Talk:Ernst T. Krebs

NPOV

There is only one biased source in this article suggesting a BLP violation. If nothing else can be found to support this article, may I suggest an AfD? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There can be no BLP violation because the subject is not alive. --Itub (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

this stub is horribly biased and should be flagged

his name is also mis-spelled. this page should be deleted and re-written. --97.90.61.0 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only is this biased, but the FATHER, named Ernst T. Krebs--the one who discovered the anti-cancer properties of Laetrile--has no Wikipedia entry. This vicious article calls "Ernst T. Krebs" a con-man, and only discusses the SON, who promoted his dad's very valuable work. Screw you, Wikipedia.

Laetrile does not have any anti-cancer properties, and you need reliable sources if you want the article to say the father "discovered" them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

who happened upon amygdalin?

Is this correct English? --DrJos (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV violation?

Between 11 and 15 August 2010, Wikipedia user Paul61485 replaced or removed several referenced claims that Krebs might have been a quack and that he was not the original discoverer of laetrile (see here). Instead, he added a link to a video based on the book "A world without cancer" by known conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin. All this appears to violate the NPOV policy in my opinion. As I myself am not an expert on the subject and as I don't have much time to look into it currently, it would be great if someone from Wikipedia project Rational Skepticism or Pseudoscience could deal with this. As soon as I have a bit more free time, I'll see what I can do myself.
-- Shinryuu (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the article titled "The Rise and Fall of Laetrile", by Benjamin Wilson, and I did not find in that article the allegation by two or more "Critics" that Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., was a "quack". I invite you to carefully read that article yourself. Paul61485 (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I admit I did not read the article in its entirety as it is very long and as I don't have much time ATM. I agree that it does not explicitly state that Mr. Krebs is a quack, however, after skimming over it and reading some of the paragraphs that deal with him, it has become even more clear to me that he probably is one. He made several unsubstantiated claims about his substances, provided no reliable evidence for their efficacy, yet kept promoting them. An excerpt:

"At one point, the Krebs' agreed to supply Laetrile for a controlled clinical investigation at Los Angeles County Hospital. But later they said they would do so only if a Laetrile advocate were put in charge—which was not acceptable to hospital authorities."

If this was confirmed to be true, it would settle the story for me.

-- Shinryuu (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Krebs was probably wrong about the how amygdalin affects cancer cells. Rather than poisoning such cells, amygdalin induces apoptosis. See http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/29/8/1597/_pdf . As a result of personal experience, I believe that Krebs showed extraordinarily good judgment in not trusting Los Angeles County officials. Paul61485 (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Shinryuu, It appears to me that the Laetrile test that was conducted at the Mayo Clinic was a fraud. This is probably the kind of fraud that Krebs thought would be perpetrated by Los Angeles County officials...

In his autobiography, James Cason 20 relates that he “personally inspected” an analysis of the amygdalin used in the Mayo study. The analysis was provided by Robert Bradford. Bradford had originally requested a sample of the actual amygdalin used in the Mayo study, and his request was refused by the Food and Drug Administation, according to Cason. Bradford “then demanded the specifications for the material to be used, under the Freedom of Information Act, so FDA sent technical data, including the infrared spectrum” (Cason, p. 367). According to Cason:

“The amygdalin (Laetrile) used for these tests actually could not have contained more than 15% amygdalin, since its infrared spectrum (supplied by the FDA) showed no detectable absorption at about 4.4 mu, the position of absorption by the nitrile group. Ergo, there is no evidence that the 'amygdalin' used for the tests contained any amygdalin. An authentic sample of amygdalin shows absorption at this wavelength, as it must” (p. 367).

James Cason was a professor of Chemistry at the University of California at Berkeley from 1945 to 1983. He died in 2001 at age 91. To my knowledge, his observations about the amygdalin used in the Mayo study were not published in a professional journal. (Excerpt from: [http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_alternative_medicine/volume_7_number_1_22/article/does_laetrile_work_another_look_at_the_mayo_clinic_study_moertel_et_al_1982.html Does Laetrile Work? Another Look at the Mayo Clinic Study (Moertel et al., 1982)].)

Paul61485 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Shinryuu, In your NPOV challenge you cited my removal of the statement "Some sources incorrectly claim either Krebs or his father, Ernst T. Krebs Sr., or both as the discoverer(s) of laetrile..." That statement is not supported by the reference given and it is erroneous. Krebs Sr. and Jr. did not discover Laetrile, they invented Laetrile. In contrast, the statement that "Amygdalin was discovered 'in 1830 by two French chemists'" is accurate and is supported by the reference given. Please take note of the fact that Laetrile and amygdalin are two different chemical compounds. Laetrile is man-made and amygdalin "naturally occurring".

You have spent your time editing other pages so it appears to me that you have abandoned your challenge to the neutrality of the article. I will therefore remove your NPOV challenge notice. Before you renew your challenge, please read the cited reference and make sure that the statement in question is supported by that reference. Thank you, Paul61485 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That I have edited other pages does not mean that I consider this article, in its current state, to be sufficiently balanced and informative. I do not. To the contrary: It only deals with Mr. Krebs peripherally, focussing instead on laetrile and amygdalin, although there is already a perfectly good article on this substance. It links to several dubious websites connected to conspiracy theorists and "alternative medicine", whereas, in my opinion, a neutral encyclopaedia should not cite such sources but only the results of proper scientific research.

Most of the information on laetrile given in this article appears to be biased and inaccurate, in my opinion, but I admit that am not an expert on the subject. If it is in fact true are the metabolisation of laetrile causes the release of cyanide, there is, in my opinion, little doubt that this substance is extremely dangerous and most definitely NOT a vitamin. To the best of my knowledge, no clinical trials have shown laetrile to be safe for use in human, or even an effective anti-cancer agent. One or two studies in cell cultures published in a third-rate journal don't prove much - I can assure you that there are studies like these on about every toxic substance there is.

As I said, I do not have the time for properly dealing with this issue at the moment. I would have to do literature research, try to find, read and understand the original sources and so on, which is much more work than I put in my other, usually minor edits. I will try to ask someone who knows more about this subject to take a look at the matter though.

-- Shinryuu (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not compound "the confusion"

Shinryuu, You changed a sentence to read, "Laetrile, a purported cure for cancer, given the name vitamin B₁₇ by Krebs". That is not correct. Laetrile (l-mandelo nitrile-beta-glucuronic acid) is a man-made chemical compound; it does not occur in nature and it should not be referred as a vitamin. If Laetrile were a naturally occurring chemical compound then Krebs Sr. and Jr. could not have obtained a United States patent on Laetrile.

When Krebs used the name vitamin B₁₇ he was referring to the naturally occurring nitrilosides, including amygdalin. For example, he stated, "The opponents of vitamin B-17 in cancer therapy have rather myopically, (I believe), argued that there is no proof that selective hydrolysis of the nitriloside occurs in the neoplastic cell", "The Nitrilosides (Vitamin B-17) – Their Nature, Occurence and Metabolic Significance (Antineoplastic Vitamin B-17)".

"Interchangeable use of the terms 'Laetrile,' 'amygdalin,' and 'vitamin B-17' has compounded the confusion", "Unproven Methods of Cancer Managment, Laetrile". Please note that in the preceding sentence Laetrile is spelled with a capital "L". That is appropriate because Laetrile is a trade name for laevomandelonitrile, which is one of the several chemical compound names for l-mandelo nitrile-beta-glucuronic acid. Please do not compound the confusion by referring to Laetrile as vitamin B₁₇ or by using Laetrile as a synonym for amygdalin. Laetrile (l-mandelo nitrile-beta-glucuronic acid) is not a synonym for amygdalin, [(6-O-β-D-glucopyranosyl-β-D-glucopyranosyl)oxy](phenyl)acetonitrile. Paul61485 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Medical information needs to be reliably sourced. I added POV tag to article 22 August 2010.

Currently, the article makes factual claims about two chemicals that are not well supported in medically reliable sources. If this article becomes a ground of POV-pushing, it could be subject to deletion. Check for reliable sources, and update the article accordingly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked one of the references. The article titled "The Rise and Fall of Laetrile" does not name A. F. Boutron-Charlard as a co-discoverer of amygdalin. I have therefore deleted that particular reference and added a "Citation needed" notice. He may be the co-discoverer but we need a reference for that "fact". Paul61485 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Image use policy (section split for clarity of discussion)

WeijiBaikeBianji, You can use Google Images to search for images of "Ernst T. Krebs". Google links to and displays those images and that is not illegal. Similarly, it is not illegal for Wikipedia to link to those images. I am therefore going to restore the link to the "External media" image of Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. Paul61485 (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That is definitely not the full Wikipedia Image use policy. Please check the policy before adding any image to the article—this is one of the most common rule violations of editors who don't check the rules. Note that linking to another website to embed an image here is usually a discourtesy to the other website's owner. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it is discourteous to EMBED an image from another website in a page on a different website, but I am not embedding that image in the Wikipedia page, I am only providing a link to the image, and the image opens in a web browser page that does not say anything about Wikipedia. This is obviously not illegal or even discourteous because Wikipedia has produced a template to accessing "External images". Paul61485 (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I provided a link to an "External image" that is on a web-page that does not offer anything for sale in English (I don't know what language it's written in). Paul61485 (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Interpreter needed

The French Wikipedia page on Pierre Jean Robiquet contains an entry in the "Principales publications" section that reads:

Nouvelles expériences sur les amandes amères et sur l'huile volatile qu'elles fournissent Robiquet, Boutron-Charlard, Annales de chimie et de physique, 44 (1830), 352–382.

In Wikipedia English that publication could become a reference that reads:

Robiquet, PJ and Boutron-Charlard, AF (1830). New experiments on the bitter almonds and the volatile oil they provide. Annals of Chemistry and Physics 44, pp. 352–382.

Does someone who can read French have access to the article, to confirm that Robiquet and Boutron-Charlard are co-discoverers of amygdalin? And it would be good to have a URL for the article if it is available online. Paul61485 (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Our English Wikipedia has a page about the Annales de chimie et de physique. Paul61485 (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Much of the recent edits have introduced new material that, if appropriate, would be better off in another article such as amygdalin. Any discussion about these chemical compounds should focus on the relationship to Krebs, rather than the properties or use of the compounds. I propose trimming down the article with regards to the compounds significantly and moving any appropriate material that follows our guideline on the use of sources in medically related matterial that doesn't have to do with Krebs directly to the appropriate page about the compound. I am concerned that the current material in place does not reflect the medical literature accurately as reported in secondary sources with regards to the efficacy of these compounds as cancer treatments. Yobol (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a page about Thiomersal and a page about the Thiomersal controversy. Based on this example, I believe that it would be appropriate to create a page titled Laetrile controversy, complementing the page titled Laetrile.

The Laetrile controversy has been national in scope, with 27 states rebelling against the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by authorizing the use of Laetrile within those states. Many people have been criminally prosecuted (including Krebs) for defying the ban on Laetrile. Many thousands of Americans travel to Mexico to receive Laetrile treatment, and at home they eat peach, apple, and apricot seeds as a folk remedy for their cancers because Laetrile is not available to them. Libra14157 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page about Krebs, not about laetrile. Please make the appropriate suggestions on the laetrile and amygdalin talk pages to see if this is something that will gain consensus. Yobol (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: removed most of the WP:COATRACK material with modified leads from the main articles. Yobol (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernst T. Krebs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820063617/http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e01/geschichte.htm to http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e01/geschichte.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this man actually carrying a comical name (parody)?

A genuine question, and I ask because I can't seem to find any reference to the possibility on-line. But it can't have escaped German speakers attention that Krebs is the German word for cancer, and and ernst is the German word for serious. Given his field of work, that lends the tempting suspicion that either the name was chosen specifically for this pursuit (so it's a name he adopted) or a case of nominative determinism.

https://translate.google.com/?client=tw-ob#de/en/Ernst%20Krebs Bwechner (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly normal name. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Should the disambiguation hatnote mention Krebiozen?

It has a similar name, so much so that I was surprised that Mr Krebs was not the promoter of Krebiozen.

118.208.187.115 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No. His name is the German word for cancer or crab, and that word may also be the origin of the word "Krebiozen", but the similarity is pretty slim. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)