Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Whistleblower on Laetrile Cover-up fired by Sloan-Kettering

The following is the story of Dr. Moss, the Public Relations Director at Sloan-Kettering in 1977 who was told to lie to the press about the promising laetrile (B-17) studies conducted at S-K. He held his own press conference and blew the whistle on Sloan. He was fired the next day for telling the truth.

Just say no to chemo.



http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/laetrile.asp

An excerpt from the book :

"ALTERNATIVES IN CANCER THERAPY"
by Ross, R.Ph. Pelton, Lee Overholser

"Laetrile

LAETRILE THERAPY is probably the best known and most widely publicized of alternative cancer therapies. Laetrile, more than any other substance, epitomizes the scientific and philosophical controversy that has raged between supporters of alternative cancer therapies and the medical establishment.

Background

Amygdalin is a member of a group of cyanide-containing substances called nitrilosides, which occur naturally in plants. The terms laetrile and amygdalin are often used interchangeably. Laetrile is a concentrated extract of amygdalin prepared from apricot kernels specifically for cancer therapy. The extraction process was developed by Dr. Ernst Krebs, Jr., who pioneered the use of laetrile in cancer therapy. (17)

Amygdalin, which is also called vitamin B17, is a relatively simple compound that occurs naturally in much of our food supply. Substantial amounts of amygdalin are found in apricots, peaches, cherries, berries, buckwheat, millet, alfalfa, and some strains of beans and peas. It is estimated that it occurs in about 1,200 different kinds of plants, with the highest levels occurring in the seeds of non-citrus fruits.

When laetrile (or amygdalin) is acted upon by the enzyme beta-glucosidase, it breaks down into two molecules of glucose (a sugar), one molecule of benzaldehyde (an analgesic), and one molecule of hydrocyanic acid (a poison).

As the enzyme beta-glucosidase breaks amygdalin down into its component parts, toxic cyanide is released. Studies have shown that various types of cancer cells contain from 100 to 3,600 times more of this enzyme than noncancerous cells, so much greater amounts of cyanide are released where there are active cancer cells. (4)

Although most cancer cells have high levels of beta-glucosidase, they are deficient in most other enzymes, especially rho-danese. (7) Rhodanese detoxifies hydrocyanic acid into nontoxic thiocyanate. Ultimately, the cyanide ion becomes part of the vitamin Bi2 molecule (cyanocobalamin). Since cancer cells have difficulty metabolizing cyanide, it is selectively toxic to cancer cells when released from laetrile. (2)

Benzaldehyde, which is a known analgesic, is also released by the breakdown of laetrile at tumor sites. This probably accounts for the pain relief that patients often report with the administration of laetrile. (8) Some research conducted in Japan has shown that benzaldehyde also has antitumor activity. (9, 11)

In theory, laetrile may be the perfect chemotherapeutic agent. It selectively destroys cancer cells and it is nontoxic to normal cells.

Animal Studies

In a study sponsored by the McNaughton Foundation in San Ysidro, California, laetrile was injected into laboratory animals intraperitoneally in dosages of 500 mg/kg. The mean survival time of the laetrile-treated animals was 70 percent longer than that of the controls. This research was reported at Senate subcommittee hearings on laetrile in July 1977. (21) In addition, studies conducted at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, using a mouse model with adenocarcinoma, showed that laetrile-treated mice survived over twice as long as the control mice. (15)

The Manner Studies

In September 1977 Dr. Harold W. Manner, chairman of the Department of Biology at Loyola University in Chicago, released to the world the results of some remarkable laetrile research. In mice prone to developing breast cancer, Dr. Manner found that laetrile in combination with vitamin A and pancreatic enzymes produced a very high cure rate. Of eighty-four treated mice, seventy-five underwent complete regression of mammary tumors, while the other nine mice showed partial regression. (10)

Dr. Manner has often been criticized for announcing the results of his research publicly instead of waiting for publication in a scientific journal. Peer-reviewed journal publication can often take as long as eighteen months, and Dr. Manner reportedly felt that this information was so important that he decided to bypass the time delay required for scientific publication and to break the story publicly.

The Sloan-Kettering Cover-up

Ralph W. Moss gives an excellent overview of the political and scientific controversy that has surrounded laetrile in his book The Cancer Industry. He states, "Although spokespersons for orthodox medicine continue to deny that there have been any animal study data in favor of laetrile, this is contradicted by a number of studies, including—but not limited to—those at Sloan-Kettering."

Moss should know, because he was discharged by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center when he revealed an apparent cover-up by authorities at Sloan-Kettering of positive findings about laetrile.

Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura

In the 1960s Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, one of the world's most widely known and most highly respected cancer research scientists, officially retired from Sloan-Kettering. He continued to carry out cancer research as an emeritus associate. Ten years after his official retirement, officials at Sloan-Kettering asked Dr. Sugiura to begin testing laetrile.

Researchers at Sloan-Kettering had already found laetrile to be ineffective in animal models with transplanted tumors. However, Dr. Sugiura pointed out that laetrile could not be expected to be effective against transplanted tumors.

Dr. Sugiura's research showed that laetrile had a substantial effect on inhibiting the growth of secondary tumors in mice, although it did not destroy the primary tumors. He also reported that some of his studies showed that laetrile can produce a 60-percent reduction in lung metastases. The laetrile-treated mice appeared healthier and more active than the saline-treated controls. This would support some of the claims that laetrile can improve the quality of a patient's life.

Dr. Richard Passwater also reported that some of the positive findings in Sloan-Kettering's laetrile studies were selectively not reported. Also, it appears that some of the laetrile research was deliberately designed to fail. (18)

Controversy and Confusion

According to Ralph Moss, who worked at Sloan-Kettering for several years before being discharged, five years of testing laetrile at Sloan-Kettering ended in controversy and confusion—not a pleasing outcome for the leaders of the world's most prestigious private cancer center. In summary, about twenty experiments with laetrile produced positive results, while only a few experiments produced negative findings.

The contradictory findings and the controversy surrounding laetrile was creating a problem at Sloan-Kettering. A group of dissenters within Sloan-Kettering, who called themselves Second Opinion, wrote a memo on the subject of releasing results of the laetrile research:

If on the one hand, they publish the truth about laetrile, they will have to say something like this: we have been unable to reach any definitive conclusion on this substance. Dr. Sugiura, one of the most experienced researchers, has done many studies showing positive effects. Other researchers have claimed negative results. We think this issue can only be settled through a study on willing human volunteers with cancer, and we would like to conduct such a study here at Memorial Sloan-Kettering.

That would be honest, but it would also be disastrous from a fund-raising point of view, since it would bring down the wrath of the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute, from whom MSKCC receives most of its research funds, not to mention the Food and Drug Administration....

The other choice is to publish a totally one-sided report. ... This is the most likely prospect....

There was increasing pressure on Sloan-Kettering to release their findings on laetrile.

Sloan-Kettering's Laetrile Report

Finally, at a press conference in June 1977, Sloan-Kettering officials announced to the world the results of over five years of laetrile research. The verdict on laetrile from the respected laboratories of the world's most prestigious cancer research center turned out to be completely one-sided and negative.

Some of the comments by Sloan-Kettering's top administrators at the laetrile press conference were:

We have no evidence that laetrile possesses any biological activity with respect to cancer, one way or the other. —Lewis Thomas, president of Sloan-Kettering

We have no reproducible evidence that amygdalin, or laetrile, is active. —Robert Good, director of Sloan-Kettering

Laetrile has been found absolutely devoid of activity, period. —Daniel Martin, prominent cancer researcher

Essentially, laetrile was pronounced completely ineffective in treating cancer, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

Worldwide Research

Research has continued in other countries, where the PDA and NCI have much less influence. Dr. David Rubin of Israel has reported using high dosages of laetrile (70 gm/day) and getting good results with breast cancer and bone cancer patients, though leukemia patients did not respond.

Dr. Manuel D. Navarro, professor of medicine and surgery at the University of Santo Tomas in the Philippines, is one of the world's leading advocates of laetrile. In 1962 he presented a paper at the Eighth International Cancer Congress, describing several case histories and reporting that much higher doses of laetrile than previously used were proving to be much more effective.

HCI Studies

In 1978 the National Cancer Institute published the results of a retrospective case review of laetrile-treated cancer patients, asking for documented case histories of patients who had benefited from laetrile. However, the selection criteria were so strict that almost all the reports were rejected and the study was inconclusive.

Despite these disappointing results, NCI decided to proceed with prospective clinical trials, which were conducted by the Mayo Clinic. After a Phase I trial examining dosage and toxicity, a Phase II trial, involving 178 patients with advanced cancers, was conducted. This study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1982, claimed that laetrile was ineffective as a treatment for cancer.

Laetrile advocates pointed out that many of the patients selected for the trial (66 percent) had already been subjected to toxic chemotherapy. Another important question involved the quality of the laetrile being used in the study. In an effort to ensure a proper trial, one of the clinics using laetrile offered to provide free laetrile of known quality for the study. This offer was refused. Dr. James Cason of the University of California at Berkeley reportedly tested the substance used in the NCI study and found that it did not contain any amygdalin (laetrile).

Robert Bradford, founder of the Committee for Freedom of Choice, stated, "The whole thing, as far as we are concerned, is a put-up to discredit laetrile." At this time it appears laetrile has not yet received a fair, unbiased trial.

Current Status

Laetrile therapy is one of the first alternative cancer therapies that tended to polarize the emotional issue of freedom of choice for Americans in health care. It became a fight between the "quacks" and the medical establishment.

Laetrile is one of the naturally occurring substances that cannot be patented, making it a true orphan drug. No drug company is interested in committing money to research laetrile's potential. The only answer is good, unbiased government-sponsored research without the type of controversy that accompanied the Sloan-Kettering studies."



http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/laetrile.asp

2 comments:

  1. Though Laetrile isn't easy to come by for most people, particularly outside of the U.S., it is possible to have a therapeutic dose of amygdalin through the use of apricot kernels.

    There is a very broad range of apricot kernels available that encompass the entire spectrum of amygdalin content - from very little, to quite a lot. The bitterness of an apricot kernel is indicative of its amygdalin content. Both sweet and bitter varieties contain quantities of amygdalin. However, people don’t realize the significant range of amygdalin content of the apricot kernels being sold as “bitter” varieties.

    45 apricot kernels of one variety are all that is required for a daily dose of 1,500 mg of amygdalin. This is a dose that falls within a therapeutic range. In another variety of “bitter” apricot kernels, 200 kernels would have to be consumed in order to achieve similar quantities. However, the people using this variety are still adhering to common dosage guidelines, which means, at best, they’re likely only receiving 80-100 mg of amygdalin, and that’s at 45 apricot kernels per day.

    The variety of bitter apricot kernel is critical to their efficacy. The wrong variety will simply not work.

    I talk about this in more detail on my own blog at http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/apricot-kernels-some-work-some-dont.html

    My mission is to promote apricot kernels correctly. There is so much misinformation online regarding apricot kernels, a large percentage of users aren't giving themselves the best chance they have. I want to clear up some of these myths and misconceptions and attempt to level out the terrain. Apricot kernels absolutely deserve respect in the realm of alternative therapies, but the propagation of misinformation will continue to mar their reputation and their efficacy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is a new documentary about this exact story, here is the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXzLuxwqQs

    ReplyDelete