I've heard of it in the early '70s. The idea was developed in the '30s. So why isn't it being pushed? (Then again, it took centuries after Jacques Cartier's encounter with the cure for scurvy before vitamin C was accepted.
Today, there are many nutrients and food substances that are being shown to have some effect on the treatment of cancer, but all these nutrients have other functions as well and their role in cancer just seems secondary.
This nutrient I've heard about, now that I think about it, seems to have no other function except to kill cancer cells. Those of you who are familiar with my ideas already know what it is: Vitamin B-17.
Of course, tied up with this idea is that cancer is just a normal healing mechanism (differentiation of trophoblasts or stem cells into tissue needed for healing) gone out of control. But we have our immune system and enzymes to deal with this, and the back-up of the trophoblast killer nutrient, B-17.
So the challenge remains: For those of us who do not have obvious cancer, why not go on the preventive path by making B-17 rich foods a part of our diet? It's no big deal because there are lots of possible sources:
Do get to learn all about this approach:
And don't neglect to listen to the audio:
It loads up in a few minutes and you can listen to it later even if disconnected from the 'net as long as you don't turn off the player after loading. (You can pause the player but the program will still continue to load to completion.)
Although even the proponents of this approach now seem to be entangled in trying to treat cancer, they and everyone else must not lose sight of the fact that prevention is always
better than cure.
And for those who already "have cancer" (actually, we all do and it's just a question of extent, according to the trophoblastic thesis of cancer), be sure to include this in your arsenal. Who knows? it might still be effective as a cure. :wink: