Reading List

Regarding the clinical benefits of laetril for cancer:

"I believe the evidence for the distortion of clinical data relating to
its use in cancer subjects is of concern. How effective B17 *could* be
in treating cancer is largely unknown."

Then consider this abstract and see if your belief remains the same. As
a point of curiosity, based on a negative belief you gave support for a
book praising laetrile?

'Laetrile for cancer: a systematic review of the clinical evidence'

"BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients treated with conventional therapies
also try 'alternative' cancer treatments. Laetrile is one such
'alternative' that is claimed to be effective by many
alternative therapists. Laetrile is also sometimes referred to as
amygdalin, although the two are not the same.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this
review is to summarize all types of clinical data related to
the effectiveness or safety of laetrile interventions as a treatment
of any type of cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: All types of
clinical studies containing original clinical data of laetrile
interventions were included. We searched the Cochrane Central
Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1951),
EMBASE (from 1980), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED),
Scirus, CancerLit, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied
Health (CINAHL; all from 1982), CAMbase (from 1998), the MetaRegister,
the National Research Register, and our own files. For reports
on
the safety of laetrile, we also searched the Uppsala database.
No language restrictions were imposed.

RESULTS: Thirty six reports met our inclusion criteria. No controlled
clinical trials were found. Three articles were nonconsecutive case
series, 2 were consecutive case series, 6 were best case series, and 25
were case reports. None of these publications proved the effectiveness
of laetrile.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects
for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data.

wrote:
Regarding the clinical benefits of laetril for cancer:

"I believe the evidence for the distortion of clinical data relating to
its use in cancer subjects is of concern. How effective B17 *could* be
in treating cancer is largely unknown."

Then consider this abstract and see if your belief remains the same. As
a point of curiosity, based on a negative belief you gave support for a
book praising laetrile?

I do not subscribe to your term "negative belief." I reference
Griffin's book because in it he documents examples of "...dishonesty
and corruption in the field of drug research; a close look at the first
major study which declared Laetrile (vitamin B17) "of no value;"' proof
that the study was fraudulent; the FDA's ruling against the use of
Laetrile because it had not been tested; and the refusal then to allow
anyone (except its opponents) to test it..."

'Laetrile for cancer: a systematic review of the clinical evidence'

"BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients treated with conventional therapies
also try 'alternative' cancer treatments. Laetrile is one such
'alternative' that is claimed to be effective by many
alternative therapists. Laetrile is also sometimes referred to as
amygdalin, although the two are not the same.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this
review is to summarize all types of clinical data related to
the effectiveness or safety of laetrile interventions as a treatment
of any type of cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: All types of
clinical studies containing original clinical data of laetrile
interventions were included. We searched the Cochrane Central
Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1951),
EMBASE (from 1980), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED),
Scirus, CancerLit, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied
Health (CINAHL; all from 1982), CAMbase (from 1998), the MetaRegister,
the National Research Register, and our own files. For reports
on
the safety of laetrile, we also searched the Uppsala database.
No language restrictions were imposed.

RESULTS: Thirty six reports met our inclusion criteria. No controlled
clinical trials were found. Three articles were nonconsecutive case
series, 2 were consecutive case series, 6 were best case series, and 25
were case reports. None of these publications proved the effectiveness
of laetrile.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects
for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data.

"Absence of Proof does not Constitute Proof of Absence." I believe
Griffin is right that in the absence of proper science, we can't
discount the possible benefits of Laetrile. His book is a very
interesting read, and well documented. Everyone should read it.

PeterB

Richard Schultz wrote:
In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:

: I believe the evidence for the distortion of clinical data relating to
: its use in cancer subjects is of concern. How effective B17 *could* be
: in treating cancer is largely unknown.

According to the National Cancer Institute, (http://tinyurl.com/v4lqm),
there have only been two clinical studies of laetrile. The Phase I
trial reported few side effects (except for one person who developed
symptoms of cyanide poisoning after eating almonds).

In 1982, a phase II study with 175 patients looked at which
types of cancer might benefit from treatment with amygdalin.
Most of the patients in this study had breast, colon, or lung
cancer. Amygdalin was given by injection for 21 days, followed
by oral maintenance therapy using doses and procedures similar
to those in the phase I study. Vitamins and pancreatic enzymes
were also given as part of a metabolic therapy program that also
included dietary changes. 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.

I'd say that 1 out of 175 is a fairly good indication of how effective
laetrile is -- or rather, is not.

For someone who claims to have no affiliation to the drug makers (never
mind your TEVA award), you certainly have a lot to say about the
alternatives. Griffin's book documents the use of laetrile by several
US doctors whose cancer patients survived much longer than those
conventionally treated. He also discusses, and fully documents, the
politics of actions by FDA in making further research on this substance
impossible.

PeterB

""Absence of Proof does not Constitute Proof of Absence." I believe
Griffin is right that in the absence of proper science, we can't
discount the possible benefits of Laetrile. His book is a very
interesting read, and well documented. Everyone should read it."

Leaving the many points about the process of science aside expressed
above we can look at another abstract for more definitive information.
That question has also been asked and answered, after reading this you
should probably reconsider your belief about laetrile based soley on
your own criteria:

'Alternative cancer cures: "unproven" or "disproven"?'

"Oncology has always coexisted with therapies offered outside of
conventional cancer treatment centers and based on theories not found in
biomedicine. These alternative cancer cures have often been described as
"unproven," suggesting that appropriate clinical trials have not been
conducted and that the therapeutic value of the treatment is unknown.

Contrary to much popular and scientific writing, many alternative cancer
treatments have been investigated in good quality clinical trials, and
they have been shown to be ineffective. In this article, clinical trial
data on a number of alternative cancer cures including
Livingston-Wheeler, Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C,
hydrazine sulfate, Laetrile, and psychotherapy are reviewed. The label
"unproven" is inappropriate for such therapies; it is time to assert
that many alternative cancer therapies have been "disproven.""

"Griffin's book documents the use of laetrile by several US doctors
whose cancer patients survived much longer than those conventionally
treated. He also discusses, and fully documents, the politics of
actions by FDA in making further research on this substance impossible."

No doubt many of those "several doctors" were in the first study
provided you. The kind of anecdotal data the doctor has in his book is
typical of the studies in the first abstract. On the scale of
"evidence" anecdotal data is at or near the bottom of the list in
science. At very very best it is suggestive but no more.

The second abstract, just posted, looks at research using accepted
scientific methods on the substance. The fda does not prevent research
on it, just doctors claiming benefit and using it; which is not research
but clinical application.

Too much "proof" for "alternative drugs" is based only on fda bashing,
it must stand on its own merits using the exact same proceedures all
potential drugs do. Even if the fda did not exist, the science for this
"alternative drug" is not there.

wrote:
"Griffin's book documents the use of laetrile by several US doctors
whose cancer patients survived much longer than those conventionally
treated. He also discusses, and fully documents, the politics of
actions by FDA in making further research on this substance impossible."

No doubt many of those "several doctors" were in the first study
provided you. The kind of anecdotal data the doctor has in his book is
typical of the studies in the first abstract. On the scale of
"evidence" anecdotal data is at or near the bottom of the list in
science. At very very best it is suggestive but no more.

You obviously know little about the nature of scientific study and
research. Science is built on anecdotal evidence and continues to
germinate new ideas there. Very few phytochemical compounds submitted
for medical research have had as auspicious a start as Laetrile. Very
few have died as sure a death at the hands of FDA without good cause.


The second abstract, just posted, looks at research using accepted
scientific methods on the substance. The fda does not prevent research
on it, just doctors claiming benefit and using it; which is not research
but clinical application.

So if FAA grounds a plane but allow passengers to board they are still
going to get somewhwere? Don't make me laugh.

Too much "proof" for "alternative drugs" is based only on fda bashing,
it must stand on its own merits using the exact same proceedures all
potential drugs do. Even if the fda did not exist, the science for this
"alternative drug" is not there.

Neither your conclusion nor your premise are valid. The existence of
FDA is not evidence that drugs cure cancer (they don't), and the
absence of proof doesn't constitute proof that Laetrile can not. You
layer non sequiturs like bricks on a window sill.

PeterB

wrote:
""Absence of Proof does not Constitute Proof of Absence." I believe
Griffin is right that in the absence of proper science, we can't
discount the possible benefits of Laetrile. His book is a very
interesting read, and well documented. Everyone should read it."

Leaving the many points about the process of science aside expressed
above we can look at another abstract for more definitive information.
That question has also been asked and answered, after reading this you
should probably reconsider your belief about laetrile based soley on
your own criteria:

'Alternative cancer cures: "unproven" or "disproven"?'

"Oncology has always coexisted with therapies offered outside of
conventional cancer treatment centers and based on theories not found in
biomedicine. These alternative cancer cures have often been described as
"unproven," suggesting that appropriate clinical trials have not been
conducted and that the therapeutic value of the treatment is unknown.

Contrary to much popular and scientific writing, many alternative cancer
treatments have been investigated in good quality clinical trials, and
they have been shown to be ineffective. In this article, clinical trial
data on a number of alternative cancer cures including
Livingston-Wheeler, Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C,
hydrazine sulfate, Laetrile, and psychotherapy are reviewed. The label
"unproven" is inappropriate for such therapies; it is time to assert
that many alternative cancer therapies have been "disproven.""

Science is not about proof, but evidence. You have not demonstrated
sufficient evidence to make your case against Laetrile. Griffin's book
aptly discusses *why* the quality of evidence accumulated against
Laetrile is not only insufficient, but in some cases, quite inept.

PeterB

"Science is not about proof, but evidence. You have not demonstrated
sufficient evidence to make your case against Laetrile. Griffin's book
aptly discusses *why* the quality of evidence accumulated against
Laetrile is not only insufficient, but in some cases, quite inept."

Of course it has no legs to stand on in the least. In the first
abstract a look at the material presented in support of it was found not
to do so in fact. The pro folk were found inept, with that we can
agree.

Then you wanted to see examples where valid science was used to test the
claims it makes because the above supporters claims were inept. The
second abstract talked of the results of those tests which used all the
usual standards in research. The claims were not supported.

Word play about "proof" and "evidence" will not serve. Fda bashing is
not either, despite it being what you say the author offers. Science
bashing also fails to support the claims made of this "alternative
drug", which your remarks also suggest is another of the author's tacts.

The claims must stand or fall on their own merit. To date all the
attempts by the advocates are inept, to use your word. The attempts to
not be inept failed to support the claims. What you "believe" is your
concern.

I see you are not in fact familiar with the literature on this subject,
relying on a book whose greatest strength is agreeing with your
preconcieved notions before even reading it. Agreeing with an author is
also neither "proof" nor "evidence". Which in light of a lack of any
other information leaves your "belief" also unsupported.

"Neither your conclusion nor your premise are valid. The existence of
FDA is not evidence that drugs cure cancer (they don't), and the absence
of proof doesn't constitute proof that Laetrile can not. You layer non
sequiturs like bricks on a window sill."

If that be so then it is at your direction. I purposly let you lead me
in the points. For each point you made an answer directly addressing it
was made. The nostrum has been tested using the methods all research
follows and it fluncked. It is not uncommon that most attempts at
finding drugs that work and are safe also flunck so this is no big deal.

Note that I have not in any of this asked you to support by evidence any
of your claims, it has been your show on your terms and the failure for
your belief to prevail is then your work product only.

I now also see what others have observed, when unable to support with
sound science your notions then backpeddling into word play is the
thing. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you might have some
serious contribution in this discussion. I see now my openmindedness
was misplaced.

wrote:
"Science is not about proof, but evidence. You have not demonstrated
sufficient evidence to make your case against Laetrile. Griffin's book
aptly discusses *why* the quality of evidence accumulated against
Laetrile is not only insufficient, but in some cases, quite inept."

Of course it has no legs to stand on in the least. In the first
abstract a look at the material presented in support of it was found not
to do so in fact.

The range of evidence requires a more considered view. The study of
Laetrile (amygdalin) has been fraugh with conflict of interest, and
Griffin's book makes the case that a "lights out" reaction by FDA and
others have demonstrated a political context for the prohibition
against its use in further human trials. Whether Laetrile is capable
of displacing the majority of chemotherapy drugs remains in doubt, but
it seems to be a distinct possibility. Stated Dr. Dean Burk, Chief of
the Cytochemistry Division of the National Cancer Institute, March 22,
1974: "My analysis and conclusions differ diametrically from those of
the Southern Research and National Cancer Institute reports, wherein it
is concluded that amygdalin "does not possess activity in the Lewis
lung carcinoma system." My analysis of the data is that it is
overwhelmingly positive." He wasn't alone in saying so.

The pro folk were found inept, with that we can
agree.

Not true. Scientists look at the quality of the evidence, and the
evidence for Laetrile (particularly as an adjunctive therapy) has been
fairly good. I do not agree that sufficiently good science on its use
should be discarded simply because the available evidence is not
universally positive. In no branch of science (other than mathematics)
are we afforded the luxury of axiomatic declarations, ie., "proofs."
There is zero evidence for the use of chemotherapy in most cancers, but
it continues to be used ineffectively and at tremendous expense to
patients (read: profits for the drug makers.)

Then you wanted to see examples where valid science was used to test the
claims it makes because the above supporters claims were inept.

"Begging the question," are we? Neither your premise nor your
conclusions are proven. The claims of "supporters" of Laetrile are
simply the presentation of scientific evidence derived from a valid
application of the scientific method, which you refute. Such an
irrational position is more about ideology (read: industry groupthink),
than science.

The
second abstract talked of the results of those tests which used all the
usual standards in research. The claims were not supported.

One study cannot be the basis for prohibition against further clinical
trials. If that were the case, cigarette smoking would still be
presumed safe today.

Word play about "proof" and "evidence" will not serve.

Neither will the neophyte's view that counter evidence is definitive.
That is not how science works. It is not how scientists think.

Fda bashing is
not either, despite it being what you say the author offers. Science
bashing also fails to support the claims made of this "alternative
drug", which your remarks also suggest is another of the author's tacts.

False. Griffin documents the complicity of political interests and the
fact that science is (often) only as good as its funding source. For
instance, Dr. Cason of the University of California, Berkeley, stated
at the time that Mayo Clinic used a compound containing no amygdalin
whatsoever. It was scandalous, and the American public should know
that such corruption in the medical community continues to this day.

The claims must stand or fall on their own merit.

Tell your sponsors to permit the research necessary to determine the
value of nutritional substances in human health and the "merits" will
be known. After several decades of ineffective chemotherapy in the
majority of cancers, we have ample evidence that these prohibitions are
profit driven.

To date all the
attempts by the advocates are inept, to use your word. The attempts to
not be inept failed to support the claims. What you "believe" is your
concern.

That chemo is ineffective in the majority of cancers, despite its use
in such patients, contrasts sharply to the limited evidence that
Laetrile may well be more effective in such cases. Both views are
supported (in unequal but meaningful measure) by the available
evidence. What I believe has nothing to do with it.

I see you are not in fact familiar with the literature on this subject,
relying on a book whose greatest strength is agreeing with your
preconcieved notions before even reading it. Agreeing with an author is
also neither "proof" nor "evidence". Which in light of a lack of any
other information leaves your "belief" also unsupported.

Your rant belies your ties to industry. But don't worry, Laetrile is
the least of your worries.

PeterB