Recently I wrote a quick post about the FDA in relation to a TV show on Animal Planet called I’m Alive. I received a couple of comments, but one of them requires a little more explanation so I’ve decided to answer it as a post.

First, the title of that article is “Yet another example of why the FDA ought to be abolished” and it is really yet another. It is certainly not the most compelling. Government agencies like the FDA violate ethical and political theory and as a consequence they result in negative outcomes. Understanding theory requires time and effort so it is generally these consequences that get people’s attention. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that they are consequences, i.e., concretes, where the argument requires abstraction.

A thorough discussion of the ideal in government is really a subject for a book. It requires strictly defining terms and discussing why central planning in general is unethical. In this post, though, I might be able to elucidate a bit for those who are new to the subject by revealing the true purpose of an agency like the FDA.

Any government agency has two purposes, an ostensible purpose, the one that the people buy into, and the real purpose, the one that those in control want to achieve. (See my post A Spoonful of Sugar for more on this). Let’s just take the FDA, DEA and USDA as examples (you can do this with pretty much any government agency and rather than repeat myself, I’ll let you do some of that. Go ahead and post some in the comments section if you like.)

As you can see, government is particularly useful for preventing business competition. If you doubt this is the real purpose of these agencies, below is a list of books which will teach you a little about the history of government interference with the market economy.

I will elaborate a bit on the arguments the people generally believe (it is these beliefs that a discussion of ideal government would dispel). For those who worry about “snake oil salesman” it is important to note that there already exists within a proper system of justice protection from them – it is the law against fraud.

Now some may argue that the law against fraud is not enough because it doesn’t protect people before the crime. But no legitimate law can punish crime before it happens. The law serves to protect people by making an example of those who commit crime. In fact, protecting people from making mistakes leads over time to a population that is particularly vulnerable to such mistakes and this of course plays right into the hands of the real snake-oil salesman – the one who wrests control of the apparatus of government. An analogous situation might be the infant whose immune system remains unchallenged. He never builds up an immunity to disease while he is young and so remains particularly vulnerable.

Now, do these agencies sometimes do what people think they are supposed to do? Yes, sometimes they are successful in preventing a dangerous drug from making it to the market – after all, not everyone working as a cog in the wheel is aware of the real reason the agency exists – some people actually believe they are working for the benefit of individuals. But it’s important to realize that this function can be served in better ways – ways that do not impact the freedom of individuals to behave ethically and therefore do not have the negative consequences associated with these agencies.

I hope this clarifies somewhat my position on the FDA. For those who wish to do some studying on their own I highly recommend the following books.

The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Folsom (good for beginner)
The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard
The Law by Frederick Bastiat
The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek
The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand (ethical theory)

So I’ve been sick for a few days (swine flu?) and have been staying home and going stir crazy. Lack of exercise and the general misery of being sick have meant a lot of late night TV for me. Last night, for the first time, I got a chance to see the new Animal Planet show I’m Alive.

There are actually three incarnations of this show – two are on Discovery networks and one is on the A&E network Biography (survival in general is an extremely popular theme of late). I’m Alive deals mainly with surviving animal attacks. The other two are the original I Shouldn’t be Alive which deals with surviving excursions into the wilderness or onto the ocean, and I Survived, which in general deals with surviving crime, but not always.

One of the benefits of this particular type of show is that it makes evident to people just how dependent they are on a properly functioning civilization. My hope is that at least a few people are making this connection (and making it properly, i.e., not equating civilization with socialism). Nevertheless, the episode I saw last night (actually the first of the series) of I’m Alive serves as a nice reminder.

A teenage boy, Mike Makens, is bitten by a black widow spider that had been hiding in his sock. His family rushes him to the hospital only to discover that there is no FDA approved antivenin available. Mike is having an unusually bad reaction to the spider venom, is in excruciating pain, and is in danger of suffering permanent nerve damage. The only treatment available in the US could kill him.

Mike’s parents are obviously intelligent people and they are unwilling to risk Mike’s life on a dangerous treatment. And they discover, via the internet, that a non-toxic antivenin exists and is available in Mexico. Mike’s step-father makes the decision to go to Mexico and smuggle the three needed vials of antivenin into the US to save Mike’s life. He recounts the harrowing story of smuggling the antivenin vials out of Mexico, carrying them onto the plane despite warnings that no liquids are allowed, and then into the US, where the antivenin is potentially illegal, all the while realizing that his son is only hours away from permanent nerve damage.

As luck would have it, he is not accosted by customs on either side of the border, who simply fail to check the open manila envelope carrying the antivenin vials (oh well, so much for the no liquids on a plane rule). But Mike is not out of the woods. The hospital has refused to treat Mike with the Mexican antivenin, fearing retaliation from the US government for using a non FDA-approved substance. Only after some pleading does Mike’s family manage to convince a doctor to help them administer the antivenin to him.

Throughout this episode, mind you, Mike’s step-father is shown wearing a shirt the same color orange as a typical prison jumpsuit. I don’t think this is a coincidence. But Animal Planet is sure to include a note which points out that a “loophole” in the law would have allowed the importation and administration of the drug, but only because there is no antivenin at all available in the US. How this importation was to have happened legally is another question.

Now, how many of you knew that if you were ever bitten by a black widow spider, a pretty damn ubiquitous spider in the US, that there would be no FDA-approved antivenin for you? This despite the fact that said antivenin exists in the world?

If this story does not sound familiar to you, you should familiarize yourself with the story of laetrile. Now, who wants to argue that antivenin is dangerous?

Women's Shape Ups

I really love these sneakers.

There was a time when I enjoyed working out in the gym, but these days, I prefer being outdoors. For that reason, and because I am lucky enough to live within walking distance of nearly everywhere I would need to go, I get most of my daily exercise by walking. Walking is a comfortable low impact activity, too, which allows for a lot of thinking, nature watching, chatting, language study, and so on, to be done at the same time. You also save money on gas.

So, I like walking.

About a month ago I decided I needed a new pair of shoes. I wanted something lightweight, slipper-like, good for hot weather. But when I got to the store, I was suddenly faced with a whole other need.

In general, I have been a fan of Skechers brand shoes for a while now. I find them to be reasonable priced, they last me a good long time, they’re confortable (I’ve never really had to “break-in” a pair), and they’re stylish, too. Many of their comfortable sneaker styles are stylish enough to wear to the office. But these particular sneakers, at first glance, looked a little strange to me. I figured the sole was some kind of trendy thing, which generally doesn’t appeal to me. But then it became clear that the sole had a purpose other than looking cool. And with that in mind, I realized they just might do what they say they do.

They’re called Shape-Ups and the idea is to making walking on pavement kind of like walking in soft sand, where your heel sinks down into the sand forcing you to carry through the full range of motion from heal to toe. Sand, however, slips against itself, making it difficult to walk comfortably, but with these sneakers, you get the full range of motion, without the loss of traction. As faddish as it might sound, they really do increase the workout of a walk.

Men's Shape-Ups

As you would expect, walking in these sneakers is very much a workout for the calf muscles. It is similar to what you might get from standing on the edge of a step with your heel hanging over and repeatedly lifting yourself up. What you might not expect is that walking in these sneakers will also strengthen your back muscles and abdominals. After walking around in them for a few days I noticed a soreness in my upper abdominals that surprised me. But it makes sense when you consider that the shape of the sole of the shoe causes a change in in your posture while you walk. My walks have indeed become a better workout for me thanks to these sneakers. They’re pretty, too.

The Shape-Ups didn’t require a ‘break-in’ period, but they did require a day or two of getting used to. The strangeness is rather slight though, and I was able to walk a full mile and a half the very first day I put them on.

You can read more about Shape-Ups by clicking the link below. (To watch the video follow the white “Click Here” text)

In a previous post I suggested that when you eat an apple you might want to also eat the seeds which contain amygdalin, a substance that inhibits the growth of cancer cells. Recently, I came across an article published this year in the Internet Journal of Alternative Medicine entitled Inaccurate Reporting of the Effects of Laetrile: Mistreatment of Ellison, Byar and Newell. While I’m happy to see someone bringing this topic to the forefront again (it is especially timely in light of the recent court decision to force 13-year-old Daniel Hauser to undergo chemotherapy), I’m concerned about the effect it will have on the writer’s reputation. It seems that no matter how reputable you were before you argue in defense of Laetrile or amygdalin, you become a raving lunatic suitable for committal immediately after you do. (This, of course, is just one of the things that ought to make you suspicious.) Already here and there on the internet are the usual loud and bizarre complaints that “apricot kernels are poison!”, “there’s no evidence they cure cancer!”, and “these people are just trying to earn a profit off sick people!” as IF traditional chemotherapy is harmless, evidently cures cancer, and doesn’t make somebody somewhere a nice fat profit. All this while those who attempt to argue that Laetrile might actually work lose their credibility, their licenses to practice medicine, and sometimes their freedom. As John Stossel would say “Give me a break!”

For those of you who are new to this debate and may be struggling to figure out for yourself who is correct and who is deluded I have a few links for you to check out.

Eating Apricot Kernel in Egypt – This is a fascinating blog by a native Egyptian discussing the plants he likes to grow in his garden and the traditional foods made from them. He is apparently still alive and kicking despite eating these highly poisonous apricot kernels on a regular basis. And he points out that this practice has been going on in Egypt for thousands of years.

Contrast that with this article from 1979 (the height of the Laetrile controversy) published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Clinical Nutrition entitled Laetrile: the cult of cyanide. Promoting poison for profit. Just a few quotes from this obvious hit piece:

“The laetrile empire is a highly organized and lucrative industry using sophisticated computerized technology, levels of funding undreamed of by the “snake oil salesmen” of old, with enormous impact on federal, state, and local levels of government.  It has the ability by push-button to generate avalanches of mail, massive funding for candidates supporting laetrile. It has an interlocking network of direct mail, an interlocking network with other organizations promoting health quackery, exerts unrelenting pressures on elected officials, and is not above smearing and threatening responsible scientists who dare to challenge it.”

Now for those of you unfamiliar with the psychological principle of projection, this is really a bizarrely classic case of it. In truth Laetrile proponents are utterly powerless against the real culprit being described here. Do I really need to say more?

“The process of cyanide release from an apricot kernel is analogous to dropping a sodium or potassium cyanide pellet (these salts of cyanide are highly water soluble solids) in water or acid, the means of “gas chamber” executions in California and genocidal mass killings by the Hitler regime during World War II.  Ironically, various leaders of the Third Reich, including Himmler and Goering, ultimately committed suicide by bitting into, and thereby crushing, cyanide pellets.”

Yes, you heard that right. Now, take THAT you Egyptian farmers!

Despite all of this bad press,and contrary to what you might expect, there are still amygdalin studies being done today, but they are done mainly by Asian scientists. Here are two fairly recent articles from the Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin which is published by the Pharmaceutical Society of Japan:

Amygdalin Induces Apoptosis through Regulation of Bax and Bcl-2 Expressions in Human DU145 and LNCaP Prostate Cancer Cells (2006)

Antinociceptive Effect of Amygdalin Isolated from Prunus armeniaca on Formalin-Induced Pain in Rats (2008)

This one is from the Department of Pharmacology at Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea and was published in The World Journal of Gastroenterology -Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells (2005)

In an interesting discussion on another blog, one skeptic points out that the two cancer studies above were done using in vitro cancer cells – meaning they are in a petri dish, not in a living organism (experiments that use living organisms are called in vivo). This is true and is a good point, however, they are put forward here not so much because they are proof of amygdalin’s efficacy, but because they show that these Asian scientists are in fact still interested in conducting experiments while all such experimentation is dismissed out-of-hand in the west. (The other experiment listed here has to do with controlling pain and it was done with live animals. This effect that was also noted by the original proponents of Laetrile.)

In response to the skeptic (or overly credulous depending on how you look at it) above I would like to mention that evidence of the efficacy of amygdalin was shown in positive animal studies that were done in the 70’s. They were performed by Kanematsu Sugiura at Sloan Kettering but they were never officially published. They were, however, leaked by individuals working at Sloan Kettering at the time. Although I have managed to obtain a copy of them, I unfortunately do not have an electronic version at this time and have not been able to locate one on the web. (Update: See Kanematsu Sugiura’s Sloan Kettering studies here.) There is, however, an article written in 1976 by investigative reporter David M. Rorvik entitled Laetrile: The Goddamned-Contraband-Apricot Connection that is available online and that provides a good overview of the entire controversy.

For me, the apparently desperate attempts from the powers that be to prevent people from learning about the nutritional effects of amygdalin, (reference the insane quotes listed above), the fact that people have been eating foods containing it for thousands of years, Sloan Kettering’s suppressed positive animal studies showing an inhibitory effect on tumors in mice (bred specifically to spontaneously develop cancer), the fact that other scientists from around the world are still interested in studying it, proponents’ intelligent statements regarding the medical establishment’s focus on the size of tumors rather than the number of malignant cells in them, and the fact that it is present in a host of otherwise particularly nutritious foods, (apricot seeds, apple seeds, millet, lingonberries, mulberries, and blackberries to name a few) provide evidence that amygdalin does in fact have anti-cancer properties. You will still need to decide for yourself.

Yes, I know. They are poisonous and you will drop dead if you so much as swallow one. NOT! In fact, I believed this fallacy since the time I was a small child. Many times throughout my life I wondered to myself how in the hell more people didn’t drop dead from cyanide poisoning since apple seeds were so damn ubiquitous. Maybe wondering that is proof I was a smart kid. Either way, it took me some days of trying to overcome my fear enough to take a bite of one. After I did that, I swore up and down that I was having some kind of reaction and wondered if I would fall over dead any minute. I didn’t.

And now, whenever I eat an apple, I also eat the seeds—anywhere from 5 to 12 of them depending on the apple. Apple seeds most definitely taste like “bitter almonds” too. I actually find them quite tasty, but if the flavor is bothersome, eating them at the same time as you eat the flesh of the apple cuts the bitterness. But, why do it, you might ask. One reason is to realize for yourself the lies you’ve been told. The other is because, I believe, they are good for you.

I became interested in this subject after reading G. Edward Griffin’s World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17. I highly recommend this book. Just click the link to pick up a copy from Amazon. It’s well worth it.

You can find a good overview of this controversy, on both sides, in a number of places on the web. A quick search on laetrile or amygdalin will bring up more than you can possibly read. A quick and easy way to get a taste of what it’s all about, though, is to view G. Edward Griffin’s video on the subject.

After doing a little bit of research on my own, I was able to note that certain areas of the world had less of an incidence of cancer than other areas. Africa for example, has a low incidence of cancer, while all the 1st world countries have a high incidence. Now that seemed backwards to me. Aren’t we supposed to be healthier? But if you take diet into consideration, it starts to make a lot of sense. In fact, at one point, I came upon a researcher with a smart idea. Why not look into different groups of people right here within the US that had lower incidences of cancer? What was different about them? For example, mormons have a lower incidence of cancer than do the non-mormon people living right next to them. Some of that might be attributed to the fact that they do not smoke cigarettes, but certainly not all of it. What’s different? Could it be their diets?

It seems to me that populations of people that consume nuts and seeds, and/or foods high in nitrilosides, (like cassava in Africa for example), have less of an incidence of cancer. Could there be something to this Vitamin B-17 thing?

While US researchers are looking into cases of “poisoning” where individuals clearly ate TOO MUCH of something (even WATER in excess will kill you) Asian scientists have no such problem with it. They are still studying the effects of amygdalin on cancers and finding that indeed it has an effect. You can find one such article here. You can also do your own search on “amygdalin” using Google Scholar. Look for more recent articles. Now these research articles may not seem definitive to you, that’s fine. But note that these researchers are not afraid to consider it, while here in the US it’s practically taboo. On top of this, the nitriloside/amygdalin/laetrile/cyanide scare of the 70’s and 80’s has many people literally AFRAID to eat something that is in fact NOT poisonous at all. That’s damn suspicious.

Now if the thought of eating an apple seed frightens you, I’m not surprised. I think this phenomenon is much worse if you were in fact a child during the 70’s and 80’s. It’s very difficult to overcome those long held beliefs. Nevertheless, they are simply false and it’s worth witnessing it for yourself. It’s kind of like finally putting on those sunglasses that let you read subliminal messages on the road signs, or swallowing the pill that lets you see the matrix.