![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have tried to correct the misrepresentation of what happened to Ralph Moss. I am using his own words. Just because they are in a popular book by Suzanne Somers, my entry gets removed. Here is what Ralph Moss says as quoted in her book.
These people from Sloan-Kettering went to Washington on two occasions in 1974 and 1975, to plead with the government and the powers that be to let them do clinical trials. They believed that laetrile had promise. The testing on their animals was coming out positive. Initially the people from Sloan-Kettering were perceived to be the "good guys." But the same people who initially tried to break the blockade against nontoxic agents in general, and against laetrile in particular, lost their nerve. The price of continuing to present this drug as a viable answer in the face of blistering opposition from the FDA, the American Cancer Society, and somewhat from the National Cancer Institute would probably have been the ruination of their careers.
When I got up and said these things in November 1977, I was fired from Sloan-Kettering because I had broken ranks with the party line, which had declared that laetrile was completely ineffective, and had been proven so. But in fact, the reality was that laetrile had performed excellently in our animal studies, and it had been proven.
When I refused to do that [declare that the tests had been negative], they fired me. Here's the irony: the same people who fired me would admit these things in private. This was a common conversation among the administrators.
I was a relatively low-level employee, but I was in a crowd of very powerful people and it was common knowledge that laetrile was coming up positive in our tests. But any one of them would have been easily taken out in terms of their careers, and selectively they would have been damaged as a leadership group. Eventually many of them did suffer for even having let it go as far as it did.
I wasn't trying to make the claim that laetrile is an effective cancer therapy, I was simply trying to correct the article when it talks about why Ralph Moss was fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cachemagic ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Amygdalin 1 cis also called laevomandelonitrile, or Laetrile (some claim that Laetrile is derived from a Latin word meaning "joyfulness" (actually laetari is the latin verb to rejoice or exult) for short, and has been advocated by some as a "cure" or a "preventative" for cancer: as there is no scientifically accepted evidence of its efficacy, it has not been approved for this use by the Food and Drug Administration.
--Missing an ) or has an extra (
So fix it --
76.64.12.215 (
talk) 13:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
On 19 August 2005, 62.16.191.202 ( talk · contribs) added a lengthy article to this talk page (old version: [1]). The article appears to have been cut and pasted from web sources (example: [2]). This talk page is for discussion about the Wikipedia article, not the posting of new (or copied) articles. By all means _cite_ external articles when making points, but don't paste them here. -- Christopher Thomas 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just removed an external link I added a couple days ago, to The Rise and Fall of Laetrile. I added the link because the external article covers a lot of the publicly known information about clinical tests, double-blind studies, etc, involving Laetrile (a 'refined' form of amygdalin marketed as a cancer preventative/cure by Krebs and others). However, when I added the link, I didn't realize that the article is hosted at a site called Quackwatch.org. Looking over the other articles at the site, they seem unduly biased - for example, their list of '25 Ways to Spot a Quack' is pretty dubious - 'Quacks say organic food is better for you', 'They'll tell you to take vitamins' (paraphrase). I'm not trying to state an opinion about the worth of organic food or vitamins, but equating such banal and widely held views as 'take vitamins' with the belief that amygdalin/Laetrile is an effective anti-cancer agent... well, the whole thing just seemed suspect, so I didn't feel confident keeping the link in the article. If anyone thinks the link is useful and up to Wikipedia's standards, by all means, feel free to add it back in - I'm new here and still feeling my way around. Mathtinder 07:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the way that the cancer studies are presented are not neutral. Mainly because it is only stated halfway through the discussion (about it being a cancer cure, preventitive), that none of the studies are double blind, and the discussion concerning it seems biased. Just speaking from a standards point of veiw, it is not beyond reason to state that the studies occured, however conversly it should not appear to be biased in presentation. i think they (the studies) should be included, however, it should be made clear that in all fairness, more studies, that are double blind or otherwise safeguarded against bias are needed, for one to make any kind of informed decision on the matter. The article seems to use its non-approval by the FDA as reasons that it is not a cure/preventitive, when what it really means is it is like any other unproven drug, in that it needs to be proven. It hasnt been disproven. More so, I think the whole issue concerning cancer should really be its own section within the article, and in that section both sides be presented. I do not think creating another article, just for the cancer studies, would be prudent, but it wouldnt be beyond reason either.
Concerning such statements as these:
"One Phase II study with 175 patients had some patients reporting improvements in symptoms, but all patients showed cancer progression 7 months after completing treatment"
While I do not disagree with the facts of this study, it may be prudent to note that other cancer treatments (if terminated too early) have extremely high remission rates as well, or it should be clarified whether or not those studies had terminated treatment of the patients earlier then other cancer treatments or not.
"While no double-blind clinical trials may have been conducted"
This should be stated first, for both sides, as i myself am also not aware of any double blind studies that concluded that it had a definitive, measurable impact on the cancer (positivley). It should be duly noted the medical position of both sides for comparison and contrast.
It is simply my opinion that, in general, the studies should either be more clarified as to the circumstances under which they were conducted, measures be taken to reduce or eliminate bias, and the point be made clearly that in all honesty more studies are needed for any ultamite conclusion, or that the matter simply be stated as a stalemate, and summarized, with the possibility that another article is authored with the specific intent of dsicussing the seperate facts and views of the issue. However, if one side is measurably more factual then the other, it should be properly noted and clarified.
If no one contests what I have said, I will just make the changes myself.
--
24.209.153.170 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added an appropriate heading for the relationship with cancer . - Theblackbay 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Add context and changes to "Relating to Cancer" also more references.- Theblackbay 13:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI - HHS / NIH Press release
--News National Cancer Institute 1/24/2007
Positive results of a phase III cancer clinical trial in an uncommon form of leukemia were released today. The results showed that adult patients with previously untreated acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who had standard chemotherapy to induce remission of their disease, and then received the chemotherapy drug arsenic trioxide to maintain remission, had a significantly better event-free survival (more patients free of leukemia) and better overall survival than those who received only standard chemotherapy. The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and was led by one of its Cooperative Clinical Trials Groups -- the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB).
NIH News Release —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.171.229.32 ( talk) 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)There is not much point adding claims of miracle results to the article if they are not backed up by citations that can be verified. Unverifiable claims are in the class of snake oil and should be removed. If the claims are not backed up by good citations in a reasonable period then I will remove the claims.
There also isn't much point putting references in the talk page where they will be ignored. Phaedrus86 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The section about linamarin should be deleted or moved because linmarin is a unique molecule with a different structure and formula from amygdalin
An anonymous user 130.126.208.84 placed an NPOV tag on this article today but so far there is no discussion here indicating that there is a dispute. If there is no dispute then as per WP:NPOVD the tag does not apply. If someone indicates here why the article is not neutral and how it should be changed, then we can try and change the article to reflect all points of view. If nobody does this then I will remove the NPOV tag. Phaedrus86 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV tag is most definitely needed in this article. The article reads biased against laetrile and amygdalin. For instance, the paragraph about Jason Vale spends more time about him being convicted of something totally unrelated to Amygdalin and almost no time on what amygdalin did for him. Unsigned comment added 12:47, 13 February 2007 by User:130.126.208.84 talk
- Note: This is anecdotal. While in life, we are forced to make many decisions based on anecdotal information, it really has no place in a discussion where more sound data is available. As any scientist will tell you, one case is not a statistic. It tells you nothing about the probabilities. How do I know that two seeds a day was the right dose? How do I know that treatment was started in time? How do we know if this was a type of cancer that is responsive to amygdalin. How do we know your friends death wasn't the result of a complication? Perhaps he was responding to the amygdalin, but in was a case of too little to late. Even the most optimistic people, say amygdalin is only 40% effective, when given with proper treatment, which also includes changing diet. So, if all your friend did was take two apricot seeds a day, I would say his chances were not much better than doing nothing, even if amygdalin is as effective as people claim. Unsigned comment added 05:22, 12 March 2007 by User:67.55.8.65 talk
I added a POV Check today as I came across this article. I have done reading in the past on this subject and have found that this article seems to have a negative tint to it. I would suggest that someone, other than myself or those who have continuously removed the NPOV tag review the article for its neutrality. There are obviously multiple people concerned with its content's neutrality. I have read, and suggest the people removing the NPOV tag read, the Wikipedia standards of neutrality. This article fails on several tenants, including fairness of tone. Removal of this nomination without a neutral party reviewing it is a violation of Wikipedia standards. Epdp14 00:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Amygdalin does work and works VERY well. Try it if you have cancer! Better yet, become a raw foodist.
Although favourably disposed to Amygdalin, I agree that Wiki articles need to be factually supported; or at the very least, if presenting anecdotal or opinionated material, to balance bias with pros and cons. Wiki's strivance in this regard is actually very creditable. I cannot back any of my claims that would not in turn be open to dispute - hence no direct entry will be made by me in the frontline article on Amygdalin. I wish only to offer input for discussion. Toxicity of Laetrile is widely disputed. When taken orally, it should be presumed that HCl in the stomach breaks the molecule into constituents, resulting in Cyanide release with conversion to Cyanic Acid. In high enough doses, toxic effects must be expected, but this substance should at least metabolise quite readily into Amines or whatever, so the half-life of its toxic form in the system ought to be rather short - unlike Arsenic Trioxide, which I perceive to be just plain downright toxic in any form, including metabolites. Here is a contrast, for Amygdalin is prohibited by the FDA, whilst Arsenic Trioxide is approved. Given dozens of other examples I could cite, there are possible grounds indeed for credence to the "conspiracy theory" against the FDA, but that should NOT become a primary issue where encyclopaedic information on this, or any other specific substance is concerned. There is also the possibility that stonefruit pits (Apricot, Peach, Cherry, Plum, etcetera) may contain quantities of free Cyanide not bound up in Diglucoside molecules. I would therefore suggest some reasonable care in the treatment of toxicity information that does not refer specifically to the pure agent, itself, unless adequate toxicology studies are done that establish no practical difference between the seeds and the refined substance. Better to treat them separately, anyway - because seeds from different species will inevitably contain different co-constituents. Also, there does not appear to be sufficient reliable information abroad (that I have been able to garner) as it applies to the relative toxicity of pure Laetrile ingested intravenously. Indications are that intravenous dosage tolerance is much higher and it may be that in this circumstance, the Amygdalin should be expected to experience far greater uptake by cancerous cells than healthy ones, due to their furious hunger for Glucose. The belief in Amygdalin's efficacy relies mainly on the premise of this preferential uptake by cancer cells, where the Maltose component is metabolised into Lactic Acid; the Cyanide is released into an acidic environment (HCN is certainly toxic); and the cancer cell is killed. The bottom line is that without verifiable toxicology data and properly conducted double blind studies, Amygdalin must remain in Limbo where its carcinomic efficacy and relative safety is concerned. Unfortunately, FDA approval or disapproval of any given substance that has a relationship with cancer treatment cannot itself be trusted as the last word - it should only be cited as a single "relevant" datum. Also on the matter of efficacy against cancer, Amygdalin does operate as a cytotoxin via metabolism. This may be OK for Stage I or II conditions, but is in fact not a very satisfactory way to deal with advanced metastatic cancers, as amply demonstrated by most orthodox chemotherapy agents - the older ones. Wholesale slaughter of cancer cells is quite dangerous, to say nothing of collateral tissue damage. The preferable approach is to promote selective apoptosis, as do the newer types of chemo agents; or better yet, to "differentiate" or revert cancer cells into a benign state, as is claimed on behalf of DMSO and, it would appear, Haematoxylon. Neither Amygdalin, nor any of the Alkylating (Mustard Gas analogues), Platinum or Antimetabolite chemo agents meet either of these two criteria. Caesium Chloride doesn't, either. I must additionally point out (regarding FDA trust, or lack of): that a human toxicology study using several hundred prisoners was conducted by Dr. Richard D. Brobyn in 1967 on DMSO. It produced very favourable results regarding toxicity and side effects, when compared with typical (older) chemo agents that are still in common use today. Yet DMSO is still prohibited for anything except Interstitial Cystitis, whilst those older chemo agents have not been officially disapproved and are still routinely prescribed, despite being dangerous to various degrees far in excess of DMSO. The point to this observation is that with still other similar cases to further support the premise, there is a very plausible case in support of the "Big Bad Pharma" notion; even noting that the latest chemo developments are evolving along much more satisfactory lines and principles. However, these new-generation Mitotic Spindle Stabilzers and Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors are hideously expensive. So, even that merely strengthens the profit motive case against Pharma. Again, it does not necessarily validate the Big Bad Pharma theory for inclusion in the Amygdalin article. Phaedrus has it mostly right, I think - certainly so where the content of encyclopaedic articles themselves are concerned. As I would personally like to see more such information on Amygdalin as can be relied upon for absolute accuracy rather than opinion, I applaud the Wiki people and hope to see such relevant data added to the Amygdalin article in future. Sorry I cannot actually contribute to the article, myself. madprofessor666@gmail.com.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.34.19 ( talk) 05:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC) 12:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)12:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)~~
Please avoid Capitalizing Enzyme Names like for example Hexokinase or Alcohol Dehydrogenase. Even worse is the capitalization of Mitotic Spindle Stabilizers. Also, most professors would include university addresses, not mere addresses anyone can replicate to decent extents. I know how amygdalin treats cancer. Cancer will be the least of your worries, not that you would still worry at all. After all, death by cyanide is the last thing that will happen to you. 173.58.152.240 ( talk) 18:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This section present several data that are not supported by a citation. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have this material see WP:PROVEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger jg ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If this unreferenced material in this section is not cited within a few days, I will remove it. This means a proper citation - either from a peer reviewed journal or similarily respectable publication. Halogenated ( talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed any unreferenced material. There has been ample time for the contributors to reference this with appropriate citations. In addition, I've done some fairly major restructing to the overall article. Halogenated ( talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Aside from several claims being unsupported by citations, there are sseveral citations in the article that seem to not meet WP:RS. For example, in the section "Supporters of amygdalin" a video is linked (citation #11) but the video has no information indicating that it came from a reliable source and the website that is hosting the video ( www.realityzone.com) would not be considered a reliable source. The video strikes me as a propoganda film rather than a balanced documentary. Reference #7 ( www.cancerdecisions.com) also appears to fail to meet WP:RS, as does citation #12 ( www.cancertutor.com). Lastly, the research section described promising results in experiemnts in mice, but clinical trials in humans showed poor results, so the data in mice is somewhat irrelevant and should be given much less weight relative to the human clinical trials. The mouse studies are also lacking citations. Rhode Island Red 14:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is indisputably and obviously biased against supporters of Amygdalin, such as myself, and it is biased towards the greedy pharmaceutical industrys point of view. While I do not have cancer, and never have, eating apricot seeds and pretty much any part of an apricot makes me feel better, and I believe it helps my health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.153.217 ( talk) 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Though it is sometimes sold as "Vitamin B17", it meets none of the criteria of a vitamin.
However, (a) the human body does not produce the substance on its own, so it is just a matter of opinion or political view point whether someone thinks (b) the body needs it as a preventative against disease (cancer). By just meeting the (a) criterion, the wiki article text is untrue in that the substance does in fact meet at least one rather than none of the criteria!
Evidently some very educated members of the public including M.D.s believe reports like the Pub-Med South Korean lab testing studies, and tend NOT to believe the Rockefeller, Bristol Myers, Mayo Clinic, NIH, NCI, ACS, and MSK testing performed on the substance owing to these places / people endorsing the use of and making copious amounts of money treating using chemotherapeutic, patentable toxins instead.
Several websites on the pro-side of this debate indicate that these various establishment institutions have performed their testing using subtle trickiness in order to make the results against the substance, have it found ineffective or dangerous, and so have it banned from use in the USA. However, various blog entries commenting on the news coverage items about Jason Vale have all manner of disappointment expressed about the conduct of the FDA in the matter of JV's prosecution, providing testimonials that either their own or a dear friend's terminal cancer cases were controlled or caused to have spontaneous remissions using the substance, and that Jason was providing people with an alternative that he himself believed in.
"There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective," said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. "This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines."
I looked up this fellow to see how reliable he was... He is trained as a doctor of veterinary sciences, and holds a PhD degree in the study of drugs. BTW, from my Royal Rife cancer virus research, I discovered that most germ warfare scientists come from the veterinary sciences side rather than M.D.s and so they know about cross species virus culturing to make germ weapons of mass destruction. Then I came across the following items:
Lester M. Crawford
Ex-Head of F.D.A. Faces Criminal Inquiry
GARDINER HARRIS / New York Times 29apr2006
WASHINGTON, April 28 — Dr. Lester M. Crawford, the former commissioner of food and drugs, is under criminal investigation by a federal grand jury over accusations of financial improprieties and false statements to Congress, his lawyer said Friday.
The lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, would not discuss the accusations further. In a court hearing held by telephone on Thursday, she told a federal magistrate that she would instruct Dr. Crawford to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination if ordered to answer questions this week about his actions as head of the Food and Drug Administration, according to a transcript of the hearing.
Dr. Crawford did not reply to messages seeking comment, and Kathleen Quinn, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, declined to comment.
Lester M. Crawford, who resigned mysteriously last fall just two months after being confirmed as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, will plead guilty today to charges that he hid his ownership of stock in food and drug companies that his agency regulated, his lawyer said.
The Justice Department charged Crawford yesterday with two misdemeanors for withholding the financial information, which included his ownership of shares in food and drink manufacturers Pepsico Inc. and Sysco Corp. and the drug company Embrex Inc.
A Google search result of >John Richardson< tuns up this cancer survivor blog. Dr. John Richardson M.D. used the laetrile substance for cancer treatment on his patients for several decades and published a book on some of the early case studies. At least one account in this blog indicates that some M.D.s are taking a holistic approach to treatment and are making use of the substance among other things. The treated person does not indicate if they are from the USA, or elsewhere.
Strangely, although the substance is a concentrated form of something found in nature, with supposedly no synthetic additives, the FDA considers it a drug, proponents say because if it were considered a dietary supplement or vitamin, it would not fall under strict FDA jurisdiction so that the prosecution and persecution of individuals for its sale would not fall within lawful activity, and that would permit its use in treatments that would draw away business from all of those USA establishment institutions who are making all of that money from cancer.
An independent medical researcher / newsletter writer in this lengthy, extensive coverage piece here indicates that some of the proponents are exaggerating the efficacy of the substance, and also how some of the US medical establishment testing centers did their cooking and publicity of their results. In one instance the author states that a very serious form of cancer with a hopeless prognosis was unfairly used in testing amygdalin, yet surprisingly it still provided much better results than anything else for such cases. In other cases statistics were fraudulently applied to make it appear that the substance was of little use. After three or four promising tests results went unpublicised, the negative results were immediately presented at news conferences where the promising results were not only hidden but strictly lied about the substance never having any positive indications (sounding identically to how this article was written). The positive results were leaked to a California pro-laetrile group--some of the quotations from which citations have been requested by certain wiki article editors here. The newsletter indicates that the validity of these leaked documents was eventually verified by the testing lab, so the reliability of the source will probably still be rejected here at WP.
A Google search of >"freedom of information" minutes msk OR memorial-sloan-kettering laetrile OR amygdalin< will give several sources for the following quotation:
Then the minutes read: "Sloan-Kettering is not enthusiastic about studying amygdalin [Laetrile] but would like to study CN [cyanide] –releasing drugs."
This quotation is also part of the book and video clip by G. Edward Griffin about the science and politics of cancer.
The article still is biased against the potentially hazardous treatment substance. It should be rewritten as though an English-speaking Mexican or South Korean person were writing it (where the substance actually may be in regular use), rather than as though by corrupt officials of the AMA and FDA who are possibly under orders from possible NWO elements to do away with its use. Oldspammer ( talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
--
Though it is sometimes sold as "Vitamin B17", it meets none of the criteria of a vitamin.
However, (a) the human body does not produce the substance on its own, so it is just a matter of opinion or political view point whether someone thinks (b) the body needs it as a preventative against disease (cancer). By just meeting the (a) criterion, the wiki article text is untrue in that the substance does in fact meet at least one rather than none of the criteria!
(a) your correct on this point,(b) vitamin B17 is not a protein required in any known metabolic processes in the human body... therefore is is not essential. If you want to speculate that it is essential (for the prevention of cancer) without knowing which specific metabolic pathway(s) it is required in: then why not claim beta-Methylphenethylamine is a vitamin? 114.76.211.45 ( talk) 09:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The laetrile/laetari connection seems spurious. Laetrile is more obviously a shortened form of the word laevomandelonitrile. Though I do think that saying a connection with "laeteri" exists would be good marketing for laetrile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incrediblub ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer in favor of splitting. See following section. -- Fyslee / talk 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we change the title to
Laetrile. IOW move this to the existing redirect and make this a redirect. Why? Because Laetrile is by far the most common name for this substance:
-- Fyslee / talk 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal: Let's split this into two articles, one about the chemical substance Amygdalin, and one about Laetrile, the controversial anti-cancer drug. -- Fyslee / talk 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As the NIH article states, both chemicals are used in AltMed -- and knowing AltMed, the non-synthetic chemical amygdalin is probably used the most. I'm not sure what your point in this is -- the article is not long -- and I don't understand the reasoning behind "let's separate the chemical from its uses". Wikipedia is not the free CAS. Chemical articles should document their uses, as the chemistry informs the use. II | ( t - c) 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for a point of comparison, Prozac redirects to Fluoxetine, Zocor to Simvastatin, etc... Laetrile is essentially a "brand name" or "popular name" for the chemical compound. The differences between the two are simply manufacturing unless there is some notable excipient or cofactor present in apricot pits. I would just leave it as it is until it grows to a length necessary for a daughter article. SDY ( talk) 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Do chickpeas contain amygdalin? Badagnani ( talk) 05:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm just going to toss in some stuff that laetrile advocates say. It would be interesting to see if mainstream medicine has engaged these claims -- the way to quash "quackery" is to refute, not ignore.
The only one of these which is possibly citeable is Dean Burk, as he was the head of the National Cancer Institute's Cytochemistry sector. As an expert on cancer, he is "reliable" even though he's not published in a reliable venue. However, it would be nice to have more on the context and engagement before mentioning his claims. Since they are focused on animal studies, they are of limited relevance, as well. It would be interesting to see what he said about later studies. II | ( t - c) 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I added the actual cause of death to the section that referenced him travelling to Mexico to undergo treatment, part of which involved Amygdalin, as the unwritten yet obvious suggestion(what other purpose could such a reference serve, since this isn't an article about celebrities or about Steve McQueen?)was that the Amygdalin caused or was related to his death, when, in fact, he had two heart attacks caused by blood clots from having surgery to remove a tumor from his stomach. Is it being claimed that the Amygdalin caused the blood clots, rather than the surgery, or that they made the heart attacks more likely? If so, then support that with evidence, or remove the offending statement entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
For instance, "A 2006 Cochrane review of the evidence concluded that there is no sound evidence that laetrile is an effective cancer treatment." That in itself is true. But it makes it seem as if some evidence supports the claim when it fact the report itself states that there is no evidence, because the drug is not allowed to be used in clinical settings in the US. It is not proof against the effectiveness of laetrile as an anti-cancer agent, thus should not be included in the It's an example of how omitting certain facts promotes one viewpoint over the other.
Also, I believe what was previously written on the page by an anonymous user should be included. The studies, if actually read, will divulge the information given. I checked it on my universities library system. Instead of a total reversion, I suggest a re-edit of the information presented. Since most people do not have access to the scientific papers, it is hard for them to check the studies themselves to make sure it is reported correctly.
Also it is fallacious to claim that double-blind experimentation is needed for accurate animal studies to maintain scientific integrity, because it isn't. There is no such thing as conveying expectations of a new drug to mice. They cannot understand that they are getting a placebo or not.
It is irresponsible and against the very nature of scientific inquiry to allow this bias to be present in this article, as well as against the express purpose of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.158.186 ( talk) 14:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the section should be divided into two:
Cancer Treatment
This site: [ The Cancer Industry Discovers Laetrile ] talks about this subject.It seems that this product is back. Agre22 ( talk) 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)agre22
I watched this page after making minor edits to the introduction because after examining many of the edits of previous users, I was convinced that one in particular would almost immediately rush to undo my edits. I was right.
Dmacks' arrogant writing style and Ivy League style certainty are nearly indicative of a genuine personality disorder.
He/she removed the following words added to the end of the intro:
"The efficacy of the substance continues to be disputed, with the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry sometimes pointed to as a factor in the creation of the current consensus. To date, no double-blind studies have been conducted to assess the matter."
Which he changed to:
"The efficacy of the substance continues to be disputed."
"don't try to insinuate motives or overly focus on one motive of one side" he says.
This has always been a repeated criticism of the situation of this subtance, it is in many books and everywhere else. I am not "focusing" on one side, I added two sentences, amidst many others in the introduction. I felt they were missing and I added the information concisely. I am not insinuating anything, I am merely pointing out what one side of the debate often believes. I stated a legitimate issue directly, not covertly. You are in error.
The second sentence simply gives no reason for removal. It states what is a plain fact, and simply seeks to establish that no final consensus can be arrived at due to the absence of a definitive study. By "the issue" I am referring to Amygdalin, not the issue of corporate influence. Did you not understand?
If you want to make a weasel word comment or a source comment, which I see as the only two potential problems with the addition as of now, then do it. You did neither.
Another user previously attempted to state the second sentence I added and you quickly overrode him as well. He added:
"studies "funded by medical and pharmaceutical companies" have found it to be ineffective." You deleted that for the reason "pro-Laetrile groups were specifically invited to contribute data"
The issue of corporate funding is legitimate utterly regardless of who was invited to do what and will be included in the introduction. It is also suspicious that you provided two different reasons for the removal of the same information added by two different people.
Also, do not attempt to insinuate motive by using the term "pro-Laetrile." This term conveys the idea that these groups are not interested in scientific data, present or future, but simply wish to promote Laetrile as an effective treatment regardless of the evidence, perhaps for money? The use of this term also implies a consensus from the viewpoint that Laetrile is not effective and that the current evidence is fair and sufficient, points which are less relevant than the rest.
You need to chill out. I am reversing the edits you have made. There is going to be dissent in this article.
You are clearly and unambiguously on one side of this argument and will give the most frivolous reason for removing someone else's additions. I am not on either side, but after looking up the article and seeing how undeveloped it is, and the fact that most of the information is in agreement with the research, I decided to add two sentences of mild dissent. Apparently, that was too much for you, but that is inconsequential.
You are not the first person to attempt to control the development of a new WIki page, regularly filtering it for content antithetical to your own views. Your flare for public relations style rationalizing is both obvious and irrelevant to the growth of this article.
Please do not remove my addition again unless you have a better reason.
Kst447 ( talk) 10:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Lerner's article, titled "Laetrile: A Lesson in Cancer Quackery", does not contain the phrase "definitive example of quackery". If the allegation of quackery is to be presented then the name of the person making that allegation should also be presented. And dissenting opinions should also be acknowledged. Paul61485 ( talk) 15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is being reposted to this Amygdalin talk page in accordance with the suggestion of Yobol.
Reposted by Libra14157 ( talk) 19:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
"Still no explanation of why Kentucky singled out; re-emphasizing legality of prescribing fails WP:UNDUE; pls take to talk" Yobol
I used Kentucky as an example for the simple reason that their online statutes are comparatively easy to search. Some of the other states that have amygdalin/laetrile laws have online law databases that are complicated and frustrating to use. I salute Kentucky's programmers for making their online law database so user friendly.
I included an example of a state's laws that were enacted in response to the federal government's amygdalin/laetrile ban because a professor of English told her "Technical Writing" class (including me) that a general statement should be accompanied by a specific example. I believe that in this instance Kentucky is a good "specific example" for the general proposition that some states acted to "nullify" the federal ban. See Nullification (U.S. Constitution).
Do you have any other questions about Kentucky, et cetera? Libra14157 ( talk) 23:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Cancer treatment: this works for me, but still no need to single out Kentucky and use primary sources (relevance unclear); also, the PubChem factoid is improperly used to imply anticancer utility. MastCell
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on amygdalin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MastCell Talk 04:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not engaged in an "edit war". I am trying to address your objections. I added the non-endorsement disclaimers to the Kentucky example and to the PubChem "factoid" so that it will be clear to the reader that Kentucky and the Feds are not endorsing the use of amygdalin as a cancer treatment. Libra14157 ( talk) 23:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the subject to feel confident tagging it, but it seems *very* US-centric in places, especially in the "Advocacy and legality" section. 86.141.198.90 ( talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The sections on Toxicity and Laetrile should be merged, due to the fact that all cited sources in the Toxicity section claim that Laetrile is toxic, and not Amygdalin. The sources sometimes (incorrectly) use the two terms interchangeably, despite being completely different substances, and are always referring to Laetrile instead of Amygdalin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.142.80 ( talk) 21:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have tried to correct the misrepresentation of what happened to Ralph Moss. I am using his own words. Just because they are in a popular book by Suzanne Somers, my entry gets removed. Here is what Ralph Moss says as quoted in her book.
These people from Sloan-Kettering went to Washington on two occasions in 1974 and 1975, to plead with the government and the powers that be to let them do clinical trials. They believed that laetrile had promise. The testing on their animals was coming out positive. Initially the people from Sloan-Kettering were perceived to be the "good guys." But the same people who initially tried to break the blockade against nontoxic agents in general, and against laetrile in particular, lost their nerve. The price of continuing to present this drug as a viable answer in the face of blistering opposition from the FDA, the American Cancer Society, and somewhat from the National Cancer Institute would probably have been the ruination of their careers.
When I got up and said these things in November 1977, I was fired from Sloan-Kettering because I had broken ranks with the party line, which had declared that laetrile was completely ineffective, and had been proven so. But in fact, the reality was that laetrile had performed excellently in our animal studies, and it had been proven.
When I refused to do that [declare that the tests had been negative], they fired me. Here's the irony: the same people who fired me would admit these things in private. This was a common conversation among the administrators.
I was a relatively low-level employee, but I was in a crowd of very powerful people and it was common knowledge that laetrile was coming up positive in our tests. But any one of them would have been easily taken out in terms of their careers, and selectively they would have been damaged as a leadership group. Eventually many of them did suffer for even having let it go as far as it did.
I wasn't trying to make the claim that laetrile is an effective cancer therapy, I was simply trying to correct the article when it talks about why Ralph Moss was fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cachemagic ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Amygdalin 1 cis also called laevomandelonitrile, or Laetrile (some claim that Laetrile is derived from a Latin word meaning "joyfulness" (actually laetari is the latin verb to rejoice or exult) for short, and has been advocated by some as a "cure" or a "preventative" for cancer: as there is no scientifically accepted evidence of its efficacy, it has not been approved for this use by the Food and Drug Administration.
--Missing an ) or has an extra (
So fix it --
76.64.12.215 (
talk) 13:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
On 19 August 2005, 62.16.191.202 ( talk · contribs) added a lengthy article to this talk page (old version: [1]). The article appears to have been cut and pasted from web sources (example: [2]). This talk page is for discussion about the Wikipedia article, not the posting of new (or copied) articles. By all means _cite_ external articles when making points, but don't paste them here. -- Christopher Thomas 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just removed an external link I added a couple days ago, to The Rise and Fall of Laetrile. I added the link because the external article covers a lot of the publicly known information about clinical tests, double-blind studies, etc, involving Laetrile (a 'refined' form of amygdalin marketed as a cancer preventative/cure by Krebs and others). However, when I added the link, I didn't realize that the article is hosted at a site called Quackwatch.org. Looking over the other articles at the site, they seem unduly biased - for example, their list of '25 Ways to Spot a Quack' is pretty dubious - 'Quacks say organic food is better for you', 'They'll tell you to take vitamins' (paraphrase). I'm not trying to state an opinion about the worth of organic food or vitamins, but equating such banal and widely held views as 'take vitamins' with the belief that amygdalin/Laetrile is an effective anti-cancer agent... well, the whole thing just seemed suspect, so I didn't feel confident keeping the link in the article. If anyone thinks the link is useful and up to Wikipedia's standards, by all means, feel free to add it back in - I'm new here and still feeling my way around. Mathtinder 07:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the way that the cancer studies are presented are not neutral. Mainly because it is only stated halfway through the discussion (about it being a cancer cure, preventitive), that none of the studies are double blind, and the discussion concerning it seems biased. Just speaking from a standards point of veiw, it is not beyond reason to state that the studies occured, however conversly it should not appear to be biased in presentation. i think they (the studies) should be included, however, it should be made clear that in all fairness, more studies, that are double blind or otherwise safeguarded against bias are needed, for one to make any kind of informed decision on the matter. The article seems to use its non-approval by the FDA as reasons that it is not a cure/preventitive, when what it really means is it is like any other unproven drug, in that it needs to be proven. It hasnt been disproven. More so, I think the whole issue concerning cancer should really be its own section within the article, and in that section both sides be presented. I do not think creating another article, just for the cancer studies, would be prudent, but it wouldnt be beyond reason either.
Concerning such statements as these:
"One Phase II study with 175 patients had some patients reporting improvements in symptoms, but all patients showed cancer progression 7 months after completing treatment"
While I do not disagree with the facts of this study, it may be prudent to note that other cancer treatments (if terminated too early) have extremely high remission rates as well, or it should be clarified whether or not those studies had terminated treatment of the patients earlier then other cancer treatments or not.
"While no double-blind clinical trials may have been conducted"
This should be stated first, for both sides, as i myself am also not aware of any double blind studies that concluded that it had a definitive, measurable impact on the cancer (positivley). It should be duly noted the medical position of both sides for comparison and contrast.
It is simply my opinion that, in general, the studies should either be more clarified as to the circumstances under which they were conducted, measures be taken to reduce or eliminate bias, and the point be made clearly that in all honesty more studies are needed for any ultamite conclusion, or that the matter simply be stated as a stalemate, and summarized, with the possibility that another article is authored with the specific intent of dsicussing the seperate facts and views of the issue. However, if one side is measurably more factual then the other, it should be properly noted and clarified.
If no one contests what I have said, I will just make the changes myself.
--
24.209.153.170 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added an appropriate heading for the relationship with cancer . - Theblackbay 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Add context and changes to "Relating to Cancer" also more references.- Theblackbay 13:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI - HHS / NIH Press release
--News National Cancer Institute 1/24/2007
Positive results of a phase III cancer clinical trial in an uncommon form of leukemia were released today. The results showed that adult patients with previously untreated acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who had standard chemotherapy to induce remission of their disease, and then received the chemotherapy drug arsenic trioxide to maintain remission, had a significantly better event-free survival (more patients free of leukemia) and better overall survival than those who received only standard chemotherapy. The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and was led by one of its Cooperative Clinical Trials Groups -- the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB).
NIH News Release —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.171.229.32 ( talk) 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)There is not much point adding claims of miracle results to the article if they are not backed up by citations that can be verified. Unverifiable claims are in the class of snake oil and should be removed. If the claims are not backed up by good citations in a reasonable period then I will remove the claims.
There also isn't much point putting references in the talk page where they will be ignored. Phaedrus86 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The section about linamarin should be deleted or moved because linmarin is a unique molecule with a different structure and formula from amygdalin
An anonymous user 130.126.208.84 placed an NPOV tag on this article today but so far there is no discussion here indicating that there is a dispute. If there is no dispute then as per WP:NPOVD the tag does not apply. If someone indicates here why the article is not neutral and how it should be changed, then we can try and change the article to reflect all points of view. If nobody does this then I will remove the NPOV tag. Phaedrus86 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV tag is most definitely needed in this article. The article reads biased against laetrile and amygdalin. For instance, the paragraph about Jason Vale spends more time about him being convicted of something totally unrelated to Amygdalin and almost no time on what amygdalin did for him. Unsigned comment added 12:47, 13 February 2007 by User:130.126.208.84 talk
- Note: This is anecdotal. While in life, we are forced to make many decisions based on anecdotal information, it really has no place in a discussion where more sound data is available. As any scientist will tell you, one case is not a statistic. It tells you nothing about the probabilities. How do I know that two seeds a day was the right dose? How do I know that treatment was started in time? How do we know if this was a type of cancer that is responsive to amygdalin. How do we know your friends death wasn't the result of a complication? Perhaps he was responding to the amygdalin, but in was a case of too little to late. Even the most optimistic people, say amygdalin is only 40% effective, when given with proper treatment, which also includes changing diet. So, if all your friend did was take two apricot seeds a day, I would say his chances were not much better than doing nothing, even if amygdalin is as effective as people claim. Unsigned comment added 05:22, 12 March 2007 by User:67.55.8.65 talk
I added a POV Check today as I came across this article. I have done reading in the past on this subject and have found that this article seems to have a negative tint to it. I would suggest that someone, other than myself or those who have continuously removed the NPOV tag review the article for its neutrality. There are obviously multiple people concerned with its content's neutrality. I have read, and suggest the people removing the NPOV tag read, the Wikipedia standards of neutrality. This article fails on several tenants, including fairness of tone. Removal of this nomination without a neutral party reviewing it is a violation of Wikipedia standards. Epdp14 00:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Amygdalin does work and works VERY well. Try it if you have cancer! Better yet, become a raw foodist.
Although favourably disposed to Amygdalin, I agree that Wiki articles need to be factually supported; or at the very least, if presenting anecdotal or opinionated material, to balance bias with pros and cons. Wiki's strivance in this regard is actually very creditable. I cannot back any of my claims that would not in turn be open to dispute - hence no direct entry will be made by me in the frontline article on Amygdalin. I wish only to offer input for discussion. Toxicity of Laetrile is widely disputed. When taken orally, it should be presumed that HCl in the stomach breaks the molecule into constituents, resulting in Cyanide release with conversion to Cyanic Acid. In high enough doses, toxic effects must be expected, but this substance should at least metabolise quite readily into Amines or whatever, so the half-life of its toxic form in the system ought to be rather short - unlike Arsenic Trioxide, which I perceive to be just plain downright toxic in any form, including metabolites. Here is a contrast, for Amygdalin is prohibited by the FDA, whilst Arsenic Trioxide is approved. Given dozens of other examples I could cite, there are possible grounds indeed for credence to the "conspiracy theory" against the FDA, but that should NOT become a primary issue where encyclopaedic information on this, or any other specific substance is concerned. There is also the possibility that stonefruit pits (Apricot, Peach, Cherry, Plum, etcetera) may contain quantities of free Cyanide not bound up in Diglucoside molecules. I would therefore suggest some reasonable care in the treatment of toxicity information that does not refer specifically to the pure agent, itself, unless adequate toxicology studies are done that establish no practical difference between the seeds and the refined substance. Better to treat them separately, anyway - because seeds from different species will inevitably contain different co-constituents. Also, there does not appear to be sufficient reliable information abroad (that I have been able to garner) as it applies to the relative toxicity of pure Laetrile ingested intravenously. Indications are that intravenous dosage tolerance is much higher and it may be that in this circumstance, the Amygdalin should be expected to experience far greater uptake by cancerous cells than healthy ones, due to their furious hunger for Glucose. The belief in Amygdalin's efficacy relies mainly on the premise of this preferential uptake by cancer cells, where the Maltose component is metabolised into Lactic Acid; the Cyanide is released into an acidic environment (HCN is certainly toxic); and the cancer cell is killed. The bottom line is that without verifiable toxicology data and properly conducted double blind studies, Amygdalin must remain in Limbo where its carcinomic efficacy and relative safety is concerned. Unfortunately, FDA approval or disapproval of any given substance that has a relationship with cancer treatment cannot itself be trusted as the last word - it should only be cited as a single "relevant" datum. Also on the matter of efficacy against cancer, Amygdalin does operate as a cytotoxin via metabolism. This may be OK for Stage I or II conditions, but is in fact not a very satisfactory way to deal with advanced metastatic cancers, as amply demonstrated by most orthodox chemotherapy agents - the older ones. Wholesale slaughter of cancer cells is quite dangerous, to say nothing of collateral tissue damage. The preferable approach is to promote selective apoptosis, as do the newer types of chemo agents; or better yet, to "differentiate" or revert cancer cells into a benign state, as is claimed on behalf of DMSO and, it would appear, Haematoxylon. Neither Amygdalin, nor any of the Alkylating (Mustard Gas analogues), Platinum or Antimetabolite chemo agents meet either of these two criteria. Caesium Chloride doesn't, either. I must additionally point out (regarding FDA trust, or lack of): that a human toxicology study using several hundred prisoners was conducted by Dr. Richard D. Brobyn in 1967 on DMSO. It produced very favourable results regarding toxicity and side effects, when compared with typical (older) chemo agents that are still in common use today. Yet DMSO is still prohibited for anything except Interstitial Cystitis, whilst those older chemo agents have not been officially disapproved and are still routinely prescribed, despite being dangerous to various degrees far in excess of DMSO. The point to this observation is that with still other similar cases to further support the premise, there is a very plausible case in support of the "Big Bad Pharma" notion; even noting that the latest chemo developments are evolving along much more satisfactory lines and principles. However, these new-generation Mitotic Spindle Stabilzers and Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors are hideously expensive. So, even that merely strengthens the profit motive case against Pharma. Again, it does not necessarily validate the Big Bad Pharma theory for inclusion in the Amygdalin article. Phaedrus has it mostly right, I think - certainly so where the content of encyclopaedic articles themselves are concerned. As I would personally like to see more such information on Amygdalin as can be relied upon for absolute accuracy rather than opinion, I applaud the Wiki people and hope to see such relevant data added to the Amygdalin article in future. Sorry I cannot actually contribute to the article, myself. madprofessor666@gmail.com.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.34.19 ( talk) 05:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC) 12:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)12:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)~~
Please avoid Capitalizing Enzyme Names like for example Hexokinase or Alcohol Dehydrogenase. Even worse is the capitalization of Mitotic Spindle Stabilizers. Also, most professors would include university addresses, not mere addresses anyone can replicate to decent extents. I know how amygdalin treats cancer. Cancer will be the least of your worries, not that you would still worry at all. After all, death by cyanide is the last thing that will happen to you. 173.58.152.240 ( talk) 18:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This section present several data that are not supported by a citation. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have this material see WP:PROVEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger jg ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If this unreferenced material in this section is not cited within a few days, I will remove it. This means a proper citation - either from a peer reviewed journal or similarily respectable publication. Halogenated ( talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed any unreferenced material. There has been ample time for the contributors to reference this with appropriate citations. In addition, I've done some fairly major restructing to the overall article. Halogenated ( talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Aside from several claims being unsupported by citations, there are sseveral citations in the article that seem to not meet WP:RS. For example, in the section "Supporters of amygdalin" a video is linked (citation #11) but the video has no information indicating that it came from a reliable source and the website that is hosting the video ( www.realityzone.com) would not be considered a reliable source. The video strikes me as a propoganda film rather than a balanced documentary. Reference #7 ( www.cancerdecisions.com) also appears to fail to meet WP:RS, as does citation #12 ( www.cancertutor.com). Lastly, the research section described promising results in experiemnts in mice, but clinical trials in humans showed poor results, so the data in mice is somewhat irrelevant and should be given much less weight relative to the human clinical trials. The mouse studies are also lacking citations. Rhode Island Red 14:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is indisputably and obviously biased against supporters of Amygdalin, such as myself, and it is biased towards the greedy pharmaceutical industrys point of view. While I do not have cancer, and never have, eating apricot seeds and pretty much any part of an apricot makes me feel better, and I believe it helps my health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.153.217 ( talk) 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Though it is sometimes sold as "Vitamin B17", it meets none of the criteria of a vitamin.
However, (a) the human body does not produce the substance on its own, so it is just a matter of opinion or political view point whether someone thinks (b) the body needs it as a preventative against disease (cancer). By just meeting the (a) criterion, the wiki article text is untrue in that the substance does in fact meet at least one rather than none of the criteria!
Evidently some very educated members of the public including M.D.s believe reports like the Pub-Med South Korean lab testing studies, and tend NOT to believe the Rockefeller, Bristol Myers, Mayo Clinic, NIH, NCI, ACS, and MSK testing performed on the substance owing to these places / people endorsing the use of and making copious amounts of money treating using chemotherapeutic, patentable toxins instead.
Several websites on the pro-side of this debate indicate that these various establishment institutions have performed their testing using subtle trickiness in order to make the results against the substance, have it found ineffective or dangerous, and so have it banned from use in the USA. However, various blog entries commenting on the news coverage items about Jason Vale have all manner of disappointment expressed about the conduct of the FDA in the matter of JV's prosecution, providing testimonials that either their own or a dear friend's terminal cancer cases were controlled or caused to have spontaneous remissions using the substance, and that Jason was providing people with an alternative that he himself believed in.
"There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective," said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. "This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines."
I looked up this fellow to see how reliable he was... He is trained as a doctor of veterinary sciences, and holds a PhD degree in the study of drugs. BTW, from my Royal Rife cancer virus research, I discovered that most germ warfare scientists come from the veterinary sciences side rather than M.D.s and so they know about cross species virus culturing to make germ weapons of mass destruction. Then I came across the following items:
Lester M. Crawford
Ex-Head of F.D.A. Faces Criminal Inquiry
GARDINER HARRIS / New York Times 29apr2006
WASHINGTON, April 28 — Dr. Lester M. Crawford, the former commissioner of food and drugs, is under criminal investigation by a federal grand jury over accusations of financial improprieties and false statements to Congress, his lawyer said Friday.
The lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, would not discuss the accusations further. In a court hearing held by telephone on Thursday, she told a federal magistrate that she would instruct Dr. Crawford to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination if ordered to answer questions this week about his actions as head of the Food and Drug Administration, according to a transcript of the hearing.
Dr. Crawford did not reply to messages seeking comment, and Kathleen Quinn, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, declined to comment.
Lester M. Crawford, who resigned mysteriously last fall just two months after being confirmed as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, will plead guilty today to charges that he hid his ownership of stock in food and drug companies that his agency regulated, his lawyer said.
The Justice Department charged Crawford yesterday with two misdemeanors for withholding the financial information, which included his ownership of shares in food and drink manufacturers Pepsico Inc. and Sysco Corp. and the drug company Embrex Inc.
A Google search result of >John Richardson< tuns up this cancer survivor blog. Dr. John Richardson M.D. used the laetrile substance for cancer treatment on his patients for several decades and published a book on some of the early case studies. At least one account in this blog indicates that some M.D.s are taking a holistic approach to treatment and are making use of the substance among other things. The treated person does not indicate if they are from the USA, or elsewhere.
Strangely, although the substance is a concentrated form of something found in nature, with supposedly no synthetic additives, the FDA considers it a drug, proponents say because if it were considered a dietary supplement or vitamin, it would not fall under strict FDA jurisdiction so that the prosecution and persecution of individuals for its sale would not fall within lawful activity, and that would permit its use in treatments that would draw away business from all of those USA establishment institutions who are making all of that money from cancer.
An independent medical researcher / newsletter writer in this lengthy, extensive coverage piece here indicates that some of the proponents are exaggerating the efficacy of the substance, and also how some of the US medical establishment testing centers did their cooking and publicity of their results. In one instance the author states that a very serious form of cancer with a hopeless prognosis was unfairly used in testing amygdalin, yet surprisingly it still provided much better results than anything else for such cases. In other cases statistics were fraudulently applied to make it appear that the substance was of little use. After three or four promising tests results went unpublicised, the negative results were immediately presented at news conferences where the promising results were not only hidden but strictly lied about the substance never having any positive indications (sounding identically to how this article was written). The positive results were leaked to a California pro-laetrile group--some of the quotations from which citations have been requested by certain wiki article editors here. The newsletter indicates that the validity of these leaked documents was eventually verified by the testing lab, so the reliability of the source will probably still be rejected here at WP.
A Google search of >"freedom of information" minutes msk OR memorial-sloan-kettering laetrile OR amygdalin< will give several sources for the following quotation:
Then the minutes read: "Sloan-Kettering is not enthusiastic about studying amygdalin [Laetrile] but would like to study CN [cyanide] –releasing drugs."
This quotation is also part of the book and video clip by G. Edward Griffin about the science and politics of cancer.
The article still is biased against the potentially hazardous treatment substance. It should be rewritten as though an English-speaking Mexican or South Korean person were writing it (where the substance actually may be in regular use), rather than as though by corrupt officials of the AMA and FDA who are possibly under orders from possible NWO elements to do away with its use. Oldspammer ( talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
--
Though it is sometimes sold as "Vitamin B17", it meets none of the criteria of a vitamin.
However, (a) the human body does not produce the substance on its own, so it is just a matter of opinion or political view point whether someone thinks (b) the body needs it as a preventative against disease (cancer). By just meeting the (a) criterion, the wiki article text is untrue in that the substance does in fact meet at least one rather than none of the criteria!
(a) your correct on this point,(b) vitamin B17 is not a protein required in any known metabolic processes in the human body... therefore is is not essential. If you want to speculate that it is essential (for the prevention of cancer) without knowing which specific metabolic pathway(s) it is required in: then why not claim beta-Methylphenethylamine is a vitamin? 114.76.211.45 ( talk) 09:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The laetrile/laetari connection seems spurious. Laetrile is more obviously a shortened form of the word laevomandelonitrile. Though I do think that saying a connection with "laeteri" exists would be good marketing for laetrile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incrediblub ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer in favor of splitting. See following section. -- Fyslee / talk 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we change the title to
Laetrile. IOW move this to the existing redirect and make this a redirect. Why? Because Laetrile is by far the most common name for this substance:
-- Fyslee / talk 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal: Let's split this into two articles, one about the chemical substance Amygdalin, and one about Laetrile, the controversial anti-cancer drug. -- Fyslee / talk 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As the NIH article states, both chemicals are used in AltMed -- and knowing AltMed, the non-synthetic chemical amygdalin is probably used the most. I'm not sure what your point in this is -- the article is not long -- and I don't understand the reasoning behind "let's separate the chemical from its uses". Wikipedia is not the free CAS. Chemical articles should document their uses, as the chemistry informs the use. II | ( t - c) 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for a point of comparison, Prozac redirects to Fluoxetine, Zocor to Simvastatin, etc... Laetrile is essentially a "brand name" or "popular name" for the chemical compound. The differences between the two are simply manufacturing unless there is some notable excipient or cofactor present in apricot pits. I would just leave it as it is until it grows to a length necessary for a daughter article. SDY ( talk) 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Do chickpeas contain amygdalin? Badagnani ( talk) 05:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm just going to toss in some stuff that laetrile advocates say. It would be interesting to see if mainstream medicine has engaged these claims -- the way to quash "quackery" is to refute, not ignore.
The only one of these which is possibly citeable is Dean Burk, as he was the head of the National Cancer Institute's Cytochemistry sector. As an expert on cancer, he is "reliable" even though he's not published in a reliable venue. However, it would be nice to have more on the context and engagement before mentioning his claims. Since they are focused on animal studies, they are of limited relevance, as well. It would be interesting to see what he said about later studies. II | ( t - c) 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I added the actual cause of death to the section that referenced him travelling to Mexico to undergo treatment, part of which involved Amygdalin, as the unwritten yet obvious suggestion(what other purpose could such a reference serve, since this isn't an article about celebrities or about Steve McQueen?)was that the Amygdalin caused or was related to his death, when, in fact, he had two heart attacks caused by blood clots from having surgery to remove a tumor from his stomach. Is it being claimed that the Amygdalin caused the blood clots, rather than the surgery, or that they made the heart attacks more likely? If so, then support that with evidence, or remove the offending statement entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
For instance, "A 2006 Cochrane review of the evidence concluded that there is no sound evidence that laetrile is an effective cancer treatment." That in itself is true. But it makes it seem as if some evidence supports the claim when it fact the report itself states that there is no evidence, because the drug is not allowed to be used in clinical settings in the US. It is not proof against the effectiveness of laetrile as an anti-cancer agent, thus should not be included in the It's an example of how omitting certain facts promotes one viewpoint over the other.
Also, I believe what was previously written on the page by an anonymous user should be included. The studies, if actually read, will divulge the information given. I checked it on my universities library system. Instead of a total reversion, I suggest a re-edit of the information presented. Since most people do not have access to the scientific papers, it is hard for them to check the studies themselves to make sure it is reported correctly.
Also it is fallacious to claim that double-blind experimentation is needed for accurate animal studies to maintain scientific integrity, because it isn't. There is no such thing as conveying expectations of a new drug to mice. They cannot understand that they are getting a placebo or not.
It is irresponsible and against the very nature of scientific inquiry to allow this bias to be present in this article, as well as against the express purpose of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.158.186 ( talk) 14:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the section should be divided into two:
Cancer Treatment
This site: [ The Cancer Industry Discovers Laetrile ] talks about this subject.It seems that this product is back. Agre22 ( talk) 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)agre22
I watched this page after making minor edits to the introduction because after examining many of the edits of previous users, I was convinced that one in particular would almost immediately rush to undo my edits. I was right.
Dmacks' arrogant writing style and Ivy League style certainty are nearly indicative of a genuine personality disorder.
He/she removed the following words added to the end of the intro:
"The efficacy of the substance continues to be disputed, with the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry sometimes pointed to as a factor in the creation of the current consensus. To date, no double-blind studies have been conducted to assess the matter."
Which he changed to:
"The efficacy of the substance continues to be disputed."
"don't try to insinuate motives or overly focus on one motive of one side" he says.
This has always been a repeated criticism of the situation of this subtance, it is in many books and everywhere else. I am not "focusing" on one side, I added two sentences, amidst many others in the introduction. I felt they were missing and I added the information concisely. I am not insinuating anything, I am merely pointing out what one side of the debate often believes. I stated a legitimate issue directly, not covertly. You are in error.
The second sentence simply gives no reason for removal. It states what is a plain fact, and simply seeks to establish that no final consensus can be arrived at due to the absence of a definitive study. By "the issue" I am referring to Amygdalin, not the issue of corporate influence. Did you not understand?
If you want to make a weasel word comment or a source comment, which I see as the only two potential problems with the addition as of now, then do it. You did neither.
Another user previously attempted to state the second sentence I added and you quickly overrode him as well. He added:
"studies "funded by medical and pharmaceutical companies" have found it to be ineffective." You deleted that for the reason "pro-Laetrile groups were specifically invited to contribute data"
The issue of corporate funding is legitimate utterly regardless of who was invited to do what and will be included in the introduction. It is also suspicious that you provided two different reasons for the removal of the same information added by two different people.
Also, do not attempt to insinuate motive by using the term "pro-Laetrile." This term conveys the idea that these groups are not interested in scientific data, present or future, but simply wish to promote Laetrile as an effective treatment regardless of the evidence, perhaps for money? The use of this term also implies a consensus from the viewpoint that Laetrile is not effective and that the current evidence is fair and sufficient, points which are less relevant than the rest.
You need to chill out. I am reversing the edits you have made. There is going to be dissent in this article.
You are clearly and unambiguously on one side of this argument and will give the most frivolous reason for removing someone else's additions. I am not on either side, but after looking up the article and seeing how undeveloped it is, and the fact that most of the information is in agreement with the research, I decided to add two sentences of mild dissent. Apparently, that was too much for you, but that is inconsequential.
You are not the first person to attempt to control the development of a new WIki page, regularly filtering it for content antithetical to your own views. Your flare for public relations style rationalizing is both obvious and irrelevant to the growth of this article.
Please do not remove my addition again unless you have a better reason.
Kst447 ( talk) 10:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Lerner's article, titled "Laetrile: A Lesson in Cancer Quackery", does not contain the phrase "definitive example of quackery". If the allegation of quackery is to be presented then the name of the person making that allegation should also be presented. And dissenting opinions should also be acknowledged. Paul61485 ( talk) 15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is being reposted to this Amygdalin talk page in accordance with the suggestion of Yobol.
Reposted by Libra14157 ( talk) 19:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
"Still no explanation of why Kentucky singled out; re-emphasizing legality of prescribing fails WP:UNDUE; pls take to talk" Yobol
I used Kentucky as an example for the simple reason that their online statutes are comparatively easy to search. Some of the other states that have amygdalin/laetrile laws have online law databases that are complicated and frustrating to use. I salute Kentucky's programmers for making their online law database so user friendly.
I included an example of a state's laws that were enacted in response to the federal government's amygdalin/laetrile ban because a professor of English told her "Technical Writing" class (including me) that a general statement should be accompanied by a specific example. I believe that in this instance Kentucky is a good "specific example" for the general proposition that some states acted to "nullify" the federal ban. See Nullification (U.S. Constitution).
Do you have any other questions about Kentucky, et cetera? Libra14157 ( talk) 23:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Cancer treatment: this works for me, but still no need to single out Kentucky and use primary sources (relevance unclear); also, the PubChem factoid is improperly used to imply anticancer utility. MastCell
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on amygdalin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MastCell Talk 04:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not engaged in an "edit war". I am trying to address your objections. I added the non-endorsement disclaimers to the Kentucky example and to the PubChem "factoid" so that it will be clear to the reader that Kentucky and the Feds are not endorsing the use of amygdalin as a cancer treatment. Libra14157 ( talk) 23:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the subject to feel confident tagging it, but it seems *very* US-centric in places, especially in the "Advocacy and legality" section. 86.141.198.90 ( talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The sections on Toxicity and Laetrile should be merged, due to the fact that all cited sources in the Toxicity section claim that Laetrile is toxic, and not Amygdalin. The sources sometimes (incorrectly) use the two terms interchangeably, despite being completely different substances, and are always referring to Laetrile instead of Amygdalin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.142.80 ( talk) 21:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)