Talk:Amygdalin

TYPO

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 (

Anonymous article removed

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)

external link to article 'The Rise and Fall of Laetrile'

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)

Neutrality of Cancer Studies

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)

Page structure

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)

Arsenic Trioxide

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).

So? What's that got to do with amygdalin? Tearlach 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

References

• Pendergrass TW, Davis S (1981). "Knowledge and use of "alternative" cancer therapies in children". Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 3: 339–345.

• Eidinger RN, Schapira DV (1984). "Cancer patients' insight into their treatment, prognosis, and unconventional therapies". Cancer. 53: 2736–40.

• T Cairns, JE Froberg, S Gonzales, WS Langham, JJ Stamp, JK Howie, DT Sawyer (1978). "Analytical chemistry of amygdalin". Analytical Chemistry. 50: 317–322. doi:10.1021/ac50024a037.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Research claims

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

NPOV tag January 2007

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)

Silence. Removing tag. Phaedrus86 03:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag Added

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

• biased against laetrile and amygdalin - er, biased how? The most reliable evidence available says "the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data". How is this biased? Can you provide credible evidence that this study was inaccurate? Difficult since there are amazingly few scientific studies that support the claim.
• the article is not biased against amygdalin, it is biased against the unquestioned assumption that amygdalin cures cancer. There is plenty of evidence that it doesn't and is in fact toxic. Stating those facts as well as the claims for cancer cure is not bias, it is balance, providing NPOV.
• something totally unrelated to Amygdalin - Laetrile and Amygdalin are the same thing, so how is that biased?
• spends more time about him being convicted of something totally unrelated - he was convicted for "heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer" - fact. How is that biased? How is that unrelated?
• almost no time on what amygdalin did for him - we have no credible references for what amygdalin did for him. For example, a friend of mine was diagnosed with bowel cancer last year. My wife, trying to help, gave her apricot seeds. Didn't help, the friend died 2 weeks ago anyway. So where was the magic power of amygdalin there? Suppose she had survived. Would that prove amygdalin cures cancer? NO! It would have been a correlation, but correlations do not imply causality. And on the sample I have had direct knowledge of, it was completely useless.

- 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

Of course it was anecdotal. That's the whole damn point. Although it occurs to me that you may have misread the above, most of which was in reply to the first paragraph added by an anonymous user in defence of the NPOV claim. I then disputed that claim. It was not immediately obvious that this was the sequence of events in the conversation because the anonymous user who added the NPOV tag did not sign their post. I have now added a signature for them to make it clearer.

Now that you inserted a paragraph in the middle of my post (which is really Bad Form!) it will be nearly impossible for readers to work out who said what. In future it would be nice if you could add comments at the end of threads and not intersperse them. Thank you. Phaedrus86 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide reasoned arguments, not just claims of bias, or remove the NPOV tag. Phaedrus86 05:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. If no refutation appears in the next day or so, I will remove the tag. - Nunh-huh 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As none has appeared, I'll remove the tag. - Nunh-huh 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

POV Check Added

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)

The only reason the NPOV tags were removed was because they weren't backed up with any statement of what was allegedly wrong with the article. If you think that was a violation of standards, please tell us which standard it violated so we can improve our behaviour.

You can always ask for an independent peer review if you wish at WP:PR. This may help to allay fears of bias.

I will reread WP:NPOV and review the article for "negative tint" and "fairness of tone" over the next day or two. Meanwhile, do you have any other criteria for bias? Fairness of tone and negative tint seem to me to be a bit of a vague peg on which to hang bias. Do you have anything more specific? In particular, you say you have done reading on this subject in the past, so can you supply us with credible references?

I am quite happy to talk about these issues, I just get a bit impatient when bias is claimed without telling us what specifically you are unhappy with. Phaedrus86 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As an afterthought - this topic generates strong opinions. Even if it a consensus is achieved, anonymous editors will keep changing it. Wikipedia doesn't guarantee stable articles. Phaedrus86 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I feel very strongly that NPOV tags not backed up with reasons here should be deleted after a suitable delay - max 1 day. --Rifleman 82 05:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Amygdalin

Amygdalin does work and works VERY well. Try it if you have cancer! Better yet, become a raw foodist.

Right. And you have proof of this, of course? Phaedrus86 23:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Phaedrus86, although WE should not be inserting our comments in the middle of someone else's paragraph, as you know, I could not resist to ask you something: If a so called 'natural remedy' does not cure your friend, it proved to be "useless", but if your friend goes better, that does not "imply causality", is that correct? Also, when you say a remedy is toxic, do you mean approved remedies or drugs are free of toxicity? ... Manuel Varga (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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)~~

Amygdalin Research Section

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)

PS YouTube is not an acceptable source of reference! See WP:SOURCE The claim will be deleted in the near future if not properly referenced Roger jg 15:27, 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)

References

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)

Speaking of bias, it is pretty obvious from your list of edits under an anonymous account that you don't show a neutral perspective in your views. Your conclusions r.e. your own health and subjectively "feeling better" from eating apricot seeds are hardly evidence to support amygdalin's anti-cancer properties. If you believe eating a substance known to cause cyanide poisoning improves your health, then by all means, continue to consume this potentially deadly substance. However do not expect that this will somehow change the tenure of this article. Halogenated (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. And you can cut the Big Pharma boogeyman crap while you are at it. Voice-of-All 23:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. the supposed toxicity of apricot kernels. A couple of days ago, I bought a bag of Amaretti biscuits at my local supermarket. The pack contains 200g of biscuits, and the ingredient list states that they contain 40% of apricot kernels. So that's 80g of kernels. No health warnings on the pack: if I wanted, I could apparently eat the lot in one go, with impunity. (Maybe cooking modifies or destroys the amygdalin, but I've never seen any suggestion that this is so.) Doctorwhatsit (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Vitamin?

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."

— http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01080.html

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.

— http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2006/Lester-M-Crawford29apr06.htm

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.

— http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2008/03/23/conflicts-of-interest-in-veterinary-medicine/

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)

Etymology of laetrile

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)

RfC: Title change to the most notable title

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:

• Search for Laetrile] - 377,000 hits
• Search for Amygdalin - 162,000 hits

-- Fyslee / talk 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. If laetrile didn't have multiple meanings and is a much more common name for the generic chemical, I'd have no problem with the proposal. However, the "Nomenclature" section tells us that "laetrile" is an ambiguous term. The page here is primarily about the chemical component (at best, it appears to mention the patented drugs just with respect to this being the active ingredient in them). Better to use a less ambiguous, or more specific (for the chemical, in this case) page-name. Also, the various wikiprojects dealing with pharmaceuticals and chemistry have clear preference for using generic chemical names instead of specific product or trade-names when talking about the chemical. DMacks (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually the most notable name is usually to be preferred. This happens to be most notable as a quack cancer drug with a long legal history. As such the general practice you are referring to doesn't apply. While you may wish that "the page here is primarily about the chemical component", that isn't the case. It's about an alternative medicine product and the page is classified as such. A redirect from Amygdalin will make sure that those few users who actually start there will end up with the right information. As it is we are forcing the majority of users over a redirect, which isn't proper practice here. -- Fyslee / talk 04:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead is quite clear that this is a page about the chemical. DMacks (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead mentions the altmed usage, and this chemical would be an insignificant and generally unknown blink in the dark if not for it's popularization as a cancer drug. That is it's primary claim to fame. Notability is the legitimate wiki reason for this article's existence, and we are ignoring that fact by using it as a mere redirect. Wikipedia is not in the business of creating or popularizing neologisms or of promoting relatively unknown terms above the best known ones. -- Fyslee / talk 05:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that, to be consistent, you're in favor of changing the titles of articles about Vioxx, Prozac, Zoloft, ect. Just about every pharmaceutical on Wikipedia is titled by its official name, or is moving towards that. Certainly without the drug patents these chemicals would just be blinks in the dark among population at large. II | (t - c) 05:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Those drugs are based on certain chemical compositions, but marketed under several different drug names, hence the choice to use the generic title, rather than a patented title of just one of the drugs. I assume that is the reason for choosing to do it that way. I'm not sure that this is a parallel situation. Is there an official naming policy that applies here? -- Fyslee / talk 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I prefer official scientific names whenever possible. Just like we don't use commercial drug names to title pharmaceuticals, even though those names are often far more recognizable, we shouldn't use the popular altmed name (and patented pharmaceutical) title here. II | (t - c) 04:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• As explained immediately above, this is not a parallel situation. -- Fyslee / talk 06:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• You're right, this is not exactly analagous, but the problem is that Laetrile is derived from a pharmaceutical name, and this article is broader than that pharmaceutical as it covers the chemical amygdalin. I added the laetrile note to the first sentence a couple months ago, so people shouldn't be that confused. You asked if there is an official policy that applies. This is Wikipedia. Of course there is. ;) I'll let you find it. II | (t - c) 06:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Split? According to the CAS registry, these two are completely different substances. Amygdalin is the one currently shown in the infobox for this article, while laetrile (CAS number 1332-94-1) is Mandelonitrile b-glucuronide: it has only one sugar ring, and the terminal CH2OH of glucose is oxidized to COOH. This explains the vague statement by the NCI that they are different substances "because one is synthetic and the other natural". --Itub (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. That would solve the problem and leave the chemical article a short stub and the notable altmed cancer cure article much larger. -- Fyslee / talk 06:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good, let's do that. Keep the science away from the unlikely. And make sure the laetrile article is very clear that it does not work, as explained eloquently here.

Ben (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Split into two articles

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)

I am curious. Is the Aspirin article not having acetylsalicylic acid split off of it an example of what you mean or is that a different situation? TStein (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The current article has, in my opinion, too much information on amygdalin's use as a cancer cure, considering that it doesn't actually cure cancer. If we don't send this stuff to its own article, can we cut it right down, or put most of it in some general altmed article. Having too much emphasis on non-mainstream uses of chemicals makes WP less valuable to people trying to get scientific content from it. At the very least, can we have a very clear point in the article, before which is all the science, and after which is all the nonsense?

Ben (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it actually cures cancer is irrelevant, and an argument could be made that it is more important that an ineffective but popular treatment be well-documented so that people will become better informed. Your other argument is without basis; all of the cancer cure information is at the bottom, so people who are just looking for scientific details can just stop reading when they get to that section. This chemical has only been used, as far as I can tell, in the context of cancer treatment -- so there's little reason to think that people will be looking for its "scientific" stuff outside of the medicine field. If you want to add more about its chemical properties, feel free, but I am fairly sure none will be added, or needs to be added. With an article this small, it would just create unnecessary confusion to split it. Like I said, Wikipedia is not the free CAS. Articles on chemicals should document their uses and history. If anything, we need to make the articles on chemicals more focused on the real world, which is not nonsense. I'm not really following your last sentence. II | (t - c) 21:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that too many Wikipedia articles on chemicals are getting taken over with information on alternative theories that are not accepted by mainstream scientists. Amygdalin may well be notable because loads of people (who are wrong) think it cures cancer. But this is bad news for people like me who just want the science. I am starting to think WP should split into a proper science encyclopedia that focuses on the experimentally verifiable properties of chemicals and spends little or no time discussing what people-who-don't-know-what-they-are-talking-about think those chemicals do. Maybe WP:CHEM can become its own encyclopedia and take all its talent away from this quack-fest. It all seems to be US-based stuff, too. Why do we need to know in detail about two US States who allow it to be prescribed?

As for the cancer studies bit, why do we go into so much detail about exactly how and why the trials showed laetrile doesn't cure cancer? Can't we just say it doesn't work and reference the articles? Discussing it in such detail makes it seem like there is genuine uncertainty over its efficacy, which is not true - real scientists are sure it doesn't work.

I think the most notable aspect of amygdalin is that it exists in lots of fruit seeds, and can cause cyanide poisoning if a person eats too many seeds.

Ben (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to cut it down to summary style, feel free. I agree that there's way too much detail. People can go to the articles (the NIH site is the best) for the details. As far as certainty over its effectiveness, I would agree that it's not effective, but that is not what the Cochrane review concluded. But to say that laetrile is not notable is just not true; there are numerous articles covering it, it has been studied in a couple clinical trials, and there are probably a fair amount of people who still use it. I don't see the point in cutting this down to a stub with a chembox that says "amygdalin can cause cyanide poisoning and has been used as a cancer agent, see laetrile for details. We already have too many stubs; they clutter up the categories and slow down the flow of information. I don't see why it is so difficult for you to skip past the cancer information, either. The better solution is to cut this article down to summary style. II | (t - c) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ben, I feel with you, but Wikipedia's rules and intentions are to cover every notable subject using reliable sources, which includes documenting a lot of nonsense. That's the way it is here, so you need to acquaint yourself with our various policies, starting with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. -- Fyslee / talk 03:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article wouldn't be cut down to a stub. Most of the lead, the toxicity section, and all of the chemistry section are about amygdalin. The article could be further expanded with information about the biological role of amygdalin, for example in the context of plant defense against herbivory. In fact the only section that would be moved to the laetrile article is the cancer section. Both articles would need a sentence or two mentioning that the two substances are often confused, and are more or less interchangeable for their alternative medicine use. Being interchangeable is not by itself grounds for merging articles; KOH and NaOH are often interchangeable, and yet have different articles. --Itub (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand. I do know the policies, I was just suggesting that they sometimes create problems. But anyway, back to business. I agree with Itub that the two articles generated from a split would be big and good enough to exist independently. And it would split the content by likely audience.

Ben (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Split. Even if we forget about the quackery for a moment, the proposed split is more analogous to splitting aspirin off from salicylic acid; again, a completely different compound. --Itub (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really equivalent when you consider 1) how large both those articles are and 2) the fact that both this chemical, and a slightly different synthetic chemical, are used by AltMed. Creating an article for a tweak to amygdalin which takes up only a sentence in this article is not really necessary. Incidentally, PubChem redirects laetrile to amygdalin. II | (t - c) 21:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

PubChem is non-curated and often inaccurate. I'd go with CAS unless I see solid evidence to the contrary. --Itub (talk) 21:25, 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)

I completely concur with this. Halogenated (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As I already stated multiple times, the difference is much larger than an "excipient". These are two different compounds. --Itub (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Laetrile can mean two different things, really, and having it redirect here is appropriate when the majority of "current" use is actually Amygdalin and most of the hoopla about it is identical between the two compounds. No clue on the biochemistry if the OH/COOH difference is actually relevant, though it appears similar to salicylic acid/acetylsalicylic acid where it affects toxicity but not the active part of the chemical (CN in this case). A "Laetrile controversy" article might not be inappropriate as articles go. It might technically be appropriate to have a separate laevomandelonitrile article, since it is a different compound, but it would largely repeat the information here.

If the article had to be split for size, I'd have no problem with it, but as is the content would be largely identical between the two and there's the risk of one or the other becoming a POVFORK. A separate full infobox for laevomandelonitrile might not be inappropriate, but it is a marginally modified synthetic version of the natural chemical. SDY (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I just get really tired of clicking through articles of balkanized information. My internet connection is kinda bad. For all we know, much of the altmed laetrile used today is actually amygdalin produced in Mexico. II | (t - c) 17:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chickpeas

Do chickpeas contain amygdalin? Badagnani (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but they do contain small amounts of a different cyanogenic glycoside. Halogenated (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Claims of laetrile advocates

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.

• No cases of cancer in certain areas.
• 1978 Moertel study: a claim that some of the substance did not have amygdalin; previous chemotherapy weakened results.[3] Julian Whitaker claims that Suigara's studies were replicated using 1/40th his dose. He says Moertel's Mayo Clinic/NCI study stopped using intravenous amygdalin after 3 weeks, and it used a relatively inactive form, isoamygdalin.[4]
• In 1974 Dean Burk published an article entitled "See How They Lie" in the Laetrile advocates' journal (Cancer News Journal), detailing the animal evidence for laetrile's efficacy.
• Various claims of efficacy.

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)

While I appreciate the need for some explanation of the history and current misunderstandings regarding laetrile, it is not the job of science to refute, it is the job of science to prove. Claims are to be refuted only if already accepted, and able to be disproved with better evidence. With most laetrile claims falling into the category of having little to no accepted scientific proof, there is nothing to refute. If Dean Burk makes verifiable claims that are accepted by peer-reviewed publications, then lets have at it. Otherwise, it's not science, and not usable. Halogenated (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place to discuss what the "job of science" is. I certainly disagree with your judgment on what science is there to do, and I believe there are much more trivial and unimportant things that science could do aside from refuting widespread misconceptions. I've already noted that Dean Burk could be cited as a self-published expert per WP:SPS. You shouldn't pretend I haven't laid that out there. He published over 250 scientific publications and headed an important section of the NCI. Engagement is the key to discussion, and you just missed it. Please try to engage my contention now. Also, science is based on data -- all sorts of data. As it stands, it appears that there is extremely weak observational data that certain areas have little to no cancer. Dean Burk claims that there is lots of animal data on laetrile's efficacy. There's a claim that a scientist tested the laetrile used in the Moertel study and found that it had no amygdalin, and another claim that the form was inactive. These are all scientifically relevant if true, although they may come from unreliable sources.

The particularly interesting claim is the one about "isoamygdalin". This link, purportedly a copy of a Krebs paper, states that passing off isoamygdalin as the functioning amygdalin is "indefensible", and Whitaker claims that Moertel used isoamygdalin. I've emailed Edzard Ernst, requesting that he check out this section of the talk page. Hopefully he will. II | (t - c) 23:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've taken such a defensive stand on the matter, I wasn't contesting the use of Dean Burk or attempting to discredit him. I was simply stating the the principles of scientific method are not based on proving something wrong, but proving something to be factually true. I believe you were the one who stated the way to quash quackery is to refute, which is not the role of mainstream medicine (science). I also stated that there is a need to explain the history and current accepted state of laetrile as a cancer-treatment drug. Clear evidence by well-funded studies has thus far demonstrated the lack of usefulness of this product and describes the inherent danger of its use. If there is a body of research printed in peer-reviewed journals that supports the use of laetrile as a cancer treatment drug, it should definitely be presented here. If it does not meet these qualifications, it does not meet wikipedia's qualifications. When I have a chance I will take a closer look at some of the links you've presented, but a quick peak at the first ones you posted did not provide abstracts or articles from peer-reviewed sources, or at least I didn't find them. Halogenated (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This link [[5]] is not acceptable, it lists no sources. Neither is this: [[6]] which bases most of it's info off the fallacious statement that laetrile is vitamin B17 and cancer is a metabolic disease, a theory that is not accepted by the medical research community. It also seems to use cherry picked articles to support it's claims.

In fact, it appears all the web sites you have listed are either unsourced, cherry picked, or contain possibly verifiable information that does not meet peer-reviewed standards. These do not meet wikipedia WP:SPS standards which states: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".

Once again these are the same sources that have been brought up over and over. Whether they are accurate or true or not is entirely irrelevant. They are not considered trust-worthy sources by wikipedia standards, and therefore cannot be used to make statements of fact. If you wish to dispute this, we can bring an admin into this discussion if you like.Halogenated (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that while Dean Burk appears a very credible individual with a long history of contributions to biochemistry, unless he has publications r.e. laetrile in acceptable sources, they can not be considered verifiable either. Many great scientists chose research paths later in life that proved unfruitful or even questionable - their previous reputation does not necessarily provide them with unquestioned authority on a topic. Halogenated (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think when you say verifiable, you mean "reliable". You're arguing that when SPS says an expert self-publishes, they may be cited if they've already published in the exact area, when I'm inclined to think that when a prolific, high-profile cancer researcher self-publishes on a controversial cancer treatment, his previous cancer publications allow him to be considered reliable.

Anyway, I already said that the only source that appears halfway reliable is Dean Burk. I never said he was accurate or right, but he seems verifiable and reliable. Still, it would be nice to find a paper engaging some of these other claims. Laetrile - the answer for Cancer by James South is a relatively well-referenced article on the academic laetrile advocates, although still unreliably self-published. It cites a 1970 paper by Dean Burk in Aggressologie, as well as other cancer researchers that the paper calls "world-class" (most of them are probably sketchy). II | (t - c) 19:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The main problem immediately apparent with this web page that makes it automatically suspect and unusable is that it is a "alternative" pharmacy, that has your wallet, and not health, as it's primary concern. The article by James South has a number of references, some of which appear to come from peer-reviewed journals, but those particular references appear to have nothing to do with laetrile as a cancer treatment. Instead, they supply other info to build background, or in one instance discuss laetrile toxicity in dogs (Schmidt, E. et al (1978) "Laetrile toxicily (sic) studies in dogs" JAMA 239: 943-47.). The remaining references are either from self-published materials, non-peer reviewed journals, or are too old to be significant compared to 4-9 decades and billions of dollars worth of research later. In 1960 they barely understood what DNA was, nevermind genetics as we now know it, something inextricably linked to cancer. Case studies from the early 1900s are not a good example of verifiable research, and case studies are generally disregarded as scientifically credible. And by verifiable I mean the results are able to be confirmed and repeated by other experts in the field (e.g. through peer-reviewed publishing).

I can't find the abstract for the article from Burk [[7]], and can only find that it is cited in one article. This kind of web page is completely unacceptable I'm afraid, whether it is in truth accurate or not. Halogenated (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty concerning Steve McQueen's death

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)

The section mentions nothing of his death being related to amygdalin, nor does it infer this. It is in the article strictly because it highlights the type of attention received by amygdalin at the time. I removed your addition because it contains no citation despite the apparent specificity of the information. After reading the Steve McQueen wiki entry, and following the reference to this there, it provides a less detailed description of the death. The actual cause of death is not mentioned. Several other sources on the web mention a heart attack, but none provide a primary source. Regardless, I will add a note clarifying that his death was attributed to a heart attack following surgery to remove the tumour.Halogenated (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias in the Article

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 would like to add that the statement "Amygdalin was first isolated in 1830. In 1845 it was used for cancer in Russia, and again in the 1920s in the United States, but it was considered too poisonous." has no reference and thus has no place here in this article.Grizzedram (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The researcher, Suigara, was blinded as to which animals were receiving treatment. Read Ward's 1977 Science article. What studies are you referring to? None were added by the edits I reverted; a book by Griffith was added, and I don't mind adding it again as long as you're careful to attribute his claims. II | (t - c) 17:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We actually do cite some specific clinical trials of this compound. Just because it's now generally regarded as unsafe and/or ineffective in the US doesn't mean it wasn't tested somewhere else or some time ago. See refs 3-5. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is that this article makes it seem as if the question is done and answered, when in actuality there are a lot of questions still, and a lot of conclusions drawn have been misrepresented. See the original comment about the Cochrane Test for an example. I tried to edit it earlier today to reflect the actual conclusion of the article in a more neutral way but it was undone because it was an unexplained change or something. I thought it was rather self-explanatory, but I'm new here so I figured I'd try this route instead of mass editing.

For instance, every single trial that Suigara did at Sloan-Kettering had positive results (including the blind one whose results were discounted because by a certain time in the study Suigara was able to identify the population of mice which had gotten the treatment), except the last one which was double-blinded with mixed populations. In previous blind tests groups were kept separate so that while Suigara wouldn't know which group was getting treatment, he would know that he is injecting the correct mice every time. Blindness in a study with mice in and of itself is useless, but we can leave it for now. The problem with a mixed population double blind in mice is that it's impossible for the lab technicians to tell them apart, so in all probability all of the mice got a partial treatment. As reported, the saline did a better job at stopping cancer than the laetrile (40 vs 27), which reeks of bad procedure, since saline is used as IV liquid precisely because it doesn't affect tumor growth. Never will a treatment be worse than absolutely nothing. At worst, the treatment will be ineffective and on par with the saline solution. All of this is referenced by the Griffin book, which contains in it all primary sources.

As soon as I fish out the book again I will write more studies with references, but a good place to start is http://www.mednat.org/cancro/JAMES_SOUTH.pdf

I think for now something to concentrate on is the Cochrane Report statement and either putting what I edited earlier back in or rewriting it, and I believe the entire paragraph about Kanematsu Sugiura's studies should be rewritten as well, since it's rather fractured.

Final note- Skepticism goes both ways, on the advocates and the critics. 91.46.79.220 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So if no one has a problem with it then I'm gonna change the Cochrane Review statement to something more neutral. (If you read the report, they never say "and that there is considerable doubt about its safety" or even imply it. 91.46.123.68 (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"One stomach cancer patient showed a decrease in tumor size, which was maintained for 10 weeks while the patient was on amygdalin therapy. In about half of the patients, cancer had grown at the end of the treatment. Cancer had grown in all patients 7 months after completing treatment. Some patients reported an improvement in their ability to work or do other activities, and other patients said their symptoms improved. These improvements, however, did not last after treatment ended." is from the NCI report, not "1982 trial of 178 patients found that tumor size had increased in all patients." That is a misleading statement.

I'm going to change it to say "A 1982 study found that while on Amygdalin therapy patients symptoms improved, though once taken off therapy the improvements didn't last. One patient's tumor decreased in size, and the rest either had no size change or increased." Grizzedram (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cancer Treatment

I think the section should be divided into two:

Cancer Treatment

Evidence Against Cancer Treatment

Evidence For Cancer Treatment Grizzedram (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)