CA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVECOVER ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


CA Cancer J Clin 1981; 31:91-95
doi: 10.3322/canjclin.31.2.91
© 1981 American Cancer Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a letter to the editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lerner, I. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lerner, I. J.

CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Vol 31, 91-95, Copyright © 1981 by American Cancer Society


Laetrile: A Lesson in Cancer Quackery

Irving J. Lerner M.D.1

1 Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine in the Department of Medicine at University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The laetrile promotion is not different from previous cancer quackery campaigns, and indeed it represents a classic example of such movements. It differs from its predecessors only in the degree of its success. The laetrile crusade has achieved unprecedented triumph by capitalizing on a unique sociopolitical climate characterized by a growing hostility towards "the establishment," a demand for simple solutions. and frustration with the inability to solve the cancer riddle. It is also directed by sophisticated, radical political machinery. and funded by enormous profits. Nevertheless, as one attempts to assay a historical phenomenon without the advantage of the passage of time, the laetrile movement appears to have peaked and begun its inevitable decline. This is clearly indicated by recent, important judicial decisions. It is also evident that the bandwagon effect on state legislation has waned, and one can be skeptical that many more states will follow in the legalization of laetrile. Not only do the data continue to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of laetrile in animal and human cancers, but the public seems to be more knowledgeable about this fact. More importantly, the campaign to inform the public about the substantial toxicity of lactrile seems to have had some measure of success. Of all the factors, though, it is likely that the unnecessary and inexcusable death of five-year-old Chad Green will be the most important in sounding the death knell of the laetrile movement.

Two final questions should be asked when considering the laetrile phenomenon: Will the promoters of the next great quack cancer remedy be able to learn enough from the lesson of laetrile to improve upon it? Or will we in the medical community have learned enough to squelch it promptly and effectively?







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVECOVER ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1981 by American Cancer Society.