has anyone used apricot kernels/vit b17/laetrlie in fight against cancer,any results?

Question

i would not use this as an alternative to conventional medicine nor without speaking to oncologist first.

Answer 1

There is no documented scientific evidence that this product has ever been of benefit to cancer patients. There is almost a religous type following of the product however so you will surely get people who have never had cancer try to convince you. But, any studies that have been done indicate that it doesn't do any good at all and tumors will progress. So, if the arsenic in the product doesn't poison you, than the untreated cancer will.

There is no such thing, by the way, as 'vit b17' . . its just a friendly name for arsenic . . those who promote this product needed to call it something other than a deadly poison so the vitamin was invented.

Quackwatch: The rise and fall of laetrile
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

Answer 2

Ignorance. First of all, Quackwatch, to people willing and capable of doing their own research, is the quackery of information. If you look to Quackwatch for your education, there may be no hope for any of you. What a biased load of gullible rubbish.

Apricot kernels do not contain arsenic - they do, however, contain a component of cyanide. Not free cyanide; the sort found in dark glass bottles with a skull & crossbones, but a bound molecule containing cyanide. No, B17 hasn't been recognised by the mainstream as a vitamin, but it was coined as such as it was determined a dietary element necessary to the body. The failure to recognise this is the issue here.

Amygdalin (B17) has been proven time and again to be effective against cancer. If none of you believe in the pharmaceutical agenda to bury alternative medicine, you've got your heads in the sand. Do you honestly believe, after decade upon decade of failed amygdalin use, the overwhelming data would cast a favourable light on this alternative therapy? Would it really have an almost "religious" following if it truly was ineffective? Why? Forget about the clinical studies designed to fail. Anecdotal evidence is far superior to clinical trials. I'd take the authentic accounts of thousands of individuals over the results of a handful of lab rats any day.

Apricot kernels are not a cure for cancer, but this is not to say that they aren't a crucial component to a metabolic approach to overcoming cancer. Their scientifically acknowledged role in battling cancer lies in their selective ability to slow and halt the growth and spread of cancer cells. If one were to consume apricot kernels alone, they'd be unlikely to succeed. About as unlikely as if they were to undergo conventional therapy. However, through dietary adjustments and the addition of a number of other important supplements, metabolic therapies are the most effective approach to overcoming cancer that exists. Not on one's last legs, but before destroying the immune system with conventional treatment.

If any of you or your family are ever diagnosed with cancer - I dearly hope you'll reconsider your position on alternative treatments. Of course - don't be a fool about it. Look for overwhelming anecdotal evidence. This is where you'll find the truth. If the overwhelming evidence suggests quackery, by all means, keep searching. But this is not the case with amygdalin (vitamin B17, apricot kernels, laetrile). Do some research and consider the agendas of your sources.

Answer 3

I was going to answer this question, but now I don't need to - Panda's excellent answer has left nothing out. I share your enthusiasm for Quackwatch Panda, it's a very useful site.

Wherever there is cancer there is a ruthless person ready to take money for an unproven - and in this case dangerous - 'cure'. Remember that you have no way of knowing if someone claiming a miraculous 'cure' ever had cancer in the first place, and treat anecdotal evidence with great caution.

EDIT: Kumala, you say you wouldn't use apricot kernels as an alternative to conventional treatment. Please don't use them at all - as well as being ineffective against cancer, they are dangerous.

Answer 4

I believe that there was one case that claimed success with this treatment. And as to whether it was scientifically monitored and fully documented is doubtful. Consider the many thousands of people that are treated and saved using proven medicine and treatment, I guess you need to ask yourself are you "feeling lucky" to take B17 arsenic on the chance tat it will cure and that you may be the second successful case?
Sorry to say there are all too many claims floating around of such miraculous undocumented or scientifically verifiable treatments, which prey on those in need the most!
And just for the record there is no such vitamin as B17! Just call it by what it really is "Arsenic".

Answer 5

I am sorry to say it is quite useless.

(Thanks a lot to Panda and lo_mcg for introducing me to Quackwatch, which I had not heard of before. There are many quack 'remedies ' I have not come across before. My trick is to take an incurable condition, put the word cure after it and enter it into google. It is frightening to see how many millions of sites (literally) feed on the misery of others, little seems to have changed in 100 years of quackery. )

Doctors are far from perfect, and some of them have acted in some very dubious ways over the years, but give me conventional therapy every time.

Answer 6

I'm sure there are people out there who have tried this.

Is there any evidence it works? NO

Would I try it personally? NO ...... unless something changes in the future and I decide it would be fun to try play Russian Roulette and investigate safe arsenic doses from a personal level.