ABSTRACT
James Harvey Young's interesting history of Laetrile is useful for its broader discussion of other unorthodox cancer cures such as Krebiozen. Even allowing that a portion of the Laetrile promotion may be fraudulent, it seems to the author that there is no doubt that some of the proponents believe that the drug is beneficial. Grace Monaco's excellent discussion of legal aspects was particularly interesting when she summarized Rutherford v. United States, the case which has been the greatest judicial victory for the Laetrilists. Any analysis of Laetrile must carry some bias; even neutrality is a bias. Analyst should consider the degree to which his perceptions and conclusions depend on his particular bias rather than on "objective fact," and when he has eliminated from his work any major distortions due to bias, he should inform the reader of those routine distortions which remain.
