Is covert filming justified when it exposes wrongdoing? Our Sky News investigator reports on the perils of going undercover.

Our health producer asks for some help with a story - view it here. He's heard about a drug called B17 being sold to cancer patients. It's made from apricot kernels and releases cyanide into the blood to attack cancer cells.

The problem is, it's illegal. Cyanide is a poison and can cause liver damage, seizures and death. There's little evidence this drug works, either. But it's easy to peddle to terminally ill patients with little to lose. Could I find someone illegally selling B17 in the UK, our producer asks me?

I trawl the Internet for a few days. It does the trick. I find a private clinic in Chester offering 'B17 Therapy'. I give them a ring and book a consultation. But I'll need a cover story. I call a doctor friend who suggests testicular cancer. "As long as they don't ask to see your lump, you'll be ok", she says.

I do some background research on the clinic. I discover the 'doctor' I'm due to see isn't a doctor at all. He was struck off after being convicted of indecent exposure and possession of 1,200 indecent images of children. The story is suddenly much bigger and we'll have some difficult editorial decisions to make.

The day of my appointment and I take my producer along. I need someone to wear the secret camera in case I'm asked to undress. But there's no need. I spin a story about my 'cancer' and it works. I'm offered a course of B17 injections for £590. It will take two weeks for the drug to arrive.

To prove evidence of intent to supply B17, we need to film our target poised to inject me. We also need to remove a sample of the drug for analysis. Could I snatch the syringe from his hand and run for the door? Maybe. But it could be messy if things went wrong.

We speak to MHRA (medicines watchdog) officers and agree they'll raid the premises as my injection is due to to happen. What if he demands to see my 'lump' or requests my medical records? What if the MHRA burst-in too late? What if he panics and spikes my arm anyway? A lot could go wrong today and we might lose the story. It's a horrible feeling.

Then something really does go wrong. The covert camera short circuits and packs in. We frantically race around Chester to find a soldering iron and I perform an emergency repair in a car park. It has to be good because if it's a botched job we won't know until it's too late.

But we make it. We're in the clinic with cameras rolling and MHRA officers hiding outside. All we need is for our man to produce the syringe and ask me to roll up my sleeve.

But he starts asking questions and my heart sinks. When did I have my last scan? What were the results? What exactly did my blood test show? Somehow I bluff my way through. But he's suspicious. I can feel him watching me, looking for signs I'm lying.

Then the syringe appears and I feel a flutter of excitement. He's about to commit an offence and we're about to get our story. He rolls up my sleeve and slaps my vein to bring it to the surface. I suddenly pretend I have a rabid fear of needles and squeal like a sissy. It buys my producer enough time to make the call to begin the raid.

Our target is visibly shaken by the sudden presence of the MHRA and a Sky News camera crew. When I reveal I'm from Sky too, it's the final straw. The officers seize stocks of B17 and other illegal medicines. It's a great exclusive. And I didn't get spiked.

Comments

[richard 18 May 2008 23:22:11]

Jack,
why do you feel so strongly about a fruit/fruit seeds. Do you also deny vit C is healthy for the immune system? can you deny a healthy immune system is crucial to cancer prevention and cure, can you deny that chemo wipes out the immune system, i can i have seen it.
Would you dismiss oranges because they release methanol. when digested.
This sort of extreme reaction just makes me suspect that there is something in it, and pharmaceutical companies are actually worried about it. For all I know you could be one of the ghosts out there targeting and debunking things in the interest of their organization, I am sure you are not, so I dont mean to offend, but it has been proved that Monsanto biotech company do use this PR tactic.
So come on Jack there are always going to charlatans out there jumping on the bandwagon, but you cant use these unscrupulous opportunists as the standard.
How is it that every practitioner out there supporting B17 gets discredited, (It just smells like a smear campaign) yet share there views with such luminaries as Samuel Epstein.
Can you seriously show that orthodox practice (other than surgery) really has a better success rate than nutritional therapy.
My wife and I have noticed over the past several years as friends and family fall prey to cancer, that the only one who outlive their prognosis are the ones that refuse conventional therapy, those that take radio and chemo, fall far short of their prognosis. This is an honest observation.
As for testing, is this something we can really trust, as it does all depend on governmental-corporate interests, and who is funding the research, how the stats are presented and unfortunately just good old fashioned lies in some cases.
At the end of the day b17 is a nutritious vitimin contained in fruit and vegetables, abundant in nutrients. Why squash the hopes of people who have nowhere else to turn who take B17 with the faith that might just afford them a little more time with there loved ones. Now the subject of placebo is well researched and that I challenge you to deny.

[Chris Woollams 20 Jan 2008 05:24:18]

Since people are using my name on your site, I felt it wise to post my own comments.

1 The inaccuracy surrounding B-17 astounds me. A molecule is made up of any number of atoms - most usually in the Plant Kingdom of Carbon, hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen. You can break a molecule in any number of ways - but to do so requires enzymes. Some will cut it one way, others will cut it other ways. There is one enzyme which will cut up the B-17 molecule to release cyanide and benzaldehyde. This enzyme is not found in your stomach, your intestine or a healthy cell. It is called glucosidase and is only found in the limited and unique energy production system of a cancer cell's mitochondria. Thus proponents of B-17 rightly argue that it has the potential to attack and kill only cancer cells and have no action on healthy cells.
2 This is not totally accurate as there is an enzyme called glucorinide in the liver that can also cause cyanide release. And people with cancer often have weakened livers - due to fat build up, gall-stones, and lactic acid production from the cancer cell (but also from dead cells and chemo drugs etc)
3 For this reason anyone contemplating B-17 use MUST be under supervision, with tests on their liver etc first.
4 B-17 is a vitamin naturally occuring in bitter fruits like gooseberries, papaya, quince. Especially, fruits we do not eat in the UK any more, because we like sweet things. The largest concentrations are found in pips and apricot kernals.
5 B-17's overall molecular structure is very similar to cyanocobalmin or vitamin B-12. Although this also can be broken to release cyanide, no doctor in his right mind would argue that B-12 should be banned - it is involved in over 300 reactions in the body and a deficiency has been linked to dementia, heart disease etc etc.
6 According to the American Almanac of Nutrition you should never eat more than 5/6 apricot kernals in any 90 minute period, maximum 35 a day. In my opinion, this is probably an absolute maximum.
7 Injecting B-17 is to use the synthetic form called laetrile. I am not a fan of synthetic compounds - be they HRT or vitamin E. The use of B-17 in this form is banned in the UK, most of Europe and the USA.
8 In my travels I have met many people eating apricot kernals as a preventative aid - follow the US guidelines and I can't see a problem - I eat bitter fruits and put a couple of apricot kernals into my muesli in the mornings. I have met a number of prostate cancer sufferes who swear by apricot kernals and say it holds there PSA down and there cancer in check
9 Contrary to medical mythology there are 5 research studies on B-17 - two with humans, three with animals. A balanced view would be that there is definitely something of merit going on with B-17 and cancer.This demands further INDEPENDENT research - draconian bans on the planting of bitter almond trees and the like clearly fuel the activists' speculation against the cancer industry.
10 The world expert on it's usage is Dr Contreras of the Oasis of Hope in Mexico. (He is in Mexico, not because he has been chased across the border from the US, but because he, and his father who founded the Hospital ........ are Mexican. He will tell you that it does not have any effect with Liver cancers or brain tumours. But he has had good results in cases of other cancers. However, and it is a very big however, he uses it as a part of what he calls 'Metabolic Therapy' - and this includes the use of Mega-doses of vitamin C and the use of pancreatic enzymes. Each of these has has some success with cancer (Vit C - Riordan etc Arizona; Pancreatic Enzymes, clinical trials, Dr Gonzalez, New York. What therefore 'works' - does the B-17 work on its own? Who actually knows? Even Contreras admits he doesn't really know which bit works - but the package does have more of an effect than the individual parts.
11 But then, there is no such thing as a cure for cancer. Not Herceptin, Cisplatin, Temozolomide, Vitamin D, Vitamin B-17. Cancer is a very individual disease. Some things can help some people - Herceptin, Cisplatin, Temozolomide, vitamin D..... and yes vitamin B-17.
12 Sensational or not, in my opinion your team were absolutely right to expose someone in the UK who was going to inject synthetic B-17, especially without the rigours of the prior examinations necessary and a long term treatment plan.

I hope this clears up my stance on B-17. At CANCERactive and on my web site, you will see that we provide this sort of objective, accurate information, aiming to keep clear of the mumbo-jumbo, false claims and subjective rhetoric which too often fills the media. I hope this has helped your readers.

Chris Woollams

[Wm Seven of Derbyshire 6 Jan 2008 16:30:09]

Tabloid news agencies like this are always looking for people to exploit to make "news". This reporter acts like a self appointed guardian of morality in the vain of religious zealots who think they know better than everyone else and are devoted to making sure you adhere to their beliefs or else. None of which are based in science or intended to benefit human beings, only punish them. Shame on you Sky News

[Suzy 29 Dec 2007 20:29:55]

I have just been diagnosed with breast cancer and have started vitamin b17 therapy.

As part of my research, I have met 2 people who have been completely cured using b17.

The first was a 46 year old woman who had cancer in both lungs and her lymph nodes and had been given weeks to live,
2 years on she is literally glowing with health.

The second was a 51 year old woman with breast cancer that had spread to the lymph nodes.
This woman had already lost her father, mother, brother and 20 year old daughter to cancer (all of whom had conventional treatment) Four years on with no conventional treatment this woman is in radiant health.

[Jimmy Jones 28 Sep 2007 16:17:03]

What rubbish, B17 does cure cancer and because it can't make drugs companies monye it was banned after many were cured, and even the famous Make up company to the stars, MAX FAXCTOR's son, was ina coma and given 3 weeks to live after traditional cancer treatments destroyed him....he went to a clinic in mexico which injetced B17 into his cancer and a few days later he came around and was cured after a few weeks and goes around telling his story.

Besides it's bogus as anyone with o'level science knows that the cyanide in apricot seeds or B17 or apple seeds is only released when the cancer enzyme releases it from the chemical bond. To say B17 is dangerous is like saying you must not put fires out with water because the hydrogen and oxygen in it's molecule, are explosive gases and so will explode ! Nonsense. Besides i have personally taken 15 times the 'fatal does' and haven't got cancer but wanted to finally prove this theroy to myself and show it's all a disinformation campaign and cancer research and the medical establishments who are all in bed together with the 400+billion a year cancer industry which would collapse overnight if people took B17 or apricot seeds and saw the cancers dissapear and be prevented and cured.

Hey this journalist is not a journalist and how the hell he works for TV I will never know....actually i do, most journalists don't do their researcha s are biased and not open minded, and working for mainstream media means being controlled by the same peope who own both media and drugs and oil companies as there are really only 6 compannies that own the whole world's companies...so the top boys all make sure they control everything...Italy has Berlusconi, and look what he gets upto !

[Helen Melbourne 25 Jun 2007 07:09:59]

What a pathetic piece of one-sided journalism. This investigator has done absolutely no research whatsoever. That's not called journalism that's called sensationalism. I have just been diagonosed with cancer and would like the opportunity to test for myself all options both traditional and alternative, which I am sure the so-called investigative journalist himself would like to do should he ever god forbid find himself in the same position. It's called choice and we all deserve it. There is so much anecdotal evidence that there may be a good reason for that. I know of two people who are taking B17, one who was terminally ill with bone cancer, and given up as lost by the medical profession. She is now in remission. I would very much like some B17 so if there's anyone out there willing to get me some I'd be happy to hear from you.

[Nick Penrose - Spain 2 May 2007 16:38:10]

It is all very easy for someone to brand everyone who questions any one who has a different point of view concerning B17 or other 'alternative' treatments as a 'fool'.
It seems that the 'conventional' treatments must have the answers - but where is their evidence? Are cases of cancer diminishing in the Western world, with all their drugs? Or are things getting worse??

[Nick Penrose - Spain 2 May 2007 12:54:36]

Can we depend on big business to put health before profit? Tobacco? Asbestos?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6576655.stm
An interesting comment under subheading 'Patent problem' from Dr. Michelakis starting 'He is concerned ...'
What, if he is correct, does that suggest to you?

[Nick Penrose - Spain 2 May 2007 08:41:28]

Another interesting link that suggests that certain plants have potential to deal with cancer - and guess what they contain ....?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/317467.stm

[william wales 30 Apr 2007 12:49:13]

it makes me laugh when these fools bring up the old pharmaceutical industry conspiracy tales.

the fact is the 'large evil pharmaceutical devils' actually allow themselves to be heavily scrutinized by the watchdogs while the alternative medicine suppliers hide in the shadows and never have independent foolproof research to back up their claims.

thats tells you everything you need to know

[Nick Penrose - Spain 29 Apr 2007 19:59:35]

It seems from this link that cyanide is being considered as a treatment for cancer !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/festival_of_science/913463.stm

[Sylvia Lowe 28 Apr 2007 23:08:36]

Further to my comment of 26th April(see above), I should like to correct contact details for Chris Woollams-a respected researcher in the fields of conventional and complementary medicne. The relevant web-site is www.canceractive.co.uk and Icon is an informative magazine, available on line or as a publication. I attach his response to my query re the recent Sky "revelation"
It is vital,and in the interests of all that these false concepts are challenged.

[Gabe, Dundalk, Ireland 27 Apr 2007 21:41:21]

Shame on you SKY and your reporter for not doing your homework. This was a very slanted piece of "news" and another example of bashing natural medicine. If pharmaceuticals cured people the drugs industry would soon be out of business. But that's an "Appalling Vista". Can you see these greedy parasites losing trillions of dollars without fighting back?. Thank God for courageous speakers like Phillip Day, Dr Samuel Epstein, and Dr Vernon Coleman to name a few. How about some real investigative reporting?

[oll 27 Apr 2007 10:37:30]

Imagine a world with no cancer - now that would be bad for business wouldn't it? If you have written this report in good faith then please do you own research and I hope you will see the truth here, about VITAMIN B17!

Why not report all the people who this works for, and please it is not B17, it is Vitamin B17! You have made unaware people (I refer to most people indoctrinated by mainstram propaganda) think that this is not a natural vitamin when it is! You mention that it contains cyanide, however if you did your research you would know that cyanide is released to kill cancerous tissue and not healthy cells - it is not like taking cynanide alone, next you will be calling for a ban on apples. FURTHERMORE, do you know how chemo works? It kills cells, and it does not care if they are healthy!

It is a FREE WORLD, or is it?

[Sylvia Lowe 26 Apr 2007 23:13:59]

Thankfully, I am not a cancer sufferer, but I have been taking Laetrile, in the form of apricot kernels for about 3 years and I am still alive.
Many health food stores have stocked Laetrile in tablet form; apricot kernels are also marketed by Julian Graves
There have been previous scares and misunderstandings about the product: it was recently removed from the shelves of the above, only to be returned,following evidence of positive research into the product and its properties. Laetrile only releases cyanide when in contact with the protein surrounding cancerous cells according to reputable research.(see Icon website/magazine where Chris Woolams supports the use and safety of B17.) Of course large doses delivered intraveniously requires specialist knowledge and experience. That is a different issue.Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in their products, many of which also contain toxins and have unpleasant side-effects.Perhaps this whole issue needs consideration but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[James 26 Apr 2007 23:13:01]

So, Chemo Therapy, Ionizing particles that kill all mytosising cells, or B17 in combination with Zinc as it's carrier, which attracts itself to cancerous cells. Once inside a cancer cell, B17 turns to cynide killing the cell. The aftermath of the destroyed cells, are filtered through the liver, just like chemo toxins.

All cancer treatment is bad for the patient, and thats the truth.

Once again Sky News has been paid off by Glaxo, and probally a few other Pharma companies.

[Davey, London 26 Apr 2007 16:08:02]

Of course secret filming is justified. What would happen if that doctor was asked upfront if he was selling something that was illegal? He wouldnt admit to it straight away would he? It might be an invasion of privacy to some but its an important tool in the journalists kit-bag.

[Paul Sheffield 26 Apr 2007 16:03:22]

Strange all this
considering that chemo therapy is basically cramming the patient full of poisons designed to kill the cancer cells.

ALL the facts next time please!

[Jack 26 Apr 2007 15:39:12]

'B17' has been tested in Uk and elsewhere and has no medical evidence in its support whatsoever. This is not surprising as its key ingredient is cyanide. It does not take much logic to work out that taking cyanide is hardly likely to make you well.

The following is from from 'Laetrile / B17 / Amygdalin is Rubbish' (see http://www.lulu.com/content/722929

----Here is the real position about laetrile / B17 / amygdalin based on scientifically verified tests—

• The US Food and Drug Administration Authority has not approved laetrile as a treatment for cancer or any other medical condition.
• In fact they tested it and the official result was ‘amygdalin (laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment.’
• In fact in America people have been jailed for selling laetrile as a cure for cancer .
• In case you think the UK position is different—it isn’t. Cancer Research UK says of laetrile ‘It is found in apricot pips and has been described as a highly active compound that can cure cancer. Unfortunately this is simply not true.’
• Elsewhere it says ‘There is no scientific evidence to support any of these reasons for using laetrile.’
• A major 2006 review of the clinical evidence said ‘Therefore, the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data.’
• And ‘it is not authorised for sale in the European Union.’

As can be seen there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the major claim about a product which the FDA in America has banned and which is illegal in the EU, but it is a product which a lot of people make a lot of money out of by selling to the desperate…

It is worth noting that laetrile has an impressive side issue—it has cyanide. This cyanide is the basis for the scientifically non-verified belief as to how it is meant to solve cancer. I don’t know about you but when science has demolished the claims of a ‘medicine’ which has as a key ingredient a toxic substance I’d have to be a fool to pay money for it and then take that substance.

To be honest, to take laetrile when you have cancer is, in my opinion, a death sentence. Why? If you take it with real medicine you will be making the job of real medicine exceptionally hard due to all the poison you have shoved in your body. If you take it instead of real medicine you are poisoning yourself and not using verifiable medicine. To take laetrile / cyanide when you didn’t have cancer would be even more stupid. I would certainly question all beliefs of a person who says laetrile has any medical benefit.
---

[Dave Morgan, Newcastle Upon Tyne 26 Apr 2007 14:38:56]

Maybe I'm not educated in this, but has B17 undergone tests in the United Kingdom, and if so what was the EXACT reasons for it not recieving a licence? and if it hasn't undergone tests, how can SkyNews or anyone else for that fact state it is unsafe? If I was a cancer sufferer, legal or illegal I would want to try any medicines available if it had even a remote chance of helping.

[Jack 26 Apr 2007 14:01:26]

I do love the ACM conspiracy theory belief- that all evidence based medicine has been rigged by drug companies, see comment 2 (it's up there with 'there was no moon landing' for stupidity). This is why it best to view ACM people as basically followers of a fundamentalist quasi-religion as they do not share the real world's understanding of science and logic. An idea neatly explored in the booklet above. It's worth restating that 'B17' (and it's not a vitamin as no human disease has been shown to occur by not having enough cyanide in your body) / amgdalin / laetrile has NO scientific base whatsoever; and wouldn't we all love it to have some as no-one wants cancer. But there isn't any evidence!! Not ever. And it has been tested a zillion times. That's why it's banned; it doesn't work and in fact cyanide kills you. Or do the ACM people believe governments ban it so they have to pay more into the NHS... Get real. The problem is laetrile / B17 / amygdalin is one of those key tests of faith that believers have to pass to become an ACM supporter. If you believe in it you will believe anything that the snake oil gurus will sell you as you have given up believing in scientific logic. Fundamentally there is evidence based medicine and then there isn't. This stuff isn't medicine; it's a toxic poison..

[Michael, London 26 Apr 2007 12:13:08]

You are a ridiculous person. My brother has been taking d the drug and it's curing him of a tumour.

You have just curtailed a drug which can cure some people, my brother will now die because of you.

[Anthony, Birmingham, UK 26 Apr 2007 12:07:45]

I have been through a course of B17 and it has cured me of cancer. Despite all your huff and puff and Sky news's so-called banner of opinion, it's a fact that in some circumstsnces the drug works. I would not be here to tell you if it were otherwise.
You are exploiting cancer suffers for the sake of what you regard as efficacy by the medics - they are just as corrupt as anybody.
Sue there is fraud out there but in this instance you are about to curtail a drug which is proven to work - your medical experts are all 'handcuffed' to big drug companies so they have a bias. They cannot tell you the truth but it appears that at the expense of a 'headline' you are prepared to wipe something which can save lives - you should be ashamed and not gleefully exploiting cancer sufferers.

[Khalid 26 Apr 2007 10:27:14]

"The Verve" of some of these doctors, either banned or conducting other such malpractices, no doubt subtsantiates the findings of Sky insofar as to send out a clear message that "The Drugs Don't Work". Any way, good to see this one went accordingly, however, why oh why does the Medical Council not provide a list of those doctors whom are neither registered or banned? No point churning out flashy leaflets if those whom so want to protect end up wanting to knowlingy destroy?
And what a report @ http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,30000-1262728,00.html

[Jack 26 Apr 2007 10:11:04]

Brilliant; this type of Alternative /Complementary medicine fraud needs as much publicity as you can give it. ACM believers need to realise that evidence based medicine (as in scientifically proven) is the only way to go--the rest is the domain of snake oil salesmen. The best little booklet exposing this amygdalin / laetrile / B17 fraud is found at

http://www.lulu.com/content/722929