tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (02/15/85)
Here is my question, What is medical proof? Some of you say
that Vitamin B17 is not a vitamin because there is no
*medical proof* that it is required by the body. Webster
defines a vitamin as an organic substance that is required
by the body but does not provide energy or serve as a
building block. Someone seems to have added to that
definition that the lack of this substance must produce a
disease which has a name given to it by the medical
community. Is there proof that the absence of Vitamin B17
does not cause a disease? Or do we have to kill a couple
hundred animals to prove that monkees may or may not require
it (this is not an attempt to draw on emotion, only to
suggest a possible answer).
Do doctors admit that they understand the complexity of the
human organism and can therefore say that B17 is not needed?
You say that "believers" have offered no *proof* that
appears in medical journals. I have had no trouble finding
people who will say that B17 helped them in non-medical
articles, do we discredit then because the Amer. Cancer
Assoc. didn't want to tell their story. Is there anyone who
hasn't read about or know about someone who was sent home to
die because medical science couldn't help them and is today
telling others how "un-proven" methods saved their lives.
How many people still smoke marijuana and say that is is
alright because there is no *proof* that it is harmful. If
we have *proof* that cigarette smoking is harmful why does
the warning label only say may be harmful.
I don't need medical proof to take care of myself thank you.
If something works then that is proof enough for me. Of
course just because something worked for somebody else
dosen't mean that it is right for me. Therefore it is my
personnal responsibility to insure that I am in the highest
state of wellness that I can attain at all times, and to
seek out the form of help of my choise if my health is in
danger. I am not saying that conventional medicine is to be
avoided at all times, if I am in a car wreck and am bleeding
to death I am not going to be fussy. However when I got the
flu 2 weeks ago I took 1000mg of Vit C, 15 mg of zinc, 25000
IU's of A and 1000 IU's of D every hour and I was only sick
for 3 days. Now we all know that the flu takes from 1 to 2
weeks and a doctor would probably say that I only had a mild
case, also there is no medical proof that Vit C does any
good. But HEY, it worked. Even if it didn't it didn't hurt
me. Now 20000mg of Vit C would normally have given me the
runs in my body's attempt to rid itself of the excess but it
didn't. Could it be that my body was using all that it
could get to fight the sickness? Is there any medical
proof? I don't care.
Here is my plea. This is my decision, let me have it. I
don't ask that anybody else operate on my advice. When I go
to my wholistic doctor he suggests methods of treatment.
What I do is my choise. If somebody were to ask me for
advice I will tell them the stories that I have heard or my
personnal experiences. From there the decision is theirs.
Most people seem to like to go to an office and say "I'm
sick make me better". That works OK for cars. I like to
see people handled differently.
(allegra|ihnp4)!cbdkc1!tjscromwell@pur-ee.UUCP (Cromwell) (02/18/85)
In this article the author mentioned proof that "monkees may or may not require" laetrile. Well, the Monkees are no longer with us so maybe they needed it. Huh? monkeys? oh, sorry...... B1-B
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (02/21/85)
In article <875@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > Some of you say that Vitamin B17 is not a vitamin because there is no > *medical proof* that it is required by the body. I presume you mean Laetrile? Otherwise, you have a semantic nonargument. If that's what you mean, please cite a reference where Laetrile is shown to be a "vitamin." For that matter, what do YOU mean by "vitamin?" > Is there proof that the absence of Vitamin B17 does not cause a > disease? Is the absence of such proof sufficient in itself to recommend the use of this substance as a cancer treatment? > > Do doctors admit that they understand the complexity of the > human organism and can therefore say that B17 is not needed? Do you understand it well enough to know that "B17" is needed? > You say that "believers" have offered no *proof* that > appears in medical journals. I have had no trouble finding > people who will say that B17 helped them in non-medical > articles, do we discredit then because the Amer. Cancer > Assoc. didn't want to tell their story. You are equating those who publish in medical journals, on the one hand, with "people who say that B17 helped them." Who are these "people," and how do they know that the B17 helped them? The occurrence in time of event B after event A does not establish that event A caused event B. > Is there anyone who hasn't read about or know about someone who > was sent home to die because medical science couldn't help them > and is today telling others how "un-proven" methods saved their lives. Again. Just as it is very difficult to pinpoint what causes disease, it is equally difficult to identify what "cures" disease. > I don't need medical proof to take care of myself thank you. > If something works then that is proof enough for me. Of > course just because something worked for somebody else > dosen't mean that it is right for me. Therefore it is my > personnal (sic) responsibility to insure that I am in the highest > state of wellness that I can attain at all times, and to > seek out the form of help of my choise (sic) if my health is in > danger. Are you arguing that there should be no public policy to prevent dishonest people from marketing cure-all "snake oils?" > However when I got the > flu 2 weeks ago I took 1000mg of Vit C, 15 mg of zinc, 25000 > IU's of A and 1000 IU's of D every hour and I was only sick > for 3 days. Had you merely stayed home and stayed in bed, you might have attained a cure in the same time. What have you proved? When I was younger we used to say you could get rid of poison ivy in 2 weeks using various medicines. Or you could leave it alone and it would go away in 14 days. Brint
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (02/22/85)
> Here is my question, What is medical proof? Some of you say > that Vitamin B17 is not a vitamin because there is no > *medical proof* that it is required by the body. Webster > defines a vitamin as an organic substance that is required > by the body but does not provide energy or serve as a > building block. Backwards reasoning. OK, I claim that the lint in my navel is vitamin J37! Does anyone really need "medical proof" to assert that it isn't? Put the cart back behind the horse; a substance becomes labelled a vitamin when a need for it (etc., etc.) is reasonably established. A substance of unknown function to the body is NOT a vitamin--simply because that's not the way the definition works. > Do doctors admit that they understand the complexity of the > human organism and can therefore say that B17 is not needed? Still begging the question. They say that it is NOT a vitamin because no need has yet been established. > ...However when I got the > flu 2 weeks ago I took 1000mg of Vit C, 15 mg of zinc, 25000 > IU's of A and 1000 IU's of D every hour and I was only sick > for 3 days. Now we all know that the flu takes from 1 to 2 > weeks and a doctor would probably say that I only had a mild > case, also there is no medical proof that Vit C does any > good. But HEY, it worked... This sort of argument is why medical science does so much work to demonstrate things. Statements like "we all know that the flu takes from 1 to 2 weeks..." are virtually devoid of meaning. There are hundreds (someone with better medical knowledge will probably mini-flame me and say thousands) of strains of flu and flu-like disease-causing viruses. Some can come and go in a day; some can linger for months. How do you know which strain you had? Certainly it helps to be in good health, but you've got no idea it worked... ...but if it makes you feel good, or you think it helps, DO IT, of course. Even if there's no directly known physical benefit, there's substantial psychological benefit--and a good outlook can sometimes help as much as being in good physical condition. The rub comes when people who THINK they've found a cure start trying to sell it to other people. At that point there's a big philosophical distinction, and it begets a big legal distinction: You need to be a lot more sure you're right to lay your trip on someone else than to get into it for just yourself. > Here is my plea. This is my decision, let me have it. I > don't ask that anybody else operate on my advice. When I go > to my wholistic doctor he suggests methods of treatment. Exactly. It's up to you to choose your treatment. It's up to your doctor to demonstrate to society that what he's doing is correct enough that he may continue to solicit patients and work with them. > Most people seem to like to go to an office and say "I'm > sick make me better". That works OK for cars. I like to > see people handled differently. If there's one positive thing the holistic health movement may have done, it's to have begun trying to instill (or restore, if you're a little more optimistic) a sense of care for patients as humans. I think that much has begun to sift back into "mainstream" medicine. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.
carter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard) (02/23/85)
> > Here is my question, What is medical proof? Some of you say > that Vitamin B17 is not a vitamin because there is no > *medical proof* that it is required by the body. Webster > defines a vitamin as an organic substance that is required > by the body but does not provide energy or serve as a > building block. Someone seems to have added to that > definition that the lack of this substance must produce a > disease which has a name given to it by the medical > community. Is there proof that the absence of Vitamin B17 > does not cause a disease? Or do we have to kill a couple > hundred animals to prove that monkees may or may not require > it (this is not an attempt to draw on emotion, only to > suggest a possible answer). You are obviously missing the point. What does Webster mean when he says require? What happens when the requirement is not met? I would venture to say that the body would cease being a body if its requirements for being a body weren't realized. This is called death, by the medical community, and is an integral part of the definition of the word vitamin. The word vitamin was first utilized in the fashion that we are using it here by the medical community, it has and always will be a medical term. If you choose to use the word vitamin, you then choose its etymology. The real arguement is not that you don't understand biology, rather its your inability to use the English language properly. The word vitamin has a very specific meaning, much more specific than your rendering of Webster. You should learn what the word means, and use it properly. Laetrile is not a vitamin, AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS VITAMIN B17, period. I can't comment on the rest of your message to the world, it doesn't make any sense to me. You state that you don't care what you do to yourself as long as it doesn't hurt, and damned if you have to understand how any of this stuff works or whether you are right at all. Just as long as it doesn't hurt you. You go on to say that you had a case of the flu and that your mega-vitamin regimen cured you of the foul beast in only 3 days, and that without it, you would have had the dreaded disease for 2 weeks. But consider that your flu would have gone away anyway, as it is a self-limiting disorder. But you can't take such anecdotal experiences in your life and apply the same approach in cureing something like cancer. Now if cancer were caused by the flu virus( oh,yeah which flu virus did you get? The one I got only lasted 2 days, and I didn't take any vitamins. In this case it looks like the vitamins hurt rather than helped. Do you think my observations are valid????) then maybe vitamins may be something to consider, but cancer is not caused by Influenza type A virus. You just don't fix the transmission in your car by changing the tires. Well, anyway, I just hope you don't expect people to find good information from you with regards to cancer treatments. Its just not there. But thats OK, its not your fault. It doesnt hurt you. -- Carter Bullard ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet:Carter @ Gatech ARPA:Carter.Gatech @ CSNet-relay.arpa uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!carter
davis@hplabs.UUCP (Jim Davis) (02/25/85)
> > Here is my question, What is medical proof? Some of you say > that Vitamin B17 is not a vitamin because there is no > *medical proof* that it is required by the body. Webster > defines a vitamin as an organic substance that is required > by the body but does not provide energy or serve as a > building block. Websters New World Dictionary: Second College Edition: vi-ta-min (vit'-e-min; Brit & sometimes Canad. vit'-) n. [earlier vitamine < L. vita, life (see VITAL) + AMINE: from the orig. mistaken idea that these substances all contain amino acids] any of a number of unrelated, complex organic substances found variously in most foods, or sometimes synthesized in the body, and essential, in small amounts, for the regulation of the metabolism and normal growth and functioning of the body -- vi'ta-min'ic adj. Note that this dictionary DOES NOT LIST VITAMIN B17, though it does list 11 other vitamines in the B complex group. BTW: all B complex vitamines are water soluble, is "vitamin B17"? Why does your appeal to the dictionary not show its lack of support for your cause? > Someone seems to have added to that > definition that the lack of this substance must produce a > disease which has a name given to it by the medical > community. Is there proof that the absence of Vitamin B17 > does not cause a disease? Or do we have to kill a couple > hundred animals to prove that monkees may or may not require > it (this is not an attempt to draw on emotion, only to > suggest a possible answer). > (allegra|ihnp4)!cbdkc1!tjs Note 2: The above definition uses the term "essential". The definition you gave used the word "required". I don't see that anyone has added that lack causes a disease. Lack of a REQUIREMENT for health is a sufficient precondition for unhealth. Yes, it is necessary to kill or at least hurt some living creatures, or show internal production of the substance to have it accepted as a vitamin. I would like to point out that I do not eat peach pits, I don't like peaches and I haven't eaten one in over 10 years. The only argument that could still allow them to be necessary would be that I make all of the "vitamin B17" that I need. But I'll have to see proof that I do. (And that doesn't require killing or hurting lots of people/animals!) In order to show that something is a vitamin you can start by simply showing that it is present in healthy bodies and/or by showing what metabolic pathway it assists. If you don't want to do that, and you don't want to show that a lack of the substance in question causes unhealth, then please make up your own word. The word vitamin is reserved for "any of a number of unrelated, complex organic substances FOUND variously IN MOST FOODS, OR sometimes SYNTHESIZED in the body, AND ESSENTIAL, in small amounts, for the regulation of the metabolism and normal growth and functioning of the body" [Capitals mine]. Be my guest in making up a new word. May I suggest that "natural" already has the proper degree of looseness for you. -- ---------------------------------- I'm natural; I'm a vitamin. Call me "Vitamin Jim2"! Jim Davis (James W Davis) Email: {any_of_the_biggies} !hplabs!davis Arpa: davis%hp-labs@csnet-relay ----------------------------------
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/26/85)
The kind of flu I usually get only last about 24-36 hours. This year I've had a more lingering kind, but it seems rare. Before this year I thought the 24-hour kind was the most common!