The Amygdalin article will give more weight to scientific consensus and less to fringe theories, that's Wikipedia policy. Your reference was from an unreliable source;we can't accept G. Edward Griffin as a secondary source, and Wikipedia frowns on primary sources, so we would need a reliable medical reviewer from a peer-reviewed journal to have reviewed the work. Also, less than a dozen researchers testifying to it is still pretty fringe.
From the policy guideline on fringe theories:
"Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality (see WP:REDFLAG)."
Hope that helps explain things a bit... Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)