Does Amygdalin or Vitamin B-17 Work as an Alternative Cancer Cure?

Does Amygdalin or Vitamin B-17 Work as an Alternative Cancer Cure?
4.84 (96.71%) 79 votes

The Mayo Clinic puts amygdalin to the test to see if it is an effective cancer treatment.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Amygdalin, quackery or cure?” Amygdalin is a cyanide-containing compound found in apple seeds, but 10 times more concentrated in the seeds of peaches, apricots, and bitter almonds. It can be sold as a derivative called laetrile, advertised with the misnomer vitamin B-17. It gained popularity among cancer patients as an alternative treatment in the 1970s, but the reason there’s this 2016 review, and the reason I’m doing videos about it, is that it has “experienced a renaissance” thanks to the internet.

Back then, all the FDA could do was send out a bulletin to a million doctors and other health professionals, warning them that laetrile is not only worthless but dangerous. Ten thousand copies were made for posting in post offices. The New York Times editorialized that people should be able “to choose their own placebo,” but the stuff was killing people. Finally, as the New England Journal of Medicine reported it, the “Supreme Court stops the nonsense,” with Thurgood Marshall writing the unanimous court opinion that terminally ill patients deserve the same FDA protections against unsafe drugs, and it was banned on a federal level.

Rational argument failed to dissuade people; and so, the State stepped in, but that had the opposite effect, with cancer victims and their families accusing the government and mainstream medicine of “a grand conspiracy.” At an FDA meeting, for example, an M.D. Anderson doc rhetorically asked: “Surely you can’t believe that the quarter of a million American physicians are sitting on a cancer cure just so they can get rich?” “He was answered with a chorus of “yeses” from the audience.” Who was getting rich were some of the laetrile advocates, like the head of the “Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy,” committed to the freedom of pocketing millions a year in laetrile sales.

“Laetrile’s proponents consider it to be a ‘natural cancer cure’; whereas opponents consider it ‘the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative [the most lucrative, profitable] cancer quack promotion in medical history.’” But you don’t know which…until you put it to the test.

“The National Cancer Institute, in response to widespread public interest, undertook a retrospective analysis of laetrile treatment.” In other words, they sent a letter out to every physician in the country, plus tens of thousands of other health professionals, contacted all the pro-laetrile groups and basically said send us the best you got. “Although it is estimated that at least 70,000 Americans had used [the stuff], only 93 cases were submitted for evaluation,” and of those, only six appeared to be legit, where taking laetrile was associated with at least some partial improvement.

Now, of course, the people sending in those reports may have gotten things wrong, or just made stuff up—falsified data—but hey, maybe those six actually did respond to the treatment. If that’s out of 70,000 treated, though, you’d think maybe that’d just be by chance. But hey, the fact that so many people tried it should count for something. Yes, they may have all just been boondoggled, but maybe there’s something to it.  Certainly, the fact that it didn’t seem to help with any of the laboratory animal cancers doesn’t mean it couldn’t still work in people. The only way to know for sure is to put it to the test: a clinical trial performed in “competent and experienced hands.” The Mayo Clinic accepted the challenge.

One hundred seventy-eight cancer patients were treated with it and… all the patients died rapidly. “No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement, or even stabilization of cancer, [nor] improvement of symptoms, [nor] extension of life span.” Only adverse effects of “cyanide toxicity.” Conclusion: “Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment.”

The books, then, were closed on it for more than 30 years. Laetrile doesn’t work— “unsafe and ineffective.” “No sound evidence that laetrile is effective as an anticancer agent.” So, “[t]he label ‘unproven’ cancer remedy may be too generous at this point; it is time to vehemently assert that laetrile cancer therapy has been ‘disproven.’”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: RitaE via pixabay. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Amygdalin, quackery or cure?” Amygdalin is a cyanide-containing compound found in apple seeds, but 10 times more concentrated in the seeds of peaches, apricots, and bitter almonds. It can be sold as a derivative called laetrile, advertised with the misnomer vitamin B-17. It gained popularity among cancer patients as an alternative treatment in the 1970s, but the reason there’s this 2016 review, and the reason I’m doing videos about it, is that it has “experienced a renaissance” thanks to the internet.

Back then, all the FDA could do was send out a bulletin to a million doctors and other health professionals, warning them that laetrile is not only worthless but dangerous. Ten thousand copies were made for posting in post offices. The New York Times editorialized that people should be able “to choose their own placebo,” but the stuff was killing people. Finally, as the New England Journal of Medicine reported it, the “Supreme Court stops the nonsense,” with Thurgood Marshall writing the unanimous court opinion that terminally ill patients deserve the same FDA protections against unsafe drugs, and it was banned on a federal level.

Rational argument failed to dissuade people; and so, the State stepped in, but that had the opposite effect, with cancer victims and their families accusing the government and mainstream medicine of “a grand conspiracy.” At an FDA meeting, for example, an M.D. Anderson doc rhetorically asked: “Surely you can’t believe that the quarter of a million American physicians are sitting on a cancer cure just so they can get rich?” “He was answered with a chorus of “yeses” from the audience.” Who was getting rich were some of the laetrile advocates, like the head of the “Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy,” committed to the freedom of pocketing millions a year in laetrile sales.

“Laetrile’s proponents consider it to be a ‘natural cancer cure’; whereas opponents consider it ‘the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative [the most lucrative, profitable] cancer quack promotion in medical history.’” But you don’t know which…until you put it to the test.

“The National Cancer Institute, in response to widespread public interest, undertook a retrospective analysis of laetrile treatment.” In other words, they sent a letter out to every physician in the country, plus tens of thousands of other health professionals, contacted all the pro-laetrile groups and basically said send us the best you got. “Although it is estimated that at least 70,000 Americans had used [the stuff], only 93 cases were submitted for evaluation,” and of those, only six appeared to be legit, where taking laetrile was associated with at least some partial improvement.

Now, of course, the people sending in those reports may have gotten things wrong, or just made stuff up—falsified data—but hey, maybe those six actually did respond to the treatment. If that’s out of 70,000 treated, though, you’d think maybe that’d just be by chance. But hey, the fact that so many people tried it should count for something. Yes, they may have all just been boondoggled, but maybe there’s something to it.  Certainly, the fact that it didn’t seem to help with any of the laboratory animal cancers doesn’t mean it couldn’t still work in people. The only way to know for sure is to put it to the test: a clinical trial performed in “competent and experienced hands.” The Mayo Clinic accepted the challenge.

One hundred seventy-eight cancer patients were treated with it and… all the patients died rapidly. “No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement, or even stabilization of cancer, [nor] improvement of symptoms, [nor] extension of life span.” Only adverse effects of “cyanide toxicity.” Conclusion: “Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment.”

The books, then, were closed on it for more than 30 years. Laetrile doesn’t work— “unsafe and ineffective.” “No sound evidence that laetrile is effective as an anticancer agent.” So, “[t]he label ‘unproven’ cancer remedy may be too generous at this point; it is time to vehemently assert that laetrile cancer therapy has been ‘disproven.’”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: RitaE via pixabay. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Doctor's Note

What about eating apricot seeds directly? In case you missed the previous video, check out Do Apricot Seeds Work as an Alternative Cancer Cure?

Mayo was also the one that tested IV vitamin C:

And here’s when Gerson Therapy was put to the test:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

171 responses to “Does Amygdalin or Vitamin B-17 Work as an Alternative Cancer Cure?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. Bravo! I wanted to share with others my methodology in study as it has repeatedly passed the test of time since I began my recovery in 2012 from a seemingly hopeless state of multiple chronic diseases. That methodology is to read broadly, maintain a healthy skepticism, and apply selectively. By healthy skepticism, I mean I can be convinced with credible proof, but seldom is single-source adequate to apply to my favorite guinea pig. . . me.

    After 7 years of this process, I’ve reversed severe ulcerative colitis (now in remission even after 90% meds reduction), cardiovasccular disease, and cancer. And my overall health and physical condition now seems more like 20 years ago. Not bad from a seemingly hopeless state. It was all done naturally. Dr G has been my primary source.

    Along the journey, I have considered seriously but fortunately discarded as useless or dangerous. Many “experts” I don’t trust any more. Dr G has been helpful exposing a bunch of these bad ideas. Black salve was another. So I continue to read broadly, scrutinize everything, and apply selectively. I’ve only got one guinea pig to test these ideas on and if I screw it up, there’s no do-over. Thanks for keeping me out of trouble Dr G.

    1. I find that separating the schools of alternative medicine it becomes easier to realize what is proven with research and what is not. The two schools are the old eclectic approach (which is nothing more than wives tales of herbalism passed down through generations), and the scientific approach. Some products only use one, some use both to promote their products. Natures Way makes Dr Christophers Black Salve. He was a eclectic herbalist as that was all that was around during his time. However Natures Way is currently owned by Dr Willmar Schwabe Pharmaceuticals.

    2. Yes, I applaud this series! Dr. Greger, you are going to save people so much money and you may save their lives and not waste their time and energy and not have them have to go through the confusion I went through trying to figure all of this out!

      Yes, I ran ahead and looked at the study, and already did have a relative-through-marriage who went to Mexico and died in spite of taking it.

      The logic people use is the tribe, which ate the seeds and they point to that as why they didn’t get cancer. I already did the Okinawans not getting cancer without taking the seeds mental math. Tribes tend to not eat the rich western diet. They tend to get exercise and sleep at night and get Vitamin D and probably eat their vegetables and may not have night shift jobs, etc.

      The concept of crediting the magic seeds as the main factor for health doesn’t make sense.

    3. farmcountry,

      You are right B-17 and Black Salve are two of the ones which have a lot of chatter.

      Essiac tea is another.

      Budwig is another and that is one I would like to see if there are studies.

    4. farmcountry,
      I am so envious of your results and commend you on finding the right path to health. How I wish, though, you could share just what you found to resolve your digestive and cardiovascular issues especially. It would certainly help to shorten the struggle some of us are experiencing.

      Lida

  2. I worked in the natural foods industry and I can honestly tell you that there is a minority in the mix that believes there is some sort of mass medical conspiracy and that all diseases have a natural cure ‘they’ do not want you to know about. Just like the pizzagate bozos, nothing you tell or no proof you can show will change what they want to believe. You will just be considered ‘fake news’ and ‘part of the conspiracy’. Darwin works in mysterious ways.

    1. Reality Bites,

      If it had worked, Big Pharma would have made billions upon billions selling it. That is a piece of the logic which is missing.

          1. Not Big Pharma though. They don’t sell what they cannot patent.
            Besides, do you really think BP wants to stop their billion dollar money train with actual natural cures?

        1. Boyd

          You wrote:

          “Laetrile is a naturally occurring substance and cannot be patented. That is why no Pharmaceutical company is interested”

          That is factually incorrect. Laetrile was patented back in 1949. It is a derivative of amygdalin although some people use the terms interchangeably.

          I don’t know where you got that statement from but it shows again that alternative health advocates seem to just make up their arguments and allegations as they go along with no regard for the actual facts. Presumably they hope that people won’t bother checking their claims.

          1. The view from the OTHER SIDE:

            https://www.cancerdefeated.com/yes-laetrile-really-works/5284/

            ” After 18 years, Dr. Binzel analyzed the success of his treatments. He separated his patients into primary cancer and metastatic cancer groups… and then compared their outcomes to the American Cancer Society’s outcomes.

            The primary cancer group had 180 patients with 30 types of cancer. After 18 years, 87.3 percent of these did NOT die of their cancer. Even assuming that the seven patients who died of unknown causes may have died from cancer, he still showed an amazing 83.3% long-term recovery!4

            At the same time, the American Cancer Society (ACS) officially claimed that with conventional treatment including early detection and treatment for cancers that had not yet metastasized, “…85% of the patients WILL die from their disease within 5 years.”5 ”

            83% vs 15% survival. Not an easy choice to make…in the real world?

            I’ve never been diagnosed with cancer (yet)…mostly interested in prevention. If I had a diagnosis…then the real fun would begin….fear and pressure….

    2. “that believes there is some sort of mass medical conspiracy and that all diseases have a natural cure ‘they’ do not want you to know about.”

      That’s actually kind of true… Eating a whole foods plant based diet is a pretty magical method of prevention and cure and there are some very powerful industries, such as animal agriculture, that do not want us to know this or put it into practice. What I find amusing, for lack of a better word, is that the types you describe (at least in my experience) typically eat a very standard westernized diet and believe there’s A CURE as in a single organism that will somehow fix all things. And don’t try to talk about microbiome, cholesterol, and ALL the complexities of our bodies and how all these things play a role in our health… No, no! Somewhere, whether hidden in the sea or in a mountain or in a lab, there is a magic pill that we can put in our bodies which are simplistic as toasters.

  3. Dr. Greger,

    Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

    Cancer patients end up with so much extra stress trying to negotiate all of these topics.

    This might save people from re-mortgaging their houses to fly to Mexico. I have someone who did that. Sucks for the family after they pass away.

    There are still some big ones out there, but this was one I was waiting for.

    Budwig is another.

  4. Very informative! That’s why people like Dr.G are such a boon in our time. As new health trends pop up left and right now, knowing which of them have been actually backed by science is really helpful.

    Not all alternative medicine effects can be measured, though. Things such as decreased stress and anxiety levels are quite subjective. I wonder if a randomized placebo-controlled study would help in this case?

    Dmitriy P,
    Shilajit Secret

    1. @Shiljit Secret, try telling a person who has been diagnosed with stage 2+ cancer that they should reduce their stress and anxiety levels. Once you know you have the disease you live each day with worry until some inaccurate pet/ct scan test result has oncology and you mistakenly believing you are in the clear.

      1. Yes, that is true; It would be incredibly unkind to tell that to people if there were no evidence based strategies to manage and reduce stress, but there are. Lots of them.

        I used to have clinically diagnosed PTSD from some of the most prolonged and extreme childhood trauma it is possible to experience. Both my parents lost their custody. I also had major depressive disorder, that led to me very nearly dying at nineteen from a suicide attempt. I was put on multiple antidepressants. None of them worked.

        Through a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy, prolonged exposure therapy, reading hundreds of books on psychology and health, meditation, yoga, evidence based herbal supplements, and plant based eating, I am now one of the happiest calmest people I know. I have a great marriage and run my own business as a full time artist. There are proven things that people can do to overcome mental illness, in the same way there are proven things people can do to overcome any other illness. The brain is a physical organ that is part of the body that responds neuroplastically environmental conditions including, but not limited to, thoughts..

        Having a blunted cortisol slope, or chronically elevated norepinephrine is not a subjective experience. It is physical reality that people have studied at length. A threat response effects every part of the body. It is not just in people’s minds. People can also have heightened cortisol levels and subjectively feel fine if you ask them. It is not something that people can just decide to snap out of or a choose not to experience in that moment. But there are many choices that we can make that make to mitigate its occurrence and severity in the future, including to a limited extent the immediate future.

        In this study of that women with ovarian cancer, a one standard deviation increase in night cortisol was associated with a 46% greater likelihood of death.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4440672/

        Now if that is true. Don’t ovarian cancer patients deserve to know so they can do something about it? Like practice meditation, join a support group, leave abusive relationships, spend more time in nature, walk more, or do any of the other plethora of things clinically shown to reduce stress.

        As a side note, for people looking into fasting for cancer. This is one of several studies showing that fasting also causes people to experience a blunted cortisol slope The same type of response shown in the previous study I linked that increased the likelihood of death by 46%.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23403876

        The only way to fix a problem is to know about it. A person who is being harmed by stress, and doesn’t know they being harmed, cannot prioritize stress management to help themselves. The truth is always the kindest option, because it is only way to a real solution.

        1. @Melody, great job working to deal with all those challenges on move forward to creating a beautiful life for you and your family.

          Curious, if not too personal to ask, was there ever a moment where you wait a minute my emotions and reactions to daily matters given my unique biology is being highly affected by what I ingest and not an issue with how I am consciously choosing to process them?

          As you mentioned experiencing I’ve also noticed that being on a 100% whole food plant based nutrition lifestyle significant affects how my brain works in response to stress in life.

          1. Thank you. Yes, a common thread between the various interventions that worked for me is questioning the reality of my thoughts. In healthy eating, we can become aware of the myriad responses we can have to food or exercise, and depersonalize the experience of stress. Meditation is a process of not following every thought and thereby buying into it. Yoga trains people to sit with discomfort instead of running from it, so discomfort controls them less and is less threatening. Cognitive behavioral therapy can train us to recognize distorted thinking patterns and undo them.

            No one would ever kill themselves or someone else, if they did not believe the thoughts that were telling them to do so. No one would ever shoot up a school, or blow themselves up in a terrorist attack, if they did not believe the thoughts that told them to do so. No one would beat their children. No one would even eat ice cream, knowing it was bad for their long term health, if they did not believe the thoughts that were telling them to do so. Anything we can do to question our thoughts gives us the freedom to choose a better path. For us and for everyone. It is something I am very passionate about.

            1. @Melody, thanks for sharing details of your experience on this front and how whole food plant based [wfpb] nutrition and fasting contributed to having more leveled chemistry [ cortisol, norepinephrine, etc ] that helped brain process reality in more constructive ways.

              I’ve definitely noticed daily intermittent [ 16/8 ] and occasional prolonged [ 24,48,72 ] fasting really adds to the wfpb nutrition experience in that i’m at my calmest during those times and reacting to all forms of stress in a very even keeled way. It would be great to see “put it to the test” evidence that backs up this kind of anecdotal / subjective feedback.

              I also found that digesting all the evidence backed knowledge share that drG / nf.org provides, along with drB / pcrm.org and dr jason fung on fasting, serve up has left me to feeling that my brain’s interpretation of every minute is way more chemically driven vs conscious choice. Therefore I now read way less into its negative reaction to external events than I might of in the past, often just laughing off those thoughts.

              1. I appreciate your kind words, but the links I posted were not in favor of intermittent fasting. One showed a blunted cortisol slope was associated with 46% higher death rate. The other shows fasting blunts the cortisol slope. Cortisol is supposed to spike in the morning and drop in the evening, with a blunted cortisol slope it stays elevated throughout the day and is a sign of chronic stress. I do not doubt there is some health benefits to fasting in some circumstances. I do not think it should be promoted for cancer patients, however.

                Here is another study showing a unhealthy blunted cortisol slope during Ramadan fasting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3630175/

                Fasting as a protocol for cancer has already been tested by the millions of cancer patients who experience loss of appetite and nausea, making them unable to eat. Any purported autophagy does not cure their cancer, even though their bodies are wasting away.

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3227249/

                Cancer anorexia, also known as cachexia, is directly responsible for 20% of all cancer deaths, contributing to more than 7.4 million deaths worldwide each year. More than one half of cancer patients suffer from cachexia. Fasting would only exacerbate this process.

                http://www.cancercachexia.com/what-is-cancer-cachexia

                Unexplained weight loss is the first sign of cancer in an estimated 40% of patients.

                http://www.cancercachexia.com/what-is-cancer-cachexia

                Another study on the effects of skipping breakfast and mortality. When we see a study like this we have to consider skipping breakfast could be causal.

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27046951

                I looked into all of this because I noticed intermittent fasting seemed to cause a benign tumor on my thyroid to grow. Fasting may be safe or even beneficial under controlled conditions with medical professionals for certain conditions. But it is definitely not safe for at least half of all cancer patients who have cachexia, especially when one in five cancer patients actually die of starvation. I know these words are controversial, as fasting is very popular right now, but isn’t a safe protocol to recommend for cancer.

                1. If someone is healthy and they enjoy fasting, I support that. I just do not support telling people at a great risk of literally starving to death from cancer, not to eat. I also do not support people fasting, if they feel stressed doing it or have a history of eating disorders. The benefits are not clear enough in the research to recommend fasting to all or even most people. Unlike say, eating broccoli.

                  1. Another thing to always question in a capitalist society, especially when something has become a trend, is who would profit?

                    What diet would Coca Cola want us to be on? What diet would Mcdonalds want us to eat to lose weight?

                    The only diet that lets people eat junk food and still lose weight is a fasting diet. But it’s even better, if fasting raises cortisol, which it does for many, that causes people to crave fat and sugar even more.

                    https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/why-stress-causes-people-to-overeat

                    One of the earliest studies on calorie restriction The Minnesota Starvation Experiment showed this as participants felt an irresistible urge to cheat and binge eat.

                    https://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2005-Mad-Science-Museum-Ancel-Keys-Starvation.pdf

                    And if research is popularized that shows the health benefits of fasting, people will feel that a starve and binge cycle on junk food is a virtuous choice that will save their lives. The processed food industry would ultimately benefit from all of this. And it a narrative that people with a low grade addiction to fat and sugar would want to hear.

                    1. I also want to clarify I was eating 100% plant based healthy diet while I was intermittent fasting and my tumor grew, and it shrunk rapidly when I stopped fasting on the same diet. Fasting caused me to have sleep maintenance insomnia and wake up after only five hours of sleep completely ravenous every morning. I tried fasting both in the morning and at night with the same results.

                    2. One of the earliest studies on calorie restriction The Minnesota Starvation Experiment showed this as participants felt an irresistible urge to cheat and binge eat.

                      https://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2005-Mad-Science-Museum-Ancel-Keys-Starvation.pdf

                      And if research is popularized that shows the health benefits of fasting, people will feel that a starve and binge cycle on junk food is a virtuous choice that will save their lives. The processed food industry would ultimately benefit from all of this. And it a narrative that people with a low grade addiction to fat and sugar would want to hear.
                      ——————————————————————————————————————–
                      One thing to note here is that fasting and starvation are two different things.

                      My personal experience, having finished a 5 day fast on New Year’s Day, is that fasting is a re-set experience that allows our bodies to break down stored fats and have the liver turn those fats into energy for the brain and body to use as fuel to replace the constant supplies of glucose from starches from our normal daily consumption.

                      And as Deb suggested, it is a remake of our immune system. That is, our body recycles our white blood cells that are no longer viable and causes new ones to be made.

                      The starvation experiment required what ? 22 miles of walking? During my 5 day fast my most distant walk was to the mailbox across the road on days during the holidays when the mail would run… or some 20 or 30 steps to my plastic bubble dry sauna room on sunny days to spend getting warm and sweating for about an hour. Luckily I planned ahead and kept a water bottle there to re-hydrate after sweating… otherwise I would weave and bobble as I made my way back inside.

                      But most of the time I spent watching old movies or documentaries on You Tube to pass the time away until I retired to spend 8 or 9 hours sleeping. Approximately I would drink a slug of commercial Kombucha drink in order to not feel constipated when I opted out of my fast. And it worked as my bowels functioned normally just a day or so after re-feeding.

                      And in the matter of re-feeding, I did not suddenly start eating everything in sight. Quite the opposite. For a few days I ate sparingly. Not because I was depriving myself, but because I had reached a point of metabolism re-set that due to my heightened state of metabolism, meant that I didn’t need as much food to meet my needs. To be clear though, I take supplements that meet my nutrition needs both before and after fasting.

                      This could be why my body can easily adjust to changes in metabolism after fasting and not require massive amounts of calories after the change.

                      I was heartened by the number of participants in the starvation experiment that were still alive when the follow-up contact was done so many years later. I do wish they had reported the state of their health in some detail.

                      I do fasting to extend my life and health in future. It generally only takes a few days afterwards to give me the feeling that the short term calorie deprivation is well worth it.

                  2. The evidence based content I’ve been looking at on effects and pros/cons of intermittent and prolonged fasting are found at https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jason+fung+fasting. I’ve not seen any of that research work discussing use of fasting as way to facilitate getting away with eating poorly or binge eating when not fasting. In fact he regularly refers to evidence around the damage that trying to live off of reduce daily caloric intake will have on folks basal metabolic rate [bmr]. That said those who do not eat very satiating wfpb nutrition I could see having big urges to binge eat to feel full.

                    1. In fact he regularly refers to evidence around the damage that trying to live off of reduce daily caloric intake will have on folks basal metabolic rate [bmr]. That said those who do not eat very satiating wfpb nutrition I could see having big urges to binge eat to feel full.
                      ———————————————————————————————–
                      I see the metabolism increase as a reduction in the need for larger quantities of food, but of course a person needs to recognize this and limit their food intake to their metabolic needs.

                      I’ve also seen it reported that eating less food causes the intestine to decrease in size (smaller waist.)

                      I look at old family get-togethers photos and few if any there are at or above what today is an acceptable BMI.

                      Granted not everyone lived long and prospered because maybe they smoked or were under constant stress (we were mostly farmers and were constantly stressed by the weather.) But those that took life as it came usually lived what then was considered a long 80-ish life.

                      I remember an old saying, usually in reference to a woman, “She eats like a bird” meaning she eats with small portions on her plate.

                      My mother was one of those and she worked from dawn to dusk caring for her husband and 5 kids… we all worked hard but we menfolk ate heartily so we could do more physical labor in the fields.

                2. @Melody, thanks on addition insights on fasting as it might relate to cancer treatment.

                  Not really thinking about intermittent and/or prolonged fasting for cancer treatment but instead for management of overall health, moods & stress mgmt. in times when you are fortunate enough to not be dealing with cancer.

                  Will need to read study attributing percentage of cancer deaths to cachexia. My observation is that at the point when cachexia is setting in you are already on an end of life glide path and cachexia just happens to be the attributable cause if/when liver, lung or other major organ failure from metastasis does not happen first.

                3. @Melody I apologize for going off on tangent associated with just the side note contained in your initial post versus its main intent. Wish the nf.org comments section had ability to go back and edit and/or delete posts to address corrections when necessary.

                  1. Oh that’s fine:) I did some more research and found another connection between calorie restriction and potential cancer growth that I posted in a comment below.

                    I think if you feel good keep doing it. I didn’t feel good doing itermittent fasting. It led me to consume fewer fruits and vegetables, and less food in general, because I can’t eat the whole plant food amounts I normally do in a restricted time window. So my overall antioxidant and fiber intake was lower.

                    When I tried intermittent fasting years ago before I was wfpb, just a basic mostly healthy vegan, I slept fine, but I craved and ate much more fat and junk food. I have always had a healthy BMI. This didn’t change my weight, but I felt much worse physically after a few months.

                    My husband used to do one meal a day as vegetarian to maintain his weight. When he switched to being vegan for environmental reasons, he found he had to eat more often to feel satiated, but that meant he now eats more fruits and vegetable and less fat. When he was intermittent fasting, he really loaded up on the fats to an excessive degree. He weighs the same as he did when fasting. He has always been a lean person, but his blood work is much improved and his overall nutrient intake is much higher. I think most people have experienced extreme hunger leading to poorer food choices. I don’t have a specific study that shows this association, but it has been my experience.

                    I also have an uncle who uses periodic fasting and short term low carb diets to maintain his weight, so that he can be lean and still drink lots of beer and eat lots of junk. For many people I know if they are lean, they do not have an incentive to eat healthy, and they assume they are healthy, even if they have a nutritionally inadequate diet.

        2. Thanks for the fasting link.

          I looked at it but it doesn’t say whether the effect continues after the fasting ends.

          Fasting gives a new immune system.

          My dog stopped having infections after it and his Cancer shrunk and he seems stable months later. Those are what I balance that thought with.

          1. Fasting probably does help some forms of cancer. Sirtuin 1 originally identified as a longevity gene is induced by calorie restriction, but we have since discovered that it promotes the growth of certain forms of cancer as well and there is research being done into Sirtuin inhibitors for the treatment of cancer. Without knowing the exact type of cancer a person has calorie restriction could theoretically promote or restrict its growth. This could also be true if people have an undiagnosed cancer putting them at greater risk. That combined with the cachexia rate in cancer patients, means that is probably safer to stick with modalities like wfpb that have a proven safety and efficacy. I am glad that water fasting helped your dog, but if it could potentially cause someone else’s cancer to grow, it is probably better to recommend it only with those caveats.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/labinvest2015119

        3. @Melody, I’ve been reviewing the study links you provided.

          In this study [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4440672/ ] it speaks of women with ovarian cancer where increased nighttime cortisol levels was associated with increased mortality, 46% greater likelihood. So my take away is anything causing constantly elevated nighttime cortisol levels is bad.

          In this study [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23403876 ] it speaks to 48hr fasting causing peopled to have lower cortisol values given the statement “The slope of the diurnal cortisol profile significantly shifted towards lower values from baseline to the end of experiment (P=0.002)”. So my take away is 48hr fasting causes lower cortisol profiles which you referred to as “blunted cortisol profile”.

          Doesn’t this mean that fasting is one way to keep your cortisol levels lowered [ desirable for physical and mental health ], excluding the case where people are dealing with cancer for the reasons you noted in subsequent posts.

          1. No, here is an excerpt from the full study. I paragraphed it and capitalized a few parts to make it easier to understand (I’m not internet yelling I promise:)

            “The apparent discrepancies between results obtained in short- and long-term fasting studies with different calorie reduction models suggest that the changes seen during the early phase (24–72 h) of a low- or zero-calorie diet may be the result of a sever stressor rather than reflecting specific changes in autonomic regulation and cortisol levels to fasting.

            This opinion is supported by a study by Tomiyama et al.48 Similar to our findings, they found an INCREASE IN CORTISOL RELEASE DURING FASTING, mainly due to an INCREASE IN EVENING CORTISOL LEVELS.

            The authors proposed fasting as a stressful procedure that, besides being a somatic stressor, may also evoke many aversive feelings and act as psychological stressor. This hypothesis is further supported by animal data. A 10-day moderate (25%) diet restriction in mice led to reprogramming of stress and orexigenic signal pathways.

            After the diet stress exposure, the animals exhibited BINGE BEHAVIOR and RAPID WEIGHT REGAIN, and the authors49 suggested that with respect to human weight loss programs, stress management during and after dieting may be essential for successful maintenance of the weight reduction.”

            And a link to the full study, which I should have included before: https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201332

            This is and excerpt from another study that demonstrated restricting calories resulted in increased cortisol. It is a not a fasting study, but germane to the discussion because fasting is a form of calorie restriction.

            “Differences between psychological and biological stress responses are, however, commonly found throughout the stress literature (37). For example, Fischer and colleagues examined cortisol and psychological stress responses over 7,145 hours in physicians and nurses and found that cortisol and psychological stress did not overlap 71.3% of the time (38).

            In fact, dieters may not even realize that restricting their caloric intake produces a physiological stress response, as it does not lead to a perceived stress response. As a result, dieters may assume that their restriction is not harmful, and in fact persevere in what may be a physiologically stressful diet because they do not feel psychologically stressed.”

            “The results of this study have a number of important implications. Regardless of diet success or failure, if dieting is shown in future studies to reliably increase stress and cortisol, clinicians may need to rethink recommending dieting to their patients to improve health. Chronic stress, in addition to promoting weight gain, has been linked with a host of negative health outcomes such as atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and impaired immune functioning (43). To the extent that dieting might potentially add to this stress burden, its psychological and biological consequences would best not be ignored.”

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/

            1. @Melody thanks for clarifications and full study reference links. It seems they were mixing study of 1-3day zero caloric intake fasting with long term reduced caloric intake, e.g. “A 10-day moderate (25%) diet restriction . . .”, where the latter has been prove to increase stress levels and lead to sever binge eating. Am I misinterpreting that as well?

          2. So my take away is 48hr fasting causes lower cortisol profiles which you referred to as “blunted cortisol profile”.

            Doesn’t this mean that fasting is one way to keep your cortisol levels lowered
            ———————————————————————————————————————–
            Not to mention that fasting also is a way to lengthen telomeres
            ____________________________________________________
            Some of you may recall the recent blog I did going over my aging biomarkers. If you didn’t read it, you can catch it right here. Towards the end of the blog, I discussed that one of the reasons my telomere test showed much better results than my DNA methylation test is that I fasted for 3.5 days in between the 2 tests. I also promised to tell you why this would have a beneficial effect on my telomere test…And here we are…

            Finally, we’ll … go over the mechanisms by which prolonged fasting promotes longevity via the lengthening of telomeres.

            Conclusion

            Fasting provides multiple benefits for longevity and the placement of fasting firmly in the cultures that make up the Blue Zones indicates that it’s likely a beneficial strategy to promote longevity and healthspan. Of course, it’s important to not randomly pick and choose which aspects of Blue Zone lifestyles are important to longevity without scientific data to back them up. Fortunately there is a virtual treasure trove of different mechanisms through which fasting can positively influence health and promote longevity and these pathways appear to be conserved in all animals including humans.

            https://hackyourgut.com/2018/03/13/fasting-longevity-and-telomeres-the-regenerating-effects-of-prolonged-fasting/

            1. @Lonie, yes all the jason fung study findings I’ve listened to state that intermittent and/or prolonged 1-3day fasting reduces cortisol levels, increases autophagy, increases telomerase activity that leads to maintaining or lengthening telomeres, and increases stem cell growth activity. All considered good things.

              He also discusses that reduced caloric intake diets, not fasting but a reduction in what your bodies normal daily needs are, does not have these same attributes and leads to constant cravings, increased cortisol levels and eventual binge eating typically of bad food choices when those doing it can no longer keep it up.

              So i’m trying to make sense of whether or not the studies @Melody has provided links to are only calling out increased cortisol levels in the case of reduced caloric intake studies case and not so in the case of 1-3day fasting [ / zero caloric intake ] study. That was what I took away from the 48hr fasting [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23403876 ] & 10-day reduced caloric intake [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/ ] study references.

      2. That’s not true for everyone. There are many of us that decide to go plant based, rebounding, meditate daily, get out in nature and say NO to chemo and radiation and it’s working. I don’t let cancer define me.

  5. This laetrile / apricot seeds myth was included as part of the multiple myth based treatment recommendation that alternative / complementary / functional / integrative, naturopathic and mexico clinics we talked to proposed along with high dose vitamin-c drips. Thank you dr. g / nf.org for dispelling the myth with facts.

    I think cancer treatment should change to focus on using solutions to not just look for presence of a primary tumor but also presence of metastatic cancer that has yet to becomes >1cm which is size that current pet/ct scan [ and/or ultrasounds ] can capture.

    In this way patients make treatment choice based on knowledge of whether or not they actually have metastatic cancer instead of current model where treatment uses a risk mitigation approach that assumes you do and this creates a lot of unnecessary suffering and expense.

    Also make cryoablation [ / freeze it in place ] a choice for primary tumor treatment given it is much less invasive and disruptive to primary tumor than resection [ / cut it out ] surgery.

  6. Yes Laetrile is useless and is quackery but so is chemo .i saw what it did to my late wife and believe me it wasn’t good ….I believe the oncologist made a bundle from putting my beautiful through hell ..was that quackery too? … It is now being said the best chemo thing is going on a whole food plant based diet to deal with cancer ,,,,Read the CHINA STUDY. By regulating the amount of animal protein one consumes they were able to turn on and turn off cancer ………….animal protein acts like fertilizer for carcinogens so if you already have cancer stop the animal protein consumption …….The same foods that cause cancer cause heart disease too …..When do we finally understand to go on a whole food plant based diet ,the standard American diet is suicidal ,too bad it tastes so good….

    1. I remember many years ago that Steve McQueen went to Mexico (1980?), to be treated for his cancer with some hocus-pocus treatments, and died soon thereafter. Is black salve the stuff people were putting on their skin to fade moles only to have it burn right through their flesh?

      1. Mr Nordstrom, wealthy CEO of Nordstroms, said he had an excellent prognosis, according to the best doctors in Seattle, only to die one month later. Of course, there is a high probability the treatment directly killed him.

        “are optimistic and encouraged by my prognosis.”

        Lots of false hope on both sides. But one side is preventing proper research and testing of the other.

        https://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/blake-nordstrom-discloses-cancer-diagnosis-plans-to-keep-working-through-treatment/

        https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/02/blake-nordstrom-co-president-of-nordstrom-has-died-at-age-58.html

    2. Campbell’s work was with rats fed a toxic cancer-inducing agent.

      I don’t think that those results have ever been replicated in human trials (no toxic cancer inducing agent is used in human trials for obvious reasons). I looked a couple of years ago and the only association between casein consumption and human cancer i could find was with advanced prostate cancer. Every other study came up blank

    1. I skimmed through Mercola’s page as quickly as possible because I’d hate to waste my precious time on his website.

      Is he claiming there’s been a cover up and that he’s in support of Laetrile?

          1. I can’t copy and paste from my phone but read the history of Laetrile on Quackwatch.

            No matter what there were scoundrels involved.

            As far as whether I believe one scientist who left Sloan-Kettering versus Sloan-Kettering itself and the Mayo clinic and the government investigation, the problem with the story is that when scientists claim things but didn’t keep records more than once, they become less trustworthy.

            Lots of people investigated it.

            Yes I could see the concept of money messing things up, but Sloan Kettering AND the Mayo Clinic AND the government being in the same coverup?

            The dog ate my evidence more than once doesn’t fly.

    2. @Boyd, do you have someone in your life circle who used laetrile to cure their cancer? I have someone who tried it and it made no difference things just kept marching on.

    3. Read Quackwatch the rise and fall of Laetrile to see the other side.

      No matter what the Laetrile people were con artists looking for theories to have products to sell.

      It is on them that they didn’t document anything and couldn’t present survivors.

      It wasn’t the only thing they tried it with.

      To believe it is a conspiracy you have to believe a lot of people from a lot of institutions were involved, plus that they were being up and up when they gave their word that they tested it and didn’t document it and that they saved people they couldn’t produce during investigations. The FDA and the Senate got involved in investigating them. Sloan-Kettering and The Mayo Clinic and the animal researchers would have had to lie, then everybody would have had to be too afraid to bring forward success stories when asked.

      The newer studies are in vitro and I believe Dr Greger said that peeing in a test tube could kill cancer cells in a test tube. Animal studies failed and human studies failed and they didn’t give success stories during investigations and people got poisoned and some of the Cancer patients may have died from cyanide poisoning.

      Obviously people are lying and, yes, I do not trust our government or big pharma, but I don’t trust con artists making millions selling snake oil either.

      As far as Mayo Clinic using oral Vitamin C, nobody anywhere knew that science back then. But the IV studies since then have had disappointing results and those weren’t by them.

      There have been less than a handful of successful Vitamin C cases submitted after tens of thousands of people getting it.

      And we don’t know if those 3 people who got healed changed their diet or not.

  7. A person arrives at the doctor’s office with a new lump, a new pain, no energy, or feeling ill. Now he has been following an unhealthy lifestyle for 20-100 years. His arteries are clogged, his digestion is backed-up and even the pores on his skin are blocked… from eating meat. In short, he is dying on the inside. It’s a bit like being in a large 3rd world city where they don’t have proper waste disposal, the entire city is overflowing with garbage, human waste and stinks. So the city council determines it’s going to start buying large scented air fresheners to correct the problem.

    So he goes to the doctor and gives a roundabout request for what he wants. It can be summed up as follows: “Hey Doc, I want to continue to follow my unhealthy lifestyle, but take a pill to make everything all right again. This pill should again make me feel like a twenty year old, and automatically eliminate the last 40 years of garbage I’ve been putting into my body. Whatever you do, don’t ask me to change my lifestyle!”

  8. In about 1970 my sister (age about 20) was diagnosed with terminal cancer, likely a non-hodgkins lymphoma. she did the traditional chemo/radiation, went into remission and then it came back and she was given 6 weeks to live. She chose to refuse any further treatment other than for pain, and they then said she only had 2 weeks. Essentially she was bed-ridden and went home to die. She was told about laetrile and had her first treatment toward the end of the next week and immediately started to improve. Within a couple of weeks she was back to almost full function and she is now 65 years of age. The University of Oregon Health Science Center considers her to be an “unexplained recovery”.

    One of the interesting aspects that is not talked about with laetrile treatment is that in addition to the laetrile infusions she was also put on a STRICT VEGETARIAN DIET, LOTS OF VEGETABLES, and MEGA-VITAMIN THERAPY. Considering all the data that Dr. Gregor addresses with the effect of a plant-based diet on health, I think it is quite possible/probable that it was the diet that was responsible for her return to health and not necessarily the laetrile. I tend to believe that divine intervention was responsible but that is a totally separate issue.

    1. Hi Mike, – You might be interested in this Case Report on the True North website: https://www.healthpromoting.com/learning-center/articles/british-medical-journal-follow-water-only-fasting-and-exclusively-plant-foo
      This case describes a woman whose late-stage lymphoma disappeared after she went to True North, medically fasted, then re-fed on a WFPB diet. She was given no conventional (chemo radiation) treatment as there was no applicable medical treatment for her particular situation. This was over 3 years ago now She maintains her health and remission.
      Please tell us if your sister maintained her vegetarian diet :-) Thanks!

    2. Mike,

      Thanks for sharing your stories and thoughts.

      Many people still have never heard that cancer may be prevented or reversed by lifestyle.

  9. Off topic, I have gone on Bactrim antibiotic to treat internal staph infection. Does anyone here know if probiotics are necessary to now take, or can I just continue to eat a healthy Plant-based way, hoping that will restore my healthy bacteria?
    Also, anyone here have positive experience with Bactria?

    Thank you anyone. I’ve read that probiotics can actually make things worse in the long run.

      1. Wendy,

        My dog had infections for 5 months of his cancer diagnosis. Those infections stopped after water fasting.

        I had tried olive leaf extract and Oregabiotic and Beta Glucan from various sources and they seemed to help but he kept getting it back or it never really went away. Water fasting bested everything else.

        Mimicking fasting might do the same thing.

        They sell Prolon which is basically soup to fast with.

        1. I know that the studies are preliminary for fasting.

          I just know that my dog had been having trouble getting up off the floor before water fasting and wouldn’t sleep in his bed and had visible tumors along with the melon-sized one in his spleen.

          He has been so much stronger physically and his infections went away and his tumors disappeared and haven’t come back.

          Night and day.

          1. Do you not believe in waiting 12 or 13 hours between dinner and breakfast? Those were how long the intermittent fasting studies that I saw were. That is pretty much don’t eat after dinner.

            I am doing 12 hours between my dog’s meals. I don’t consider that dangerous at all.

            I did do a water fast based on the science of Dr Goldhamer and Seyfried and Longo, but Longo and Seyfried talk 48 to 72 hours to get a brand new immune system and to get rid of the bacteria, viruses and fungi and to start getting rid of the bad mitochondria.

            I will let you know if there end up being drawbacks. So far, I got the same fabulous results that the other dog owner who used it when his dog had cancer did.

            I am excited about things like cancer patients getting a new immune system and not losing as many white blood cells and not having chemo harm their cells as much and I am blown away by the ones who are getting healed.

            But I do know it will be years before we find out how well it works and what drawbacks it has.

              1. I can’t post on the site with my computer anymore.
                ———————————————————————————
                Deb, it sounds to me like you have a computer problem, either with hard ware or software. Some browsers automatically update and after doing so they sometimes screw with your normal browsing experience.

                My suggestion is to try a different browser. If you are on IE (comes with Windows) change to something like Google Chrome. If on Google Chrome, try Internet Explorer (or whatever it is called now.)

                I would recommend Firefox but it has ugpraded lately and caused changes in my browsing experience, all for the purpose of protecting my computer from being compromised.

                (Example: tried watching a program for free (after it has aired on OTA TV.) via my computer and big screen OLED TV. Wouldn’t let me in so I switched from FireFox to Chrome and everything played just fine.

  10. I have nothing vested in this except for scientific curiosity in the use or non-use of Laetrile. Dose effects?? Seems what’s missing in the video is the difference between taking the drug extracted from the seed, I suppose thus very concentrated, and eating the seeds, which I’m assuming has a very low concentration of cyanide. BTW, cyanide in small amounts can be found in cellular respiration.

    Also, why would thousands of doctors lie or refuse to comment on the use of Laetrile after it had been banned? Maybe the threat losing one’s license would cause such a response. Just sayin’ Bottom line: Laetrile – NO. I get it. Effects of ingesting seeds – jury’s still out in my view.

    1. The evidence didn’t come through when it was legal either.

      People think Sloan Kettering and Mayo Clinic are in this great conspiracy against the American people.

      There are in vitro studies of it affecting Cancer cells but I believe the quote was that you could pee into a test tube and kill cancer cells. Those in vitro studies are what people run with, but Laetrile didn’t succeed with animal studies or people studies, so it would be the evil Dloan-Kettering and the evil Mayo Clinic people and the evil people who ran the studies and the evil FDA investigators over the course of 20 years and the evil elected officials who investigated.

      The list of people in the great big conspiracy goes on and on and on.

      Dr Greger is not making money for himself putting this video up, where the people who post for it are making a lot of money.

      People are so conspiracy oriented even when there is no financial incentive.

      I respect Dr Greger more that he stuck with the science and the research studies on people who had cancer.

      Reading the history of Laetrile, they made claims which they didn’t document over and over again and made millions on it.

      Saying they tested it without providing documentation more than once is what film flam men do.

  11. I am confused. A recent meta analysis study cited by Dr Greger on this page, Amygdalin, quackery or cure?, states,

    However, there is also no evidence that purified amygdalin, administered in “therapeutic” dosage, causes toxicity.

    Wait, I thought it was dangerous?

    Also, Mercola cites 4 recent studies on multiple cancers with elucidated pathways of effect.

    This is poorly done work. Sorry. I have your cookbook, book and checklight on my fridge.

    What is going on?

  12. How was the Amygdalin administered in the Mayo trial? Were there other “complimentary” therapies administered during this trial? How is Amygdalin used now (2018/2019) in these Mexico clinics and are there any reported cases of effectiveness? Did you overlook this report from NCBI on the effectiveness of Amygdalin in this trial?

    Amygdalin induces apoptosis through regulation of Bax and Bcl-2 expressions in human DU145 and LNCaP prostate cancer cells.

    Chang HK1, Shin MS, Yang HY, Lee JW, Kim YS, Lee MH, Kim J, Kim KH, Kim CJ.
    Author information
    Abstract
    Prostate cancer is one of the most common non-skin cancers in men. Amygdalin is one of the nitrilosides, natural cyanide-containing substances abundant in the seeds of plants of the prunasin family that have been used to treat cancers and relieve pain. In particular, D-amygdalin (D-mandelonitrile-beta-D-gentiobioside) is known to exhibit selective killing effect on cancer cells. Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is an important mechanism in cancer treatment. In the present study, we prepared the aqueous extract of the amygdalin from Armeniacae semen and investigated whether this extract induces apoptotic cell death in human DU145 and LNCaP prostate cancer cells. In the present results, DU145 and LNCaP cells treated with amygdalin exhibited several morphological characteristics of apoptosis. Treatment with amygdalin increased expression of Bax, a pro-apoptotic protein, decreased expression of Bcl-2, an anti-apoptotic protein, and increased caspase-3 enzyme activity in DU145 and LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Here, we have shown that amygdalin induces apoptotic cell death in human DU145 and LNCaP prostate cancer cells by caspase-3 activation through down-regulation of Bcl-2 and up-regulation of Bax. The present study reveals that amygdalin may offer a valuable option for the treatment of prostate cancers.

    1. As a scientist myself, I expect research presented by Dr. Greger to examine all studies, pro and con, present what contradictions exist and leave the topic open if appropriate.  There seems to be some confirmation bias going on.

    2. This is ridiculous. Yes amygdalin kills cancer cells in a petrie dish. So does cyanide, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, beer and camel urine among other things. That doesn’t make them cancer cures.

  13. So here is my theory. I will call it the Chris Beat Cancer method. Overdose on nutrition.

    If I take away everything possible that promotes cancer or suppresses immune response and heavily add multiple foods, activities, teas, herbs and more that have in vitro or in vivo evidence of being anti-cancer.

    So, consider cancer growth as a system, if I can stress it enough and induce direct kill and apoptosis enough to outpace it’s growth rate, then the tumors should shrink over time. Unlike chemo, I can continue this indefinitely.

    Can this system work? Conceptually, it makes sense. Greger even eludes to this concept about increasing the time it takes a tumor to double. This is what T Colon Campbell proposes here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5646698/pdf/nihms906795.pdf Cancer Prevention and Treatment by Wholistic Nutrition, 2017, T Colin Campbell

    Back to Amygdalon, in my extensive research these past few years, I would consider it a noce to have. Many other foods and spices and teas are likely more important.

    Basically, the way medicine looks at cancer, with extreme intervention that is severe, is not the only way to approach this problem.

    1. @Stephen, if you read chris beat cancer origin story you’ll find he had stage4 [ based on size not metastasis ] pancreas cancer that was resected. For a percentage of pancreas [ and other types ] if the primary tumor was all that existed in your body and the resection had clear margins than you survive. Chris is a nice well meaning person but you can’t just choose to believe you cured it through other means and rule out that you were in the statistical pool of people where the primary tumor was all there was. Consider many of his testimonials where no vetting of anything they claim to have cured them is done. I actually called one of them claiming that high dose vitamin-c injections along with wfpb cured them but found out they were also taking oral chemo treatment . . . so we can’t really say what made it go away in their case. There is a stat that 22% of all breast cancer patients who do nothing about their bc have it go away, so you could do wfpb, laetrile, vitamin-c, hand stands, etc. and never really know for sure if you just happened to be in that lucky 22% bracket.

      I agree with the oncology approach of treating everyone like they have the worst case scenario, a bunch of metastasis that they cannot measure, and so hit folks as hard as they can with the only tool they have following primary tumor resection. This is why in my comment earlier I suggested we really hardware that can definitively tell us if metastatic cancer is present or not and come up with less painful and quality of life altering approaches to dealing with primary tumor.

      1. You have two incorrect facts in your first sentence. So, I really discount your other statements.

        Besides calling Chris and the people he has interviewed liars, you make an unsupported claim of 22% of breast cancers magically fo away. Please share this source.

        If you disagree with Chris, please start refuting T Colin Campbells extensive, published work I cite. It is filled with pages of supporting science citations. You are filled with several incorrect assertions and character assassination. I will go with the science.

        1. @Stephen you are correct in https://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/about/ he says stage IIIc colon not IV pancreas and the primary tumor was resected with no followup chemo to address lymph nodes. I’m not character assassinating chris, who has a lovely spirit and intentions as do the people he interviews. I am also not trying to say I don’t agree with all the evidence on wfpb nutrition as being a proven story for being statistically successful at preventing and treating chronic disease including cancer. My concern is he and the people he interviews provide a myrid of fringe cure stories which are testimonials only and so we can never really know and that’s tough for cancer patient that has to chose a game plan because you can’t do everything that testimonials say is a cure.

          The point I think i’m trying to make about these fringe cure options like laetrile is that when you are a cancer patient with dwindling time and levels of energy it isn’t possible, or helpful, to have a whole bunch of fringe testimonial based cures. You only have time and energy to adopt the things that have solid evidence of making a difference and are feasible. For example adopting 100% wfpb nutrition is very feasible as compared to fringe cures like Gerson therapy where folks would have to quit jobs, stop all other things in their life and have a full time assistant to follow.

          @Barb thankfully was able to provide dr. mcdougal article [ https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2015nl/feb/dietandcancer.htm ] commenting on the 22% cure rate doing nothing . . . which I heard watching one of his yearly retreat talks and again in his great talk on steve jobs cancer and how the oncology industry erroneously suggested they could have fixed him in an effort to put down the natural approaches he had tried. My reason I bring up that stat in this context is to highlight how testimonials pertaining to any fringe lacking quality trial evidence cures may be able to say “I lived so it works” but in fact it wasn’t used in a significantly large enough control group to conclude anything . . . they literally could have been part of the statistical group where it goes away or the group where when you resect the primary tumor that is all there was so following that with anything else can produce testimonials where the anything else is thought to be what worked.

      2. @myusrn, thank you for your reply to Stephen. Many breast cancers detected by mammography — DCIS — are now considered pre-cancerous, and most would not cause a problem if undetected. Treatment does not appear to improve outcome for DCIS patients. A study of autopsies on women in their 40s who died of other causes found a high percentage with DCIS or very early stage cancers — around 40% as I recall — yet most will never be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetimes.

        Also, cancer treatments beyond surgery help very few patients; my rough rule of thumb for breast cancer is that these treatments help about 10%. About 60% of patients after surgery to remove the tumor would never have a recurrence, about 30% will have a recurrence despite treatment, and about 10% will not have a recurrence which they might otherwise have had except for the treatment. But the problem is, we can’t tell who will be helped by treatment, so all patients are treated. Newer genomic testing, such as Oncotype DX tests, is helping to determine who can relatively safely avoid the harsher chemotherapy and radiation. Meanwhile, any of the 60% of breast cancer patients who undergo surgery but then forgo further conventional treatment in favor of “alternative treatments” would be “successful” in curing their cancer — which was already cured by the surgery.

        Moreover, some patients with advanced cancers appear to have spontaneous remissions, which at this time are unexplained.

        To me, the best treatment for cancer is prevention — and that is a very under researched area. That is one reason why I appreciate this site so much.

      3. [correction] my last paragraph in initial response to Stephen started with “I agree with the oncology approach . . . ” where hopefully it was easy to determine that I really meant to say “I don’t agree with the oncology approach . . .”.

  14. NEEDED:

    A trial where patients eat all the foods that have been found to help fight cancer, but no junk food.

    Please add to this list: sweet potatoes, black pepper, blueberries, kale, broccoli,

  15. You had me at ‘Mayo Clinic’. I knew as soon as I saw that the ‘science’ could not be trusted.

    They have a long history of fake science to support the drug industry.

    Check their research carefully. Things like oral doses of Vitamin C instead of intravenous — buried deep in the report. Oops. What’s the difference? :-(

    I wonder who prompted the good doctor to cover this sad story. Do your own research and see how many folks have been cured. You usually good bullshit filters have failed you this time. :-(

    1. I would never trust any ‘study’ the Mayo Clinic is involved in. In my opinion, they deliberately torpedoed the vitamin C trials, and I lost my respect for them.

      1. As far as the Vitamin C study goes, they used oral Vitamin C, but it was not a conspiracy. Back then, nobody understood that oral would affect the blood levels so differently than IV.

        They did not hide their methodology. Linus Pauling helped figure out that IV works different than oral, but IV studies by other people since then have still been disappointing.

        There have been 3 wildly successful cases, but the doctors who treated the patients who submitted the data saw 10,000 patients per year, so 3 was underwhelming, but it is something.

  16. this is sad that dr gregor has placed all his faith in an industry that profits from cancer, an industry that has covered up & suppressed any unbiased research that proves the efficacy of alternative treatments. exhibit A should b what they tried to do to Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski & his successful treatment of brain tumors. after a lengthy (decades long) battle w/the fda(?), he won his case. he was harassed for decades. the people that came to his defense were his own patients who were successfully treated. proof to me of mainstream medicine suppressing cures was made clear to me when i watched an expose on the cancer industry that i watched on PBS, back in the early 80s. they showed how the ACA would intentionally sabotage alternative treatment trails & declare them useless. try finding this expose on PBS’ website & u won’t find it. & if anyone has been watching the news lately, they would have seen the news on how our govt withheld testimony by a doctor employed by them, on vaccines & autism. if u go to the websites of those big news agencies, u won’t find any mention of this. that’s how powerful the drug lobby is. i also just read about a college kid who was approved for a drug trial using dr Burzynski’s treatment. the FDA suddenly, w/no explanation, stopped the trial. then they allowed it to proceed after the parents filed lawsuits. this went back & forth. this is a tactic that the FDA uses to sabotage promising experimental treatments. unfortunately, he died. another victim of the cancer industry & their far reaching tentacles. & what about l=theanine? back in the 90s, mouse studies showed it attracted chemo to tumors & allowed for much smaller chemo doses, which kept the chemo from harming healthy cells. that was over 20 yrs ago. why no human trials? what is big pharma afraid of? i already know the answer. the study that bottom line: if someone is terminal, allow them to seek whatever treatment they want. they own their body. DR GREGOR, u have sullied ur credibility w/this article.

    1. @mjt11860 I have direct experience with cancer patient who tried Laetrile and it made no difference. Likewise with high dose vitamin c and myriad of other options that the alternative/complimentary/integrative/functional/naturopathic crowd suggested. All this while eating wfpb nutrition including vegetable juicing to maximize whatever value that could have. I also reached out to dr. stan’s crew for some information gathering on next steps. Give them a call pretending you have a legitimate cancer issue and see how quickly it feel like you are talking to the sales team at a car lot. The problem with any internet articles on any alternative solution is testimonials are typically presented by people who didn’t keep everything else in life the same while only adding or removing the so called cure that is being suppressed for conspiracy reasons. If you actually have cancer and have to make a choice all the testimonial based cures and mexico clinics that’ll give you them all at once waste valuable quality of life days and emotion researching and trying to make decisions about with basically no trustable facts to go off of.

      1. Here is a published, randomized trial with reversal or stabilization of early stage prostate cancer using a WFPB diet alone.

        Patients with low grade prostate cancer were able to make and maintain comprehensive lifestyle changes for at least 1 year, resulting in significant decreases in serum PSA and a lower likelihood of standard treatment. In addition, substan- tially decreased growth of LNCaP prostate cancer cells was seen when such cells were incubated in the presence of serum from those who made lifestyle changes. These findings sug- gest that intensive changes in diet and lifestyle may benefi- cially affect the progression of early prostate cancer. Addi- tional trials of such therapy appear warranted.

        http://www.drbalasschooloffitnessandpreventivemedicine.com/Intensive_Lifestyle_Changes_and_Prostate_Cancer.pdf

      2. When you speak of high doses of vitamin C, I presume strictly from vegetable sources as fruits that are high in vC also contain the type of sugar that feeds cancer? Or does fructose not feed cancer?

        1. hi Jack, I have two links for you that together will answer your questions. Under the Doctor’s Notes of each video there are other videos which will also fill in details, so be sure to check them out. Often, if people mention high dose Vit C in this forum they are referring to intravenous vit c in very large doses. The scientist Linus Pauling conducted experiments in the 70’s using huge doses of Vit C, and there is some debate as to how efficatious a treatment it is. Learn more at the second link posted below.

          https://nutritionfacts.org/video/best-fruits-for-cancer-prevention/

          https://nutritionfacts.org/video/intravenous-vitamin-c-for-terminal-cancer-patients/

    2. Dr Greger has stood up against medical, against big pharma, big food industry, big supplement (which often is actually still Big Pharma selling the supplementd) and big snake oil salesmen.

      The men who started the Laetrile in America were known con artists who sold more than one questionable product. They were making millions, but when it was legal, and the FDA and Senate investigated, they couldn’t provide documentation or the names of people who survived because of it.

      People were getting cyanide poisoning.

      Other countries doing their own research also banned it. Australia. Germany found it too toxic and they are seriously liberal in treating Cancer patients.

      I am not saying everybody who eats apricot seeds dies. I am saying that it got banned because Cancer patients seemed to be dying of cyanide poisoning and the government investigated.

      I do not like that they became so controlling of Cancer as an industry, but putting down the Mayo Clinic and Dr Greger is not justified.

      If science in vivo ever comes out on behalf of Laetrile, Dr Greger will cover it. He showed photos of the eye being treated by the aloe. He showed the one study available for CBD oil. If they study it in vivo, a video will come.

            1. Australia and Germany and Russia each independently came to the same conclusions that out Senate came to about it.

              Each country declared it too toxic.

              Yes, some of us also look at chemo that way and I don’t know how chemo gets a pass.

              Having chemo be bad isn’t a good enough reason to promote something else which most of the world declared toxic to be not toxic.

            2. If all these cheap, effective suppressed cancer cures that the conspiracy nuts continually bang on about actually worked, we would see shiploads of cancer patients being cured in places like North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and Cuba (none of which are controlled by big pharma or the FDA). We don’t. Nor are all those cancer clinics in Mexico curing people by the busload. What does that suggest?

              Yet people passionately believe all this suppressed cancer cure nonsense and become violently abusive when people like Dr G discuss what the evidence actually shows. What did Einstein say? He might be right about that too

              ‘Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.’

              1. Dr Fumbler

                Please direct me to the studies showing surgery is superior to no surgery in most serious cancers. The last time I checked, nearly every study showed better outcomes with the LESS surgery (I believe surgery is called for when directly interfering with bodily functions, of course.) Yet surgeons insisted on Halsted for breast cancer for decades after this was known.

                Please direct me to the longevity provided by chemo. I believe for 90% of cancers it adds around 2.3% survival according to the largest meta analysis.

                Please show me significant increases in life expectancy from radiation. Not disease free progression, so clever. No, actual increase in survival.

                Taken together, surgery, chemo and radiation have massive sums at their disposal to prove me wrong. Where are these studies? Instead, via “early detection”, we are sticking in more people that would NEVER have progressed nor known about it in many cases.The overtreatment of thyroid cancer in Korea is an excellent example. They increased treatment 10x via early detection yet death rates remained nearly constant.

                The only field for most cancers that looks truly promising is immunotherapy, which is USING OUR IMMUNE SYSTEMs with tweaks to defeat and often induce remission.

                In the meantime, here is the lowly flaxseed, “Our study shows that daily intake of 25 g flaxseed can significantly reduce cell proliferation, increase apoptosis, and affect cell signaling by reducing c-erbB2 expression of human breast cancer cells. The percentage of reduction in tumor c-erbB2 expression and percentage of increase in cell apoptosis did not relate to baseline tumor characteristics, i.e., patient age, weight, tumor grade, ER, and PR status, but they significantly correlated with the total amount of flaxseed eaten.”

                At Mass General and University of Toronto
                http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/10/3828.full-text.pdf

                1. Stephen

                  I don’t have a problem with consuming flaxseeds, nor with exercise, nor the Ornish approach. Nor the benefits of a healthy diet. But none of those are alternative cancer cures or sold as such. They have good scientific evidence to back them. Calling them alternative cancer cures or therapies seems like a fairly obvious ploy to make the real ‘alternative cancer cure’ therapies look good by assocation. It’s like the inverse of guilt by association – credibility by association. There is a real difference between such evidence based approaches to cancer prevention and complementary cancer therapy, and the alternative cancer cure business, which for your own reasons you appearnot to accept.

                  As for your demands for evidence that conventional cancer treatment is superior to no treatment or to alternative cures, it is a matter of searching the professional literature – if you want to find it. We went through all these same arguments and clains when discussing Dr G’s videos on breast cancer. Anyway, here are some examples:

                  ‘Seventy patients (1.3%) refused surgery. These women were older, more frequently single, and had larger tumors. Overall, 37 (53%) women had no treatment, 25 (36%) hormone-therapy alone, and 8 (11%) other adjuvant treatments alone or in combination. Five-year specific breast cancer survival of women who refused surgery was lower than that of those who accepted (72%, 95% confidence interval, 60%–84% versus 87%, 95% confidence interval, 86%–88%, respectively). After accounting for other prognostic factors including tumor characteristics and stage, women who refused surgery had a 2.1-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.5–3.1) increased risk to die of breast cancer compared with operated women.’
                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1357734/

                  ‘Methods
                  A chart review was performed of breast cancer patients who refused or delayed standard surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy. Prognosis was calculated for recommended and actual therapy.

                  Results
                  Thirty-three patients were included in the analysis. Of 11 patients who initially refused surgery, 10 developed disease progression. Of 3 patients who refused adequate nodal sampling, 1 developed nodal recurrence. Of 10 patients who refused local control procedures, 2 developed local recurrences and 2 died of metastatic disease. By refusing chemotherapy, 9 patients increased their estimated 10-year mortality rate from 17% to 25%.

                  Conclusions
                  Alternative therapies used as primary treatment for breast cancer are associated with increased recurrence and death. Homeopathy instead of surgery resulted in disease progression in most patients. These data may aid patients who are considering alternative therapies.’
                  https://www.americanjournalofsurgery.com/article/S0002-9610(06)00437-5/abstract

                  ‘The women who did not receive any systemic treatment had a higher risk for time to additional breast cancer events (HR=1.9, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.73) and for all-cause mortality (HR=1.7, 95% CI: 1.06, 2.73) compared to those who had received systemic treatment. Among 177 women who did not receive systemic treatment, CAM use was not significantly related to additional breast cancer events. There were no significant differences between high supplement users ( ≥ 3 formulations per day) and low supplement users in either risk for additional breast cancer events.’
                  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1534735410392578

                  ‘A total of 185 (1.2%) patients refused standard treatment. Eighty-seven (47%) were below the age of 75 at diagnosis. The majority of those who refused standard treatments were married (50.6%), 50 years or older (60.9%), and from the urban area (65.5%). The 5-year overall survival rates were 43.2% (95% CI: 32.0 to 54.4%) for those who refused standard treatments and 81.9% (95% CI: 76.9 to 86.9%) for those who received them. The corresponding values for the disease-specific survival were 46.2% (95% CI: 34.9 to 57.6%) vs. 84.7% (95% CI: 80.0 to 89.4%).’
                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3438047/

                  What about you? Can you provide any scientific evidence (as opposed to personal testimonies) that refusing conventional cancer care produces better mortality and other outcomes than undergoing conventional care?

                  1. Excellent. So your non-randomized trials show what? Self selection of people who don’t want to live? Unknown.

                    I have already cited meta analyses of many published studies, they don’t look so good. If you would prefer their aggressive treatments, that is your right.

                    But, I would point to a simple illustration that implies what a careful review implies. Many “successes” would never have progressed to death in the first place. This is well documented in the horrible case of thyroid cancer in Korea. “Cure rates” went through the roof as almost 10x more people were treated while death per 100k remained constant.

                    Here is prostate cancer treated and mortality per 100k, age adjusted, in various regions of the world. https://www.dropbox.com/s/l964fk5gyhm2mf6/Photo%20Jan%2026%2C%2021%2010%2008.png?dl=0

                    Well, Australia is treating about 8x more than those that die. Very high cure rates! Hooray, lots of congrats. Meanwhile, not far away in South Asia, only around 2x are treated vs die, HORRIBLE outcomes screams the headline in the NY Times or similar papers. However, way fewer deaths per 100k. Hmmm.

                    There are other studies showing that people moving to US from these regions then end up in similar rates as US.

                    Once again, show me the randomized trials with superior outcomes. The side you are advocating has all the money and power.

                    Halsted worse than less radical mastectomy. Less radical mastectomy worse than local removal in many cases. Meanwhile, now demonstrated removal invokes metastatic spread via multiple mechanisms. But hey, surgery saves people! Believe me, says the guy making $500k who won’t release his patient outcomes over past few years. It is all evidence biased, I mean based.

  17. Your video finds that Laetrile doesn’t work as a cancer cure. Many of your videos show that drugs made in isolation from their whole food don’t work. Is there a study that tests the whole food, of apricot kernels for example, as a cancer treatment? Or is it just Laetrile, the isolated compound synthetic drug that was used to generate these findings? Being a whole food plant based advocate, why was this not been mentioned in this video? Please can you elaborate?

    1. @Gareth tried it in real life with in house cancer patient using apricot seeds, so not isolated from their whole food source right? No change except one more crappy tasting thing to add to a daily regime that becomes more and more onerous as you add things that are supposed to work to the list. What people don’t realize is as cancer progresses you feel pretty rotten and as the laundry list of alternative/complementary/functional/integrative/naturopathic and/or standard of care items you should be ingesting or doing as hail mary attempts grows it becomes unfeasible. I challenge a healthy person to follow any of the so called cures that are supposedly being disputed for their respective conspiracy theories. About the only one that is really feasible is the wfpb nutrition program that the evidence this site provides not as guaranteed cures but as ways to improve your statistical chances for prevention or landing in percentage of people where disease gets turned around.

        1. @Stephen I have a real life experience testimonial experience which means nothing because the sample size is 1 vs 10k+ and no controls were in place. That is the issue with any of us discussing what works and doesn’t vs sharing anecdotal real life stories while its great when things work out it doesn’t really tell us why. To be clear I am 100% on board with evidence that wfpb nutrition improves ones statistical chances of prevention and treating chronic illness including cancer and its how I live. I’m only chiming up, or trolling as your are suggesting, on this thread because laetrile has all the wishful curative thinking attached to it that standard of care chemotherapy does.

          1. Standard of care, so delightful. It is basically a shield to those following the system and a club to doctors who dare challenge it.

            So, speaking of data, a meta analysis of around 250,000 people in cancer trials shows that chemo delivers an extra 3 months of survival. Hooray! I just spent three months poisoning myself with years of sometimes extreme side effects. Can docs in US dare challenge the standard of care? No! They will be sued into oblivion when someone dies.

            Only about 10% of cancers have good outcomes from chemo.

            The British Medical Journal says, “the commonest tumours of the lung, prostate, colorectum, and breast—drug therapy increased five year survival by less than 2.5%—an overall survival benefit of around three months.”

            And, “Newer drugs did no better: 48 new regimens approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 2002 and 2014 conferred a median 2.1 month overall survival benefit.”

            https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5792.full

              1. Yes but it doesn’t extend life does it? That’s the whole point. It may even cause people to die more quickly becase of cyanide toxicity;

                ‘One hundred seventy-eight cancer patients were treated with it and… all the patients died rapidly. “No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement, or even stabilization of cancer, [nor] improvement of symptoms, [nor] extension of life span.” Only adverse effects of “cyanide toxicity.”’

    2. But in his last video it was shown that consuming apricot kernels can lead to coma and death. Isn’t the point of finding a cure for disease, to find a cure that is both effective as well as safe? And isn’t that why people are drawn to the idea of alternative cures in the first place, because they find conventional treatments to cause harm? I don’t see why anyone would want to trade off one negative for another negative only because the second negative is “natural.”

  18. i met an old man back in the 90s, who cured his own cancer thru a whole foods plant based diet. they were going to remove a good portion of his skin on his face. this scared him & caused him to research other options. he also pointed out 1 of his secret weapons: an apricot tree. he told me that he ate a few apricot kernals every morning cuz of the naturally occurring laetrile. he’d done this for over a yr. i failed to find any evidence of cyanide poisoning. & guess what?! years ago, i read an article on a handful of almonds every morning, preventing cancer. then later i found out that almonds contain laetrile. what a coincidence! i am familiar w/the study that they conducted on laetrile. the truth is, it worked, but the spokesman for the trial, lied & said it was a failure.

    1. Amygdalin does kill cancer cells in a petrie dish. So does bleach. So do all kinds of other toxins. That doesn’t prove that they cure cancer in people.

  19. I am not disputing or supporting this intervention but it is worth mentioning that the Mayo Clinic are not perhaps the most trustworthy institution to reference. Did they not try to reproduce Vitamin C intervention on heart disease as in Linus Pauling and, one can only assume, purposely got the dosage wrong. I mean if you were to trying to disprove or prove Pauling you would replicate to the letter his suggestions, they failed to do that.

    1. @Sydney, exactly opinions on these matters are easy as are testimonials coming from friend of a friend or some internet source. Can we please hear from the folks who actually had cancer or someone under their 24×7 care had it, and they only added laetrile to their existing regime including details about form/dosage/times, and this led to a cure.

  20. I discounted the efficacy of laetrile treatment years ago when I learned Steve McQueen went to Mexico for treatment for his Cancer. He died.

    1. I discounted the modern cancer industry when I read that Mr Nordstrom said he had an excellent prognosis, according to the best doctors in Seattle, only to die one month later. Of course, there is a high probability the treatment directly killed him.

      Here is my source, where is yours?

      “are optimistic and encouraged by my prognosis.”

      https://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/blake-nordstrom-discloses-cancer-diagnosis-plans-to-keep-working-through-treatment/

      https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/02/blake-nordstrom-co-president-of-nordstrom-has-died-at-age-58.html

      1. Here is my source, where is yours?
        —————————————————-
        My post was merely my personal thinking at the time. I’m neither pro nor con the existence of laetrile as a treatment. I see NF.o as being an Alternative Medicine site so the discussion of laetrile is right on topic.

        But my personal preference is prevention through the use of something that has been found to work in animal studies so far and here is one source.

        https://coloradocancerblogs.org/milk-thistle-stops-lung-cancer-in-mice/

        There are others but I’m not interested in “dueling sources.”

  21. Since there are many trolls across these threads… and seeing the wildly offtopic lobg threads here. I have already commented on Laetrile above. However…

    I have personally talked with, in person, three people in the past two years who had a direct relative within their first cousin or closer family, used a WFPB diet to halt (1/3) and also reverse (2/3) various terminal cancers.

    As for literature, I will point to trials by Ornish on Prostate Cancer, with only a WFPB diet and seeing lack of progression and even regression in the WFPB diet.

    “Patients with low grade prostate cancer were able to make and maintain comprehensive lifestyle changes for at least 1 year, resulting in significant decreases in serum PSA and a lower likelihood of standard treatment. In addition, substan- tially decreased growth of LNCaP prostate cancer cells was seen when such cells were incubated in the presence of serum from those who made lifestyle changes. These findings sug- gest that intensive changes in diet and lifestyle may benefi- cially affect the progression of early prostate cancer. Addi- tional trials of such therapy appear warranted.”

    http://www.drbalasschooloffitnessandpreventivemedicine.com/Intensive_Lifestyle_Changes_and_Prostate_Cancer.pdf

    1. @ Stephen, my mother was diagnosed with cancer 3 times in her life: in her mid 30s with breast cancer, in her late 50s with uterine cancer, and in her late 70s with a different kind of breast cancer (simple mastectomies do not remove all the breast tissue, some of which is intercalate with chest wall muscle). As I recall, she had surgery and no other treatment for all 3 cancers. She lived to 93. She ate sensibly, cutting down on sweets and desserts when she hit midlife in order to maintain a slender weight. She was fairly active. She was not a PBWF eater, and would have scoffed at the notion.

      So, please, Stephen, tell me what “treatment” plan cured my mother of her 3 different types of cancers? Since you appear to base your evidence on sample sizes of one.

      1. Ornish had two arms of about 45 prostate cancer patients. That is not a sample size of 1.

        Where should we obtain the $500M to begin getting approval for natural treatments that can’t be patented? No investor would touch that without the potential for $3B-6B min revenue.

        While on actual stats. Please go to your regional medical center and ask them for 5 and 10 year cancer stats. I would live to see any one of the NCI top 20 centers stats.

        I have done this at two major medical centers affiliated with $1B plus medical complexes. I got a lot of runaround and no answers. Head of surgical oncology said it was somewhere on the web site. I said, just rough estimates, you guys have a lot of biostatiticians here and all. Nothing. PR people. Nothing. Website, nothing. What are they afraid of, it is all about the evidence, right?

        So, that would be accepting their treatment with a sample size of zero! Just their word, which is only about the evidence. They have no reason to not share their annual data, just patient confidentiality, right?

        1. @ Stephen, I don’t understand what you are saying. I was referring to your comment about personally talking to 3 people who had “a direct relative within their first cousin or closer family, used a WFPB diet to halt (1/3) and also reverse (2/3) various terminal cancers.” Depending on what they were diagnosed with, chances are good that after surgery, they might never have experienced a relapse, no matter what they did.

          But, as for prostate cancer: the incidence goes up as a man’s age increases. But most prostate cancer is fairly indolent (slow growing), and men diagnosed with it will live long enough to die of something else. That is why the PSA test is no longer recommended: Men are suffering from the effects of overtreatment: a high percentage suffer from the adverse effects of treatment, without the benefits of treatment (which for early stage PC tends to be low). But some prostate cancer is aggressive; I had a friend die of it at age 63, though he lived for about 20 years after diagnosis.

          As for statistics, I read research articles published in peer reviewed journals for my information, as well as review articles and books by scientists and doctors. Often I have to go to the medical school library to get access to the full length articles, if I am sufficiently interested. The sample sizes are not zero. But the times examined after treatments are too short; the studies end too soon, in my opinion. I asked a breast cancer oncologist why that was so, and he just shrugged and said “Lack of funding.” Which I do believe. We are cutting funding for all sorts of scientific research, which is crazy. Dangerous and short-sighted. I suggest writing to your reps to ask that research funding not only be restored but also increased.

          1. Dr. J – I don’t know if you are aware of Dean Ornish, M.D.’s work in this area. He took men with slow growing prostate cancer whose recommended treatment was watch and wait. The cancer was so slow growing that treating might cause more harm than necessary for their condition. Of that group he took some and put them on a WFPB diet per his Ornish Program. He left others, who did not want to go WFPB, to their SAD diet. Over time the results showed that the WFPB group lowered their PSA numbers significantly and some (if I remember correctly) went into complete remission. No surprise, it was exactly the opposite with the men who stayed on the SAD diet. They did not lower their PSA numbers and some went on to develop more severe disease. A very elegant study with impressive results.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOu_5xAebL8&list=PL95030D750E6DF3B4&index=7

  22. Just to balance things up a little, please read “Cancer, why we are still dying to know the truth”, by Philip Day.
    Right or wrong, the author offers a very convincing argument in favour of apricot kernel consumption.

    1. Excellent job, thanks for sharing these. I have noticed a disturbing trend of most work is in Asia, Middle East and Europe.

      Our NCI dollars are too busy chasing “blockbuster drugs”. It is sad and maddening. And don’t even get me started about ACS.

  23. Aloha Dr. Greger,
    my whole family ate apricot pits back in the 70’s…so while it may be true they have little or no affect against cancer..it’s hard not to think you’re fearmongering a bit. Go to the Physicians Desk Reference and read the disclaimers about Mead and Johnson’s “cytoxan” one of the main chemotherapeutic drugs used for cancer treatment. While it’s important to present the evidence available regarding ALL “medicines” I would suggest that “normal chemo” is far more a killer than laetrile…perhaps because so many people are misinformed as to its side effects. How about presenting the evidence regarding the treatment most people receive… it’s SHIT full stop. Please take the corporations that are pimping peoples’ pain to task….give the evidence regarding “alternative” (ie hardly used treatments) for sure.. they should be exposed … just as, more importantly, the treatments most people receive need all the more scrutiny.

    Just as a point of interest… back in 1977 I had the opportunity to talk to Linus Pauling. I called him on the phone and his wife answered and I asked if I could speak to him…her answer was “he’s right here I can’t see why not”. Part of my reason for this call was that Sloan/ Kettering Cancer Research Hospital had just released their findings regarding the effectiveness of laetrile in fighting or curing cancer. Pauling, who had flown out to SK, to look at their study told me that “their science” would have been flunked as a junior high school science project”. He was shocked by their “intentionally” misleading results. This , of course, doesn’t mean that laetrile has a benefit in the treatment of cancer only that, arguably, the most prestigious cancer research center in the world, according to 2 time Nobel Laureate (in chemistry) said that their findings were intentionally designed to fail
    Correction….Pauling, in 1954, received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and in 1962 the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Another important note here is that possibly the reason so few laetrile users came forward was that it was illegal to be using it at that time. Also the Mayo Clinic doesn’t earn an automatic pass in the conflict of interest department….just as with Sloan Kettering they make lots of money using “dangerous” treatments (according to the PDR) but that were presumably allowed under Thurgood Marshall’s and the SCOTUS ruling.

    I do not think that laetrile is an effective cancer treatment and may even be dangerous however our personal experience with “orthodox” cancer treatment is that my father (aged 78) was diagnosed with “inoperable” prostate cancer and was told he must “immediately have radiation treatment to save his life”. He had the treatment which “cured” his prostate cancer (according to PSA test) however the radiation badly damaged his bladder and gave him MDS (‘preleukemia) – which he died from. My step mother was poisoned to death by the chemotherapy she received for breast cancer…she called my wife after the treatment barfing her guts out and begging her for any help she could think of but died later that day.

    1. @Karen & Jeff, I am sorry to hear about your personal family experiences with cancer. Wrt your first paragraph I don’t see that drG / nf.org dispute of any reputable evidence for use of laetrile is at the same time advocating for chemo or radiation torture. If anything the folks on this site and the others that advocate wfpb nutrition would I expect point to evidence for it as a prevention and best case adjuvant treatment plan following a resection of primary tumor(s) . . . perhaps they cannot given the exposure to law suits stating things like that might create who knows.

      There is a talk dr. john mcdougall did on why did steve jobs die [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81xnvgOlHaY ]. where his review and support for steve job’s handling of his disease is contrary to what medical profession and family said he should of done. He brings up some really enlightening points about cancer doubling times and how oncology profession tends to position metastasis and lack of survival as arising from treatment choices you made up front versus being situations that in many cases already have enough momentum that no up front treatment choice is going to change. I mention this because it might help with any second guessing arising following your losses, I know it did for me and the two cases I was intimately involved with from start to finish.

      1. Aloha and thanks for your thoughtful response. Nutrition Facts is, along with Dr. McDougall and Dr Goldhammer (True North) the most important sources of evidence-based medical information that I know of. Dr. McDougall corresponded tirelessly with us about my father’s doctor induced terminal illness and was a great comfort to my dad. My wife, our 2 children and I have been eating a WFPB diet for almost 30 years so my allegiance is whole-heartedly on the side of what I’ve personally so greatly benefitted from and found to be scientifically supported on Nutrition Facts…that said in this particular instance I’m skeptical….not of whether laetrile is a cancer cure rather whether Mayo Clinic is a reliable source of evidence based medicine. Additionally as Dr. McDougall has noted ” when it comes to acute care (ie traffic accidents etc) the orthodox treatments do very well but when it comes to chronic illness they are an abject failure”. So to disregard an alternative therapy based on the evidence supplied by highly dubious sources (ie the Mayo Clinic) isn’t up to Dr. Gregers usual standard. It’s important, as I mentioned, for ALL sources of misinformation to be scrutinized and exposed particularly the orthodox treatments the overwhelming majority of people receive – to their great harm. Additionally evidence from unbiased sources on the efficacy of alternative treatments is needed.

  24. @Karen and Jeff Hay, I am so sorry to read about your father’s and stepmother’s experiences. My husband was diagnosed with PC 13 years ago — and took 2 years to research his treatment options (he’s now 76, with no adverse side effects that we know of). And, as a former nuclear power engineer and submariner, he was well aware of the dangers of radiation. Of course, your father may have been diagnosed at a later stage. And I agree that chemotherapy is toxic; I don’t know what happened to your stepmother. My sister was diagnosed with a fairly aggressive breast cancer (8 months after a “clean” mammogram). And she opted to undergo surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy — and actually received an overdose of chemo! But, she is still alive, more than 23 years later (she is now 71). A significant percentage of breast cancer patients do die after chemotherapy (I personally know of 3), though not usually during chemo. Though some patients elect chemotherapy in a last ditch effort to halt a metastasis, with very low chances of any success, and a high probability of an adverse outcome.

    Cancer is a complex disease, and our treatments of it are last century, terrible, and not very effective: Slash, burn, and poison (surgery, radiation, and chemo). We are making such slow progress! Which is why I am much more interested in prevention. And I see precious little research devoted to that. (As a skeptic, I note that there are few profits to be made from prevention.) That is one reason I really appreciate the research reported on this site.

    1. @Dr J, fully agree on the focus on prevention, like evidence backed wfpb nutrition lifestyle, approach to complex disease like cancer and others. I also feel like nothings being done to more accurately measure what’s going on and in how many places. Today oncology just treats everyone with a primary tumor as if they also have metastatic disease because they have no tools to tell them otherwise, and perhaps because chemo & radiation are much better money makers than resection [ / cut ]. I was amazed at how cheap resection & even reconstructive surgery was as compared to the chemo costs they were trying to get pre-approved when they suggested chemo as a solution for my wife who at that point couldn’t even get out of bed. I had to call them and tell them they were nuts if they thought I was going to drag her into their office to be poisoned when she could barely get out of bed or even communicate at that point. Didn’t seem to keep them from proposing it so really makes me wonder [ sarcasm ] where the oncology professions enthusiasm for poison / chemo and burn / radiation comes from.

      1. @ myusrn, Oh, no, I am so sorry for your experience. When my mother was diagnosed with a second breast cancer in her late 70s, she simply wanted the lumps removed (she found them herself) because they “bothered” her. She refused radiation — and told me that the radiation oncologist stomped out of the room! Though she added that he eventually came back to apologize. She lived about another 15 years.

        I should have taken better note of her position: in my case (breast cancer), the radiation oncologist was a smart charming young woman, and countered every reservation I had, backed up research, with more research papers. I eventually agreed to radiation — and regret it every day. Plus, I think she will eventually be proved wrong — in that, in my situation, research will show that I didn’t really need it, Of course, I like to be proved right — but not in this case.

        I read the book “Being Mortal,” and the author Atul Gawande included the story of his father’s cancer and treatment. In his case, the radiation oncologist overrode the reservations of his patient, the patient’s wife, and the patient’s son — all MDs! And, as I recall, Dr. Gawande’s conclusion was that the radiation was a mistake. Of course, I read that after my own treatment. I felt a bit better — but also a lot angrier.

        1. @Dr. J this is off topic from the laetrile subject but wanted to share that i was there and experienced us getting sold a false bill of goods on radiation.

          Initially it was adjuvant followup to initial primary tumor resection, which she turned down. Later on when some disease showed up in her humerus. I was there to hear the pitches that radiologists from two different major hospitals in our region, ones that people travel into town to be treated at because of their reputations, gave us. I heard lots of hard selling of how accurate current technology is and how painless it would be and only short term skin irritation in the local area. They even used the world cure in some of those pitches as opposed to just suggesting it’ll string the disease in just that area. None of that was true, there was lots of skin burning pain, she experienced significant pulmonary [ / heart ] issues, the disease showed up very shortly after mere inches away from where the radiation was focused.

          Point being you are not alone in the number of people that have been sold on it as a painless, side effect free, adjuvant treatment option. It seems everyones journey dealing with any form of cancer is uniquely different. Hoping you are now in a quality of life state that allows you to enjoy your days as much as possible.

          1. My uncle had radiation on his forehead and I was the one at the appointments back then and they didn’t explain anything about what would happen and that he would lose use of his eye and that there wound be a gruesome oozing wound which would require constant attention, etc.

            Honestly, they didn’t explain that they were going to deform him so much with surgery either.

            They missed explaining all of it.

            1. @Deb-33 [ congrats on +1 week ] yes my experience and that of anyone I ask who has had radiation treatment has a common theme. If you don’t ask a lot of questions they are not forthcoming on the near and/or long term side effects they will be creating nor do they clearly state that its a solution for short term mgmt. of tumor size and/or metastatic disease not a cure. When you are in the heat of those rushed appointments and all the decisions you are trying to make at the same time its a subtle but pretty important point that this stuff is a mgmt. not a curative adjuvant therapy. You also are not always in a place where you or your personal assistant are able to research the validity of responses they do provide if you proactively start asking questions about locality of treatment and the set of side effects you’d never expect. It completely blindsided me that there is a relationship with some forms of radiation treatment and heart issues even when the treatment was no where close. Also the three people I know who have had throat cancer radiation treatment seem to have swapped what the evolution of their disease if untreated would create as compared to what they are now dealing with from the radiation treatment to that area.

  25. Very important video series, thanks for making these!
    You hear about people going into comas or dying over “B17” and it sounds tragic, and it is, but it’s also so easy to happen to almost anyone. Years ago when I thought like “oh, someone’s taking the time to write about this, they must have done their research; they’re stating it as a fact, it must be known” and would read these things on the internet and think “oh I should start eating this based on this information” I remember seeing about B17 and apricot seeds and had I had them available, I probably would have eaten them at some point.
    The New York Times with that “for better or worse” bs… leaving out the fact that people are lied to and trust when they’re told something won’t kill them. So I’m not sure how that constitutes as someone’s choice or at least informed choice. I guess if they watched these videos and still wanted to give it a go it may qualify as a choice.

    1. It wasn’t just the internet, actually, but even in alternative health magazines and we all know there’s even books published on fallacies.

  26. Just read this piece and since it concerns Cancer and drugs, thought it might offer one perspective on the subjects.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Healthcare today is reactive, retrospective, bureaucratic, and expensive. It’s sick care, not healthcare.

    But that is radically changing at an exponential rate.

    Through this multi-part blog series on longevity, I’ll take a deep dive into aging, longevity, and healthcare technologies that are working together to dramatically extend the human lifespan, disrupting the $3 trillion healthcare system in the process.

    I’ll begin the series by explaining the nine hallmarks of aging, as explained in this journal article. Next, I’ll break down the emerging technologies and initiatives working to combat these nine hallmarks. Finally, I’ll explore the transformative implications of dramatically extending the human health span.

    In this blog I’ll cover:

    Why the healthcare system is broken
    Why, despite this, we live in the healthiest time in human history
    The nine mechanisms of aging

    Let’s dive in.
    The System is Broken—Here’s the Data:

    Doctors spend $210 billion per year on procedures that aren’t based on patient need, but fear of liability.
    Americans spend, on average, $8,915 per person on healthcare—more than any other country on Earth.
    Prescription drugs cost around 50 percent more in the US than in other industrialized countries.
    At current rates, by 2025, nearly 25 percent of the US GDP will be spent on healthcare.
    It takes 12 years and $359 million, on average, to take a new drug from the lab to a patient.
    Only 5 in 5,000 of these new drugs proceed to human testing. From there, only 1 of those 5 is actually approved for human use.

    And Yet, We Live in the Healthiest Time in Human History

    Consider these insights, which I adapted from Max Roser’s excellent database Our World in Data:

    Right now, the countries with the lowest life expectancy in the world still have higher life expectancies than the countries with the highest life expectancy did in 1800.
    In 1841, a 5-year-old had a life expectancy of 55 years. Today, a 5-year-old can expect to live 82 years—an increase of 27 years.
    We’re seeing a dramatic increase in healthspan. In 1845, a newborn would expect to live to 40 years old. For a 70-year-old, that number became 79. Now, people of all ages can expect to live to be 81 to 86 years old.
    100 years ago, 1 of 3 children would die before the age of 5. As of 2015, the child mortality rate fell to just 4.3 percent.
    The cancer mortality rate has declined 27 percent over the past 25 years.

    https://singularityhub.com/2019/01/24/to-extend-our-longevity-first-we-must-understand-why-we-age/

    1. That’s fabulous Lonie!

      Hey, I am not going to be posting much.

      I can no longer post with my computer and I don’t have wifi or unlimited data with my cell.

      Not sure if I got half banned or if there is something wrong with the site.

      Looking at all the comments, I don’t feel like I am the worst violator of the rules, which I just read for the first time today, but I don’t want to use up all of my minutes.

      1. I can no longer post with my computer and I don’t have wifi or unlimited data with my cell.

        Not sure if I got half banned or if there is something wrong with the site.

        Looking at all the comments, I don’t feel like I am the worst violator of the rules, which I just read for the first time today, but I don’t want to use up all of my minutes.
        ——————————————————————————————————
        I can’t believe you are being banned… I think I would be a better candidate for that at times than you, based on my history with one or the other forums I am on. Try signing up under another name… worked for me on that other site. ‘-)

        I think anyone being banned should be notified if they are being silenced in that way but like I said, I don’t believe that is the case with you.

        Hope not anyway. If it were true, I could see myself spending less time here.

        1. “I think anyone being banned should be notified if they are being silenced in that way”

          I agree, Lonie. I would also hope that in cases which aren’t extreme (meaning death threats and what not), a warning would be issued first.

      2. Deb, that’s awful! I would really miss seeing your posts. Have you emailed nutritionfacts over this issue? I see no reason why you would be banned, that should be taken care of. I hope you decide to email them over this.

  27. Oxigen and an ‘alkaline’ diet (WFPB) is cheap. Can money be a motivator to create stories? Look, the word cancer is a label and labels are used to create stories. So you have these super expensive stories that will protect you. Is there money on making stories about wars?

  28. Usually I totally agree with Dr. Greger, but not this time.
    Yes Amygdalin is dangerous but it kills cancer.
    My wife has stage 4 breast cancer and according to her doctor in palliative care she should be dead, I treat her with natural products. I do not give him amygdalin because of the danger of cyanide but my research has shown me that it can be effective in killing cancer cells.
    Like me you can find these science articles on the net:
    1-Amygdalin blocks bladder cancer cell growth in vitro by diminishing cyclin A and cdk2.
    Jasmina Makarevic ´1, Jochen Rutz1, Eva Juengel1, Silke Kaulfuss2, Michael Reiter1, Igor Tsaur1, Georg Bartsch1, Axel Haferkamp1 , Roman A. Blaheta1*
    1Department of Urology, Goethe University Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2Institute of Human Genetics, University Medical Center Go ¨ttingen, Go ¨ttingen, Germany
    2-Amygdalin Regulates Apoptosis and Adhesion in Hs578T Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells
    Hye Min Lee and Aree Moon
    College of Pharmacy, Duksung Women’s University, Seoul 01369, Korea
    3-Amygdalin induces apoptosis in human cervical cancer cell line HeLa cells
    Yu Chen, Jinshu Ma, Fang Wang, Jie Hu, Ai Cui, Chengguo Wei, Qing Yang, and Fan Li
    Department of Pathogenobiology, Bethune College of Medicine, Jilin University, Chang Chun, Jilin, China
    4-Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells
    Hae-Jeong Park, Seo-Hyun Yoon, Long-Shan Han, Long-Tai Zheng, Kyung-Hee Jung, Yoon-Kyung Uhm, Je-Hyun Lee, Ji-Seon Jeong, Woo-Sang Joo, Sung-Vin Yim, Joo-Ho Chung, and Seon-Pyo Hong
    Hae-Jeong Park, Seo-Hyun Yoon, Long-Shan Han, Long-Tai Zheng, Kyung-Hee Jung, Yoon-Kyung Uhm, Sung-Vin Yim, Joo-Ho Chung, Department of Pharmacology, Kohwang Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, South Korea
    Je-Hyun Lee, Ji-Seon Jeong, Woo-Sang Joo, Seon-Pyo Hong, Department of Oriental Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, South Korea
    5-Amygdalin induces apoptosis through regulation of Bax and Bcl-2 expressions in human DU145 and LNCaP prostate cancer cells.
    Chang HK1, Shin MS, Yang HY, Lee JW, Kim YS, Lee MH, Kim J, Kim KH, Kim CJ.
    Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, South Korea.

  29. I wonder if the studies done on Laetrile, a purified EXTRACT of bitter apricot kernels, do not show what the natural forms of the substance can do when contained in the complexity of its natural source. Single factor causality is easy to prove and frequently misleading. What else might be in the “whole food”, for example, in the seed or fruit, or vegetable, or bitter apricot kernel that in its complexity, creates a different effect when surrounded by other substances such as the enzyme rhodanese, believed to catch any “rogue”, accidentally “unlocked” cyanide molecules and render them harmless to any non-cancerous cells? Using an EXTRACTed substance will give a result that is frequently different from that which is contained in the wholeness of its natural source. (cashews vs. extracted cashew oil, fructose vs. fruit, etc.) . To illustrate this, there was a study done by Dr. Rui Hai Liu mentioned by T. Colin Campbell in his book, “Whole”. Dr. Liu did a wholistic analysis of 100 milligrams of an apple, with a focus on its vitamin C and its antioxidant activity. He found that it had the equivalent of vitamin C-like activity of 1,500 milligrams of Vitamin C. The same 100 milligrams of apple, when chemically analyzed had only 5.7 milligrams of vitamin C. The power of the vitamin C in the 100 milligrams of apple, in its wholistic state was 263 times more potent than in its isolated form. Subsequent research of Dr. Liu found an array of vitamin C-like compounds in the apple. And, yet, even though more substances have been found in an apple, there are still more to be discovered. As. T. Colin Campbell puts it, “sometimes a combination of nutrients is more (or less) than the sum of its parts, and that the body plays a role in determining how many nutrients from the foods we consume are actually used — and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that knowing how much vitamin C (or even all vitamin C-like nutrients) there is in a given apple doesn’t tell us anything of value.” If you want to avoid consumption of amygdalin, in addition to avoiding the kernels of various fruits, you must eliminate the following from your diet: apple seeds, tiny seeds of berries, grapes, strawberries and raspberries, flax seeds, squash seeds, millet seeds, Indian Gooseberry seeds, and buckwheat seeds…the fruit of berries raspberries, elderberries, strawberries, blackberries and wild berries…nuts: bitter almonds, Macadamia nuts, cashews, almonds…grains and millets: sorghum, buckwheat, barley, brown rice, millet…sprouts: bamboo sprouts or shoots, alfalfa, fava beans, mung sprouts, some leaves, such as spinach, …and more. Dr. Joel Fuhrman, cardiologist has said in his YouTube videos and in his books that vegans that eat nuts and seeds have the greatest longevity. The Northern Pakistani Hunzas, who consume large amounts of bitter apricot kernels, generally live way beyond a healthy one hundred years old. Personally, I have eaten 12 bitter apricot kernels every day with my breakfast for about 14 years. I started slowly, at first taking only one kernel per day, and then slowly adding another until I reached twelve per day. I am 67 years old, 42 years a vegan who eats nuts and seeds and an organic, plant-based, whole foods diet – 50% raw and 50% cooked or heated. So far, I am healthy. I take no prescription drugs, get a physical with full blood workup purchased every year at a discounted sale price during the blood test sale at Life Extension Foundation. Trust me, I now have a lot more analysis done with LEF than was ever permitted with the insurance company. Through LEF, and done at regular blood labs, it costs only about $200 during the sale, instead of the equivalent that costs about $2,000, done directly at the blood labs. (I was surprised with a bill for the first blood tests I had after I went on Medicare and did not check things thoroughly.)
    I understand that this video is only about the “official” research studies that have been funded by corporations, such as BigPharma, but why would BigPharma invest millions of dollars on a wholistic research study that would not end in a patented drug that would make them billions? I understand that it would be counterintuitive to invest millions in research of natural substances that would return pennies on the dollar. I’m not sure exactly when greed and power took over health and compassion, but I do know that we are now living in a different world (in a different country). I have read that most research in the U.S. is now done by BigPharma, and I also understand that most N.I.H. and FDA board members either have come from corporations or are already set up with future job prospects with corporations such as BigPharma while they are serving on such boards. When asked about the use of natural substances as remedies most doctors frequently condemn them with two pat responses: 1.) “There has been no research that proves…” and, 2) “That is purely anecdotal evidence.” (I still ask, even though I know I will get those same Catch 22 responses. The Catch 22 attitude is simpler, and safer — they won’t recommend it because there is no research, and there is no research because they won’t recommend it.) It would be wonderful if the government would research natural substances that will bring no great monetary reward, but may save lives. It may all boil down to who controls the lawmakers – the citizens, or the corporate donors – thus the need for campaign reform. If you haven’t read “The DIME Amendment”. It’s available free on SmashWords. (Also the e-book version is 99 cents on Amazon.)
    “If the people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson
    “Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic. The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom.” –Benjamin Rush, M.D. (George Washington’s personal physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence)

    1. It may have escaped your attention but the US isn’t the only country in the entire world. If these ‘cures’ actually worked, you’d expect that they would be curing cancer patients by the million in countries outside the western orbit. They aren’t. They aren’t curing cancer patients in all those ‘cutting edge clinics in Mexico either.

      That doesn’t faze the true believers for one minute though. They are too savvy to fall for that argument. Obviously.

      1. @Mr Fubmlefingers, great points.

        That’s the thing about conspiracy theories, if they were actually true they wouldn’t be able to kept a secret and suppressed from the public that long before becoming accepted truths. Neil de Grasse Tyson made great comment about conspiracy theory that government has captured and knows about aliens . . . he said look at all the secrets the government has not been able to keep and so what makes us thing they magically have been able to expertly coordinate across the board silence to do with aliens.

        I consider the same thing for conspiracy theory cancer cures. If bursynsky, gerson, gonzalez, mexico anything, non-evidence backed testimonial based, williams, etc. cures worked they’d eventually pickup up enough momentum from concrete examples of cures that no one would every question their validity.

        The problem with cancer specifically is the fact that statistically a portion of patients will experience a regression of [pre-]screening device dejour found tumors. Prostate cancer is good example of one form of cancer where they are now saying that at a certain age most men getting it will die from something else before the disease every progresses enough to be an issue. So for years treatments of any form to that statistical pool people would have been considered curative when in fact they were not.

        So for that statistical pool of people their age coupled with whatever they do or don’t do in the months and years that follow can be easily be seen as a supporting testimonial. That’s why I think short of their being some cure that surfaces covering the 200+ flavors of this beast we need a better story for determining the actual state of disease [ primary tumor + metastasis + aggressiveness ] and computer AI/ML models that can predict with some high level of accuracy whether or not they are in a do something or a do nothing and wait to see group.

        p.s. a page like this [ https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cancer.html ] i’m sure would create endless amount of debate all based on opinion and testimonials where there is no way to confirm folks got their disease under control because of those “alternative” treatments or in spite of them.

        1. AI/ML, that is half my career, these approaches all depend on the data and assumptions you place into these systems.

          So what you are saying is alternative cancers must be all success due to overdiagnosis, but it is fine when the overdiagnosis benefits the $300B / year US cancer industry? As long as the treatment doesn’t kill people, then alternatives would often be superior under such a overdiagnosis scenario (WFPB diet is one example, since no cancer induction like chemo, no metastatic induction like surgical healing and no heart/organ damage and cancer induction like radiation.)

          I once did NOT believe in the conspiracies. But, look at the AMA journal ads for tobacco in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The ignoring of the diabetes results of Dr. Kempner at Duke University. The ignoring of heart disease treatment of Esselstyn (Cleveland Clinic) and Ornish (UCSF) for 25 years, but the AHA just added it as a possible path. The ignoring of the randomized trials of Ornish in prostate cancer…

          I have had lead surgeons at two major medical institutions lie to my face about the treatments they proposed to a family member. One oncologist at a NCI top 10 research medical center, after speaking with me and my family for one hour concluded, “Oh, I see, you are making all your decisions based on data.” To which I replied, “Yes, so please send me the studies showing me the results for these recommended chemo treatments.” I never received them nor would either center share annual outcomes data for their patients being treated. Since they are only about the evidence…

          Believe me, there is BS on each side, the problem is one side has all the power, money and the ability to censor and squelch the other. Thus, we have crocks on the natural side. But they are even more dangerous, at times, on the “modern” medicine side.

          1. @Stephen

            Yes AI/ML quality of predictions in the categorization, regression and clustering algorithm based space is highly controlled by the quality of the training data set you use to create the prediction model. Something that would be difficult in cancer space for all the reasons being discussed in this thread. I don’t understand the reinforcement learning space well enough to say what new and more accurate prediction models it could bring to the table. I am optimistic for things like reinforcement learning coupled with tissue chips [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVlEr8c-OJk ] to enable more accurate and quick testing of possible solutions.

            I am in full agreement with you that the standard of care industry is crooked as well, I am not saying they innocent in this space.

            Chemo, with the exception of a few cancers like lymphatic, and radiation I see as total scams and money makers for the crooked health industry. Tests like mammograms as well.

            When my better half was put through the barrage of tests to get an understanding for disease state everyone was convinced by the cheap and non-invasive ultrasound results we had right up front yet they proceeded with all the expensive and in some cases very painful tests that I saw as being money makers and cya tests.

            I argued why do a fine needle aspiration/biopsy given it didn’t matter about a 100% confirmation at that point and we didn’t want to distribute the primary tumor or have to go through unnecessary pain and the doctor said they would refuse to do resection surgery w/o it, another cya test. Likewise we said we didn’t want any lymph node removal and they were fighting us on that minutes before going into surgery.

            So I am in no way disagreeing that the standard of care medical industry, and cancer cure fundraising organizations, are just as bad as some of what we see surfacing in alternative cures space. I am also in no way trying to throw shade on the sound trials backed evidence that wfpb nutrition is both a prevention and if you were not doing it previously a viable treatment solution.

    2. Vegan for the love etc.

      I like your approach of not dismissing out of hand something that narrow approach studies may have concluded as harmful. I believe in the wisdom of the crowd for the most part and throughout time the crowd has seen something in apricot seeds that may be beneficial.

      Of course the crowd is sometimes wrong as it was when mercury was considered a treatment. On the other hand, even that vile element might have been a healing agent if the mercury treatment were created homeopathically like colloidal silver… that is, reduced through stages until there was only parts per million or whatever, of actual silver left in the concoction but the beneficial properties of the silver were conveyed to the solution (distilled water I suppose?)

      It may still turn out that apricot seeds are medicinal but researchers just haven’t unlocked how that works. Could even be a matter of dosage… too much of something can cause the body to react defensively while a smaller introduction may be received as helpful.

      But back to crowd think… I am amazed when I read how this discovery is made or that idea is fomented by today’s youth. Today’s “crowd” is much smarter and is allowed the freedom to invent and create moreso than past “crowds.”

      In the past the youth were excluded from acceptance as being wise and in fact older generations were somewhat wiser due to experience. Still are in many ways due to experience but also maybe too willing to accept incomplete science as settled science.

      I’m just trying to put forth the idea that like you, I think we should leave room in our thinking that what we know as truth today may give way to a new truth in the future, and we should not give up on teasing out that new truth.

  30. “wisdom of the crowd” ….Seems to me that when truths have been discovered they’ve always been discovered by the minority. Let’s go so far back as to when the earth was still deemed flat. For the most part, I don’t find very much wisdom in crowds.

    1. S, your example is spot on.

      However, today’s “crowds” are better educated… and are able to pivot when a member of the crowd shows a better way.

  31. Ah, modern medicine. Where half of the landmark studies in past fifteen years were just plain wrong. What?

    A disturbing article on how the majority of medical research published is wrong. All uncovered by a guy who thought he would just weed out weak science. Instead, half of all landmark findings in recent medical science shown wrong… 80% of common published medical research is wrong.

    When presented at a large surgeon conference, these findings received this reaction, “not a single one of my surgical colleagues was the least bit surprised or disturbed by its findings.”

    And on over prescribing drugs, “Just taking the patient off everything can improve their health right away.” But not only is checking out the research another time-consuming task, patients often don’t even like it when they’re taken off their drugs, she explains; they find their prescriptions reassuring.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

  32. I’m a little concerned, I have eaten maybe about 20 total of the bitter apricot seeds in the last 4 months or so. I haven’t noticed any effects but recently have some tingling in my arm and leg that I attributed to a pinched nerve. I went to the doctor and he seemed to kinda shrug it off. Is it possible this is related to the apricot pits?

    1. Hi Jim- If your doctor can’t address specific questions on your prior intake of apricot kernels, you could always speak to poison control for more advice. Unfortunately, we can’t address personal health questions here.

  33. Curious if Dr. Greger is aware of the book published by John A. Richardson, MD who operated the Richardson Cancer Clinic. Book shared his experience along with the case studies for using Laetrile at this practice.

  34. I have to say I remain somewhat torn on this issue, although I certainly heed the warning. There are many claims, admittedly anecdotal, of people using apricot seeds to successfully treat their cancer. Of course I wonder what else they’ve changed in their diet, but in terms of this outright dismissal of any benefit I’m wondering what is meant exactly by, “The pharmaceutical preparations of amygdalin, the dosage, and the schedule were representative of past and present Laetrile practice.”

    Doesn’t this mean they didn’t actually use seeds or a natural form? Dr Greger himself has taught me the questionable practice of even isolating nutrients, let alone synthesizing them, so in my mind questions remain.

    1. Here is a person in Europe who was eating 70 per day for 45 days before cyanide poisoning.

      http://www.njmonline.nl/getpdf.php?id=1379

      Try smoking 10-20 packs of cogs per day and see what happens. These doses are often ridiculously high in case studies.

      How about the 5-10% of patients that die within thirty days of chemo? I think I would risk the moderate dose apricot kernels.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This