I'm not one to believe everything I read. I came across an article stating that vitamin B17, coming from apricot seeds and other sources, have the possibility of curing cancer. Does anyone have any feedback on this?

http://www.1cure4cancer.com/

I found that article on it I myself don't know how much if any of it is true..i will ask my dad about this he is a doctor to see what he knows ..interesting article though..makes one wonder.

This one has been around for a long time. The FDA wouldn't approve it and people used to go to a clinic in Mexico that used the apricot seed treatment. I think that Steve McQueen went there for the treatment but he died anyway.

Apricot seeds contain cyanide and are toxic in large amounts.

DD

My father was was a medical doctor in the 70's and 80's that used laetrile/b17 to treat patients and had a tremendous success with it. He supplemted other vitamins/minerals and nutrition along with diet to get great results. My father considered cancer a diet deficiency disease like scurvy (vit C), perniciious anemia(vit b12), or richets(vit D). The vitamin B17 containing cyanide is found in over 1200 different seeds, fruits, beans, grasses and grains. Staple foods that were used often a 100 years ago were raw millet and sorghum molassis.. both rich in vitamin b17 containing cyanide. People apparently didn't have cancer back then. We have all but eliminated these foods from our diet today because they are bitter to the taste and we are a society that likes foods that taste good. Cyanide is also found in b12 known as cyanocobalimine.... Cyanide and albumin. Hope that helps.

cvrich says, "People apparently didn't have cancer back then."

They had them. It was a question of terminology.

The ones we call tumors today, they called 'benign', or harmless, because the tumors weren't as aggressive and one could live with them, sometimes for many years. The other kind of tumor they called "malignant", which means evil or baleful. The term was coined in 1541.

The word cancer was in use as far back as the middle ages, to describe various difficult conditions such as gangrene. By 1541 it was being used, as was the word canker, and chancre, all from the same Latin root word for crab, , to describe a spreading disease that 'ate' the flesh, as a crab eats flesh, often leaving a spreading, open wound. Venereal disease sores such as the open , spreading sores of syphilis, were called chancres.

But before modern diagnosis methods, a tumor which formed inside the body but never caused a superficial sore was just called a tumor (from the Latin, meaning a swelling). The fast-growing ones were called malignant.

The use of modern medical techniques and equipment offers much better ways of distinguishing cancer cells (which are malignant) from benign tumor cells (which are not necessarily likely to spread quickly and reproduce uncontrollably and cause death). For example, cancer cells produce proteins that normal cells don't; but this difference could not be detected until fairly recently, because the science of detection is only advancing; it is not absolute. But it is supremely better than it was a hundred years ago.

Chemotherapy, a medically accepted treatment, now uses toxins that kill cancer cells more quickly than it kills normal cells. So using cyanide is not in itself why laetrile to treat cancer is not approved.

Laetrile is not approved because it has not been proved effective, according to the medical establishment.

But a lot of people take it, or other unapproved treatments, when accepted therapies fail. If they live, the alternative treatment is called a wonder drug. If they die, the alternative treatment advocates claim the therapy was begun too late.

But it is false that there was no cancer in days past.

I can't blame people for wanting to exhaust every option and try every remedy in the hopes of curing themselves or their loved ones. But we must also be careful about what we are exposing ourselves to.