home | OVERVIEW | evidence | arguments against | trophoblast theory | bibliography

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

overview

 There is a widespread feeling when it comes to cancer that conventional medicine has not delivered despite its spectacular successes in other areas.

 People wonder whether the harsh side effects of chemotherapy are necessary and question whether conventional medicine is on the right course in putting its faith so heavily in manufactured chemotherapy drugs.  Billions of dollars have been spent on the war on cancer but has the money produced results?

 Many have an uncomfortable feeling about pharmaceutical companies, their billion dollar turnovers and their pervasive influence over how medicine is taught and practiced.

 Many experience that cancer patients are too often treated as numbers or objects rather than as people who wish to have some degree of control over their own fate.

 Most people would be surprised to realize that when the facts are closely examined the success rates of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery are quite poor despite the positive impression put forward by the media and the medical establishment.

 What matters to a person with cancer is the length of his or her survival time and the quality of life, in other words the ability to enjoy life and carry on with normal activities. However the regulating authorities often approve chemotherapy drugs on their ability to permanently or temporarily shrink tumors. There is no proof that shrinking a tumor has any effect on how long a cancer patient will live and most people are aware how the debilitating side effects of chemotherapy affect the quality of life.

 In contrast, the supporters of laetrile claim it is an effective and alternative way to treat cancer. It has few or no side effects due to the fact it is derived from naturally occurring substances.

 The controversy between the medical establishment and the supporters of laetrile over the past decades has been described as the fiercest and most intense in modern medicine.

 Conventional medicine refers to the treatments usually prescribed by oncologists and is usually confined to chemotherapy drugs, radiation treatment or surgery.  Alternative medicine, as the name suggests, refers to treatments that are undertaken instead of conventional treatments.

 While conventional medicine tends to see a tumor as a localized malignancy to be attacked by conventional means, alternative medicine sees a person as the total of mind body, emotions and spirit. A tumor is a symptom of a breakdown in the system and the approach is to treat the whole person, i.e. a ‘holistic’ approach.

 So there are completely opposing perspectives on cancer and at the present time the two sides seem irreconcilable.

 Amygdalin, sometimes spelt amygdaline, is a naturally occurring substance found in foods, some of which are listed on the diet page. First isolated in the 1800’s it was then used in the treatment of cancer with positive results. (see evidence \ recent history)

 However mainstream medicine has used amygdalin-rich foods extensively to treat cancer over the past 2,500 years (see evidence \ distant history) but ironically has spurned these methods over the past century.

 It has been noticed that native populations often have a low incidence of cancer and many believe nutritional factors to be the explanation. (see evidence \ population studies)

 Some people refer to amygdalin as vitamin B17 or alternatively as one of a group of substances known as nitrilosides. A group of researchers extracted pure amygdalin in the 1940s and 50s and coined the term laetrile by shortening its chemical name.

 There is no definitive evidence in the form of randomized trials that prove the effectiveness of laetrile and the reasons for this are discussed in arguments against \ unproven.  However it needs to be remembered that there is no evidence in favor of chemotherapy as an effective form of treatment either, if effective treatment is defined as an increased survival rate and quality of life. See arguments against \ distracts.

 As a cancer patient I discovered I had no choice but to follow the best existing evidence and this site sets out a cross section of that evidence. (evidence \ research overview)

 I have described my experiences since being diagnosed with cancer a few years ago (my story) and have included a few observations which I hope will give encouragement. (living with cancer)

 Most of advocates advise against self treatment and strongly advise seeking the help of a competent person. This is an information site only and is not intended as advice on treatment. However I hope I have been helpful.

 When the opinions of both sides are considered I say that on the basis of the evidence and my own personal experience, a reasonable person can only conclude that the laetrile debate is still open.