Holy crap Reaper, EXCERPTS!!!
I looked at a couple of the source sites for what you posted (links are awesome, too). They’re mostly conjecture based on a very loose understanding of chemistry, causality, and physiology.
The “medical establishment” isn’t trying to hide the effects of nitriloside. It’s currently being investigated to see if that actually is what’s stopping the cancer in animals.
Report your results to some researchers, though. I’m sure they’d be interested to hear them.
-Dan
I was talking about people dying of cancer,not abotu a war that killed thousands of people.
[quote]PublickStews wrote:
When did I say influenza was cancer? Influenza is influenza. Cancer is Cancer. [/quote]
Sure,they’re testing it on animals,but that doesn’t mean they’re gonna do anything about it. B-17 is very important to people who have cancer.
The FDA tested that out…not to cure people of cancer,but to make sure it works.Then they take out the bitter almond tree in '95,and end up banning laetrile.Na,I’m just too lazy to type everything out,lol.
My good friend that goes to school with me,we both talk about cancer to some docotors.Many of them don’t fully understand because when they went to medical school they were taught how to help people with drugs,not cure cancer like they SHOULD.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Holy crap Reaper, EXCERPTS!!!
No,not really. They may be
I looked at a couple of the source sites for what you posted (links are awesome, too). They’re mostly conjecture based on a very loose understanding of chemistry, causality, and physiology.
The “medical establishment” isn’t trying to hide the effects of nitriloside. It’s currently being investigated to see if that actually is what’s stopping the cancer in animals.
Report your results to some researchers, though. I’m sure they’d be interested to hear them.
-Dan[/quote]
What this whole post boils down to is the fact that although drugs today have made life easier for the overall population, it doesn’t mean that they made life healthier. I have to tell people 24/7 that if they dont eat properly, their body wont run properly, and if their bodies dont run properly, they dont burn fat properly/digest food properly, and through that, cannot even perform daily tasks at 100%.
It just doesn’t happen. This is where supplements come in. This does not give anyone the liscense to eat like shit, it just means that you can help yourself without having to run off to doctor dear for a symptom fixer.
And on the topic of fixing symptoms instead of sources, why is it they give you an antibiotic for a virus? Did I miss something here? What does destroying all of the bacteria in your body(good and bad) have to do with a viral infection in your cells? Or probably my most favorite has to be when someone comes to me suffering with arthritis and tells me their doc told em they should just take some aspirin. Yay…thanks for getting rid of the pain, but wait, if I dont take this I still have pain, Why isn’t it fixed???
Anyways, we could go on and on about this but it really just comes down to misinformation on the general publics part, and the lack of education when it comes to fixing sources instead of symptoms. But LET US NOT FORGET!!! That anyone that believes in an alternative form of treatment is a snakeoil salesman and has only their pocket book in mind(Which doctors and pharmaceutical companies dont!!) and will just end up leading people astray. Blessed am I the snakeoil salesman!
Lol,want some oil?I just don’t talk out of my ass.I’ve been there.It’s kinda like what they do when you get AIDS. They just give ya medication that helps stop the pain,but doesn’t cure the CAUSE.So many people will just have to get sicker and sicker til they realize that.Here is a 90 yr old man.He’s lived his whole life.He’s used SCIENCE. He’s used their medication that they give him,but he ends up sicker.He looks back to when he was a young kid getting his first flu shot and remembers" nothing has changed.I’m not any healthier than I was when I was 21.In fact,I’m sicker." What has become of this? Sickness and a empty bank account. Then when there is nothing else they can do they ,in a nice way,tell you to fuck off after taking your money.
I have some problems with Reaper’s description of this supposed B17:
[quote]The_Grim_Reaper wrote:
Since the seeds of fruits are possibly edible, it may be proper to designate the non-toxic water soluble accessory food factor or nitriloside that they contain as vitamin B-17[/quote]
POSSIBLY edible? Is that adequate justification? Laetrile is potentially dangerous, according to some sources that I’ve read, and not considered a vitamin in the least by nutrition professionals.
Ubiquity does not necessarily qualify a substance as a vitamin.
Such as? Specifics.
Is this fact or another typical assumption about primitive man?
Acetone? Bezaldehyde? How safe are these metabolites? And what determines if nitrolisides become hydrogen cyanide and benzaldehyde or acetone and sugar?
Also, by definition, vitamins do not in themselves yield energy.
RELATIVELY nontoxic? Compared to what?
Is it definately exposed to oxygen in the body, or is this an assumption?
Dosage is much more difficult to control through food. Bioavailability is a complex matter.
Yes this can be debated. Just because someone consumes a substance, does not mean that they will metabolize it efficiently or use it at all.
Even with admirable, adequate diets, people still develop disease! Neural tube defects still occur in mothers who receive adequate folate in the first trimester; type 1 diabetes still has no known cause; and there are countless other congenital disorders that appear to be highly genetic rather than dietary related.
Now, I am a HUGE proponent of the idea -which increasingly is being understood as fact - that diet is the number one determinant of health and longevity. However, I also understand that there are genetic limitations to what diet can do.
This is like saying that scientists have figured everything out, which is certainly not the case.
Yes, because exceptions do exist.
Opinion. Nice.
No.
Dimly discern? Sounds confident.
Also, is there a dietary need for salicylates? We use aspirin to shield problems caused by other circumstances: infections, or, as in the case with heart disease prevention, poor diet. If diet is in check, and the immune system is functioning properly, wouldn’t their be no need for salicylates?
Poor example. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is potentially toxic, and as an antioxidant, probably does more for cancer prevention than nitrolisides. And dextrose is not toxic. It’s glucose.
Even diabetics need glucose.
Since we’ve known about thiamin for a while, Professor Williams must have lived during the early 1900’s, no? Well, at that time, the bleaching agents used in white bread were toxic. I believe those bleaching agents are no longer used.
P.S. I’m not advocating white bread.
This study does not show that the bread was toxic; it merely shows that it was not nutrient-dense enough to support life. Duh.
First of all, this is relevant to rats, not necessarily humans. Second, is 90 days adequate time? Third, if the rats were fed food containing nitrolisides, which includes fruits and cereal grains, of course they are going to be healthy and gain wieght; those foods have a gambit of nutrients. In what form did they ingest the nutrient? That is important.
Man doesn’t eat only fruit and survive. Therefore he does not need to eat the seeds and kernals. Proteins, oils, and minerals (which the flesh does contain anyway)are found in other food sources in better amounts and forms. This example does not in the least qualify nitrolisides.
Are the vitamin C and nitrolisides both found in the edible parts of the plant?
Pernicious anemia is the result of a defiency in intrinsic factor, a substance produced by the stomach that is essential for vitamin B12 absorption. Pernicious anemia is not related to how much B12 is in the body; that is megaloblastic anemia.
Wait, isn’t hydrogen cyanide metabolized into a non-toxic form, a reason for this compund’s supposed safety? How can it fight cancer if it is metabolized? Is it metabolize or not?
HAHAHAHA! No, we’re not dealing with a vitamin, and I love how he uses the “vitamin” label as proof of its safety.
Yes, there is.
So if this is true, then we have to develop cancer for nitrolisides to be safe for our bodies. Then why is the author contending that a deficiency leads to cancer, so consume more nitolisides? Contradiciton.
How do we know the cyanides stay with the cancer cells and are not transported throughout the body, damaging other body cells?
[quote]But in the United States there is one “school of nutritional thought” that, despite all this, sought to append the following statement to the labels of all bottles of vitamins:
“Vitamins and minerals are supplied in abundant amounts by the foods we eat. The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council recommends that dietary needs be satisfied by foods. Except for persons with special needs, there is no scientific basis for recommending routine use of dietary supplements.”[/quote]
There is nothing wrong with this statement. Vitamin and mineral supplements are in doses that far exceed requirements, posing a potential danger. For instance, at one time (I don’t know if thisis still true), but the smallest dosage of vitamin B6 available was 100mg. This is the Tolerable Upper Limit for B6. Beyond that, neurological disorders have been observed.
The government may be after money, but guess what…Supplement companies are too, moreso than the government. They are a business, and they often exploit unknowing people who are seeking cures, just like drug companies.
This is healthy food, period, not just nitroliside rich-food. How can he differentiate between the other vitamins and minerals these foods provide and the nitrolisides in observing improved health? Scientists have a hard time doing that now with well-known vitamins.
This is loaded language, and the author has used it continually throughout this essay. What is the origin of this essay, and who is the author?
Reaper,
I acknowledge your hardships and the realizations you have made about the workings of this country. I stand behind you on some of your positions. However, I feel that you are at times too zealous, causing you to say irresponsible things.
For instance, the Food Guide Pyramid DOES NOT tell us to eat processed food.
Americans are fat and sick despite government recommendations not because the recommendations are wrong, but because people don’t follow them.
Also, manufacturers do not use high fructose corn syrup because it makes people fat; they use it becuase fructose is the sweetest sugar and has a synergistic effect on sweetness with sucrose, thereby decreasing the amount of sugar needed in processing. Also, fructose is the most soluble sugar, making it the best choice for avoiding sugar precipitation in beverages.
Again, I urge you to be more responsible in what you say. Not everything is a conspiracy, and supplement companies like ones that advocate “B-17” are not without their own ignoble motives.
Angel,you’re nothing but a loser. There have been thousands of people who have been cured with the help of laetrile.You think your opinion matters? [quote]
Angelbutt wrote:
I have some problems with Reaper’s description of this supposed B17:
The_Grim_Reaper wrote:
Since the seeds of fruits are possibly edible, it may be proper to designate the non-toxic water soluble accessory food factor or nitriloside that they contain as vitamin B-17
POSSIBLY edible? Is that adequate justification? Laetrile is potentially dangerous, according to some sources that I’ve read, and not considered a vitamin in the least by nutrition professionals.
The ubiquity of the compound or its metabolites in plant and animal foods further corroborates its vitamin status.
Ubiquity does not necessarily qualify a substance as a vitamin.
And the development of specific deficiency states as a result of its deficiency in or absence from the diet, and the correction of such pathologic deficiency states by supplying the factor confirm its vitamin status.
Such as? Specifics.
The diet of primitive man and most fruit-eating animals was very rich in nitrilosides. They regularly ate the seeds (and kernels) of all fruits, since these seeds are rich in protein, polyunsaturated fats, and other nutrients.
Is this fact or another typical assumption about primitive man?
In metabolism, nitriloside is hydrolyzed to free hydrogen cyanide, benzaldehyde or acetone and sugar.
Acetone? Bezanldehyde? How safe are these metabolites? And what determines if nitrolisides become hydrogen cyanide and benzaldehyde or acetone and sugar?
Also, by definition, vitamins do not in themselves yield energy.
The released HCN [hydrocyanide] is detoxified by the enzyme rhodanese to the relatively non-toxic thiocyanate molecule. The sugar is normally metabolized.
RELATIVELY nontoxic? Compared to what?
The released benzaldehyde in the presence of oxygen is immediately oxidized to benzoic acid which is non-toxic.
Is it definately exposed to oxygen in the body, or is this an assumption?
Recall now, that thiocyanate also was once widely used, in both Germany and American medicine, as an effective agent for hypertension. Used as such, as the simple chemical, the dosage was difficult to control. Obviously, this difficulty does not arise from the thiocyanate usually produced in the body through metabolizing vitamin B-17 (nitriloside).
Dosage is much more difficult to control through food. Bioavailability is a complex matter.
One can hardly deny that the ingestion of a sufficient quantity of nitriloside-containing foods will metabolically yield sufficient benzoic acid and/or salicylic acid isomers to palliate rheumatic disease and certainly to decrease, however temporarily, hypertension as well as to foster the nitrilosation of provitamin B-12 to active vitamin B-12: cyanocobalamin.
Yes this can be debated. Just because someone consumes a substance, does not mean that they will metabolize it efficiently or use it at all.
Despite all this, are we justified in suggesting that cancer itself might be another chronic metabolic disease that arises from a specific vitamin deficiency–a deficiency specifically in vitamin B-17 (nitriloside)?
Why? There’s no explanation.
Now I ask you to name a single chronic or metabolic disease that has ever found total prevention and cure except by specific dietary factors and/or factors normal to adequate animal economy.
Even with admirable, adequate diets, people still develop disease! Neural tube defects still occur in mothers who receive adequate folate in the first trimester; type 1 diabetes still has no known cause; and there are countless other congenital disorders that appear to be highly genetic rather than dietary related.
Now, I am a HUGE proponent of the idea -which increasingly is being understood as fact - that diet is the number one determinant of health and longevity. However, I also understand that there are genetic limitations to what diet can do.
No chronic or metabolic disease has ever found cure or prevention, that is, real cure and real prevention–except through factors essential to an adequate diet and/or normal to animal economy.
This is like saying that scientists have figured everything out, which is certainly not the case.
Does it seem likely, therefore, that cancer will be the first exception to this generalization that to date has not had a single known exception?
Yes, because exceptions do exist.
*Author’s footnote: Dr. Dean Burk’s paper was in the same program, also a report on the pharmacodynamics and clinical application of vitamin B-17 nitriloside (amygdalin) by Dr. Hans Nieper, a brilliant young man who combines an excellent ability in biochemistry with a genius in clinical medicine, in my opinion.
Opinion. Nice.
As already mentioned, vitamin B-17 (Laetrile) is totally non-toxic.
No.
For example, millet, mentioned above, once more widely used than wheat, yields the salicylic acid isomer para-hydroxybenzoic acid, which arises as the metabolic product of its nitriloside: p-hydroxymandelonitrile-B-glucoside. In this you can discern, however dimly, the dietary-therapeutic profile of the salicylates as a means of satisfying a dietary deficiency in benzoic acid and the related salicylic acid isomers.
Dimly discern? Sounds confident.
Also, is there a dietary need for salicylates? We use aspirin to shield problems caused by other circumstances: infections, or, as in the case with heart disease prevention, poor diet. If diet is in check, and the immune system is functioning properly, wouldn’t their be no need for salicylates?
Returning to the non-toxicity of nitriloside; it is no more toxic than dextrose or ascorbic acid–and to the diabetic less toxic than the former.
Poor example. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is potentially toxic, and as an antioxidant, probably does more for cancer prevention than nitrolisides. And dextrose is not toxic. It’s glucose.
Even diabetics need glucose.
I have noticed that newspapers are carrying wire dispatches reporting the studies of Professor Roger Williams of the University of Texas. He is quoted on the “toxicity” of commercial white bread as sold in the United States.
You will recall that Doctor Williams is the discoverer of vitamin B-1 or thiamine; and the first to synthesize it. Doctor Williams, in effect, showed that commercial white bread as sold in the United States is about 70 times more toxic than vitamin B-17.
Since we’ve known about thiamin for a while, Professor Williams must have lived during the early 1900’s, no? Well, at that time, the bleaching agents used in white bread were toxic. I believe those bleaching agents are no longer used.
P.S. I’m not advocating white bread.
Doctor Williams fed four strains of white rats (noted for their vigor), nothing but commercial American white bread for three months. Seventy-five per cent of all the experimental animals so fed died of malnutrition before the experiment was complete. Those fed on whole wheat all survived.
The commercial white bread was enriched by law with some crystalline vitamins, but not in a sufficient quantity and variety to prevent these rats being killed by the bread.
This study does not show that the bread was toxic; it merely shows that it was not nutrient-dense enough to support life. Duh.
So how about vitamin B-17 toxicity studies? White rats fed 70 times the normal human dose of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) used in the palliation of human cancer were completely normal and healthy after 90 days. None of them died.
There were some “physiological side reactions” to vitamin B-17–greater weight and appetite. After all they were receiving nourishment; a vitamin, not a vitamin-deficient ration or a drug.
First of all, this is relevant to rats, not necessarily humans. Second, is 90 days adequate time? Third, if the rats were fed food containing nitrolisides, which includes fruits and cereal grains, of course they are going to be healthy and gain wieght; those foods have a gambit of nutrients. In what form did they ingest the nutrient? That is important.
When civilized man eats less than the whole fruit, for example, by discarding the seed or kernel he experiences a specific and total deficiency not only in oils and proteins but in minerals and such vitamins as vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) which is found only in the seed, not in the flesh of the fruit.
Man doesn’t eat only fruit and survive. Therefore he does not need to eat the seeds and kernals. Proteins, oils, and minerals (which the flesh does contain anyway)are found in other food sources in better amounts and forms. This example does not in the least qualify nitrolisides.
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.
Are the vitamin C and nitrolisides both found in the edible parts of the plant?
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?
Pernicious anemia is the result of a defiency in intrinsic factor, a substance produced by the stomach that is essential for vitamin B12 absorption. Pernicious anemia is not related to how much B12 is in the body; that is megaloblastic anemia.
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.
Wait, isn’t hydrogen cyanide metabolized into a non-toxic form, a reason for this compund’s supposed safety? How can it fight cancer if it is metabolized? Is it metabolize or not?
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.
HAHAHAHA! No, we’re not dealing with a vitamin, and I love how he uses the “vitamin” label as proof of its safety.
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.
Yes, there is.
He reports that the malignant mammary tissue selectively hydrolyzes the added nitriloside to free cyanide, benzaldehyde and sugar with a highly effective cytotoxicity; and that this does not occur in benign or somatic control mammary tissue!
This experimental observation means, of course, that the neoplastic tissue carries a specific Beta-glucosidase activity that normal or somatic tissue lacks, which lack here is obvious in view of the total non-toxicity of the material toward normal tissue.
So if this is true, then we have to develop cancer for nitrolisides to be safe for our bodies. Then why is the author contending that a deficiency leads to cancer, so consume more nitolisides? Contradiciton.
This selective effect occurs in a cell that is almost totally deficient in the enzyme rhodanese, which in normal body cells is present to detoxify cyanide to thiocyanate. Thus the end result of the presence of one enzyme that causes the selective release of hydrogen cyanide in cancer cells,
How do we know the cyanides stay with the cancer cells and are not transported throughout the body, damaging other body cells?
But in the United States there is one “school of nutritional thought” that, despite all this, sought to append the following statement to the labels of all bottles of vitamins:
“Vitamins and minerals are supplied in abundant amounts by the foods we eat. The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council recommends that dietary needs be satisfied by foods. Except for persons with special needs, there is no scientific basis for recommending routine use of dietary supplements.”
There is nothing wrong with this statement. Vitamin and mineral supplements are in doses that far exceed requirements, posing a potential danger. For instance, at one time (I don’t know if thisis still true), but the smallest dosage of vitamin B6 available was 100mg. This is the Tolerable Upper Limit for B6. Beyond that, neurological disorders have been observed.
The government may be after money, but guess what…Supplement companies are too, moreso than the government. They are a business, and they often exploit unknowing people who are seeking cures, just like drug companies.
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.
This is healthy food, period, not just nitroliside rich-food. How can he differentiate between the other vitamins and minerals these foods provide and the nitrolisides in observing improved health? Scientists have a hard time doing that now with well-known vitamins.
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.
This is loaded language, and the author has used it continually throughout this essay. What is the origin of this essay, and who is the author?
Reaper,
I acknowledge your hardships and the realizations you have made about the workings of this country. I stand behind you on some of your positions. However, I feel that you are at times too zealous, causing you to say irresponsible things.
For instance, the Food Guide Pyramid DOES NOT tell us to eat processed food.
Americans are fat and sick despite government recommendations not because the recommendations are wrong, but because people don’t follow them.
Also, manufacturers do not use high fructose corn syrup because it makes people fat; they use it becuase fructose is the sweetest sugar and has a synergistic effect on sweetness with sucrose, thereby decreasing the amount of sugar needed in processing. Also, fructose is the most soluble sugar, making it the best choice for avoiding sugar precipitation in beverages.
Again, I urge you to be more responsible in what you say. Not everything is a conspiracy, and supplement companies like ones that advocate “B-17” are not without their own ignoble motives.
[/quote]
“Even with admirable, adequate diets, people still develop disease!”- Angel . What do you call a adequate diet? Diet coke,slim fast bars,and and diet pills? Lmao.
You know nothing.Thousands of people use natural methods everyday because they get BETTER results.Just like my asthma.I could let my doctor keep giving me a bunch of drugs for the rest of my life and get sicker.
Or I could treat the root-cause of the problem.Your ignorance isn’t anything new angel.What,you think you’re so special with your egregious remarks? This post talks about natural methods,not the latest drug that hit the market.
Go to your docotr for that.
“vitamins do not in themselves yield energy?” They actually make energy you retard.
“This study does not show that the bread was toxic; it merely shows that it was not nutrient-dense enough to support life. Duh.”-angel but licker.
No shit! You don’t say! Thats what we’re talking about. It was nutrient dense.They couldn’t live off of nutrient dense bread. Some get cancer.
Thats what we were trying to prove.Not that bread is toxic. Because cancer it’s self could be a
deficiency in vitamin b-17. P.s.,go back and finish third grade.
When civilized man eats less than the whole fruit, for example, by discarding the seed or kernel he experiences a specific and total deficiency not only in oils and proteins but in minerals and such vitamins as vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) which is found only in the seed, not in the flesh of the fruit.
Man doesn’t eat only fruit and survive. Therefore he does not need to eat the seeds and kernals. Proteins, oils, and minerals (which the flesh does contain anyway)are found in other food sources in better amounts and forms. This example does not in the least qualify nitrolisides. -ANGEL BUT LICKER.
That doesn’t say just to eat nothing but fruit.See,read it.Right up there where it says,quote,"When civilized man eats less than the whole fruit, for example, by discarding the seed or kernel he experiences a specific and total deficiency NOT ONLY IN OILS AND PROTEINS but in minerals and such vitamins as vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) which is found only in the seed, not in the flesh of the fruit.
It is saying that people,by leaving out the most important part of the fruit(the seed), they’re missing out on such an important part of nature;and on important health benefits.
Duh!
[quote]The_Grim_Reaper wrote:
Your ignorence[/quote]
lol
Wow Reaper.
You are clearly capable of handling intelligent discourse without becoming offensive or insulting.
Good luck trying to get anyone to take you seriously.
If you can’t handle inquiries into what you contend and refuse to believe anything other than what you choose, you are no better than the doctors you continually degrade.
Holy hell reaper… did you post while under the influence of being punched in the face by an angry clown or something?
Angelbutt knows what she’s talking about. See, she does this thing called “reading factual information” about chemistry and also “correctly interpreting what others have posted.” You should try it sometime. It makes you look a lot less juvenile and does wonders for maintaining credibility.
I also happen to know for a fact she doesn’t lick “but.”
There are a few things I’d like you to address about what you wrote if it’s possible.
See - you posted that that’s the case. I’m “reading what you wrote.”
As a follow up, what is the incidence of Adverse Events among users of the drug? What are the side effects? Interactions? I can’t find the info on a Google search.
What would you consider an adequate diet? Just curious.
It’s also a pretty far leap to call someone with better sentence structure than you retarded. And just mean.
5)Do you have any idea how cause and effect operates (have I asked that before)? How does feeding mice only bread show humans are deficient in this supposed vitamin? It shows eating only bread is stupid, as Angelbutt said.
Please respond with complete sentences and rational thought or not at all.
-Dan
As a side note, if you’re the kind of person this sort of therapy has espousing it, no wonder mainstream medicine hasn’t taken to it. You come across as a batshit crazy idiot when you communicate.
You’re the one coming in here telling me and the others about YOUR opinion.After all, thats all it is. I’m talking about natural methods with my friends.Not you! If you do not like what this post is about then don’t post anything.So,if anyone is ignorant and acting like a little kid it is you.I really don’t care what you think.Please go tell DR. Phil or someone who cares. [quote]Angelbutt wrote:
Wow Reaper.
You are clearly capable of handling intelligent discourse without becoming offensive or insulting.
Good luck trying to get anyone to take you seriously.
If you can’t handle inquiries into what you contend and refuse to believe anything other than what you choose, you are no better than the doctors you continually degrade.[/quote]
Buff,I’m sure you know all about retards.I’m not the one being ignorant.I’m talking with some people on here about natural methods.These natural methods have worked for me,and others.She’s coming in here telling me that I’m wrong.Please tell me who is the egotist? I won’t respect someone(like angel) that comes into MY post telling me THEIR opinions.
If you call third grade writing “good” sentence structure than I guess you’re right.Please understand that your opinions are NOT indisputable facts.Although this seems a little elusive to you,please try to understand that this is a post.While we discuss some things that you MAY NOT agree with,don’t come in here with an attitude.We don’t need another chauvinist. Stephen.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Holy hell reaper… did you post while under the influence of being punched in the face by an angry clown or something?
Angelbutt knows what she’s talking about. See, she does this thing called “reading factual information” about chemistry and also “correctly interpreting what others have posted.” You should try it sometime. It makes you look a lot less juvenile and does wonders for maintaining credibility.
I also happen to know for a fact she doesn’t lick “but.”
There are a few things I’d like you to address about what you wrote if it’s possible.
When civilized man eats less than the whole fruit, for example, by discarding the seed or kernel he experiences a specific and total deficiency NOT ONLY IN OILS AND PROTEINS but in minerals and such vitamins as vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) which is found only in the seed, not in the flesh of the fruit.
See - you posted that that’s the case. I’m “reading what you wrote.”
As a follow up, what is the incidence of Adverse Events among users of the drug? What are the side effects? Interactions? I can’t find the info on a Google search.
Whtat do you call a adequate diet? Diet coke,slim fast bars,and and diet pills? Lmao.
What would you consider an adequate diet? Just curious.
“vitamins do not in themselves yield energy?” They actually make energy you retard.
It’s also a pretty far leap to call someone with better sentence structure than you retarded. And just mean.
5)Do you have any idea how cause and effect operates (have I asked that before)? How does feeding mice only bread show humans are deficient in this supposed vitamin? It shows eating only bread is stupid, as Angelbutt said.
Please respond with complete sentences and rational thought or not at all.
-Dan
As a side note, if you’re the kind of person this sort of therapy has espousing it, no wonder mainstream medicine hasn’t taken to it. You come across as a batshit crazy idiot when you communicate.
[/quote]
An adequate diet,in my opinion,is: a good,sound nutrition plan that includes whole foods,fruits,protein,vegetables,grains,and foods that have ingredients that you can pronounce.
Wow Angel. Someone really needs to learn how to read. Got a hint? I degrade doctors?Show me one post that has me degrading doctors.I was degrading the ,say it with me,“pharmaceutical companies.” Huge difference. All I was saying is that doctors are misinformed(which is my opinion). If you don’t like my opinion then don’t come in here telling me your opinions.I would be lying if I didn’t call you a hypocrite.You’re acting very much like a seven year old kid.Actually,I shouldn’t say that.I’ve seen seven year olds who act more like adults. [quote]Angelbutt wrote:
Wow Reaper.
You are clearly capable of handling intelligent discourse without becoming offensive or insulting.
Good luck trying to get anyone to take you seriously.
If you can’t handle inquiries into what you contend and refuse to believe anything other than what you choose, you are no better than the doctors you continually degrade.[/quote]
This is absurd.
Reaper, I’m not arguing with you about the effectiveness of natural methods. I believe they work, and I think they are better than pharmeceutical drugs in many cases.
I’m trying to determine the validity of the article you posted about B17. I have legitimate questions, which you have not been able to answer because you instead choose to make up arguments, put words in my mouth, and call me names.
Just address my questions like a rational person or let it go.
Angel,you guys are telling me that I’m acting like a thirteen year old kid when you’re coming into this post talking to us like we’re full of B.S…I’m sorry if I pissed you off,but please try to understand where we’re coming from. Reaper.
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
This is absurd.
Reaper, I’m not arguing with you about the effectiveness of natural methods. I believe they work, and I think they are better than pharmeceutical drugs in many cases.
I’m trying to determine the validity of the article you posted about B17. I have legitimate questions, which you have not been able to answer because you instead choose to make up arguments, put words in my mouth, and call me names.
Just address my questions like a rational person or let it go. [/quote]