Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hplabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amd!hplabs!davis
From: davis@hplabs.UUCP (Jim Davis)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: medical *PROOF* ???
Message-ID: <1652@hplabs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Feb-85 21:55:59 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabs.1652
Posted: Sun Feb 24 21:55:59 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Feb-85 08:15:47 EST
References: <875@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 62

> 
>        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
----------------------------------