Doctored Results: The Suppression of Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research by Ralph W. Moss

Author:Ralph W. Moss [Moss, Ralph W.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Equinox Press
Published: 2014-02-07T00:00:00+00:00

These platitudes were, nonetheless, true. “Studies on amygdalin” were indeed “a small part of Sloan-Kettering’s program.” But they happened to be the part that much of the world was intensely interested in and that these top leaders had assembled to discuss. If Good seemed defensive, it was because of criticism that Sloan-Kettering’s leaders (to quote Science) “had all gone off the deep end because they were studying laetrile and other suspect cancer therapies.”236

Good told the Rockville group:

“The aim today is to present the data to FDA and NCI and to have us think about it.”

Next, Lloyd Old took over the presentation. Although technically Good’s deputy, he had seniority at the Center and had not been implicated in the recent Summerlin scandal. Never comfortable speaking in public, Old confronted a room full of skeptics, most of whom shared a vehement hatred of laetrile and the laetrile movement, to which he had shown some tolerance, if not sympathy. With his typical brilliance, he succinctly reviewed the basic concepts behind laetrile, as it was then understood, including the “selective release of CN (cyanide) intracellularly.” He then outlined SKI’s ambitious plan to study not just laetrile but related cyanogenic glycosides (such as prunasin). He said:

“Sloan-Kettering would like to test these drugs in spontaneous tumors not just experimentally derived tumors.”

Of course, that program was already underway. He also noted claims that cancer cells had “high glucosidase levels.” (This was a popular theory behind laetrile’s use.)

Old then recounted his search for clinicians who had actually used the substance. According to the minutes:

“Dr. Old has written to several world users of laetrile, including Drs. Contreras and Niepe[r] and others. He found two groups: (1) Those who used it and found it of value and (2) those who had not used it and did not believe in it.”

Old confirmed Sloan-Kettering’s findings that laetrile had no effect on transplantable tumors. And then, finally, he came to the nub of the matter. He presented the data, complete with accompanying charts, from Sugiura’s repeated studies showing that laetrile inhibited metastases to the lung.237

“The Sloan-Kettering group believe[s] their results show that amygdalin used in animals with tumors show: a decrease in lung metastases; slower tumor growth; and pain relief. The Sloan-Kettering group are [sic] thinking of a study in man on pain relief (ibid.).

As to toxicity in the animal experiments, a major concern of the FDA, the report reads:

“Dr. Old feels that amygdalin is as non-toxic as glucose, although oral administration increases toxicity due to CN release from bacterial break down.”

He noted correctly that the oral route of administration of amygdalin was more toxic than the injected route “because the intestinal bacteria break down amygdalin to release cyanide.” This was a well-known quality of amygdalin that much would be confirmed in the Mayo Clinic human clinical trial.238

Laetrile’s essential non-toxicity when given by injection was borne out by Sugiura’s animal experiments, and most other experiments in which laetrile was injected at the very high milligram-per-kilogram level. Under such circumstances, it had no negative effect on the health of the animals.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.