The posts created within this blog are my opinions or those of other proponents of apricot kernels and their use therapeutically. Though I endeavor to write nothing that isn't factual, I am not a scientist nor am I doctor. My writings are based on many years of experience, observation and research, and the conclusions drawn are my own. I want to stress the importance of having the advice and guidance of a practiced and experienced healthcare professional. You should only take my writings into consideration in the course of arriving at your own conclusions following extensive research. Research is essential in a proactive approach to well-being. You should feel well-informed and empowered before making any decisions about your health.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Apricot Kernels - Thoughts and Ponderings

I suppose this entry is somewhat of a continuation of my last post titled, Apricot Kernels - For Doctors and Skeptics

As a natural skeptic myself, I've often considered how something that's received so much apparent scrutiny from the scientific world could escape recognition of its seeming efficacy. In actuality, apricot kernels themselves have received very little scientific attention. Those of us knowledgeable about their use, and sincere in our beliefs of their therapeutic benefit, are often referred to as quacks and charlatans. Those who've engaged in their supply are referenced as scammers and con-artists, accused of taking advantage of the desperate. Though I try not to take this personally, I can't help but feel ostracized from the world of decent people and reasonable thinkers.

On the flip-side, we scammers, con-artists, quacks and charlatans receive letters and phone calls of high praise and gratitude from the cancer-afflicted and their families. The reports involve stories of amazing tumor regressions,  improvements in health, energy, appetite, pain and a general sense of well-being. We're often told that their doctors are astonished by their apparent recoveries. A common medical response seems to be something to the effect of, 'I don't know what you're doing, just keep doing it'. Many of these people seem unwilling to share their alternative protocols with their conventional practitioners in fear of contempt and ridicule. Despite this feedback, we're expected to turn away from apricot kernels and disregard these anecdotes as reports of placebo.

Although I do believe unsavory elements exist within the realm, most of us simply believe in a reality where nature provides the medicine we require. We feel we've observed enough evidence to be adequately convinced that apricot kernels are, indeed, yet another natural substance of therapeutic value. I'm frustrated and confused by the lacking recognition they've received in this regard.

Though I'm deeply reluctant to subscribe to pharmaceutical conspiracy theories, I've often turned to these concepts in an effort to explain the total disregard for apricot kernels and their proponents. To those of us immersed in this realm with an absolute belief in their value, the scientific opinion that they're worthless is inexplicable. I've spent countless hours as a lay-person trying to decipher relevant studies and make sense of a scientific puzzle with so many missing pieces. I'm convinced the pieces are missing because they've yet to be manufactured. I'm not unaffected by the studies that have demonstrated little to know efficacy for amygdalin as a therapeutic agent. I don't have an explanation for this. For someone reluctant to attach a conspiracy explanation, the effect is confusion and doubt. I remain convinced, however, that apricot kernels themselves, in their whole form, contain the beginnings of these missing pieces. These feelings are what has led to this very blog.

It does seem there is an increasing willingness within the medical fraternity to acknowledge the therapeutic benefit of many natural substances; however, despite the backing of peer-reviewed evidence for many of these substances, there still remains a sector that scoffs at the mention of their application in a medical capacity. Could it simply be that this sector remains the controlling opinion within the available educational resources? There is no fresh science where apricot kernels are concerned. There are some relatively recent studies from Korea that have demonstrated efficacy, but the older studies continually referenced are those that dealt with Laetrile and amygdalin specifically, that apparently found little to no benefit. Being an apricot kernel derivative, the assumption remains that apricot kernels themselves are ineffective. I'm astounded that this concept seems to elude the intellectual power of the scrutineers.

I find it peculiar that an open-mindedness seems to be lacking amongst the majority of would-be healers. This absence of faith in nature's remedies is at odds with the longest standing traditions of healing. The centuries-old principles of medicine have very quickly been replaced by a modern interpretation that has virtually abandoned the ancient wisdom for the notion that man can bend nature to his will and influence its infinite complexities with unnatural control and without consequence. There is no biological rationale for this approach, and yet we continue to race ahead at full speed claiming progress. I pay full respect to surgeons - the real doctors - and acknowledge the leaps forward made by these modern wizards. Those who specialize in pharmaceutical medicine are little more than drug-pushers, in my humble opinion. This area of treatment is more flawed today than it's ever been. The emphasis remains the treatment of symptoms - not disease. This is not healing, and, to my mind, this pursuit is a complete breach of the Hippocratic oath. A focus on symptoms can ultimately only do harm, as there are very few drugs without long-term side-effects.

I can appreciate that the modern patient has now come to expect swift relief from their ailments and discomforts, unaware of the real costs, but this is only because they've been led to believe that the human animal is incapable of caring for itself and its loved ones. We've been disempowered to such a degree that we rush off to the doctor's office with a sniffle or the mildest of aches. We've been made to fear the slightest discomfort and programmed to put 100% of our faith into a field of treatment that fails to acknowledge that our bodies are healing machines by nature. So much so that they will knowingly take our immune systems out of the equation to better gain control of their processes.

We've been conditioned to such a poor state that few people seem to question the astronomical increase in the incidence of disease. We've become so apathetic that we simply accept that we'll eventually be afflicted by some terrible ailment, and, in most cases, we're led to believe that it's not our fault. It has nothing to do with our lifestyles or our ignorant choices. Provided that we follow the food pyramid guidelines set out for us by these health carers, any condition we experience is outside of our control. "Drink your milk and eat your bread. Consume these processed foods with symbols of hearts and check-marks and all will be well.". Does it ever strike you as odd that we're the only animal on the planet that drinks the breast milk of another species? And we're led to believe this is an essential, natural source of calcium? Really? Give it some thought.

The line we're often fed is that disease states haven't increased at all, it's just that diagnostics have improved so much - or, it's not that there's a greater incidence of disease, it's just that there are more people to contract them. Most of us seem to buy this. Blind faith in science. This blind faith was once reserved for spiritual concepts, and people were much healthier then. I suppose what we're meant to believe is that, unlike any other of nature's animals, we and our pets are inherently sickly. It has nothing to do with the unnatural food we eat and feed to our furry little friends. It has nothing to do with the vaccines we subject ourselves to and foist upon our children and our dogs. And it has nothing to do with the endless supply of toxic chemicals prescribed to us by our own doctors for a vast spectrum of ailments that may or may not have existed just 100 years ago. We're just unlucky I guess. What do I know - I'm just a quack.


  1. Alex

    You have given us something to think about. I stumbled upon your blog VIA a link from another. I had heard drips and drabs about "vitamin B17" and apricot kernels, but I had also dismissed the idea outright as quackery. I shall now pursue the truth of the matter with a new perspective.

  2. Replies
    1. My pleasure, Claire. I had a look at your own blog and you've put together a lovely read. Most of my visitors should consider having a look at what you have to offer.

  3. This is fascinating. Studying herb lore, I see a pattern in nature where in most places that poisonous plants grow, an antidote to that poison grows nearby. Nature knows better than we do. I will try everything natural I can before being forced onto synthetic medications- and so far have succeeded- but I am continually mocked for it. It is my understanding that most of our synthetic drugs were derived to replace the use of natural remedies that did not grow widely enough to meet demand. If that is true, why do we then mock people who use natural remedies, when that is the ancestor, so to speak, of modern western medicine?

  4. Thanks for your comments, Sarah. I think western society has simply become blindly accepting of conventional "wisdom". It's much easier to accept with faith than proactively educate oneself. It's actually very difficult to imagine that conventional wisdom is often wrong. It's a system most of us rely on our entire lives. This revelation for me was a difficult time, as I found the loss of faith in the "system" confronting and somewhat frightening. If they don't have the answers, who does? The reality is - the answers are there for those seeking them.

    Conventional wisdom is fueled by financial interests. One will never find the complete truth where a financial agenda exists. Synthetics are money makers and it is financially sensible to cast doubt on the competition - so much so, it's become an unquestioned culture within the industry. One need only fly the flag of lacking scientific evidence to virtually denounce a substance. Little consideration is given to the fact that funding for such studies is virtually non-existent, as is industry motivation. Evidence appears to be absent when it isn't being sought. Add to this the rules of scientific methodology and it becomes a battle that can't be won. We accept this as a society, as we confidently accept the words of our pharmaceutically trained, family physicians.

  5. Alex, are there any brands that you recommend? I have an apricot tree, but at some point I will run out. has a couple varieties, and then there's Swanson's brand.

    Can you point us in the right direction? I'm sure alot of us would like to use what you use.

    Thank you!!

    1. Hi Lucky,

      Your apricot tree is the best source, provided that it produces a bitter kernel. Ultimately, amygdalin is amygdalin. The trouble in the world of apricot kernels is that most people follow the commonly published usage instructions, despite the fact that some people are using kernels that are twice and three times as potent as the next. It is possible to achieve the same quantity of amygdalin with all apricot kernels - but one might have to consume two or three times the quantity of a mildly bitter kernel.

      I get my personal supply from a small Australian farm. Their kernels are very fresh and very potent compared to the North American sorts, but postage is very expensive. There are two different breeds of apricot kernels being produced in Australia. One is very bitter, and one is not. The sort that appears most commonly available is the least bitter and being marketed as food. The family producing the most bitter has been under great pressure by the authorities, as they are the 'go-to' kernels for those using them for serious applications. I won't link to them, as I don't want to contribute to any further issues through association.