Reading List

Our Stolen Future: How We Are Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence
and Survival, by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peter Meyers

Medical Nutrition and Disease: A Case-Based Approach, by Lisa Hark and
Gail Morrison.

Hope or Hype: The Obsession with Medical Advances and the High Cost of
False Promises, by Richard A. Deyo, MD, MPH, and Donald L. Patrick,
Ph.D., MSPH

Big Pharma: How the World's Biggest drug Companies Control Illness,
by Jacky Law

Severed Trust, by George D. Lundberg, MD

The Truth About the Drug Companies, by Marcia Angell, MD

Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are
Turning Us All into Patients, by Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels

Under the Influence of Modern Medicine, by Terry Rondberg

Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Medical Alternatives, by
Jack Carter

Questioning Chemotherapy, by Ralph W. Moss

The Cancer Industry, by Ralph W. Moss

Immunizations: The Reality Behind the Myth, by Walene James

Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A
Medical Controversy, by David Kirby

What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization, by Jamie
Murphy

A Shot in the Dark, by Harris Coulter (documented vaccine damage in
children)

Vitamin C, The Master Nutrient, by Sandra Goodman, Ph.D

The Complete Family Guide to Alternative Medicine, by Shealy, C.
Norman.

Antioxidants Against Cancer, by Ralph W. Moss

World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile), by G. Edward
Griffin

In article <1163796642.239964.109690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>Immunizations: The Reality Behind the Myth, by Walene James
>
>Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A
>Medical Controversy, by David Kirby
>
>A Shot in the Dark, by Harris Coulter (documented vaccine damage in
>children)

>World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile), by G. Edward
>Griffin

Your silly list is not somehow enhanced by your repeated posting of
it. That sort of repetition is classic netloon behavior, by the way.

I removed sci.life-extension from the newsgroups list because they
actually like science and evidence, meaning they'll ignore you anyway.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher

David Wright wrote:
> In article <1163796642.239964.109690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Immunizations: The Reality Behind the Myth, by Walene James
> >
> >Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A
> >Medical Controversy, by David Kirby
> >
> >A Shot in the Dark, by Harris Coulter (documented vaccine damage in
> >children)
>
> >World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile), by G. Edward
> >Griffin
>
> Your silly list is not somehow enhanced by your repeated posting of
> it. That sort of repetition is classic netloon behavior, by the way.

If repetition is the measure of netloon behaviour, what does that say
about you?

> I removed sci.life-extension from the newsgroups list because they
> actually like science and evidence, meaning they'll ignore you anyway.

What a remarkable insight into those with whom you have nothing
whatsoever in common.

PeterB

In article <1164641583.618217.251750@14g2000cws.googlegroups. com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>> In article <1163796642.239964.109690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
>> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Immunizations: The Reality Behind the Myth, by Walene James
>> >
>> >Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A
>> >Medical Controversy, by David Kirby
>> >
>> >A Shot in the Dark, by Harris Coulter (documented vaccine damage in
>> >children)
>>
>> >World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile), by G. Edward
>> >Griffin
>>
>> Your silly list is not somehow enhanced by your repeated posting of
>> it. That sort of repetition is classic netloon behavior, by the way.
>
>If repetition is the measure of netloon behaviour, what does that say
>about you?

It says I can spot it in you.

>> I removed sci.life-extension from the newsgroups list because they
>> actually like science and evidence, meaning they'll ignore you anyway.
>
>What a remarkable insight into those with whom you have nothing
>whatsoever in common.

How humorous, coming from the guy who assured us that most people
could live to be 120 with proper nutrition. Very scientific. Not
that you provided any evidence.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

David Wright wrote:
> In article <1164641583.618217.251750@14g2000cws.googlegroups. com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >David Wright wrote:
> >> In article <1163796642.239964.109690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> >> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Immunizations: The Reality Behind the Myth, by Walene James
> >> >
> >> >Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A
> >> >Medical Controversy, by David Kirby
> >> >
> >> >A Shot in the Dark, by Harris Coulter (documented vaccine damage in
> >> >children)
> >>
> >> >World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile), by G. Edward
> >> >Griffin
> >>
> >> Your silly list is not somehow enhanced by your repeated posting of
> >> it. That sort of repetition is classic netloon behavior, by the way.
> >
> >If repetition is the measure of netloon behaviour, what does that say
> >about you?
>
> It says I can spot it in you.

But not in yourself.

> >> I removed sci.life-extension from the newsgroups list because they
> >> actually like science and evidence, meaning they'll ignore you anyway.
> >
> >What a remarkable insight into those with whom you have nothing
> >whatsoever in common.
>
> How humorous, coming from the guy who assured us that most people
> could live to be 120 with proper nutrition. Very scientific. Not
> that you provided any evidence.

The evidence I cited you ignored. If researchers see the average
lifespan reaching 100 in another 50 years, the leap to 120 is really
quite close. Perhaps if you made some effort to say something
resembling an idea on occasion, you could be mistaken for a human being
and not a spit ball.

PeterB

">World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile), by G.
Edward
>Griffin"

Would be happy to discuss this infamous poster child for the
"alternative drug" industry. Is the book on your list to promote it for
its great value or as a negative example? Is this substance in the
poison database?

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> ">World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile), by G.
> Edward
> >Griffin"
>
> Would be happy to discuss this infamous poster child for the
> "alternative drug" industry. Is the book on your list to promote it for
> its great value or as a negative example? Is this substance in the
> poison database?

What is your background in the clinical use of B17, or do you have some
source of information you can reference about it?

PeterB

> ">World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile), by G.
> Edward
> >Griffin"
>
> Would be happy to discuss this infamous poster child for the
> "alternative drug" industry. Is the book on your list to promote it
for
> its great value or as a negative example? Is this substance in the
> poison database?

"What is your background in the clinical use of B17, or do you have some
source of information you can reference about it?"

I looked at research and advocates of it on the internet and their
"clinical" material. Howevr that was not the question, as posted above
again for your convience.

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> > ">World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile), by G.
> > Edward
> > >Griffin"
> >
> > Would be happy to discuss this infamous poster child for the
> > "alternative drug" industry. Is the book on your list to promote it
> for
> > its great value or as a negative example? Is this substance in the
> > poison database?
>
> "What is your background in the clinical use of B17, or do you have some
> source of information you can reference about it?"
>
> I looked at research and advocates of it on the internet and their
> "clinical" material. Howevr that was not the question, as posted above
> again for your convience.

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

PeterB

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

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

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

In 1982, a phase II study with 175 patients looked at which
types of cancer might benefit from treatment with amygdalin.
Most of the patients in this study had breast, colon, or lung
cancer. Amygdalin was given by injection for 21 days, followed
by oral maintenance therapy using doses and procedures similar
to those in the phase I study. Vitamins and pancreatic enzymes
were also given as part of a metabolic therapy program that also
included dietary changes. One stomach cancer patient showed a
decrease in tumor size, which was maintained for 10 weeks while
the patient was on amygdalin therapy. In about half of the patients,
cancer had grown at the end of the treatment. Cancer had grown in
all patients 7 months after completing treatment. Some patients
reported an improvement in their ability to work or do other
activities, and other patients said their symptoms improved. These
improvements, however, did not last after treatment ended.

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

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
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."

Regarding the clinical benefits of laetril for cancer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> Regarding the clinical benefits of laetril for cancer:
>
> "I believe the evidence for the distortion of clinical data relating to
> its use in cancer subjects is of concern. How effective B17 *could* be
> in treating cancer is largely unknown."
>
> Then consider this abstract and see if your belief remains the same. As
> a point of curiosity, based on a negative belief you gave support for a
> book praising laetrile?

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

> 'Laetrile for cancer: a systematic review of the clinical evidence'
>
> "BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients treated with conventional therapies
> also try 'alternative' cancer treatments. Laetrile is one such
> 'alternative' that is claimed to be effective by many
> alternative therapists. Laetrile is also sometimes referred to as
> amygdalin, although the two are not the same.
>
> OBJECTIVE: The aim of this
> review is to summarize all types of clinical data related to
> the effectiveness or safety of laetrile interventions as a treatment
> of any type of cancer.
>
> MATERIALS AND METHODS: All types of
> clinical studies containing original clinical data of laetrile
> interventions were included. We searched the Cochrane Central
> Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1951),
> EMBASE (from 1980), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED),
> Scirus, CancerLit, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied
> Health (CINAHL; all from 1982), CAMbase (from 1998), the MetaRegister,
> the National Research Register, and our own files. For reports
> on
> the safety of laetrile, we also searched the Uppsala database.
> No language restrictions were imposed.
>
> RESULTS: Thirty six reports met our inclusion criteria. No controlled
> clinical trials were found. Three articles were nonconsecutive case
> series, 2 were consecutive case series, 6 were best case series, and 25
> were case reports. None of these publications proved the effectiveness
> of laetrile.
>
> CONCLUSION: Therefore, the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects
> for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data.

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

PeterB

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : I believe the evidence for the distortion of clinical data relating to
> : its use in cancer subjects is of concern. How effective B17 *could* be
> : in treating cancer is largely unknown.
>
> According to the National Cancer Institute, (http://tinyurl.com/v4lqm),
> there have only been two clinical studies of laetrile. The Phase I
> trial reported few side effects (except for one person who developed
> symptoms of cyanide poisoning after eating almonds).
>
> In 1982, a phase II study with 175 patients looked at which
> types of cancer might benefit from treatment with amygdalin.
> Most of the patients in this study had breast, colon, or lung
> cancer. Amygdalin was given by injection for 21 days, followed
> by oral maintenance therapy using doses and procedures similar
> to those in the phase I study. Vitamins and pancreatic enzymes
> were also given as part of a metabolic therapy program that also
> included dietary changes. One stomach cancer patient showed a
> decrease in tumor size, which was maintained for 10 weeks while
> the patient was on amygdalin therapy. In about half of the patients,
> cancer had grown at the end of the treatment. Cancer had grown in
> all patients 7 months after completing treatment. Some patients
> reported an improvement in their ability to work or do other
> activities, and other patients said their symptoms improved. These
> improvements, however, did not last after treatment ended.
>
> I'd say that 1 out of 175 is a fairly good indication of how effective
> laetrile is -- or rather, is not.

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

PeterB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

coons...@amestwp.com wrote:
> "Griffin's book documents the use of laetrile by several US doctors
> whose cancer patients survived much longer than those conventionally
> treated. He also discusses, and fully documents, the politics of
> actions by FDA in making further research on this substance impossible."
>
> No doubt many of those "several doctors" were in the first study
> provided you. The kind of anecdotal data the doctor has in his book is
> typical of the studies in the first abstract. On the scale of
> "evidence" anecdotal data is at or near the bottom of the list in
> science. At very very best it is suggestive but no more.

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


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

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

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

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

PeterB

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> ""Absence of Proof does not Constitute Proof of Absence." I believe
> Griffin is right that in the absence of proper science, we can't
> discount the possible benefits of Laetrile. His book is a very
> interesting read, and well documented. Everyone should read it."
>
> Leaving the many points about the process of science aside expressed
> above we can look at another abstract for more definitive information.
> That question has also been asked and answered, after reading this you
> should probably reconsider your belief about laetrile based soley on
> your own criteria:
>
> 'Alternative cancer cures: "unproven" or "disproven"?'
>
> "Oncology has always coexisted with therapies offered outside of
> conventional cancer treatment centers and based on theories not found in
> biomedicine. These alternative cancer cures have often been described as
> "unproven," suggesting that appropriate clinical trials have not been
> conducted and that the therapeutic value of the treatment is unknown.
>
> Contrary to much popular and scientific writing, many alternative cancer
> treatments have been investigated in good quality clinical trials, and
> they have been shown to be ineffective. In this article, clinical trial
> data on a number of alternative cancer cures including
> Livingston-Wheeler, Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C,
> hydrazine sulfate, Laetrile, and psychotherapy are reviewed. The label
> "unproven" is inappropriate for such therapies; it is time to assert
> that many alternative cancer therapies have been "disproven.""

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

PeterB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> "Science is not about proof, but evidence. You have not demonstrated
> sufficient evidence to make your case against Laetrile. Griffin's book
> aptly discusses *why* the quality of evidence accumulated against
> Laetrile is not only insufficient, but in some cases, quite inept."
>
> Of course it has no legs to stand on in the least. In the first
> abstract a look at the material presented in support of it was found not
> to do so in fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> The claims must stand or fall on their own merit.

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

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

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

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

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

PeterB

coonskin@amestwp.com 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 <pkm@mytrashmail.com> 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 schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
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 <pkm@mytrashmail.com> 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 <pkm@mytrashmail.com> 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, edzard.ernst@pms.ac.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 <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
: Richard Schultz wrote:
:> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> 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 N