Talk:Apricot kernel

Laetrile
The entire issue of Laetrile is more appropriate for the Amygdalin page, and has been dealt with there by others previous to my edits of this evening.

It appears that a few years have gone by since this was last disputed here. My read of the material on Laetrile this evening is that it is no longer held to be controversial, but is now generally considered as having been proven both ineffective and harmful. If anyone wishes to make claims on the motivation of FDA "to protect pharmaceutical profits" in banning it (rather than because it metabolizes to cyanide), you will need to include some significant substantiation for such an extreme claim. --BrucePerens (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Uhh
Uhh, where is the dispute? I don't see any ...

Is there any siting of the "clinical studies" that did not support the cancer fitting benefits? It seems a contradiction when you further give evidence to support the benefits. - Glen

Inaccuracies and biases fixed. - Dan

NPOV tag
I can't see that this article justifies an NPOV tag since there is no evidence of an NPOV dispute. I have tried to change it to reflect both the facts (the scientific community doesn't regard Laetrile as a vitamin) and the beliefs (people "who still eat a traditional diet have been found to be largely free from cancer" - find a citation for that and I'll remove the "citation needed" tag).

If anyone believes that the neutrality is still in dispute, please say so here and we can try and change the article to present all points of view. If nobody disputes the neutrality then I will remove the NPOV tag. Phaedrus86 06:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Silence. I will remove the tag. Phaedrus86 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

July 13, 2008. I am glad you removed the NPOV tag, Phaedrus86. I for one, based on a 30 year experience with apricot kernals, would not want that here. The controversy over apricot kernals hails from a time when doctors were saying Linus Pauling was senile and Edward Kennedy was introducing legislation to limit vitamin C. While others were claiming vitamin C could cure cancer, etc. Apricot kernals were even banned for awhile because of the hysteria. There still seems to be controversy at the 'laetrile' article, as perhaps there should be, but hopefully we need not revisit all that here.

However, I came here looking for a good in-depth article on apricot kernals, to refer from my holistic health website. I found this article to be seriously biased "con", flatly dismissing alternate views, and as is often the case, leaving the reader terrified about something that is quite legal to sell and eat. (In spite of previous notes that it was biased "pro" and that this was adjusted toward "neutrality"...?) I have tried to review a leading "pro" view from the heyday of the apricot advocates (World Without Cancer by Griffin). Ending with a self evident conclusion that this view, at least in its extremes, has pretty much disproven itself. My summary, I hope, is not lacking in respect for either side. I thus represent the "pro" view and also I think do a better job to satisfy the "con" intent to discourage people from accepting this blindly. Before this, the article was flatly dismissive and used bits of objective data as stepping stones toward the conclusion that it's terribly dangerous to eat apricot kernals. A conclusion which contradicts the same data it quotes. (To see what I mean, read the previous article up to where I have added "In spite of this...")

I.e., I have added to the Apricot Kernal article, hopefully in such a way as to stengthen the removal of the NPOV tag.

I also added a bold note about the dangers of soaking apricot kernals. This is based on a lecture at a holistic clinic, reporting on someone who had overdosed. So I do not have a reference link but I hope this can remain since this is more than conjecture, the logic is strong, and it is important to warn people. This is also something from a "pro" source that should delight the "con" people.

Please note that I have not edited or removed one word of any previous statements. Only built on them with my own statements in 2 separate paragraphs. "In spite of this, there were no USA deaths..." and "Special precaution against soaking..." I apologize if my referencing tactics may be imperfect, I am not proficient in the wiki system.

I like apricot kernals myself, 3 twice daily, delicious with chewable papaya wafers, and a noticeable energy lift. So I understand there are many out there who want to proselytize either way. But to make this article useful, such arguments should be left out. I hope I have done that and I hope it can remain this way.

P.S. I like reference 1 to "Laetrile" by the American Cancer Society. Surprisingly unbiased and comprehensive, especially considering the source. --Krystof (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (Original comment July 13, minor edits done July 19, 2008.)

Well, in fact this article SHOULD have an NPOV tag now. Especially because of the missing studies proving the effectivness of amygdalin (not cyanide) against cancer. 178.197.236.249 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sir Robert McCarrison
The only citation for this section is for some unsourced material on a dehydrated food vendor's web site. This is not a credible source. If no better sources are supplied then I will remove this section, per Verifiability. Phaedrus86 10:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bitter almonds/apricot kernels
I am slightly confused about whether bitter almonds and apricot kernels are the same thing or something different. Bitter almond currently redirects to the almond page, where there is a short section on the bitter variety of this nut. Should it really redirect to apricot kernel?Jimjamjak 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the redirect to almond is correct. Bitter almonds are Prunus Amygdalus, a different species from the two species shown for apricot. The bitter almond smell is common, that is the cyanide from amygdalin which both apricot kernels and bitter almonds contain. I can't find any source for the assertion in the article that Apricot kernels...are known in culinary contexts as bitter almonds, although I only did a cursory search. Phaedrus86 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the redirect should more clearly point to the 'sweet and bitter almonds' subtitle in the almonds article. That subcategory should have mention the apricot kernal article, and the apricot kernal article should more clearly mention bitter almonds. However I do not feel qualified to do so just now.


 * Almonds are related to apricots, being an apricot without the fruit, like an ant is a bee without wings. They are a different species. However this article is not about apricots, it is about apricot seeds. In common use these are identical to bitter almonds, being extremely similar and having the same high amygdalin content. Bitter almonds are seen as a way of harvesting large amounts of "apricot seeds" without bothering with the fruit. Bitter almonds were long traditional for Italian deserts and weddings. I have heard that when apricot kernals were banned, large numbers of the bitter almond trees had to be cut down. The only reason people do not refer to them, rather than apricot kernals, is that they are hard to get. So historically and in common use, the "bitter almond" has more in common with apricot seeds than with other almonds. This certainly might be made a dual article on Bitter almonds/apricot kernels. However the subcategory referencing as I mention above is, I think, the best way to go.

Krystof (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding comment was added at 19:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong-tasting and bitter
tNot all apricot kernels are strongly bitter. I believe only the bitter ones contain high levels of cyanide. When I was a child we used to eat a lot of apricot kernels. We would break the seeds ourselves and before eating would taste a small piece of each one, discarding the bitter ones. From memory about 20% were bitter. Recently I bought a 250g pack of commercially produced kernels, not one was strong tasting or bitter - I'm not sure how they achieve that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.53.138 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the cultivar of apricot. Some have been selectively bred to get rid of the bitterness, and consequently the amygdalin content in the seeds is low.  The same thing is true of almonds. — QuicksilverT @ 21:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Difference between sweet and bitter kernels
I thought that the high levels of cyanide exist in Bitter Kernels, whereas the Sweet Kernels have lower levels. Maybe there could be some information addressing this. It currently looks as if all kernels are toxic. Generalhoneypot (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense
Hi I thought I would quote here to clarify for those in doubt that the material above is absolute nonsense and not to be trusted. I don't know how someone can pint this garbage with no references. If they purport to know about cyanide they should also know full well it in this case is locked up in a molecular structure that can't harm us. Apricot seeds/kernels have been eaten without harm for thousands of years. Just as in any other healthy food earth provides, someone doesn't want you to have it because they don't own the patent for it and it might cure you.

Taken from: https://www.facebook.com/ENDPROSTATECANCER/posts/438054846241413

..."Amagdylin contains four substances. Two are glucose; one is benzaldehyde, and one is cyanide. Yes, cyanide and benzaldehyde are poisons if they are released or freed as pure molecules and not bound within other molecular formations. Many foods containing cyanide are safe because the cyanide remains bound and locked as part of another molecule and therefore cannot cause harm.

There is even an enzyme in normal cells to catch any free cyanide molecules and to render them harmless by combining them with sulfur. That enzyme is rhodanese, which catalyzes the reaction and binds any free cyanide to sulfur. By binding the cyanide to sulfur, it is converted to a cyanate which is a neutral substance. Then it is easily passed through the urine with no harm to the normal cells.

But cancer cells are not normal. They contain an enzyme that other cells do not share, beta-glucosidase. This enzyme, virtually exclusive to cancer cells, is considered the “unlocking enzyme” for amagdylin molecules. It releases both the benzaldehyde and the cyanide, creating a toxic synergy beyond their uncombined sum. This is what the cancer cell’s beta-glucosidase enzyme does to self destruct cancer cells." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.0.179 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Where are the nutritional values?
"Calories from fat = 100%, Cholesterol -= 0"...? This is simply ridiculous: how MANY calories? What minerals, what vitamins? There is more - much, much more - to apricot pits than cyanide, you know.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.213.73 (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A ref is a ref right?
I have added a small paragraph based on the ref cited in the first paragraph and expanded it with more info in that article, since it seemed to reek of serious bias.

Now this guy Yobol, undoes my edit almost immediately, and for a second I thought it was the work of a bot. his reason was that "(source does not appear to be MEDLINE indexed and does not appear to be WP:MEDRS compliant)" Is that a joke? Apricot kernels are a FOOD! They have been used as a food source from time immemorial! Is this even the food portal?

So I went back and undid his undo, only to have it undone again. His reason this time is: "source does not meet our guideline for medical sourcing." Funny!

Hey User:Yobol Is it OK if a ref "proves" toxicity but not OK if the actual details are included? You seem to be a deleter of other peoples work! I don't see on your contributions page any constructive editing.

The link to my edit is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apricot_kernel&diff=495516334&oldid=495511419

Wikipedia is a joke! 4.242.60.148 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For medical claims, we should follow our guideline on reliable sources for medical claims. The source does not appear to meet the guideline. Please find an appropriate source if you wish to add content. Yobol (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Yobol you seem to be extremely biased, since you should also remove the first chapter:


 * "An apricot kernel (Prunus armeniaca, 'Armenian plum' in Latin) refers to the kernel of a species of Prunus, classified with the plum in the subgenus Prunus. It is known for containing amygdalin, a toxic cyanogenic glycoside.[1]"


 * It is obviously not MEDLINE indexed and does not appear to be WP:MEDRS compliant!!!


 * I have merely used the same source and added that for a 175 lbs man it takes a PRESUMED lethal dose of 560 frikin apricot kernels! Water is poisonous as well if the intake is large enough!


 * Oh, by the way, I wasn't making absolutely no medical claim whatsoever! YOU Yobol are the one making the claim, as well as the original editor of that first paragraph! 4.242.60.148 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had already changed that reference before you started this talk page thread. Any discussion about toxicity is by definition a medical claim. Yobol (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes this link: http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-health/volume-9-number-2/are-apricot-kernels-toxic.html was damaging to your agenda that apricot kernels are toxic, so I don't blame you for deleting it. Upon further reading it seems that this whole argument is REALLY about laetrile. This is so absurd and funny at the same time. I find no reason why special interest should not be editing wikipedia. :P

Now you User:Yobol have to delete all I typed on this talk page, or better yet archive it! :) It makes me feel like I'm the the 50's Soviet Union reading the Pravda each time I read a sensitive article on Wikipedia!

Good job User:Yobol!!! 4.242.60.148 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed "vitamin B17" bit.
Feel free to add a section about the discredited vitamin b17 hypothesis. I removed the mention because, as it currently was phrased, it could lead people to think that amygdalin is actually a vitamin or is seriously referred to as such. 2603:7081:1603:A300:3500:937A:B7D4:EA35 (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree. There is no recognition of a "vitamin B17" by any reputable agency. Zefr (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)