My mom sent me a letter to the editor from their local newspaper the other day, a letter in which the claim was made that government was suppressing a known, proven cure for all cancer, ground apricot pits, also known as laetrile.
This writer lumped the FDA, drug makers and all doctors into a conspiracy to overcharge and undertreat people by making the sale of laetrile illegal. Mom is a little sensitive to the issue of doctors and cancer right now as my dad has been fighting bladder cancer for the past year.
I decided to do a little research and see what the world says about apricot pits. I found one rather extensive article that gave an in depth history of the development and use of laetrile. It was a bit lengthy and in the end didn’t have much good to say about the use of pits, but certainly one side of the story. I think it is worth noting that this article follows the history of this treatment back to the early 1800’s.
The other side of the story, the one offered by the writer of the letter my mom read, seems a bit more like a pitch to sell a book and apricot seeds. While they do claim to offer scientific facts, in my research I didn’t find any that led to any reliable source. I take that back. They did quote the Bible in several places and I do consider the Bible to be a reliable source. Having said that, I suspect that God frowns just a bit on the use of his word to sell books and apricot seeds.
My nephew may have hit the nail on the head. He said that apricot seeds will absolutely cure cancer…..if they get stuck in your throat. Then the cause of death isn’t cancer.
Bottom line. From a life insurance standpoint, underwriters will likely not buy into laetrile as a cure for cancer. That may not set well with proponents, but the fact remains that it simply doesn’t have the documented track record it takes to receive favorable underwriting.
October 26th, 2007
In an article on our soon to be “released” prostate cancer website I review all of the treatment options available. For elderly men, those between 65 and 80, with low to medium grade prostate cancer, “watchful waiting” is often considered to be a reasonable option.
The logic behind watchful waiting is that if the cancer is a slow growing cancer, the chances are that an older man will likely die from some other cause before the cancer is really a mortality risk. By being “watchful” or monitoring the cancer, if the nature of the cancer changes or if it progresses further than a doctor and patient are comfortable with, it still leaves time and the option of other prostate cancer treatments.
In an article in PSA Rising, it is suggested that a study shows the mortality experience to be about 30% higher over a 12 year period in men who use the watchful waiting method as opposed to active intervention.
There were some questions left unanswered for me in the article. It seems to me that the “no news is good news” attitude could lead to a more lax attitude toward watchful waiting after a number of years. I admit that there is still a mortality issue to be looked at, but it could also be that watchful waiting loses some regiment after a while and that the increased mortality really is a result of those who have either quit being watchful or have become lax about it.
This thought is substantiated to some degree in a study that followed men for just over 6 years and found that there was no significant difference between those who had more radical treatment and those who employed watchful waiting. Remember that watchful waiting is most often suggested only in older men with low grade cancer. The mortality experience began to change after that 6 year period.
This, from my simplistic point of view, tells me that if watchful waiting is your choice, rather than becoming more confident and relaxed with time, perhaps being more vigilant is really what is needed. Prostate cancer is still a very curable cancer, and if actively treated when it first shows signs of becoming more aggressive, there shouldn’t be any reason to expect anything other than an acceptable result.
Bottom line. From a life insurance standpoint, watchful waiting is not an avenue that will be accepted at all by most companies and probably not accepted with reasonable rates by any companies. While medically acceptable, underwriters really have a problem wrapping their minds around and binding their companies to coverage for someone who is actively not treating their cancer.
October 26th, 2007
