Posted 12/29/2009 10:04 AM (GMT -6)
Based on my search of the literature I would say that this is quackery
A Pubmed search of vitamin b17 got only one hit.
Cancer. 1981 Mar 1;47(5 Suppl):1226-40.”Vitamins and cancer prevention: issues and dilemmas”Young VR, Newberne PM.
Here is a sentence from the abstract
“The many popular misconceptions and unsound advice concerning vitamins and health, including "fake" vitamins-pangamic acid ("vitamin B15") and laetrile ("vitamin B17")-are also discussed. On the basis of current evidence, it would be inappropriate to recommend either substantial changes in habitual vitamin intakes, as provided by an adequate, well-balanced diet, or promotion of megavitamin intakes, as a means of reducing risk from cancers in the human population.”
Here is an abstract on laetrile
Support Care Cancer. 2007 Jun;15(6):583-95. Epub 2006 Nov 15.
Laetrile for cancer: a systematic review of the clinical evidence.
Milazzo S, Lejeune S, Ernst E.
Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Institute of Health and Social Care, Exeter, UK.
BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients treated with conventional therapies also try 'alternative' cancer treatments. Laetrile is one such 'alternative' that is claimed to be effective by many alternative therapists. Laetrile is also sometimes referred to as amygdalin, although the two are not the same. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to summarize all types of clinical data related to the effectiveness or safety of laetrile interventions as a treatment of any type of cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All types of clinical studies containing original clinical data of laetrile interventions were included. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1951), EMBASE (from 1980), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), Scirus, CancerLit, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL; all from 1982), CAMbase (from 1998), the MetaRegister, the National Research Register, and our own files. For reports on the safety of laetrile, we also searched the Uppsala database. No language restrictions were imposed. RESULTS: Thirty six reports met our inclusion criteria. No controlled clinical trials were found. Three articles were nonconsecutive case series, 2 were consecutive case series, 6 were best case series, and 25 were case reports. None of these publications proved the effectiveness of laetrile. CONCLUSION: Therefore, the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data.
Age at diagnosis 66, PSA 5.5
Biopsy 12/08 12 cores, 8 positive
CAT scan, Bone scan 1/09 both negative.
Robotic surgery 03/03/09 Catheter Out 03/08/09
Pathology: Lymph nodes & Seminal vesicles negative
Margins positive, Capsular penetration extensive Gleason 4+3=7
6 weeks: 1 pad/day, 1 pad/night -- mostly dry at night.
10 weeks: no pad at night -- slight leakage day/1 pad.
3 mo. PSA 0.0 - now light pads
6 mo. PSA 0.00 -- 1 light pad/day