home | overview | evidence | ARGUMENTS AGAINST | trophoblast theory | bibliography

my story | living with cancer | diet | contact us | links | site map | disclaimer

It distracts from conventional treatment.

It's unproven.

It's been disproven.

It's dangerous.

Scientific tests have proven that laetrile is ineffective as a treatment against cancer. 

Most people using this argument cite the studies undertaken by the National Cancer Institute in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

 In 1978 the NCI published the results of a retrospective case review of patients treated with laetrile. The study has been criticized as too selective but nevertheless the results were reported to be inconclusive.

 Despite this the NCI agreed to test 178 patients with advanced cancer at 4 major medical centers, including the Mayo Clinic in Rochester Minnesota, and other centers in California, Arizona and New York. The results were presented in 1981 at the American Society for Clinical Oncology by Dr Charles Moertel, who was in charge of the Mayo Clinic portion of the trial.

 Of the 156 patients who concluded the trial, 50% showed cancer progression within a month. Ninety percent progressed after 3 months. 50% had died within five months and only 20% were alive by eight months.

 Moertel claimed that this was consistent with what expected if patients had received no treatment and the results showed laetrile is ineffective as a treatment for cancer.

 However there have been criticisms of the trials. The Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy had offered to provide free laetrile to the investigators. When their offer was refused they unsuccessfully tried to sue in California to have the trial stopped. (Moss, the Cancer Industry p151)

 Dr James Cason of the University of California reportedly tested the some of the substance used in the NCI study and found it did not contain any amygdalin (laertrile) (Pelton p159)

 Other critics pointed out that two thirds of the patients had already been subjected to toxic chemotherapy which can damage the body’s natural immune system. (Moss, The Cancer Industry, p151) In other words their capacity to respond to laetrile was already compromised.

 The result is an impasse where those who wish to undermine laetrile cite the study as proof of their point of view while those who support laetrile point to the trial’s shortcomings.

 I think the reasonable observer would conclude that where there is a controversial issue with intense feelings held over a number of years, unless a scientific test is widely accepted by all sides as essentially fair, the only realistic conclusion is that the question is still open.