DEPARIMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Food and Drug Administration

In the matter of

A Rulemaking Proceeding Concerning Laetrile

Burrough of Queens State of New York

Docket No. 77N-0048

ss

AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL S. MARI'IN, M.D.

Before rre personally appeared Daniel S. Martin, M.D., who being

first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am a physician, licensed to practice in the States of New

York, New Jersey, and Florida.

2. I received If!Y Doctor of Medicine Degree in 1944 from the New

York University College of Medicine.

3. I was in the United States Ancy Medical Corps from 1946-1948,

and left service with the rank of Captain.

4. I received IT!Y training in surge.ry at the Columbia-Presby·terian

Meq,ical Center, New.York, between 1950-1955.

5. I am a Diplomate, certified by the Arrerican Board of Surge.ry

in 1956. I was an Examiner for the Arrerican Board of Surge.ry from 1.969-1973.

6. Fran 1955-1958,_ I was Attending in Surge.ry at the Columbia­

Presbyterian Medical Center in New York and from 1958-1968 at the J2ckson

Merrorial Hospital in Miami, Florida.

7. I was Instructor in Surge.ry at College of Physicians anc! Surgeons,

Columbia University, 1955-1958, and Associate Professor of Surge.ry at the

School of Medicine of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, 1958-1968.

8. From 1972 to the present, I have been Attending in Surgery,

Departnent of Surgery, catholic Medical Center, New York, New York.

From 1968-1972, I was Chainnan, Departnent of Surgery.

9. I am currently Attending in Surgery at St. John's Hospital, St.

Macy's Hospital, .Mary Irmaculate Hospital, and Hospital of the Holy Family,

all of which are located in New York.

10. Some of my professional ItEirll:erships include the New York

Surgical Society, Society for Experirrental Biology and Medicine, New York

Cancer Society, New York State Cancer Program Association, Inc., Arcerican

Association for Cancer Research, and the Arcerican Society of Clinical

Oncology where ram Chainnan of the Unorthodox Therapies Carnri.ttee.

11. I have been involved in cancer research since 1946, in general,

and, since 1950, rrore sp:cifically in cancer cherrotherapy, and since 1958

in cancer immunology and cherrotherapy; from 1950-1958, with the College

of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University; from 1958-1968, with the

University of Miami. School of M:dicine, Miami, Florida; from 1968-present,

with the catholic Medical Center, St. Anthony' s Hospital, Woodhaven, New

York, and rrore recently in collaborative research programs with the

Merrorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute, New York, and the Institute

for Cancer Research, .Columbia University, New York.•

12. I have received research support from the National Cancer

Institute since 1950, from private foundations including Cancer Chemotherapy

Foundation and the John Hartford Foundation, and also from Burroughs Welcome

Cortpany, the Upjohn Corporation and Merck, Sharp, and Dohrre.

13. I have been the author of over 100 publications, the vast

majority of which have resulted from my research in cancer imnunolcgy

and chemotherapy which are my special interests.

14. My curriculum vitae and bibliography are attached as Exhibits 1

and 2, respectively. They provide a sumrrary of my education, training r and

experience and a list of my publications.

-2-

15. Cancer is a tenn that is used to describe neoplasms that are

characterized by unregulated, uncontrolled, and unrestrained growth and

proliferation that leads to death of their host. Cancer can effect plants,

fish, aninals, and humans. There are many different fonns of cancer and many

different causes of the disease. Serre cancers are known to be caused by

chemicals, sare by viruses, sorre by ultra-violet rays and x-rays. 'l'he

cause for many cancers is not known. There are about 100 cancerous

conditions in humans, of which in only ten can curative results be achieved with

reasonable expectation. otherwise, on the average, 50 percent of patients

die of the ·disease, even if the best therapeutic rrodalities are applied.

Therapeutic success correlates with the stage of the disease: the earlier

the stage at which cancer is detected and treated with known, effective

remedies, the higher the cure rate.

Serre cancers are well kn0tm.: cancers of the breast, colon and rectum,

lungs, ovary; others are not -- rrelanorna., for exarrple, is a relatively uncarmon

cancer.

16. Cancers differ in rate of growth, time between onset and metastases,

the nature or extent of rretastases, and in the tirre between ohset and serious

inpairrrent of lxxlily function. Sorre cancers grow very rapidly and ·may

quickly cause death; cancer of the lung, for example. others grow very

sl~ly and rna.y be present for years before pra:1ucing seriously adverse or

lethal effects; cancer.of the thyroid, for example. In gen~ral, cancer is a

chronic disease, one that can last, on the average, for years (e.g. r 3-5 years)

l::efore killing its host. Hence, for this reason, in rna.ny of the more comron

turrors, the evaluation as to whether or not a treatment is effective is

reported in tenns of five year cure rates, and in sorre instances, ten years.

17. It is not uncomron for the extent of impai.r:rrent to fluc~uate

from time to tirre over the course of the disease. Very rarely, patients

experience corrplete remission of their cancer for causes that are unknown.

-3-

However, early detection and swift effective treai:rtEnt are the only known

nethods to controlling _cancer. Sone forms of cancer can be cured and others

controlled for many years· through swift use of effective therapy. Sane cancers

are treated best by surge:ry, sorre by radiotherapy, sane by chenotherapy, and

some by conbining two or all three rrodalities of therapy. The choice of single

or conbined nodality therapy depends on the type of cancer and its stage.

There are approximately 30 commercially available "standard" anti-tUITOr agents.

However, all have, at best, only limited activity as a single agent against

established cancer of any type, and none have even slight anti-cancer act~vity_

against all types of cancer. Against this background of infonna.tion, the claim

that Lae~ile possesses useful, and even curative activity, against cancer ·

of all types would seem a "tall" sto:ry. The claim that any particular

chemical substance would be capable of trec1:ting, preventing, or controlling

all forms of cancer is simplistic, improbable, and unfounded. It is not

supported by any knCM1 scientific evidence and should be regarded as false.

18. . My duties require that I be, and I am, familiar with those 4rugs

that are generally recognized as safe and effective in the treai:rtEnt and

nanagerrent of cancer. I keep infonred alx>ut the status of current recognition

by reading the medical and scientific literature relating to cancer, conducting

research, teaching, attending meetings where epxerts·discuss drugs that are

so recognized, and by conferring with colleagues who are experts on the control, I

of cancer.

19. I am informed and understand that amygdalin is a cyanogenic

glycoside. Cyanogenic glycosides are chemicals which contain in their

nolecular structure a sugar, a non-sugar, and the cyanide group (-C=N) • I

know of no cyanogenic glycoside that is generally recognized as eff2ctive

for the treatrtEnt, prevention, or cure of cancer, for the relief of pain

associated with cancer, or for any rredical purpose. The corrposition of the

cyanogenic glycosides, in general, and of areygdalin, in particular, is such

-4-

that I do not recognize them, and they are not generally recognized anong

~ qualified through scientific training and experience to evaluate

drugs, as effe~ive for the treatnent of cancer, for·p:rophylaxis against

cancer, for relief of pain associated with cancer, or for any.nedical use.

Neither arey-gdalin nor any other cyanogenic glycoside was generally recognized

as safe for any such uses_ on October 10, 1962 •. None of these substances has

ever been so recognized. The scientific literature contains no reports of

adequate, well-controlled, scientific studies, or other evidence upon which

such recognition may be predicated. I know of no recognized rcedical text

in which use of areygdalin or any cyanogenic glycoside is recormrended. I know

of no rredical school where use of these substances is taught. I know of no

~ in cancer cherrotherapy who is of the view that there is evidence these

substances have any useful effect in treating cancer. I know of no report

in the scientific literature describing an adequate, well-controlled study

which denonstrates that arey-gdalin or any cyanogenic glycoside is safe and

effective.

20. The available scientific facts are as follows:

a. The proponents of Laetrile claim that Laetrile is split

by the enzyrre Beta-glucosidase into glucose and mandelonitrile, that

nandelonitrile decomposes S:p::)ntaneously into benzaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide, '

and'.that hydrogen cyanide stops turror respiration, thereby killing turror

cells. Evidence - None. laboratory studies show no effect on respiration

of Laetrile on either human turror tissues or an.i.rral turrors.

b. The proponents of Laetrile claim that Laetrile is selectively

toxic to turror cells because Beta-glucosidase is greater in arrount in turrors

than in norrral tissues. Evidence - None. Laboratory studies derronstrate only

trace anounts of Beta-glucosidase in an.i.rral tissues, and even less in arrount

in experimental turrors than in such organs as liver and kidney~

-5-

c. The proponents of laetrile claim that rhodanase (an

enzyme that converts toxic hydrogen cyanide to non-toxic thiocyanate) is in

lesser arrount in turrors than in nonra.1 tissues, and hence turcors, they claim,

cannot protect them.selves against hydrogen cyanide. Evidence - None. Assays

of this enzyme have shown no such differences between normal.and cancerous

tissue.

d. The proponents of laetrile· claim that Laetrile is a vitamin,

B-17. . Evidence - None~ So-called vitamin B-17 has neither been recognized . '

as a vitamin in human nutrition, nor known to ·have nutritional value. The

use of the word "vitamin" by the Laetrilists has been stated by the courts

to be a "patently absurd and transparent attenpt to avoid the drug labeling

provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act". (United States

District Court, District of New Jersey, January 25, 1976).

e. The proponents of Laetrile claim that their cli.¢cal studies

in cancer patients derronstrated that Laetrile often reduced the size of a

:rralignant turror and caused sane turrors to carrpletely regress. Evidence -

None; that is, no objective evidence to support such a claim. No "hard"

·patient data; no turror ItEasurements of the progress of the disease

state, no biochemical data, no survival data, etc. The pro-Laetrilists

do pot present any conpetent scientific evidence that Laetrile is effective I •

for the treatIYEnt of cancer. Only testimonials -- "anecdotal'.' evidence --

are presented that the Laetrile-cancer patients and their doctors "believe" in

its efficacy. Belief, however, is not adequate for reliance of drug efficacy.

Only strict scientific standards should be employed; narrely, adequately docurnentE

scientific, well-controlled, evidence of objective antineoplastic effects in

humans. The fact that a great many cancer patients have received Laetrile

and attest to its benefit is not evidence. M:re clinical experience ~ se

is not a substitute for lack of appropriate objective docurrentation of clinical

-6-

efficacy. Reputable drug rranufacturers all have to rreet the standard of

well,..controlled and docurrented clinical and experirrental investigations

as particularized by FDA regulations to sustain their new drug applications.

Why can't the pro-Laetrilists do likewise? Why should their new drug application

for Laetrile be treated differently? Why.can't the so-called thousands of cancer

patients who insist that Laetrile.works for them have their claims docurrented

in a rrethodical scientific rranner as all otJ?.er new drug applications are

required to do? For a number of these so-called Laetrile cancer "cures"

there is no evidence that the patient ever even had cancer; that is, there is

no pathology report with available slides to dOCUIIEnt that the patient had the

cancer he was told he had. Without such evidence; there is no way to substantiat

the claim for cure. For other so-called Laetrile cancer "cures", while the

pathology report is available, there is unfortunately additional treatrrent

(e.g. , surgery, radiotherapy, cancer cherrotherapy) which the patient received

along with Laetrile -- and under such circumstances, it is not possible to

credit Laetrile with the cure when one of the other orthodox treatrrents

(recognized as capable of curing cancer) is rrost likely the responsible

curative agent.

f. Placebo Effect - Humans are very susceptible, particularly

when ill and desperate with hope, to the power of a positive suggestion --,

namely, when given a "drug" by an authority figure (e.g., a physician) with

the ·finn staterrent and promise they will now begin to feel better, to have pain

relief, to eat better, and to get well, these hopeful patients frequently

do just what they have teen told to e:iq;ect. It is a fonn·of self-hypnosis

based on the paver of positive thinking. This effect has long been recognized

in rredicine and is terned the "placebo effect". A placebo is a "sugar

pill", or similar non-effective "medicine", that is given as a control "drug"

to insure in a clinical investigation that the clairred effect is really due

-7-

to the real drug and not just a perceived effect based on suggestion.

The "placebo effect" has induced in sare studies as much as 40 percent

pain relief, and yet all these patients ever received was a "sugar pill".

Hence, it is not surprising to have a large number of Laetrile patients

earnestly insisting that Laetrile helps them, only to die sorre m::mths

later of widespread cancer. Cancer is a chronic disease which sare patients can

live with for years l::efore dying of the disease. During this slaw death there

are periods of "ups" as well as "downs", and it is not surprising to have a

Laetrile patient ascribe the "up" to Laetrile, when it was merely coincidental

timing. The canbination of the "placebo effect" and a chronic disease makes it

possible for quackery to thrive on the basis of patient testinonials. Knowledge

of the existence of the phenorrenon known as the "placebo effect" makes

understandable the presentation of a great many Laetrile testinonials which

nevertheless cannot be docurrentated with objective evidence of an anti-tUitOr

effect.

g. Also, knowledge of the "placebo effect"along with the

chronic nature of cancer (i.e., patients can live for several years

before succumbing to the disease), and knowledge that Laetrile is not

dispensed either freely or cheaply but is to be taken daily and a "3-shot"

vial of Laetril~ costs $50.00 -- all of this knowledge should make understandable

the '.'trerrendous profit noti ve Laetrile' s prarotors have. Ind~~, some of the

key Laetrile pranotors are known to have banked several million dollars from

Laetrile in the space of a few years. It is therefore ridiculous to give

credence to the charge by the Laetrilists that the anti-Laetrile stand by

such organizations as the Arrerican Cancer Society, the Arrerican .Medical

Association, ~tc., is notivated by "vested interests of the medical

establishment trying to protect their billion-dollar cancer industry''.

-8-

Even if l:oth sides are to be believed, it is a case of."the.pot calling

the kettle black" , and proof of nothing. Havever, in this regard -- a

financial rrotive -- it is of interest to note that in comnunistic countries

such as Russia, where capitalistic rrotives do not prevail, and where that

society's large annual capital outlay on cancer research gives testirrony

to their concern about cancer, Laetrile is not-utilized in the treatrrent of

cancer and is considered devoid of anti-cancer activity.

21. I have · conducted research on the effects of amygdalin on spontaneous

turrors in experirrental anirrals. The procedures used in IT!Y study are as follows:

a. The spontaneous tumors employed were from a special colony

of mice that is utilized by the federal governrrent as one of a selected small

group of animal turrors for testing potential anti-cancer agents. The important

reason for selecting these turrors is that active chemotherapeutic agents on

these spontaneous breast cancers in animals have correlated essentially 100

percent with those drugs clinically active against human breast cancer.

Hence, against this background, the activity of Laetrile on these

spontaneous anirral turrors would be an important indication for or against

further study, including clinical trial.

b. These anirral turrors are not only spontaneous (as ht.man

tumors are), but they also metastasize as hllffi3l1 turrors do. Any drug

active against cancer would therefore be expected to inhibit.the growth

of either the pri.rrru:y turror, or its secondary metastases, or at least prolong

the life of the animals.

c. My laboratory's tests.with Laetrile derronstrated Laetrile

to be without effect on any of the aforementioned parameters.

d. Further, these negative tests on these animal turrors were

confirmed by three other investigators at Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer

Center in New York. One of the latter investigators (Dr. K. Suguira)

-9-

reported his initial experirrents to derronstrate Laetrile to have anti­

cancer activity, but his subsequent results were negative. A degree of

variability in results is. comrron in biological research, and tlE final

opinion is based on whatever the majority of the findings are. In this

instance, the totality of the data clearly and unequivocally reveals

Laetrile to be without anti-cancer activity.

e. Laetrile has also been reported negative on a variety of

transplantable animal cancers.

CCNCLUSION: Taking all the animal data together, I find Laetrile

has no activity against animal cancers. Further, my review of the reported

clinical claims that Laetrile works against human cancer does not find

objective data supportive of such a claim.

I conclude there is no scientific evidence warranting the belief

that Laetrile has any efficacy against cancer.

22. I have also conducted a careful review of the rredical and

popular literature concerning c3It1Ygdalin and cancer. I have found the claims

and theories advanced by prorrotors of c3It1Ygdal.in or Laetriel to be pseudo­

scientific and lacking in substance. Such claims are not supported by any

,objective data or by carefully designed, well-controlled studies. Based on

my :3tudies, my review of the literature, and my education, training, and I

experience, I am of the opinion that prorrotion and distribution of this substance

·constitutes a rredical hoax, and a fraud upon the public. Under these circum­

stances those responsible for distribution of the substance for clinical use

contribute to a pernicious and unwarranted practice that is totally lacking

in rredical or scientific justification.

23. I have been asked to state my opinion concerning the public

health significance of pennitting cancer patients to receive and use c3It1Ygdalin,

in particular, and other unproven rerredies, in general, when their use- is

-10-

proposed and prorroted despite a lack of scientific evidence of safety and

effectiveness. My opinion is that Laetrile is a hannful drug. It may

indeed not be toxic, but it is harmful in arousing false hopes. Such hopes

induce cancer patients to delay treatrrent that seems dangerous or painful

or debilitating - narrely, orthodox cancer treatments of proven value in

the form of surgery or radiotherapy or cherrotherapy. Such delay in receiving

what for many patients can be truly effective and curative therapy in favor

of relatively painless Laetrile is ~erous to life in that cancer is a

disease (like many others) where delay can be fatal; early treabrent

can cure, by rerroving a cancer before it has spread. Further, the concept of

taking Laetrile as a cancer preventive is also dangerous, as it can lead

people to delay seeking a diagnosis, and early diagnosis of course can lead

to early treatrrEnt. And, to those who say that Laetrile smuld be allowed

for tenninal cancer patients because it will give them a: "placebo 11 uplift,

it is sirrply not possible to restrict Laetrile to this category of i:enninal

patient without opening up "Pandora's Box" for early cancer victims. Besides,

there are other truly potentially useful anti-cancer agents that can induce .

the same placebo effect, and without leading cancer victims to spend their

savings on a worthless hoax. The cancer victim may be too far along in his

disease to be helped by our present drugs, but his family deserves to be I

protected from the useless outlay of financial resources that may b8 rrost

important for the living. Society should offer consurrer protection to both

the dying victim and the living relatives (e.g., children may need dad's

or rrother' s savings for an education that will make them rrore productive

rrembers of society). Why waste such resources on a useless and exp2nsive

hoax?

Finally, I would like to add to this section on the public health

significance of pennitting Laetrile to l:::e clinically tested, the dangers of

permitting such tests on the basis of "pressure politics" and a "hue and

-11-

outcry", as opposed to scientific indications. To do so, is to set the

stage for every whim or hunch or clever quack to have his "snake oil''

tested. This 'M)uld result in a waste of society's limited resources known

as clinical investigators. To tie up such individuals in a· fruitless chase

of "will-o-the-wisp" cancer cures is to delay finding real cures. Further,

canpetent investigators cannot be forced to waste their productive lives;

they will leave the field of cancer research to the incompetent and the charlatar

and the so-called "war on cancer" will becare a charade.

It is my considered opinion that from whatever vantage point I consider

Laetrile, I find Laetrile to not only be without efficacy as an anti-cancer

agent, but hannful.

. , '(). - ) r"' /vJ,/,1 t .t-rA Q /\._ . '..--l--·VL·<. . .,,>.f J //:, ;,_,.,,z_. / -<--,--L , ///_ ◊ -

DANIEL S. MARI'IN, M. D. /

Subscribed and sworn to before me by the said Daniel S. Martin, M.D.,

this /'/A· day of March, 1977.

Notary Public My Comnission Expires:

MOP.TON "l. BCRGER N,:,1:,ry P•Jhlic., ~tel~ of New Tork

No. 61-.'i~ 21 3:i0 C~u.cdificd. in V/,n!che:;~~r County

Certof,~o,_e f1le:J in l~cw York County _ Comm1s~1on Expirei March 30, 197 a

-.l :>.-

. .

Date of Birth:

Education:

Post Graduate Training:

Certifications:

Military Experience:

Awards and Honors:

Research:

Rcseurch Support:

CURRICULUM /ITAE

Qaniel S. Martin, M.D.

October 29, 1921, New York, New York

Cornell University, 1938-1941.

t:J.; hi I.Ji t 1

New York University College of Medicine·, 1941-1944.

Residency in Surgery - Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center and the Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York 1950-1955. Assistant Resident in Surgical Pathology - New England Deaconess Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, 1948-1 Assistant Residency in Surgery-. Brooklyn Cancer Institute, Brooklyn, New York,1945 - 1946. Rotating Intership - Brooklyn Hospital, Brooklyn, New York, 1944r 194 5.

American Board of Surgery - Diplomate, 1956. Examiner American Board of Surgery, 1969-1973.

Captain, Medical Corps, United States Army, 1946-1948.

President, Queens Medical and Health Program, Inc.·- 1974 - 1976. Vice-President, New York State Cancer Programs Assoc., Inc. - Pre~ Awr1.rd'in Appreciution of Services. York Coliege, N.Y., N.Y., 19G9. Omicron Delta Ku.pr.a, University of Miami, t~iami, Flo;·ida, 1963. First recipient of the Mead Johnson Award for Graduate Training i1 Surgery, 1955 - av,arded by the American College of Surgeons. Dazian Foundation for Medical Research Fellow, 1951. Damon Runyan Cancer Research Fellow, 1949-1950.

1972 - Present - Cancer Immunology and Cancer Chemotherapy, Catho1

Medical Center, St. f.i,nthony's Hospital, \-!oodhaven, N•~1·1 York. 1968 - 1972 - Cancer lmillunology and Cancer Chemothert!py, Catholic Medical Center, \·lalker Research Laboratory, Rye, Ne1•1 York. 1958 - 1968 - Cancer Immunology and Cancer Chemotherapy, Universii of Miami, School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. · 1958 - 1967 - Shock, Isolation Perfusion and Assisted Circulation University of Miami, School of l·ledicine, 11iami, Florida. 1949 ~ 1958 - Cancer and Gastric Physiology Research - College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University,.New Yoi"k, NC\'✓ York. 1946 - 1948 - Cancer Research - Medical Division Army Chemical Center and Johns Hopkins Medical School.

National Institute of Health - (National Cancer Institute Cancer Research Grant support continously since 1950; Currcrit support of $56?.,9G0 - (July 1976 - June 30, 1977) foi• basic lab')ratory stuui in cancr.r i111munolo~1y and c<1ncr.r chcriotherapy on spontaneous (1HV) murinc munm1c:iry carcinoma. Member, l!ationul Coopcr<11:ive Cancer Studies, 1958-1968.

.-_

•. ClJf<RICU.LUM VITAE . . , DANIELS. MAR.TIN, M.D. ..

Research Support: (Cont'd.)

Institutional Affiliation:

Hospital Affiliations:

Medical Li censure:

Societies:

Cancer Chemotherapy Foundation - (Grant for cancer research, 1975 .,. 1971 John Hartford Foundation - (Grant for stvdies on shock, perfusion of cancer and assisted circulation, 1959-1964). Up john Corporation - (Cancer chemotherapy research, 1955-1963).

· Burroughs Wellcome - (General research support, 1958). Merck, Sharp & Dohme - (General research support and seminar support, )968 - 1969.

Attending in Surgery - Dept. of Surgery, Catholic Medical Center, New York, New. York, 1972 - present. Chairman, Dept-. of Surgery, Catholic Medical Center, New York, New York, 1968-1972. Associate Professor of Surgery, Dept. of Surgery, Sc~ool of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, 1958-1968. Chief, Surgical Service II, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, Florida, 1963-1964 •· Director· of the Surgical Research Laboratories, Dept. o.f Surgery, University o~ Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, 1958..:.1962. Chief, 11 B11 Surgical Service, Jackson Memorial Hospi ta!, Miami, ·Florida, 1958-1962. . I

Instructory,n Surgery, Dept. of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New· York, 1955-1958.

,Attending in Surgery: St. John's Hospital, N.Y., N.Y., 1968-Present. Attending in Surgery: St. Mary's Hospital, N.Y., N.Y., 19c8-Present. Attending in Surgery: St. Charles' Hospital, N.Y., N.Y., 1968-1972. Attending 1n Surgery: Mary Immaculate Hospital, N.Y.,N.Y., 1968-Presen' Attending in Surgery: Hospital of the Holy Family, N.Y.,N.Y.,1968'.'"Prese, Attending in Surgery: Jackson Memorial Hospi ta!, Miami, Fie., 1958-1963. Consultant in Surgery: V.A. Hospito.l, Coral Gables, Fla.,1953-1962;1964-: Attending in Surgery: Presbyterian Hospi tel, Col um bi a-Presbyterian Medical and the Francis Delafield Hospital, New York, N. Y., 1955-1958.

New York;, New Jersey; Florido.

Americ,an Association for Advancement of Science. American Association for Cancer Research, Inc. American Association of University Professors. American Medical Assoc iotion. American Society for Artificial Internal Organs. Association of American ,\.\edical Colleges. Harvey Soci cty. New York Academy of Sciences.

CURRICULUM VITAE ~ DANIEL S. MARTIN,. M. D.

Societies: (Cont'd.)

New York County Medical Society. Queens County Medical Society. Royal Society of M-edicine. Society for ·Experimental Biology and Medicine. Southern Medical Association. New York Cancer Society. New York State Cancer Program Association, Inc. American Society of Clinical Oncology, Chairman, Unorthodox Therapies Committee New York Surgical Society

....