It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is also found in great abundance in a very wide variety of vegetable foods once eaten in great abundance by man, and the natural fodder of animals is similarly rich in the factor. In a paper which I hope to publish soon, I have listed over 62 plant foods eaten by man and over 70 common fodder plants that are very rich in vitamin B-17 (nitriloside). Their concentration of this vitamin compares favorably with that of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) so far as quantity and ubiquity are concerned. As in the case of many other vegetables, sprouts may contain 10 to 30 times as much vitamin B-17 as mature plants. It is not practicable to furnish here the several hundred references of the basic research on nitrilosides nor to list extensive tables showing the occurrence of this new vitamin in a wide range of foods. It would not be germane to explain the reasons why and how "modern diet" has been almost totally stripped of nitrilosides. Suffice it to say that the factors that made commercial white bread lethal to rats and gave the world the empty calories of refined white sugar also have served to produce a fulminating deficiency in vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) in the diet of so called civilized man.
So much for the specific nutritional aspect of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside). How can a compound that is totally non-toxic be relevant to a disease as serious as cancer, a disease perhaps as lethal as pernicious anemia once was? Would we not expect that very powerful cytotoxic compounds would be required to destroy cancer cells? Would these not be compounds like the nitrogen mustards, the antimetabolites, the cyclophosphoramides, methotrexate, 5-fluoruracil, 6-chloropurine, 6-mercaptopurine, azaserine, triethlyenphosphramide, the nitrosoguanidines, and countless other compounds so toxic that some kill almost 25 per cent of the patients treated directly or indirectly through toxicity alone?
It is true that neoplastic cells are destroyed by cytotoxins. The cytotoxins used so far, the ones I have mentioned, are more toxic to body or somatic cells than specifically to cancer cells. This is obvious. Otherwise we would be able to administer these cytotoxins until they killed all cancer cells and left the host alive. But they almost always, if not always, kill the host before killing the neoplastic cells. In the problem of neoplastic therapy we have in drugs an almost insoluble paradox. For an agent to be effective it must be both non-toxic to somatic cells and yet present powerful cytotoxins to neoplastic cells--cytotoxins like the cyanides and benzaldehyde.
Vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) releases a specific and powerful cytotoxin, probably the most powerful one known. This is hydrogen cyanide. Our formulation of Laetrile also releases an equimolar quantity of benzaldehyde which, before oxidation to benzoic acid, is a very powerful cytotoxin. We have here two very powerful cytotoxins. Doctor Dean Burk of the National Cancer Institutue has brilliantly demonstrated, largely through utilization of the technics and manometer of Otto Warburg, that the benzaldehyde released by the hydrolysis of nitriloside or Laetrile is not only in itself a powerful cytotoxin but that it multiplies through a very powerful synergy the cytotoxic effects of both--cyanide and benzaldehyde--to an extent many, many times greater than the arithmetic sum of their separate effects.
These two compounds in synergy are more powerful cytotoxins than any of those that I have already mentioned above.
Why isn't the equimolecular quantity of benzaldehyde oxidized immediately by the cancer cells to harmless benzoic acid as occurs in body or somatic cells, and why isn't the equimolecular quantity of cyanide converted immediately to thiocyanate as it is in body or somatic cells? Recall that Otto Warburg himself received one Nobel Prize for proving the suboxidative activity of cancer cells. They ferment--fermentative metabolism rather than respiratory metabolism plays a large role in cancer. This metabolism utilizes less oxygen (in the free state); therefore, oxidation of benzaldehyde occurs much more slowly. Unoxidized benzaldehyde lags, as it were, in the neoplastic cell. This cell also lacks a very important enzyme possessed by body or somatic cells. This enzyme is rhodanese or thiosulfate transulfurase. It convert cyanide to the harmless thiocyanate. With the selective lag of both undetoxified cyanide as well as unoxidized benzaldehyde in the neoplastic cell, and the multiplication of cytotoxicity that the combination affords, the neoplastic cells suffer a lethal cytotoxicity while the hostal or somatic cells are totally unaffected--except possibly in a beneficial or physiological manner. We are dealing with a vitamin, remember.
Pause again to reflect. Is it possible that this described cytotoxic synergy arising from the hydrolysis product of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside), is a coincidental or fortuitous phenomenon--a synergy totally ungrounded in any other biological experience, a pure accident? Or does this synergy represent the end product of the enduring effects of a process of natural selection between plants and animals through which a specific antineoplastic vitamin, vitamin B-17, has evolved in a natural environment once as abundantly rich in nitrilosides as in ascorbic acid?
There is no controversy, of course, on the fact that equimolecular quantities of benzaldehyde and cyanide resulting from the hydrolysis of vitamin B-17 will selectively kill cancer cells. The cytotoxicity of these chemicals against neoplastic cells is known, but the margin of safety for these raw chemicals is very little greater than the most powerful cytotoxins--except that different from the latter there is no residual, cumulative or chronic toxicity from them. Contrast this to the utter non-toxicity of these same chemicals bound in the white sugary nitriloside molecule.
The lethal commercial white bread is by law supplemented, but not supplemented enough not to kill the rats. It is argued, of course, that this won't hurt man too much unless he relies almost solely on this staff of life and is no tougher than the rats!
Lest this new vitamin B-17 or nitriloside still be a less concrete reality in your mind than ascorbic acid, thiamine, niacin or the like, let me leave you with an example of a daily ration or diet remarkably rich in nitriloside or vitamin B-17. For breakfast we start with buckwheat, millet and flax-seed gruel; all three cereals are very rich in nitriloside. On our millet bread toast we put some nitriloside rich elderberry jelly. The stewed apricots we eat carry the nitriloside-rich seeds, which we detect through their delicious almond-like flavor. At lunch we have nitriloside-rich lima beans or possibly a succotash containing nitriloside-rich chick peas. Our millet rolls may be spread with plum jam carrying the nitriloside-rich seeds that add so much to the flavor of the jam. We may choose some nitriloside-rich elderberry wine. For dinner we may have a salad with some nitriloside-rich bean sprouts and nitriloside-rich millet sprouts. Our dinner rolls may be made of nitriloside-rich buckwheat and nitriloside-rich millet and sweetened with nitriloside-rich sorghum molasses extracted from sorghum cane--almost all of the foregoing are very rich in nitrilosides. For our meat course we may have rabbet that fed on nitriloside-rich clover and as a result carries 5 to 10 times more thiocyanate and nitriloside than animals not so fed. If the milk we drink came from cows that ate fodder rich in nitrilosides this milk will contain as much as 7 times more nitriloside than a cow living on nitriloside-deficient fodder. At the end of the dinner we may choose a nitriloside-rich apricot, peach, cherry, or plum brandy originally prepared from crushing the entire or whole fruit. We may also choose a number of wild berries very rich in nitrilosides--all members of the raspberry family. We may nibble on some nitriloside-rich macadamia nuts or chew nitriloside-rich bamboo sprouts.
In such a menu of three meals in the course of a day we should ingest over 300 mg of nitriloside or vitamin B-17 in our foods--every one of which contained nitriloside. The quantities of the vitamin B-17 in the described foods have been very carefully determined by independent workers over the years. Because of our cultural antipathy to cyanide, our food technology has made every conceivable effort through processing, hybridizing, distilling, etc., to remove every trace of derivable cyanide from foods for man and animals. It is good that this irrationality has not to date, at least, completely removed the cyanide-containing vitamin B-12 or cyanocobalamin.
Finally, let me conclude with this. In nitriloside or vitamin B-17 we have a new vitamin in which all of us are severely deficient. This fact is beyond question. As to the clinical application of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) in human and animal cancer, we feel that every case is morally entitled to whatever vitamin B-17 can offer, just as every being stricken with scurvy, pellagra, or pernicious anemia is morally entitled, respectively, to vitamin C, niacin, vitamin B-12 and folic acid. Indeed, the matter goes far beyond clinical cancer itself. Mankind can not afford any longer a human and animal population deficient in vitamin C, vitamin B-12, vitamin B-15, vitamin B-17 or any other vitamin essential to animal or human nutrition.
However, the capacity of political power for stupidity is truly infinite. We can not predict how long the orderly clinical study of crystalline vitamin B-17 will be delayed. But take some comfort in this. Were vitamin B-12 and folic acid completely proscribed tomorrow, liver would still offer complete salvation in pernicious anemia. Similarly, one gram of defatted apricot seed or kernel carries about 30 milligrams of nitriloside. Six or seven teaspoonful will supply what our clinical investigators consider an adequate oral dose--one gram. It is best that the B-glucosidase enzyme be completely heat inactivated in such material
Originally posted by StrangeBrew
reply to post by alaskan
Yeah, that certainly doesn't have to do with B-17. I don't attest to anything that might be presented there but it's not an equivalent to the suppression of B-17 in my opinion.