Not shockingly, most of the controversy that surrounded the use of this substance as a means of cancer treatment was sprouted during the late 1970’s – 1990’s. Many of the claims from the mid 1970’s tended to focus on the “toxicity” of the use of these substances when ingested orally. Although, many of these claims seem to have not been properly investigated, but rather seized on as a means for pursing the FDA to outlaw the use of both Amygdalin and Laetrile. The FDA did begin to move to make utilizing these illegal but found difficulty when many cases were brought to state supreme courts. Many doctors called “quack” while many supported the usage. Although when clinical trials were requested, they continued to choose not to citing “toxicity,” despite many claims of successful results otherwise.

Its funny as we tend to see a pattern in our research of “falling in line” with a general opinion despite actual testing or research being done. Oddly enough grant funding for this substance doesn’t seem to run to the top of the list as many studies done on it have not been funded externally. We find it odd that the results from independent research tend to show highly positive results, while those funded by grants from medical funding foundations tend to show the opposite. Seems like there might be some NDA contracts and hush money at play here, but that is just speculation from the results we have found.