If you like this article, you might also be interested in:

Written by Sarah Cain Saturday, 28 November 2009 14:43

Vitamin B17, Raw Bitter Almonds, and Apricot Seeds

In 2007, bitter almonds (not regular almonds) were becoming popular with alternative medicine due to their vitamin B17 content.  Health stores stopped selling B17 in the form of apricot seeds in 2002, due to armed raids.  The F.D.A. openly banned apricot seeds, and the extract, because it was touted as a cure for ; and curing is not allowed in .  The followed suit, and did the very same things during 2002.  Innocent people in both countries were arrested and charged for merely selling apricot seeds, a carrier of B17 (laetrile).

Bitter almonds were later discovered as the highest source of this vitamin.  Vitamin B17 was still a somewhat newly discovered vitamin, and it is rarely found in nature.  In fact, there are organizations affiliated with orthodox medicine which still will not officially recognize vitamin B17 as a vitamin.  The reason for the exploding popularity of vitamin B17, and thereby bitter almonds, was due to the fact that vitamin B17 has dramatic and miraculous cancer killing properties.  While alternative medicine has had effective and non-toxic cancer cures since the 1930's, the new vitamin really looked like a magic bullet.  There were reports everywhere of cancers being killed merely from patients eating heaping servings of bitter almonds daily.  Soon there would be almond extract capsules, so that these same patients would need only to take one cheap, non-toxic pill per day.  It did not bode well for the .  Hundreds of billions of dollars were about to be lost.

In September of 2007, the F.D.A. claimed that raw almonds had been linked to two salmonella outbreaks in five years, and that all almonds needed to be pasteurized, because they were suddenly a danger to the nation's health.  These salmonella outbreaks were not due to any organic almonds, which reminds us of the many meat recalls.  Salmonella and e-coli are present in our foods only because of grossly unhygienic factory conditions; not because any natural foods are inherently covered with bacteria.  For the organic bitter almonds, the required pasteurization would bring only one significant change in them.  It would neutralize the vitamin B17.  Pristine almonds are the only easily accessible source of vitamin B17.  They are illegal now by F.D.A. decree.  The highest source of B17, the bitter almond tree, was banned from the U.S. in 1995.

 

Never before in history had any nation practiced the absurdity of pasteurizing dry (often salted) nuts.  It is difficult to write or speak about the topic with a straight face, but in reality, this is a very serious issue.  Americans may not use raw almonds for food anymore, and much more importantly, Americans are outlawed from using bitter almonds (vitamin B17) to cure cancer.  We believe that this was the agenda all along.  Judging from the F.D.A.'s bizarre aggression towards almonds that contain intact vitamin B17, and apricot seeds, it is easy to conclude just how powerful and effective vitamin B17 is for curing cancer, at least for those of us who are knowledgeable about the F.D.A.'s history.

Despite floods of phone calls and letters of disapproval to the U.S.D.A. and the F.D.A., almonds sold in the U.S. must now be pasteurized.  These same agencies have notified food producers that they may freely and dishonestly label their pasteurized almonds as 'raw'.  Therefore, if you see almonds in the United States that are labeled as 'raw', then you can know with certainty that the company producing them is lying, and we would recommend boycotting them.

Most almonds are pasteurized with Propylene oxide.  Propylene oxide is a known carcinogen, and it is on 's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause both cancer and reproductive harm.  This means that the majority of almonds sold in the U.S. are not only nutritionally neutralized, but contain dangerous chemical toxins as well.  Remember that before the F.D.A. decided almonds must be tainted to make them healthy, almonds were so healthful that they could quickly cure cancer without side effects in most test subjects.  Alternative medicine's magic bullet just had to go!

Whole Foods only sells almonds which have been pasteurized with steam, which is an improvement over poisonous pasteurization methods; but it still degrades the nutritional value of almonds, and of course, eliminates all of the anti-cancer vitamin B17.  There is usually no way to know which method has been used for pasteurization, because labeling laws are made to benefit the manufacturers, and deceive the consumers.

Wait A Minute!  Aren't Bitter Almonds Poisonous?

According to the modern F.D.A., bitter almonds are poisonous, but somehow bitter almonds became a serious health danger just after it was also discovered that they contain the cancer destroying vitamin B17.  Funny how that works.  Bitter almonds had been eaten by humanity unimpaired during the previous 9,000 years of history.

People who warn us about bitter almonds typically state that they contain prussic acid (a chemical precursor to cyanide compounds), and hydrocyanic acid (also in the cyanide family).  Similar compounds exist in benign organic forms in most of our healthiest foods, so while it is true that bitter almonds contain these compounds (like other healthy foods), is it also equally true that our science does not understand how these organic forms operate inside the body.  The danger of bitter almonds is generally assumed based on the discovery of these compounds, and not on empirical evidence of people actually dying.  Real science does not present assumptions as facts.

We cannot find even a single verifiable and credible case of death by almonds.  The idea sounds almost ridiculous, doesn't it?  We can find stories of deaths from almond consumption in medical journals, blogs, and pro-pharma web sites, but just try to trace any of those reports to real deceased people.  They usually do not exist, and this speaks volumes about the tactics of our adversaries.  In the handful of cases in which bitter almonds or other sources for laetrile were cited as the cause of death, the victims did not show the classic symptoms of cyanide poisoning.  In most cases, the victims were taking too, and the symptoms more closely matched that of death by chemo.  Talk about passing the buck!  The most emphasized death was that of Chad Green, who supposedly died of his alternative treatments, but we cannot uncover any in-depth details of his death.  We figure that's probably intentional.

Now Barely Legal  ― Vitamin B-17

"While there are sources for laetrile pills, they are essentially illegal to sell across state lines. While the FDA would say that laetrile is legal to sell across state lines, the process they designed to allow its sale essentially makes it illegal. In order to buy laetrile legally, you must go to a medical doctor, the medical doctor must notify the FDA, the FDA must approve the purchase and then the doctor can purchase the laetrile. What is wrong with this picture?

"What is wrong is that no doctor in their right mind would let the FDA know they were using laetrile in their practice. The FDA would immediately notify the AMA, and the AMA would yank the person's license (unless they had a really good lawyer and a lot of money). Thus, it is effectively illegal to purchase laetrile pills."

cancertutor.com

Vitamin B17 has technically become legal in the United States again, but it is still banned as a medicine by the F.D.A.  This means that Americans may legally own sources of B17, give them away, or sell them in their own state; but doctors are officially forbidden from using or even discussing B17 unless a patient mentions the subject first.  The A.M.A. is fully backing the F.D.A. on this issue, and one has to ponder why they are acting so afraid of this vitamin.  A person still places himself in great legal jeopardy if he discloses what his B17 products are capable of medically, because this would be considered by the F.D.A. to be practicing medicine, making unapproved claims, and promoting a banned medicine to boot.

Be careful discussing such things with a regular doctor, because he may tell child protective services that you are "medically neglecting" your child, and if he doesn't do it, the A.M.A. certainly will whenever it is notified.  They have no reservations whatsoever about destroying your family to protect their lucrative industry.

Vitamin B-17 Is Not A Supplement

Vitamin B17 is still used as an alternative cancer treatment today, but it is not an essential nutrient.  It should not be used as a supplement because it is generally unnecessary for good health, and the effects of using it over an extended period are unknown.  Misuse or improper use of concentrated B17/laetrile may be harmful in some situations.  We do not have time or space to write about these special cases, so our official recommendation is to use B17/laetrile only under the close supervision of a naturopathic doctor, or someone else knowledgeable about it.  Remember, regular doctors are forbidden from even discussing it with you.

The sale of raw milk has been so strongly discouraged by the F.D.A. that most states have made legislation against it.  In most states, it really is not legal to sell raw milk.  It must be pasteurized, and is usually homogenized too.  As a result, an underground market exists in which some farmers sell raw milk secretly, or it is sold "for pets"; depending on their state's legislation.  Instead of assisting health, the standard homogenized, adulterated milk actually harms the body and clogs the arteries.  Homogenization breaks down the fat of milk into particles that are so tiny that they can pass directly into the bloodstream undigested.  Non-homogenized milk fat has large particles that are actually healthy, and the body is fully able to digest the milk.  We shall not attempt to produce a comprehensive explanation of homogenized milk in this article, but we should all see the pattern that whenever chemists attempt to play God, then they always result in something that is grossly harmful.

In states where selling raw milk is illegal, people are actually fined and given prison sentences merely for selling milk.  Try to imagine one prisoner asking another, "What are you in for?", with the reply being, "milk trafficking".  Jokes aside, this is actually happening across the nation.

The Attorney General is currently suing a couple for selling raw milk from their pick-up truck in a parking lot.  It gets better.  A team of cops were dispatched on an official undercover mission to bust them, as if they were going after the mafia.  Knowing how dangerous small dairy farmers are, we feel confident that the cops took plenty of back-up with them; perhaps even S.W.A.T. snipers.  If you live in Missouri, at least you now know how your tax money is being spent.  We wonder if Missouri police departments have special evidence rooms for milk paraphernalia.

Missouri law prohibits the distribution of raw milk, unless a customer purchases or requests the delivery of raw milk or cream directly from a farm.  The owners of dairy farms are not allowed to sell raw milk from any outlet, including farmers markets, or off-farm houses.  Farmers who do not know about, or who ignore the milk laws are quickly dealt with like the dangerous criminals that they are.  There is great irony in the fact that the state motto of Missouri is, "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law".

In the United States, 90% of dairy cows live in despicable factory farms with concrete floors and have never seen a pasture.  They are fed on a diet of corn and soy (usually G.M.O.), and the result is a short, sickly, lifespan and milk with a completely different nutritional composition.  Raw milk advocates drink milk from grass-fed, organic cows that are allowed to roam freely.

Oysters Are Next

In recent months, citizens have been battling the F.D.A. over their proposal to ban raw oysters.  While oysters are not a , these bans ignore the rights of human beings to make their own choices.  Warning labels would result in an informed public, without eliminating their rights to make personal decisions, even if these are considered irresponsible.  Surely, in a free country, the people should have the freedoms to at least eat without government interference?

 Source: Health Wyze Report