sweet, sour and salty but they

pretty much avoid the bitter flavor. the bitter flavor is the key to

reversing cancerous growths. if you would take the time to read

" World without cancer " by , which is available on the web,

free - yet there is a new edition recently out also - i am sure you

might see the logic of it.

laetrile, the bitter flavor, is not a magic substance. it is simply

another vitamin that our bodies require to function correctly. we

come equipped with plenty of it when we are born. every living

thing contains it, as it holds cell division in check. when it has

been all used up through the years, then we need to replenish it

through our diets. if we do not, then cells divide out of control

and we see 'cancer'... it's that simple. vitamin C prevents scurvy;

vitamin B17 prevents cancer. it's a pity that so many - including

my own mother - have died of cancer. it is so unnecessary. but

the only bitter flavors most people eat are in chocolate and coffee...

and then they load them up with sugar and dairy, which are the

two main contributors to cancer growth, ironically.

so, nature's cyanide is not poison. it is a naturally occurring

substance, HCN. it has a bitter flavor. too much of it can be

harmful, but too much of most things can be harmful, even H2O.

please do some reading. i'd like to hear what you say after you

have read more. as it is, the AMA has put up a strong block when

it comes to cancer research. hopefully, that block is crumbling.

people are sick of being sick and are looking for answers outside

the big business model of health. they are hungry for real healing.

most people here, making kefir are not doing it because it is

fashionable, but because they feel a need for a healthier lifestyle.

there's another interesting study - cannabis - see the video on

youtube, " Run from the cure " . rick simpson, i believe, is the one

who devised this method. bottom line, it's another bitter substance.

all the herbs that are used in different clinics... probably even

chemotherapy... they're all based on something that tastes bitter.

problem is, a LOT of the bitter flavor can be as damaging as too

little. we're fond of the 'war' and 'enemy' and 'kill the germ'

theories in the USA. nature is not violent. it is gentle. it simply

provides everything we need in every food. we process the

healthful goodness out of foods and then wonder why we are sick.

wonder bread might build strong bodies 12 ways, but that's only

after 'enriching' the white, depleted flour with a few nutrients that

were removed... whole wheat bread contains far more than twelve.

we've shot ourselves in the foot, leslie. we've dug our own

graves. and now we are turning a corner and demanding real,

whole, organic, digestible, nourishing, nurturing foods - finally.

and yet the food, drug and medical industries fight us at every turn.

trying to outlaw raw milk, spraying aluminum and barium all over

the globe to make organic a thing of the past, wanting to outlaw

nutritional supplements, etc... it's a very jealous field, a deadly

field. the revolving door between big pharma executive positions

and the FDA... it's insane. when the world is freed of the profit

motive, things will settle down and people will help each other heal,

really heal, not just manage symptoms with drugs that can be

'owned' by an industry and sold at a VERY high profit... thousands

of times the cost of making the drug, i understand.

eat your apple seeds. prevention is better than to cure something

after it's developed. i ate the seeds from my very delicious

apple today. in fact, an apple isn't quite complete without the

seeds. they are quite delicious... nature is very wise and loving

and provides us with everything we need.

Love,

http://www.Robinett.com

http://www.Auntie.com

On Feb 27, 2012, at 9:14 PM, wrote:

> To whomever said you cannot soak raw almonds from the U.S., I always buy

almonds labeled " raw " that I'm sure were treated with heat or whatever, and they

are just fine after I soak them. I've left mine for a little over a day once,

soaking and they were fine. The one time I made almond milk from toasted almonds

(because they were out of raw), I tasted a huge difference (and definitely NOT

for the better), and make sure I get raw almonds, even if I have to run to a

different store.

>

> Regarding " natural aresenic, " be careful with that. It's not exactly

" nature's " way. The almonds we eat now are domesticated almonds...domesticated

by our ancestors. Wild almonds that are not a product of domestication...the

ones that only nature makes...are highly toxic.

>

> Many foods that have " just the right amount " of something do so because of

domestication, not because nature made it that way for us.

>

> This is not a campaign against nature...I'm all for eating natural foods as

much as possible. There are no processed foods in my apartment with artificial

or " weird " ingredients, so I'm not in any way suggesting eating natural foods

like whole fruits and vegetables is not important. BUT...most of the " natural "

foods are there because our ancestors domesticated them to be as good for us as

they are. We took products out of nature and over time, adjusted them through

artificial selection to best suit our needs.

>

> Bear in mind, nature doesn't revolve around us. The earth doesn't produce what

it does because it helps us. The earth produces what it does based on the

process of natural selection (it's based on which plants are most likely to

survive...not on which plants are most beneficial to humans). We're lucky enough

to be smart enough to have discovered domestication and other things like kefir

and other probiotic foods that help our bodies.

>

> I'm a little skeptical of the idea that having small amounts of arsenic kills

cancer cells. Chemotherapy kills cancer cells...and it makes people so sick

because it also kills healthy cells, too...it kills cells in general, though

chemotherapy treatments are tailored to spend more time killing cells with

specific markers on their surface. But, different kinds of cancer have different

kinds of cancer markers on them, which is why there are different treatments for

different kinds of cancer. Also, cancer cells change and adapt after treatment

begins...they can actually change the markers on their surfaces over the

generations, which is why a treatment may work for a while, but then, it stops.

I am skeptical of the idea that a single element, whether natural or otherwise,

is capable of identifying and attaching to specifically every type of cancer

cell in existence and working on it, despite the tremendous variety in cancer

cells and that can also continue to kill cancer cells e ven after they change

the markers on their surfaces.

>

> Cell surface markers have very unique shapes, and things that kill those cells

basically work like a lock and key...if the shape isn't exactly complimentary to

the marker shape, it won't interact with the cell in any way. So I don't know

how a shape could possibly fit into every kind of marker on different cancer

cells, but never fit into the marker of non-cancer cells.

>

> It seems the real direction cancer research is going that could possibly find

a cure is the development of treatments that get the immune system to recognize

that the cancer cells should not be there. I went to an immunology conference a

couple of years ago, and there actually are developments in this area.

Basically, getting a marker to attach to a cancer marker (for a specific type of

cancer)...and the marker you attached to it is a marker that tells the immune

system, " Hey, kill this thing. " Imagine if you were diagnosed with cancer, and

you simply had to take something like an antibiotic and just make sure you were

getting very good nutrition so your immune system was plenty strong to fight the

cells the treatment was signaling to your immune system to fight. That would be

uber cool!

>

> Lastly, I work in the field of science and have for years...please do not

paint scientific researchers in such a negative light. Most of them are honest,

hard working people that work for very little money just to find answers that

will benefit mankind. I know plenty of university professors that work on

research projects on the side for no financial compensation whatsoever. I'm

currently working on 2 research projects myself for no financial compensation or

other reward besides just wanting to help find answers that will improve the

lives of others. That's why most people do research in the first place.

>

>

>

>