Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gatech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amd!gatech!carter
From: carter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: medical *PROOF* ???
Message-ID: <12115@gatech.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 18:24:57 EST
Article-I.D.: gatech.12115
Posted: Fri Feb 22 18:24:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Feb-85 17:40:50 EST
References: <875@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: School of ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Lines: 65

> 
>        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