Talk:Amygdalin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Conclusions

I do not bother to edit this crap any further just rate at minimum. I do not see what you can try to archive by undoing everything. Undoing all progress will not change de-facto opinion of any well educated reader that this article is crap as you can see from ratings. It lies about citations and text content clearly shows that writer lacks even basic chemistry education. User:GODhack —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC). It even claims one compound inside other if we talk about anecdotes. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by GODhack (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A self-proclaimed biochemist would certainly recognize the ideas of encapsulation or sequestration and later release or liberation of a bound active species. Wikipedia welcomes edits that are based on the principles of WP:RS and good science; all the ratings in the world mean nothing except that either that the article is still a work-in-progress (which by definition all articles are) but that nobody has stepped up to improve, and/or that the raters really don't understand the goals of Wikipedia itself. For many controversial topics, the latter is a major factor. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, otherwise we'd be just another spokes-orifice for whatever political opinion is in vogue today. DMacks (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "See Also" section.

"See Also" sections in articles are intended for links to other related Wikipedia articles and not simply other related info. Thus the summery of a related court case is not appropriate for the "see Also" section. It might be appropriate for either a "Further Reading" section or the relevance of this court case to Laetrile could be incorporated directly into the article. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issues in "Advocacy and legality" section

The tone and language used in the "Advocacy and legality" section is not in compliance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Looking at the first sentence: "Laetrile was proven clinically ineffective more than 30 years ago and is, generally, a quintessential example of what is often called "quackery". The use of the word "quintessential" is definitely not NPOV. If a notable person can be quoted as referring to is as "quintessential" then that would make it OK but otherwise it not the place of Wikipedia to pass judgement on how good an example of quackery it is. I think that is an example of quackery needs to have a source listed here as well as one that calls it "quintessential" or the word needs to be removed. Something along the lines of "...and is, generally, considered these days as an example of what is often called 'quackery'" would be more NPOV.

Now looking at the second sentence: "Nonetheless, laetrile retailers, and conspiracy theorists, continue to propagate a conspiracy narrative to dismiss the truth, suit their purposes, and swindle vulnerable members of the public.[33]". This suffers from the fact that it has Wikipedia claiming motives to the promotion of Laetrile that we are not in a position to state as fact for every promoter of the product. We don't know that every Laetrile support recognizes they advocacy as "dismissing the truth" or that they know they are "swindling vulnerable members of the public.". If there are Laetrile promoters out there that truly believe what they are promoting then they not swindlers in the proper sense of the word since they are not intentionally deceiving anyone but rather have been deceived themselves and/or are simply in denial. It's likely true that many Laetrile promoters are involved in a intentional con job but we can't make such a blanket statement about all of them.

Finely, lets look at the last sentence: "Ironically, the FDA & AMA crackdown, begun in the 1970s, effectively escalated prices on the black market, played into the conspiracy narrative, and helped unscrupulous profiteers foster multi-million dollar smuggling empires.[34][35][36]". The use of the word "ironically" is the main problem here as seems to me to have somewhat subjective connotations. Based on my understanding of the meaning of the term, I believe a it's possible for someone to disagree with the use of the word ironic to describe the situation surrounding the FDA crackdown as the term is not simply a descriptive term but include somewhat subjective elements.

So basically, the first three sentences of this section need to be rewritten to be NPOV. ---Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That laetrile is a canonical example of quackery is well sourced, and I added one. I edited the second sentence to restore a previous version, with more material cited to that source. I also removed the word "ironically" as I agree that doesn't really add much information to the reader. Yobol (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Any kind of human activity that seeks to perform one task yet accidentally performs the opposite can quite legitimately be labelled "ironic". Whether that is appropriate here in an article that is clearly already contentious is another matter. 58.164.89.114 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Laetrile in Fiction".

Many subjects in Wikipedia have an "in Fiction" section. Michael Crichton's "Andromeda Strain", which is already recognized in a number of places in Wikipedia and elsewhere as a significant work of science fiction, has a lengthy reference to Laetrile, exploring its (fictitious) cancer-curing properties. Is it appropriate to put that into the article? 58.164.89.114 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Kudos for having the good taste to mention this film -- an old favorite of mine from when I was a kid. However, this detail seems a bit too trivial, especially for a scientific (or pseudo-scientific) subject. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Natural occurrence

This article seems to focus a lot on it's chemistry and the medical discussion. It'd be good if it also included some more on it's natural occurrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.232.222 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • I agree. Apple seeds contain cyanide- is this in the same form as apricot kernals?*********** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.253.20 (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It is more or less the same, sorta-kinda (it is not actually cyanide in fact, but a precursor, but let that pass for now!) but the point is irrelevant either way. I could instance literally hundreds of dangerous compounds, some of nutritional value, some not, to be found naturally in various plants and animals, some rare, some relevant, some not. Let's see you match that... With a bit of trouble I probably could raise that to thousands. Natural doesn't mean safe, something to bear in mind next time you pet a Conus or a blue-ringed octopus, or chew a Ricinus communis or Datura stramonium seed, or swig a suspension of crocidolite. JonRichfield (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Any plants containing nitrilosides, and animal meat of those who eat the plants (to prevent cancer) also contain the substance. A reliable source may not exist that lists the over 1700 such plants. Oldspammer (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This article IS NOT neutral and should be entirely reworked to emphasize the chemical nature of this substance and NOT whether it is a cancer cure. It is fair to make clear the point that cyanide precursors are present in this food, as others have pointed out, like many others. There are plenty who claim that indigenous cultures used amygdalin and did not die from it. Similarly it's a known fact that Bill Clinton eats this substance. To portray an argument held by the US government is not the point of this resource. Let the information be unbiased- that is the point. People are trusting this for fact not opinions. Muzakr (talk • contribs) 03:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutral? How neutral can one get? How does one rework the article so that the question of whether amygdalin is a cancer cure does not come up? If we leave the matter out, the laetrile spammers and freaks set up a huge howl because you are muzzling them to favour the killjoys who in turn will complain that by failing to warn everyone we are playing into the hands of the fools, fanatics, crooks and quacks. We could make it really neutral by not having the article say anything meaningful at all, but then we would betray our commitment to inform people who need information and want information. That is a serious responsibility you know? If ever you feel a doubt about whether what you write in any article here is an exercise in erudite ego indulgence, look up almost any academic subject on google and see how often WP articles are on the first page; often right at the top -- together with all the confusion and bad workmanship that slips through. If that doesn't frustrate or unnerve you, I don't know what you are doing here.

OK, so I hope you can see why I insist on our saying whatever needs to be said, and saying it as well and convincingly as we can. That doesn't mean saying it so that no one complains, but so that the material is reasonable and verifiable. If the evidence is that laetrile or other amygdalin derivatives are worth squit as any kind of cancer treatment, then saying so may not sound neutral, but that doesn't relieve us of the responsibility of saying so with appropriate dispassion, references and reasoning in appropriate context. I don't know what principle you would invoke to forbid the discussion of the uses and hazards of a given substance, together with its chemical nature. What part of the chemical nature is missing from the current article, do you suppose? If you think that part of the discussion is deficient, well, this is a wiki remember? Roll up your sleeves and do some improving. Everyone whose heart is in the right place will applaud.

Bill Clinton eats it? Really? Well!!! That settles that I suppose. <siiiiiiigh!!!>

It is fair to make clear the point, you remark, that cyanide precursors are present in this food, as others have pointed out, like many others. Welllll... actually, I assume that you would like to rephrase that on reflection. Since when was amygdalin a food? (Don't even dream of representing it as vitamin XYZ; you would cut yourself off at the knees.) Conversely, pointing out that amygdalin is a cyanide precursor is not criticism as such. It does not constitute a claim that it is in any way undesirable or otherwise. (How much cyanocobalamin have you eaten lately? Any ill effects? Cyanocobalamin is a pure cyanide you know? One cyanide radical in every single molecule -- that is a flat guarantee! Have I ever lied to you before?) Nothing in the article claims that the caynide group in amygdalin is the reason for treating it with caution, nor even that that makes it useless as a cancer cure, whether eaten as a pure substance, as a plant product or as a synthetic. The hazard is that under certain relevant circumstances in relevant quantities amygdalin releases life-threatening quantities of intensely toxic cyanide compounds (largely HCN, not precursors), and it does so without any marked effect on cancer except when it renders the cancer irrelevant by killing the victim altogether. The article cites evidence from various sources, and no one has yet cited verifiable support for the contrary, nor any reason to expect any. (Whooopsie! Forgot about Bill Clinton with his Nobel prize in pharmaceutics -- Darn! Silly me! I must get back to edit the article accordingly. Real Soon Now.)

Feel welcome to remind me of any point I overlooked. These matters are important. JonRichfield (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is WOW. I don't know that I've ever read a more biased web page, and on a site that's supposed to be particularly unbiased. Nor do I think that the guy that wrote before me could have his head further up his butt, but that's for another time. Well hell, I'll get into it right now. I think that the person that mentioned Bill Clinton eating the seeds was only saying that as a point on why they couldn't be as bad as the article is making them, as someone as well informed and up to date on laws and legislation and what not as Bill Clinton, the former president of the US, eats them and has not died. I don't believe he's ever been hospitalized for cyanide poisoning either, to my knowledge. And where is the other side of this argument? There actually have been many doctors in other countries (not "quacks" as this article so professionally names them) who claim to use amygdalin as cancer therapy and report wonderful, non-toxic (as opposed to the HIGHLY toxic other choices) and non pain inducing (as opposed to the HIGHLY painful other choices) results. They say patients typically live as long or longer than conventional therapies without going through ultimate hell. I would suggest doing your own research on more unbiased sites before believing either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ark314 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This article presents information that is entirely consistent with the scientific, medical, and regulatory consensus. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources for its information rather than unverified stories you may find various places on the internet. If you have any sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria and describe benefits of amygdalin compared to conventional therapy, you are welcome to discuss them here so we can consider adding them to the article. ChemNerd (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

:Sorry to put my comment here in the middle of your debate with each other, but here is a verified source by a qualified doctor that I am sure meets Wikipedia's stringent criteria. Please remember to add it to the article when done, I battle with the citations. (never bothered to figure out how since its always removed for no clear reason)

"Laetrile and the Life Saving Substance Called Cyanide by Philip Binzel, Jr., M.D. - source: http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/laetrileandcyanide.html A doctor from the U.S. FDA once said that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide and, thus, is toxic. I would like to correct that misconception: There is no "free" hydrogen cyanide in Laetrile. When Laetrile comes in contact with the enzyme beta-glucosidase, the Laetrile is broken down to form two molecules of glucose, one molecule of benzaldehyde and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide (HCN). Within the body, the cancer cell-and only the cancer cell-contains that enzyme. The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It is not floating around freely in the Laetrile and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme beta glucosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable of manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there are no cancer cells in the body, there is no beta-glucosidase. If there is no beta-glucosidase, no HCN will be formed from the Laetrile (1). Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical (CN). This same cyanide radical is contained in Vitamin B12, and in berries such as blackberries, blueberries and strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting cyanide poisoning from 12 or any of the above-mentioned berries, because they do not. The cyanide radical (CW) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are two completely different compounds, just as pure sodium (Na+) - one of the most toxic substances known to mankind - and sodium chloride (NaCl), which is table salt, are two completely different compounds. If the above is true, how did the story ever get started that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide? It was the Food and Drug Administration. 1. For a more detailed analysis of the theoretical action of Laetrile against cancer cells, see G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer (Thousand Oaks, CA: American Media, 1974). I remember reading in some newspaper back in the late 1960's or early 1970's a news release from the FDA. This release stated that there were some proponents of a substance known as "Laetrile" (I'd never heard of it before) who were saying that this substance was capable of forming hydrogen cyanide in the presence of the cancer cell. The release continued by saying that, if this were actually true, we had, indeed, found a substance, which was target-specific, and would be of great value to the cancer patient. But, the news release went on to say, the FDA had done extensive testing of this substance, "Laetrile," and found no evidence that it contained hydrogen cyanide or that any hydrogen cyanide was released in the presence of the cancer cell. Thus, they said, Laetrile was of no value. When it was clearly established some time later that Laetrile did, indeed, release hydrogen cyanide in the presence of the cancer cell, how do you suppose the FDA reacted? Did they admit that they were wrong? Did they admit that they had done a very inadequate job in running their tests? No! They now proclaimed that Laetrile contained hydrogen cyanide and thus was toxic! So, here is a bureau of the Federal Government which, a short time before, had said that the reason Laetrile did not work was because it did not release hydrogen cyanide in the presence of cancer cells. Now, when they find that it does, they say that it is toxic. When offered an opportunity to present evidence of Laetrile's toxicity in Federal Court, they admitted that they had none. (See Chapter One Alive and Well by Dr. Philip Binzel, available at: http://www.realityzone.com or see Contacts)." --197.64.17.242 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is completely against common sense. Almonds where consumed many centuries and not poisonous at all and suddenly scientific, medical, and regulatory consensus declares them containing toxic compounds. 21:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)21:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)21:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GODhack (talk • contribs)

You are misreading the article if you think it says that almonds are poisonous. Nor am I saying that scientific, medical, and regulatory consensus declares them as such. Please keep in mind that consumption of small amounts of a substance (such as the amount of amygdalin in foods) is not the same thing as being given larger doses of an isolated chemical compound. And when I mentioned scientific, medical, and regulatory consensus I was referring to amygdalin's uselessness as a treatment for cancer. ChemNerd (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Earth calling Godhack... calling Godhack... Your knowledge of historical pharmacology seems to be letting you down badly, but I suppose the homework was too demanding. My condignest sympathy. Let me help you in your difficulty. Nutmeg is poisonous. Cabbage is poisonous. Onions are poisonous. Apples are poisonous. Mustard is poisonous. Cassava is poisonous. Beans are poisonous... They have been poisonous for millions of years, and in fact many of them were even more poisonous in the past than they are now, because people are breeding less poisonous varieties all the time. Nowadays you can get cassava strains with such a low cyanide content that you can eat them without pre-treatment. How do you like that hm? Almost like almonds! The list goes on. Almonds are poisonous. Bitter almonds can be dangerously poisonous, so much so that for centuries their extracts have been used to murder people; quite a popular theme in detective yarns. Even today you can use fresh bay leaves in killing bottles if you happen to be an entomologist. Like bitter almonds, and for the same reason, apricot seeds, peach seeds, plum seeds are not just poisonous; they are dangerously poisonous unless suitably treated before eating. And even if you treat them to destroy the activation enzyme, their amygdalin still can kill you if you eat too much fresh seed with them. There are recorded cases, so I assume that Bill Clinton must be dead too, hm? If you don't understand what I am saying, then ask nicely and I'll explain, if possible even more plainly, though a lot more more wearily, than the article puts it. It is a very interesting principle in evolutionary arms races, as well as in history and pharmacology. Pity you and Ark314 missed it for lack of the necessary intellectual equipment... Do have a nice day... four days ago. JonRichfield (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This should be of interest: Beware the smell of bitter almonds: Why do many food plants contain cyanide?, phys.org

this source is cited in the article, describes how bitter almonds and the seeds of bitter apricots can poison or kill a person depending on the variety and the amount ingested. In other sources. Also, one patient took bitter almonds while taking amygdalin pills and was poisoned by the overdosing.[1] --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Enric, that was not a bad essay, and full marks for bothering to find it and share it. It made quite a lot of the points that some of the participants on this page almost could understand if they read it. A pity that they don't, because the principles really are important in many ways. But what we discover when we explain such principles ever so patiently and simply, is that certain types don't want to understand. Understanding would contradict the ideas that they are trying to cram down everyone's throats along with the amygdalin. Still, your link is a good one for the people who do want to understand. Also, the link to the OD article is valuable, but frankly, if the people who need to understand it can't even understand the popular article, then I hold out little hope. JonRichfield (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

article objectivity is rated at impressive 1.1 personally from my expert view I gave 2.0. You still try to attack my and keep old version at all costs? 16:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC) User:GODhack

hmmm fixed here and there now at least its purpose do not looks like deny compound as cancer cure by all possible means. And it does not contain ironies and assaults anymore. Found many incorrect citations possibly there are more, some I can not check. 16:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)16:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)GODhack (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC) User:GODhack ps. I eat almonds now and still alive despite some claims I probably still left in here :D

I walked across an expressway and didn't get run over by a truck, therefore we should not try to discourage kids from playing in traffic. I trust you see how silly that sounds. The plural of "anecdote" is neither "data" nor "scientific conclusion". DMacks (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and GH, when I revert material that I regard as POV or vandalism, the fact that it was "properly cited" is is no extenuation. If it is irrelevant, cited material can be thoroughly vandalistic or POV. Don't bother to post your objections in my user page in future; I am no shyer of dealing with your sensitivities in public than dealing with your exhortations (a polite word for a 4-letter alternative). If you wish for privacy, post them in my talk page. (Just a word to the w... errr... Ooohhh -- forget it!) JonRichfield (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists and etc. who disagree with parts of article as article itself claims and morons disagree with me. ;) User:GODhack —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

Does this also sound like a conspiracy theory: "Laetrile and the Life Saving Substance Called Cyanide

by Philip Binzel, Jr., M.D. - source: http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/laetrileandcyanide.html A doctor from the U.S. FDA once said that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide and, thus, is toxic. I would like to correct that misconception: There is no "free" hydrogen cyanide in Laetrile. When Laetrile comes in contact with the enzyme beta-glucosidase, the Laetrile is broken down to form two molecules of glucose, one molecule of benzaldehyde and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide (HCN). Within the body, the cancer cell-and only the cancer cell-contains that enzyme. The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It is not floating around freely in the Laetrile and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme beta glucosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable of manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there are no cancer cells in the body, there is no beta-glucosidase. If there is no beta-glucosidase, no HCN will be formed from the Laetrile (1). Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical (CN). This same cyanide radical is contained in Vitamin B12, and in berries such as blackberries, blueberries and strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting cyanide poisoning from 12 or any of the above-mentioned berries, because they do not. The cyanide radical (CW) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are two completely different compounds, just as pure sodium (Na+) - one of the most toxic substances known to mankind - and sodium chloride (NaCl), which is table salt, are two completely different compounds. If the above is true, how did the story ever get started that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide? It was the Food and Drug Administration. 1. For a more detailed analysis of the theoretical action of Laetrile against cancer cells, see G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer (Thousand Oaks, CA: American Media, 1974). I remember reading in some newspaper back in the late 1960's or early 1970's a news release from the FDA. This release stated that there were some proponents of a substance known as "Laetrile" (I'd never heard of it before) who were saying that this substance was capable of forming hydrogen cyanide in the presence of the cancer cell. The release continued by saying that, if this were actually true, we had, indeed, found a substance, which was target-specific, and would be of great value to the cancer patient. But, the news release went on to say, the FDA had done extensive testing of this substance, "Laetrile," and found no evidence that it contained hydrogen cyanide or that any hydrogen cyanide was released in the presence of the cancer cell. Thus, they said, Laetrile was of no value. When it was clearly established some time later that Laetrile did, indeed, release hydrogen cyanide in the presence of the cancer cell, how do you suppose the FDA reacted? Did they admit that they were wrong? Did they admit that they had done a very inadequate job in running their tests? No! They now proclaimed that Laetrile contained hydrogen cyanide and thus was toxic! So, here is a bureau of the Federal Government which, a short time before, had said that the reason Laetrile did not work was because it did not release hydrogen cyanide in the presence of cancer cells. Now, when they find that it does, they say that it is toxic. When offered an opportunity to present evidence of Laetrile's toxicity in Federal Court, they admitted that they had none. (See Chapter One Alive and Well by Dr. Philip Binzel, available at: http://www.realityzone.com or see Contacts)."--197.64.17.242 (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to pontificate

I'd like to begin with my observation that nothing I've read in the talk section seems neutral, which is the same in the article itself. Ratings of casual viewers or pre-conditioned individuals to the topic of cancer treatment with amygdalin or laetrile should also not suffice. I just this hour came across this topic, ironically trying to see if acrylonitrile might bear a scent resemblance to peach kernels (as is described in its MSDS). To address the issue of bickering over the legitimacy of different sources, welcome to the internet. Controversy over medicines and the FDA are so common nowadays I wonder how anyone gets any treatment for anything anymore. (4 any's, pretty good!) While I admit I am typically skeptical of the FDA's policies and approvals/disapprovals (especially since the User Fee Act back in '84, which turned the FDA into a tool for crony capitalists), it really boils down to the evidence, sans dogma. What is not debated much is that an enzyme, beta-glucosidase, is responsible for the liberation of the cyanide anion from the debated compounds. Legitimately speaking, if there are types of cancer where-in beta-glucosidase is over-manufactured in tumor cells, the viability of the debated compounds as a treatment FOR THOSE SPECIFIC FORMS OF CANCER is FULLY LEGITIMATE. However (!), all forms of cancer are different diseases, with the only commonality being a disruption in the normal cell life cycle (they aren't dying fast enough [slow-growing tumors] or they're reproducing too fast [aggressive tumors]). Any medical professional who does not recognize this crucial issue does not deserve to practice medicine until they rectify this error in understanding: the biochemistry of cancer is as diverse as the biochemistry of the organism. Clearly, anything that "fights cancer" can be misinterpreted by those who do not yet understand this most crucial element of what cancer actually is. Cancer is not simply "the body being out of balance". There are mechanisms to this. A perfectly healthy person can get cancer (though unlikely), from inadvertent exposure to a carcinogen, a genetic predisposition, or the perfect storm of normally harmless carcinogen exposure all on the same cell cluster at the same time. That's why concentrated carcinogens are much more hazardous that dilute ones; take ionizing radiation. Imagine carcinogen exposure like rolling the dice. The majority of mutations in DNA lead to the quick death of the cell, and only seldom do mutations directly affect the oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. Please read the cancer#pathophysiology article for clarification. I know some users are rolling their eyes at this, but anti-science is becoming a big issue; not because of the science, but because of the marketing. Yes, there are investigational new cancer drugs that are being tested in cancer patients (usually the terminal ones first). That only means we need to invest more in targeted medicine, and in understanding the most common neoplastic biochemical pathways. As I read about these debated substances, it is entirely possible that site-specific cyanide poisoning of cancerous cells could be viable with these agents. The prime reason such a therapy is sketchy is because extensive personal testing must be done to determine where beta-glucosidase is most concentrated (small intestine, bowel), and if the non-cancerous cells would be harmed too extensively as a side effect. Cyanide poisons by inhibiting metabolism in mitochondria, and every cell is susceptible to poisoning by the ion. The key is clearly where is the beta-glucosidase? If any cancer could be found to over-express this enzyme, laetrile would indeed be a targeted therapy. Such personalized therapy [to test enzyme levels in various tissues] is still expensive, although the twin research powerhouse thrusts of targeted medicine and personalized therapy in current research are poised to dethrone the bemoaned, antiquated, "give everybody with disease X this drug that works 60% of the time", statistically-justified, increasingly insufficient and dogmatic model (that many doctors don't even know is dogmatic). Part of why this model is still in use is strictly because personalized therapy and targeted/encapsulated medicine is not yet advanced enough. So here I've laid out the work for an investigational biochemist. There are legitimate reasons to study beta-glucosidase, as a form of the enzyme is present in human tears as an anti-bacterial agent. I am merely a material scientist, and my knowledge of medicine is limited, but my appreciation for and strict adherence to the scientific method is much more extensive. The same cannot be said about anyone looking to profit foremost from any medical research, including a portion of the modern FDA and many quack doctors alike. I personally propose that the article's inherent bias be redacted, with an actually neutral article written by someone who has learned the skill to remove emotions from matters of fact. [note how I didn't say anyone was "born stupid" - just that some haven't learned enough yet, and that's OK, we're all learning every day... hopefully...] I hope this middle ground helps you children to stop calling each other names! Cheers - psychemist Thank you for posting that. I've always found it ironic that it's OK for a doctor to prescribe Cytoxan + a bunch of other toxic chemicals to a person in peril of their life already, but heaven forbit somebody try to use something "toxic" on cancer that isn't "proven to work" yet. They'll lock ya up! Only professionals are allowed to kill inadvertently. The rest of us aren't allowed to even use our reasoning skills. Remember to act like sheeple and you'll be just fine. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Split proposal, again

Please consider again the proposal to split the article in two.
Amygdalin and laetrile are different compounds, with different chemical properties. They may seem to be "closely related" if one considers only the "cancer cure" aspect; but for readers interested in chemistry, biochemistry, seed toxicity etc., the material on latrile is irrelevant clutter, and potentially misleading. (For example, is the toxicity and metabolism section about amygdalin only, laetrile only, or both?)
The material that would belong in both articles seem to be rather limited: chiefly, a note that "amygdalin" and "laetrile" are often confused in the medical literature, and that Mexican "laetrile" may be amygdalin.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, there are a number of peer-reviewed studies I note from a MEDLINE search suggesting some anti-tumor potential or cytotoxicity for amygdalin. Should these be referenced or given brief mention in this article, or ignored? The titles for the abstracts are as follows. (If anyone wants the abstracts, Ill post them):Ronsword (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2013 Feb;35(1):43-51. "Amygdalin induces apoptosis in human cervical cancer cell line HeLa cells." Chen Y, Ma J, Wang F, Hu J, Cui A, Wei C, Yang Q, Li F. SourceDepartment of Pathogenobiology, Bethune College of Medicine, Jilin University, Chang Chun, Jilin, China.

Biol Pharm Bull. 2006 Aug;29(8):1597-602. "Amygdalin induces apoptosis through regulation of Bax and Bcl-2 expressions in human DU145 and LNCaP prostate cancer cells." Chang HK, Shin MS, Yang HY, Lee JW, Kim YS, Lee MH, Kim J, Kim KH, Kim CJ. SourceDepartment of Physiology, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, South Korea.

World J Gastroenterol. 2005 Sep 7;11(33):5156-61. "Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells." Park HJ, Yoon SH, Han LS, Zheng LT, Jung KH, Uhm YK, Lee JH, Jeong JS, Joo WS, Yim SV, Chung JH, Hong SP. SourceDepartment of Pharmacology, Kohwang Medical Research Institute, College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, South Korea.

Arch Pharm Res. 2003 Feb;26(2):157-61. "Apoptosis induction of Persicae Semen extract(i.e., major ingredient of Persicae Semen is a cynogenic compound, amygdalin) in human promyelocytic leukemia (HL-60) cells." Kwon HY, Hong SP, Hahn DH, Kim JH. SourceDepartment of Biochemistry, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, Korea.

Biol Pharm Bull. 2003 Feb;26(2):271-3. "Anti-tumor promoting effect of glycosides from Prunus persica seeds." Fukuda T, Ito H, Mukainaka T, Tokuda H, Nishino H, Yoshida T. SourceFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Kyoto, Japan.

Int J Cancer. 1998 Dec 9;78(6):712-9. "In vitro cytotoxicity following specific activation of amygdalin by beta-glucosidase conjugated to a bladder cancer-associated monoclonal antibody." Syrigos KN, Rowlinson-Busza G, Epenetos AA. SourceDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.

Curr Pharm Des. 2002;8(15):1391-403. "Beta-glucuronidase-mediated drug release." de Graaf M, Boven E, Scheeren HW, Haisma HJ, Pinedo HM. SourceDepartment of Medical Oncology, Division of Gene Therapy, Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre, P.O. Box 7057, Amsterdam, 1007 MB, The Netherlands.

Curr Med Chem Anticancer Agents. 2003 Mar;3(2):139-50. "Glucuronides in anti-cancer therapy." Chen X, Wu B, Wang PG. SourceDepartment of Chemistry, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.

The studies above are primary sources and involve in vitro models that are not directly relevant to clinical therapy in humans. The WP article already cites a plethora of secondary sources that provide consensus statements about amygdalin/laetrile, so the primary sources above would not be appropriate for inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the "consensus" really sound like little more than a cute euphemism for "politically correct"?:)

Then again, political correctitude IS an essential cornerstone of WP.

The "in-vitro" argument is valid. But even in-vitro does slightly erode the merits of the "quackery" judgement being peddled about. Bstard12 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. They are different chemicals and deserve their own chembox. Laetrile also has loads of room for expansion about. J1812 (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• The ACS say

  Laetrile is a chemically modified form of amygdalin, a naturally-occurring substance found mainly in the kernels of apricots, peaches, and almonds. However, the terms amygdalin and Laetrile are often used interchangeably. The name Laetrile is also used to describe a closely related and partly man-made substance. Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted as alternative cancer treatments.

On this basis, I would oppose a split; perhaps some effort might be made to clarify any such difference that exists, in the present text? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Alexbrn, the two terms are used so interchangeably in the literature and in sources that separate articles are not warranted. Yobol (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Intravenous Treatment

This article does not mention that some Mexican clinics were providing IV treatment thus invalidating the claim that your intestines were creating cyanide. One of my close relatives for whom I shared caregiver responsibilities during cancer treatment did not suffer of cyanide poisoning despite using this treatment. That said, it was not my favorite of the odd treatments she tried because it smelled bad, and now I know why. Thanks to your article, I now realize it smelled like ammonia so they might have been using the HCL treated form precicely to avoid cyanide poisoning, and it was IV delivered through her port-o-cath.

I'm not sure it's warranted to say it was the biggest quackery ever in medicine. That's just a silly statement/reference/quote, I mean, how do you prove it was the BIGGEST? Compare with weight loss remedies. I'm not sure it did much, but I do have faith that the people who helped her were actually attempting to help and not fleece at the time and were ignorant and not venal. I think the people my relative went to were perfectly aware of the cyanide risk and mitigated it every way they knew how. It was probably just ineffective but I doubt it was ill-intentioned. Certainly looking back now it seems stupid, but all factual errors look stupid when you look back. I suppose none of you ever made a mistake?

I think it's a shame that it wasn't more effective and that more treatments aren't tried and proven good/bad faster right here in the USA without funky threats by the FDA. I mean, people just don't KNOW and couldn't possibly know, just look at stem cells in Italy right now. Nobody knows so there is a firestorm with everyone yelling and a woman walking the street naked on behalf of dying babies. Everybody wants answers but doesn't want any animals hurt or anybody to die to get the answers. Sorry, reality bites, grow up and deal.

My statements might be POV, but they're also firsthand account, which is a valid historical form of evidence. Take it or leave it, I don't care so much, but I just wanted to add that you didn't mention IV treatment, which seems like an oversight. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Would need a good source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of Laetrile (B17) being an effective cancer treatment (please add)

This is an article talkpage, not a late-night infomercial
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is disputing evidence that says Laetrile (B17) was effective in the treatment of cancer: Dr Ralph Moss, when interviewed on the Laura Lee Radio Show in 1994 explained… “Twenty years ago I was hired at Memorial Sloane Kettering (MSK) Cancer Centre in New York as the science writer, later promoted to assistant director of public affairs. Shortly after I went to work there I went to visit an elderly Japanese scientist, Kanematsu Sugiura, who astonished me when he told me he was working on Laetrile (B17), at the time it was the most controversial thing in cancer …reputed to be a cure for cancer. We in public affairs were giving out statements that Laetrile was worthless, it was quackery, and people should not abandon proven therapies. I was astonished that our most distinguished scientist would be bothering with something like this, and I said why are you doing this if it does not work? He took down lab books and showed me that in fact Laetrile is dramatically effective in stopping the spread of cancer. The animals were genetically programmed to get breast cancer and about 80 – 90% of them normally get spread of the cancer from the breast to the lungs which is a common route in humans, also for how people die of breast cancer, and instead when they gave the animals Laetrile by injection only 10-20% of them got lung metastases. And these facts were verified by many people, including the pathology department.” When asked “So this is verified, that Laetrile can have this positive effect?”, Moss replied, “We were finding this and yet we in public affairs were told to issue statements to the exact opposite of what we were finding scientifically, and as the years went by I got more wrapped up in this thing and 3 years later I said all this in my own press conference, and was fired the next day, ‘for failing to carry out his most basic job responsibility’ – ie to lie to the public about what goes on in cancer research.” “Dr Sugiura, never renounced the results of his own studies, despite the fact they put enormous pressure on him to do so.” “When I was at MSK a lot of very weird things started to happen to me, there was this cognitive distance between what I was told, and was writing about treatment, especially chemotherapy, and what I was seeing with my own eyes. One time I heard the head of the intensive care unit give a talk in which he bragged about how he had one of the lowest mortality rates in his unit. I went out to lunch with him, where he became a bit inebriated, and told me how he managed to get those statistics – by wheeling the dying patients out into the corridor where they died and didn’t sully our department’s record.” Read More: http://www.canceruncensored.com/dr-krebs-and-vitamin-b17/ - Your step-by-step guide to cancer prevention, early detection and cancer survival. “The anti-cancer effect of amygdalin was demonstrated in Mexico by government sponsored research under Dr. Mario Soto De Leon and its use is legal. Dr Soto was the first medical director of the Cydel Clinic in Tijuana (taken over by Dr Manner). It is very important that it be prepared and administered correctly in sufficient dosage or it will not be effective. The trial performed at the Mayo Clinic in the early 80′s involved the use of the racemic mixture rather than the levo-rotary form and thus was only 10% of the strength required. In spite of this, towards the end of the experiment, the patients began to show improvement, but it was discontinued and declared ineffectual.” – from the book Deadly Deception by Dr Willner. Read More: http://www.canceruncensored.com/dr-krebs-and-vitamin-b17/ - Your step-by-step guide to cancer prevention, early detection and cancer survival. 118.36.14.167 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Poor sources. We need WP:MEDRS for biomedical content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Studies on Amygdalin for cAncer :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23137229 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21776245 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17106659 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16880611 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16127745 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12576693 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9833764 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23137229

As PMID 17106659 (a review) that you cite says: "the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Biased Content from Article (please rewrite)

"However, neither of these compounds nor any other derivatives are vitamins in any sense,[3] and studies have found them to be clinically ineffective in the treatment of cancer, as well as dangerously toxic. They are potentially lethal when taken by mouth, because certain enzymes (in particular, glucosidases that occur in the gut and in various kinds of seeds, edible or inedible) act on them to produce cyanide.[4][5][6][7][8] The promotion of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the medical literature as a canonical example of quackery,[9][10][11] and as "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history."[3]"

I agree completely with this, yet there is more bias ingrained deeper within the article. This article contains too much bias to even be considered as a viable resource for research or study. Its misleading to those who use Wikipedia as a source of fast information on a topic. Anyone who comes to this article and reads only the first section will likely get the wrong impression about amygdalin in general which encourages conflict amongst the populace. At first glance, the way this was written insinuates laetrile was the cause: "actor Steve McQueen died in Mexico following cancer treatment with laetrile" when in fact the substance could have contained adulterants or not have been caused at all by the laetrile, but instead the cancer or surgery. This entire section is unduly biased against everyone who thinks contrary to the opinions laid forth in the entirety of the article. "Laetrile was proven clinically ineffective more than 30 years ago and is considered a canonical example of "quackery".[3] Nonetheless, advocates for laetrile dispute this label, asserting that there is a conspiracy between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical community, including the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society, to exploit the American people, and especially cancer patients. Advocates of the use of laetrile have also changed the rationale for its use, first as a treatment of cancer, then as a vitamin, then as part of a "holistic" nutritional regimen, or as treatment for cancer pain, among others, none of which have any significant evidence supporting its use. Despite the lack of evidence for its use, laetrile developed a significant following due to its wide promotion as a "pain-free" treatment of cancer as an alternative to surgery and chemotherapy that have significant side effects. The use of laetrile in place of known effective treatments of cancer led to a number of deaths." The subjective themes are abounding and what doesn't help is the level of scientific fraudulence to support this viewpoint as well as attack it. http://people.brandeis.edu/~tsommer/Bahramdipity/2001sciengethics77.pdf ArrowOfAces (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been found to be unambiguously negative according to a super-high-quality source. Is there any reliable source which says otherwise? Wikipedia must accurately reflect current medicial/scientific knowledge as found in the best sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where "It" means health effects of amygdalin, including its lack of effectiveness against what it's promoted to accomplish and its toxicity and other negative side-effects. Don't want anyone accidentally thinking the ref Alexbrn mentions is studying the perspective or neutrality of the Wikipedia article. DMacks (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

ArrowofAces wrote "Nobel prize winner Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura" -- a major error which makes me wonder where he is getting his information. The edit violated WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR (besides being written in an advocacy style). Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS CONTRADICTING ITSELF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgalec (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) This Wiki article on Amygdalin is contradicted elsewhere on Wikipedia. The present ("Amygdalin") article states that amygdalin (a.k.a. laetrile/nitrilosides) is quackery and has no place in cancer treatment. Elsewhere, on the "Nitrile" Wiki page, it is stated that

"Over 30 nitrile-containing pharmaceuticals are currently marketed for a diverse variety of medicinal indications with more than 20 additional nitrile-containing leads in clinical development. The nitrile group is quite robust and, in most cases, is not readily metabolized but passes through the body unchanged. The types of pharmaceuticals containing nitriles is diverse, from Vildagliptin an antidiabetic drug to Anastrazole which is the gold standard in treating breast cancer."

If you go to the Anastrazole drug Wiki page, an empirical diagram of the use of cyanide in that cancer drug exists on the page. So what appears to be happening is that a pharmaceutical company can get away with marketing laetrile/amygdalin/nitrilosides in an anti-cancer drug, as long as the name of the chemical is carefully buried in a longer list of ingredients and then given a slick marketing name.

lgalec```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgalec (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be making a logical fallacy by assuming that because one chemical compound has a specific effect, every chemical compound that is even remotely related must have the same effect. This is of course not true. This talk page is supposed to be used to make specific suggestions with specific wording changes cited to specific sources, not as a general discussion of the topic. Please provide specific wording changes cited to specific reliable sources in the future. Yobol (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance Yobol. Perhaps we can start by suggesting a refinement to this quote: "...studies have found them to be clinically ineffective in the treatment of cancer, as well as dangerously toxic." The redundancy "dangerously toxic" could be qualified and balanced by offering a link to this table offered by Internet Scientific Publications on amygdalin toxicity, which shows disagreement among 9 different scientific studies, along with suggested safer experimental doses: http://ispub.com/IJH/9/2/10959.

Incidentally, Wiki's own article on Amygdalin seems somewhat to violate Yobol's stated rule of not lumping together similar chemicals by mentioning several related compounds together in the same article without addressing each one separately on its own merits. Perhaps it could be clarified to the reader that the old drug Laetrile was a synthesized compound, while advocates of using amygdalin experimentally in cancer prevention/treatment are suggesting/using an organic nitriloside in prunus genus seeds and stones. That also brings up another point: this quote from the Wiki article calling Laetrile "...the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history" could be contrasted with the zero financial gain potential of eating prunus fruit stones that would have been sent to the compost heap after the fruit itself had been consumed.

Hope I'm improving Yobol. lgalec```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgalec (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Laetrile and amygdalin are considered in tandem by reliable sources, and we follow them. A systematic review from the Cochrane Collaboration (about the strongest possible source we can get) states: "The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative". Unless there is some similarly strong source contradicting that, there seems little more we should be saying on safety/effectiveness. Your link doesn't seem to work. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that even if the link worked, ISPUB is on the list of predatory publishing houses and is therefore not a reliable source for medical claims, anyways. Agreed about the amygdalin/laetrile terminology; it is not particularly relevant as neither has been shown to be useful for cancer. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn: The banning of ISPUB would seem not to require the banning of the studies cited on that webpage. I just now clicked on the above link and went straight there, so the link does work. Am very sorry that you are having trouble at your end. In refutation of the Cochrane Collaboration's claim of "considerable adverse risk," here is a fairly recent (2006) government-issued (U.K.) authoritative source refuting blanket toxicity claims regarding food-sourced amygdalin:

The U.K. Committee on Toxicity in 2006 made the statement "...the current high level of intake of 3-6 micrograms per kg body weight per day from foods...was not of concern." They conclude the report with this dosing guideline: "Taking the available evidence together, the CoE TDI of 20 μg/kg bw/day should be applied, this is equivalent to 1.2 mg for a 60 kg adult and represents an intake of approximately 1-2 kernels per day." The Committee also concludes that there is no finding of cumulative toxicity from ingesting the wide variety of naturally cyanide-laced foods over a period of time. Here is the current working link: multimedia.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/cotstatementapricot200615.pdf

Because this modern government source is so inexplicably in conflict with your sources, that reason alone should suggest to you that the Wiki article needs to be reworked, hopefully as a high priority, if it is to be taken seriously by independent readers and researchers.

As far as efficacy, the original Krebbs microscopic studies on this topic demonstrated rapid kill of cancer cells upon contact with cyanide. Here is a film summarizing their research: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDggXZS3THc As far as the Cochrane Collaboration's conclusion of a lack of cost-benefit analysis, perhaps that decision should be left up to the patient diagnosed with cancer who chooses not to enter into clinical trials with even more toxic substances than food.

Thank you for your comments, lgalec 98.114.49.216 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A 2006 government report would not supersede a 2011 scientific publication. We do not offer advice to patients at all. We merely report what the highest quality WP:MEDRS says, and then, as you propose, let them decide based on our re-statements of those sources or any other sites and information they find elsewhere. DMacks (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The UK govt. document is not properly published and is old compared to our authoritative Cochrane source. And in any case it (in agreement) observes: "In the 1970s and 1980s, amygdalin (also known as laetrile or, though not a recognised vitamin, as vitamin B17) extracted from bitter apricot kernels was sold as a treatment for cancer. The treatment was never proven and was associated with significant toxicity." The document seems to be concerned with apricot kerners themselves - not the same thing. I see no need for any change. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And no, we will not be using a film that supports a theory of cancer that is over 100 years old and has been long discarded by medical science. Yobol (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Also: whenever anyone says that compound X kills cancer cells in a petri dish, we must remember: so does a flamethrower. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Review Article on Amygdalin

English, obviously, as second language.

http://www.cancerjournal.net/article.asp?issn=0973-1482;year=2014;volume=10;issue=5;spage=3;epage=7;aulast=Song

REVIEW ARTICLE

J Can Res Ther 2014;10:3-7

Advanced research on anti-tumor effects of amygdalin

Zuoqing Song1, Xiaohong Xu2

DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.139743

PMID 25207888

How to cite this URL: Song Z, Xu X. Advanced research on anti-tumor effects of amygdalin. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2014 [cited 2014 Sep 28];10:3-7. Available from: http://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2014/10/5/3/139743

<copyright violation removed>

[...snip... continued at the link...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.60.161 (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• This article is in a supplement issue and does not appear to be MEDLINE indexed, which is a WP:REDFLAG. I'd ignore it unless this changes. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Alt med studies from China have a very poor reputation. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

How are we supposed to take seriously that this journal has any real peer review when it will publish an article with so many grammatical errors? Yobol (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph seems to state that apricot kernels/pits are the same thing as bitter almonds; in fact, though apricots and almonds belong to the same genus, they are different species. The Wikipedia articles on apricots and almonds both bear this out. This article on amygdalin is, therefore, inconsistent with other related articles in Wikipedia.

I can't speak for other languages, but for English, I can't find any cases where apricot pits were ever referred to as bitter almonds. The opening paragraph should be cleaned up and should avoid conflating different seeds and fruits which contain amygdalin. 98.172.76.114 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC) R. Poole

It turns out the Laetrile and History sections of this article also disagree with the opening paragraph, since the species names are given for the apricot and the bitter almond, respectively, in those two sections. 98.172.76.114 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC) R. Poole

Grossly biased slant of inform about amygdalin

Like all compounds amygdalin has a toxic level, and that level is much lower than most compounds. For example, you'd have to drink about 5 gallons of water for it to become toxic, but make no mistake, drinking too much water could kill you and has killed people.

The entire wording of this wiki page ignores a critical role in health for consistent, daily low levels of amygdalin because it does have a toxic level that is easily reached.

Amygdalin is a source of thiocyanate and it is important for neutralization reactions in the Lactoperoxidase (LPO) and myeloperoxidase (MPO) catalyzed oxidation reactions.

The best study I have seen looking at thiocyanate is this one, http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20515.full.pdf+html1

There is a great figure in the article that outlines the chemical reactions involved in the neutralization.

The discussion below is an exert from the article and it discusses the range of thiocyanate found in people, and problems at both ends of the range. The discussion indicates that "100 μM SCN largely protects endothelial cells from the injuries caused by MPO activity."

The body needs some amygdalin and it needs some daily. This wiki page falsely suggests that all levels of amydalin are harmful when the problem is that it is easy to reach a toxic level with direct supplementation.

From the article. The figure with the neutralizing chemical equations should be featured on this page. "SCN− is a natural, effective, antioxidant. Given that humans primarily derive SCN− from vegetables, is it possible that dietary SCN− deficiency underlies some health problems in a fraction of the general population?

"Previously reported plasma SCN− concentrations of the general population range from 10 to 140 μM (46–48). In our experiment, SCN− at concentrations below 100 μM does not eliminate OCl− and thus does not fully protect cells against MPO cytotoxicity (Figs. 3 and 4).

"Conceivably, inadequate SCN− levels would aggravate MPO-produced injuries in patients suffering from inflammatory diseases including asthma. MPO activity has been linked to lung cancers among smokers (49) and also implicated in the pathogenesis of many neurodegenerative diseases (50–52). We find that MPO-caused injuries to a neuronal cell line (Neuro-2A) can be greatly reduced by SCN− (Fig. 4). Also, people with congenital MPO deficiency are less likely to develop cardiovascular diseases (53). Conversely, individuals with blood MPO levels in the highest quartile are expected to have a 15- to 20-fold higher chance of coronary artery stenosis, compared with those in the lowest quartile (54, 55). MPO is a critical atherogenic factor (54), and causes endothelial cell death, which is probably involved in the superficial arterial wall erosion that precipitates thrombus formation (56).

"Here, we show that 100 μM SCN− largely protects endothelial cells from the injuries caused by MPO activity (Fig. 4). As to the LPO system, it is present in many tissue types (including the lungs and breasts) that contain exocrine glands, and an adequate SCN− concentration is needed to prevent chronic irritation of these tissues by accumulated H2O2 and resulting pathologies." dawot (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I call foul

The edits I did were immediately undone by someone who, evidently thinks he owns both the scientific definition of amygdalin but also historic content regarding it. I call foul. RscottQ (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:PROFRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) The revert was good, since it was of unsourced text and/or of WP:PROFRINGE text which made it look like "the jury's out" on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amygdalin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820063617/http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e01/geschichte.htm to http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e01/geschichte.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903141336/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/950717/archive_032434.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/950717/archive_032434.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No hydrogen cyanide in amygdalin

ChiveFungi, You inserted into the article the statement that amygdalin is "poisonous". Why did you do that? You cannot cite a reference that supports your assertion that amygdalin is poisonous.

There is no hydrogen cyanide in amygdalin. When amygdalin is put into a culture of healthy human cells those cells do not die from cyanide poisoning.

Amygdalin must be split apart in a particular way to cause the production of hydrogen cyanide. Your assertion that amygdalin is "poisonous" istotally wrong. MQMagoo (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Our Cochrane source says "There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion" - so people taking it risk getting poisoned, at least. Could we fettle the wording to so this? Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Amygdalin when ingested has been shown to cause poisoning; that it is a metabolite of amygdalin (rather than amygdalin itself) that causes the poisoning seems to be splitting hairs here. Indeed, one of the several proposed mechanism for action amongst supporters of its use is that it causes poisoning of cancer cells. Yobol (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The Infobox contains a NFPA 704 hazardous materials diamond. The number in the blue quadrant of the diamond is "1", not "4" (e.g. Hydrogen cyanide). Wikipedia should not perpetuate the misconception that the amygdalin molecule contains hydrogen cyanide. The article should carefully explain that amygdalin can be hydrolyzed in a way that causes the production of hydrogen cyanide. I attempted to provide that kind of explanation.

The article falsely describes amygdalin as "poisonous". MQMagoo (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In common parlance amygdalin contains cyanide, so is poisonous.[2] Enough of this hair-splitting. Alexbrn (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The article contains the following statement: "Apricot pits contain 89–2,170 mg/kg hydrogen cyanide (wet weight)". That statement is not supported by a citation and it is blatantly false. That statement is an example of how one false statement can become the foundation for additional false statements. Pointing out such errors is not "hair-splitting"; it is good housekeeping. "Common parlance" is not a fitting substitute for precise biochemical explanations. MQMagoo (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Better tell efsa that.[3] This illustrates why we follow reliable sources, not the notions of editors. Alexbrn (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Linda Duff (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)AMYGDALIN VS CANCER - 9 SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VHaKHRy5tg 1) Amygdalin induces apoptosis in human cervical cancer cell line HeLa cells: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23137229 2) Amygdalin Blocks Bladder Cancer Cell Growth In Vitro by Diminishing Cyclin A and cdk2: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105590 3) Amygdalin Influences Bladder Cancer Cell Adhesion and Invasion In Vitro: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198254/ 4) Amygdalin Regulates Apoptosis and Adhesion in Hs578T Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Cells: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4703354/

5) Amygdalin Induces Apoptosis through Regulation of Bax and Bcl-2 Expressions in Human

DU145 and LNCaP Prostate Cancer Cells: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/29/8/29_8_1597/_pdf

6) Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16127745 7) Apoptosis induction of Persicae Semen extract in human promyelocytic leukemia (HL-60)

cells: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12643594

8) Enhancement of amygdalin activated with β-d-glucosidase on HepG2 cells proliferation

and apoptosis (Liver): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144861712005322

9) Amygdalin-mediated inhibition of non-small cell lung cancer cell invasion in vitro: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4503109/

These paper would suggest that Amygdalin does have some interesting effects on cancer cells.

You forgot this one:

10) A flame thrower kills all cancer cells. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

As XKCD put it: When you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin kills cancer cells in a Petri dish, keep in mind: so does a handgun.Sumanuil (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Intravenous laetrile

In the article it is claimed that "Intravenous laetrile does not result in cyanide exposure." citing "Molecular mechanisms of toxicity of important food-borne phytotoxins". However the article makes no such claim. It focuses on metabolism of amygdaline in gastro-intestinal tract stating that, "it is a two-step process catalyzed by the enzymes b-glucosidase (produced by intestinal bacteria)and hydroxynitrile lyase".

At no point it is stated that intravenous entry does not cause cyanide exposure in the entire work. I suggest removal of this sentence from the article. 137.82.157.147 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I have now removed the sentence from the article 137.82.157.147 (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

NOTE

The statement " ...famous for falsely being promoted as a cancer cure" is a complete bias. And there is no proof to back its claim. But plenty of evidence not listed in the article to show that the cancer cure claim has merit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.236.23 (talk • contribs)

If there are specific changes to the article based on reliable sources that are compliant with WP:MEDRS that you would like to have considered, you can suggest them here. Deli nk (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed and whom

• "[...]hydrolyzed by beta-glucuronidases to release mandelonitrile and then HCN. This was considered untenable." here should be a "whom" template.
• "[...] Nutrition Vitamins.[15] There is no credible evidence supporting this conjecture." and here a "citation needed" 200.28.29.232 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

@JGabbard: Please see WP:GOODBIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thank you. And do please see my rebuttal to this essay on its talk page. - JGabbard (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The root cause of the problem is the false equivalence given to the views of anti-fluoridationists and the scientific community. The scientific consensus, by definition, incorporates all significant valid viewpoints. It develops over time in response to new data. In maters of science, the scientific consensus view is inherently the neutral point of view for Wikipedia purposes. To "balance" that with anti- views is to compromise fundamental policy.

— Guy, [4]

The moment Wikipedia loses its trust in mainstream science, it has lost everything. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. Wikipedia won't lose it's "trust in mainstream science." They certainly wouldn't want to have any other viewpoints, after all "the scientific consensus view is 'inherently' the neutral point of view..." LOL Yeah, I wonder how Galileo felt about the "neutral" "mainstream science." Didn't work out so well for him, huh? 209.179.71.76 (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless you have a crystal ball, you have zero basis for knowing what "nonsense today" will become "mainstream accepted fact" tomorrow. So instead, we simply go with what is known today. DMacks (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@DMacks: you might want to look at the IP's other edits. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. They have looked at my other edits. Can't have anything go against Wikipedia's biases! People might end up better informed with multiple views on a topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.71.76 (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course I did. The Galileo Gambit is a well-known logical fallacy. DMacks (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history"

In which way would sb. earn money by telling people to eat apple seeds? By selling apples or apple seeds? This claim is ridiculous and patently absurd. Chemical cancer medications often cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient ... So which is more "remunerative"? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Falsely marketing a semi-synthetic version of a naturally occurring compound as a "vitamin" that cures all forms of cancer was a profitable operation.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiologicalMe (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

But nowhere near as profitable as falsely marketing poisonous substances as cancer cures like the pharma industry does on a large scale today. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alexey Topol: You fail WP:PROFRINGE, WP:MEDRS and WP:ADVOCACY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You lack common sense and good judgement. Have a nice day. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Found someone whose stupidity quacks described in this article earned money off. 93.103.223.236 (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We need some moderation here! Reason: WP:NOFORUM 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Numerous scientific articles report that this drug has potential.

I just watched a documentary on youtube where Moss tells his side of the story. Cover-Up of promising cancer treatment by Eric Merola (2014). (For some reason I'm not allowed to provide a link to the video.)

After reading this wiki I considering stopping the video, as it seemed like a waste of my time, but then I did a search on Google Scholar for "amygdalin cancer", and found several recent reviews. I checked the conclusions in "Amygdalin from apricot kernels induces apoptosis and causes cell cycle arrest in cancer cells: an updated review" and "Recent updates and future perspectives about amygdalin as a potential anticancer agent: A review" from 2018 and 2019. None of them dispute the efficacy of the drug, and they identify modes of action not mentioned in this wiki.

I suggest that this article is updated, because as it stands the article comes of as slanted and incomplete. 2A01:799:910:E00:305F:14D2:E4A5:C2A4 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Remember.[6] Bon courage (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Meh, study the sources I cited befor you comment. 2A01:799:910:E00:305F:14D2:E4A5:C2A4 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Mercola's site is a locus of the most disgusting quackery, None of your other sources (e.g. PMID:29308747) offer any evidence of clinical worth, whereas we do have source(s) which are exactly on-point about clinical worth. Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "we"? 2A01:799:910:E00:305F:14D2:E4A5:C2A4 (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Everyone here. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, see my arguments in my OP. My impression is that there have been some development since the sources cited here were published. But I've had a look at the edit history, and understand what I'm up against. I'm just a person passing by, and have no skin in the game, and don't have the motivation to fight the gatekeepers. As you were. 2A01:799:910:E00:305F:14D2:E4A5:C2A4 (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no "gatekeeping". There is only fantasy and reality, and we deal in facts here. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

2019 study of Amygdalin and IAP proteins

Earlier, I added this study to the page published in Molecular Biology Reports.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11033-019-04656-3

The edit was just: "More recently, research has been done on IAPs, proteins that inhibit programmed cell death and are linked to cancer. A 2019 in-vitro study found that amygdalin inhibited the expression of genes which produced the IAPs Survivin and XIAP."

Within 3 minutes it was reverted by @Bon Courage with the message "Not WP:MEDRS". To which I replied that Molecular Biology Reports is a reliable source. Perhaps he hasn't heard of it, but he could have at least taken a few minutes to look it up. 3 minutes is barely enough time to read the change. So I reverted that revert.

Within 5 minutes it was reverted by @Zefr with the message "Lab research, WP:MEDINVITRO, far too preliminary to be mentioned". I've added the change to the section mentioning three historical hypothesized mechanisms of action. This study is relevant because it is recent research introducing a new one. I made clear that this was an in-vitro study. And I consider myself a pretty fast reader, but even still it took me a good hour to read this study and relevant background information on relevant IAPs like Survivin. 5 minutes sounds too fast to even get through the abstract. I reverted that revert too.

Within 9 minutes, there was another revert from @Bon Courage saying "Unreliable source, edit warring". Again, Molecular Biology Reports is a reliable source. Its a peer-reviewed journal and part of the Springer network. It would be very helpful if you explained why you think its an unreliable source.

It is very frustrating to spend over an hour genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia's body of scientific knowledge, only to be immediately shot down by what seems like drive-by Wikipedia:Wikilawyering.

-Databased (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You will have a different perspective after reading WP:MEDRS, with attention especially to the bottom of the left pyramid at WP:MEDASSESS, which identifies the content and source you wish to add as preliminary lab research - the lowest quality of evidence for medical content in the encyclopedia. We are not writing a journal discussion about hypothetical mechanisms, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-7. Zefr (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Databased, WP:MEDRS says: " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results that do not hold in later clinical trials." The source you cited is a primary source. JimRenge (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)