Talk:G. Edward Griffin

One revert per seven days imposed on this article

Bumping thread. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have imposed a one revert per seven days restriction on this article as an arbitration enforcement action for one month in the hope that it will at least slow down edit wars. I will also note that tag team edit warring is disruptive and may result in the editors involved being further restricted (such as with 0RR or an article ban). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc thank you for imposing DS. Since you have been overwatching this article for a while and have now stepped in to impose DS (thank you for that), you may be the most appropriate person to review and close the 3RR case I opened last night, which is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Atsme_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have withdrawn that 3RR case and have posted a link to it at the AE opened by Atsme against Steeletrap here Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I think some kind of warning is needed for editors who won't see your message here. I don't know how such things are done, but it seems likely that new editors will come to the article and unknowingly violate this restriction. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a large edit notice on the article which is designed so that you need to scroll past it to be able to edit the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My mistake. I've never edited the article, just a spectator here due to the fringe Jeckyll Island stuff. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede: conspiracy theories

The lede currently states:

In the 1960s he began a career of producing documentaries and books on conspiracy theories related to cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, and the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States,

This is misleading. Aaronovich's Voodoo Histories is a book on conspiracy theories, Griffin's books are not books on conspiracy theories, they are books promoting conspiracy theories. Griffin explicitly rejects the mainstream view that the New World Order is a conspiracy theory, instead asserting that it is a genuine conspiracy.

I propose that this sentence be changed to:

In the 1960s he began producing documentaries and books promulgating conspiracy theories related to a range of subjects including cancer, ...

This is well established by the existing sources and is a much more accurate statement. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Given Callenecc's post just above, I think this is a desirable change. The timing here is excellent, for other reasons as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Any specific text to propose? Guy (Help!) 16:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

that's a reasonable change. a similar change should be made to the last sentence of "early career"Jytdog (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this change. jps (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Disagree - it is violative of consensus and unsourced. Some of his books dissect evidence of a conspiracy, some don't even mention conspiracy, so you can't lump sum his entire career and all of his literary works using the same contentious label. Atsme☯^Consult 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We have already disposed of your false claim that any mention of conspiracy theories violates consensus. Drmies' review of the RfC contradicts you unambiguously. I have asked several times for examples of works of his that are not conspiracist. You've failed to identify any. All I find when I go looking is more and wilder conspiracy theories, most especially on his website. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say "any mention" so yours is actually the false claim, not mine. My concern is over it being used in Wiki voice and unsourced or poorly sourced, like citing 35 year old OR. Callan still supports consensus and a few other qualifications for using it. Don't forget, the term is still a contentious label in a BLP, so unless you plan to rewrite policy, please adhere to it. PS: I struck through Disagree and made it Oppose. Atsme☯^Consult 03:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks for weighing in Atsme. Guy, we don't have to argue with each other. And we don't need unanimity. We just need consensus; so far everybody who has commented here but one, has been in favor of this. let is stand it a bit longer, and if there is no more opposition we can add it. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right that we do not have to argue with each other. I would argue, however, that stating a claim that is agreed by everyone else to be refuted, is arguing, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to boot. To be clear, I have no problem at all with someone saying "in my opinion X" even if X is wrong (I will challenge it if wrong, of course), but stating X as fact when it is not, in fact, fact, is problematic. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, i hear you. i don't think you and atsme are going to convince each other of anything... my wish is that we all untangle ours horns - we are all getting "locked-into-wikipedia-conflict syndrome". we can just simply acknowledge that we disagree on a given point, and move on to the next point. when there is a lack of consensus (substantial disagreement, not just one or two editors) that cannot be resolved by concretely-proposed tweaks to proposals, we can resolve that through RfCs.

I am hoping that we can decide if the article is good enough, or start proposing content to add or remove, and stop debating general points. Proposed content changes will either get consensus, or they won't. We may be able to have some discussion around how to improve proposed content that might be productive... but this kind of butting heads over general points goes no where (no one is convincing anyone) and is kind of forum-y. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

and so far, on your proposed content change, consensus so far is with it. like i said, maybe give it a day more, then you can implement it on solid ground. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• No surprise -- I agree with the proposed change as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as "promulgating" has a distinct meaning not quite warranted here. He is not the person who made the theories "publicly known" - "supporting" is, in fact, accurate here. Noah's Ark stuff should be separated from the others as not actually involving a "conspiracy theory" as such but a Creationist Weltanschauung. OK? Collect (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Promulgate: "promote or make widely known" (as per Google result searching on the word). This is exactly what he has done. "Support" is ambiguous and vague in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect, et al, would you accept the verb "promote" instead of "promulgate" and the more vague "support"? thx. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "promote" in may proposal. Collect (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Nobody is willing (or able) to make a strong case to show that Griffin's main idea in his book is a conspiracy theory. Until this changes, I would strongly oppose this proposal. See also: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#My_increasing_skepticism_of_this_article.27s_factual_accuracy. -A1candidate 14:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view, A1's opposition is based on not having read the sources provided and is not valid; you cannot continue to demand sources after you have been provided citations (and even provided citations yourself); not having access to them is not an excuse to demand more. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC) striking Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC))

note - link in A1's comment is now here: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin/Archive_7#My_increasing_skepticism_of_this_article.27s_factual_accuracy Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say that his main ideas are conspiracy theories, it says that his books promote conspiracy theories, which is unarguably true. World Without Cancer, for example, posits a conspiracy of doctors and pharmaceutical companies suppressing the "truth" that cancer is caused by a deficiency of vitamin B17, when in reality there is no such thing as vitamin B17 and no evidence that cancer is caused by a deficiency of amygdalin. Krebs only called it a vitamin to get around the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, by all accounts. His books may also promote being kind to your mother, for all I know, but that's not what they are known for.

This is not a "may contain traces of nuts", the nuts are a key ingredient. You will be aware of the well-known problem of anaphylaxis and the fact that it is the most widely identified allergen; the label "may contain nuts" is placed on products that very often will contain no trace at all, simply as a hedge against lawsuits. With Griffin's writing conspiracy theories are not a nuance that may inadvertently creep in, as he argues is the case for the allegations of antisemitism, but a core premise.

Please do not fixate on the alternative meaning of nuts, it is emphatically not intended in this case, the point is the difference between a precautionary flag warning and an intended component. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I think "promulgating" might be my fault; I thought it more precise than "promoting", but it appears I may not have been using the primary definition of "promulgating", although some of the theories really are his. We might need some more sources in the body, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - No accusations or opinions in Wiki voice. This is a BLP not an indictment.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually the statement that he writes books on conspiracy theories is an opinion stated in Wikipedia voice. The sources divide into those who believe him and portray him as writing books on conspiracies, and those who accept the mainstream view of these things and describe him as advocating conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Guy's change is an improvement, although the word "promoting" might be better than "promulgating". Cardamon (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Guy two questions. I assume you are OK with using "promotes" instead of "promulgates", yes? Also, would you please present the full sentence, with sources? (reach for the best ones you can...since this is clearly contested.) thx Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(a) yes and (b) the sources are in the body already. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I probably shouldn't bother posting here seeing that Atsme is here, but why not. There's a whole lot of emphasis that there is a conspiracy theory in this case as related to the Federal Reserve but there's little on the conspiracy theory. The question of weight should probably be asked. I'd call it lopsided myself, but that could be fixed by clearly describing the conspiracy theory. I think it probably be easier fixing some of the body problems in relation to the lede before fixing the lede. Side suggestion, I'd also ask if the subtitle "Pseudoscience promotion and conspiracy theories" could simply be changed to "Fringe views".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

it's the New World Order conspiracy theory. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great, however again the article really does little in the way of making that clear.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the fray, Serialjoepsycho. I'm looking forward to fresh input. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 12:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Guy. Per WP:LEADCITE and per all the discussion here, the sentence is going to need citations. Which citations would you prefer be used? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For Creature from Jekyll Island and Fed conspiracy theories: [3], [4].

For World withouc cancer and laetrile conspiracy theories: Media Matters again, plus Steve Novella (a very widely cited source on alternative medicine claims), plus the rather obvious fact that Griffin himself has [ reviews on his own website] that explicitly document the conspiracist nature of his claims.

As usual with Griffin there are oons.blogspot.ie/2013/09/723-g-edward-griffin.html a gazillion non-RS sources] that state his books are about the conspiracy by the Illuminati / New World Order, a tiny handful of reliable sources that point out that they are about this, and a resounding silence form the majority of mainstream sources, because largely self-published conspiracists are not credible enough to be worth bothering with.

If whale.to says that there is a conspiracy and cited a Griffin book as a source (which ti does several times), then it's a conspiracy theory. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

So what you are proposing is:

In the 1960s he began a career producing documentaries and books on conspiracy theories related to cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States. and "chemtrails".

References

i added chemtrails and some sources from the body of the article to fully cite this sentence. and some new sources. there are a few unsourced things there. do we have sources that he supports conspiracy theories per se about Noah's Ark? Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@JzG:, I'm not suggesting there are no conspiracy theory. Posting links on the talk page does not address the issues I've pointed out. The article as written and from a readers perspective does not cover the conspiracy theories, specifically I pointed out above. It says that there are conspiracy theories but as written the reader can walk away without knowing exactly what those conspiracy theories are. It's a question of weight and balance. Is it more important to read conspiracy theory or is it more important to walk away knowing what is exactly going on. I refer you to wp:label, specifically the explanation it provides with the usage the word controversial. I think that's what is happening here. It sounds opinionated but not informative all of the mention in the article related to the fed conspiracy theory, without mentioning what it is. I've not read thru the other conspiracy theories to see if they have similar issues, but I'm not discussing them either. As is there should probably be little mention of the Fed conspiracy theory in the lead. This likely can easily be fixed. Perhaps for the moment we should stop focusing on the lead and focus on the body. To me the lead ATM actually contains more information on the actual conspiracy.

Side note, Atsme and I are not friends, we had a long editorial dispute in the past. I wouldn't want to be accused of following her is why I mentioned her name in my opening.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The ideas he proposes in his books are conspiracy theories. One does not say that a peanut butter sandwich may contain traces of nuts: nuts are the defining ingredient. Jekyll Island is the story of a grand secret conspiracy. Word without cancer is the story of a "breakthrough" stressed by a conspiracy. Without the essential element of the conspiracy, the narrative is robbed of its essential power, the entire thesis makes no sense in the absence of it. The landscape in which all his ideas exist is that of the paranoid libertarian anti-government conspiracy theory where no action by government is taken for the stated reason, but instead to advance the goal of global collectivisation and control. That this is the intended meaning is abundantly clear from his website.

The only real question is whether he is actually notable. His ideas are in the main so outlandish that they are entirely ignored by reputable sources. That is the core of the problem. Sites like whale.to and David Icke's site, unquestionably cite griffin as a source corroborating conspiracy theories, but we can't cite them. Reality-based sources rarely address self-published conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be a good question to ask that question, whether he is actually notable. At a distant glance it seems he is but I didn't honestly think to question that. No credible book reviews or anything reliable to at least neutrally describe the book?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

proposal

First proposal:

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, lecturer, and filmmaker. His works supportpromote some conspiracy theories and a Creationist view of history.

He started as a child actor in radio. He then became an announcer and assistant station director. In the 1960s he began writing books and films on a range of topics including a Creationist view of Noah's Ark, conspiracy theories about the banking system and government in general, and a fringe view on cancer treatment.

He has said that the original Noah's Ark is located in the Durupınar site.

He is well-known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes his views about the Federal Reserve System. He opposes the Federal Reserve, as constituting a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.

He has supported an empirically unsupported view that cancer is a nutritional deficiency. He also believes that scientists and politicians are covering up this cure. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a treatment. It is considered a form of quackery.

second proposal (trying to make changes clearer)

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, lecturer, and filmmaker. His works supportpromote somecertain conspiracy theories and a Creationist view of historyyoung Earth creationism.

He started as a child actor in radio. He then became an announcer and assistant station director. In the 1960s he began writing books and films on a range of topics including a Creationist view of Noah's Ark, conspiracy theories about the banking system and government in general, and an ineffective and dangerous fringe view on cancer treatment promoted by Ernst T. Krebs.

He has said that the original Noah's Ark is located in the Durupınar site.

He is well-known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes his views about the Federal Reserve System. He opposes the Federal Reserve, as constituting a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.

He has supported an empirically unsupported view that cancer is a nutritional deficiency. He also believes that scientists and politicians are covering up this cure. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a treatment. It is considered a form of quackery.

References

This is what I rather think would fit all the concerns, and how would others tweak it? (all the government stuff is covered in the body of the BLP - the aim here is to be in summary style for the lead). Collect (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Word change as suggested above. Collect (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your efforts are much appreciated but the lead is too short and mostly negative with a splattering of POV. Sorry, but I object to "Creationist view of history" because that is labeling with an opinion. He and others see it as historic which makes it noncompliant with NPOV. Also, without trying to mince words, he actually doesn't promote conspiracy theories, the latter of which is considered to be a contentious label, therefore it requires high quality sources with inline text attribution. Leaving POV at the login, we are writing a biography. His books actually dissect factual information which he disseminates from a conspiratorial view with the perception that such conspiracies are a threat to personal freedom. We can disagree with his perception, but it is not our place to hang labels on him. In his words (after all, we are writing his biography): There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase “conspiracy theory” with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. He also further explains that conspiracies are common throughout history. Very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies. To think that our modern age must be an exception is not rational. Facts are either true or false. If we disagree with a fact, our job is to explain why, not to use emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree with us. [5] I also strongly object to citing Popular Paranoia as a RS. It is neither reliable nor acceptable for hanging a contentious label on anyone, especially with its Mad Magazine style compilation disguised as a book authored by self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist, Kenn Thomas. Also, Griffin's book Creature is a presentation of factual information regarding the structure of the Fed, it is highly regarded as such, and I don't think we should hang a conspiracy theory label on it. Controversial topic is much better suited. I have no problem at all with the classification of fringe cancer treatment and how the amygdalin references are written. I have provided a plethora of RS for the lead with good information, not all of which is derogatory or negative as the lead appears now. Atsme☯^Consult 16:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The aim is to present a short summary of the most important parts of the BLP. Searches for Noah's Ark pretty much ices it ... I suggest ascribing to the Creationism (where it frankly belongs) is a lot better and more accurate than the category of that article as a "religious hoax". I know of and could find no group which believes in the Ark which is not Creationist. I removed "Popular Paranoia" as being a poor source - but leads do not need sources where the needed sourcing must be in the body in any event.

• I think it's not helpful to have an additional proposal for the lead when one is already being discussed above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And I find your comment to be of de minimis value here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wording emended Collect (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Creationist view of history" strikes me as overly accommodating the creationist perspective that there is at least parity between creationist accounts and historical accounts. Perhaps you could say, "his works promote certain conspiracy theories and young earth creationism". We should wikilink too. jps (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Instead of "fringe view on cancer treatment" you should say "ineffective and dangerous cancer treatments." jps (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you produce a "paste-up" of all the changes you would love to see and we can check readability and Wikipedia lead guidelines to see where we might end up? No reason to Wikilink in paste-ups as far as I am concerned. Aim is accuracy, and readability, while compromising to meet any major objections. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I prefer readable and short leads. Collect (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to modify your paste up. Revert if you don't like that. jps (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect, thank you for your consideration. I think the issue can readily be resolved by eliminating POV and PS, and replacing it with the historic significance of the topic. Fossilized remains, Egyptian mummies, the pyramids, Machu Pichu, ancient architecture, etc. are not PS, but I suppose we could attach that designation if needed, the latter of which demonstrates why we need to get control of this runaway train. PS has become censorship. We are supposed to be looking at historic values, not religious or scientific for that matter. It appears the far reaching tentacles of POV have assumed a choke hold on PS, and it flies in the face of NPOV. Perhaps as a quick refresher course we should read Britannica's entry on Noah's Ark to remind ourselves what "encyclopedic" looks like. I'm concerned WP is turning into a platform for advocacy groups which have obfuscated NPOV, and that presents a problem that should concern all of us. [6] Atsme☯^Consult 19:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(discussing second version by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc) Unfortunately, belief in Noah's ark is not strictly only from young earth creationists, making that link quite problematic unless you can find a source where Griffin says he is one. Nor do I find him making comments about other YEC issues. I do not see "certain" as a real improvement over "some". We already comment on Laetrile in the body of the article, making long and winding additions to that sentence do not appear to improve it as far as I can tell. Readers of the lead do not care who Krebs is. Thanks for the first paste-up though. Collect (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

He's clearly a creationist ([7]) and but you are correct in that I can't find evidence that he is a flood geology supporter. Ron Wyatt, his comrade-in-arms clearly is. How do we describe this fairly? He's essentially a supporter of a biblical literalist viewpoint when it comes to Noah's Ark. It's not a view of history but rather a religious presumption.

As far as laetrile-promotion, I think that we just need to describe it as a dangerous alternative cancer treatment. How about that? jps (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The danger of any substance (drug or otherwise) depends on the dose. The acetaminophen toxicity results in damage to the liver, aspirin poisoning in high dosed damages the ears, and sometimes death. The tragic damage that results from laetrile treatment is the lost opportunity that people suffer by forgoing science based medical treatments, not from laetrile treatment itself. In other words, we cannot just say laetrile is dangerous – S. Rich (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)22:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Um-- isn't "quackery" then both accurate and sufficient? Collect (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, I think cyanide poisoning is a real danger. I don't know that "quackery" really captures what the issue is when describing the "alternative cancer beliefs". It's one part refusing to accept what the experts say, one part claiming something else entirely is true, and one part selling the story. jps (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

jps, I'm not sure where you're getting your stats, but please share them with us. We need RS and actual numbers, please. Atsme☯^Consult 22:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what stats did you think were relevant for this BLP? jps (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I found one paper [8] A case of cyanide poisoning from laetrile ingestion is presented as an illustration of the recognition and treatment of cyanide intoxication from 1983. Australia reports:[9] They also noted that one patient had typical symptoms of cyanide poisoning when she ate large amounts of raw almonds, and four others experienced toxic blood cyanide levels, demonstrating that Amygdalin is a toxic drug. The number of deaths appears small (three studies referring to a death). More alarming was the horrible quality control on drugs from Mexico. Death from the cyanide is possible, but unlikely absent excessive doses or uneven quality of the drugs. Collect (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect. I was wondering, but knock on wood (hope that doesn't cause this TP to be governed by PS-Fringe), there hasn't been any cancer in my lineage. I might consider selling plasma at discounted rates. I also found the following information and was about to give up eating apples because the darn seeds contain amygdalin - [10]. Perhaps article about apples should be reevaluated as PS based on the belief that "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." Anyone know where that adage came from? Atsme☯^Consult 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Amygdalin is typically taken from apricot kernels. See [11], [12], [13]. There is no informed dissent fomr the view that cyanide toxicity is a known side effect of laetrile / amygdalin. Seriously, you absolutely need to drop this angle if you are to retain any credibility. It is dangerous quackery. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Collect. I think we read the same source and come to different conclusions. You focus on small numbers and I focus on the point where the study is "demonstrating that Amygdalin is a toxic drug." That's the danger. If you prefer we could call it a "toxic alternative cancer treatment". The toxicity here is important because as far as the evidence goes, it is the sum and only effect of the treatment unlike, say, chemotherapy or radiation treatment which are also toxic but have demonstrated anti-cancer effects. jps (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Um. I think we should certainly describe laetrile as dangerous and ineffective in the body, but it is sufficient in the lede to say it is a quack treatment and his beliefs in both the treatment and the conspiracy are unsupported by credible evidence. Certainly we should not describe spades as non-agricultural manual earth-turning implements, but we should not overstep the mark. On the continuum of nutjobbery from Dr. Oz at one extreme to Immanuel Velikovsky at the other, he is Griffin's ideas lie clarified, see below somewhere between Joe Mercola and Alex Jones. He is part of the glorious tradition of classical American cranks described in Idiot America. His ideas are wrong and his website full of hilarious nonsense, but I simply cannot see him as evil or deranged, merely credulous and blinded by self-belief. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I would say that your positioning him on the spectrum of nutjobbery is a BLP violation. (As an aside, why are all the (US) kooks that we have articles on conservatives? Is there an actual correlation between being a notable kook and being a conservative, or is it just that the liberal kooks get better press?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because in the current political circumstances, mainstream liberals reject left-wing kooks, while mainstream conservatives embrace their right-wing kooks, because they wouldn't get elected without the votes of the right wing fringe. BMK (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, my point is that there is a continuum of mad ideas from Dr. Oz's exploitative but largely harmless quack diets at one end to Velikovsky's fantastical nonsense at the other; along the continuum lie various conspiracy theories, being closer to or further from the axis of sanity. Chemtrails and AIDS denialism are well into the lunatic fringe, suspicion of the acts of government not so much. Big companies spend fortunes trying to manipulate government. As just one example, legislators with vested interests in the supplement industry piloted through, with the aid of costly industry lobbying, laws which effectively exempt the industry form scrutiny. We know about this because it's virtually impossible to keep any conspiracy secret. That's why the secret conspiracies revealed only by pioneering "researchers" with no relevant academic qualifications, tend to be placed on the continuum of nutjobbery.

Maybe you can think of an example of a conspiracy theory (i.e. an accusation of a conspiracy supported only by inference and innnuendo) that became established as fact after running in secret for decades? I can't.

The ideas for which Griffin is cited as an advocate include New World Order conspiracy theories, Big Pharma conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, AIDS conspiracy theories, chemtrail conspiracy theories. If Griffin is not a crank then he is extraordinarily credulous and has a seriously defective mechanism for separating truth from fiction. We don't know because virtually no mainstream sources even look at him, and why would they? He's a largely self-published author of conspiracy books, they are ten a penny.

As to why there are no articles on liberal kooks, I think BMK might be onto something. I can't imagine a liberal version of Rush Limbaugh, and most of the things that liberals assert are evil - things like industry funded astroturfing on climate change and creationist astroturfing on evolution - actually are evil conspiracies. There's a mountain of evidence that a shadowy cabal of oil industry figures is systematically working to undermine the understanding of climate change, whereas there is no credible evidence whatsoever that the Federal Reserve is part of some sinister plot to take away your sovereign citizenship. There's also the fact that the liberal approach to nutjobbery tends to be intelligent satire that makes it into press, whereas the conservative approach to nutjobbery is either apoplectic rage or (if it's ideologically consonant) enthusiastic praise. I can't imagine a right wing version of Private Eye any more than I can imagine a left wing Rush Limbaugh.

The more I look at the issues of sourcing any mainstream commentary on Griffin, the less persuaded I am that he is notable at all. This looks more and more like a side note on Glenn Beck's not-so-illustrious career. The Keep !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination) are classic of their kind: "brand new" users shouting "keep!" because they like what he says. Liking what he says is not notability, and neither is finding what he says risible. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think JzG is arguing that we say that the person is a nutjob in the article text. However, it is important to keep a straightforward perspective on these matters and we don't want to bend over backwards trying to make the ideas Griffin promotes seem less WP:FRINGE than they are. jps (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding polemic material to the growing list of WP:Civility issues here. It has nothing to do with content. Such comments are clearly PAs and extremely offensive. In fact, their presence here actually raises concern over whether the editors making such comments should be collaborating on this article. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 15:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You bandy around the WP:OMG links rather freely, but consistently fail to actually back them up. It is not polemical to note that Griffin promotes conspiracy theoriees, and to list some of those he promotes. It is not polemical to note that the dearth of reliable sources speaks to a lack of actual notability, or that the majority of sources which cite him are, to be blunt, insane. There's no significant informed dissent from the fact that sites like whale.to, infowars and David Icke are bastions of irrationality. Griffin's a Truther, a chemtrailer, a New World Order believer, quite likely a creationist given his claims on the Ark, a believer in the Big Pharma conspiracy theory and in sundry other ways divorced from the real world as Wikipedia knows it. That's a simple fact. You don't like it, we get that. Your attempts to whitewash the article by airbrushing these facts out of history, however, are unimpressive. You are better than that. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

archiving

there are lots of discussions here that i think are done and is getting hard (for me at least) to find stuff. i'm archiving everything above the imposition of the 1RR, and quite a few sections below that where nobody has commented for a while OR where there was either no discussion of actual content going on, or no real disagreement.

I've left sections where actual content proposals are being discussed, and some of the other key sections (1RR imposition, etc).

• The RfC is at the very top of archive 7, here.
• The link to the section discussing the AN review of the close is here (the actual link to the AN close is here).

if anybody objects please feel free to revert me...

I am really hoping we can use the Talk page to discuss proposals to add or remove content.

Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Jekyll Island book

The second sentence of this section appears to fail verification, and "bestseller" is weaselly stated, suggesting one of the noteworthy lists when it turns out to be a reference to a Canadian bookstore's ranking. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

please suggest a concrete change. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any RS discussion of this book. To my knowledge, it is not taken seriously by historians or economists who would have written about it. I suggest deleting the second sentence, that's the only concrete proposal I can offer at this time. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

proposal for section on Jekyll Island

Re-presenting just one of the two paragraphs of the content i proposed before, as this paragraph (not the other) received mostly positive feedback. This would be a new second paragraph:

According to the preface of the book, Griffin argues that Federal Reserve should be abolished because: "It is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives. It is a cartel operating against the public interest. It is the supreme instrument of usury. It generates our most unfair tax. It encourages war. It destabilizes the economy. It is an instrument of totalitarianism." Griffin also argues that the Federal Reserve should be replaced with a currency backed by precious metals.

References

OK with folks? I am bit concerned that it is self-sourced, but I think this is OK as it is brief and so avoids UNDUE, and the article could use this, per Serialjoepsycho's comment above. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking per my remark below Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

If -- if -- the article is to contain self-sourced statements of Griffin's view then it should also provide the context of the mainstream view. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, especially considering the mainstream view as well as popular view both agree with Griffin. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme would you please bring sources showing that the ("the") mainstream view agrees with Griffin. Mainstream economic textbooks treat the Fed as a normal central bank, that functions like central banks in other developed countries. See for example chapters 9 and 10 in Carl E. Walsh Monetary Theory and Policy MIT Press. 2010 ISBN-13: 978-0262013772, which describe these banks (and the Fed in particular) and how they function. I could see arguments being made that there is some mainstream support for Griffin but I don't see the argument that "the" mainstream nor even the world as it is supports or reflects Griffin's views. The Fed is there; our money is not based on precious metals, etc. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, I withdraw this proposal. I don't believe it will find consensus. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. This is not likely to be a constructive approach and would entail original research which ultimately could not be used in the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for references to World Without Cancer

We need an updated approach that is compliant with WP:Fringe, specifically referencing the fact that amygdalin is still being researched which is primarily what Griffin has advocated for in his book, DVD and in his lectures. The results are published in updated high quality peer reviewed journals, and indicate that amygdalin is effective in treating laboratory animals and in-vitro. A recent report in the Cancer Journal states: Amygdalin is a natural product that owns antitumor activity, less side effects, widely sourced and relatively low priced. All these features make the amygdalin a promising antitumor drugs, if combined with conditional chemotherapy drugs, which can produce synergistic effect. [14]. Other research indicates similar results, [15] [16] [17]. According to WP:Fringe, and WP:FRINGEBLP, it warrants inclusion as an update to ongoing research. I'm not suggesting we give it undue weight, just that it warrants inclusion per PAG as it relates to what Griffin actually promotes, not what an editor claims he promotes from their POV. Perhaps an RfC is in order. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 15:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That content and its sourcing would not comply with WP:MEDRS. MEDRS describes 2 kinds of secondary sources - reviews in the literature and statements by major scientific and medical bodies. For the first category, we have the Cochrane review from 2011 cited in our article which is authoritative as it gets in that category, and for major bodies, we have the NCI and the ACS, which are also both very strong in that category. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

These issues were raised at BLPN and I raised it at the Fringe notice board here. Both found that presenting amygalin as a valid cancer treatment is not supportable and the Fringe board determined that this is FRINGE/pseudoscience. As it is, we treat it per WP:PSCI which is what the arbcom decision that is currently primary for us, is about. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You are advocating a novel synthesis from primary sources that is contradicted by secondary and indeed tertiary sources. This has been pointed out to you so many times by now that I think it is reasonable to ask why you keep raising it. The scientific and medical consensus is absolutely and abundantly clear: laetrile is quackery. As far as I can tell, this is stated clearly and unambiguously by every major medical organisation or cancer charity that expresses a view; dissent comes primarily from quacks, crooks and charlatans (e.g. the Oasis of Hype Hope in Mexico, a justly infamous quack cancer retreat).

Moreover, Griffin's claims about laetrile, namely that it is a vitamin and that lack of this vitamin is the cause of cancer, and that taking amygdalin can thus cure cancer, is entirely wrong. There is zero credible scientific support for this belief, then or now.

Griffin's claim that the medical and scientific community have suppressed these facts in order to protect their income, would remain an evidence-free conspiracy theory even if amygdalin were found to have some useful anti-tumour activity, because it is not, and never has been, a vitamin, there has never been any credible evidence to support its use as promulgated by Krebs and promoted by Griffin, and there is compelling evidence that Krebs' ideas were simply wrong.They were tested, the tests showed them to be wrong, and nobody continued to use Kreb's protocols other than quacks.

You are talking here about a dangerous quack cancer remedy that has been shown not to work, whose only documented effect is cyanide poisoning, and whose advocates have been prosecuted over a period of some decades. There's no need to even go into the long term problems with alternative medicine studies emanating from china in order to dismiss the idea that these studies (not in reality independent: three come from the same group) in order to understand that this research would never, even if it were borne out by other research, validate the laetrile scam. I have already reminded you about the hierarchy of evidence in medicine. In vitro studies are the bottom of the hierarchy, Cochrane reviews near the top. To advocate otherwise is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:FRINGE.

You apparently accepted this once and said you would leave the subject alone. Now you have come back with fresh zeal. I find this inexplicable unless you have been receiving counsel or encouragement from quackery advocates. The real-world consensus view on this particular medical fraud is just about as obvious as it gets in respect of quackery.

In fact, you give every appearance of caring less about this article than about the legitimacy of laetrile. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this is so clear, what's the right way to get it dealt with? We can't have an encyclopedia article that includes input (even on a talk page) from this sort of perspective. But we're not making headway; Atsme isn't going to withdraw voluntarily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Because what I'm reading in WP:FRINGE doesn't say what you're saying. In fact, there are all kinds of disease research articles on WP that include research sections listing all kinds of in-vitro and mouse studies that cite various Journals like what I have done above. Classic example: Alzheimer's_disease#Research_directions which actually includes information like: One Aβ vaccine was found to be effective against inclusion body myositis in mouse models. And A 2013 study showed that translocator protein can prevent and partially treat Alzheimer's disease in mice. Therefore, if it is your intent to suppress information from this article regarding amygdalin which is currently being researched, and if you are of the mind that what I cited above (which meets the same criteria as what is being cited throughout WP), you are going to need a much better argument. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

PS - Parkinson's disease#Research There is little prospect of dramatic new PD treatments expected in a short time frame. Currently active research directions include the search for new animal models of the disease and studies of the potential usefulness of gene therapy, stem cell transplants and neuroprotective agents. And guess what? Both are FAs, so please stop telling me that what I'm proposing is not acceptable. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 02:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The information that you have provided doesn't relate to Griffin. It looks like you are building your own case for what Griffin advocates, perhaps you could start a blog. There may be a place to discuss Amygdalin and cancer research that doesn't fall under fringe. That's not here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It demonstrates that ongoing research is acceptable in WP articles, which is contrary to what I was told when inclusion of updated scientific research in this article was denied. Review the prior discussions for further information. Also, please refrain from making snarky comments about me like you did above. It's much better to collaborate in GF with our focus on article content. Also, the comment you made when you first arrived here appears to have a hidden meaning: [18] I probably shouldn't bother posting here seeing that Atsme is here, but why not. Care to explain? I was going to post notice on your TP re: BLP, PSCI, and Austrian Gold DS sanctions that apply here, but then I saw the profanity in your edit summary to ChrisGualtieri and changed my mind. [19] I think those notices are what Callanecc does anyway. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 05:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The comment should be obvious to you Atsme, and interestingly it only became problematic when I came with a side that was the opposite of yours[20]. That is actually the reason for the comment. People come off the opposite side of something and they put you into battleground mode.

You'd to point out the snarky comment. Telling you to go start a blog is advice and more specifically it's Wikipedia's advice you can see at WP:NOTADVOCATE. And on going research is acceptable to mention on Wikipedia, but that isn't exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about Griffin. You mention Griffin has primarily advocated for research. You don't provide a source for this, you don't even mention that he advocated for this type of research. You make a case based off Parkinson's disease#Research for it's inclusion here, but it's not a strong case. Really sounds like a discussion to have at Amygdalin but they seem to have a section for that Amygdalin#Subsequent_clinical_studies.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme: first and foremost, what you are engaging in is a novel synthesis from primary sources. Whether or not amydalin finds a future clinical use is irrelevant, because the Krebs claim that Griffin espouses is categorically false in every important respect. Amygdalin is not a vitamin, deficiency of this "vitamin" does not cause cancer, supplementing the "vitamin" does not cure cancer, and the Big Pharma conspiracy theory of suppression is thus entirely without merit.

Second, it is a battleground. A battle against quackery in the real world, with prosecutions and a litany of exploitation of cancer victims by unscrupulous quacks, a battle on Wikipedia to hold back the lunatic charlatans whose motivation and determination to use Wikipedia to promote their beliefs is generally far stronger than the determination of any individual Wikipedia to ensure that we remain dependable ont hese subjects, and a battleground in this article because no matter how many times people explain to you that the sources you promote are irrelevant to Griffin's claims, you absolutely refuse to drop the stick. Every time you make the same proposal, you escalate the heat. Every time you fail to heed consensus, you contribute to the atmosphere of battle. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you keep telling me to drop the stick which indicates to me that I am not allowed to ask questions or make proposals. Your behavior is contrary to NPOV and FRINGE which clearly states: Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked. See WP:NPOV#Controversial topics <--and notice how Wiki titles its section header. Where does it say we cannot include it? Please explain to me why my question is WP:BATTLEGROUND and your statement is not WP:ADVOCACY. You are basically telling me that I cannot add updates to 30+ year old scientific research even when it is properly sourced and not given WP:UNDUE in the article. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand my point. You need to stop making querulous demands to change the representation of the status of his views on laetrile. Your claims have been aired in full, discussed, and rejected, several times. Just that. I am not saying leave the article entirely, I am saying: stop demanding that we use new research at the lowest tier of the hierarchy of evidence, which does not override the much higher tier evidence showing it to be quackery, and does not in any case validate the claims Griffin makes about laetrile, in order to pretend that his book and published statements on laetrile are in any way valid. You are proposing a novel synthesis fomr primary sources, which is not only impermissible by policy, it's also factually incorrect in the context in which you make the demand. You already acknowledged that I know a lot more about the background to this, than you do. I am right out of different ways of explaining it. The consensus view on laetrile, then and now, is as currently reflected in the article, and to change it in any way would make the article worse and less accurate, not better. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Atsme - WP:MEDRS rules here and this is a completely different subject than Emerson, whose political views were misrepresented. This is one subject that I will stand with Guy on because the circumstances are different and this is an area of Wikipedia which WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics are handled entirely differently given the nature and history in the area. Please - do not proceed on this one, Wikipedia should not be a place of endless strife. The content does not meet WP:MEDRS and therefore it will not be acceptable to be used. Also - Serialjoepsycho is aware of the AC/DS (as you also are Atsme) - I can care less about whether or not he tells me to "fuck off" or whatever. SJP's last comment is not very helpful, but please listen to Guy on this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on article content not editor behavior, and show me where in WP:MEDRS it states that my request is not supported. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 14:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• • PS - if anything it supports my request - Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 14:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, how many times does it have to be said? We do not follow your judgment of what "biomedical information" it might be "vital" to include when talking about amygdalin (in order, apparently, to avoid giving the reader the entirely mainstream impression that it is a quack cancer "cure", as stated by the FDA, MSKCC, ACS and every other reputable body), we follow the consensus view of reliable independent sources about the specific claims that Griffin makes. The salient points here are:

1. Griffin claims that cancer is caused by deficiency in a vitamin, B17. This is categorically false. There is no such vitamin.
2. Griffin claims that amygdalin is rich in vitamin B17. This is categorically false. There is no such vitamin.
3. Griffin claims that taking amygdalin can cure cancer (generically) because it contains vitamin B17. This is categorically false. There is no vitamin B17 and there is extensive evidence that amygdalin (also branded laetrile) does not cure cancer as claimed by advocates.
4. Griffin claims that there is a conspiracy by doctors and scientists to suppress this, in order to protect their financial interests. This is categorically false. The medical establishment at that time did not recognise laetrile as a cure for cancer because there was no evidence it was true, and that is the position today as well, as evidenced by statements cited above fomr major national cancer charities, hospitals, regulators and so on. The consensus view today is that amygdalin is not a cure for cancer.
5. In making these claims, Griffin is pursuing a trope promoted by the John Birch Society, a group with which he is closely associated. This is a group associated with the illegal trade in laetrile and with Ernesto Contreras, a prominent laetrile quack. The context of his statements is, unambiguously, the illegal promotion of a quack cancer cure.

As explained many times now, the studies you cite, which are in any case both WP:PRIMARY sources and at the lowest tier of the evidential hierarchy, witht he Cochrane reviews and other government-level overviews we already cite at the top, do not in any way change the fact that Griffin's advocacy of laetrile is squarely withint he realm of the refuted quack claim of amydgalin as a source of the non-existent vitamin B17.

At this point you can either shut up or start an RfC on inclusion of the plainly irrelevant claims you advocate, and agree to abide by that. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy - the reason we end up with walls of text is because you keep making me repeat my question. Show me where it states in the policies (inline text attribution) in support of why you consider the following to be unacceptable. Your synth argument doesn't apply because the Cancer Journal and PLONE reports are both self-contained: A recent report in the Cancer Journal states: "Amygdalin is a natural product that owns antitumor activity, less side effects, widely sourced and relatively low priced. All these features make the amygdalin a promising antitumor drugs, if combined with conditional chemotherapy drugs, which can produce synergistic effect." [21]. and Example text Provide the supporting statements from policy, and if they are applicable I will gladly drop the issue. Thank you. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You keep repeating your question because you don't like the answer. The answer is the same every time: no. The "ongoing research" is barely significant in the article on amygdalin and is completely irrelevant to this article because it is in no way related to Griffin's claims about amygdalin. As I said. Repeatedly.

The policies, I also pointed out. You are seeking to replace a consensus view form WP:MEDRS compliant secondary and tertiary sources at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, with a novel synthesis from WP:PRIMARY sources at the bottom of the evidential hierarchy. Reversing the hierarchy of evidence is a repeatable behaviour of quacks and charlatans (the Bornhoft and Matthieson report on homeopathy being a perfect example) but it is never permissible on Wikipedia. When the American Cancer Society, FDA, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and others state that cancer is caused by deficiency of vitamin B17 and can be cured by amygdalin which is rich in said vitamin, then we change this article. Not until then. It will happen around about the heat death of the universe, because it is, and always has been, entirely false. What they actually say is that it's dangerous quackery.

There are many hurdles that would have to be cleared before those papers resulted in any treatment, the chances of it turning out to be a universal cure for all cancers, as Griffin and the other laetrile shills advocate, are between zero and none at all. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

PMID 25207888 is, technically speaking, not a primary study but a review article. I'm not advocating for its inclusion but I do not think it's fair to label a review article as a primary source just because you're unable to recognize the differences between the two. -A1candidate 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, your third party sources do nothing for your case. This all amounts to original research, nothing more. Though perhaps unintentional, this would introduce bias to the article. This seems to be an effort to legitimize Griffin's positions. Grffin does not need Wikipedia or it's editors to do so. He can do it on his own. Unduly as in undue weight. But if you would like to do so (as with my previous "unhelpful" statement) go start a blog. Now if you are suggesting that Griffin has promoted this type of research (not just research in general) of amygdalin,to produce future drugs, you might have something to be discussed. That is a hypothetical and probably shouldn't mention it. Regardless of what you do find, this article will not be written in a way that would reasonable suggest that going to Mexico and getting shot up with amygdalin (or related current treatment) is a viable treatment for cancer.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So according to the explanations relating to my sources above, the following sources would also not be acceptable: [22], [23], and dates wouldn't matter, either? Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 21:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Amygdalin is a natural product that owns antitumor activity, less side effects, widely sourced and relatively low priced. All these features make the amygdalin a promising antitumor drugs, if combined with conditional chemotherapy drugs, which can produce synergistic effect. The prose suggestion is poorly written, but it does not address and back up the claims that the Amygdalin works at all. The fact that clinical testing found it to be dangerous and ineffective can not be waved away. I do not think you understand why the statement is flawed. Replace Amygdalin with a sugar pill placebo and you'd have the same valid statement - minus the potential cyanide poisoning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed: "Clinical testing" cannot show that it is ineffective because there have been no randomized controlled trials undertaken yet. RCT is the gold standard for evidence-based medicine and therefore, one cannot claim effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) until an RCT has been performed. If you think amygdalin is ineffective, the only way to convince the medical community would be to do an RCT. -A1candidate 23:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

quick note

I am unwatching this article again. I don't have the bandwidth for this. Good luck all. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)