I started this current series to discuss what is wrong with our country and what we need to do to fix it. I have since expanded this series to not only include the United States but the rest of the world as well. While I have discussed some of the topics that I will be including in this series, they have been included in other articles. In this series I will concentrate on a single topic. This will also mean that some of the articles may be slightly shorter than my readers have grown accustomed to, however they will still be written with the same attention to detail. This series will have no set number of articles and will continue to grow as I come across additional subjects.

I just recently watched a You Tube video (Second Opinion: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering Directed by Eric Merola Documentary, Biography, DramaNot Rated 1h 16m) on the “cancer drug” Laetrile and frankly I was apalled. So I decided to research the subject more and I have compiled a collection of articles on it. I have included a few pro Laetrile articles, one neutral and one negative article to be as fair as possible. I won’t form any conclusions, I will let you the reader make up your own mind. This drug has been available since the 1970s. However, with the cavaete that it is only available in Mexico. It has still not been approved by the FDA.

“Lying to the American people wasn’t part of my job description.”

—Ralph W. Moss, PhD

Ralph W. Moss was the Assistant Director of Public Affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He started in the summer of 1974 and immediately became familiar with a substance that would become a turning point in his work with the organization.

As he states early in his book, Doctored Results, part of Moss’ job was to respond to letters written to Sloan-Kettering by the general public. He says there were often inquiries about specific therapies, suggestions concerning potential treatments, and as can be expected, some people writing with fringe ideas.

But to Moss’ surprise, numerous letters were written in regard to a substance called amygdalin, or, more popularly, laetrile. Laetrile was a cancer treatment that came from the kernel of an apricot pit, and many of the letter writers suggested this could be a potent weapon in the war against cancer. Like many Americans at the time, Moss was familiar with the substance because earlier that year, 60 Minutes host Mike Wallace had featured a story about Americans traveling to Mexico to access this unapproved cancer treatment.

It was a scenario far too many Life Extension^® readers are familiar with: that of US citizens being forced to travel to foreign countries to receive treatments the FDA would not approve.

“As I read through the letters, I realized that some people were angry, very angry, that Sloan-Kettering wasn’t properly testing laetrile or refused to use this apricot pit ‘cure,’” Moss writes. “To answer them, Jerry [Moss’ boss] gave me a carefully worded statement that had been drawn up a year before. It said that the testing of laetrile at Sloan-Kettering Institute was ongoing but that, to date, it had been found to have no effectiveness in treating or preventing cancer. People should not abandon their proven, conventional treatments.”

Moss says that the general consensus around his office towards laetrile was one of “mild amusement or skeptical disbelief.” But that is not what a scientist working at Sloan-Kettering discovered. His research indicated that laetrile, while not a cure for cancer, was very powerful at preventing metastatic spread of the disease, at least in lab animals. The medical establishment, aware of this research, did everything imaginable to discredit it.

Once Moss lays the foundation of his own personal story in Doctored Results, he then goes on to give an interesting and fact-filled history of America’s war on cancer. In a particularly telling section, he explains the poor state of cancer research that existed in this country in the 1960s by comparing the cancer war to the space race.

“In the 1960s, America had spent $26 billion to land men on the Moon, and the only tangible reward had been a collection of rocks and dust of interest to a few astronomers,” he writes. “At that same time, all of the cancer scientists in the United States worked on a budget of $250 million a year—less than 1% percent of the Moon shot’s total.”

Having established his own experience and the state of cancer research in the United States at the time of his employment at Sloan-Kettering, Dr. Moss then begins to weave the tale of one of the biggest medical cover-ups the world of cancer research had ever seen. He introduces the major players with deftness and an objectivity often reserved for fiction, which is an impressive accomplishment in a book with this subject matter.

Moss goes through great pains to explain how each prominent doctor or scientist or politician or hospital board member came to play a role in the story of laetrile. One such person who stands out is Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, who was deemed a “Living National Treasure” for his medical body of work. He was renowned for his legendary patience, which Moss says included running one experiment that called on him to inject mice with laetrile every day, seven days a week for two-and-a-half years. Dr. Sugiura never missed a single day.

As the story continues, Moss quotes Dr. Sugiura—a quote that resonates for the rest of the book.

Dr. Sugiura explained in an interview with Moss how his laetrile experiments were working at the time. In one example, he said that a breed of mice that gets cancer in 80 to 85% of studies was only showing a 20% cancer rate when treated with laetrile. Dr. Sugiura then pondered, “It would be interesting if it prevented it completely. One hundred percent prevention would be very interesting—then it would convince everybody…”

Moss then asked him why, with such success, were so many in the medical establishment against laetrile? To which Sugiura replied, “I don’t know. Maybe the medical profession doesn’t like it because they are making too much money.”

What followed is an out-and-out slandering of Sugiura’s research, as well as his character, by several high-level organizations. As the book progresses, Moss peels back layer after layer of the laetrile scandal until the reader can’t help but be disgusted by the events taking place. Like any good story, you don’t want to know the ending before reading the book, but suffice it to say that Life Extension^® readers will appreciate the importance of this story, no matter how much we wish it weren’t true.

What Is Vitamin B17?

It’s not a vitamin at all

Vitamin B17 is a commonly used name for a chemical called amygdalin. It is used to make a chemical called laetrile. Vitamin B17 is sourced from apricot pits and bitter almonds.

Although they’re called “vitamin B17,” amygdalin and laetrile are not B vitamins.

Amygdalin is used to make laetrile—a compound that some people claim can treat cancer naturally; however, there is little evidence that it works or is safe.

This article will go over what vitamin B17 is. You will also learn about the claims made about amygdalin and laetrile, as well as the side effects and safety concerns linked to them.

What Is Vitamin B17 Used For?

Some people claim that laetrile is an effective natural cancer treatment and that it can also protect against high blood pressure and arthritis. However, little scientific evidence supports any of these uses.

Laetrile is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for any use, including as a cancer treatment.¹ In fact, in 2019 the FDA issued an important alert for laetrile based on a lack of evidence for its effectiveness and its status as an unapproved drug.

How Vitamin B17 is Claimed to Work

Claims that B17 vitamin is a natural cancer fighter rests on a mechanism called apoptosis, which is a type of cell death that takes place because a cell is cancerous or infected, or because it is time for new cells to replace it. Apoptosis is one of the ways your body keeps itself healthy.

Some people claim that laetrile releases a chemical called cyanide in the body causing apoptosis (cell death) in cancer cells. The idea has been promoted for several types of cancer, including:

Some scientific evidence has suggested that laetrile might have some anti-cancer activity, and the findings have renewed interest in its potential effects.

However, the evidence is still preliminary and needs more follow-up research to find out the true effects of laetrile and the potential risks of using it.

Some people have claimed that cancer is caused by a deficiency of vitamin B17. They argue that consuming laetrile can reverse the deficiency and, in turn, aid with the treatment or prevention of cancer. However, there is no evidence that the body has any known uses for vitamin B17.

How Did Laetrile Get Popular?

Laetrile’s popularity has been bolstered by conspiracy theories. For decades, people have claimed that laetrile is proven to be safe and effective or that it’s the target of a government cover-up of inexpensive cancer treatments.

Despite the FDA ban that went into effect in 1987, many people still take laetrile for cancer. You can get laetrile online and in some stores.

However, the products cannot legally be marketed as a cancer treatment. Still, with false claims all over the internet, people still learn about laetrile and seek it out.

What Research Says About B17 Vitamin

Vitamin B17 could be worth studying more, but the research so far has only been done on cells in a petri dish or on animals.

While this type of research can lay the foundation for clinical trials with people, we are not at that stage yet.

Promising Research

Some research on laetrile and amygdalin as cancer treatments has been published in reputable journals. For example:

In 2021, researchers said that they uncovered the mechanisms by which amygdalin induces apoptosis: it appeared to increase one cellular protein and reduce another. They also saw other beneficial actions at the cellular level, stating that “amygdalin possesses anticancer properties and induces apoptosis,” and that “amygdalin can act as a multifunctional drug in cancer therapeutics.”
In August 2020, researchers said they demonstrated that amygdalin can kill certain breast cancer cell lines and that amygdalin may prevent those cells from spreading through the body. They also stated that it was not toxic to healthy skin cells.
In June 2020, researchers combined amygdalin with an enzyme called beta-glucosidase (ß-glu), which enhances amygdalin activity. They found that the combination led to the death of prostate cancer cells. They also noted that while the treatment had some impact on heart and liver function, it did not appear to cause organ damage.

Inconclusive Evidence

The studies that have been done have not been clear about whether amygdalin could be more effective against certain types of cancer than others.

Mosayyebi B, Mohammadi L, Kalantary-Charvadeh A, Rahmati M. Amygdalin decreases adhesion and migration of MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7 breast cancer cell lines [published online ahead of print, 2020 Aug 10].

The scientists doing the studies have said that there is a need for more research to determine what role amygdalin might play in cancer treatment.

There are several important considerations for something like laetrile to be an effective cancer treatment, such as:

It needs to be delivered in appropriate and consistent dosages—which have not yet been established and likely are not possible to get through diet or unregulated commercial products.
It needs to be able to survive the digestion process and the body’s other protective mechanisms until it can get into the bloodstream and tissues in amounts high enough to be therapeutic.
It should combine with or be broken down by the body’s enzymes and other substances in ways that make it useful rather than inactive or harmful.
How a person responds to it could be influenced by the makeup of their gut microbiota (the mix of bacteria in the digestive system).

Criticisms

A review of research evidence on amygdalin published in 2016 highlighted some of the key criticisms that are important to keep in mind.

Blaheta RA, Nelson K, Haferkamp A, Juengel E. Amygdalin, quackery or cure? Phytomedicine. For example, the researchers said that:

Several aspects of amygdalin use “haven’t yet been adequately explored, making further investigation necessary to evaluate its actual therapeutic potential.”
Claims that laetrile or amygdalin can benefit cancer patients are not supported by sound clinical data.
None of the previous studies evaluated were high quality enough to meet the reviewers’ criteria. They concluded that the consumption of amygdalin carries a considerable risk of serious adverse effects resulting from cyanide poisoning. The authors of one review concluded that “due to the risk of cyanide poisoning, the use of laetrile or amygdalin should be discouraged.”

Food Sources of B17 Vitamin

If you want to get more amygdalin naturally, there are some food sources to consider adding to your diet. However, it’s not a miracle cure. You also need to avoid consuming too much vitamin B17, which can lead to cyanide poisoning.

Natural sources of amygdalin include:

Pits and seeds of apricots, peaches, papaya, and apples
Raw almonds
Lima beans, mung beans, and butter beans
Clover
Sorghum
Carrots
Celery
Bean sprouts
Nuts
Flaxseed

Including these foods in your diet in moderation is key. Even the most positive studies about vitamin B17 do not recommend ingesting large amounts of any substances that contain it. It’s also important to talk to your provider about any dietary changes you plan on making.

Side Effects and Safety Concerns with Vitamin B17

The B17 products that are commercially available have not been proven to be safe or effective, and they are not regulated.

Many laetrile products that are commercially available in the United States come from Mexico and they are untested. In some cases, contaminated products have been found. These products may pose serious threats to your health that go beyond the risks of using laetrile.

Laetrile-containing products have been found to trigger a range of side effects that are similar to those of cyanide poisoning. For example, they can cause:

Blue coloring of the skin
Confusion
Nerve damage
Dizziness
Droopy upper eyelids
Headache
Liver damage
Low blood pressure
Nausea and vomiting
Fever
Coma
Death

Cyanide poisoning is a life-threatening emergency. If you or someone you know is experiencing these symptoms, you need to get immediate medical help.

In one study, researchers wanted to understand why some people that take amygdalin get cyanide toxicity and others do not. They also wanted to find out why it’s more common when amygdalin is consumed compared to when it’s injected.

The researchers discovered that certain gut bacteria have high levels of the enzyme ß-glu, which converts amygdalin to the toxin hydrogen cyanide (HCN).

A person’s ß-glu levels can be influenced by several factors, including:

Taking prebiotics or probiotics
Other supplements or natural products they use
Obesity
Diet
Age

Vitamin C may boost the amount of cyanide that laetrile releases in your body. That means that it could raise the risk of toxicity.

Alternatives to B17 Vitamin

If you’re thinking about using vitamin B17 for the prevention or treatment of cancer, you need to know about and understand the potential threats to your health. You should talk to your provider about the safest and most effective way to treat or prevent cancer.

There’s no proven way to eliminate the risk of all cancers, but there are some practices that we know support your overall health and may help reduce your risk for disease, including cancer.

For example:

Avoiding smoking and tobacco use
Getting recommended cancer screenings
Following a nutritious diet
Exercising regularly
Maintaining an optimal weight

Summary

Vitamin B17 is touted as a natural way to treat or even prevent cancer, but it can have serious health consequences. While it’s true that modern, medical cancer treatments can be hard on your body, it’s also key to know that “natural” does not automatically mean “safe.”

Some natural or alternative treatments are low-risk. Even if they don’t work, there’s no harm in trying them. However, that is not the case with laetrile, amygdalin, or vitamin B17 because taking them can raise your risk of getting cyanide poisoning.

The Incredible Story of Laetrile Part III: A Cancer Cure Cover-Up? The Conclusion

By Suresh Nair, PhD
September 18, 2021

Conventional Cancer Treatments Versus Laetrile

At present, conventional cancer treatments include surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Of these, surgery is the least harmful, because in some instances it can be a life-saving stopgap measure. However, most malignant tumors are generally inoperable. And once cancer has metastasized to other areas in the body, surgery has almost no benefit. Also, surgery only removes tumors at specific, known locations, but it does not remove the original cause of the cancer.

Radiation therapy burns tumors away. This approach has all the disadvantages of surgery, plus it actually increases the likelihood that the cancer will return. It is a well-known fact that excessive exposure to radioactivity is actually a very effective method to induce cancer!

Finally, most drugs used in chemotherapy are highly poisonous, not just to cancer cells, but to the rest of the body as well. Additionally, they weaken the immune system, paradoxically making a cancer patient more susceptible to disease. As mentioned earlier, Laetrile has demonstrated that it is selectively toxic to cancer cells without affecting normal, non-cancerous cells. But can Laetrile actually restore a person to health after contracting cancer? According to author and researcher G. Edward Griffin, the answer is yes, if the patient is caught in time before the cancer has advanced too far and if their body hasn’t already been too damaged or poisoned by toxic cancer therapies.

Unfortunately, most cancer patients start taking Laetrile only after their disease has advanced considerably and their case has been given up as hopeless by their conventional physicians. If they die (as many of them do), then they are counted as statistical failures for Laetrile. In reality it is actually a major victory for Laetrile that any of them could be saved at all. Considering this, it is impressive that so many thousands of so-called “terminal” patients have been saved and their lives extended by Laetrile.

So what is the basis for the continued determined opposition of the medical establishment to this simple, natural remedy? Before we examine their reasons, let’s take a look at what the actual scientific and clinical evidence reveals about Laetrile.

Scientific Evidence in Support of Laetrile

At least a dozen studies published in peer-reviewed literature over the past 10 or more years clearly show Laetrile’s effectiveness against cancer cells in culture, including:

In 2003, amygdalin and the cyanogenic glycoside prunasin (isolated from peach pits) showed anti-tumor actions, comparable in potency to epigallocatechin gallate, the anticancer component in green tea.
In 2013, viability of a human cervical cancer cell line was shown to be significantly suppressed by amygdalin as a result of apoptosis.
In 2014, amygdalin was shown to reduce growth and proliferation of three bladder cancer cell lines.
In 2015, amygdalin was shown to block the rapid growth and metastasis of non-small lung cancer cells in culture.
In 2016, amygdalin from apricot kernels prevented the growth of carcinoma and lymphosarcoma tumors transplanted into mice.
In 2016, amygdalin therapy was seen to prevent growth in multiple prostate cancer cell lines.
In 2016, amygdalin prevented metastasis in three different renal cell carcinoma cell lines.
In 2016, amygdalin was shown to be toxic to different breast cancer cell lines by inducing apoptosis.

The evidence is conclusive. Laetrile can prevent the growth and even invasion of many different types of cancer cells in culture. But what about in actual patients?

Laetrile Case Studies

One source of nitrolosides the Hunza are reported to eat is dried apricot kernels, which are found inside the apricot pit (stone)

The health records of the inhabitants of Hunza, and many other indigenous people around the world, indicate that there is a strong link between regular nitriloside consumption and a low, even zero incidence of cancer. Note: If you recall from Part 1, nitrilosides are compounds found in over 1,200 plant foods. Amygdalin/ B-17/Laetrile are a type of purified nitriloside. However, this is not sufficiently convincing evidence in itself, so let’s consider some case studies of Laetrile therapy:

Case Study 1 – In June 1971, Mr. David Edmonds of California was operated on for colon cancer, which had spread to his bladder. The cancer was so widespread that the operating surgeon said that it would be impossible to remove it all. The blockage was eventually removed by severing the colon and bringing the open end to the outside of his abdomen, a procedure known as a colostomy. Five months later the cancer had returned and Mr. Edmonds was told that he only had a few more months to live, around which time he began Laetrile therapy.

Six months later, Mr. Edmonds felt well enough to resume his normal routine and the cancer in his bladder had completely disappeared. During surgery to re-connect his colon, the doctors could not find any trace of the original cancer. It was the first time in the history of the hospital that a reverse colostomy had been performed. Mr. Edmonds went on to live a near-normal life, full of health and vigor.

Case Study 2 – In 1967, Mrs. Joan Wilkinson had a tumor removed from her lower left leg just below the thigh. Four months later she had a recurrence, requiring another surgery and the removal of muscle and bone. A year later, a lump was detected in her groin. Her cancer had returned and was spreading. Her doctors told her that more surgery would be required, but this time they would have to amputate the leg and the hip, while also removing the bladder and one of the kidneys as well.

At the urging of her sister and a mutual friend, Mrs. Wilkinson decided not to undergo surgery, but to try Laetrile therapy instead. Her doctor informed her that without the surgery she couldn’t possibly live longer than 12 more weeks. Five weeks after starting Laetrile therapy, the lump in her groin had disappeared. She continued to live a healthy and productive life for many years thereafter.

Case Study 3 – In 1972, Dr. Dale Danner, a podiatrist from California, developed a pain in his right leg along with a severe cough. X-rays revealed carcinoma in both lungs and massive secondary tumors in the right leg. The cancer was inoperable and resistant to radiotherapy. The prognosis was “incurable and fatal.”

At his mother’s insistence, Dr. Danner agreed to try Laetrile, but did not start the therapy immediately. Within a few weeks, the pain and coughing had progressed to a point where Dr. Danner was unable to sleep and forced to crawl on his hands and knees. Turning to his supply of Laetrile, he administered a 10-day dose directly into an artery and passed out. When he awoke 36 hours later, not only was he alive but his cough and pain were greatly reduced. His appetite had returned and he felt better than he had in months. Reluctantly admitting that Laetrile was working, Dr. Danner obtained another supply and continued his self-treatment with smaller doses. Three months later, he was back at work.

Case Study 4 – Alicia Buttons, wife of the comedian Red Buttons, was diagnosed with “hopeless” advanced throat cancer. She consulted Dr. Hans Nieper in Hannover, who treated her with Laetrile. She was alive and well 23 years later.

Case Study 5 – In August 2016, investigative reporter Greg Ciola interviewed Reverend Bob Celeste, from Maine, on a radio show. The Reverend had been diagnosed with a blockage a foot long in his colon in 2014. The blockage was surgically removed and the Reverend was diagnosed with stage IV cancer in his colon and other parts of his body. Reverend Bob Celeste credits G. Edward Griffin’s book “World Without Cancer” with saving his life after receiving a diagnosis of Stage IV colon cancer.

Refusing chemotherapy, Reverend Celeste turned instead to apricots, apricot kernels, and daily prayer. Today, he feels that without having encountered Edward G. Griffin’s book, World Without Cancer, he would not still be alive. After a couple of months of carrying out this self-therapy daily, a PET scan revealed no cancer anywhere in his body.

According to G. Edward Griffin, thousands of such case studies have been reported and documented since Laetrile was developed in 1952. In his opinion and that of many other medical professionals as detailed previously in this series, Laetrile’s effectiveness and safety for treating multiple forms of cancer has been proven beyond any doubt.

Let’s look now at the basis for mainstream medicine’s steadfast opposition to Laetrile.

The California Medical Association Report

Almost all allopathic medical opposition to Laetrile is based upon a summary of a 1953 report by the Cancer Committee of the California Medical Association, which bluntly stated: “No satisfactory evidence has been produced to indicate any significant cytotoxic effect of Laetrile on the cancer cell.” Using this summary as a primary reference, government agencies immediately announced that it was illegal to prescribe, transport, or even recommend Laetrile.

The report summary was written by two men – Dr. E. M. McDonald, the Committee Chairman, and Dr. Henry Garland, the Committee Secretary. The Cancer Committee consisted of seven other prominent physicians, but they played no part in the either the report or the summary. In fact, none of them, including the Drs. McDonald and Garland, had ever even used Laetrile.

Instead, all Dr. McDonald and Dr. Garland had done was summarize and interpret the written records of other people who had done various experiments with Laetrile. These two “experts” read the reports submitted to them, summarized them, and issued their own summary to publicize what they had “found.”

Interestingly, around that same time Dr. McDonald and Dr. Garland had also made headlines across the U.S. by publicly claiming that there was no connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

Dr. Garland gave a speech in 1964 entitled “Smoking and Health” to the Commonwealth Club in California in San Francisco and stated the following: “A current widely held hypothesis is that cigarette smoking is related to cancer. The hypothesis is not proven. Cigarettes are regarded by many as one of the better tranquilizers.”

Dr. McDonald was even more specific; in a feature article taken from “U.S. News and World Report” dated August 3, 1957, he opined “Here’s Another View, Tobacco May Be Harmless.” He even went so far as to claim that 24 cigarettes per day was a “harmless pastime” and that “a pack a day keeps lung cancer away.”

In light of subsequent independent research that has clearly established the causative relationship between smoking and lung cancer, Dr. Garland and Dr. McDonald hardly reveal themselves to be trustworthy, reliable public health authority figures. That’s not all. It turns out that both men had actually falsified their summary of the Laetrile experiments. For example, their report claimed that microscopic examination of tumors taken from people who had been treated with Laetrile showed “no evidence of a beneficial chemical effect.” Yet 10 years later, it emerged that one of the pathologists conducting the examinations had indeed reported not just one, but several instances of tumor destruction which he stated at the time could have well been caused by the action of Laetrile.

Statements by Drs. McDonald and Garland that there was no connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer were also proven false.

In other words, Dr. McDonald and Dr. Garland had not told the truth. Their report also stated that laboratory technicians had tried, but failed, to release cyanide from Laetrile. And yet, just two months prior to the report being released, the American Medical Association’s chemical lab had reported that it had been successful in releasing cyanide from Laetrile. So had other labs, including the California Food and Drug lab and the cytochemistry lab of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Once again, Drs. McDonald and Garland had obscured the truth.

Another important aspect of this report is that the patients in these studies had received extremely small and ineffective doses of Laetrile; much too small to really prove anything one way or another.

Today, it’s not uncommon for a patient to receive two to three grams of Laetrile in a single injection. Generally, 30 or even 40 grams are required before a cancer patient typically notices any tangible signs of improvement. In the California study, the maximum total dose was only two grams, divided among 12 injections. Five patients had received only two injections, while another five had received only one!

It’s not surprising that these studies had failed to obtain convincing evidence that Laetrile worked.

What is surprising and shocking is that this and other similarly discredited reports continue to be cited by the FDA and cancer organizations such as the American Cancer Society as definitive proof that Laetrile is a hoax. In fact, extensive and detailed studies from a world-famous cancer institute had established Laetrile’s effectiveness as an anti-cancer therapy beyond any doubt – before it was forcefully suppressed. It makes for quite a story…

Second Opinion: Anatomy of a Cover-up

In 1977, Newsweek estimated that up to 70,000 Americans – roughly a tenth of the cancer population at that time – crossed the border to get hold of Laetrile in Mexico. Apparently, a significant proportion of cancer patients in the U.S. had lost faith in conventional therapies and nineteen U.S. states had enacted legislation to legalize Laetrile.

Ralph W. Moss, PhD, had majored in classics and attended Stanford University on a National Defense Education Act Fellowship. Returning to New York in the early 70s, he applied for and obtained the position of Science Writer in Public Affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Moss began working as a science writer in public affairs at Sloan-Kettering in June 1974. Around that time, in the context of the ongoing war on cancer, Dr. Robert A. Good, MD, had recently been appointed the President of Sloan-Kettering Institute. Lloyd J. Old, MD, and Chester Stock were both Vice-Presidents, while the President of the overall corporation was Lewis Thomas, MD.

In 1974, Moss met Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, a distinguished research scientist who had spent most of his career at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Moss was surprised to learn that Dr. Sugiura was working on amygdalin, since the official position at Sloan-Kettering was that Laetrile was ineffective. He was even more surprised when Dr. Sugiura showed him his meticulously detailed research notes based on laboratory experiments he himself had carried out at Sloan-Kettering, which clearly showed that cancer cells in the bodies of mice treated with amygdalin stopped growing for a number of weeks. After a while, they would start growing again.

As mentioned in Part 1, Moss saw that mice that only received saline solution went on to develop metastatic cancer in their lungs 80-90% of the time, as opposed to Laetrile-treated animals which only showed metastases 10-20% of the time. These results were clear and they had been reproduced multiple times by the ever-meticulous Dr. Sugiura.

In fact, these results were so promising that the leaders of Sloan-Kettering held two secret meetings with medical authorities representing the U.S. FDA, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society to discuss Dr. Sugiura’s results. The conclusions of the first meeting said the following: “Parenteral (injected) amygdalin excreted unchanged; oral amygdalin excreted as the thiocyanate. The Sloan-Kettering group believe their results show that amygdalin used in animals with tumors show; a decrease in lung metastases; slower tumor growth; and pain relief.”

Further, it was agreed that Sloan-Kettering Institute would consider clinical trials on amygdalin – and that the FDA would publicly endorse research on amygdalin as in the public interest. The Vice-President, Dr. Old, even went so far as to initiate joint clinical trials with Dr. Mario Soto de Leon, who practiced Laetrile therapy in Mexico.

The second meeting took place at the National Cancer Institute on March 4, 1975 and included institute head Dr. Frank Rauscher, as well as many other prominent attendees from the National Cancer Institute, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, the FDA, and American Cancer Society. At this meeting, the U.S. government declined Sloan-Kettering’s plea to conduct human clinical trials using Laetrile.

After this meeting, there was a noticeable change in the attitude of Sloan-Kettering’s top brass. Dr. Good, Dr. Stock, and Dr. Thomas began to publicly make negative statements about Laetrile that, according to Ralph Moss, “ranged from misrepresentations to…egregious lies.” It culminated with Dr. Stock, the Vice President, issuing a shocking public statement that stated, “We have found Laetrile negative in all the animal systems we have tested.” This statement by Dr. Stock finally convinced Moss that he was witnessing a cover-up.

Sloan-Kettering held a press conference in 1977 stating that amygdalin was not effective against cancer and there was no need for human clinical trials.

His conviction was strengthened when he obtained photocopies of Dr. Sugiura’s laboratory notebooks, which showed that amygdalin, when injected into the body cavity of mice in high doses, slowed tumor growth up to 50% and also prevented both new tumors and secondary lung metastases an incredible 89% of the time. According to Dr. Sugiura, these were the best results he had seen in 60 years of employment at Sloan-Kettering. For instance, on March 1, 1974, Dr. Sugiura noted that “the general health and appearance of amygdalin-treated animals with tumors was much better than that of the controls.”

On June 15, 1977, Sloan-Kettering’s top brass held a press conference in which every major actor in this drama – Dr. Stock, Dr. Good, Dr. Thomas, and others – all repeated the same falsehood; that they had no experimental evidence that amygdalin was effective against cancer and therefore no reason to support taking it to the next stage of testing in human clinical trials.

Interestingly, Dr. Sugiura – who was also present at the press conference – when asked whether he agreed with Sloan-Kettering’s conclusion that Laetrile does not cure or prevent cancer, made the following enigmatic statement: “I agree – of course my results don’t agree – but I agree with what our institution says.” He also added that he stuck to his results and that he hoped somebody would be able to confirm them later on.

As far as Sloan-Kettering was concerned, a final “blind” test – in which all test mice, both treated and untreated, were mixed in and housed in the same cages – and which led to 42% of tumors being stopped with saline solution, relative to 27% with amygdalin – was sufficient to overturn Dr. Sugiura’s previous four years of repeated, positive Laetrile studies.

However, as Dr. Sugiura pointed out, these last results were very peculiar, because saline solution has no inhibitory effect on tumors at all and certainly should not have stopped tumor growth 42% of the time. Something very strange was going on.

The final conclusion, presented by Dr. Lewis Thomas, President of Sloan-Kettering to a Sub-Committee for Health and Research of the U.S. Senate in July 1977 was that Laetrile had no effect at all on cancer.

To understand why this happened, one needs to simply imagine if cancer were to be cured by a single nutrient present abundantly in natural foods. The gigantic commercial and political industry of cancer treatment would collapse completely! Clearly, there was too much at stake to allow this to happen. As William W. Vodra, former Associate Chief Council for Drugs, FDA, said, “Nobody is going to pay $70,000 for a new cancer drug if they can buy Laetrile for 75 cents.”

In July 1977, Ralph Moss revealed all he knew at a press conference, publicly refuting every one of Sloan-Kettering’s false claims about amygdalin’s lack of effectiveness against cancer. The following Monday he was fired from his position for “engaging in activities that were harmful to the institution and for acting in a manner that conflicted with his most basic job responsibilities” and escorted out of Sloan-Kettering. In other words, he had refused to be part of the cover-up and paid with his job.

Three years after Ralph Moss was fired, he published a book documenting his experience called The Cancer Industry. He has since devoted his life to researching various anti-cancer therapies from around the world and has published 15 books on this subject, including Questioning Chemotherapy: A Critique of the Use of Toxic Drugs and Antioxidants Against Cancer. He continues to serve as a consultant to doctors, scientists, and patients worldwide regarding issues relating to complementary medicine. He currently directs “The Moss Reports,” an up-to-date library of detailed reports on more than 200 types of cancer.

Interestingly, in 1994 Moss was invited by Harold Varmus, MD, Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to be a member of NIH’s Alternative Medicine Program Advisory Council. However, no apology or retraction has been forthcoming, either from Sloan-Kettering or any other government or cancer organization.

Today, the vast majority of cancer information sites still claim that Laetrile is useless as a cancer treatment. This type of misinformation is profoundly disrespectful towards the hundreds of thousands of cancer patients and their long-suffering families, by denying them access to a highly effective and safe treatment that could potentially save them or extend their lives. The sad truth is that cancer is an industry. More people are making a living from cancer than are dying from it.

Where to Find Laetrile

For over a hundred years, standard medical textbooks have described amygdalin as non-toxic, without a single case of death or illness related to its use. In one experiment, rats were given 70 times the normal human dose of Laetrile. The only side-effects seen were greater appetite, weight gain, and superior health.

Typically, patients who have never been treated with chemotherapy or radiation have significantly better recovery rates when treated with Laetrile. It is said that no person taking Laetrile has ever developed cancer – and cancer patients who respond favorably to Laetrile do not relapse as long as they are maintained on Laetrile therapy. Laetrile can be given intravenously, intramuscularly, and orally. If there is no sign of improvement initially, larger doses are typically given intramuscularly or intravenously.

Laetrile can be administered via intravenous therapy (IV), injected into the muscle, or taken orally.

All that being said, it is not advisable to take Laetrile except under the careful guidance of a qualified medical practitioner – especially if you have been diagnosed with cancer. Unfortunately, if you are looking for legal Laetrile treatment, you will need to venture outside of the U.S. as it is technically illegal in the States. There are a number of clinics in Mexico that provide Laetrile therapy, optimally in conjunction with an integrative treatment protocol.

From a cancer prevention perspective, incorporating foods rich in nitrilosides (amygdalin/B-17) into your diet appears to be a prudent and worthwhile endeavor that is unlikely to cause any harm. With well over a thousand foods to choose from, you are likely to find some that can work with any type of specialized eating plan you may be following. Philip E. Binzel, Jr., MD, author of Alive and Well: One Doctor’s Experience with Nutrition in the Treatment of Cancer Patients, states in his book that there are over 1,500 foods that contain nitrilosides, including apricot kernels, peach kernels, grape seeds, blackberries, blueberries, strawberries, bean sprouts, lima beans, and macadamia nuts.

Another helpful resource you may be able to find in used bookstores or by searching online is a little cookbook that G. Edward Griffin’s company first published back in 1976 with a second edition released in 2000. It’s called The Little Cyanide Cookbook: Delicious Recipes Rich in Vitamin B17 by nutritionist June de Spain. It contains a list of foods you can find at most grocery stores along with 300 recipes for getting more amygdalin into your diet.

Resources

lifeextension.com, “The Suppression Of Laetrile At Sloan-Kettering Institute For Cancer Research.” By Ralph W. Moss, PhD; verywellhealth.com, “What Is Vitamin B17? It’s not a vitamin at all.” By Cathy Wong; beatcancerfoundation.org, “The Incredible Story of Laetrile Part III: A Cancer Cure Cover-Up? The Conclusion.” By Suresh Nair, PhD; acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com, “Laetrile: A lesson in cancer quackery.” By IJ Lerner; nytimes.com, “MOVIE REVIEW: A Miracle Drug or Quackery?” By Anita Gates; chemistryworld.com, “Amygdalin & Laetrile.” By Patrick Hughes;

Appendix

MOVIE REVIEW

A Miracle Drug or Quackery?

When your public relations guy starts describing you as diabolical, there’s a problem. Ralph W. Moss, the center of Eric Merola’s documentary “Second Opinion: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering,” was that guy, working in Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center’s public affairs department in the 1970s. He loved the job until the men at the top did something odd: They traveled to Washington to seek research funding for a promising new treatment, then changed their minds — collectively, unequivocally and overnight.

The drug was laetrile (a form of amygdalin), and the center’s own distinguished senior scientist, Kanematsu Sugiura, was doing study after study that showed its helpfulness. Having a mild-mannered writer tell this story by sitting in a chair in front of some pretty art in a house museum and just talking seems lackadaisical, but Mr. Moss’s message is clear, shrewdly edited and peculiarly interesting. Dr. Sugiura’s handwritten notes and footage of a 1977 Sloan-Kettering news conference are like legal-case exhibits.

Although a Google search for laetrile yields descriptions like “clinically ineffective,” “dangerously toxic” and “quackery,” the film suggests that the drug’s only problem was the bottom line: It was dirt-cheap, compared with other cancer medications, which annoyed the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Moss, a family man, needed his salary but couldn’t believe that “refusing to lie on behalf of my employer” and spreading the truth would be grounds for firing. He was wrong, and laetrile was never approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

As for the men at Sloan-Kettering who made sure of that, Mr. Moss says quietly, “They all died of cancer.”

Second Opinion: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering

DirectorEric MerolaWriterEric MerolaStarsRobert Good, Ben Moss, Martha Moss, Melissa Moss, Ralph MossRatingNot RatedRunning Time1h 16mGenresDocumentary, Biography, Drama

Amygdalin & Laetrile

BY PATRICK HUGHES

Ben Valsler

Medical conspiracy theories can be tenacious, and this can create opportunities for exploitation. This week, Patrick Hughes explores the compound at the centre of a cancer conspiracy.

Patrick Hughes

‘This is the Centro Médico del Mar in Central Mexico. It is a place many people come to with terminal cancer – a last chance to live.’ So spoke a KNTV News reporter during a broadcast on October 15, 1979. It was also the place that Diane and Gerald Green took their three year-old son, Chad, to be treated with Laetrile; a then-recently outlawed drug.

At the time, Chad was suffering with acute lymphatic leukaemia. His parents, having informed physicians that they would forego conventional chemotherapy in favour of a treatment based on a special diet and Laetrile, were summoned to court. Following a two-week court hearing, a judge ordered the child’s parents to halt treatment with Laetrile and resume chemotherapy treatments. Shortly after, the Greens fled to Tijuana in Mexico.

Chad Green with parents Diane and Gerald on 21/02/1979

Chad Green with his parents Diane and Gerald on 21 February 1979

Laetrile was the brand name of a semi-synthetic form of amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside found in the seeds of apples and apricots. First isolated in 1830 from bitter almond seeds by Pierre Jean Robiquet, amygdalin was used as an anti-cancer treatment in the mid-19^th century in Russia, and again during the 1920’s in the United States, but use came to a halt after treatment was found to be too toxic. Doses are usually provided orally or intraveneously – with the former being the more dangerous of the two. The compound is broken down by beta-glucosidase in the digestive system, releasing hydrogen cyanide – at times proving fatal.

Amygdalin

Laetrile

Amygdalin began to regain currency as a cancer treatment during the 50s, popularised by Ernest T. Krebs Jr around the same time he filed a patent for Laetrile. Krebs was often referred to by his supporters as ‘Dr. Krebs’, even though this title was conferred by an honorary degree granted by a small bible college with no science department. Krebs’ ideas about cancer built upon an old controversial theory thought up by the embryologist John Beard. The theory claimed that trophoblasts, the cells which form the placenta, were the true cause of cancer, and that tumors were simply caused by the growth of these cells in the wrong part of the body. Amygdalin, in the form of Laetrile, would kill these cancer cells and leave healthy cells intact.

Later, Krebs would re-brand this theory and his drug, calling Laetrile ‘Vitamin B-17’ and claiming that cancer was the result of a nutritional deficiency of this vitamin. Neither Laetrile or amygdalin were ever recognised as a vitamin and eventually Laetrile was banned in 1963. But Krebs’ purported cure held a strong grip on the curiosity of the public. At the FDA hearing for Laetrile, one man, a cancer patient named Glenn Rutherford said ‘let me choose the way I want to die. It is not your prerogative to tell me how.’

Benno C Schmidt Sr

His statement proved a portent, and the public fascination with Laetrile failed to let up after the ban. The rest of the decade would see medical professionals at cancer clinics receive letter upon letter asking whether Laetrile could cure their cancer. Benno Schmidt, who was at the time on the board of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, was one of the recipients. In 1972, after replying to many such a letter, Schmidt advised that the centre begin testing for anti-cancer activity in Laetrile, saying that when he told people Laetrile had no effect on cancer: ‘I would like to be able to do so with some conviction.’ The tests were green-lit and in June 1977 the institution announced its results – that, just as suspected, Laetrile had no effect on cancer, and that they were closing the books on it. It seemed as though it should have been the end of it.

But around the same time, a newsletter from a group calling themselves Second Opinion, made up of anonymous members of Sloan-Kettering, began circulating. It accused Sloan-Kettering of intentionally failing to publish results showing that Laetrile successfully inhibited the growth of secondary tumours in mice. Robert Stock, the vice-president of chemotherapy research, addressed the accusations, saying ‘if we had published those early data, it would have caused all kinds of havoc.’ The results in question were from a series of tests run by Kanematsu Sugiura – a man known for his ‘extraordinary record of being right’ according to the then head of Sloan-Kettering.

‘Only informed choices are free’

In the time that followed, several scientists repeated Sugiura’s experiments, and found his results impossible to replicate – but the damage was done. Doubt had been sewn among the public, creating fertile ground for conspiracy theories to grow. The faithful left to congregate and continue their treatments in hubs south of the United States border. Back in Mexico, in September of 1979, the Greens made the headlines again. It was reported that their child, Chad, had died in Tijuana.

Slowly but surely, the buzz surrounding Laetrile fell away. In the years that followed, it was described as the most profitable example of medical quackery in history – and it’s one that still casts a shadow today. An old, closed petition on change.org with over 12,000 supporters asks that Sloan-Kettering acknowledge their positive results from Laetrile, and a quick web-search today still displays the hastily formed queries from cancer patients in online forums asking whether Vitamin B17 could cure what ails them. Every few years, a new case of cyanide poisoning shows up in the medical journals. At day’s end, the story of Laetrile can be summed up by paraphrasing an excerpt from the FDA commissioner’s decision:

‘The Laetrile proponents maintained that even if the drug did not work, people should still have the right to take it because they deserve ‘freedom of choice.’ But the sellers of Laetrile did not offer a free choice – they persuaded cancer victims, desperate and dying, to buy a drug that did not work on the basis of false hope. Only informed choices are free.’

Ben Valsler

Patrick Hughes and the assembled voices of the Chemistry World team with amygdalin. Next week, Mike Freemantle keeps infection at bay with a dose of boric acid.

Mike Freemantle

Lister, who is regarded as the father of antiseptic surgery, pioneered the use of phenol, then known as carbolic acid, to clean wounds, sterilise surgical instruments and scrub surgeons’ hands. He was also an advocate of boracic – or boric – lint as a medical dressing for wounds and ulcers. It is prepared, he notes, by dipping a piece of lint in a saturated solution of boric acid near boiling point and then allowing it to dry.

Common Sense and Ramblings In America

What Is Wrong With Our World–The Laetrile Cancer Drug Cover-Up?

What Is Vitamin B17?

What Is Vitamin B17 Used For?

How Vitamin B17 is Claimed to Work

How Did Laetrile Get Popular?

What Research Says About B17 Vitamin

Food Sources of B17 Vitamin

Side Effects and Safety Concerns with Vitamin B17

Alternatives to B17 Vitamin

Summary

A Miracle Drug or Quackery?

Second Opinion: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering

Like this:

What Is Vitamin B17?

What Is Vitamin B17 Used For?

How Vitamin B17 is Claimed to Work

How Did Laetrile Get Popular?

What Research Says About B17 Vitamin

Food Sources of B17 Vitamin

Side Effects and Safety Concerns with Vitamin B17

Alternatives to B17 Vitamin

Summary

A Miracle Drug or Quackery?

Second Opinion: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering

Share this:

Like this:

Discover more from Common Sense and Ramblings In America