sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (02/10/85)
> Laetrile is one of the less common B vitamins. (I forget which one) > Hard to imagine a B vitamin hurting anyone. (if you get more than > you need, your body dumps the extra) > > Nutritional type therapys are much better, since they work *with* > your body, instead of *against* it, as drugs tend to do. These kind of statements reflect a level of ignorance about human physiology and nutrition which CAN be truly dangerous when attempting to treat medical conditions. Laetrile isn't a vitamin by any standard (unless calling something a vitamin makes it one.) There is no deficiency syndrome in man or animals; it is not found in a normal diet, nor is it made by the organism. There are no metabolic pathways in which Laetrile functions in an essential role. This is a vitamin? On the other hand, in the few FDA-sanctioned studies of the drug, it was found that patients displayed significant cyanide toxicity, the active ingredient of Laetrile, amygdalin, derived from peach pits, being a cyanide-containing polysaccharide. YOU can get your MDR or RDA of this stuff, thank you very much, but don't slip it into MY Total. Another point which is not well understood is that the words "drug" and "vitamin" are semantic classifications given to chemical compounts. If a chemical fits the standard in my previous paragraph, it can be called a vitamin when delivered in doses which match the body's physiological needs. But megadoses of vitamins often have effects on the body quite unrelated to their primary roles in nutrition. These are properly called "drug effects." Not all B vitamins are harmless when given in quantity. Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) in large doses (500mg/day or more) causes a nerve inflammation, polyneuritis, which is often indistinguishable from multiple sclerosis! Niacin (in its nicotinic acid form) causes skin flushing in moderate doses, and lowers blood cholesterol when given in VERY large doses. But the doses lowering cholesterol also may cause liver problems, skin reactions and severe indigestion. Here, we're talking about drugs and their side-effects, NOT vitamins. The comment about vitamins working WITH instead of AGAINST the body is a politico-religious "feel-good" statement, and doesn't bear up to scientific scrutiny. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
paul@phs.UUCP (Paul C. Dolber) (02/11/85)
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.