Vitamin B-17: Separating Myth From Reality

On February 14th 2006 the Daily Mail ran a headline ´Cancer Cures or Quackery?´ under which six alternative practitioners recommended ´alternative´ cancer cures (their word not mine) to a reporter posing as a cancer sufferer. One therapy was ´B-17 metabolic therapy or laetrile´ (sic).

Two cancer ´experts´, Professors Ernst and Baum, respectively commented that there was ´no research to support B-17´, and that B-17 was used ´by a few unscrupulous practitioners across the border in Mexico´.

Want to receive the very latest, hot information on this subject? Click here

Let´s get a few things straight immediately:

The FSA suggested that 1-2 pips per day was a safe intake. One article went on to add, ´Bitter apricot pips are thought to contain high levels of B-17, known as laetrile - described as an immune system booster and even as a cancer treatment´. Cancer Research UK´s website states that, ´If simply eating apricot kernels could cure cancer no-one would be more delighted than us´.

Let´s Get Real Here

In the articles there are lots of elements being jumbled up, ignorantly.

Secondly, no practitioner in the UK has been allowed to prescribe or use B-17 since June 2004.

I know of no-one who claims that Apricot Kernels, or B-17
                                                             is a cancer ´cure´

Thirdly, of the practitioners who used to use B-17 and metabolic therapy in the UK, or people still using it around the world, like Contreras, I know of no-one who claims that Apricot Kernels, or B-17 is a cancer ´cure´.

Fourthly, there is quite simply no such thing as a ubiquitous cancer ´cure´.

The word ´cure´ in my experience is only ever used by the press, or by dubious websites who don´t really understand cancer. Cancer is a multi-step process. There may be as many as 20 steps (according to John Boik of the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas). In my book, ´The Rainbow Diet - and how it can help you beat cancer´, I have assigned foods and natural compounds to each of the steps, but only where there is scientific research that they have an anti-cancer step activity. I know of no compound that is active against all 20 steps.

B-17 is not a cancer ´cure´; nor is Herceptin, nor Tamoxifen. Certainly coral calcium isn´t, and nor is vitamin D, nor Oxaliplatin.

Fifthly, no drug cures all cancer cases all of the time, so why expect it of a vitamin?

And finally all drugs have side effects. Those of Tamoxifen are well documented. Why would we not expect side effects if you ate too many Apricot Kernels, or too much beetroot?

So from this point on, when reading this article, at least put B-17 or Apricot Kernels into a proper perspective.

So What Is B-17?

Every area of the world supporting vegetation has such
                                                                        plants

B-17, or amygdalin, is a naturally occurring vitamin. In fact it is slightly wrong to think of it as a single product like, say, vitamin C. There is a group of approximately 14 products that are water-soluble, and found naturally in over 1,200 species of plant in the world. Every area of the world supporting vegetation has such plants.

The active ingredients are often described as nitrilosides or beta-cyanogenetic glucosides and there are at least 800 foods common in worldwide diets that are nitrilosidic.

Nitrilosidic foods include:

• alfalfa sprouts, bamboo shoots, mung bean sprouts
• barley, buckwheat, maize, millet
• blackberries, currants, cassava, cranberries, gooseberries
• loganberries, quince, raspberries, strawberries, yams
• brown rice, fava beans, lentils and many pulses like kidney beans, lima beans and field beans
• flax seed, linseed
• pecans, macadamia nuts, cashews, walnuts
• watercress, sweet potato
• almonds and the seeds of lemons, limes, cherries, apples, apricots, prunes, plums and pears.

In fact all the foods we don´t eat too much of these days!!

The consumption of barley, buckwheat and millet have given way to refined wheats, and pulses like lentils, which accounted for 30 per cent of our protein in 1900, now account for only 2 per cent.

Primitive tribes around the world still base their diets around B-17 rich foods. Cassava, papaya, yam, sweet potato in the tropics; unrefined rice in the Far East; seeds and nuts in the Himalayas; the salmon-berry eaten by Eskimos, or the arrowgrass of the arctic tundra feeding the caribou.

So Why The Interest?

This absence of cancer seemed to be due to the difference of nutrition

Nutritionist and scientists alike studied the various tribes. Sir Robert McCarrison in the 1920s and John Dark MD twenty years later failed to find a single case of cancer amongst the Hunzas, the tribes of West Pakistan. V Steffanson found the same with the Eskimos and wrote "Cancer: Disease of Civilisation" as a result. Dr M Navarro of Santo Thomas, University of Manilla, noticed the same with the Philippine population who ate cassava, wild rice, wild beans, berries and fruits of all kinds. Dr Albert Schweitzer noted the same in Gabon. ´This absence of cancer seemed to be due to the difference of nutrition in the natives compared to the Europeans. Their diet was centred around sorghum, cassava, millet and maize´.

Studies of the consumption of B-17 varied from Dark´s finding that the Hunzas consumed at least 150-250mgs per day, to Dean Burke, head of the cytochemistry department of the National Cancer Institute in the USA in the seventies writing that the Modoc Indians in North America consumed over 8,000 mgs per day! (Dean Burke actually gave amygdalin the name B-17).

We leave these foods aside at our peril. The World Health Organisation has, after all, confirmed that in their view a large percentage of all cancers could be prevented by simple changes in diet.

B-17 As A Cancer Treatment?

Amygdalin was first isolated in 1830 and used as an anti-cancer agent in Russia as early as 1845. But it was reborn by the father/son team Ernst Krebs senior and junior by 1955 had who isolated a purified form of the active ingredient (calling it laetrile) and, with others in the late fifties to seventies, sought to explain its action.

So How Does B-17 Work?

Cancer cells differ in a number of ways from normal cells. One difference in that the mitochondria, or power stations, do not use oxygen to produce energy, nor do they use the normal twenty something step process called the Krebs cycle. Rather they use only four steps and have a whole different energy production system and different set of helper chemicals (enzymes).

B-17 is a seek and destroy missile

In a cancer cell one of these enzymes, glucosidase, is present at 3000 times the level found in normal, healthy cells. Glucosidase has a unique action with B-17, breaking it down into hydrogen cyanide (which kills it) and benzaldehyde, (an analgesic).

However, in normal cells where glucosidase is virtually non-existent, a completely different enzyme, rhodenase which is involved in the normal oxygen burning process, actually renders the B-17 harmless, converting it to thiocyanate, a substance which helps the body regulate blood pressure, and vitamin B-12. So, the proponents argue, B-17 is a seek and destroy missile.

My Doctor Says B-17 Is Dangerous - It Contains Cyanide?

As we explained above - the B-17 molecule, if broken a certain way can produce cyanide. But the enzyme that can do this is virtually only found in a cancer cell.

Also, frankly, it is rather a daft argument; rather like saying the glucose molecule contains carbon monoxide and that can kill you!

Furthermore, vitamin B-12 (also called cyano-cobalmine) "contains" cyanide in the same way that B-17 does. B-12 is involved in over 300 enzymatic reactions in the healthy body, a deficiency is known to be linked to increased cancer risk and nobody in their right mind would tell you not to consume B-12.

So, steer clear of anyone who uses this rather ignorant argument for B-17.

So Why The Controversy?

If you are thinking of buying Apricot Kernels, you might like to look at the Natural Selection Product of Choice. You can do this by  clicking here.

Its use is controversial because the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA has not approved it (although why they officially needed to approve a naturally occurring vitamin in the first place is a mystery in itself). The FDA state simply that laetrile (not amygdalin or B-17) is a synthetic therapy and, as such, needs approval like any drug. Following the Krebs´ work in 1955 a Senate Committee (often accused of being biased presumably because of drug industry connections) seemed unimpressed by evidence that three quarters of 80 cancer test patients had seen their cancer tumours go or reduce in size.

Has There Been Any Research On B-17?

Three quarters of 80 cancer test patients had seen their cancer tumours go or reduce in size

Well yes, actually there has. Ralph Moss and Phillip Day are the experts here and they record that there have been three animal studies and two human studies.

But the controversy continues as an attempt at clinical trial in the USA reported no effect with B-17. The project leader showed his disgust at the public hearing, implying that he had actually found a positive response and the powers that be were mispresenting him.

However, talk to the experts that use B-17 and they will tell you that researching B-17 in a clinical trial is not the issue anyway. The issue is to research the whole ´metabolic therapy´ package. The authorities have never done this. The people who use it simply cannot afford to conduct a full scale clinical trial. Impasse.

Cancers are clever and often form protective protein coats around the tumour to ward off the immune system.

Various cancer clinics have thus developed ´therapy packages´; these include bromelain (from pineapple), papain (from papaya) and two pancreatic enzymes trypsin and chymotrypsin to break down this protein coat, plus vitamins A, E and B complex, plus high dose vitamin C and high dose minerals.

The difficulty then becomes "which bit worked?"

Having personally talked to leading B-17 practitioners in the USA and Europe a few actually say ´who cares!´? None doubts its efficacy, but several felt it was not as potent as high dose vitamin C.

Actually this is quite important really. There is good research that shows vitamin C megadoses are quite effective. There are also clinical trials on supplements and pancreatic enzyme treatment taking place right now with Dr Gonzalez in his clinic in New York. And the pancreatic enzyme therapy appears to be working well.

Metabolic therapy packages could be working in several ways

So metabolic therapy packages could be working in several ways. The B-17, the vitamin C megadose, the pancreatic enzymes or even all of them. Who knows?!

Finally, laetrile has shown effectiveness against cancer cells in vitro, and in rats and mice. Even the NCI, which is negative about laetrile, reports that by the late seventies over 70,000 cancer patients had been treated with laetrile and there are copious individual case histories on its effectiveness. (However, modern medicine demands a clinical trial).

Krebs recommended eating ten apricot seeds per day for life (the seeds or kernels of apricots have the highest levels of B-17; up to 3 per cent); cancer treatments use four to six 500mg tablets per day or intravenous injections.

Can It Kill Me?

One issue is overdosing. Five kernels at any one time in a 90 minute period is the recommended maximum, and cancer treatments have to be properly supervised. Excess B-17 and cyanide byproducts have been known to build up in the liver. Each of us has different capacities and the cancer patient has an already impaired liver. A healthy liver has an enzyme, glucorinide that can detox the by-products, but in a cancer patient, this can be depleted. So, cyanide poisoning can result if excess is consumed. 1gm is the maximum recommended to be taken at any one time while the US Nutrition Almanac recommends a maximum of 35 seeds per day.

Subjectivity And Objectivity

As readers know, I travel the world giving speeches on cancer. I have interviewed a number of ´experts´ using B-17 and metabolic therapy, including ´The Mexicans´. (The ones I met were not unscrupulous!!).

I will say that on a totally subjective note:

I have seen overdosing with my own eyes. Be very, very careful.

To repeat:

So Does It Work?

Firstly, having read the original research on B-17 treatments and spoken to users first hand, I find the ´evidence´ against B-17 almost non-existent, while there are varied claims for its effectiveness. We simply do not understand the logic of a US Government Health Authority, the FDA, concluding that it doesn´t work and so moving to ban the interstate shipments of, not just B-17, but also apricot kernels and the planting of bitter almond trees! Even my mother´s Asda "iced log" (a cake) contained 11 per cent apricot kernel paste! Presumably this cannot be moved between California and Nevada!

But if we are all going to be subjective about this, let me tell you about my 83 year old mother! She´s been eating Apricot Kernels for years - she never has a day´s ill health. She eats the apricot and then breaks open the stone. And she says you should only eat as many kernels as you eat apricots. So there!

From everything I have read, and seen, and from the patients who have used it and the doctors who use it my own feeling is that the logic and biochemistry of B-17 being a ´seek and destroy missile´, targeted only on cancer cells is sound.

It does have side effects, but then so does Tamoxifen, so both should be properly supervised.

What happens with our favourite drugs and 
                                the cancer ten years on?

Does it work though? Well here is the $64,000 question. There is logic to ozone therapy; logic to PDT, logic to Herceptin but none of these works 100 per cent of the time. In the case of ozone therapy, the delivery systems are still lacking; for Herceptin about half of HER-2 positive women just don´t seem to respond.

And are Herceptin and Tamoxifen actually ´cures´ for cancer? Do they finish the job off, 100 per cent of the time? No. Yet they are widely praised.

Cancer also has a wonderful self-protecting ability to evolve and render drugs that seem brilliant at the outset, ultimately useless. And clinical trials cannot go on forever having a time frame of months or just a few years. What happens with our favourite drugs and the cancer ten years on?

So I Return To B-17

Firstly, B-17 is being judged by a different set of standards and that is wrong. There should be clinical trials on ´metabolic therapy´ (although who funds them is the core issue) and metabolic therapy should be put through the same vigorous process as Herceptin - and equally given the same ´slack´ when dealing with side effects.

Will we know which ´bit´ of metabolic therapy worked? Probably not. There is logic and merit in pancreatic enzymes and vitamin C megadoses. So it is rather like throwing ´everything´ the alternative world has to offer at the cancer - the ´best of the rest´. And if we don´t know exactly what works or how, that´s the bit that greatly worries the FDA. They want to know exactly what is working and how before they will approve a drug, and there´s no fault in that.

I´m sure there is a preventative element at work

With Apricot Kernels, for me it´s a different issue. Everybody should build nitriloside foods into their diet. I put five kernels with my home-made muesli each morning, but then I eat copious amounts of food off the list above anyway. I do not doubt the logic of the biochemistry at all. Personally, I´m sure there is a preventative element at work.

And if you eat too many Apricot Kernels, especially if you are a cancer patient with an impaired liver? You are quite probably going to make yourself ill. There is logic and biochemistry to this too - it is dangerous.

Unfortunately, the pips don´t come with packaging, let alone a health warning. Unscrupulous vendors do overclaim; cancer patients desperate for a ´cure´ misinterpret, don´t read or listen carefully enough and then try to consume 50 seeds for breakfast.

I remember we ran a story in Cancer Watch about an actor who consumed 14 large bottles of water during his stage show one night and had to be rushed to hospital. Even water kills in excess! Should you legislate against it by banning it? Well, that´s another question.

Metabolic Therapy, from what I have seen, definitely works for..... some people. All I can say is that if I had cancer there would be a number of options I would explore first. If I eventually decidied to go the metabolic therapy route I would go to an expert, even if that means Mexico (although it could well be Germany or Japan).

But isn´t it rather sad that we just don´t know the reality from the myth? That some ´experts´ dismiss B-17 out of hand without detailing the biochemistry?

But isn´t it rather sad that some dismiss B-17 
                                                        out of hand?

I remember Prince Charles a few years ago delivering a speech in which he said a lady friend of his had treated her breast cancer with only the Gerson Therapy and was alive and thriving seven years on. He simply asked that these ´alternative therapies´ were properly researched so that patients might know the truth.

Cancer expert Professor Baum jumped on him then saying that if these therapies did not submit themselves to the rigours of a clinical trial then it was their own fault they remained outside the mainstream.

This view is ´ignorant´ in the true definition of the word: Who is to pay? Which patients will forgo their orthodox treatment to just have the alternative? Can you get sufficient of each - the test group and the control? Etc. Etc.

And ignorant views don´t help cancer patients.

And this just might be the case with ´metabolic therapy´.

So Where Next With B-17?

What would be helpful to cancer patients is for people with experience of using B-17 to write to us.

Could you please basically write no more than 150 words covering: What cancer you had, date of B-17 useage and could you please specify Apricot Kernels, B-17 tablets or intravenous, or full blown metabolic therapy? Did you feel it "worked"? Or Not? Define "worked" please. (We have the Diary of a prostate cancer visitor to The Oasis of Hope in our Living Proof section.)

Perhaps we could at least draw some numbers together, even print some experiences (good and bad) and add to our knowledge.

Maybe, just maybe, we´ll come nearer to answering the question, ´Cancer cure or quackery?" Who knows?!

    At last - the definitive, research-based book on how to build a diet to help beat cancer. Click here to read about it.

Readers might also like to read "Cancer: Why We´re Still Dying to Know the Truth" - by Phillip Day
2005 edition ISBN 0-9535012-4-8

Email: