Laetrile and Cancer: History, Controversy, and Why It’s Still Discussed

What would lead cancer patients to travel across the border in search of a treatment they couldn’t receive at home?

In this second of a new series of articles on the most effective natural strategies I explored in my personal fight against cancer, I’m addressing an often misunderstood and quite controversial treatment.

Few topics in integrative cancer history stir as much emotion as laetrile.

For decades it has been praised, criticized, banned, defended, misunderstood — and almost impossible to discuss without strong reactions.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, it is reported that thousands of Americans traveled to clinics in Mexico seeking laetrile treatments after restrictions limited access in the U.S.

What Exactly Is Laetrile?

I’m often asked about laetrile — what it is, why it became controversial, and why it still comes up decades later.

In a recent interview, I sat down with John A. Richardson, Jr., founder of the Richardson Nutritional Center, to revisit the story behind amygdalin (sometimes called laetrile or vitamin B-17) and the apricot kernels from which it is derived.

What followed wasn’t hype.
It wasn’t sensationalism.
It was a thoughtful look at history.

How Apricot Kernels Entered the Cancer Conversation

John’s father, Dr. John A. Richardson, was a San Francisco physician who became closely associated with laetrile during the 1970s.

According to John Jr., many patients found their way to his father after exhausting conventional options. Some traveled long distances seeking treatment that at the time was difficult to access elsewhere. Intravenous laetrile was administered under medical supervision, and word spread quickly among patient communities. He stated that in many cases, after a couple of weeks of laetrile treatments, their cancer was undetectable.

But as interest grew, so did scrutiny. Investigations, legal challenges, and eventual restrictions followed — helping turn laetrile into one of the most debated therapies in modern cancer history.

What Is Amygdalin?

Amygdalin is a naturally occurring compound found in the seeds of certain fruits — including apricots, peaches, and bitter almonds. Laetrile refers to a semi-synthetic form historically administered in clinical settings, often intravenously.

Supporters describe it as a complementary nutritional compound, while critics raise concerns regarding safety and the lack of large-scale clinical evidence.

Researchers have long taken interest in amygdalin because of what has been observed in laboratory cancer models. In controlled cell studies like the one published in Anticancer Agents Med Chem in (2018), amygdalin has been shown to slow the growth of certain cancer cells and to trigger apoptosis — the body’s normal process for removing damaged cells. Scientists have also seen changes in cellular signaling related to survival and replication. Findings like these don’t answer every question, but they help explain why the compound has remained part of the conversation for so many years.

That tension — between anecdote, laboratory findings, regulatory action, and patient testimony — is part of why the debate has continued for nearly half a century.

The Hunzas

In the very candid interview, John Jr. also points to the long-standing curiosity surrounding the Hunza people of Northern Pakistan, a remote community often mentioned in earlier nutrition and longevity writings. According to Richardson, historical accounts noted that some Hunzas routinely consumed large numbers of apricot kernels — sometimes reported as hundreds per day — and observers described unusually low cancer rates within the population.

Because apricot seeds naturally contain amygdalin, these observations helped spark interest among certain physicians and researchers in the United States during the 1950s and 60s. From there, laetrile entered public awareness and eventually became one of the most politically charged topics in oncology.

By the late 1970s, regulatory agencies restricted its use. Media coverage intensified. Court battles followed. Public opinion fractured — and the debate has never fully settled.

The Cyanide Question

One of the most discussed aspects of amygdalin is its cyanide component.

When the compound is metabolized, it has the potential to release hydrogen cyanide — a substance known to be toxic at certain levels. For this reason, safety became the central concern raised by physicians and regulators, particularly when apricot kernels were consumed outside controlled settings.

At the same time, proponents argued that risk depended on preparation, dosage, and supervision, and that these distinctions were often lost in public discussion. The disagreement was not only about the compound itself, but about how it was being used and interpreted.

Because of that, the cyanide issue became the focal point of the broader controversy — less a settled scientific question than a dividing line between competing views of risk, regulation, and patient choice.

John Jr. shares more about this part of the story in the interview below.

Why Patients Still Ask About It Today

Over the years I’ve learned that certain topics never really disappear. People hear about them from a friend, an article, or a story from decades ago — and when they’re facing difficult decisions, they want to understand what they’ve heard.

Some approach it with curiosity, others with skepticism, and many simply want clarity. That’s really the purpose of revisiting the history — not to revive an argument, but to understand why the questions have never completely gone away.

The Debate Continues

For some, laetrile represents suppressed innovation.
For others, it represents misplaced hope.

In my conversation with Richardson, I’m not trying to settle the argument. Instead, I’m simply asking:

What did the early research actually show?
What role did regulation and media framing play?
Why do certain compounds fall out of favor while others receive enormous investment?
What can patients learn from history, even when consensus remains unsettled?

Laetrile remains controversial because different groups interpret the same history in very different ways — some see overlooked potential, others see insufficient evidence and safety concerns. Understanding that history doesn’t resolve the debate, but it helps explain why the conversation never disappeared.

A Thoughtful Conversation

Laetrile has been argued about for decades — yet most of the details rarely get discussed. Here’s your chance to hear them firsthand.

Watch the full interview with John A. Richardson, Jr., HERE.

* * * * *

Eat healthy, wherever you are! The Templeton List – Your Guide To The Healthiest Restaurants in America – helps you find and choose the healthiest restaurants, so you can eat out without sacrificing your health or peace of mind.