Talk:Amygdalin

Bias in editing

After attempting to add new evidence for the use of amygdalin, the edits were subsequently taken down and research i provided as evidence was used to ad in he following edit: "The authors also recommended, on ethical and scientific grounds, that no further clinical research into laetrile or amygdalin be conducted. Subsequent research has confirmed these findings."

The line "Subsequent research has confirmed these findings" is false and used out of context as the article provided specifically states "Therefore, to fully exploit its medicinal potentials, further investigations are needed for the effect of different processing approaches on amygdalin."

The paper cited does state to potential toxicity of amygdalin due to gut bacterial degradation, however it also states large amounts need to be ingested in order to reach this dose.

the following is from the same article I provided, that was then used to try to refute actual evidence for its potential benefits. "These researches suggest that intravenous infusion of amygdalin can bypass enzymatic degradation in the gastrointestinal tract and generate no cyanide toxicity associated with amygdalin breakdown, while oral administration may result in significant blood cyanide levels"

The article in reference is "Amygdalin - A pharmacological and toxicological review" and when reading the actual study for the information in contains, it does infact state "herefore, to fully exploit its medicinal potentials, further investigations are needed for the effect of different processing approaches on amygdalin".

Wikipedia should hold itself to higher standards and not show its extreme bias. 75.109.194.139 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't say useless things like FRIN, which is what this amounts to. Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources for health related information have to comply with a high standard - that is WP:MEDRS. JimRenge (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, and the was nothing MEDRS supporting the text the OP was trying to force into the lede saying "However, new research has been conducted and shows promise on it's [sic] use as an anti-cancer agent if dosed and delivered properly". Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

there was 4 articles, which contained review articles, that supported that claim. Maybe if the editors had taken time to read the articles they wouldn't have been blinded by their own bias 75.109.194.139 (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So the paper that is used to back up information already on the page stating no more research should be conducted, cannot be the same paper used to state that there are in-fact proven benefits and more research is needed? Even though it comes from a tertiary and reliable source? 75.109.194.139 (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia never says "more research is needed" as it's meaningless fluff. As to evidence, the source says this. I have added some underlining for emphasis:

In addition, there were many clinical cases of amygdalin poisoning, but few systematic clinical studies. Once had the researcher to carry on a series of studies on the antitumor activity of amygdalin, and 36 different studies involving amygdalin administration were also analyzed (Milazzo et al., 2011). The results showed that there was no reliable clinical data to support the claim that amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients (Milazzo et al., 2006, 2007, 2011; Milazzo, 2015). Another trial also revealed that among 178 cancer patients receiving amygdalin and metabolic therapy (including diet, enzymes and vitamins), no substantive benefits were observed in terms of cure, cancer stabilization, improvement of cancer-related symptoms, or lifespan extension. Thus, amygdalin has no clinical benefit in anti-tumor of these studies (Moertel et al., 1982). Based on the above examples, the risk benefit ratio is not favorable for amygdalin as a treatment for cancer (Milazzo et al., 2006; Milazzo et al., 2007; Milazzo et al., 2011; Milazzo, 2015; Kapoor, 2014).

So: stop POV-pushing stuff you've made up. In any case, a recommendation for investigating "processing approaches on amygdalin" is not the same as wanting clinical trials, which are considered unethical. Bon courage (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There was an edit added backing up the statement of "no further clinical research into laetrile or amygdalin be conducted" using an article that literally says the opposite.

You are again, showing poorly articulated bias. What you quoted is right above that same paragraph the same authors state:

"However, the available research has primarily focused on the pharmacological effect and toxicity of amygdalin and the interpretation about the molecular mechanisms of its actions are still insufficient. Neither systemic data regarding the pharmacokinetics of this compound nor evaluations of its target-organ toxicity have been adequately documented. Hence, more original research need to be conducted in the future to evaluate its potential therapeutic effects, side effects or toxicity. Additionally, in recent years, increasing but still only a limited number of studies have focused on its effect on inflammation, digestion, neurodegeneration, reproduction, myocardial hypertrophy and blood glucose, more research need to be performed to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of this compound."

And right below your quote is:

"Thus, future studies could devote more efforts to investigate whether different concentrations of amygdalin have different effects on tumors, especially the does-efficacy relationship. More animal-based experiments are needed, and more attention should also be paid to the fact that the cancer cells in the literatures are all different cell lines."

You are using words from other studies to back up your claims. Those are not the authors words but a summary of previous inncorect opinions from old studies. Science evolves, try to keep up 75.109.194.139 (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Your source does not call for "clinical research", but lab work. Bon courage (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting how you ignore your wrongs in the previous comment. also interesting on the update to the wiki page "The authors also recommended, on ethical and scientific grounds, that no further clinical research into laetrile or amygdalin be conducted. Subsequent research has confirmed the evidence of harm and lack of benefit."

Again, this same paper literally states "Anyhow, this paper has systematically reviewed the pharmacology and toxicology of amygdalin and provided comprehensive information on this compound. We hope this review provides some directions for the future research and development of amygdalin". Future research which can include lab work and clinical trials.

Does it take people calling you out for bias and very poor ability to research and understand it before you make more proper edits? The amount of evidence, in reviews, that state there IS benefit, further shows your bias and ignorance. It's unfortunate that a person like you gets to be in charge of information to the public. 75.109.194.139 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You're making stuff up. Clinically, the source says "Thus, amygdalin has no clinical benefit in anti-tumor of these studies ... . Based on the above examples, the risk benefit ratio is not favorable for amygdalin as a treatment for cancer." If you have any further suggestions I suggest making them in a "change X to Y" format, with source and rationale. Otherwise, we are done here. Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I am directly quoting their paper. YOU are the one who is taking words out of context. The words you are choosing to use are words of OTHER authors that they have included to show how outdated the information is. That specific line is based on a study from 1982. Why are you being misleading and deceptive? Why is that so hard to understand?

Gatekeep harder. Maybe work on yourself some instead of keeping this "I am mightier than thou" complex you have going on. I suggest taking a class on learning to read scientific articles. 75.109.194.139 (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)