Health Claim Form 1500: Fill & Download for Free

Three reasons:So-called vitamin B17 is not a vitamin and it has no proven effect against cancer. Naming it “vitamin B17” was purely fraudulent in the first place, done only for marketing purposes and to get around drug safety laws.Trusting in this and other “alternative medicines” leads people to neglect more proven and effective treatments and thus succumb to their cancer.The substance in question generates cyanide in the human body and has killed many people by cyanide poisoning.[1]The naturally occurring substance is most properly called amygdalin. It’s a toxic compound found in the pits of apricots, peaches, cherries, and in apple seeds and some other plant sources. A processed (hydrolyzed) form of it was invented in 1961 and named laetrile for marketing purposes. It’s not a vitamin by any stretch of the imagination. The name vitamin B17 was invented by a notorious American con man named Ernst Krebs[2][2][2][2] (no relation to the Hans Krebs of the Krebs’ cycle) in order to get around FDA restrictions and label it as a nutritional supplement.Laetrile was once touted as a cancer cure and it’s still promoted by ayurvedic medicine, other doctrines of “complementary” or “alternative” medicine, and seemingly innumerable quack web sites. This has been branded "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history".[3][3][3][3]Thousands of Americans went to Mexico, where laetrile is manufactured, to get treatments when they couldn’t get it in the U.S.[4][4][4][4] Desperate for pain-free alternatives to traditional cancer chemotherapy and surgery, they suffered from false hopes and often paid with their lives. When metabolized in the digestive tract, laetrile releases potentially lethal amounts of hydrogen cyanide. One 1500 mg dose of amygdalin yields 90 mg of cyanide—almost twice the minimum lethal dose.There was never any evidence of its effectiveness against cancer. In controlled trials on 14 types of cancer in 1977, it gave no better results than placebo. In a later Mayo Clinic study of 175 cancer patients on laetrile, tumor size increased in all but one person.[5][5][5][5]The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.[6][6][6][6]Update: In the comments, Bo Thompson provides a good 2019 reference[7][7][7][7] that’s worth some thought. It points to shortcomings in earlier studies that found amygdalin ineffective, but also to the lack of adequate support for its approval and clinical use as yet. The authors remain ambivalent about its potential for clinical use, but point to an apparently meritorious path for further research. See especially the abstract and sections 1, 6, and 7 if you don’t want to read the whole thing.For further reading:Physician Beware: Severe Cyanide Toxicity from Amygdalin Tablets IngestionRapid Death Associated With Laetrile IngestionA Case Of Cyanide Poisoning From Vitamin B17 – International Emergency Medicine Education Projecthttps://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/bitstream/handle/10713/6232/October%202017%20ToxTidbits.pdf?sequence=14&isAllowed=yFootnotes[1] Health quackery : Consumers Union's report on false health claims, worthless remedies, and unproved therapies : Consumers Union of United States : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive[2] Ernst T. Krebs - Wikipedia[2] Ernst T. Krebs - Wikipedia[2] Ernst T. Krebs - Wikipedia[2] Ernst T. Krebs - Wikipedia[3] Laetrile: A lesson in cancer quackery[3] Laetrile: A lesson in cancer quackery[3] Laetrile: A lesson in cancer quackery[3] Laetrile: A lesson in cancer quackery[4] FDA Cracks Down on Laetrile Resurgence[4] FDA Cracks Down on Laetrile Resurgence[4] FDA Cracks Down on Laetrile Resurgence[4] FDA Cracks Down on Laetrile Resurgence[5] Amygdalin - Wikipedia[5] Amygdalin - Wikipedia[5] Amygdalin - Wikipedia[5] Amygdalin - Wikipedia[6] Laetrile treatment for cancer[6] Laetrile treatment for cancer[6] Laetrile treatment for cancer[6] Laetrile treatment for cancer[7] Recent updates and future perspectives about amygdalin as a potential anticancer agent: A review[7] Recent updates and future perspectives about amygdalin as a potential anticancer agent: A review[7] Recent updates and future perspectives about amygdalin as a potential anticancer agent: A review[7] Recent updates and future perspectives about amygdalin as a potential anticancer agent: A review

The answer would open your eyes to this seemingly logical question, but it is not as logical as it seems. It is just a misunderstanding of concept or should I say the mis-selling of the concept of auto insurance in India.So what is mandatory about auto insurance? Why is the government worried that I insure my car ?Nobody is concerned if your car is insured. What is mandatory is the THIRD PARTY LIABILITY insurance. So God forbid, if your car hits somebody on the road and there is a medical liability invoked by the person (third party here) in court, you would be liable to pay compensation to him. Who will pay this compensation? Your insurance company. So the only insurance mandatory by law is the THIRD PARTY LIABILITY insurance which is not very expensive to buy. It costs somewhere between 1500 to 1800 per year depending on the size of the car/vehicle.Nobody cares any bit if you don’t have your car insured. You must have the third party liability cover.However the insurance companies promote this mis-selling where they design a “comprehensive” car insurance plan which includes third party cover(you can see this in the premium receipt as separate charge) as well as a cover for the damage to your car. That is where the money will be made. All this is sold to you as ONE insurance cover claiming that it is mandatory. It’s NOT. So the premium which could be Rs 1500 jumps to Rs 10,000 or more based on the value of the car. Ironically, in India, people are paying more premium for car insurance than their life or health insurance. All because of the rampant non transparent mis-selling approaches the insurance industry adopts.So what should do? Buy only third party liability cover for your car & you are good for the road. Save the rest of the premium & buy a good life cover term plan for your family. Be wise. And finally, please don’t ask this wisdom from your broker (online / offline doesn’t matter). You can’t expect him telling you this. He has to maximize premium amount after all.Government doesn’t make health or life insurance mandatory. In the same way it also doesn’t care about your car insurance. Hope this answers.Feel free to mail or write to me on twitterHonest - Unbiased - Simplified, as always.

If the government wants to be consistent in what it says, then yes, the same sort of packaging should be applied to alcohol containers, any foods that are fattening, fatty, salty, or sugary, and perhaps even cars -- which could all be mandated to be the same size and shape and available only in puke green or mud brown (Except for the 75% of their surface that would sport 3-D color pictures of mangled children's bodies with their entrails dragging in the roadway after accidents.)I've often wondered why PETA et al haven't taken advantage of the plain packs campaign to launch stickering campaigns on meat products in supermarkets. Parents would have a hard time shopping for meat if their children were screaming over the pictures of tortured, brutalized, and butchered animals covering the packages.The approach could extend beyond packaging however. Let's look at the way alcohol is "promoted to our children" on TV (if we're using the same language and thought processes applied to smoking). For example, we have the TV series BONES with roughly 230 episodes. During those 230 episodes there are five instances of people smoking. Terrible. What if The Children saw that? Meanwhile there are roughly 1,500 instances of people drinking alcohol (seriously, yes, I *did* keep a rough count with little cross-hatches on a pad while watching the series over several months.) So, what about The Children exposed to all that drinking? (Not to mention the various gory corpses that are the centerpiece of most episodes.)How about Hannibal? Not only does every episode feature gory corpses, but those corpses are then cooked up according to recipes from elegant French Cuisine and served at formal dinners... with wine! But... according to antismoking campaigners it's a VERY safe show to share with your children: not even a hint of a wisp of a ghost of a scent of tobacco smoke anywhere in any episode allowed!Imagine if someday those 230 episodes of BONES were edited (butchered might be a better term) to remove all those 1500 instances of alcohol drinking and the 5 instances of smoking. Think you'd still enjoy watching them?So yes, I would say the approach should be the same for tobacco and alcohol.But I'd differ from the norm perhaps in saying the government should be keeping its hands OFF of such things other than to ensure that false health claims were not explicitly made about the products.MJM