About Cancer

Over the years there have been a number of mixed messages about apricot kernels, which contain the controversial vitamin B17 (also known as amygdalin), and their effectiveness in both treating cancer and keeping it at bay. Amygdalin is a molecule with four components - two of glucose (sugar), one of benzaldehyde and one of cyanide. It seems that the cyanide component of amygdalin is the one that either has everyone hitching up their skirts and running for the hills, or conversely, looking for a way to claim it as their own and using it as a potential cancer cure. It would appear that when the public eats apricot kernels, with the inevitable cyanide component, it may be very dangerous, but when scientists modify the cyanide component, and call it a treatment, it may be quite safe. Confusing isn't it?

On the 7th September 2000, 'The Independent' told us that scientists at Imperial College London had found that the 'magic bullet of cyanide could kill cancer cells'. Apparently, a Dr Deonarain from Imperial College stated that for the first time they had been able to show that they could kill cancer cells using a 'prodrug activation approach' (his words, not mine). The paper described the 'magic bullet' as a cyanide cocktail derived from the cassava plant. Could this be because, along with apricot kernels, the cassava plant also contains B17 (amygdalin)?

However, before we unhitch our skirts and return from the hills we need to know about the 'Fatal dangers of alternative cancer cures on the web' as reported in 'The Sunday Times' (3rd August 2004). It seems that 'thousands of cancer patients are risking their health by following the advice of alternative therapy websites promoting bogus cures'. Edzard Ernst, who is apparently the country's only professor of complementary medicine (clearly a lonely job), called for the government to steer people away from treatments promoted on the mighty interweb! Shockingly, researchers found that dozens of remedies were being promoted as curing or preventing cancer - including shark cartilage, coffee enemas, mistletoe and 'apricot extracts' - scary stuff!

The Sunday Times report clearly demonstrated the sheer foolishness of taking your health into your own hands. And as if their dire warning wasn't enough, in 2006 (11th April), the good old BBC let us know 'Watchdog warns over apricot seeds'. Is there no getting away from apricots! The BBC reported that the Food Standards Agency are concerned that cyanide can be poisonous in high doses, and that we should consume no more than two bitter apricot kernels per day. In the same report, Cancer Research UK (also apparently worried by apricots) warns us that the claims of apricot pips curing cancer are simply not true. They state that 'if simply eating apricot seeds could cure cancer, no one would be more delighted than us'. Perhaps they need to get together with Dr Deonarain from Imperial College?

In order to be able to make an informed judgment about what's actually going on we should really take a look at the science behind the headlines.

The orthodox theory of cancer

As most of us are aware, the conventional view of cancer is that the lump/tumour/growth 'is the cancer' and that this needs to be treated with surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or perhaps hormonal or immunotherapy. The idea is that by shrinking the growth, or cutting it out of the body, the cancer will be gone. This is unless the cancer has metastasised (spread to other areas), in this case another course of treatment may be suggested, or the patient may be told that the cancer has spread too far and nothing more can be done.

The alternative theory of cancer

The alternative view is that the lump/tumour/growth 'is not the cancer' but is the 'symptom' - a sign that something is going wrong with the natural balance of the body. It is thought that once the underlying problem is corrected the growth will simply be reabsorbed into the body. Although, it is agreed that if the growth is not reabsorbed and is unsightly, or so large as to interfere with the normal functioning of a particular area of the body, then it should be removed by surgery.

The growth is not considered to be 'pure cancer' - perhaps as little as 20% is actually cancerous, with the remaining 80% being non-cancerous. It is suggested that the cancerous area of the growth is more resistant to radiotherapy than the noncancerous area and therefore less likely to be destroyed. In other words, the growth may be reduced, but the cancer may still remain and can potentially spread.

If we injure ourselves a healing process starts and the affected cells are replaced with new cells. However, it is thought that cancer is a healing process that has not switched off. In other words, if the body is deficient in something that is essential for homeostasis it may not work effectively and the healing process may just continue going. The result is that the body will start to heal, and then heal again and again until a growth finally appears.

There are apparently two lines of defense against this over-healing process and the development of cancer. The first involves 'Proteolytic enzymes' (enzymes designed to digest protein), which are produced by the pancreas. The two proteolytic enzymes, trypsin and chymotrypsin, dissolve the protective protein coating around cancer cells and this effectively allows the body's white blood cells in to attack and destroy the cancer cells.

The second line of defense against cancer are substances known as nitrilosides. (It is thought that there are more than 800 foods in the nitriloside family). These nitriloside foods contain vitamin B17 (amygdalin) which is made up of four components - two of glucose (sugar), one of benzaldehyde and one of cyanide. The cancer cell wall has an enzyme called beta-glycosidase (also known as the 'unlocking enzyme'). When B17 (amygdalin) and the unlocking enzyme come into contact the cancer cell is destroyed. It's interesting to note that beta-glycosidase is found in cancer cells, and in no other cell in the body (therefore, no other cell can be destroyed). As author G. Edward Griffin points out in his 2005 presentation - 'this is an amazing mechanism of nature that could not have been accidental'. (See references and links below).

Therefore, in this alternative view of cancer, there is no 'cure' because cancer is in fact all part of the natural physiological processes of the body. It is only when the healing cells are allowed to develop unchecked, and our natural lines of defense are down, that it becomes a problem. Some people even feel that we probably develop cancer over and over again during our lives, but on most occasions our defense systems simply deal with it - we never know we have had cancer.

This theory seems to be backed up by G. Edward Griffin's fascinating explanation of the cattle on America's mid-west farms. In an interview for FHV (A Norwegian consumer health freedom organization) Griffin explains the following: In the mid-west part of the united states farmers found that, in the winter months, their cattle would develop cancers in their mouths. However, as the snow melted away and the spring came along, the cattle would start to eat the broad-leafed grasses (rich in B17) and the cancers would simply disappear.

Q & A's

If this theory of cancer is really true, why doesn't my doctor know about it?

This is a controversial subject because there seem to be a number of conflicting or competing interests involved. You might like to watch the second part of G.Edward Griffins explanation of the politics of cancer for a full understanding of why this information appears not to have filtered down to doctors and GP's. You can find this in the references and links section under: The Science and Politics of Cancer 2005, Parts 4 - 7, The politics of cancer therapy: The Pharmaceutical Cartel.

If we have two lines of defense to prevent cancer why would both of these fail?

It seems that our modern diets, full of animal fats and dairy products, use up huge amounts of pancreatic enzymes in order to break down this type of food - thereby depleting stocks when they are needed to combat cancer. There are also other reasons, such as having a condition like 'diabetes', where the pancreas is often weakened and therefore less able to produce these necessary enzymes. There may also be a hereditary factor where, again, the pancreas is weak and therefore unable to function fully or correctly from birth.

The breakdown of our second line of defense may simply be due to the lack of foods from the nitriloside family. Many of these foods often have a bitter taste and therefore may be avoided by most people - consequently they become less available in conventional supermarkets over time. Although, there is also the problem of foods such as bread that used to contain 'Millet flour' (rich in B17/amygdalin), but now mainly contain the cheaper 'wheat flour'.

Can cancer be cured?

The conventional view would be that scientists are definitely looking for a 'cure' for cancer. However, the alternative view of cancer seems to show that it is potentially a metabolic disease caused by natural deficiencies and therefore we need to introduce nitriloside foods back into the diet for the rest of our lives and perhaps think about modifying our diets. This is why people who are concerned about cancer may be focusing on apricot kernels - a food very high in B17/amygdalin.

Many people who hold the alternative view of cancer would compare it to a metabolic disease such as scurvy. Scurvy was only resolved by taking vitamins C, as most people know. However, vitamins C could not be said to be the 'cure' for scurvy because in order to keep the disease at bay you clearly need to consume foods rich in vitamins C for the rest of your life. A 'cure' implies that you just need to correct the problem once and then it is resolved.

Are there other factors involved in the development of cancer?

Yes, it would seem that toxins in our environment and toxins that we take into the body might produce a healing response in the areas that are affected by these toxins. For example, we may damage the lungs if we smoke and this could provoke an over-healing response - which may then not switch off if we are deficient in proteolytic enzymes or nitriloside foodstuffs. This could explain why some people who smoke develop cancer, whilst others don't.

Are there therapists who can use the alternative approach if someone already has cancer?

Yes, we believe that there are therapists who may be able to help. You could try the 'Gerson Support Group UK' or the 'Gerson Institute' - or perhaps the' World Without Cancer' website. (Although, we must stress that 'The Velvet Mind' and 'Andersen Counselling' has no affiliation with any of the websites (or publications) mentioned in this article and do not give medical advice of any kind).

Why is it sometimes suggested that people should eat pineapple and papaya melons to keep cancer at bay?

It's our understanding that these particular fruits mimic the action of some of the proteolytic enzymes - thereby dissolving the protein coating of the cancer cell. Papaya melons as a source of the enzyme papain, and pineapple as a source of the enzyme bromelain.

Are there any books I can buy that show me how to include nitriloside foods in my diet?

Yes, in 1976 a lady called June de Spain (former toxicologist and a pharmacologist for the Federal Food and Drug Administration in the U.S) wrote a book called 'The little cyanide cookbook - delicious recipes rich in vitamin B17'. There was quite a bit of controversy surrounding the writing of this book and her work for the FDA at the time - you might want to search 'Google' to learn more.I believe her book is still available through the 'World without Cancer' website or 'Amazon UK'.