The Way of Science

By 1979, the National Cancer Institutes (NCI) had concluded a major re-examination of all the Mexican data, plus most American studies. NCI's conclusion? Alas, no clear conclusion could be drawn, since almost all uses of laetrile were in combination with chemotherapy, radiation, etc., and mostly done under loose and uncontrolled conditions. Note that the FDA, required to have evidence of efficacy in order to approve a drug, still had no such evidence.

About this same time, trials of laetrile on rats revealed that, in addition to being ineffective, the substance was toxic. In doses comparable to those administered to humans, the cyanide became dangerous. Note again that it was quite impossible for the FDA to give its blessing to this "cure," and again the story should have ended here.

Unfortunately, the public pressures on their representatives was intense enough that the NCI agreed to begin clinical trials, in spite of that evidence for toxicity, and lack of evidence for effectiveness.

Consider how such clinical trials must be done, and compare that approach to the one that would yield maximum unambiguous information. To get the best results, a large group of newly-diagnosed cancer victims would be chosen. "Newly-diagnosed" because they have not had any other treatments which would complicate the experiment. (Remember, we want to keep variables to a minimum, ideally just one: the presence or absence of laetrile.) This "ideal" trial would then split the patients into control and experimental groups, under double-blind conditions. The control group gets a placebo, and nothing else. The experimental group gets laetrile, and nothing else: no chemotherapy, no radiation, even if these other treatments have had splendid records of success. It should be obvious that such an "ideal" trial could not be done by NCI (or legally by any one else).

What was done was to take patients who had been through all other treatments with poor results, treat them with laetrile, but continue the standard therapy (for both experimental and control groups). Ethically, the physicians cannot cut off these proven treatments, which still offer the best chance of success. So the tests that were actually done were, of necessity, far from the ideal type done on rats and hamsters.

The results of these clinical trials showed no regression of symptoms, no extension of lifespan, no weight gain, and no activity gain. In other words, by all standards of treatment effectiveness, laetrile fails again. However, the public and the laetrile lobby were unconvinced. After all, the clinical trials were far from ideal, and thus the results were open to criticism and doubt.

In 1979, another interesting development occurred. After a series of legal battles, the pro-laetrile forces won a major victory in a U.S. Court of Appeals. The use of laetrile by terminally ill cancer patients was legal, said the judges. This decision was quickly appealed to the US Supreme Court, where the justices there overturned the lower court's verdict. Why do you think they did that? There were no abstruse legal technicalities involved; think about medical ethics, and what it means to be "terminally ill." Think probabilities!