IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajecsc/v81y2022i4p701-720.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whistleblower: How One Man Tried to Stop a Famous Cancer Center from Suppressing an Effective Treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Ignacio Castuera

Abstract

While working at Sloan Kettering Institute (SKI) in the 1970s, Ralph Moss discovered that the top research scientist there was impressed with the anti‐cancer properties of amygdalin, the synthetic form of which is laetrile. At that time, laetrile was a topic of national interest as a low‐cost way of treating cancer. It would have been big news if SKI announced that laetrile was effective in animal studies and then conducted human trials of its efficacy. But due to pressure from unknown sources, Moss’s superiors chose to publicly deny the validity of their scientist’s research. Moss and other dissenting staff tried to gain press attention for the cover‐up going on at SKI, but their efforts failed. In 1979, the FDA ban on the interstate sale of laetrile was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, effectively ending the common use of it. It has been classified by the cancer establishment as a classic case of “quackery,” meaning that those who claim it has anti‐cancer properties are frauds. Thus, this case study shows how easily information about potentially effective cancer treatments can be suppressed by a handful of people in positions of authority. It also shows how politics can change the scientific information available to the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Ignacio Castuera, 2022. "Whistleblower: How One Man Tried to Stop a Famous Cancer Center from Suppressing an Effective Treatment," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(4), pages 701-720, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:81:y:2022:i:4:p:701-720
    DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12480
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12480
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajes.12480?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:81:y:2022:i:4:p:701-720. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0002-9246 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.