Here is the documentary: World without Cancer (regarding B17 found in apricot seeds)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507#
I've been watching the video you linked to, and I have to say that it raises many more questions for me. Is 30-40 grams really considered the effective dose among people who use Vitamin B17? Or did I understand that part wrong? That's an incredible amount, to me.
There are a few claims made that I personally found a bit dubious:
1. Domesticated pets seek out grasses (eg: Johnson grass) rich in nitrilisides, especially when feeling ill. Is there any evidence to this claim? Personally, I've never observed it.
2. How typical is it that apes go after the seed within pits? Is it 100%, as the video seems to suggest? Or do some do it sometimes, and others do it other times. I've opened a peach where the pit just happened to open up, and I've eaten the seed because it looks like an almond. Did I do it because instincts dictated it, or did I do it because it looked like something I've eaten before and liked?
3. One never finds cancer in the carcasses of wild animals killed in the hunt. Is this to suggest that cancer does not occur in the wild? Is it to suggest that anyone ever sends their kill to be examined for cancer (which is rarely the 20 pound melon that makes itself obvious, but rather tends to be a few-centimeter-wide growth within the organs)?
4. There is a major criticism against the American diet, but this doesn't address that cancer occurs in countries that don't succumb to the American lifestyle.
5. Hunza people have "incredible" longevity, but the ages given by the video are incredibly suspect. A quick look at the oldest people in the world shows the longest recorded life to be a little less than 121 years, a man from Japan whose lifespan is disputed. The oldest undisputed age is a man under 116 years old, from the US. Not one person in the top 100 longest recorded lifespans are even from Pakistan. Yet the video claims it is "not uncommon to live beyond 100 years, and some 120 years or more". Where is this claim coming from?
6. Hunza has never recorded a case of cancer. Is this because there has never been a case of cancer in Hunza, or because their dead are not medically examined? I've discussed with people who do medical missions abroad, and was told stories about how surgeons would remove massive tumors from people, and rather than have the specimen sent for pathology they were simply dumped in the trash. The first reason was because they didn't have the resources to examine the tissue properly, and the second was because medical management wouldn't change otherwise. I suspect that Hunza is not an area where they adequately determine cause of death.
7. What is the source that suggests that cancer cells contain higher density of beta-glucosidase? And that cancer cells lack rotanase?
8. Where has anyone accused Vitamin B17 users of being hypochondriacs?
9. The video suggests that anti-cancer drugs are more deadly to healthy tissue than cancerous tissue. I don't know where this suggestion is coming from, but the premise of most anti-cancer therapy is that it attacks the reproducibility of cells (which is why hair falling out is a common side effect). Since cancer cells are more rapidly reproducing than normal cells, cancer cells are generally more susceptible. By all means, chemotherapy is brutal medication that people suffer through when they're taking it. But I question the suggestion that it's generally more dangerous to healthy tissue. I'm not sure I could call chemotherapy a "fad" any more than Vitamin B17, to be honest.
10. Where were the following stats coming from?:
- Of those with advanced metastasized cancer, 15% are saved by vitamin therapy, and 0.1% survive 5 years from orthodox treatment.
- Of those with early detection of cancer, at least 80% are saved by vitamin therapy, but no more than 15% are cured by orthodox treatment.
- Of those presently healthy, vitamin therapy is 100% effective, whereas orthodox treatment is 84% effective. This is particularly suspect, because it begs the question as to what they mean by "orthodox" treatment. Obviously we don't take chemotherapy, surgery, or radiotherapy prophylactically.
There were a couple statements made in the video that I found more than just dubious:
1. The video addresses the counterargument of environment (smoking) and other dietary changes (unsaturated fatty acids) that could just as easily explain the groups who go from relatively low cancer rates to more typical cancer rates, by suggesting that people who choose Vitamin B17 in their diet are cancer free. They make this claim based on the "outspokenness" of the crowd. But this methodology falls victim to survivor bias: How outspoken are those Vitamin B17 users going to be if they are dead?
2. This was with respect to their addressing my initial doubts based on having a cure-all for a variety of cancers. The suggestion is that the variety of different cancers is akin to there being a variety of different cells, each originating from a totipotent stem cell. So far, totally acceptable. The video continues by asserting that as cancers progress to more malignant stages, the cells begin to look the same as one another, the "most malignant" of cancers being Choriocarcinomas and Epitheliomas that resemble trophoblasts (which thereby suggests support for Beard's theory). There is a lot wrong with that leap. The first is that Choriocarcinomas are naturally going to look like trophoblasts, because they
are cancerous trophoblasts. And while Choriocarcinomas are certainly aggressive, they are by no category the "most malignant". Leukemias are by definition malignant the moment they begin, Burkitt's Lymphoma grows more aggressively than Choriocarcinoma, and Melanoma spreads faster than Choriocarcinoma. None look like trophoblasts in any stage, though the malignant cancerous cells of the same disease certainly do look alike in their respective late stages. While I want to keep an open mind about Vitamin B17, I did not appreciate the deceptive wording used in this explanation.
3. The video suggests that white blood cells do not attack cancer cells. The fact is that white blood cells do attack cancer cells with tumor necrosis factors, where cancer cells reveal themselves by losing regulatory surface proteins. I don't know how old the video is, but its explanation as to how white cells get deflected from innate cells is completely off. It doesn't have so much to do with charge as it does protein binding with surface receptors to allow cells self-recognition.
4. The video claims that the upper digestive tract, near where the pancreas empties into it, is where cancer is almost never found. This was just... wow. Carcinoma of the Ampulla of Vater is fairly common, and duodenal cancer is not unheard of. Furthermore, diabetics aren't simply patients with a "malfunctioning pancreas". Their exocrine pancreas works just fine, releasing trypsin like anyone else. Diabetics have poor endocrine function of their pancreas, specifically with regards to insulin. It can be a primary fault of the pancreas, (with limited production) or it may not be the fault of the pancreas at all (with systemic resistance to Insulin).
Those are my questions and criticisms, for whatever they're worth. Again, thanks for posting the video.