The Laetrile Conspiracy: Why Did the US Ban a Potential Cancer Treatment?
A Tale of Suppression, Science, and Skepticism
In the annals of medical history, few substances have sparked as much controversy and debate as Laetrile. Picture this: It's 1977, disco is king, and 70,000 Americans are suddenly overcome with an inexplicable urge to visit Mexico. Was it for the tacos? The tequila? Nope. These medical migrants were on a quest for the forbidden fruit (pit) - Laetrile.
 |
| Laetrile in 1970s: "I guess I'll die if I can't get it..." |
As one desperate patient put it, "I guess I'll die if I can't get it. I'd steal it."
Alright. Back in the early 1970s, if you wanted to turn heads at a medical conference, you didn’t need fancy slides or catchy slogans—just walk in waving a bag of apricot seeds and claim you had the cure for cancer. That’s exactly what proponents of Laetrile did, and the ensuing drama was enough to rival any soap opera. But what is (was) Laetrile?
What is (was) Laetrile?
Laetrile, also known as Vitamin B17 (because why not throw a few aliases in the mix?) is a synthetic derivative of amygdalin. Amygdalin was discovered in the 1920s by Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Sr. when he isolated it from a compound found in the pits or seeds of apricots, apples, peaches, plums, red cherries, and other fruits. It's also in bitter almonds. The doctor subsequently formulated a theory that amygdalin could be effective against cancer, but it was too toxic for humans. In 1952, his son, Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. synthesized a less harmful version of Amygdalin. He called laetrile.
 |
| A photo collage of Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. and Apricot pit (seeds) |
Despite not being a vitamin, he described laetrile as vitamin B17, likely to avoid FDA regulations, which apply to medicines but not vitamins. As his father had found out or at least theorized, Laetrile was supposed to release cyanide selectively into cancer cells, killing them off while leaving healthy cells unharmed and it was a cure for breast cancer. Wait! Sounds like a superhero drug, right? Only it wasn’t just the cancer cells that were getting a dose of cyanide—at least, according to its detractors.
The Controversy
Laetrile’s Proven Usefulness vs. US Ban
Almost immediately after Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. shared his delight, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, an 80-something scientist began studying Laetrile. Picture a wizened old scientist, hunched over his microscope, whispering, "I'm studying amygdalin..." Dr. Sugiura was a respected researcher at Memorial Sloan-Kettering and true to Dr. Krebs Jr. report, his experiments on mice seemed to show Laetrile could slow the spread of lung cancer; and if dosaged right, all cancers. His reasoning- any cancer tends to have a spreadious tendency! And he continued researching.
 |
Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura Credit: themossreport.com |
Factly, Sugiura's research yielded compelling findings:
- In Laetrile-treated animals, only 10-20% developed metastases.
- In the control group, 80-90% of animals developed metastases.
As recounted by Ralph Moss, a young science writer at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering research institute, in one of his publications: "Dr. Sugiura said, 'I'm studying amygdalin.' ... He showed me that when he gave the Laetrile or amygdalin... the tumors would stop growing for a number of weeks." This was in 1961. By then, Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. had already filed for and been granted a patent for "Laetrile," under U.S. Patent No. 2,706,701 of April 19, 1955. The patent described a method of producing Laetrile, disguising it as 'a chemical compound for general therapeutic use' and sold it as so 'for further investigations.' Behind the scenes, however, Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. was promoting its potential anti-cancer properties among his friends and acquaintances in the medical world. He had established a small-scale operation to manufacture Laetrile as a cancer drug as soon as he had patented it, based on Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura's (of Memorial Sloan Kettering research facility) findings. And it was true,... "The results clearly show that Amygdalin (Laetrile) significantly inhibits the appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary tumors.... Laetrile also seemed to prevent slightly the appearance of new tumors.... The improvement of health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to controls is always a common observation.... In humans the initial positive results were not published because, in the words of Chester Stock, Sugiura's supervisor at the institute, "it would have caused all kind of havoc." Nevertheless, Ralph Moss leaked the findings in 1973, causing a stir across the medical industry and catapulted the drug's fame. Several companies and individuals began producing and distributing it commercially. Specifically, McNaughton Foundation and Cyto Pharma de Mexico Inc. supplied Laetrile to cancer patients in the U.S. and internationally, often under the guise of alternative medicine, purposely to evade FDA's scrutiny: They knew about its anti-cancer properties. The medicine soon became a popular alternative cancer treatment during the 1960s and '70s.
The Sloan Kettering Cover-up and the US Ban : Where the Plot Thickens (Like a Bad Tumor)
Just when things were looking peachy for Laetrile, the bigwigs at Sloan Kettering suddenly developed a severe case of selective memory. As writer Ralph Moss observed, "Suddenly, the statements that they were making... became increasingly negative. They ranged from misrepresentations to what I would say were egregious lies." It's as if the entire institution collectively decided to gaslight poor Dr. Sugiura. "Laetrile? Never heard of it. And who are you again, Dr. Sugiura?" And Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. had previously been arrested several times for "using the chemical in violation of state law." He was convicted in 1962 and 1966 of selling illegal medicines including laetrile and fined $4,000. He died in 1970.
All the while, the FDA was 'still investigating' the Laetrile's efficacy against cancer, prompting Dr. Sugiura, in an effort to mitigate his influence on the drug's popularity and to remain politically safe and to avoid cancelation from the medical field, to lament: "Laetrile, it's not a cure for cancer. It is a good palliative drug." Despite initial interest from Sloan Kettering's leadership, the institution's stance on Laetrile shifted dramatically. Moss observed: The cover-up reached its peak with a statement by Dr. Chester Stock to Medical World News in 1975:
"We have found Laetrile negative in all the animal systems that we have tested."
Ralph Moss,
 |
Ralph Moss- He wrote extensively on the Suppression of Laetrile Credit: radio.wpsu.org |
the fresh-faced science writer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center emphatically states: "That's a lie, quite pure and simple." In a scene straight out of a spy thriller, Moss recounts, he had a clandestine meeting with Dr. Lloyd Old, vice president of Sloan Kettering Institute. Picture dimmed lights, hushed voices, and... a bookshelf? Old dramatically revealed the source of all their new ideas: "The American Cancer Society's book 'Unproven Methods of Cancer Management.'" Plot twist! It turns out the medical establishment was taking inspiration from the very treatments they were denouncing. A few months later, FDA, 'after extensive and deep investigation' wagged its finger and said Laetrile was “Harmless but useless” but the American public seemed to be saying, “We’ll take our chances with the apricots, thank you very much.” In 1975, the FDA banned Laetrile altogether, dismissing it as a quack cancer remedy. Andrew R. L. McNaughton, a Canadian citizen who helped promote laetrile to prominence, became a fugitive of the law and exiled himself to Mexico, away 'from justice.'
The Aftermath of the Ban
Despite the U.S. ban, Laetrile remained legal south of the border in Mexico, creating a booming underground market. Desperate patients and their families became amateur smugglers, sneaking Laetrile back across the U.S. border in brown paper bags and concealed compartments. “We’re going through hell smuggling it across borders,” one Laetrile supporter lamented emphasizing that people would go to any length to keep their loved ones alive.
In 1977, Newsweek reported that an estimated 70,000 Americans traveled to Mexico to obtain Laetrile treatments. This staggering number represented about a tenth of the cancer population at the time and perhaps a fifth of all terminal cancer patients. The surge in Laetrile's popularity came at a time when the official "War on Cancer" was in disarray. As Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura explained, "It was almost like the public... had given up hope on established medicine and established science and had shifted their allegiance... to this unconventional treatment."
In the now-infamous 1977 press conference, Dr. Robert Good, then-president of Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, stood before a crowd of journalists and announced, “There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile has any effect on cancer in any form.”
However, internal records paint a different picture. Lloyd J. Old, Sloan Kettering’s vice president, once admitted that Laetrile was “as non-toxic as glucose.” But as the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and Sloan Kettering closed ranks, something fishy was clearly going on behind the scenes. It didn’t help that Dr. Daniel Martin, a previously unknown figure, was suddenly handed a $1 million grant (around $4 million today) to “disprove” Laetrile’s efficacy. Talk about timing! Doctors and researchers who supported Laetrile, like Dr. Sugiura, were sidelined and silenced, with careers damaged and reputations smeared.
 |
Laetrilists' careers and reputations were damaged and smeared Credit: themossreport.com |
Yet, to his dying day, Dr. Sugiura never recanted his findings. As he put it, “My results don’t agree with the Institute’s conclusions, but I stick by them.”
The Underground Factors: Why Was Laetrile Really Banned?
As with many medical controversies, follow the money, and you’ll get your answers. If Laetrile had been accepted as a viable treatment, it could have thrown a major wrench into the well-oiled (and highly profitable) machine of chemotherapy and radiation therapies. The American cancer treatment industry, dependent on patents and repeat customers, wasn’t too keen on a simple apricot-derived compound eating into its profits.
To keep Laetrile in its grave, researchers like Dr. Daniel Martin conducted studies that mysteriously showed negative results. When Dr. Sugiura’s studies showed promising outcomes, the data was questioned, re-tested, and eventually invalidated on questionable grounds. As one Moss noted, “Every experiment that came out positive had to be redone and rechecked—every time there was something positive, it couldn’t be accepted.” The pressure to conform to the anti-Laetrile narrative was evident. Dr. Robert Good, president of Sloan Kettering, told Moss, "I'm just like you... You can be fired, and I can be fired too."
A Fruitless Endeavor?
The Laetrile story is a classic David vs. Goliath tale, but instead of a slingshot, David had a handful of apricot pits. The FDA’s actions, despite compelling scientific data, suggest that alternative treatments are not always given a fair trial in the U.S. medical system—especially when they threaten established financial interests. So, was Laetrile really quackery, or did it simply find itself in the crosshairs of a medical-industrial complex unwilling to relinquish control?
Maybe someday, the American medical establishment will learn to say, “Hey, let’s take another look at this,” instead of, “Ban it, bury it, and don’t you dare talk about it.” Until then, the Laetrile conspiracy remains a potent reminder that in the world of medicine, as in politics, things aren’t always as they seem.
After all, when three out of the four doctors who opposed Laetrile—Dr. Good, Dr. Lloyd, and Dr. Thomas—later succumbed to cancer themselves, it’s hard not to wonder: were they unknowingly sitting on a potential solution the entire time?
The Laetrile controversy remains a contentious chapter in medical history. While we cannot definitively prove a conspiracy, the evidence presented raises troubling questions about the influence of politics and profit on medical research and public health policy.
Comments
Post a Comment