Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site phs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!duke!phs!paul From: paul@phs.UUCP (Paul C. Dolber) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: Laetrile, a B vitamin? Message-ID: <996@phs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 09:47:22 EST Article-I.D.: phs.996 Posted: Mon Feb 11 09:47:22 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 03:39:59 EST References: <532@tesla.UUCP> <690@wucs.UUCP> <6104@rochester.UUCP> <8013@brl-tgr.ARPA> <575@mako.UUCP>, <328@bbnRe: Laetrile, a B vitamin? Organization: Dept. Physiol., DUMC Lines: 50 A few comments from my favorite authority, The Merck Index, Tenth Edition: "Pharmacology and cyanide toxicity studies of amygdalin (laetrile): C.G. Moertel et al., J Am Med Assoc 245, 591 (1981); M.M. Ames et al., Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 6, 51 (1981).... Amygdalin (laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment: C.G. Moertel et al., New Engl. J. Med. 306, 201 (1982). Review of the controversial use of amygdalin (laetrile): V. Herbert, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32, 1121-1158 (1979)... Note: The misleading term vitamin B17 has sometimes been applied to amygdalin." And from another favorite, Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dicitionary: "vitamin... Any of a group of organic substances other than proteins, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, and organic salts which are essential for normal metabolism, growth, and development of the body... they are indispensable for normal functions and the maintenance of health." (Hmm... doesn't really sound like laetrile fits here, eh?) Finally: If an adult with an otherwise incurable cancer opts for laetrile treatment, well, fine, OK by me. But if an adult with an otherwise curable cancer or who is the parent of a child with an otherwise curable cancer opts for laetrile treatment, well, that's not fine with me. I realize that such an opinion can touch off a lengthy debate (e.g., can Jehovah's Witnesses withhold blood transfusions for their children? Can name-your-favorite-religious-splinter-group withhold any treatment for their children on the basis that God will heal them?); I don't really wish to participate in such a debate. Suffice it to say that most or all doctors don't want to restrict your freedom of choice, they want to preserve your life. Regards, Paul Dolber (...duke!phs!paul) -- not an M.D. PS: I first read about laetrile in a pamphlet in a chiropractor's office (attended by my mother-in-law: chacun a son gout) where it was also pointed out that it was clear that the AMA was out to kill all Christians. The evidence was clear: The current president's name was Fishbein [I think; it's been years]; "fish" is, of course, the symbol of the Christian church; Fishbein is/was a Jew; and "bein" is German for poison [Oh, I may have got that wrong, too; I don't know any German; but that's how the argument ran]. Laetrile was, of course, highly praised, and the AMA was only against it because so many Christians would be cured. Reminded me of the oft-repeated rumor I used to hear (back when I was doing cancer research) that the cure for cancer had already been found, but the AMA and NIH were withholding the cure because releasing it would put a host of researchers out of work. Natch.