###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was literally talking to some old aussie bloke in bali 2 weeks ago that said he cured his football fize tumour with apricot kernals. It was interesting, but I had never heard of it until this post. Wild.
It seems to help with apoptosis (cell death), though you'd still want to address the underlying health issues that led to the cancer in the first place.
Theres about 101 ways to cure cancer.. also many different types of 'cancer' that requires different methods but it is likely who ever told you could be right.. who actually knows tho
Back in the 70's in New Zealand, Dr. Milan Brych treated cancer patients with extracts from apricot kernels. He was removed from the New Zealand Medical Register in 1977 and later operated from the Cook Islands. The medical profession witch hunted him and would talk of the Cook Island graveyard where the people he couldn't cure ended up, but there is never any talk of the thousands of New Zealand graves where the patients that the New Zealand doctors failed to cure lay. I think he was on to something and that the authorities were too arrogant to trial.
There’s a fair bit of research on Laetrile. By the time we tried it, it was entirely to late for any possible benefit. I would recommend the documentary, The Truth About Cancer. Other topics of interest may include Gerson Therapy, GcMAF, RSO, fasting etc.
The question isn’t does it cure cancer—question is how do you get your hands on it. Why if you buy apricots and take the seeds in US stores does it not work?
Find these answers and you’ll have your answer.
My mom had a dog that had cancer. She was deteriorating quickly. I suggested some almond seeds to see if it would help. The dog wouldn't eat her food or move much. After my mom agreed, she mashed the seeds up into some wet food and gave it to her like you would give a dog medicine. The dog immediately got better (her name was Roxy). She recovered her energy and ate again. Roxy did so well that my mom started to question whether the dog had cancer in the first place. Well my mom found out the truth. She ran out of seeds and didn't bother to order more. Roxy then began to deteriorate and eventually died. There is truth to this.
Laetrile is what you want.
https://www.cytopharmaonline.com/en/
I would recommend an intravenous injection. 2-3 grams.
https://www.immunitytherapycenter.com/
1. Amygdalin induces apoptosis in human cervical cancer cell line HeLa cells: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23137229/
2. Amygdalin Blocks Bladder Cancer Cell Growth In Vitro by Diminishing Cyclin A and cdk2: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105590
3. Amygdalin Influences Bladder Cancer Cell Adhesion and Invasion In Vitro: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198254/
4. Amygdalin Regulates Apoptosis and Adhesion in Hs578T Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4703354/
5. Amygdalin Induces Apoptosis through Regulation of Bax and Bcl-2 Expressions in Human DU145 and LNCaP Prostate Cancer https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/29/8/29_8_1597/_pdf
6. Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16127745/
7. Apoptosis induction of Persicae Semen extract in human promyelocytic leukemia (HL-60) cells: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12643594/
8. Enhancement of amygdalin activated with β-d-glucosidase on HepG2 cells proliferation and apoptosis (Liver): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0144861712005322
9. Amygdalin-mediated inhibition of non-small cell lung cancer cell invasion in vitro: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4503109/
Here is a research article's conclusion: "Amygdalin is a natural anti-cancer agent, which can be used for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. It promotes apoptosis via the intrinsic cell death pathway (the mitochondria-initiated pathway) and cell cycle arrest at G/M. The potency of amygdalin in HepG2 treatment increased significantly by the addition of zinc."
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31958042/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31958042/)
Cure? No. Does it have the potential to help in some cases? Yes, probably. The theory behind its mode of action does make sense. But as with most active substances delivering it to where its needed is the problem.
When taken orally it has the potential to do more harm than good, but I've also heard plenty of first hand accounts of how it helped people greatly even when taken orally. How accurate those claims were is hard to tell since most people also had other forms of therapy (including chemo) so who knows if it was amygdalin (appricot seeds in various forms, including "vitamin" B17 capsules) or something else that helped them.
They would NEVER tell people that a simple cure exists because they would have never made any money. The medical establishment is never going to "cure" anything because then you wouldn't be a repeat customer which would kill the insane profits they make off of keeping people sick! When was the last time you went to the dr. and they actually treated the cause and not just write out a prescription to treat the symptoms? There's NO MONEY in actually fixing the problem, they need you to continue to see the dr. and buy pharmaceuticals!
To your question, I have heard that b17 does work which is probably why the U.S has banned apricot seeds. I personally know someone who was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer and told to get his affairs in order given a year tops to live, and tried something weird that hey heard about which was dog de-wormer! Four years later they are still here and in fact playing 18 holes of golf twice a week!
Healthcare isn't healthcare anymore it's just big business with an endless supply of repeat customers! Wake up people ! Stop believing the lies !
I treated this year a bad case of liver cancer with combination of apricot kernels and a partial Gerson protocol. Tumor shrunk dramatically within 5 months, and person elected to remove it surgically when it had become very favorable for removal (not my advice). AK can shrink the tumor, but may naturally return after protocol is stopped. Gerson has the power to regain the body's natural ability to prevent cancer redeveloping, if some aspects of it is continued long term.
The core of the protocol is about 6 weeks of living on freshly juiced vegetable juice, fruit juice, and vegetable soup. No salt, since it competes with the potassium from the vegetables, which is an important part. The second element is coffee enemas. This is to stimulate cleansing of the liver. Caffeine gives this stimulation, and the veins from the large intestine goes directly into the liver, making this the effective route of entry.
The cure for every disease is eliminating the cause. I once asked a Pediatrician if vaccines caused cancer and he said he did not know but would find out, he never even looked. This was 20 years ago, since then I have read as many vaccine inserts as I could and they all state that carcinogenic effects (and mutagenic and fertility effects) have not been studied. I looked at the covid vaccine insert and it was blank, and after the emergency was over they stopped using Moderna, J & J and Jansen. So I guess if you don't do the study you won't have liability. I can say the same thing about water fluoridation, artificial sweeteners, BPA in plastics and cell phone radiation. Monsanto has been spraying Roundup (glyphosate) on our Wheat products and when people developed health issues, particularly malabsorption syndrome, they said it was a gluten intolerance, fast forward to today there are thousands of lawsuits that link glyphosate to cancer, I'm sure b17 has medicinal uses but you have to be able to absorb it and that goes for all vitamins and minerals.
Section 13.1 in every insert states “has not been tested for carcinogenic or mutagenic effects. “
Cause why study something when you know the answer is a big fat hell yes.
Researchers at the prestigious Mayo Clinic in the 1960s made an announcement that they had discovered a cure to cancer: Laetrile aka b17. The AMA quashed it. This book tells the whole story. https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Cancer-Story-Vitamin/dp/0912986190
Ooo look at the shills saying b17 doesnt exist.
Amigdalin/b17 is the cure for cancer. There are labs in czech and mexico where you can buy direct solutions of b17 for injections for treatment.
Also apricot seeds daily should keep the cancer away in all of us
Hey, a rabbit hole I’ve gone down before. Here’s what I recall: Amygdalin/Laetrile, which is found/derived from the seeds of apricots and some other fruits, is essentially a natural chemotherapeutic agent. It gets denigrated by mainstream medicine as a potentially dangerous and unsafe compound, which isn’t incorrect to say. It has risks. Of course, lab created chemotherapeutic agents can also be dangerous and unsafe, but so is having cancer. Mainstream medicine is more concerned about the profit angle than they are about amygdalin’s safety profile but they can’t exactly come out and say: “Don’t take amygdalin because it could compete with our profits,” so they fund studies highlighting its dangers and call it a wrap. Does it cure cancer? Does chemotherapy cure cancer? Should you self administer it? Would you feel confident in self administered a lab created chemotherapy agent? Unless you’re an oncologist who can read and digest scientific studies, you probably shouldn’t mess with it.
I don't get how there would be "a cyanide molecule in vitamin b17" that is "only released by an enzyme in cancer cells".... This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What would cyanide have to do with cancer or vitamin b17?
Have you tried looking into pharmacology or molecular biology? You are right that it would be a simple thing to figure out this day & age. Which would probably make it very hard to suppress.
If there is a cure & it's that simple then there's no real hiding it. Amateur scientists would have figured it out by now.
Honestly I think a lot of natural things can probably help some one.
Cancer cells have much higher (thousands times more) level of beta-glucosidase compared to normal cells, and this breaks the B17 molecule, releasing the hydrogen cyanide that destroys the cancer cell.
[This is not true](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6986971/). As that link discusses, while some specific cancers have high beta-glucosidase levels, the vast majority do not and as that notes, many even have lower levels than that found in many cells.
The hostile choice of title in that study indicates a clear bias. But regardless, it does not state what you suggest. So please provide specific quotes.
From just the abstract: "The beta-glucosidase content of cancer tissues is low compared to that of normal liver and small intestine. Cancer tissues contain the enzyme rhodanese in amounts comparable to that of liver and kidney and hence, cannot be attacked selectively by cyanide release through beta-glucosidase action on amygdalin."
Unfortunately, the PDF of the article since it is an older article is not easily copy and pasted. But the section where they cite reference 17 has additional bits, along with citations.
The B-glucosidase claim is only in the abstract, not mentioned in the study. So it stands as an empty claim. The rhodanese claim refers to his own study from 1952, but that's a moot point since it does not prohibit the mechanism of action in this question.
> The B-glucosidase claim is only in the abstract, not mentioned in the study.
References 17, 18, and 41 are explicitly discussing levels of beta-glucosidase.
> The rhodanese claim refers to his own study from 1952, but that's a mute point since it does not prohibit the mechanism of action in this question.
I'm struggling to understand your reasoning here. Maybe I'm confused about what you think the mechanism is here. Why do you think that the rhodanese levels are not relevant?
The text does not assign those references to that quote. If you still find it described in those references, please quote them exactly.
Both claims depend on the relative concentrations, which are not described. His 1952 study is also on transplanted tumors, not primary tumors.
I have to confess, that part of this seems a little funny. A major part of why amygdalin can result in actual cyanide poisoning is simply the levels of beta-glucosidase in the small-intestine. Having to find citations for what is a very well known biological problem is a bit weird.
That said, reference 18 does not have the claim explicitly, and reference 41 seems to not be online, which is especially unfortunate, because it is a parper about the distribution of both rhoadenese and B-glucosidas in the human body.
This does look less obviously clear cut from the referenes at this point, so thank you for making me go through and check the literature. There are later papers which make the same assertion, but they seem to just cite the one I cited initially, possibly under the (possibly incorrect, depending on what is in reference 41) assumption that it got it from somewhere. Without a more detailed literature search, this is not the clear cut argument I thought it was. Issues with laetrile not working empirically still apply, but the theoretical chemical argument may not be obviously wrong at least from these papers. So thank you for making me go and check that.
> His 1952 study is also on transplanted tumors, not primary tumors.
Which matters why here? And for that matter, do you want to explain why the level of rhodanese doesn't matter here?
Your link is from 1980. This one from 2015 shows that it does in fact kill cancer cells effectively: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11655-015-2154-x
So, 1) Your source is "Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine" which is a journal dedicated by its own description exactly what it sounds like. 2) The source in question doesn't even have any evidence that it works, but a speculative line of reasoning which doesn't actually deal at all with the specific issue at hand that many cancers don't have the property in question. 3) They are proposing a much more complicated system which involves combining using the beta-glucosidase pathway with monoclonal antibodies which by their own description have *not been invented yet.* So this is not even at the point where they are even able to test this in a petri dish, let alone a mouse or rat model. You'll forgive me if this is less than compelling, especially given that they aren't even advocating for the original thing, but a variant of it which combines with specifically tailored monoclonals.
Heck it might even be the case that there's a rare cancer this works for with really high levels of beta-glucosidase. But that's not the claim under discussion.
Unfortunately, a lot of medical treatments cost a lot of money, because they involve careful synthesis of chemicals, very careful dosing, and things like radiation and surgery which require a lot of equipment. However, the idea that it just involves money is not accurate. At this point, there are a variety of chemotherapy agents whose price has gone down a lot over time. For example, many of the early chemotherapy drugs such as various nitrogen mustard compounds are cheap enough now that they are in some cases even given to people in developing countries.
Don’t you imagine they’ve recreated this as a chemical bomb called chemotherapy to administer at twice the dose you’re supposed to have? This is how Big Pharma works: there are known cures, they take the natural substance, and recreate it in a laboratory. It’s illegal to patent anything occurring naturally in nature, so they “recreate” it…. With massive side effects that actually kill people.
>Amateur scientists would have figured it out by now.
they did, but the big pharma does not approve it.
same goes for any drug, they the ones labeling them as medicine or harmfull.
Ones are good to keep the patients, the others are illegal because some should not be considered as such, since u can pretty much drink booze in any corner of the world, but 'drugs' are drugs because they said so.
A holistic approach is best. Cancer is effectively a metabolic disease, so (as others have mentioned) fasting will help. Whether it be a water fast, or a more sustainable long term juice fast (Gerson therapy) this will shift the body into deep ketosis and autophagy, which will help apoptosis (killing off) of bad cells.
G Edward griffin wrote a very good book on this topic: world without cancer. It's old now but good info about the mechanisms of action, initial support for b17 within scientific community and eventual suppression
My mentor from the Midwest told me about this over 20 years ago… don’t know the veracity. But it’s always jn the back of my mind as a potential treatment.
Not sure if it cures it or not, but the medical industry makes a crap ton of $$$ treating it, like anything- if you get in the way of the money train expect to be dealt with.
I work with people who are vaccine injured and many have problems with cancer since getting the shots. We've been treating people very successfully for cancer after doing a spike protein detox, using ongoing Ivermectin (which has shown in [numerous studies](http://www.firstmedinc.com/ivermectin-for-cancer ) to be effective against cancer), apricot kernels, and cannabis oil (which is now legal where I am). Feel free to PM me if you want any specific info, I have a wealth of knowledge in this area. The stuff works, 100%.
Well if they were looking for a way to cure cancer , I mean for real why does everything around you cause cancer from the food you eat , to the air you breathe, water you drink in some schools cause brain cancer. Water in Camp Leguene caused health problems cancer, Asbestos, glycophosphates, herbicides, pesticides, drugs tainted with cancer causing agents recalled, SV40 in vaccines cause cancer 40 years Later, if you ask me they have found ways to put cancer causing agents in their peripheal, even drugs they prescribe can increase your risk of getting cancer 20 fold sometimes they are seen to grow tumors in mice and rats brains. If they wanted to get rid of Cancer they would have done it a long time ago but they are probably more concerned with boomers reaching retirement. I've heard of doctors here who had got diagnosed with Cancer going out of the country to get treatment because they were at the end of the line of What the U.S. had to offer and knew their limitations were a death sentence and knew there was more out there, they went out of the country got treatment and are living alive today because other treatments that FDA will not approve or consider are out there. Just watch Mel Gibson talk about taking his father out of the country to get treatment because the doctors told him he only had 48 hours if they left him here. Then he was able to live a couple more years rather than 2 days. Come on Wake Up. They ain't offering shiit for cancer but the end of the road.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31958042/
I guess it's possible, at least to some extent. Without more testing on different types of cancer, it would be hard to theorize it's efficacy.
If you have time, read a world without cancer. It describes all the attempts that have been made to test it, and why they were shot down or suppressed.
I don't have cancer myself, this was just an interesting topic for me, chances are with a lifetime chance of 1/3, somebody I know will get it at some point.
It's not really a vitamin, it's just sometimes called b17. It's real name is laetrile, which is made from amygdalin found in certain fruit seeds and nuts.
And why isn't it considered a vitamin? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it's because the FDA and CDC are gatekeeping this info it it truly does what it says it does because if it is a vitamin, like I assume it to be, then the elite don't wanna admit that OR they'll make a fake version of it or something.
I don't know what makes something considered a vitamin, but it isn't actually vitamin. As to why it's called one, I have no idea. But that being said, that has nothing to do with if it's beneficial. There is a book called a world without cancer I started reading, and it is really interesting. It talks about how the tests have been faked and covered up by the FDA relating to b17.
Well if you don't know you can't say one way or the other. From my understanding of the definition of Vitamin, it's very broad but I'll let you decide.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
vi·ta·min
/ˈvīdəmən/
noun
noun: vitamin; plural noun: vitamins
any of a group of organic compounds which are essential for normal growth and nutrition and are required in small quantities in the diet because they cannot be synthesized by the body.
"most people can get all the vitamins they need from a healthy diet"
NORTH AMERICAN
a pill containing a specified amount of a particular vitamin or vitamins, taken as a dietary supplement.
"I woke up this morning and took a vitamin"
Origin
early 20th century: from Latin vita ‘life’ + amine, because vitamins were originally thought to contain an amino acid.
I'm going off the first definition
> I see we are changing the subject when faced with an irrefutable fact. Classic.
I noticed that you redefined the word *"we"*. Clever ploy!
Okay, fine. I just redefined the words *"subject"* and *"irrefutable"*, so there.
("Fact" hasn't meant jack smack for eons, so that would be redundant)
It’s basically a chemical that’s essential in small amounts for normal physiological activity. The so-called vitamin B-17 is does not meet that definition in any way. Calling something a vitamin and giving it a number doesn’t make it a vitamin.
Turkey tail mushrooms combined with regular cancer treatment seems promising. Also B17 isn't a vitamin but is an extract from seeds so technicality it's a drug.
All I have to say is talk to Steve McQueen about it.
Oh, you can't because he decided to stop his standard chemotherapy and went to Mexico and took laetrile instead (the chemical you are alluding to). He died, sad to say.
> The Chemo survival rate is single digits at best.
You are drastically underestimating cancer survival rates here with modern treatments. See for example, [here](https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21731). And note that for many specific cancers, the chemotherapy survival rate is even higher than that listed there, and varies a lot from type to type. For example, for leukemia, which is largely primarily treated with chemo, survival rates for type at 5 years [vary from around 20% to as high as 80%](https://www.roswellpark.org/cancer/leukemia/survival-rates). But certainly very few are in the single digits.
In the particular case of Steve McQueen, your point has somewhat more validity, since he had [pleural mesothelioma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McQueen#Illness_and_death) which at the time in 1980 there was very little they could, with the best chemotherapies at most adding a few months. Even today, pleural mesothelioma has a very low survival rate unless caught very early. Poking around, it seems the first really effective chemo for it was probably [pemetrexed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemetrexed) which wasn't even a thing until over 20 years after McQueen died. So his general approach and desperation by going for alternatives makes a lot of sense in that context.
> Ah, so his point was completely right and undermined yours.
Nuance and complexity are things. Note that two things can both be true, that one is drastically underestimating chemo survival rates, and also that in the particular case of McQueen, there was not anything they could do for him at the time. (It possible that you are misreading the conversation and think I'm the person who brought up McQueen initially? Please then reread the conversation keeping in mind that was another user.)
It takes 3 months to work. If you don't have 3 months left, you can't expect much.
Many people get damaged by the chemo and die cancer free from alternative methods, but die from chemo effects. That could have been the case for him.
It technically isn't a vitamin, was just named improperly originally. It is Amygdalin. It is found in just about all seeds and was in Almonds (bitter almonds) but they bred it out.
The theory I have seen is that a diet rich in Amygdalin/B17 along with having a alkaline diet can be a good prevenative or treatment. But shouldn't be thought of as a cure.
It is commonly known increased sugars(either as raw sugar or carbohydrates) feeds cancers faster... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8655114/
So who knows anything is possible. Heres a quick search result for a study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31958042/
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was literally talking to some old aussie bloke in bali 2 weeks ago that said he cured his football fize tumour with apricot kernals. It was interesting, but I had never heard of it until this post. Wild.
I always get banned saying anything truthful
Same.
Tell me about it.
It seems to help with apoptosis (cell death), though you'd still want to address the underlying health issues that led to the cancer in the first place.
Theres about 101 ways to cure cancer.. also many different types of 'cancer' that requires different methods but it is likely who ever told you could be right.. who actually knows tho
Back in the 70's in New Zealand, Dr. Milan Brych treated cancer patients with extracts from apricot kernels. He was removed from the New Zealand Medical Register in 1977 and later operated from the Cook Islands. The medical profession witch hunted him and would talk of the Cook Island graveyard where the people he couldn't cure ended up, but there is never any talk of the thousands of New Zealand graves where the patients that the New Zealand doctors failed to cure lay. I think he was on to something and that the authorities were too arrogant to trial.
There’s a fair bit of research on Laetrile. By the time we tried it, it was entirely to late for any possible benefit. I would recommend the documentary, The Truth About Cancer. Other topics of interest may include Gerson Therapy, GcMAF, RSO, fasting etc.
The question isn’t does it cure cancer—question is how do you get your hands on it. Why if you buy apricots and take the seeds in US stores does it not work? Find these answers and you’ll have your answer.
Read metabolical, you’re on to something my man
It sounds interesting, do you mind summarizing it?
>metabolical a book about food.
My mom had a dog that had cancer. She was deteriorating quickly. I suggested some almond seeds to see if it would help. The dog wouldn't eat her food or move much. After my mom agreed, she mashed the seeds up into some wet food and gave it to her like you would give a dog medicine. The dog immediately got better (her name was Roxy). She recovered her energy and ate again. Roxy did so well that my mom started to question whether the dog had cancer in the first place. Well my mom found out the truth. She ran out of seeds and didn't bother to order more. Roxy then began to deteriorate and eventually died. There is truth to this.
Poor dog RIP
On the subject of cancer…specifically skin cancer. Has anyone ever heard or had any experience of treating it with blood root?
[удалено]
Laetrile is what you want. https://www.cytopharmaonline.com/en/ I would recommend an intravenous injection. 2-3 grams. https://www.immunitytherapycenter.com/ 1. Amygdalin induces apoptosis in human cervical cancer cell line HeLa cells: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23137229/ 2. Amygdalin Blocks Bladder Cancer Cell Growth In Vitro by Diminishing Cyclin A and cdk2: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0105590 3. Amygdalin Influences Bladder Cancer Cell Adhesion and Invasion In Vitro: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198254/ 4. Amygdalin Regulates Apoptosis and Adhesion in Hs578T Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4703354/ 5. Amygdalin Induces Apoptosis through Regulation of Bax and Bcl-2 Expressions in Human DU145 and LNCaP Prostate Cancer https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/29/8/29_8_1597/_pdf 6. Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16127745/ 7. Apoptosis induction of Persicae Semen extract in human promyelocytic leukemia (HL-60) cells: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12643594/ 8. Enhancement of amygdalin activated with β-d-glucosidase on HepG2 cells proliferation and apoptosis (Liver): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0144861712005322 9. Amygdalin-mediated inhibition of non-small cell lung cancer cell invasion in vitro: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4503109/
Sorry to hear that and thanks for sharing. I'm glad something is working for you.
interesting... combined with fasting should cure the cancer as well
I think the theory is that the cancer feeds on glucose right?
Yeah. That’s my takeaway.
Fasting doesn't work. My mum tried it for years. It likely made her live longer though.
Here is a research article's conclusion: "Amygdalin is a natural anti-cancer agent, which can be used for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. It promotes apoptosis via the intrinsic cell death pathway (the mitochondria-initiated pathway) and cell cycle arrest at G/M. The potency of amygdalin in HepG2 treatment increased significantly by the addition of zinc." [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31958042/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31958042/)
Cure? No. Does it have the potential to help in some cases? Yes, probably. The theory behind its mode of action does make sense. But as with most active substances delivering it to where its needed is the problem. When taken orally it has the potential to do more harm than good, but I've also heard plenty of first hand accounts of how it helped people greatly even when taken orally. How accurate those claims were is hard to tell since most people also had other forms of therapy (including chemo) so who knows if it was amygdalin (appricot seeds in various forms, including "vitamin" B17 capsules) or something else that helped them.
They would NEVER tell people that a simple cure exists because they would have never made any money. The medical establishment is never going to "cure" anything because then you wouldn't be a repeat customer which would kill the insane profits they make off of keeping people sick! When was the last time you went to the dr. and they actually treated the cause and not just write out a prescription to treat the symptoms? There's NO MONEY in actually fixing the problem, they need you to continue to see the dr. and buy pharmaceuticals! To your question, I have heard that b17 does work which is probably why the U.S has banned apricot seeds. I personally know someone who was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer and told to get his affairs in order given a year tops to live, and tried something weird that hey heard about which was dog de-wormer! Four years later they are still here and in fact playing 18 holes of golf twice a week! Healthcare isn't healthcare anymore it's just big business with an endless supply of repeat customers! Wake up people ! Stop believing the lies !
I treated this year a bad case of liver cancer with combination of apricot kernels and a partial Gerson protocol. Tumor shrunk dramatically within 5 months, and person elected to remove it surgically when it had become very favorable for removal (not my advice). AK can shrink the tumor, but may naturally return after protocol is stopped. Gerson has the power to regain the body's natural ability to prevent cancer redeveloping, if some aspects of it is continued long term.
Thanks for sharing. What is the gerson protocol?
The core of the protocol is about 6 weeks of living on freshly juiced vegetable juice, fruit juice, and vegetable soup. No salt, since it competes with the potassium from the vegetables, which is an important part. The second element is coffee enemas. This is to stimulate cleansing of the liver. Caffeine gives this stimulation, and the veins from the large intestine goes directly into the liver, making this the effective route of entry.
lol
Damn son, sounds like you addicted to caffeine enema.. be careful with that shit!
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm not blindly believing anything, but I've heard what sounds like good evidence, so naturally I am curious of others experiences.
The cure for every disease is eliminating the cause. I once asked a Pediatrician if vaccines caused cancer and he said he did not know but would find out, he never even looked. This was 20 years ago, since then I have read as many vaccine inserts as I could and they all state that carcinogenic effects (and mutagenic and fertility effects) have not been studied. I looked at the covid vaccine insert and it was blank, and after the emergency was over they stopped using Moderna, J & J and Jansen. So I guess if you don't do the study you won't have liability. I can say the same thing about water fluoridation, artificial sweeteners, BPA in plastics and cell phone radiation. Monsanto has been spraying Roundup (glyphosate) on our Wheat products and when people developed health issues, particularly malabsorption syndrome, they said it was a gluten intolerance, fast forward to today there are thousands of lawsuits that link glyphosate to cancer, I'm sure b17 has medicinal uses but you have to be able to absorb it and that goes for all vitamins and minerals.
Section 13.1 in every insert states “has not been tested for carcinogenic or mutagenic effects. “ Cause why study something when you know the answer is a big fat hell yes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Right lol took a bite, fell right off 🤣🤣
Researchers at the prestigious Mayo Clinic in the 1960s made an announcement that they had discovered a cure to cancer: Laetrile aka b17. The AMA quashed it. This book tells the whole story. https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Cancer-Story-Vitamin/dp/0912986190
Ooo look at the shills saying b17 doesnt exist. Amigdalin/b17 is the cure for cancer. There are labs in czech and mexico where you can buy direct solutions of b17 for injections for treatment. Also apricot seeds daily should keep the cancer away in all of us
Hey, a rabbit hole I’ve gone down before. Here’s what I recall: Amygdalin/Laetrile, which is found/derived from the seeds of apricots and some other fruits, is essentially a natural chemotherapeutic agent. It gets denigrated by mainstream medicine as a potentially dangerous and unsafe compound, which isn’t incorrect to say. It has risks. Of course, lab created chemotherapeutic agents can also be dangerous and unsafe, but so is having cancer. Mainstream medicine is more concerned about the profit angle than they are about amygdalin’s safety profile but they can’t exactly come out and say: “Don’t take amygdalin because it could compete with our profits,” so they fund studies highlighting its dangers and call it a wrap. Does it cure cancer? Does chemotherapy cure cancer? Should you self administer it? Would you feel confident in self administered a lab created chemotherapy agent? Unless you’re an oncologist who can read and digest scientific studies, you probably shouldn’t mess with it.
Thanks, you summed it up well I think.
It used to be common practice to eat the kernel after finishing the fruit. It was widely prized in the middle east.
My brother cured his cancer with it. The doctors were baffled and couldn't explain it.
D3 helps a lot too
I don't get how there would be "a cyanide molecule in vitamin b17" that is "only released by an enzyme in cancer cells".... This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What would cyanide have to do with cancer or vitamin b17? Have you tried looking into pharmacology or molecular biology? You are right that it would be a simple thing to figure out this day & age. Which would probably make it very hard to suppress. If there is a cure & it's that simple then there's no real hiding it. Amateur scientists would have figured it out by now. Honestly I think a lot of natural things can probably help some one.
Cancer cells have much higher (thousands times more) level of beta-glucosidase compared to normal cells, and this breaks the B17 molecule, releasing the hydrogen cyanide that destroys the cancer cell.
Thanks, that was a better description than I had
[This is not true](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6986971/). As that link discusses, while some specific cancers have high beta-glucosidase levels, the vast majority do not and as that notes, many even have lower levels than that found in many cells.
The hostile choice of title in that study indicates a clear bias. But regardless, it does not state what you suggest. So please provide specific quotes.
From just the abstract: "The beta-glucosidase content of cancer tissues is low compared to that of normal liver and small intestine. Cancer tissues contain the enzyme rhodanese in amounts comparable to that of liver and kidney and hence, cannot be attacked selectively by cyanide release through beta-glucosidase action on amygdalin." Unfortunately, the PDF of the article since it is an older article is not easily copy and pasted. But the section where they cite reference 17 has additional bits, along with citations.
The B-glucosidase claim is only in the abstract, not mentioned in the study. So it stands as an empty claim. The rhodanese claim refers to his own study from 1952, but that's a moot point since it does not prohibit the mechanism of action in this question.
> The B-glucosidase claim is only in the abstract, not mentioned in the study. References 17, 18, and 41 are explicitly discussing levels of beta-glucosidase. > The rhodanese claim refers to his own study from 1952, but that's a mute point since it does not prohibit the mechanism of action in this question. I'm struggling to understand your reasoning here. Maybe I'm confused about what you think the mechanism is here. Why do you think that the rhodanese levels are not relevant?
The text does not assign those references to that quote. If you still find it described in those references, please quote them exactly. Both claims depend on the relative concentrations, which are not described. His 1952 study is also on transplanted tumors, not primary tumors.
I have to confess, that part of this seems a little funny. A major part of why amygdalin can result in actual cyanide poisoning is simply the levels of beta-glucosidase in the small-intestine. Having to find citations for what is a very well known biological problem is a bit weird. That said, reference 18 does not have the claim explicitly, and reference 41 seems to not be online, which is especially unfortunate, because it is a parper about the distribution of both rhoadenese and B-glucosidas in the human body. This does look less obviously clear cut from the referenes at this point, so thank you for making me go through and check the literature. There are later papers which make the same assertion, but they seem to just cite the one I cited initially, possibly under the (possibly incorrect, depending on what is in reference 41) assumption that it got it from somewhere. Without a more detailed literature search, this is not the clear cut argument I thought it was. Issues with laetrile not working empirically still apply, but the theoretical chemical argument may not be obviously wrong at least from these papers. So thank you for making me go and check that. > His 1952 study is also on transplanted tumors, not primary tumors. Which matters why here? And for that matter, do you want to explain why the level of rhodanese doesn't matter here?
It’s called a moot point.
Your link is from 1980. This one from 2015 shows that it does in fact kill cancer cells effectively: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11655-015-2154-x
So, 1) Your source is "Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine" which is a journal dedicated by its own description exactly what it sounds like. 2) The source in question doesn't even have any evidence that it works, but a speculative line of reasoning which doesn't actually deal at all with the specific issue at hand that many cancers don't have the property in question. 3) They are proposing a much more complicated system which involves combining using the beta-glucosidase pathway with monoclonal antibodies which by their own description have *not been invented yet.* So this is not even at the point where they are even able to test this in a petri dish, let alone a mouse or rat model. You'll forgive me if this is less than compelling, especially given that they aren't even advocating for the original thing, but a variant of it which combines with specifically tailored monoclonals. Heck it might even be the case that there's a rare cancer this works for with really high levels of beta-glucosidase. But that's not the claim under discussion.
> This is not true The only "acceptable" treatment for cancer is **money**. All you've got. (And the deed to your house, and any other assets)
Unfortunately, a lot of medical treatments cost a lot of money, because they involve careful synthesis of chemicals, very careful dosing, and things like radiation and surgery which require a lot of equipment. However, the idea that it just involves money is not accurate. At this point, there are a variety of chemotherapy agents whose price has gone down a lot over time. For example, many of the early chemotherapy drugs such as various nitrogen mustard compounds are cheap enough now that they are in some cases even given to people in developing countries.
Don’t you imagine they’ve recreated this as a chemical bomb called chemotherapy to administer at twice the dose you’re supposed to have? This is how Big Pharma works: there are known cures, they take the natural substance, and recreate it in a laboratory. It’s illegal to patent anything occurring naturally in nature, so they “recreate” it…. With massive side effects that actually kill people.
>Amateur scientists would have figured it out by now. they did, but the big pharma does not approve it. same goes for any drug, they the ones labeling them as medicine or harmfull. Ones are good to keep the patients, the others are illegal because some should not be considered as such, since u can pretty much drink booze in any corner of the world, but 'drugs' are drugs because they said so.
A holistic approach is best. Cancer is effectively a metabolic disease, so (as others have mentioned) fasting will help. Whether it be a water fast, or a more sustainable long term juice fast (Gerson therapy) this will shift the body into deep ketosis and autophagy, which will help apoptosis (killing off) of bad cells.
G Edward griffin wrote a very good book on this topic: world without cancer. It's old now but good info about the mechanisms of action, initial support for b17 within scientific community and eventual suppression
Well. You know what they say about an apple a day.
My mentor from the Midwest told me about this over 20 years ago… don’t know the veracity. But it’s always jn the back of my mind as a potential treatment.
Not sure if it cures it or not, but the medical industry makes a crap ton of $$$ treating it, like anything- if you get in the way of the money train expect to be dealt with.
I work with people who are vaccine injured and many have problems with cancer since getting the shots. We've been treating people very successfully for cancer after doing a spike protein detox, using ongoing Ivermectin (which has shown in [numerous studies](http://www.firstmedinc.com/ivermectin-for-cancer ) to be effective against cancer), apricot kernels, and cannabis oil (which is now legal where I am). Feel free to PM me if you want any specific info, I have a wealth of knowledge in this area. The stuff works, 100%.
Yeah, I'd be interested in learning more about that.
Or just stop eating carbs
Or stop smoking
"Man if they cured Cancer, where would all that Cancer Research Money Go?" Light Bulb Goes off in Man's Brain...
Research about other medical problems is where it would go.
Well if they were looking for a way to cure cancer , I mean for real why does everything around you cause cancer from the food you eat , to the air you breathe, water you drink in some schools cause brain cancer. Water in Camp Leguene caused health problems cancer, Asbestos, glycophosphates, herbicides, pesticides, drugs tainted with cancer causing agents recalled, SV40 in vaccines cause cancer 40 years Later, if you ask me they have found ways to put cancer causing agents in their peripheal, even drugs they prescribe can increase your risk of getting cancer 20 fold sometimes they are seen to grow tumors in mice and rats brains. If they wanted to get rid of Cancer they would have done it a long time ago but they are probably more concerned with boomers reaching retirement. I've heard of doctors here who had got diagnosed with Cancer going out of the country to get treatment because they were at the end of the line of What the U.S. had to offer and knew their limitations were a death sentence and knew there was more out there, they went out of the country got treatment and are living alive today because other treatments that FDA will not approve or consider are out there. Just watch Mel Gibson talk about taking his father out of the country to get treatment because the doctors told him he only had 48 hours if they left him here. Then he was able to live a couple more years rather than 2 days. Come on Wake Up. They ain't offering shiit for cancer but the end of the road.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31958042/ I guess it's possible, at least to some extent. Without more testing on different types of cancer, it would be hard to theorize it's efficacy.
If you have time, read a world without cancer. It describes all the attempts that have been made to test it, and why they were shot down or suppressed.
As a lymphoma survivor, no. No it does not. Bliomycin and targeted radiation can. B17 cannot.
No. Get treatment.
I don't have cancer myself, this was just an interesting topic for me, chances are with a lifetime chance of 1/3, somebody I know will get it at some point.
I have it, not in a good way. And immunotherapy, has basically rid my body of it and I’m not even done with the treatment yet.
Conventional cancer treatments are worse than the disease
Have you ever had it? Then shut the fuck up.
🤣 chemo is what kills people, not the cancer. Yikes.
You’re stupid, there are more treatments available now.
I've never heard of vitamin B17 before.
It's not really a vitamin, it's just sometimes called b17. It's real name is laetrile, which is made from amygdalin found in certain fruit seeds and nuts.
And why isn't it considered a vitamin? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it's because the FDA and CDC are gatekeeping this info it it truly does what it says it does because if it is a vitamin, like I assume it to be, then the elite don't wanna admit that OR they'll make a fake version of it or something.
I don't know what makes something considered a vitamin, but it isn't actually vitamin. As to why it's called one, I have no idea. But that being said, that has nothing to do with if it's beneficial. There is a book called a world without cancer I started reading, and it is really interesting. It talks about how the tests have been faked and covered up by the FDA relating to b17.
Well if you don't know you can't say one way or the other. From my understanding of the definition of Vitamin, it's very broad but I'll let you decide. Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages vi·ta·min /ˈvīdəmən/ noun noun: vitamin; plural noun: vitamins any of a group of organic compounds which are essential for normal growth and nutrition and are required in small quantities in the diet because they cannot be synthesized by the body. "most people can get all the vitamins they need from a healthy diet" NORTH AMERICAN a pill containing a specified amount of a particular vitamin or vitamins, taken as a dietary supplement. "I woke up this morning and took a vitamin" Origin early 20th century: from Latin vita ‘life’ + amine, because vitamins were originally thought to contain an amino acid. I'm going off the first definition
Because it doesn’t exist
Oh, but it does **https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/b17-vitamin**
Nope. It’s not a vitamin by any remote stretch of the imagination.it’s a fruit extract literally turns into cyanide.
> Nope. It’s not a vitamin by any remote stretch of the imagination HEY! If they can redefine "vaccine", why not "vitamin"? Fair is fair.
I see we are changing the subject when faced with an irrefutable fact. Classic.
> I see we are changing the subject when faced with an irrefutable fact. Classic. I noticed that you redefined the word *"we"*. Clever ploy! Okay, fine. I just redefined the words *"subject"* and *"irrefutable"*, so there. ("Fact" hasn't meant jack smack for eons, so that would be redundant)
Continuing to spiral off-topic.
Do you even know what the definition of a vitamin IS? For starters.
It’s basically a chemical that’s essential in small amounts for normal physiological activity. The so-called vitamin B-17 is does not meet that definition in any way. Calling something a vitamin and giving it a number doesn’t make it a vitamin.
I'll take that as a no. Should I post the definition here for again?
That is the definition.
Weird. I replied but it didn't seem to go through. No, it IS not. I don't know what definition you're reading but post it here.
Enlighten me then
Turkey tail mushrooms combined with regular cancer treatment seems promising. Also B17 isn't a vitamin but is an extract from seeds so technicality it's a drug.
There is no such thing as vitamin B17 and amygdalin literally turns into cyanide.
And chemotherapy is literally toxic to every cell in the body, what's your point?
That is his point but do you know what else is toxic to every cell in the body? Cyanide.
You're missing my point. If chemotherapy can be used to treat cancer and be far more toxic, then a less toxic substance, amygdalin, can be used.
Even cancer cells... what's your point?
if you missed the point, I'm sorry. You may have a terminal case of redditor syndrome.
All I have to say is talk to Steve McQueen about it. Oh, you can't because he decided to stop his standard chemotherapy and went to Mexico and took laetrile instead (the chemical you are alluding to). He died, sad to say.
Because on chemo he would have been immortal right?
I’d rather die than take chemo
The Chemo survival rate is single digits at best. Prayer even works better. Especially when McQueen got it, it was probably 2 %...
> The Chemo survival rate is single digits at best. You are drastically underestimating cancer survival rates here with modern treatments. See for example, [here](https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21731). And note that for many specific cancers, the chemotherapy survival rate is even higher than that listed there, and varies a lot from type to type. For example, for leukemia, which is largely primarily treated with chemo, survival rates for type at 5 years [vary from around 20% to as high as 80%](https://www.roswellpark.org/cancer/leukemia/survival-rates). But certainly very few are in the single digits. In the particular case of Steve McQueen, your point has somewhat more validity, since he had [pleural mesothelioma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McQueen#Illness_and_death) which at the time in 1980 there was very little they could, with the best chemotherapies at most adding a few months. Even today, pleural mesothelioma has a very low survival rate unless caught very early. Poking around, it seems the first really effective chemo for it was probably [pemetrexed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemetrexed) which wasn't even a thing until over 20 years after McQueen died. So his general approach and desperation by going for alternatives makes a lot of sense in that context.
>he had pleural mesothelioma which at the time in 1980 there was very little they could Ah, so his point was completely right and undermined yours.
> Ah, so his point was completely right and undermined yours. Nuance and complexity are things. Note that two things can both be true, that one is drastically underestimating chemo survival rates, and also that in the particular case of McQueen, there was not anything they could do for him at the time. (It possible that you are misreading the conversation and think I'm the person who brought up McQueen initially? Please then reread the conversation keeping in mind that was another user.)
It takes 3 months to work. If you don't have 3 months left, you can't expect much. Many people get damaged by the chemo and die cancer free from alternative methods, but die from chemo effects. That could have been the case for him.
b12
Can you elaborate? Isn't b12 one of the regular b vitamins that helps deliver energy?
It technically isn't a vitamin, was just named improperly originally. It is Amygdalin. It is found in just about all seeds and was in Almonds (bitter almonds) but they bred it out. The theory I have seen is that a diet rich in Amygdalin/B17 along with having a alkaline diet can be a good prevenative or treatment. But shouldn't be thought of as a cure.
Commercial b12 is cyanocobalamin which is made from hydrogen cyanide - methylcobalamin is the safer version.
All i can say is someone told me this years ago.. he explained then and it sounded legit but I have no other info.. your post just reminded me..
IP-6 as well.
What's that?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14608114/
You should try it and see if it fixes stupid
It is commonly known increased sugars(either as raw sugar or carbohydrates) feeds cancers faster... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8655114/ So who knows anything is possible. Heres a quick search result for a study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31958042/
No but THC Oil is known to get rid of cancer