Reading List

wrote:
"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.

The evidence that Laetrile "fluncked" is highly suspect.

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.

Rather, the fact you cannot respond credibly to the evidence presented
in Griffin's book is quite telling.

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.

Don't ever let anyone tell you that you are open minded. If they do,
it's a joke.

PeterB

In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:

: 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.

No doubt you can provide us with the reference, given that a Google search
for "Dean Burk" and "analysis and conclusions" turns up zero hits.

On the other hand, a search for "Dean Burk" (better known among chemists
for his work on enzyme kinetics and being one of the inventors of the
eponymous "Lineweaver-Burk plot") will eventually lead you to
http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60331883.html, which contains a transcript
of a 1969 conversation with Carl G. Baker, the acting director of the NCI.
Burk administered amygdalin plus a "beta-glucosidase enzyme preparation"
as an anti-cancer treatment. According to Barker,

He has also done a few experiments _in vivo_ in tumor-
bearing mice and rats, though by his own admission,
insufficient numbers to draw statistically valid conclusions
in these whole animal experiments. . . . In all of these
experiments, no indication of toxicity nor anti-tumor
effects were noted when amygadlin alone was given. . . . On
the other hand, when beta-glucosidase preparations (usually
derived from plant sources) were administered, several
biological responses were detectable. . . . It is further
claimed that these preparations, with the beta-glucosidase
given IP sometime before the administration of the amygdalin,
produce anti-tumor effects. . . . I asked Dr. Burk if he
knew of any soundly conducted clinical trials work with any of
the substances called "Laetrile," and he said he did not know
of any, though, several thousand patients have been treated
with the substance. He apparently is impressed that several
patients have shown improvement following treatment. I indicated
that it was well known in clinical work that this kind of
information (i.e., reports of some patients showing improvements
in uncontrolled studies) was totally unreliable in indicating
whether a substance was of clinical value. . . . I said I
wondered why, in view of the completely negative findings with
adminstration of amygalin alone in animals, anyone would want to
administer the material to man. I never got a clear answer
to this question. (pp. 2-3)

: Not true. Scientists look at the quality of the evidence, and the
: evidence for Laetrile (particularly as an adjunctive therapy) has been
: fairly good.

There was one Phase II trial, and one out of 175 patients improved.
I do not call that "good" evidence for the effectiveness of Laetrile.

: 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.)

What precisely is your evidence for this remarkable statement (assuming
that by "use" you mean "effectiveness")? Oh, I forgot -- you don't
believe that you actually need any evidence for any of your claims.

: "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.

The evidence thus far presented has uniformly indicated that Laetrile
is not an effective treatment against cancer.

: For instance, Dr. Cason of the University of California, Berkeley, stated
: at the time that Mayo Clinic used a compound containing no amygdalin
: whatsoever.

Leaving aside the moment the issue of the logical fallacy of "argument
from authority," the same web page from which you got that claim reports
that someone else (Willner IIRC) said that the Mayo Clinic study used
a racemic mixture rather than a pure enantiomer. Which is it? And how
does a 50/50 mixture of the effective and the ineffective form reduce its
effectiveness to 10%?

[the rest of PeterB's rant deleted]


-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_

"The evidence that Laetrile "fluncked" is highly suspect."

Ah, see you have been doing a bit of googleing. Recall, the batch of
"studies" done by the pro folk was judged correctly by you as "inept".
The full blown scientific testing showing no effect is now suspect is
it? Would that be the conclusion on some pro web site? Did you consult
directly the studies so you can speak first hand or were happy to find
information matching the results you sought?

"Rather, the fact you cannot respond credibly to the evidence presented
in Griffin's book is quite telling."

Smile, how can it be telling when you read it and I did't not. As
before, it was your show, you posed the questions based on the book and
I responded with research addressing it speciffically. Your reliance on
the second and third hand of propagandists is telling and even more so
that you find it valid because it matches previously held conclusions
you had even before reading the book. You are in no position to
evaluate the validity of his remarks, only how warm and tingling it left
you.

"Don't ever let anyone tell you that you are open minded. If they do,
it's a joke."

I'm open minded in the direction the valid data leads, some people are
so "open minded" their brains leak out.

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

: 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.

No doubt you can provide us with the reference, given that a Google search
for "Dean Burk" and "analysis and conclusions" turns up zero hits.

No doubt you cannot manage to tie your own shoes. I would ask whether
you bothered to read Griffin's book, but the answer is painfully
obvious. Perhaps a class in Google search techniques would help.
Meanwhile, try searching for another positional statement by Dr. Burk:
"When we add laetrile (amygdalin) to a cancer culture under the
microscope, providing the enzyme glucosidase also is present, we can
see the cancer cells dying off like flies."

On the other hand, a search for "Dean Burk" (better known among chemists
for his work on enzyme kinetics and being one of the inventors of the
eponymous "Lineweaver-Burk plot") will eventually lead you to
http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60331883.html, which contains a transcript
of a 1969 conversation with Carl G. Baker, the acting director of the NCI.
Burk administered amygdalin plus a "beta-glucosidase enzyme preparation"
as an anti-cancer treatment. According to Barker,

He has also done a few experiments _in vivo_ in tumor-
bearing mice and rats, though by his own admission,
insufficient numbers to draw statistically valid conclusions
in these whole animal experiments. . . . In all of these
experiments, no indication of toxicity nor anti-tumor
effects were noted when amygadlin alone was given. . . . On
the other hand, when beta-glucosidase preparations (usually
derived from plant sources) were administered, several
biological responses were detectable. . . . It is further
claimed that these preparations, with the beta-glucosidase
given IP sometime before the administration of the amygdalin,
produce anti-tumor effects. . . . I asked Dr. Burk if he
knew of any soundly conducted clinical trials work with any of
the substances called "Laetrile," and he said he did not know
of any, though, several thousand patients have been treated
with the substance. He apparently is impressed that several
patients have shown improvement following treatment. I indicated
that it was well known in clinical work that this kind of
information (i.e., reports of some patients showing improvements
in uncontrolled studies) was totally unreliable in indicating
whether a substance was of clinical value. . . . I said I
wondered why, in view of the completely negative findings with
adminstration of amygalin alone in animals, anyone would want to
administer the material to man. I never got a clear answer
to this question. (pp. 2-3)

I never get a clear answer why the same rationale, applied to
chemotherapy after decades of ineffective use in the absence of
controlled study, is somehow a case for the use of these highly toxic
drugs in the majority of cancers. There are, in fact, positive animal
studies using amygdalin in diseased tissue, without which further
trials in human study would never have occured. The highly-published
Kanematsu Sugiura worked a number of experiments in the early 1970s to
show the effects (if any) of amygdalin in mice with spontaneous mammary
tumors. He advised his colleagues at Sloan-Kettering, saying "results
clearly show that amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of
lung metastases in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and
increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary
tumor over the appearance of inhibition in the untreated animals."
[ref. Culliton, B.J. (1973) "Sloan-Kettering: The THals of an Apricot
Pit - 1973" Science 182: 1000-03.]

: Not true. Scientists look at the quality of the evidence, and the
: evidence for Laetrile (particularly as an adjunctive therapy) has been
: fairly good.

There was one Phase II trial, and one out of 175 patients improved.
I do not call that "good" evidence for the effectiveness of Laetrile.

I could cull individual studies on any subject and support any position
of my choosing. For instance, the carcinogenic properties of cigarette
smoking were shown to be harmless in much of the early "science"
sponsored by the tobacco companies. Griffin's book, in fact, documents
the historical relationship between spokemen for the tobacco industry
and FDA rhetoric on the need to suspend clinical trials using Laetrile.

: 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.)

What precisely is your evidence for this remarkable statement (assuming
that by "use" you mean "effectiveness")? Oh, I forgot -- you don't
believe that you actually need any evidence for any of your claims.

The burden of proof for the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals lies
with the drug makers, pharmboy. If chemotherapy were effective against
most cancer (lung cancer, for instance), it would have made the news.
Ever watch the news, Scholtzie?

: "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.

The evidence thus far presented has uniformly indicated that Laetrile
is not an effective treatment against cancer.

Not only is the evidence insufficient, there is nothing uniform about
it.

: For instance, Dr. Cason of the University of California, Berkeley, stated
: at the time that Mayo Clinic used a compound containing no amygdalin
: whatsoever.

Leaving aside the moment the issue of the logical fallacy of "argument
from authority," the same web page from which you got that claim reports
that someone else (Willner IIRC) said that the Mayo Clinic study used
a racemic mixture rather than a pure enantiomer. Which is it? And how
does a 50/50 mixture of the effective and the ineffective form reduce its
effectiveness to 10%?

Ask your friends at TEVA (you know, the guys who recognized you for
*not* representing the interests of industry -- wink/wink.)

[the rest of PeterB's rant deleted]

Readers should note that the tree-slapping Scholtzie was unable to
provide risk-adjusted outcomes for any of the 35 prescription drugs in
my earlier challenge. What kind of pharmboy is that? Oh, my bad.
What kind of pharmboy doesn't want his kibble?

PeterB

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

: 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.

No doubt you can provide us with the reference, given that a Google search
for "Dean Burk" and "analysis and conclusions" turns up zero hits.

No doubt you cannot manage to tie your own shoes. I would ask whether
you bothered to read Griffin's book, but the answer is painfully
obvious. Perhaps a class in Google search techniques would help.
Meanwhile, try searching for another positional statement by Dr. Burk:
"When we add laetrile (amygdalin) to a cancer culture under the
microscope, providing the enzyme glucosidase also is present, we can
see the cancer cells dying off like flies."

Well, duh....when one adds glucosidase to laetrile the laetrile releases
the only active ingredient it has: cyanide. No wonder the cells died
off. They were given the Bird Man Treatment.

On the other hand, a search for "Dean Burk" (better known among chemists
for his work on enzyme kinetics and being one of the inventors of the
eponymous "Lineweaver-Burk plot") will eventually lead you to
http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60331883.html, which contains a transcript
of a 1969 conversation with Carl G. Baker, the acting director of the NCI.
Burk administered amygdalin plus a "beta-glucosidase enzyme preparation"
as an anti-cancer treatment. According to Barker,

He has also done a few experiments _in vivo_ in tumor-
bearing mice and rats, though by his own admission,
insufficient numbers to draw statistically valid conclusions
in these whole animal experiments. . . . In all of these
experiments, no indication of toxicity nor anti-tumor
effects were noted when amygadlin alone was given. . . . On
the other hand, when beta-glucosidase preparations (usually
derived from plant sources) were administered, several
biological responses were detectable. . . . It is further
claimed that these preparations, with the beta-glucosidase
given IP sometime before the administration of the amygdalin,
produce anti-tumor effects. . . . I asked Dr. Burk if he
knew of any soundly conducted clinical trials work with any of
the substances called "Laetrile," and he said he did not know
of any, though, several thousand patients have been treated
with the substance. He apparently is impressed that several
patients have shown improvement following treatment. I indicated
that it was well known in clinical work that this kind of
information (i.e., reports of some patients showing improvements
in uncontrolled studies) was totally unreliable in indicating
whether a substance was of clinical value. . . . I said I
wondered why, in view of the completely negative findings with
adminstration of amygalin alone in animals, anyone would want to
administer the material to man. I never got a clear answer
to this question. (pp. 2-3)

I never get a clear answer why the same rationale, applied to
chemotherapy after decades of ineffective use in the absence of
controlled study, is somehow a case for the use of these highly toxic
drugs in the majority of cancers. There are, in fact, positive animal
studies using amygdalin in diseased tissue, without which further
trials in human study would never have occured. The highly-published
Kanematsu Sugiura worked a number of experiments in the early 1970s to
show the effects (if any) of amygdalin in mice with spontaneous mammary
tumors. He advised his colleagues at Sloan-Kettering, saying "results
clearly show that amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of
lung metastases in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and
increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary
tumor over the appearance of inhibition in the untreated animals."
[ref. Culliton, B.J. (1973) "Sloan-Kettering: The THals of an Apricot
Pit - 1973" Science 182: 1000-03.]

: Not true. Scientists look at the quality of the evidence, and the
: evidence for Laetrile (particularly as an adjunctive therapy) has been
: fairly good.

There was one Phase II trial, and one out of 175 patients improved.
I do not call that "good" evidence for the effectiveness of Laetrile.

I could cull individual studies on any subject and support any position
of my choosing. For instance, the carcinogenic properties of cigarette
smoking were shown to be harmless in much of the early "science"
sponsored by the tobacco companies. Griffin's book, in fact, documents
the historical relationship between spokemen for the tobacco industry
and FDA rhetoric on the need to suspend clinical trials using Laetrile.

: 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.)

What precisely is your evidence for this remarkable statement (assuming
that by "use" you mean "effectiveness")? Oh, I forgot -- you don't
believe that you actually need any evidence for any of your claims.

The burden of proof for the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals lies
with the drug makers, pharmboy. If chemotherapy were effective against
most cancer (lung cancer, for instance), it would have made the news.
Ever watch the news, Scholtzie?

: "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.

The evidence thus far presented has uniformly indicated that Laetrile
is not an effective treatment against cancer.

Not only is the evidence insufficient, there is nothing uniform about
it.

: For instance, Dr. Cason of the University of California, Berkeley, stated
: at the time that Mayo Clinic used a compound containing no amygdalin
: whatsoever.

Leaving aside the moment the issue of the logical fallacy of "argument
from authority," the same web page from which you got that claim reports
that someone else (Willner IIRC) said that the Mayo Clinic study used
a racemic mixture rather than a pure enantiomer. Which is it? And how
does a 50/50 mixture of the effective and the ineffective form reduce its
effectiveness to 10%?

Ask your friends at TEVA (you know, the guys who recognized you for
*not* representing the interests of industry -- wink/wink.)

[the rest of PeterB's rant deleted]

Readers should note that the tree-slapping Scholtzie was unable to
provide risk-adjusted outcomes for any of the 35 prescription drugs in
my earlier challenge. What kind of pharmboy is that? Oh, my bad.
What kind of pharmboy doesn't want his kibble?

The above paragraph is the typical response of PatheticPetey when he has
nothing left to say.

Here's something quite current:

Support Care Cancer. 2006 Nov 15; [Epub ahead of print] Links
Laetrile for cancer: a systematic review of the clinical
evidence.Milazzo S, Lejeune S, Ernst E.
Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter
and Plymouth, Institute of Health and Social Care, 25 Victoria Park
Road, Exeter, EX2 4NT, UK, .

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.

PMID: 17106659 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

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

: : 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.

: No doubt you can provide us with the reference, given that a Google search
: for "Dean Burk" and "analysis and conclusions" turns up zero hits.

: No doubt you cannot manage to tie your own shoes. I would ask whether
: you bothered to read Griffin's book, but the answer is painfully
: obvious. Perhaps a class in Google search techniques would help.

Then give us the URL of the web page on which the above quote can be found.
Remember, *you* are the one who has claimed that anything that cannot be
found on the web should not be posted here.

: Meanwhile, try searching for another positional statement by Dr. Burk:
: "When we add laetrile (amygdalin) to a cancer culture under the
: microscope, providing the enzyme glucosidase also is present, we can
: see the cancer cells dying off like flies."

Maybe you should read the lengthy excerpt that I posted regarding his
"results" with amygdalin, followed by some investigation of the difference
between _in vitro_ and _in vivo_ results. Then you can tell us what
percentage of the people who administer amygdalin do so only in
conjunction with beta-glucosidase.

: On the other hand, a search for "Dean Burk" (better known among chemists
: for his work on enzyme kinetics and being one of the inventors of the
: eponymous "Lineweaver-Burk plot") will eventually lead you to
: http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60331883.html, which contains a transcript
: of a 1969 conversation with Carl G. Baker, the acting director of the NCI.

[excerpt deleted for space]

: bearing mice and rats, though by his own admission,
: I never get a clear answer why the same rationale, applied to
: chemotherapy after decades of ineffective use in the absence of
: controlled study, is somehow a case for the use of these highly toxic
: drugs in the majority of cancers.

You have yet to show that you understand what a "controlled study" is,
nor have you listed a single chemotherapeutic agent that was approved
for use in the absence of a controlled study, nor have you given any
references to your claim that chemotherapy is ineffective. That's
what is known in the trade as a "Trifecta."

: There are, in fact, positive animal
: studies using amygdalin in diseased tissue, without which further
: trials in human study would never have occured. The highly-published
: Kanematsu Sugiura worked a number of experiments in the early 1970s to
: show the effects (if any) of amygdalin in mice with spontaneous mammary
: tumors. He advised his colleagues at Sloan-Kettering, saying "results
: clearly show that amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of
: lung metastases in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and
: increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary
: tumor over the appearance of inhibition in the untreated animals."
: [ref. Culliton, B.J. (1973) "Sloan-Kettering: The THals of an Apricot
: Pit - 1973" Science 182: 1000-03.]

It's kind of funny how when *I* provide citations of that sort (to the
journal and pages), you claim that I am giving you far too much work to do.
It's less surprising that you failed to quote the part of the article that
said "Furthermore, an attempt to reproduce Sugiura's original results was
unsuccessful for reasons that remain uncertain." I guess that we should
ignore negative results when they differ from our notions of the correct ones.

: : Not true. Scientists look at the quality of the evidence, and the
: : evidence for Laetrile (particularly as an adjunctive therapy) has been
: : fairly good.
:
: There was one Phase II trial, and one out of 175 patients improved.
: I do not call that "good" evidence for the effectiveness of Laetrile.
:
: I could cull individual studies on any subject and support any position
: of my choosing.

Yes, but since only one study was done with anything approaching proper
controls, and that one study gave resoundingly negative results, neither
can you ignore it. Well, you can, but a person with an understanding
of how science is supposed to work cannot.

: The burden of proof for the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals lies
: with the drug makers, pharmboy. If chemotherapy were effective against
: most cancer (lung cancer, for instance), it would have made the news.
: Ever watch the news, Scholtzie?

It is true that there are some cancers that are unresponsive to chemotherapy
(small cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer). You cannot conclude from that
that chemotherapy is ineffective in general. You also have not defined
"effectiveness": if a drug extends the patient's life, was it "effective"?

: The evidence thus far presented has uniformly indicated that Laetrile
: is not an effective treatment against cancer.
:
: Not only is the evidence insufficient, there is nothing uniform about it.

That is because you have this rather unusual definition of "evidence."

: : For instance, Dr. Cason of the University of California, Berkeley, stated
: : at the time that Mayo Clinic used a compound containing no amygdalin
: : whatsoever.
:
: Leaving aside the moment the issue of the logical fallacy of "argument
: from authority," the same web page from which you got that claim reports
: that someone else (Willner IIRC) said that the Mayo Clinic study used
: a racemic mixture rather than a pure enantiomer. Which is it? And how
: does a 50/50 mixture of the effective and the ineffective form reduce its
: effectiveness to 10%?
:
: Ask your friends at TEVA (you know, the guys who recognized you for
: *not* representing the interests of industry -- wink/wink.)

In other words, you have no answer to the questions that I asked.

: Readers should note that the tree-slapping Scholtzie was unable to
: provide risk-adjusted outcomes for any of the 35 prescription drugs in
: my earlier challenge. What kind of pharmboy is that? Oh, my bad.
: What kind of pharmboy doesn't want his kibble?

I am still waiting for a response from you to my offer to mail you hard
copies of the articles that you said were too difficult for you to find.
I am still waiting for a response to the three yes or no questions that
I asked you.


-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_

In misc.health.alternative 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.

Where can I find his book on the web? You have already told us that
requiring people to go to the library is not acceptable.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:

: For someone who claims to have no affiliation to the drug makers (never
: mind your TEVA award),

Do you have any evidence that the award that I got from Teva is anything
other than what I claimed it to be, namely, a piece of paper that is
currently located somewhere in a closet in my apartment? Do you have
any evidence that I have received any financial support from any
pharmaceutical company or that I have any personal financial or scientific
interest in any pharmaceutical company?

: Griffin's book documents the use of laetrile by several US doctors whose
: cancer patients survived much longer than those conventionally treated.

For someone who is as fond as you are of pontificating about science, you
have a remarkably poor understanding of how science works. "Several US
doctors" is not a valid sample, especially since it's a self-selected sample.
Do you think that any doctor who tried laetrile and *failed* to get
positive results would be discussed in Griffin's book?

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"

In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:

: I never get a clear answer why the same rationale, applied to
: chemotherapy after decades of ineffective use. . .

Do you consider the use of paclitaxel (aka Taxol) for the treatment of
ovarian cancer to be an example of "chemotherapy"?

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

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

: : 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.

: No doubt you can provide us with the reference, given that a Google search
: for "Dean Burk" and "analysis and conclusions" turns up zero hits.

: No doubt you cannot manage to tie your own shoes. I would ask whether
: you bothered to read Griffin's book, but the answer is painfully
: obvious. Perhaps a class in Google search techniques would help.

Then give us the URL of the web page on which the above quote can be found.
Remember, *you* are the one who has claimed that anything that cannot be
found on the web should not be posted here.

That is not what I said, braniac. I said the content of a study
reference should be provided if it is not available to all readers for
convenient viewing. A quotation is referenced to the person who said
it, therefore my reference is sufficient. Your inability to properly
Google Burk's many comments on Laetrile is your own failing.

: Meanwhile, try searching for another positional statement by Dr. Burk:
: "When we add laetrile (amygdalin) to a cancer culture under the
: microscope, providing the enzyme glucosidase also is present, we can
: see the cancer cells dying off like flies."

Maybe you should read the lengthy excerpt that I posted regarding his
"results" with amygdalin, followed by some investigation of the difference
between _in vitro_ and _in vivo_ results. Then you can tell us what
percentage of the people who administer amygdalin do so only in
conjunction with beta-glucosidase.

Positive in vitro results are the basis for expanded clinical study,
otherwise there would be no cancer drugs at all. Your point is also
irrelevant to Griffin's discussion of FDA's political motivations in
prohibiting further study despite such evidence.

: On the other hand, a search for "Dean Burk" (better known among chemists
: for his work on enzyme kinetics and being one of the inventors of the
: eponymous "Lineweaver-Burk plot") will eventually lead you to
: http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60331883.html, which contains a transcript
: of a 1969 conversation with Carl G. Baker, the acting director of the NCI.

[excerpt deleted for space]

: I never get a clear answer why the same rationale, applied to
: chemotherapy after decades of ineffective use in the absence of
: controlled study, is somehow a case for the use of these highly toxic
: drugs in the majority of cancers.

You have yet to show that you understand what a "controlled study" is...

Evasion noted. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Provide the results of
controlled studies in randomized trials using chemo drugs across a
range of cancers. I already know you can't, because such data doesn't
exist.

nor have you listed a single chemotherapeutic agent that was approved
for use in the absence of a controlled study, nor have you given any
references to your claim that chemotherapy is ineffective. That's
what is known in the trade as a "Trifecta."

It's what is known as your inability to provide evidence supporting
your false claims. It is not the public's responsibility to prove that
these drugs are ineffective, pharmboy. It's your responsibility to
prove that they are.

: There are, in fact, positive animal
: studies using amygdalin in diseased tissue, without which further
: trials in human study would never have occured. The highly-published
: Kanematsu Sugiura worked a number of experiments in the early 1970s to
: show the effects (if any) of amygdalin in mice with spontaneous mammary
: tumors. He advised his colleagues at Sloan-Kettering, saying "results
: clearly show that amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of
: lung metastases in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and
: increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary
: tumor over the appearance of inhibition in the untreated animals."
: [ref. Culliton, B.J. (1973) "Sloan-Kettering: The THals of an Apricot
: Pit - 1973" Science 182: 1000-03.]

It's kind of funny how when *I* provide citations of that sort (to the
journal and pages), you claim that I am giving you far too much work to do.

Any scientific reference whose content (or at least whose abstract) is
accessible over the web is fine with me since all readers have access
to it. I never said otherwise.

It's less surprising that you failed to quote the part of the article that
said "Furthermore, an attempt to reproduce Sugiura's original results was
unsuccessful for reasons that remain uncertain." I guess that we should
ignore negative results when they differ from our notions of the correct ones.

Although one failed effort at reproducing another's result may point to
an unknown confounding factor, it does not mean the original study
results are not valid. You might have figured that out when reading
the words "...for reasons that remain uncertain."

: : Not true. Scientists look at the quality of the evidence, and the
: : evidence for Laetrile (particularly as an adjunctive therapy) has been
: : fairly good.
:
: There was one Phase II trial, and one out of 175 patients improved.
: I do not call that "good" evidence for the effectiveness of Laetrile.
:
: I could cull individual studies on any subject and support any position
: of my choosing.

Yes, but since only one study was done with anything approaching proper
controls...

How can you know whether proper controls were used, and what first hand
knowledge do you have of such controls? According to Griffin's review
of the facts (which you admit to having no knowledge of) a number of
questions remain concerning this study. The most alarming, in my view,
were statements by Dr. James Cason of University of California,
Berkeley, that infrared spectrophotometry showed the substance used in
the NCI study contained no amygdalin whatsoever.

, and that one study gave resoundingly negative results, neither
can you ignore it. Well, you can, but a person with an understanding
of how science is supposed to work cannot.

One study sponsored by bureacrats beholden to the drug makers does not
constitue the level of evidence real scientists are looking for. You
may believe that a single study is definitive, but that would suggest
you are either a simpleton, or a PR grunt representing the interests of
industry. Take your pick.

: The burden of proof for the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals lies
: with the drug makers, pharmboy. If chemotherapy were effective against
: most cancer (lung cancer, for instance), it would have made the news.
: Ever watch the news, Scholtzie?

It is true that there are some cancers that are unresponsive to chemotherapy
(small cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer). You cannot conclude from that
that chemotherapy is ineffective in general. You also have not defined
"effectiveness": if a drug extends the patient's life, was it "effective"?

Please do provide any startling new evidence that contradicts the
evaluation of medical experts, to wit:

"Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any
tumor,
with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure."
- Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p 901, "Medical Oncology in
the 90s"

"...chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers - testicular,
Hodgkin's, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. In most common solid
tumors - lung, colon, breast, etc. - chemotherapy is NOT curative."
- Dr. Jürgen Buche, Preventorium Institute

"Chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in
which it is given."
- Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering
Cancer Research Center.

: The evidence thus far presented has uniformly indicated that Laetrile
: is not an effective treatment against cancer.
:
: Not only is the evidence insufficient, there is nothing uniform about it.

That is because you have this rather unusual definition of "evidence."

The evidence, if it were pointing to the discovery of a new and
patentable drug, would be the stuff of "miracle cures" on the nightly
news on the heels of press stmts released by the drug makers.

: : For instance, Dr. Cason of the University of California, Berkeley, stated
: : at the time that Mayo Clinic used a compound containing no amygdalin
: : whatsoever.
:
: Leaving aside the moment the issue of the logical fallacy of "argument
: from authority," the same web page from which you got that claim reports
: that someone else (Willner IIRC) said that the Mayo Clinic study used
: a racemic mixture rather than a pure enantiomer. Which is it? And how
: does a 50/50 mixture of the effective and the ineffective form reduce its
: effectiveness to 10%?
:
: Ask your friends at TEVA (you know, the guys who recognized you for
: *not* representing the interests of industry -- wink/wink.)

In other words, you have no answer to the questions that I asked.

Any threshold for activity is unique to the drug in question. Are you
suggesting that a single study can ascertain the proper dosage for any
drug? Playing stupid just might work for you after all.

: Readers should note that the tree-slapping Scholtzie was unable to
: provide risk-adjusted outcomes for any of the 35 prescription drugs in
: my earlier challenge. What kind of pharmboy is that? Oh, my bad.
: What kind of pharmboy doesn't want his kibble?

I am still waiting for a response from you to my offer to mail you hard
copies of the articles that you said were too difficult for you to find.
I am still waiting for a response to the three yes or no questions that
I asked you.

Rather than phish for my address, pharmboy, feel free to scan and
upload the material in question so that all readers can see what you
are about. The fact you would rather package a bundle of documents and
mail them personally to me is more than enough evidence that what I say
about you is true. We both know I'm not your audience.

PeterB