Talk:Amygdalin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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 (

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. 

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)