'vitamin' B17?

[RRM]

This thread is a splitt off from this thread about chocolate and potato chips: viewtopic.php?p=17900#17900

I hope you don't mean that that would mean that everything bitter is toxic.

toxic sounds so drastic, doesnt it?
However, if you look up how the word toxic is used in scientific articles, you see that 'toxicity' is measured by how a compound impacts living cells. If it can induce cell death, it has toxic properties, which not at all means that its a poison.
Most compounds with therapeutic / medicinal properties also have toxic properties. Fruits also contain such compounds with toxic properties, but they still taste sweet. When foods taste bitter, the compounds with (somewhat) toxic properties are present in greater ratios.

all kinds of edible plants, a lot of which taste bitter.

Plants are not rewarding indeed.
There is a reason why we dont like bitter; its the mind telling us we prefer other food; more nutrients, less anti-nutrients / toxins.

He said that people in the western world have all kinds of nutritional deficiencies

Like what?

He also emphasized that those bitter plants are often very healthy.

Are they healthy, or do they contain compounds with medicinal / therapeutic properties?
One is different from the other.
Food should be food, not drugs.
We dont need drugs to prevent disease.

[halfgaar]

We could go on and on with this discussion, but let me emphasize again, I don't dislike bitter tastes. I like the taste of bitter almonds and apricot seeds. So saying "we don't like bitter tastes" is completely invalid. A colleague of mine, who is not into alternative foods in the slightest, also can't get enough of those bitter almonds. I introduced them to him, and he wants more.

Like what?

Deficiencies of substances not yet identified, but which were eaten by our primitive ancestors.

Are they healthy, or do they contain compounds with medicinal / therapeutic properties?
One is different from the other.
Food should be food, not drugs.
We dont need drugs to prevent disease.

What constitutes a drug or food? I don't think there is a difference. Every substance is toxic when taken in sufficient quantities: oxygen, water, sugar, salt, you name it.

But let's say you define drugs as having no nutritional value, but is harmful to (certain parts of) your body in very small amounts. What if nature has devised naturally occurring drugs that species over the course of evolution have eaten, and work effectively in combating pathogens or other harmful material; why would that mean you still should take in those substances?

I also don't agree that we shouldn't eat plants. If my instinct tells me to eat them, I eat them. Instinct over rational thought, because most notions devised by humanity turned out to be false.

[Oscar]

Deficiencies of substances not yet identified...

[halfgaar]

Is that so strange ? We can't possibly claim we've identified all vitamins and such.

[RRM]

Is that so strange ? We can't possibly claim we've identified all vitamins and such.

If we cant claim having identified all vitamins, how can we possibly claim we lack some of them?

[halfgaar]

Because our western diet is devoid of a lot of things our ancestors ate. It is only logical to conclude that because we don't eat a lot of those things anymore, we're suffering from food deficiencies.

Is it so difficult to imagine that those plants contain substances that have not been identified by science, but are useful to our bodies?

I hope you're not claiming that science has identified all vitamins, nutrients, etc?

[RRM]

So saying "we don't like bitter tastes" is completely invalid.

Maybe not if we go back to our healthy initial state: babies.
No baby likes bitter.
Only as we grow older and eat lots of bad food, we ingest toxins that our body feels need to be counteracted. And as we grow older, some of our organs may have suffered damage, and we may develop diseases.
Then the body would also feel the need for medicins that could counteract such bad developments. Medicinal compounds taste bitter.
So, maybe people with a poor diet feel the need for bitter substances? And maybe the same is true for people in bad health?

What constitutes a drug or food? I don't think there is a difference.

A food contains as much nutrients, and as little anti-nutrients / toxic compounds as possible.
Drugs are taken specifically not for any possible nutrients they may contain, but for the compounds that they contain that have medicinal properties and that are not nutrients.

Taking specific foods because they contain compounds with medicinal properties is as taking whatever drug just because it contains medicinal compounds.
Medicinal compounds may have beneficial effects, BUT ONLY if you are sick, have been diagnosed properly, and if the medicinal properties match your diagnosed illness.
In any other case, any medicinal compound may have severe adverse effects, regardless whether this compound is present in drugs or plants.

Every substance is toxic when taken in sufficient quantities: oxygen, water, sugar, salt, you name it.

No, thats not true. Every substance is bad for you when taken in overdoses. Toxic is a specific kind of bad. In science, toxic compounds prove to kill living cells, when tested.
Thats why i previously made the distinction.

What if nature has devised naturally occurring drugs that species over the course of evolution have eaten, and work effectively in combating pathogens or other harmful material; why would that mean you still should take in those substances?

I dont understand your question. Can you please elaborate?

If my instinct tells me to eat them, I eat them. Instinct over rational thought, because most notions devised by humanity turned out to be false.

True, but what if your so called instinct is driven by previous rational thoughts?

[halfgaar]

Let me summarize by saying that I think you have too rigid a concept of what is a nutrient and what is not. The world doesn't deal in such absolutes. Your whole metabolism is used to filter out the useful substances from your food, and dump the rest. You can't say that everything you eat is purely nutritional or toxic, because otherwise, you'd never have to buy toilet paper again if you eat a diet of only nutritional foods. Even a raw diet consists of a lot of things that are inherently bad for you, but your body is built to handle that.

Your perception of toxicity is also somewhat strange. The definition of a toxic substance is a substance that can cause damage or even death when taken in sufficient quantity. The distinction you mention doesn't exist. The reason salt is toxic in high amounts is the exact same reason that cyanide is, it's just that the required concentration is lower for the latter. But salt has the very real power of killing cells; it let's them explode from osmotic pressure. As I said, the world doesn't deal in such absolutes; your body is built upon it.

And about the bitter taste: don't forget, our dogs eat the bitter almonds eagerly. As does a friend's rats and another friend's hamster. A gorilla even cracks an apricot pit open to eat the kernel, containing vitamin B17 (bitter compound of which I'm convinced is an important factor in fighting cancer).

I dont understand your question. Can you please elaborate?

Take vitamin B17. An inert cyanide bonding, which can be made active by an enzyme only present in cancer cells, which kills the cancer cells. On the other hand, your body provides an enzyme to compensate for small amounts, and this enzyme only exists outside cancer cells.

It is obvious that your body expects this substance to be there, which is logical if you consider the fact that cancer cells are formed continuously, Wai or not.. Why on earth would you avoid eating it?

I really recommend investigating the vitamin B17, and broadening your perspective from just the raw food/Wai diet. Nothing deals in absolutes. The truth is somewhere in the middle, as we say in dutch...

True, but what if your so called instinct is driven by previous rational thoughts?

See remark about the dogs, rats, hamster and gorilla...

[RRM]

I think you have too rigid a concept of what is a nutrient and what is not. ... You can't say that everything you eat is purely nutritional or toxic

I never said that.
Im saying that one better tries to ingest as much nutrients as required while ingesting as little toxins as possible.
Im also saying that substances that have not been identified (listed) as nutrients but have some pharmaceutical properties that may have both beneficial and adverse effects, are simply not nutrients.
Many people try to label such compunds as nutrients, so that 'we need them', but such claims are not based on science.
Pharmaceutical properties, yes. Nutrients, no.

because otherwise, you'd never have to buy toilet paper again if you eat a diet of only nutritional foods.

I never claimed that one can eat nutrients only.
One eats foods.

The definition of a toxic substance is a substance that can cause damage or even death when taken in sufficient quantity... The distinction you mention doesn't exist.

Of course that distinction is there. Its the distiction between a toxin and a poison.

it's just that the required concentration is lower for the latter.

Its certainly not just about concentration. Too much water can kill you but you cannot claim that its a toxin, or that it has toxic properties.

And about the bitter taste: don't forget, our dogs eat the bitter almonds eagerly. As does a friend's rats and another friend's hamster.

what people or animals eat, does not make it good or bad.
Otherwise hamburgers would have to be good, as all canned animal foods.

It is obvious that your body expects this substance to be there

no its not that obvious. Many enzymes in our body can do multiple things. Many enzymes can split compounds with a similar molucular structure.
In as much that the simple fact that we have receptors to feel the effect of cocaine does not mean that our body was designed to expect that substance in our body.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, as we say in dutch...

But it may be in the middle of somewhere you are not comprehending right now.

True, but what if your so called instinct is driven by previous rational thoughts?

See remark about the dogs, rats, hamster and gorilla...

So, these animals could never be poisoned?

[halfgaar]

We're not going to convince each other here...

As a final remark, let me just say that I think you're way off when it comes to toxins. I've also discussed it with a Drs (don't know the English equivalent of that title) in biology, and he stated very firmly and decisively that everything is toxic is high enough concentration. Water, salt, oxygen, etc. The thing that makes it toxic is no different for these substances than for something like cyanide.

I most certainly can claim that water has toxic properties. What I mentioned about salt, that it can explode your cells from osmotic pressure, the same is true for water, but in reverse; it can implode your cells. From a biochemical perspective, any substance that can implode your cells from osmotic pressure, therefore kill them, is toxic. Therefore, water has toxic potential as well.

[RRM]

We're not going to convince each other here...

We dont have to.
A discussion is also information. It enables people to make up their mind, based on different information.

I think you're way off when it comes to toxins. I've also discussed it with a Drs (don't know the English equivalent of that title) in biology, and he stated very firmly and decisively that everything is toxic is high enough concentration.

Sure, but that is not the point.
In science there is a distinction regarding what is toxic, and what is not.
Sure, nothing is sure and everything may be possible. Maybe we dont even excist. who knows?
But that is not the point.
Water is not listed as a toxin. A number of compounds are.
When someone claims to have found a new nutrient, we must evaluate its possible toxic and pharmaceutical properties. We dont just say, "hey everything can kill you", no, we investigate and evaluate.
That water can kill you is no excuse for not making distinctions when it comes to toxicity.

[halfgaar]

OK, let me put it this way, we're kind of stuck in a circle

When substances are labeled as toxic, it usually means in concentrations easily obtained. But a very tiny amount of cyanide is not toxic. Neither is carbonmonoxide. But in higher, still relatively small amounts, it's toxic.

But you did confirm what is one of the biggest problems that surrounds vitamin B17. Because when you eat 100 bitter almonds at once, you take in a toxic amount of it. But still, it's vital (in my opinion, and that of worldwithoutcancer.co.uk) to take in smaller amounts. The problem is, the line between toxic and healthy is very fine, and therefore institutes like the FDA or our "voedsel- and warenautoriteit" want to make vitamin B17 illegal (or already have, in case of the FDA). This fear for toxicity is very degenerate, distinctive of our human arrogance. An apple pit contains this substance. Would you ever have considered not eating an apple pit if you were a caveman? It's only because of the fears spread by people and institutes who think they know better than millions of years of evolution, that people avoid such things.

It's that "protect-people-from-themselves" policy that is I hate. Yes, it's not good to eat massive amounts of those almonds, but that is no reason to outlaw (or simply avoid) them. Some people may think that more is always better, and agencies such as the FDA protect such people from themselves. But, vitamins like vitamin A is also toxic in high amounts. The line between healthy and toxic is very fine for vitamin A as well. Should it be made illegal? No, because the health benefits have been established. For vitamin B17, this is still to happen. I wouldn't be surprised, that at some point it will be added to common foods like bread, as is done with iodide, because otherwise people get iodide shortage. However, the financial interests in the cancer industry may just prevent it for several hundred years.

As for your remark about cocaine; I don't know about cocaine, but heroine is much like substances native to our body, endorfines I believe. Therefore, the receptors also respond to heroine. I haven't confirmed the following, but because enzymes are very molecule specific, I suspect that it will only have an effect on substances with cyanide in it. So even if beta-glucosidase does respond to other substances, it will most likely be substances that carry cyanide, and also kill the cell.

Have you seen any of the video's about vitamin B17?

[RRM]

it's vital (in my opinion, and that of worldwithoutcancer.co.uk) to take in smaller amounts.

Based on what?
On its pharmaceutical properties, or its nutritional properties?
If it is claimed to be a nutrient, then what are the deficiency symptoms? How much do you need daily to avoid deficiency?
Thats is key regarding nutrients.

This fear for toxicity is very degenerate, distinctive of our human arrogance.

Its also real, because why should we ingest toxins it has not been proven that we need it to survive?

An apple pit contains this substance. Would you ever have considered not eating an apple pit if you were a caveman?

Absolutely. I dont think there are many people that after having eaten the apple-'flesh', search for the pits to chew on them.
People generally dont know that the pits contain toxins, and yet these pits dont appeal to us, at all.

It's only because of the fears spread by people and institutes who think they know better than millions of years of evolution

But what do millions of years of evolution tell us?
Actually, those appleseeds need to be spread, to form new seeds. Not to be chewed and destroyed. And to get that done, they taste bitter and contain toxins, so that we dont chew them, and that they leave our body intact, so that they can originate a new appletree.
THAT is what evolution tells us...

The line between healthy and toxic is very fine for vitamin A as well. Should it be made illegal? No, because the health benefits have been established.

You know how's that?
Because you will get deficiency symptoms if you ingest too little vitamin A (or beta-carotene), which is not true for vitamin B17, because its not a nutrient.

at some point it will be added to common foods like bread, as is done with iodide, because otherwise people get iodide shortage.

Thats for historic reasons, as people cpould not consume sufficient natural foods containing iodide.
If you eat raw natural foods, you will always ingest all the iodide you need.

heroine is much like substances native to our body, endorfines I believe. Therefore, the receptors also respond to heroine.

Exactly. So, that you cannot reason that there is a need for heroine just because we have receptors that are activated by heroine, in as much that you cannot say that there is a need for B17 because there are enzymes that for them, in as much that you cannot say that we need to inhale smoke just because our body contains enzymes that can detoxify cancerous HCA present in smoke (from a forest fire, for example)

Have you seen any of the video's about vitamin B17?

Is there any evidence of B17 deficiency symptoms?

[halfgaar]

Based on what?
On its pharmaceutical properties, or its nutritional properties?
If it is claimed to be a nutrient, then what are the deficiency symptoms? How much do you need daily to avoid deficiency?
Thats is key regarding nutrients.

In my opinion, there is no distinction between pharmaceutical and nutritional properties. I consider the way that it works to be nutritional. And the deficiency when you don't get it? Significantly increased chance on cancer, even when on Wai, because there are a lot of bad things you come in contact with; polution, radiation, etc.

But, the cancer-vitamin B17 discussion is very complicated, and is somewhat out of the scope of this thread. I discussed the workings in other threads on the forums.

Its also real, because why should we ingest toxins it has not been proven that we need it to survive?

Because they are not toxins... And, it has been proven, at least sufficiently for me, including the stories my source for bitter almonds, who told me who cured multiple cancer cases. It can't hurt to eat it, so I eat it.

If you want to maintain there is such a hard line between toxin and nutrient, there is nothing I can do about that, but in my opinion, that is far too rigid a paradigm.

Absolutely. I dont think there are many people that after having eaten the apple-'flesh', search for the pits to chew on them.
People generally dont know that the pits contain toxins, and yet these pits dont appeal to us, at all.

You think that what applies to you, applies to everybody. As I explained before, there are plenty of animals who eat those pits eagerly.

I don't believe for a second that any caveman would dissect the apple, and judge the taste of each individual part and judge it by contemporary tastes. It would just pick the apple, and eat it whole, before anyone else does.

But what do millions of years of evolution tell us?
Actually, those appleseeds need to be spread, to form new seeds. Not to be chewed and destroyed. And to get that done, they taste bitter and contain toxins, so that we dont chew them, and that they leave our body intact, so that they can originate a new appletree.
THAT is what evolution tells us...

There are plenty of apple seeds left to form new trees. Rabbits need to be multiplied as well. Does that mean they no predator should eat them? It's about the balance.

You know how's that?
Because you will get deficiency symptoms if you ingest too little vitamin A (or beta-carotene), which is not true for vitamin B17, because its not a nutrient.

1 in 3 or 4 people in this society gets cancer. I call that symptom enough. At least, for me, having looked at the research and heard the anecdotes. I know you think differently about the cause of cancer. You think of it as being caused directly by toxins. I think of it as being caused indirectly by toxins. It's the body's repair mechanism which goes out of control, and form the rapidly dividing cells. More damaging substances means more chance of the repair system going out of control because the body has to engage its repair mechanism more frequently, but as long as you take in the vitamin B17, the cancer cells can be stopped in their tracks.

Thats for historic reasons, as people cpould not consume sufficient natural foods containing iodide.
If you eat raw natural foods, you will always ingest all the iodide you need.

It's a bit of a sidetrack of this discussion, but because iodide shortage is a concern of mine, let me continue on this.

Does cooking and processing destroy iodide, or is it merely about the amount of fruits etc that I eat now, which prevents the shortage.

Exactly. So, that you cannot reason that there is a need for heroine just because we have receptors that are activated by heroine, in as much that you cannot say that there is a need for B17 because there are enzymes that for them, in as much that you cannot say that we need to inhale smoke just because our body contains enzymes that can detoxify cancerous HCA present in smoke (from a forest fire, for example)

Agreed, to some extent. The thing is, that the result of this substance has been seen under a microscope; cancer cells dying like flies. Why would one ignore that?

Is there any evidence of B17 deficiency symptoms?

I'll take that as a no. I suggest you do so. Start with this one. For the sake of information objectivity Really, if you haven't seen at least that video, this discussion won't get much further.

[johndela1]

halfgaar,

Are there any examples of wild animals that also need b17 and get it in the amount you suggest from their natural diets?