The story of Laetrile and Trophoblast theory...
Could "Trophoblast Theory" Explain Cancer?
Is cancer an actual disease... or a little-understood natural healing mechanism? This may at first sound like a sick question, especially to all who have suffered from cancer. However, it might be wise to consider the facts.This theory was first proposed by Professor of embryology Dr John Beard in 1902 and is known as the trophoblastic thesis of cancer. Suggesting...
- Tumour is a response to a cellular crisis (repair)
- Repair is not halted due to chronic enzyme deficiency
- And...vitamin B17 deficiency
- These deficiencies prevent immune system attack
- Result: uncontrolled tumour growth (cancer)
Dr Beard published "The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer" in 1911. His story details one reason why it has taken so many years for enzyme therapy to be a recognised form of cancer therapy.
Dr. Beard was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1905. He claimed that the body’s main defence against cancer is the protein dissolving enzyme trypsin, manufactured by the pancreas. He proved his theory by injecting human tumours with enzymes from a young calf. The tumours died. Later another doctor tried to replicate the experiment from a cow. The experiment failed. Dr. Beard’s theory was debunked. Later it was learnt that the older cow had lost most of its trypsin enzymes. (Thus guaranteed to fail)
The new era of radiation treatment begins...
Unfortunately, at about the same time, Marie Curie came along with her stunning new theory of radiation treatment for cancer....and the worlds attention was thus deflected by this apparent miracle of modern science....and the rest is history.
Although released by a major London publisher to some very positive reviews, Beards book was quickly forgotten as the scientific community and the media enthusiastically latched on to Madame Curie’s revolutionary claim that radiation represented a simple, easy, non-toxic cure for cancer!
THEORY: In a nutshell...
Trophoblastic cells are present at the beginning of life as the embryo starts to take hold and set up shop. These cells are fast growing and spread rapidly, and according to scientists, are apparently identical to cancer cells. What's more, the body retains trophoblastic cells throughout life. The theory is that these cells have a secondary role, and become first responders when any internal damage is created, whereby the crisis is sealed off and repaired by these trophoblast cells. Obviously it's vital that this action stops when the job is successfully completed. However, to stop this "rapid response mechanism", requires adequate supply of vital enzymes, as produced by your pancreas. (coincidentally, trophoblast activity is arrested at the exact point that the foetus has a functional pancreas, and starts to produce such enzymes.) The enzymes then strip the trophoblast cells of their protective protein coating, which otherwise stops the immune system from terminating them. It's game over once the immune system is unleashed without restriction.
(The fact that the immune system cannot attack cancer cells has baffled medical science for many years. The reason, according to this theory, is that cancer is not a foreign invasion, but part of self, so is not attacked. The only unlocking mechanism being pancreatic enzymes.)
Arrest of this healing mechanism (potential cancer) requires:
1/ Sufficient pancreatic enzymes,
2/ A healthy immune system,
3/ A food substance called vitamin B17.
(Vitamin B17 is a nitriloside found in many foods, - especially more primitive diets - eaten where cancer is coincidentally very rare. B17 - if present - is said to finish the job, should the first two fail.)
(This is natures "OFF SWITCH" for cancer / trophoblast)
Being deficient in any of these things, will thus mean trophoblast cells, in the event of internal damage, will deploy, but then continue in a (dangerous) uncontrolled fashion! A tumour is thus formed, and continues unabated.
In other words, according to this theory, cancer is simply unarrested trophoblast calls, which continue growing and thus form a tumour, should the above 3 stated elements be deficient or inadequate.
This short video gives a much better explanation...and in great detail
The estrogen link: (Also known as oestrogen)
It is also interesting to note that, according to G. Edward Griffin, in his book World Without Cancer, the hormone estrogen is a major stimulator for healing and also trophoblast activity, so, (as is known to happen) an unhealthy abundance of estrogen would obviously tend to promote cancer. (in the right circumstances) This is actually known to be true. For example, those taking contraceptive pills containing estrogen are three times more prone to cancer! Further evidence to support this thesis.
(i.e. Oestrogen (and other hormones) promote trophoblast cell activity, as required for quick healing or repair of the cellular damage involved, but due to a variety of deficiencies - as outlined above - this rapid healing mechanism is not arrested as nature intended, but continues without restriction.)
Why has medical science disregarded this theory?
Does it hold water? To my mind it certainly does.
At least until I see cast iron evidence that disproves it. This theory was first proposed by Professor of embryology John Beard in 1902 and is known as the trophoblastic thesis of cancer. It is this theory that's at the heart of Vitamin B17 treatment for cancer, and the theory of how it might work.
The passages below might explain why most people have never heard of this theory or B17 cancer treatment... (wikipedia on the topic of Laetrile / B17 trials)
Wikipedia... Might imply foul play regarding B17 trials!B17 Leatrile trials:
In 1981 the National Cancer Institute sponsored four clinical trials of Laetrile. A report about these clinical trials was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 1982. That report reads, in part, "One hundred seventy-eight patients with cancer were treated with amygdalin (Laetrile) plus a 'metabolic therapy' program consisting of diet, enzymes, and vitamins... No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement, or stabilization of cancer, improvement of symptoms related to cancer, or extension of life span... Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment."
However, the validity of this clinical trial has been challenged. In a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Michael L. Culbert asserted that these clinical trials did not use pure amygdalin but instead used a "degraded or decomposed form of it (the putative 'RS-epimer racemic mixture')". James Cason, who served as a professor of Chemistry at the University of California at Berkeley from 1945 to 1983, reviewed an infrared spectrum of the amygdalin (Laetrile) that was used in these clinical trials. He wrote, "The amygdalin (Laetrile) used for these tests actually could not have contained more than 15% amygdalin, since its infrared spectrum (supplied by the FDA) showed no detectable absorption at about 4.4 mu, the position of absorption by the nitrile group. Ergo, there is no evidence that the 'amygdalin' used for the tests contained any amygdalin. An authentic sample of amygdalin shows absorption at this wavelength, as it must".
After the conclusion of the N.C.I.-sponsored clinical trials of Laetrile, Time Magazine published an article titled "Laetrile flunks", with the subtitle "Test shows cancer quackery". The article quotes Robert Bradford of the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy: "The whole thing, as far as we are concerned, is a put-up deal to discredit Laetrile." The article also quotes Charles Moertel of the Mayo Clinic: "We like to be optimistic about the good sense of the public ... But we are not going to stop some people from chasing rainbows".
To this day, Laetrile advocates defend the effectiveness of Laetrile as a treatment for cancer, while the proponents of orthodox medical practises assert that Laetrile is ineffective and toxic. Helene G. Brown, a past-president of the California Division of the American Cancer Society, has succinctly stated the position of orthodox medicine: "Laetrile is goddamned quackery!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paul61485/Krebs (My highlighting)
Foul play? Or disinterested science at its worst? Or...fraud?
One way or another, they ensured a negative result would be announced to the world. Were the cancer patients involved purposely given something diluted so much it was guaranteed to fail? Were they sacrificed as pawns in the game?
The book "World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17" by G Edward Griffin, provides strong evidence and great information that everyone should read.
People unfamiliar with B-17's remarkable results often poor scorn on such alternative treatment.
Griffin admits candidly, B-17 is not a magic bullet cure-all; it is a key component in a holistic regimen that requires serious lifestyle changes and serious commitment.
The fact that the FDA outlawed laetrile is not proof that it fails to cure cancer; an open minded individual might ask, "Is there any scientific evidence proving that laetrile can cure cancer?"
Griffin provides this evidence. (A lot) His favoured thesis is that cancer is a vitamin deficiency disease analogous to scurvy, and that mainstream "treatments"for cancer - such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are the REAL "quackery" analogous to bloodletting. The book is divided into two parts; one which defines cancer and its cure, and a second that explains how and why this knowledge has been suppressed. Amazon feedback from readers of this book is excellent.
Three books on the subject of laetrile / B17. You can also read reviews from these links, to obtain greater insight.
What does all this mean in practical terms?It is a well known problem. Cancer cells (thats to say tumours) are protected from the immune system by a special protein coating that acts as a biological shield. (A single stray cancer cell is prone, and does not have sufficient protection from a (healthy) immune system, which will take it out.
According to this theory, in order to reverse cancer, we need to allow pancreatic enzymes (which uncloak cancer cells by digesting their protective barrier) to do their important job, without undue restriction. This will unleash the immune system, which can now identify the problem and attack as nature intended. We can also ensure victory by consuming B17 to help finish the elimination of the tumour...
Here are 62 case histories proving beyond any doubt that Laetrile (Vitamin B17) works in the control of cancer. These are not anecdotal stories or cases of people who never had cancer in the first place. Each history is authenticated by a firm diagnosis and meticulous medical documentation. This new, updated and revised edition includes a follow up 30 years after the patients were diagnosed with incurable cancer. Proof is in the actual life-span of these people who, previously, had been told by their doctors that they had just a few months or weeks to live. This book also recounts the personal battle of Dr. John Richardson who incurred the wrath of orthodox medicine when he and his patients elected to use vitamin therapy instead of surgery, drugs, and radiation as the treatment of choice.
Below is what I have tended to do myselfFor several weeks...or longer
* Eat absolutely NO animal protein ( this uses up vital pancreatic enzymes that could otherwise act on malignant cells)
* Eat an anti-cancer diet involving mainly vegetables and some fruit. (preferably organic)
* Eat apricot kernels (several throughout the day)
Obviously treating cancer using this type of approach is a lot more involved than this, (depending on ones position or stage of cancer, and where the tumour might be) but this is the basic theory.
I personally tend to use this approach to stop cancer coming back or recurring. But also use a number of other tactics too.
Conclusion:My position on this theory is that it sounds perfectly feasible. The explanation for the recent cancer epidemic could conceivably be due to:
A/ Gross lack of Vitamin B17 in modern diet - which is a major protection factor.
B/ Too much animal protein in modern diet, consuming/diminishing vital pancreatic enzymes.
C/ An immune system* that cannot destroy trophoblast/cancer cells (after cellular repair) as nature intended, due to lack of enzymes to expose the enemy ready for programed elimination.
COULD THIS SIMPLE MECHANISM HAVE BEEN IGNORED OR OVER-LOOKED BY MODERN MEDICINE?
Example of how this may work: Imagine the lungs of a lifetime smoker, black with tar...as we have all seen pictures of. Eventually this hugely unhealthy situation may result in a crisis, whereby this chemical infested sludge eats or burns into surrounding lung tissue, (such as it might if it were on the back of your hand for a long period) and thus threaten the life of the host. Should such chemical sludge get directly into the bloodstream, then it would probably be fatal within a very short period. Therefore, the body resorts to a rapid repair healing mechanism employing trophoblast, sealing off the crisis to form a repair. Failure to arrest this repair mechanism at the right time results in uncontrolled trophoblast, which we refer to as a tumour.
This theory may or may not be true. There may be other factors yet unknown. In any event, it's a theory that has yet to be disproved.
*Note: The immune system can also be handicapped by a number of other different things too, such as emotional stress, physical stress, high sugar intake, poor diet, etc etc.
Logical Point: It seems perfectly logical that the body should have evolved an automatic mechanism for healing and repairing internal injury or biological crisis, - as it does with external injury - which we take for granted every time we cut ourselves, etc. But just as external cuts and burns heal partly due to air exposure, internal damage may require a variety of nutrients and enzymes for perfect repair to take place.
According to Bill Henderson, (Author of Cancer-Free: Your Guide to Non-Toxic Healing) on B17.(Laetrile/Amygdalin/Vitamin B17)
"A good example is Laetrile. I believe that Laetrile has helped thousands of cancer patients since it was first discovered in 1953".
He goes on to explain its merits and proof of effectiveness etc. However he concludes with this warning:
Why Not Self-Treat With Laetrile?
In other words, it involves a rather complex protocol to be strictly followed, and is best done via a clinic or under supervision.
So although it seems to have significant merit, it is not recommended unless you can find a clinic that specialises in this treatment, and is well commended.
In my view, eating apricot kernels is a bit of an insurance policy to keep cancer away, as per the above theory. They are very cheap, and available on Amazon or eBay. Yes they don't taste great, but you get used to the bitter taste. Alternatively try (Laetrile, Amygdalin)
B17 tablets...available in 100mg or 500mg, also available from Amazon.
I tend to eat a few apricot kernels from time to time to ensure I have this protective factor, and no vitamin B17 deficiency. I believe it to be an excellent way to PREVENT cancer, and prevent it coming back, or spreading to new areas.
Top physicist suggests current cancer theory is wrong Recently, the National Cancer Institute conscripted a top theoretical physicist without any medical knowledge or training, to crack cancer. Professor Paul Davies and his team of leading scientists have come to some startling conclusions.
His talk on cancer can be seen in this post, where amazingly, his conclusions on cancer suggest Orthodox medicine has got it wrong, and much of his theory on cancer has much in common with alternative cancer doctors and writers! (The ones commonly referred to as quacks!!) Read more - and see video...
Strangely, his theory has a lot in common with the above theory!!