ArticleNutrients2024
Survey of Physicians and Healers Using Amygdalin to Treat Cancer Patients.
Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unveiling a sustainable approach to cancer treatment: the antitumor activity of amygdalin and cell-free supernatant of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus.Folia microbiologica · 2026Article
- Antioxidant Activity and Preclinical Safety ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Amygdalin is purported to exhibit anti-cancer properties when hydrolyzed to hydrogen cyanide (HCN). However, knowledge about amygdalin efficacy is limited. A questionnaire evaluating the efficacy, treatment, and dosing protocols, reasons for use, HCN levels, and toxicity was distributed to physicians and healers in Germany, providing amygdalin as an anti-cancer drug. Physicians (20) and healers (18) provided amygdalin over 8 (average) years to nearly 80 annually treated patients/providers. Information about amygdalin was predominantly obtained from colleagues (55%). Amygdalin was administered both intravenously (100%) and orally (32%). Intravenous application was considered to maximally delay disease progression (90%) and relieve symptoms (55%). Dosing was based on recommendations from colleagues (71%) or personal experience (47%). If limited success became apparent after an initial 3g/infusion, infusions were increased to 27g/infusion. Treatment response was primarily monitored with established (26%) and non-established tumor markers (19%). 90% did not monitor HCN levels. Negative effects were restricted to a few dizzy spells and nausea. Only 58% were willing to participate in clinical trials or contribute data for analysis (34%). Amygdalin infusions are commonly administered by healers and physicians with few side effects. The absence of standardized treatment calls for guidelines. Since intravenous application bypasses metabolization, re-evaluation of its mode of action is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.