The Cure for Cancer
 |
Author: Christopher J. E. Johnson Published: Janurary, 2010 Updated: Nov 13, 2024 |
 |
 |
 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
#1 - What is Cancer?
This is the same attitude I find in many churchgoers, in which I demonstrate to them that the pastor of their church building teaches a false gospel on salvation (i.e. they do not preach repentance for the remission of sins as Jesus taught us, Luke 24:44-47, and on the rare occasion they do, they teach an incorrect, unbiblical defintion of the word 'repent'), and instead of having a peaceful, rational conversation about it, they uphold their respect of his person (i.e. his office or station), which is sin according to the Holy Scriptures. They refuse to believe that someone who does not have the high status, rank, and prestige that a pastor has could possibly know something that a pastor does not know, and so they automatically conclude I am wrong based on the respect they have for a man's title or degree, rather than based on the facts, and likewise, there are many people who do the same thing as prideful churchgoers, trusting a physician's word simply because of his status, rather than researching the facts, because they do not want to believe that they have been scammed by the very people they blindly trust the most.
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons... But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-James 2:1-9
The fascinating thing about cancer is also the perplexing thing about it, which is that most people seem to ASSUME what cancer is, thinking that they understand it, but in reality, they could not actually describe it. If I were to ask someone what cancer is, a likely response would be "a disease," or "an illness," but that is the same thing as you asking me, "Who is that man across the street?" and I answer, "a person;" that generic response tells you nothing about what distinguishes that man from anyone else.
So in order to address cancer appropriately, we need to be able to define what it is, in the same way that in order to repair your vehicle, you must be able to identify the problem. There are two terms we need to understand to categorize cancer:
chronic: continuing for a long time; recurring frequently
communicable: capable of being transmitted
(See 'chronic' & 'noncommunicable', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [www.dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2009)
| Cancer is a chronic, noncommunicable disease. |
To clarify, cancer is a disease that cannot be transmitted, either by touch or through the respiratory system (via the lungs), and it lasts for a very long time. For example, a common cold (also known as "coronavirus") can be contracted through direct or indirect contact with those who have it, and it goes away after a few days of rest, which means it is a "transient (or temporary) communicable" disease, and so we cannot compare it to cancer because it does not match the same criteria.
In another example, AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is a chronic disease, but it is communicable, meaning that one can acquire it through the exchange of bodily fluids, which makes it different than cancer because cancer is noncommunicable. Throughout the history of the world, in all records of disease in mankind, there has never been a "cure" invented to fix a chronic, noncommunicable disease, and yet, there are natural, easy-to-access solutions for nearly all of them.
There are many chronic, noncommunicable diseases that have, at one time in history, in certain locations around the world, been an "epidemic," meaning that they become widespread in a short amount of time, but today, most people have never seen or heard of anyone who has had them. One of the most famous examples of a chronic, noncommunicable disease that is almost unheard of today is scurvy.
In 18th-century Europe, scurvy was like the cancer of that day because it was a disease that had no cure, was not well understood, and it was killing millions people. The British Navy in particular lost a significant portion of their sailors to scurvy every year, but in 1753, Scottish physician James Lind published a book explaining that scurvy was caused by a lack of citrus fruit in the diets of those who contracted it, demonstrating that it was not a "cure" that was needed; it was simply a vitamin deficiency.
(See James Lind, A Treatise on the Scurvy in Three Parts - Containing an Inquiry Into the Nature, Causes, and Cure, of that Disease, Sands, Murray, and Cochran, 1753, retrieved Nov 13, 2024, [https://archive.org/details/treatiseonscurvy00lind/page/n5/mode/2up])
"Lind's study is cited as the first example of a scientifically controlled clinical experiment. His remedy was based on experiments made at sea on twelve sailors who had developed scurvy. Lind tested various supposed remedies by dividing the twelve sailors into six groups of two each...The most sudden and visible improvement occurred in the two who were fed oranges and lemons; one was fit for duty after just six days. In 1795, the Royal Navy began to provide an ounce of lemon juice for each man after his sixth week at sea. Although the dose was less than the amount recommended today, it was effective."
-Lawrence K. Altman, Who Goes First?: The Story of Self-Experimentation in Medicine, University of Californica Press, 1987, p. 396, ISBN: 9780520212817
In that day, the typical diet of the British sailor consisted of mostly salty red meat that lacks some vitamin content that is required for an overall healthy diet, which is why a meat-only diet is typically not a good idea. The above author claims that Lind was the first to "discover" this so-called "cure," but it had been discovered many times before his book was published. Lind was the first to do a scientific study on the subject in 1747, but Vasco Da Gama knew about the solution in 1498, Richard Hawkins discovered it in 1593, Bartolomé Leonardo de Argensola discovered it in 1609, and John Woodhall (Surgeon General of the East India Comapny) discovered it in 1617; albiet some of their cures involved drying or boiling their food, which eliminated most of the vitamin benefits, or in other words, fresh is always better.
(See Jamaica Rose & Michael MacLeod, The Book of Pirates: A Guide to Plundering, Pillaging and Other Pursuits, Gibbs Smith, 2010, p. 165, ISBN: 9781423614807)
Scurvy remained an "epidemic" for centuries because citrus fruits on ships was not a widely accepted practice. At the time, it was cheaper to let sailors die than it was to procure fruit for them, and so the epidemic continued for financial reasons rather than scientific, which is something I would ask readers keep in mind because we will cover more on that later.
The following chart shows a list of chronic, noncommunicable diseases along side the natural foods (and vitamins contained within those foods) that remedy those illnesses. Please note that these foods ought to be organically grown, non-GMO (genetically modified), without pesticides or herbicides if at all possible:
|
Please note that the "cure" for these diseases was not found in a bottle, it was not crafted in a pharmaceutical laboratory, it does not demand chemical injections, nor does it require surgery. The remedy for these diseases is a simple fix that involves changing one's diet to get vitamin content the body is lacking, and this is sometimes referred to as "nutritional therapy."
In the corruption of American society over the past century, we now live in a culture where the average housewife of a physician knows more about nutritional therapy than the average physician. Worse still is that many young women are abandoning their vital post in the kitchen to become indoctrinated by mainstream medical institutions, losing their extremely valuable role and knowledge. Although many physicians will claim to know about a healthy diet, the majority have relied on mainstream "educational" sources as a guide, when those mainstream sources have been corrupted, leaving the minority of physicians who have any real nutritional understanding.
(Read Feminism: Castrating America here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
For example, in my book, Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil (which is free-to-read here at creationliberty.com), I talked about Edward Bernays, who is labeled the "father of public relations," which is itself a public relations term because public relations is peace-time propaganda. In my book, I documented the devilish genius of Bernays in his effort to create the "All-American Breakfast" of bacon and eggs, which was never American until he used advertising agencies to convince the American people otherwise.
In an interview towards the end of his life, Bernays spoke about how, in the 1920s, he was able to get 4500 physicians to sign off on a general statement that a heavy breakfast was healthier than a light breakfast, and also endorsed bacon and eggs as part of a standard morning meal. The reason Bernays did this was because Beech-Nut Packing Company hired him to solve their problem of low bacon sales, and thus, America's health standards were rewritten to help large corporations sell more of the pork products they desired to move.
(See Edward Bernays, "Edward L. Bernays Beech-Nut Packing Co," Barry Spector, Sept 12, 2014, retrieved Nov 13, 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vFz_FgGvJI])
I am not saying that it is wrong to have bacon and eggs for breakfast if you want, nor am I saying it is bad for everyone. It depends on your health conditions and your physical constitution, but the purpose of the shift in diet had NOTHING to do with science and health, and had everything to do with propagating corporate sales through legacy media influence.
Even the food pyramid, which millions of Americans learned in classrooms throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s, is completely wrong, and that is because it was never based on science as much as it was based on who won the highest bid to gain the largest real estate on the pyramid. The winner of that bidding war were grain companies like General Mills, who would (behind closed doors) classify people like me as "cereal killers" for exposing their poisonous products. I find it uncoincidental that they chose a pyramid for the shape of an American diet, because pyramids have been known for thousands of years to be structures that house the dead.
Many other grocery companies were involved in backdoor deals to get their coveted spot on the food pyramid highlights, and it allowed for them to put new fancy "produce" logos on their processed-food product packaging. Chips and ketchup became part of the daily dose of vegetables, ice cream and chocolate pudding became part of "healthy" dairy consumption, and corn chips were classified as "pasta" (do not ask me how because I still have not figured it out), but despite objections from some physicians, from some of the general public, and even from some USDA insiders (who saw the pyramid as an upside-down representation of healthy eating and a waste of taxpayer money), the pyramid was published under the guise of being backed by science and medical researchers, all from our oh-so-benevolent benefactor, the United States Federal Government, who force you to fund such propaganda from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
Decades later, after much public outcry about the insanity of this diagram, the USDA changed the "Food Guide Pyramid" to something called "MyPlate," and in their arrogance, they could not help themselves but to try and justify their past actions by calling the fallacious and deceptive Food Pyramid "
(See USDA, "What is MyPlate?" retrieved Nov 14, 2024, [https://www.myplate.gov/eat-healthy/what-is-myplate])
Remember that everyone's health and dietary needs are going to be different. No one will have the exact same dietary needs. For example, I tend to have less grain because it provides the body with a lot of carbohydrates, and since I work in front of a computer most of the day, it would cause me to store up unnecessary fat, but grains could be increased for someone who has a daily work routine that involves a lot of physical labor.
Circumstances can change a person's needs for certain foods over others based on age, height, weight, sex, activity, geographical location, atmosphere, dietary history, medical history, activities, and more. However, there are basic principles to general nutrients that every body needs, and so some things will never change, which is why the right-hand (i.e. corrected) dietary guide is a better framework for your overall diet.
There are many more reasons for the manipulation of dietary data from the U.S. government that I will not be covering in this book, but one of the primary principles that readers should take note of is that most of these decisions are being made around a chemical philosophy, instead of a natural philosophy. The reason this is important is because naturally-occuring substances, like vitamins and minerals, cannot be patented to secure profits, while synthetic substances created in a laboratory are patentable, and so what is lobbied for in government, and pushed in legacy media, are those substances for which companies hold patents.
This brings us back to the subject of cancer because it is a trillion-dollar industry. I mentioned all these things so that readers would understand that there are many evil people financially invested into keep people sick so the money keeps flowing, and we will discuss more on that later in this book.
Let's imagine for a moment that you took your car into a mechanic to have it repaired because it was making a very loud clunking noise that would highly concern any driver. You leave it overnight, and come back the next day to pick up your vehicle, only for the mechanic to tell you that he lined the hood of your car with insulation to muffle the sound, so you would not hear the clunking noise anymore.
Would you be satisfied with the solution the mechanic offered, or would you object? The obvious answer is that you would object, and refuse to pay the bill, because the mechanic did not fix the problem; rather, he only masked the symptom.
The 21st century medicine cabinet in the average household is filled to the brim with chemicals and pills that mask symptoms instead of solve problems. For example, if you have a headache, you are often advised to take an aspirin, but was it the lack of aspirin that caused your headache? Has all of mankind throughout history suffered from aspirin deficiency? Taking an aspirin to fix your headache is like unplugging the "Check Oil" light on your car; you cannot fix a problem by masking the symptom.
Headaches, skin rashes, dizziness, soreness of joints — these are all symptoms of underlying problems in your body. Symptoms, though they make us feel bad, are a blessing in disguise because if we do not have these symptoms to warn us, then we will not know about problems that potentially could turn deadly over time, which is what often happens with cancer.
Before getting a cancer diagnosis, there are often a wide variety of dietary-related symptoms that have shown themselves over many years. Eventually, a tumor (i.e. a swollen part of the body) appears, and so-called "medical experts" will declare that the tumor is the cancer, but the tumor is the SYMPTOM of cancer, not the cancer itself.
Therefore, because "medical experts" (as well as patients) do not understand what cancer is, they also do not understand proper treatment for it, and will go to wild lengths, far beyond the realm of stupidity, to address the problem. For example, warts are considered (by medical classification) to be a type of tumor, and warts can appear on the hands, for which dermatologists will sometimes use liquid nitrogen as solution:
"A dermatologist usually begins by scraping dead skin cells from the wart with a scalpel. This exposes more of the surface skin containing the virus tothe freezing agent, which is liquid nitrogen... Liquid nitrogen-based removal is safe for most healthy people. "
-Adam Felman & Deborah Weatherspoon, "What to know about freezing warts," Jan 10, 2023, retrieved Nov 14, 2024, [https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320178]
A "safe" procedure does not automatically declassify it from being a "stupid" procedure. For example, soldiers during the American Civil War had their limbs cut off, and they were considered "safe" procedures because they saved the life of a man who would have otherwise died from his injuries. Under that criteria, we could conclude that amputating a man's leg is a "safe" procedure to protect him from athlete's foot.
The general cause of warts is often due to a zinc deficiency in one's diet, meaning that if you discover warts, eating zinc-rich foods (e.g. avocado, beans, grass-fed beef, lentils, etc) will solve the problem in a short time:
"Reduced zinc levels may be associated with persistent, recurring warts. Several studies have shown resolution of warts with oral zinc sulfate supplementation over one to two months."
-Michelle Villett, "How to Get Rid of Warts," Reader's Digest Best Health Magazine, December, 2011, retrieved Nov 14, 2014, [https://web.archive.org/web/20151109232234/besthealthmag.ca/best-you/health/how-to-get-rid-of-warts#kYhtR2AdmOsCiBEy.97]
Once you understand how absurdly simple the solution is to the problem, it is boggles the mind how we developed a demented culture that thinks liquid-nitrogen surgeries are a perfectly normal remedy, especially since it is not a permenant solution, and the warts often come back. Likewise, surgeons will slice a cancer patient open, cut out the tumor, and believe they have "cured" the cancer, but quite often, the tumors come back, and this is because people are hopelessly stuck in a loop of symptom-based medicine, instead of looking for the CAUSE of the cancer.
Today, there are numerous "ghost stories" about where cancer comes from because it seems to be a big mystery to doctors and our government institutions, and any explanation offered usually comes in the form of a boogey man that lurks somewhere in the deep recesses of your genetic code that is unseen by modern science. What is fascinating to me is that this is EXACTLY the same attitude and approach physicians and government officials took with scurvy in the 18th century, claiming that it was a mysterious illness that lurked the hulls of ships.
The American Cancer Society (ACS, a very corrupt organization that I will cover later in this book) tells us that, at the turn of the 21st century, almost 1 in 3 Americans get cancer. If that is true, then it would be best for us to quit relying on ghost stories from the pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Big Pharma), and start looking at the source of the problem.
(See Ahmedin Jemal & Rebecca Siegel, "Cancer Statistics, 2009," National Library of Medicine, DOI: 10.3322/caac.20006, retrieved Nov 14, 2024, [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19474385/])
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
-Proverbs 3:5-8
#2 - The Vitamin Deficiency of Cancer
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
-Genesis 1:29
Physician Neal Adams wrote a book in which he intended to help American readers heal their vision through nutrition, which is admirable, and I am sure there are plenty of good, helpful tips in his book. However, he made a critical error, which is largely due to the brainwashed education he received from mainstream medical institutions:
"True, fruits and vegtables also don't come with any warning label. The difference is that humans have had thousands of years of experience with fruits and vegetables—we know that apples are safe but don't eat the apple seeds. We may not know that apple seeds are full of a chemical called amygdalin that is converted by our gut enzymes into cyanide—we just know from our ancestors that it's a bad idea to eat them. "
-Neal Adams, Healthy Vision: Prevent and Reverse Eye Disease through Better Nutrition, Rowman & Littlefield, 2014, p. 27, ISBN: 9781493016280
As we are about to learn, Adams is correct in some of his assessment about apple seeds, but he is dead wrong on his recommendation to not eat them. Before I get into the details, I would like to remind readers who have been born again in Jesus Christ to always remember what you believe, meaning that if you believe the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of the Living God, then you should trust in that which He wrote, and not in your own understanding, as indicated in Proverbs 3:5-8, which I quoted at the end of the last chapter.
One of the reasons that people will turn away from books like mine is because I do not have all the fancy degrees and certifications that physicians do, and they are far more apt to take a physician at his word, instead of looking at alternative views. This is understandable to a degree, as most people do not have enough time in their day to do intricate research on every subject of interest, and so at some point, we all have to end up taking others at their word in some circumstances. However, to say that Adams is correct on the subject of seeds because he is a physician, and I am incorrect because I am not a physician, is what the Bible calls "respecting persons," which is sin because it is a point of pride, conceitedness, and laziness, and is a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority."
(Read "Respecting Persons is Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-James 2:9
Part of the reason Adams (who is but one of many physicians that) says seeds are bad for you is because he goes to the American Medical Association (AMA), who he believes should be highly regarded. However, the AMA has a long-standing history of rejecting good medicines, while adopting bad medicines such as pharmacuetical drugs and radiation treatments, and I will talk more about those later.
Over a century ago, a very important discovery was made by Ernst T. Krebs:
Krebs was a physician and graduate pharmacist in Nevada, and his first major breakthrough was made when studying the Washoe Indian tribe's herbal remedies. From that study, Krebs created what is known today as "leptonin," which helped save nearly 100 of his patients who were suffering from bacterial disease, and yet, despite his success, the Journal of the ("reliable" and "prestigious") American Medical Association ignored his findings and labeled him a "quack" doctor, which tarnished his reputation and buried the life-saving discovery for decades to come.
To this day, mainstream authors and medical institutions condemn Krebs as some sort of heretic against the AMA church of medicine. They still avoid informing the public that in 1953, almost 40 years later, scientists at the University of Utah School of Medicine published "Studies on Antibiotic Extract of Leptotaenia," and admitted Dr. Krebs's findings were accurate by doing their own study to prove he was correct and the AMA was wrong.
(See G.A. Matson & A. Ravve, "Antibiotic Studies on an Extract From Leptotaenia Multifeda," Sept 28, 1949, DOI: 10.1172/JCI102176, retrieved Nov 15, 2024, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC438922/]; See Journal of American Medical Association, Nov 1920, Vol. 75, No. 19, p. 1299; See also H. J. Carlson & H. G. Douglas, and H. D. Bissell, Journal of Bacteriology, May 1948, Vol. 55, p. 607-614)
For example, Princeton University's James Harvey Young wrote a heavily biased critique of Krebs in a book called American Health Quackery. He made scathing accusations against Krebs, claiming that he was just lone wolf snake-oil salesman try to get rich quick, but in his lengthy chapter on Krebs, Young never bothered to mention that Kreb's findings were later verified by other scientists to be true.
(See James H. Young, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays of James Harvey Young, Princeton University Press, 1992, p. 205-255, ISBN: 9781400862917; retrieved Nov 15, 2024, [https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7ztx5d.18])
The reason why physicians cannot find information on these subjects is because the truth is being blocked by the very medical institutions and universities in which they blindly trust. Because Krebs is labeled as a "quack" by the AMA and other corrupt medical institutions, even if physicians somehow discover that Krebs found the seeds of certain fruits and herbs had a high concentrate of a special vitamin that was not found in most other foods, they would not take him seriously because they respect the persons of those who have condemned him.
While Krebs was studying natural remedies for bacterial disease (along with studying the work of Professor John Beard, who linked cancer to enzymes, which we will take a closer look at later) Krebs picked up an interest in studying cancer. While investigating the culture of the Washoe Indians, as well as other native tribes, Krebs noticed that they did not have the same cancerous diseases that white men had, so his prior experience with leptonin led him to look for a cure in natural herbs and other foods which they regularly consumed.
This research was later completed by Krebs's son, Ernst T. Krebs Jr., who studied in anatomy and medicine at Hahnemann Medical College for three years, received his bachelor's degree in bacteriology from the University of Illinois, and did his graduate work at the University of Mississippi and the University of California. This should be noted so that readers do not get the impression that mainstream medical institutions are trying to imply, namely, that Krebs and his father were just uneducated charlatans. Krebs Jr. picked up his father's work (as well as Professor Beard's) and made many discoveries, the most important of which was amygdaline, also known as vitamin B17, which is found most commonly in the seeds of fruits and vegetables.
Physician John Richardson spent a lot of time talking with Krebs Jr., and he summarized what he learned:
"Basically the theory Krebs advanced is that cancer is not caused by some strange invading force from outside the body, but rather by malfunctions of normal mechanisms solely within the body itself. Those malfunctions are the result of a deficiency in a chemical substance found in certain foods and of a deficiency in certain enzymes produced in the pancreas."
-John A. Richardson, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 5, ISBN: 0553114913
Krebs Jr. went on to develop a concentrated pill of B17 he named "laetrile," and for those of you who have never heard of laetrile, you might be intrigued, but for those of you who have heard of it, you will probably know that most physicians immediately condemn it as a dangerous, heretical poison that will kill you. This is because most physicians have been (albeit unknowingly) brainwashed by medical institutions so they will not look into it, and if they tell you they have "researched it," what they actually did is look it up in an online AMA database, and simply regurgitated the AMA propaganda back to you, but they did not do research on it themselves.
I grew up living on a small apple orchard, and when I was a boy, I remember being told an old wives' tale by the adults around me that I should not eat the apple seeds because they were poisonous, and so naturally, I heeded that warning. However, as I got older, I had eaten seeds from fruits and vegetables, and nothing happened, which led me to consider why I was told this, and where the information originated.
Scientists studying fruit seeds found that they contain cyanide, and cyanide kills people, therefore, they concluded that if you eat seeds, you will die from cyanide poisoning. As straight-forward as that might seem, it is a rather childish interpretation of the facts. I can assure you, as a man who has eaten many apple seeds (as well as other fruit and vegetable seeds), I am writing this book alive and healthy, with no traces of cyanide poisoning, and the scientific community is welcome to test me for cyanide if they are baffled by this miracle.
Nearly every substance in this world can be deadly to the human body if not consumed in the correct form to make it nutritious. For example, chlorine is deadly to the human body if you consume it, but millions of Americans consume sodium chloride every day, which is more commonly known as "table salt."
Oxygen will strengthens fire, and hydrogen will make a fire explode, so if your house is on fire, it would be foolish to spray oxygen or hydrogen on it. However, that is precisely what every fireman in the world does because they use both substances combined into something we call H2O, more commonly as "water."
If you were hungry, and I offered you a table spoon full of salt, or baking powder, or flour, or butter, you would not be interested, and in fact, most of you would find that to be disgusting, and the AMA would not recommend eating these by themselves in moderate quantity. However, if we combine them in the right way, we can make biscuits, which are pleasant to the taste and nutritious for the body.
I am using these examples to help readers convert their philosophy (i.e. their way of thinking) to understand that context matters greatly when it comes to health and food. In order to understand why consuming cyanide is healthy, we have to change the faulty philosophy that we have been taught by the corrupt corporate media and greedy health institutions.
Amygdalin, or B17, is two units of glucose (sugar), one unit of benzaldehyde, and one unit of cyanide. Many people know cyanide and benzaldehyde can be deadly if consumed individually in significant quantities, but in the chemical combination found in seeds, the components are inert.
inert (adj): having little or no ability to react
(See 'inert', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)
Beta-glucosidase is the key to unlock toxic chemicals, but not only is beta-glucosidase quite rare, it requires a large amount of beta-glucosidase to open the B17 chest of cyanide and benzaldehyde. Cancerous cells produce hundreds of times more beta-glucosidase "keys" than any other cell in your body, and so once B17 comes in contact with a cancerous cell, it unlocks the "chest," causing benzaldehyde and cyanide to combine and form a poisonous substance that destroys the cancer cell, and only at that location, then after the reaction, the toxic chemicals become nutritious for your body.
Some readers may be concerned that a cancer patient eating seeds might have the rest of their body harmed by chemicals like benzaldehyde, but the benzaldehyde oxidizes when it comes in contact with the oxygen in a normal cell in your body, and is converted to benzoic acid, which many Americans consume on a regular basis because it is found naturally occuring in many plants and used as a preservative in products like dried fruit, toothpaste, and dog food, just to name a few. Benzoic acid even has antiseptic properties, which means it will not damage your healthy cells, but cancer cells are devoid of oxygen (which is what causes them to ferment and become dangerous to your body), so once benzaldehyde comes into contact with the cancer cell, it works to destroy the parts of the cell that are harmful, and then oxidizes the affected area.
(See R.H. Goshorn & P.A. Tetrault, "Antiseptic and Bactericidal Action of Benzoic Acid and Inorganic Salts," Purdue University, p. 646, retrieved Nov 15, 2024, [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50342a009])
Concerning cyanide, all healthy cells in your body have a natural protective enzyme called rhodanese, which will break down tiny traces of cyanide so it becomes harmless to your body, but cancer cells are void of rhodanese, which means the cyanide can only work to destroy the disease. After the cyanide kills off the cancer cell, it is converted into a substance called cyanocobalamin, which is a compound of vitamin B12, and it improves metabolic processes that are important for cancer patients.
(See Dr. Ross Pelton & Dr. Lee Overholser, Alternatives in Cancer Therapy, 1994, p. 155, ISBN: 9781439146613; See also G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer, 18th Edition, March 2006, p. 86-91, ISBN: 9780912986197)
John Richarson explains it another way:
"The enzyme factor is equally important, and it is probable that it and the food factor were intended to work together. Basically what happens is this. The enzyme trypsinogen is converted to trypsin in the intestine and there, along with chymotrypsin, is utilized in the digestion of animal protein. The surplus is absorbed into the blood stream and serves to digest, or dissolve, the protein coating that protects the cancer cell from the attack of the body's white blood cells. Once this is done, the white cells move in on the cancer cells and destroy them just as if they were foreign invaders to the body. But once again, if the pancreas is weak, or if it is 'exhausted' by metabolizing too much sugar, or if the diet contains too much animal protein, then the enzyme is deficient for the job nature has cut out for it."
-John A. Richardson, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 5, ISBN: 0553114913
This is why, in the first chapter, I put emphasis in my restructuring of "MyPlate" to include much in the way of fruit, dairy, fats, and vegetables, which should make up about half of your normal diet. As Richardson rightly pointed out, too much sugar (most especially processed sugars found in most American grocery products) will burn out the enzymes in the pancreas, which leads to the cancer symptom of tumors, and that is why your overall diet is just as important as eating foods rich in B17.
In summary, if someone were to drink substantial amounts of cyanide or benzaldehyde, they would most likely die, or at least be fatally injured, but when these chemicals are bonded within the B17 molecule, these substances will only attack and destroy cancerous cells in your body, and are then neutralized by natural chemical reaction, becoming nutritious in the process. Later in this book, we will cover why this very simple cure has been suppressed and condemned by mainstream medical institutions, but for those readers who are willing to take this seriously, you are likely quite curious how to get B17 into your diet...
.
#3 - The B17 Effect
America in the 21st century, with all its technological advances, has an average age of death ranging at around 79, and sadly, much of the reason that it is not lower is because many people are hooked up to machines that keep them alive much longer (in a miserable state) than they should have been otherwise. Americans frequently end up dying miserable deaths from disease and other chronic illness that causes them much pain and suffering in their final years. However, Hunza's average age of death is around 100, the oldest man I have ever heard of in my research on them was 165 years old, and opposed to American society, men outlive the women by 10-20 years on average, being active in their youthful day-to-day activities even into their elder years, until one day, they simple do not wake up, dying peacefully in their sleep.
Hunza Valley is located about 8000 ft (2400m) above sea level, in the mountains between China, Afghanistan, and India, but today, it has been absorbed into Pakistan. This valley is quite difficult to reach, which made it a very secluded location that only the most daring mountain climbers could discover until the invention of flight, and this kept their culture away from the influence of others, and from the effects of war.
According to Hunzakut legend, the community of the valley began when a small group of soldiers deserted the army of Alexander the Great, and they escaped into the mountains with their Persian wives. For centuries, their descendants fought off any invaders, and they pirated traders who sought passage through their land, until the turn of the 20th century, when the leader of the Hunzakuts made peace with the surrounding nations, and that peace has been kept ever since.
(See Renee Taylor, Hunza Health Secrets For Long Life and Happiness, Keats Publishing, 1978, p. 21-22, ISBN: 9780879831899)
Researcher Renée Taylor traveled to the Valley of Hunza in the 1970s to live among the people and learn about their unique culture. While she was there, Taylor witnessed women in their 90s who would squat for hours in front of a stove cooking without any physical struggle, and she also witnessed a 145-year-old man jumping for a catch while playing a Huzna version of volleyball.
(See Renee Taylor, Hunza Health Secrets For Long Life and Happiness, Keats Publishing, 1978, p. 63, ISBN: 9780879831899)
Some readers may find this to be nothing more than hyperbole or complete fantasy, but that close-minded philosophy comes from a prideful heart that is unwilling to entertain ideas foreign to their own upbringing. The problem with many Americans in that regard is that modern technologies have made them arrogant, and many people in our nation tend to look down on those who do not have that tech, even when we are statistically outmatched by those without the epidemics we suffer. English surgeon Robert McCarrison shook off any notion of pride as he witnessed countless Asian men, women, and children succumb to disease, and he set out to discover the causes.
In 1927, McCarrison was made the Director of Nutrition Research in India, and he ran some experiments based on the diet of the Hunzakut people. He tested albino rats, raising them from birth to 27 months on only the Hunzakut diet, which consisted of wholemeal flour chapattis (similar to a French crêpe), fresh butter, legumes, raw carrots and cabbage, raw milk, and some meat, with water to drink, and he also kept them in healthy atmospheric conditions, having plenty of fresh air and sunlight in a clean environment.
McCarrison reported his findings:
"During the past two and a quarter years there has beenno case of illness in this 'universe' of albino rats, no death from natural causes in the adult stock, and, but for a few accidental deaths, no infantile mortality . Both clinically and at postmortem, examination of this stock has been shown to beremarkably free from disease . It may be that some of them have cryptic disease of one kind or another, but if so, I have failed to find either clinical or microscopical evidence of it."
(See Robert McCarrison, quoted by Renee Taylor, Hunza Health Secrets For Long Life and Happiness, Keats Publishing, 1978, p. 69-70, ISBN: 9780879831899)
McCarrison wanted to go one step further to test if people could get well on this type of a diet. He put a group of diseased rats in the same conditions on the same diet as the Hunzakuts, and slowly, they were healed of all disease.
To be sure of his findings, he took the healthy rats, and placed them in living conditions and diets of those who lived in Indian cities. These rats quickly developed boils, ulcers, visual impairments, tooth decay, crooked spines, hair loss, anemia, skin disease, kidney deterioration, gastrointestinal disorders, and heart failure.
"In later experiments, McCarrison gave a set of rats the diet of the poorer classes of England: white bread, margarine, sweetened tea, boiled vegetables, tinned meats, and inexpensive jams and jellies. On this diet, not only did the rats develop all kinds of disease conditions, but they became nervous wrecks: 'They were nervous and apt to bite their attendants; they lived unhappily together, and by the sixteenth day of the experiment they began to kill and eat the weaker ones amongst them. "
(See Renee Taylor, Hunza Health Secrets For Long Life and Happiness, Keats Publishing, 1978, p. 70, ISBN: 9780879831899)
Anyone who has lived in early 21st-century America will find this scenario quite familiar because the rats under this same American diet act similar to those Americans who live on that diet. In fact, the problem is FAR worse in early 21st-century America because people are addicted to processed, high-sugar, greasy foods that, over long-term exposure, result in disease and death; not only in bodily deterioration, but also leading some to adopt insane ideologies which can cause them to kill others.
We will get back to the cancer topic soon, but it is imperative for readers to understand that once a person has contracted cancer, their diet and living conditions have deteriorated into a wide range of problems that all need to be fixed. Although B17 will stop and reverse the spread of cancer in the body, it will not solve overall health decay.
Americans in my day have developed many bad habits due to apathy, and only seem to get concerned and motivated once their health has declined into lethal levels. Because of this, I hope young men and women to study more about diet, exerecise, and cleanliness, which we will cover more at the end of this book, so you and your families can live longer and more peaceful lives.
To briefly give an example of how health standards have crumbled in our nation, the Bible tells us that God gave men bread to strengthen our hearts:
He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.
-Psalm 104:14-15
Why remove the bran and germ? Frankly, so the bread looks more appealing on the shelf. Our health is a high price to pay for looking stylish.
Some people may argue that bread from commercial kitchens gets artificially enriched with nutrients, but how insane have we become in which we take a long way around the process to remove the naturally-occuring nutrients in favor of inferior synthetic replacements? Furthermore, keeping the bran and germ means the bread will go bad much faster, which reduces its shelf life, and therefore, bread manufacturers will lose money, or in broader terms, health epidemics continue in the name of profit.
Although the Hunzakuts have plenty to eat, they must work hard every day to ensure they have enough food because food is scarce in the environment in which they live. This not only means they get plenty of exercise by cultivating the land daily, but it also means their survival depents on consuming every edible part of the food they produce.
Their most abundant and valuable fruit is the apricot, and the apricot tree is highly revered in their society. Author Allen Banik wrote of his experience traveling to Hunza in the 1950s:
"The importance of the apricot in the Hunza economy is suggested by the fact that the trees are regarded as valuable property which, on the death of the owner, is willed to a favorite son or other relative. To own an apricot tree is an indication of affluence, and the local maidens cast covetous eyes on swains [a male admirer] fortunate enough to boast ownership of such a prize. "
-Allen E. Banik, Hunza Land: The Fabulous Health and Youth Wonderland of the World, Whitehorn, 1960, p. 123
The value of these trees in Hunza culture is so great, that even though women are forbidden from owning property (due to the fact that women do not possess the physical strength to till and maintain it), women can be granted indiviaul ownership of an apricot tree on someone's property. Apricots are not only eaten in various ways (raw, dried, and cooked), but also made into oil, which is not only consumed, but also used for frying food, cleaning silver, and beauty care for face and hair.
Banik asked his Hunzakut guide for more details about their use of apricot seeds:
"The guide informed me that many are stored but most of them are ground very fine and [then] squeezed under pressure to produce a very rich oil. 'This oil,' my guide claimed, 'looks very much like olive oil.Sometimes we swallow a spoonful of it, when we need it. On special days, we deep-fry our chappatis in it. On festival nights, our women use the oil to shine their hair. It makes good rubbing compound for body bruises. We also shine silverware with it. '... I learned later that apricot oil actually will shine silver."
-Allen E. Banik, Hunza Land: The Fabulous Health and Youth Wonderland of the World, Whitehorn, 1960, p. 124
Although apricots are not uncommon in America, they are not used as frequently as other fruits, and there is one particular part of the apricot that Americans almost never consume: The seed. Keep in mind that the core of the apricot is not the seed, but rather, if you crack open the hull, there is a nut (or kernel) inside, and these seeds are very frequently eaten in Hunza culture, either raw or in various dishes, and are considered to be the most flavorful part of the fruit.
| The highest known concentration of B17 in the world is found in the seeds of apricots. |
Nitrilosides (another term for B17) can be found in various seeds and herbs, but the greatest abundance is found in the apricot kernels that are frequently consumed by the Hunzakuts, and with the exception of those who have left Hunza Valley to live in other parts of the world and eat diets of processed foods, the Hunzakuts have never had a case of cancer among their people. When speaking of various tribal people living in the Himalaya Mountains, specifically the region of Gilgit, where the Hunzakuts live, McCarrison observed:
"We see, then, that as exemplified by certain Himalayan races and, as I find from recent reports in the medical press...enforced restriction to the unsophisticated foodstuffs of Nature is compatible with fertility, long life, continued vigor, perfect physique, and a remarkable freedom from digestive and gastrointestinal disorders, and from cancer ... the two chief causes of diease and death are food and drink."
-Robert McCarrison, The Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan 7, 1922, Chicago, IL, Vol. 78, No. 1, p. 3, retrieved Nov 22, 2024, [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015082605745&seq=15]
University of North Carolina professor Lewis Aiken studied the Hunza and wrote:
"Individuals having long life spans are found in sizable numbers among the Hunza people in the Karakoram Range of the Himalayas, the Abkhasians of the Russian republic of Georgia, and the Vilcabambans of Ecuador. Nearly 50 of every 100,000 people in the Caucasus region of Russia, compared with about 5 in 100,000 Americans, reportedly live to be 100 or more. Birth records of the Hunza are more difficult to obtain than those of the Abhkasians and the Vilcabambans, but UNESCO data indicate that theHunza are the only people in the entire world who are completely free of cancer ."
-Lewis R. Aiken, Aging: An Introduction to Gerontology, SAGE, 1995, p. 15, ISBN: 9780803954458
Banik also wrote about the absense of disease in Hunza:
"I was most strongly impressed by the evidences of good health I witnessed among the Hunzukuts of all ages. Their freedom from a variety of disease and physical ailments was remarkable. Cancer, heart attacks, vascular complaints and many of the common childhood diseases such as mumps, measles and chicken pox are unkown among them. I am convinced that the diet upon which these people have lived for centuries is responsible for the enviable good health they enjoy. "
-Allen E. Banik, Hunza Land: The Fabulous Health and Youth Wonderland of the World, Whitehorn, 1960, p. 173-174
There are many explorers and researchers who have all come to the same conclusion about the Hunzakut culture, that they live much longer, healthier, and more energetic lives, without diseases such as cancer. There are many men in their society who live over the age of 100, and still speak and work like they were 35.
The consumption of foods rich in nitrilocides (B17) is not limited to mankind because animals also rely on these food, else they will contract cancer, and many pets who live on modernized diets frequently get cancer, among many other illnesses. However, studies have shown that wild animals almost never contract cancer:
"Another consideration to which I have previously called attention is, that theseabnormalities very rarely affect organisms living in a state of nature. It is almost exclusively among domesticated varieties, among those that have been kept long in confinement, or that have been otherwise abnormally circumstanced, that tumours are met with; thus, in savages and wild animals, tumours very rarely occur. "
-William R. Williams, The Natural History of Cancer: With Special Reference to Its Causation and Prevention, William Wood and Company, 1908, p. 87
Although this author's bias calls them "
(See National Cancer Institution, "Cancer Statistics," retrieved Nov 27, 2024, [https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics])
"Recent observations [in the early 20th century] as to the relative frequency of malignant tumours in the latter, show that these maladies are not so rare as was formerly believed: thus, Veterinary-Inspector Trotter found that of 47,362cattle , slaughtered at Glasgow in 1903, 131 had some form of malignant tumor, or2.8 per 1,000 , the corresponding ratio for English humanity being about 60 per 1,000.All the indications at the present available point to the great rarity of cancer in wild animals ,"
-William R. Williams, The Natural History of Cancer: With Special Reference to Its Causation and Prevention, William Wood and Company, 1908, p. 88
It should be noted that wild animals sometimes get cancer, but it is often associated with animals who eat foods from modernized dumpsters, or sadly, as a result of irresponsible chemical waste from modern factories. For example, the Australian turtle population had a cancer epidemic that was caused by large amounts of toxins seeping into the water, but those turtles do not contract cancer while living in natural habitats that are unaffected by men.
(See Live Science, "Cancer Kills Wild Animals Too," June 24, 2009, retrieved Nov 27, 2024, [https://www.livescience.com/9680-cancer-kills-wild-animals.html])
Animals have a natural instinct, given to them by God, to seek out foods that are necessary for their health. For example, we have a dog that, when he is sick, will beg to go outside and eat grass, searches for a certain type of grass called sudangrass, which is rich in nitrilocides, and soon afterwards, he starts feeling better.
Objections are sometimes raised because of meat-eating animals, which are presumed not to eat any plants whatsoever, and this is simply a fallacy of thinking. First of all, it should be noted that there are examples of "meat-eating" animals that lived their entire lives refusing to eat meat.
One of the most famous examples of this was lioness called "Little Tyke." During the early days of movie production, Little Tyke highly sought after because she refused to eat meat of any kind, making her a very safe animal to use on sets. (See Georges H. Westbeau, Little Tyke: The True Story of a Gentle Vegetarian Lioness, Theosophical Publishing House, 1986, ISBN: 9780835606059)
Little Tyke would only eat vegetables, and there was a $1,000 reward offered for anyone who could trick Little Tyke into eating meat, but no one could claim the money. Many tricks were attempted, even one person putting a few drops of blood into her milk, but she refused to drink it. I brought up the example of Little Tyke to demonstrate that supposedly "carnivorous" animals can and will eat plants (just like our dog), despite the conjecture from modern worshipers of evolutionism that hopelessly cling to uniformitarian ideologies based on their nonsensical worldview that if a "scientist" classifies an animal to be a "carnivor," it can do nothing else but eat meat.
(Read "Evolutionism: Another New-Age Religion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
Some readers may recall watching nature shows in which lions are filmed killing their prey and ripping the meat off the bone, but those who have been in the wild and watched animals tell a different story. When lions rip apart their kill, they most often do not eat the meat first, but rather, they tear through the flesh to get to the nutrient-rich organs, like the heart and liver, which carry the nitrilocides consumed by the now-dead animal.
Joe Hutto lived among, and traveled with, a pack of mule deer for seven years, and came back to write a book on his findings:
"Unlike the kills of the coyote or the wolf, lion kills appear to be relatively efficient, and death comes swiftly most of the time, but the unfortunate fact is that in most instances,lions will merely open up the abdomen of a freshly killed calf or deer and eat only the heart and/or the liver and then are off to the next easy kill."
The following testimonies are from a website that no longer exists because it was persectued by the AMA and CDC (Center for Disease Control), and later seized by the FBI in 2019 because the owner, Jason Vale, was selling apricot seeds to help cure cancer. If that is confusing to you, I will cover more details about that problem in subsequent chapters. One testimony concerned a horse that had contracted cancer:
"Susan's horse, Jack, was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in his left nostril a few months ago. She emailed asking if the seeds could help. I told her absolutely and also about the famous Hoxey Cancer therapy discovered when Mr. Hoxey followed his cancer ridden horse into the woods to write down the herbs the horse was eating as the tumors shrunk. She started the seeds and some herbs and now, three months later has e-mailed me the following note:
Just emailing with an update on my horse's success.His vet came out for a 3 month check-up on Friday and his carcinoma has shrunk !!! The outside swelling has visibly shrunk and the inside lesion is no longer ulcerated and only very tiny — and looking very healthy!! Unfortunately, because of the location of the carcinoma (very high up on the inside of his left nostril), it is not really possible for me to check its progress without her special instruments but she will come again in a few months to check. She wasn't familiar with the herbal remedy or the apricot seeds I'm treating him with but was amazed and really happy with the way things are looking. He's currently taking six seeds in the morning and six seeds in the evening."
-Apricots From God, "Testimonies," June 29, 2011, retrieved Nov 27, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20190127050035/http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/testimonials/]
Another man testified about his dog's cancer:
"A gentleman named Al from around my block who has a German Shepard [sic] named Duke told me in the local deli that his dog has cancerour [sic[ tumors all over. Big tumors. He said he spent 7000$ for cat scans and other diagnostic procedures which all concluded 100% definite cancer. I ran him to my mother's house and gave him about a 1/4 bag of her supply (they are back ordered all over the US right now and I need MY seeds ). Told him to give them to his dog even if it throws up. Today,two weeks later as he was walking his dog, he came to my house. He made his Duke turn to where the biggest of the tumors had been. Nothing. A tiny lump compared to half a soft ball two weeks earlier. He told Duke to say good day to Uncle Jason. I'm family now. He said the first day or two that Duke regurgitated them. He fed them to him again and again until Duke accepted them."
-Apricots From God, "Testimonies," June 29, 2011, retrieved Nov 27, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20190127050035/http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/testimonials/]
The results are not always so quick, but I have heard stories ranging from days to months where the tumors disappear. Remember, the tumor is NOT the cancer, the tumor is only the symptom of the cancer, which is why cutting out tumors does not solve the problem, and in these instances the body got rid of the tumors when the appropriate nutrition of B17 was applied.
Though many veterinarians may ignore these results, some have taken it upon themselves to test it on animals with cancerous tumors in their own clinics. Dr. George Browne Jr., head of the Eureka Veterinary Hospital in Eureka, California, published his experiment on a five-year-old male Pekingese dog with thyroid carcinoma:
"The twice weekly regimen was continued for one month, during which time the growth regressed to a size comparable to that palpated during the original examination. Intravenous injections were discontinued and a daily maintenance dosage of 100 mg. [milligrams] of amygdalin [B17/laetrile] per orum [via the mouth] was established.This dosage has been continued for seven months. A biopsy taken six and one-half months after the initiation of amygdalin therapy revealed no evidence of malignancy. "
-George Browne Jr., D.V.M., "Remission of Canine Thyroad Carcinoma Following Nitriloside Therapy," Pet Practice Magazine, February, 1974, p. 189; Browne repeated the experiment on multiple animals in similar circumstances with the same result.
I will cover more testimonies in a later chapter, but for now, I hope readers understand that B17 (amygdalin/nitrilocides) has amazing therapeutic effects, and although some will claim that no scientific experiment has been done to prove these claims, that is not true, as we will soon find out. However, even if we assume that no scientific experiments have been done, we do have empirical evidence (i.e. gathered through observation and experience) which has provided more than enough than enough data to show that cancer is a vitamin B17 deficiency, and we are starving ourselves to death on a full stomach.
Now we can answer the skeptic's question: "Why hasn't my doctor heard about this?!"
#4 - The Pharmaceutical Cartel
(Created using Grok 2.0 on X)
The townsfolk pause their busy, day-to-day routine to hear the news of this miracle cure, cautiously curious about Dr. Morton's words. Morton tells the people that his elixir is a secret family recipe, handed down through many generations, and carefully crafted by harvesting the oil from exotic snakes, and can do everything from increasing vitality to restoring lost hair.
"Sounds too good to be true!" shouts Ms. Effy Deeay from the crowd. Morton invites her to come try a sample, and soon after she drinks, she shouts emphatically, "My back pain is gone!"
The people begin to crowd around Morton's cart with their money in hand to buy his miracle elixir, and I am confident that, by now, you know how this story ends. The people figure out it was a scam, and hunt down Morton to get their money back, but both he and the secret assistant he had planted in the crowd have skipped town.
But if that was your expectation, you could not be more wrong because there was no end to the story. In reality, Doc Morton paid the mayor of the town to contractually agree to have all the farmers pay taxes, taking food out of the mouths of their children to force the public to pay for his elixir's use on criminals in the local jail, and to teach students about its effectiveness in the local school.
Ms. Effy Deeay was elected the Minister of Health for the town, issuing convincing reports that Morton's Miracle Elixir was a legitimate medicine, and Morton used that information to post ads on bulletin boards and shops all over the town, so anyone who was feeling a bit unwell could fill out an application to get community-funded bottles of the elixir. Morton used that money to develop more elixirs, one for every ailment the people could conceive to complain about, and established tax-funded support programs in more towns until the entire country believed they needed Morton's Miracle Elixir.
If you believe I am exaggerating the facts, think again because this story is extremely mild compared to what has actually happened in reality. To brainwash the entire country (and many other countires) into believing they need snake oil (i.e. pharmaceutical drugs), we need to understand how the Pillsbury dough company concocted a deceptive donation scheme which led to a revolutionary takeover of American medical schools.
Frederick T. Gates was ordained a Baptist minister after graduating from Rochester Theological Seminary, and in the late 19th century, after eight years playing the role of a pastor, he decided to help Charles A. Pillsbury, the founder of the Pillsbury company, raise money for a "Christian" Academy. Gates told Pillsbury to give $50,000 to the Owatonna Baptist Academy on the condition that they do the work to raise an equal amount from the community, something we know today as "matching donations."
This is an extremely deceptive tactic that is considered today to be a standard practice, in which the wealthy benefactor (who could easily give the full amount needed without any help) has the public do most of the leg work. The public views the large matching contribution of the wealthy man as the greatest gift, and he has his name and logo plastered on everything concerning the charity fund-raiser, meaning that he received a huge amount of free public advertising at no extra cost, and got a 50% discount on the donation he would have normally had to give in full.
The matching donation scheme in summary:
|
After Pillsbury gave the matching donation, Baptists at a 1886 state convention praised him, named their school after him, and Pillsbury Academy (later named Pillsbury Baptist Bible College) was operational until they closed permenantly in 2008:
"[T]he thanks of the convention and of the Baptists of the State whom it represents are hereby gratefully returned to Mr. Pillsbury with the assurance thathis great and generous gift has further endeared him to us and has given to us a name that we and those who shall follow us will profoundly cherish...That Minnesota Academy be hereafter known and called Pillsbury Academy ."
-United States Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1902, p. 218
A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom
to pervert the ways of judgment.
-Proverbs 17:23
Though the charity-drive volunteers and the community at large may have had a charitable intent, they had no idea that they were being manipulated by Pillsbury branding in the process. By the advise of Gates, the company had found a way to connect their brand logo with charity and education in the eyes of the public in a door-to-door advertising campaign at a fraction of the cost, and this was so effective, it caught the serious attention of John D. Rockefeller, who immediately hired Gates to create similar campaigns for his companies.
Readers should note that, at the turn of the 20th century, John Rockefeller had a mostly negative public image due to his nefarious business practices. He tried many things to improve his relations with the public, such as giving dimes to children in view of the press to be published in newspapers, to fool the some people into thinking he was a philanthropist.
Rockefeller was so elated by this new "charity" strategy, he praised Gates:
"Fred Gates was a wonderful business man ... His work for the American Baptist Education Society required him to travel extensively. Once, as he was going south, I asked him to look into an iron mill in which I had an interest.His report was a model of clarity! Then I asked him to make some investigations of other property in the west. I had been told this particular company was rolling in wealth. Mr. Gates' report showed I had been deceived.Now I realized I had met a commercial genius. I persuaded Mr. Gates to become a man of business. He consented—if I would help him indulge his passion for accomplishing something for the good of mankind. Of course, I assented.That was the beginning of our association. Mr. Gates always enjoyed work. His splendid co-operation gave me more time to plant trees and play golf.Together we worked out schemes of philanthropy. We searched constantly for finalities. We tried to get at the cuases of things, to cure evils at the source. That is why we were so intensely interested in the University of Chicago: it gave so much attention to research."
-John D. Rockefeller, quoted by John K. Winkler, John D. Rockefeller: A Portrait in Oils, Cosimo, 2007, p. 176-177, ISBN: 9781602069688
There are some readers who might get upset with me because I pointed out the deceptive nature of matching donations, and this is typically because they have been involved in some charity drive that has used this method. The fact of the matter is that whatever company matched the donation, they could have easily given the entire amount if they wanted to, but the matching donation strategy gives them special benefits in public relations that they would never be able to accomplish on their own, even by paying the full amount, and thus, the intention of the company may appear benevolent on the outside, but inwardly, they will use this to gain more power, wealth, and control.
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-Proverbs 14:12
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
-2 Peter 2:3
This is not an isolated incident, and this type of thing has been done by "The Robber Barrons" as author Matthew Josephson called them:
"We must turn aside from their purely mercenary operations [i.e. methods merely for financial gain] to picture to ourselves for a moment how these barons of coal, iron, or pork, by a natural and concomitant [related] effort to which many interests led them and many voices called them, extended their sway throughout the social order; how like earlier invading hosts arriving from the hills, the steppes [grasslands] or the sea,they overran all the existing institutions which buttress [prop up] society; how they took possession of the political government (with its police, army, navy), of the School, the Press, the Church; and finally how they laid hands upon the world of fashionable or polite society, which in all times seems to persist as a 'kept class' attached to the ruling power yet holding a subtle sway over this power as well as over the manners and opinions of the people. "
-Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1962, p. 316, ISBN: 9780156767903
When I say that Rockefeller "appointed" his preferred man in charge of the Baptist college, I am not saying that he walked in and gave orders, but rather, his influence and gifts were so great, that having accepted them, the staff at the Baptist college were beholden to oblige whatever request he might make of them. Who would would dare to argue against the man who gave them so much? Should they bite the hand that fed them? If one were to challenge Rockefeller, not only would the college not receive anymore money from him, but they may not get anymore such opportunities from other wealthy benefactors, and so for the love of money and the fear of man, they remained silent and obedient to their new master.
The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso
putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.
-Proverbs 29:25
But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
-1 Timothy 6:9-11
(See Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1962, p. 322, ISBN: 9780156767903)
Now that Fred Gates had shown greedy churchgoers the way to gain money from wealthy elites, many excited pastors quickly transformed from ministers to marketers, and became master artists in the lucrative business of fundraising:
"The religious institutions, especially the evangelistic churches and foundations centered in the large American cities, now by dint of 'revivals' or 'drives' accumulated extensive reservoirs of money running in some instances to between ten and fifteen millions. Their directors, men of the stamp of the Reverend Dr. Frederick Gates, became great investment bankers in their own right, buying and selling securities, lands, properties. "
-Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1962, p. 323, ISBN: 9780156767903)
This is one of the reasons that, in my Bible teachings, I have exposed and condemned "revivals." The revivalism movement was created by 19th-century false preacher Charles Finney, who incorporated numerous anti-biblical practices which many church buildings still use to this day, and if any readers want to learn more, I recommend reading my article called, "Revivalism: The Devil's Design" (or listening to my audio series on it) here at creationliberty.com.
It should also be noted that nowhere in the Bible do we have commandment or precedent to give ourselves fancy titles such as "Pastor Bob," and the word 'reverend' means "holy," which not only means that "Reverend Bob" is calling himself "Holy Bob," but there is only one person ever called "reverend" in Scripture, and that is the Lord God because He (and He alone) is holy. (Isa 42:8) If any readers want to learn more about that, I have another article called "Titles Are Unbiblical in the Church," which you can find here at creationliberty.com.
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
-Matthew 13:22
|
Some readers may not take this as seriously as they ought to, and label me a "conspiracy theorist," which is a legacy, mainstream media term developed by the CIA in the 20th century to obfuscate the truth, and keep the public from learning the facts. However, do not take my word for it, listen to John's son, David Rockefeller, from his memoirs:
"For more than a century, idealogical extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions.Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it ."
-David Rockefeller, Memoirs, Random House Publishing Group, 2011, p. 405, ISBN: 9780307789389
These so-called "philanthropic" methods soon expanded into large charity organizations, and many of them could be mentioned here, such as the American Heart Association, the American Red Cross, and Habitat for Humanity, but for the purpose of this book, we will look closer at the cancer charities. In 1926, John Rockefeller made a major donation (of $126,000, which would be the equivalent of about $2.25 million in 2024) to an up and coming charity known as the American Cancer Society (ACS), which is today one of the largest "matching donation" charities in the world, and they used to own the domain "matchinggifts.com," which (at the time I wrote this book) has been locked down, and all their domain information has been redacted.
(See Matching Gifts, "Who We Serve," retrieved Nov 28, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20201026182726/http://hepdata.com/who-we-serve]; The site had the title "HEP Data," which is now closely associated with chemical companies; See also "American Cancer Society Company History Timeline," Zippia, retrieved Dec 5, 2024, [https://www.zippia.com/american-cancer-society-careers-14546/history/])
As of 2024, the ACS has a "Matching Gifts" section on their website in which they not only take donations, but also donated work hours of employees from other companies. To be clear, they want you to work for free for your company, have your boss send your hourly wages to them, so they can "match it" with a donation, and the ACS will benevolently take all credit for it.
(See American Cancer Society, "Matching Gifts," retrieved Nov 28, 2024, [https://www.cancer.org/donate/matching-gifts.html])
I understand there are hard-working people who honestly believe they are doing the right thing by donating to the ACS. Frequently, I see content creators online host charity drives to send money to the ACS to supposedly "fight cancer," but they are being deceived, and I want them to understand that, no matter how much money they give to the ACS, that money will NEVER be used to "fight cancer," and to understand that, we need to look closer at the history of the ACS.
The American Cancer Society corporation was officially created in 1913 at the Harvard Club in New York, and the original board of directors were made up of men like Alfred P. Sloan (General Motors), Monroe Rathbone (Standard Oil), and Charles D. Hilles (AT&T), just to name a few. This should already be very concerning because the ACS was formed by the wealthy elite of major corporate cartels that have done many deceptive things for the love of money and power, and it is interesting to note that this information is not published on the ACS website; instead, they kept it vague on their 2016 version of their sit by saying, "
Many people think that the American Cancer Society is a non-profit because they are 501(c)(3) incorporated, which is true on paper, but the ACS has been indirectly involved in for-profit activity, especially in patent rights:
"The American Medical Association has strong ties to pharaceutical companies, andthe American Cancer Society owns half of the patent rights of chemotherapy drugs ."
-Zillah R. Eisenstein, Manmade Breast Cancers, Cornell University Press, 2001, p. 101, ISBN: 9780801487071; Eisenstein is a professor and Chair of Politics at Ithaca College in New York.
The above author is a professor at Ithaca College in New York, and I am not saying that he is wrong, but the ACS seems to only own part interest in certain patents, with the majority holding of the rights in other institutions. After all, if the ACS owned a majority right to a patent, that would violate their 501(c)(3) contract, and under the table, away from the prying eyes of the public, the ACS makes money from patents which they develop through research grants funded by donations.
For example, there is a drug used in chemotherapy treatment called "5 fluorouracil" (5-FU), and the patent on it is partially owned by the ACS:
"Another popular breast cancer drug, and part of the chemo cocktail I was prescribed, is 5-fluorouracil or 5-FU.Hoffman-LaRoche held the patent for seventeen years with the American Cancer Soceity (who owned twenty-five per cent) says Moss. 'Perhaps by coincidence,' he adds, 'one of thefounders of the American Cancer Society, Elmer Bobst, is a former president of Hoffman-LaRoche . Bobst was one of the high-profile businessmen Mary Lasker brought onto the ACS board when she took charge of the Association in the 1940s."
-Sharon Batt, Patient No More: The Politics of Breast Cancer, Spinifex Press, 2003, p. 253-254, ISBN: 9781875559398
In case readers did not understand the conflict of interest, essentially, a corporation will own a patent for a chemotherapy drug, and the man who used to be in charge of that corporation magically becomes a member of the board of directors for a "non-profit" entity that promotes the use of the corporation's drug. This is like a beauty pageant contestant having her mother on the judging panel. If anyone thinks that dirty money is not flowing through the hands of these people under the table, and that they all have the best of intentions with no neferious activity going behind closed doors, then enjoy your delusions of grandeur.
If that was not bad enough, studies have shown that 5-FU is not good for use because it does not work for its intended purpose, and yet, it still continues to be used because it is recommended by the ACS:
"An officially approved 'standard of care' drug for treatment of cancer of the colon is based onthe use of a highly toxic chemical, 5-F-U, despite reports in prestigious medical journals that it doesn't work. It continues to be widely used, perhaps because the American Cancer Society owns 50% of 5-F-U ."
-Eustace Mullins, Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America, Aware Journalism, p. 164, ISBN: 9780880606943
I am unsure why one source says 25%, while another source says 50%, but I would not claim that either source was wrong because both could be correct, as rights to a patent could be shared privately to the ACS by multiple sources. The point I want readers to understand is that the ACS is involved in shady tactics to turn profit on patents, and even if they do not directly own rights to the patents, they are profiting from them through other methods, while getting tax exempt benefits from the public through 501(c)(3).
(If readers want to understand why no church should ever have a 501c3 contract, read 501c3: The Devil's Church here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
The bottom line is that the ACS is making money from drug companies, and it is rarely reported because the majority of journalists in the early 21st century either do not care, or are not courageous enough to investigate it. Worse still, there are many media outlets that are now owned by the pharmaceutical industry, and because of this, the public at large thinks the ACS is a wonderful, benevolent organization, and no one should ever say a negative word about it, but as author G. Edward Griffin rightly said in his book:
"Many donors to the ACS would be outraged to learn that the organization has a vested interest in the sale of drugs and a financial tie-in with the drug industry. "
-G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer, American Media, 2006, p. 258, ISBN 0912986190
Readers should note that patents are what allow inventors to insure they can profit from their creations, and they are intended to protect inventors, however, there are certain things that CANNOT be patented, such as natural substances. For example, nutrients from food cannot be patented, which means that vitamins like B17 are not able to be used by a corporation to turn exclusive profit, so therefore, when looking for a particular product to cure cancer, corporate cartels are looking for something they can patent from a laboratory, and will not expend any effort to look into natural remedies.
Therefore, when the public donates money to the ACS, they paying for grants to laboratories that will only invest into research and development of a synthetic product that is patentable. Furthermore, when billions of dollars over the years have been invested into cancer pharmaceuticals, a natural remedy for cancer would completely destroy all of Big Pharma's profits, eliminating the trillion-dollar cancer industry, which means that pharmaceutical industries not only have to protect their patents, but they must also destroy the threat of any rising movement to naturally cure cancer.
In previous chapters, we learned about the research of Ernst Krebs, and how the American Medical Association buried his research, despite the fact that other independent scientists found his discoveries credible. We also learned that Krebs developed a pill form of B17 called "Laetrile," but you may be wondering: What ever happened to laetrile? Was it ever made available to the public? Why have I never heard of it before?
When medical schools are overtaken wealthy elite, who put men on their board of directors to directly influence what is taught in the schools, those board members will make sure that Big Pharma's pharmaceutical philosophy will be taught in the classrooms, and it only took a few decades to tranform the practice of medicine in the the practice of drugs. Therefore, those who learned pharmacology from the corrupted medical institutions became the new leaders of the American Medical Association, and the AMA has maintained an allegiance to the industrial complex ever since.
#5 - The Medical Masquerade
Those are the infamous words of Dr. Ian MacDonald during a Congressional hearing in 1957 as an "expert" in mouth and lung cancer. MacDonald was subpoenaed for questioning because, in the 1950s, there was a growing controversy about the misleading advertising tactics in relation to smoking cigarettes, while Big Tobacco paid "experts" (such as MacDonald) under the table to make false claims about the health risks.
In this hearing, MacDonald blamed sunlight as one of the leading contributors to skin cancer, which is as stupid as saying that being female is a leading contributor to breast cancer. (e.g. Hunzakuts get a lot of sunlight, but never contract cancer.) MacDonald was a clinical professor of surgery at the University of Southern California School of Medicine at the time, and when asked about the connection between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, he said:
"Now, the cause of lung cancer must be much more complicated than the oversimplified thesis of cigarette smoking. The data advanced by those who are mesmerized by statistics include the English findings offered by Doll and Hill. Their controls—that is patients without lung cancer, actually contained more subjects in the moderate smoking group than there were lung-cancer patients in that moderate smoking group. Their figures would just indicate that moderate smoking is actually commoner—speaking of the English sample now—in persons without lung cancer.Even these data may indicate smoking to be a harmless pastime up to 24 cigarettes per day. One could modify an old slogan: A pack a day keeps lung cancer away. "
-United States Congress, Committee on Government Operations, "False and Misleading Advertising: Filter-tip Cigarettes," 85th Congress, Session #1, 1957, p. 233
I agree with MacDonald in part, not that one should ever smoke cigarettes because they do INDEED provoke cancer of the mouth, lungs, and other breathing and eating apparatuses, but rather, I agree that cancer is a bit deeper than just smoking cigarettes. Because cancer is a vitamin deficiency, one could smoke and not develop cancer if one were eating the right nutritional balance, but would still develop many other deadly respiratory issues from the tar alone.
That being said, there is overwhelming scientific evidence today that smoking cigarettes induces lung cancer, but that did not stop MacDonald from trying to convince the American people that smoking cigarettes was good for their health, and that they should smoke more. This is because corrupt physicians like MacDonald were happy to watch people suffer and die so long as he got financial kick backs from Big Tobacco, which was likely a large part of why he got a position on the California Medical Association in the first place.
In 1953, laetrile was condemned as "quackery" on the basis of an UNSIGNED report from the California Medical Association (CMA), created by CMA Committee Chairman, Ian MacDonald (right), and the CMA Committee Secretary, Henry Garland (left).
Readers should take note that both of these prestigious doctors and leaders of the California Medical Association did NOT personally do ANY experiments on laetrile, nor did they have any experience with it; they only reviewed a document of experiments.
Nowadays, if you ask a physician about laetrile, he will either say he has heard negative things about it, or he will tell you that he will look into it, which means he will go to his computer and look up "laetrile" on the AMA website. The AMA website will have a summary of the 1953 CMA report from MacDonald and Garland report, it will vaguely tell him that it has no effect, or worse, that it is harmful, which he will take as gospel truth without any further investigation, and persuade you to have nothing to do with such quackary.
Furthermore, most physicians are fearful to do any research into something that would disagree with the "church" of the American Medical Association. If they recommend something that is condemned by the AMA, they can lose their license to practice medicine, get dragged through a media firestorm, publicly labeled as an evil quack doctor scamming his patients, and he will lose everything he has worked so hard to achieve.
In the 1970s, two decades after the MacDonald and Garland report, a reporter from The National Tattler documented a patient exchange in a New York hospital after inquiry about laetrile:
"Dr. Edwin Mirand of Roswell Memorial Hospital in Buffalo, N.Y. said: 'We've looked into it and found it has no value.' When asked if the renowned little hospital, which deals only with cancer, actually tested Laetrile, Dr. Mirand said, "No, we didn't feel it was necessary after others of good reputation had tested it and found had no effectiveness in the treatment of cancer.' He referred, as all authorities do, to the [1953] California Report. "
-Tom Valentine, "Government is Suppressing Cancer Control," The National Tattler, March 11, 1973, p. 2
To clarify, this physician said he had no reason to do any investigation into something that could save the life of his patients because he respected the persons of a man who claimed that Americans should smoke a pack of cigarettes every day to prevent lung cancer. The physician did not say he knew, but rather, he did not "
(Read "Respecting Persons is Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
opinion (n): a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty
(See 'opinion', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)
|
It does not matter what medical condition you have, it does not matter which physician you see, always do your own research. |
In another example from the Cancer News Journal:
"The cancer expert in question... told me that Laetrile was 'sugar pills.' Had he told me that he had used Laetrile experimentally on X number of patients and found it completely ineffective, I might have been impressed. Butwhen I asked him whether he had ever used it himself, he said that he had not. When I asked him whether he had ever traveled abroad to study the experience with Laetrile therapy in Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Philippines, or other countries, he replied that he had not. And when I asked him if he had ever made a first-hand study of the pros and cons of the subject, again he conceded that he had not. He was simply repeating what he had heard from others who, in turn, were probably repeating what they had heard from others, going all the way back to the antiquated 1953 report of the California Cancer Commission. "
-David Martin, Cancer News Journal, January/April, 1971, p. 22
Once again, the physician was repeating the narrative put forth by the 1953 CMA report, but to be fair, despite the insanity of MacDonald's claims in the Congressional hearing, perhaps MacDonald and Garland may have been accurate in their findings, but the problem was that the documents from the original experiments had not been published. Only MacDonald and Garland had seen the reports on the original experiments, so no one at the time could verify whether or not they were mistaken or lying.
In 1963, over a decade after the MacDonald and Garland report was published, the California State Department of Health finally released all the original experiments to the public for the first time. After reviewing the experiments, they were found to contain positive feedback on the therapeutic effects of laetrile, and showed that MacDonald and Garland had (unsurprisingly) lied about the results, but despite this, their 1953 report was labeled by the California State Department of Health as "true," and is still used by the AMA today as a justification to condemn laetrile as quackary.
(See "Supplementary Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenic Glucosides ['Laetriles']," UC Berkeley, California Department of Public Health, 1965)
The first case looked at a Mrs. A.B., age 51, treated for one month on laetrile, and found that "
(See "Supplementary Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenic Glucosides ['Laetriles']," California Department of Public Health, 1965, p. 2-4, retrieved Dec 10, 2024, [https://centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/advisory_report_1965.pdf])
Please do not misunderstand because this does not mean that there was no therapeutic effect. A therapeutic effect is a result of a medical treatment that is deemed to be beneficial to the health of the patient. There were therapeutic effects in these case studies because the vast majority of patients reported that they were feeling better, but because the lack of follow-up left them unable to conclusively attribute that therapeutic effect to laetrile, the scientists concluded that the available data was "inadequate," but nowhere in the study did they conclude what MacDonald and Garland concluded in their report.
MacDonald and Garland, in their UNSIGNED report, said:
"The unanimous opinion of these consultants was that in no instance could any recognizable effect of a chemotherapeutic agent be observed in the histology of these various neoplasms. [i.e. tumors] Some of the proponents of Laetrile had reported microscopic observations in the form of necrosis [cell death] and hemorrhage in some instances, and sclerosis in others, which they interpreted as being the result of a specific action of Laetrile on the neoplasm. Although both of these changes were observed by the consultants in a number of the cases studied, such changes in each instance were entirely consistent with fascular changes, necrosis and stromal sclerosis regularly seen in such neoplasms, both treated and untreated. Even in those cases considerable necrosis, particularly in hepatic metastases [liver tumors], there were invariably large areas of well preserved and viable tumor tissue.No evidence of cytotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants. "
-Ian MacDonald & Henry Garland, "The Treatment of Cancer with 'Laetriles', A Report by the Cancer Commission of the California Medical Association," 78: 320-326, April, 1953, retrieved Dec 6, 2024, [https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2020/09/22170729/california_cancer_commission_report_on_laetrile.pdf]
This was very tricky language, and we must read slowly to understand the linguistic sleight-of-hand because MacDonald and Garland removed the word 'objective' from their report. For example, in the case of Ms. M.E., age 71, two months of observations were made, and she reported that after taking laetrile, she "
It was even more deceptive that MacDoanld and Garland concluded that, "
The following is a summary of the cases in the study, and please note that a "blood picture" is a test collected about the red and white blood cells, as well as the platelet count:
|
As we can see, this is a vastly different result than what was reported by the CMA, and what is stated by the AMA. I agree that this does not constitute objective proof of laetrile's effectiveness, but it does warrant futher testing, and it ought to peak the interest of physicians who care about their patients.
Now let's look at more details in the experiments that MacDonald and Garland did not want the American public to see in 1953, waiting 10 years for the propaganda to be established so no one would care about the actual data. The California Department of Public Health report of 1963 listed autopsy experiments conducted by physician J.L. Zundell, and his report from Sept 10, 1952 notes:
"M-1. These slides show adenocarcinoma [i.e. tumor] with areas of focal necrosis. The necrosis is not limited to the central areas of islands of tumor cells, andthis might represent a chemical effect since the cells affected show coagulation necrosis and pyknosis. "
-J. L. Zundell, "Autopsy Findings in Patients Treated by Laetrile," California Department of Public Health, Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cance with Beta-Cyanogenetic Glucosides ('Laetriles'), 1963, Appendix 3, p.1 retrieved Dec 6, 2024, [https://quackwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/cancertreatment/q/laetrile/california_cancer_advisory_council_1963.pdf]
Again, just to clarify, MacDonald and Garland said conclusively, in no uncertain terms, that "
Zundell did not find any significant changes in M-2, but in M-3, he reported:
"This shows an adenocarcinoma of stomach and lymph node. There are small areas of focal necrosis in the slide of the stomach, and this again is not necessarily centrally located.
-J. L. Zundell, "Autopsy Findings in Patients Treated by Laetrile," California Department of Public Health, Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cance with Beta-Cyanogenetic Glucosides ('Laetriles'), 1963, Appendix 3, p.1 retrieved Dec 6, 2024, [https://quackwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/cancertreatment/q/laetrile/california_cancer_advisory_council_1963.pdf]
Ultimately, Zundell reported that 2 out of the 6 autopsies he performed showed "
"2 slides - Both show adenocarcinoma metastatic to liver. Hemorrhagic necrosis of tomor is extensive and small foci of calcification in necrotic tumor are observed. Spontaneous changes could produce all the evidence of degeneration seen here butan interpretation of chemotherapeutic effect might be entertained ."
-John W. Budd, "Autopsy Findings in Patients Treated by Laetrile," California Department of Public Health, Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cance with Beta-Cyanogenetic Glucosides ('Laetriles'), 1963, Appendix 3, p.1-2, retrieved Dec 6, 2024, [https://quackwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/cancertreatment/q/laetrile/california_cancer_advisory_council_1963.pdf]
Some readers might be concerned that the positive changes are not as drastic as expected, but much of the reason for that is because very little laetrile is used out of fear. In one of the studies I looked at, they only used 1 gram per day for five weeks, which is only a tiny fraction of what given to patients when it comes to "FDA-approved" drugs, so in short, they get unsubstantial results when they use unsubstantial quantities, and it is akin to giving a few drops of water to a man lost in the desert; baffled as to why that did not quench his thirst.
If that were not bad enough, it gets worse because the therapeutic effects we read earlier, such as decrease in pain and increase in appetite, are relief from symptoms called "cachexia" by medical professionals. The following quote is from the New York Acadmey of Sciences:
"Cachexia, of course, is of major clinical significance in patients with cancer. Warren reported that cachexia was the most frequent single cause of death in cancer, especially of the stomach, breast, and colon-rectum groups. "
-Athanasios Theologides, "The Anorexia-Cachexia Syndrome: A New Hypothesis," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 230, Mar 18, 1974, p. 17
If a patient will not eat, and does not have enough energy to get out of bed, the patient will likely die. Therefore, physicians are always on the lookout for things that can counteract cachexia because it is, as the New York Academy of Sciences aptly stated in the 1970s, "
"Cachexia (wasting syndrome) is a condition that causes significant weight loss and muscle loss. It often affects people with severe chronic diseases like advanced cancer and heart disease. A cachexia diagnosis often means that the end of life is near. Healthcare providers treat cachexia by managing the underlying condition and by improving nutrition. "
-Cleveland Clinic, "Cachexia (Wasting Syndrome)," retrieved Dec 10, 2024, [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/cachexia-wasting-syndrome]
In the 1963 California Department of Health report, they admitted that administration of laetrile resulted in patients reporting relief from symptoms of cachexia, as we read earlier, but then concluded that such things should NOT be defined as "therapeutic:"
"Subjective improvement was interpreted as being evidence of the agent's affecting the neoplasm, rather than being due to the general effect on the host, whether by metabolic or psychologic reasons. Thus,all of the physicians whose patients were reviewed spoke of increase in the sense of well being and appetite, gain in weight and decrease in pain, as though these observations constituted evidence of definitive therapeutic effect. "
-John W. Budd, "Autopsy Findings in Patients Treated by Laetrile," California Department of Public Health, Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cance with Beta-Cyanogenetic Glucosides ('Laetriles'), 1963, Appendix 3, p.10, retrieved Dec 6, 2024, [https://quackwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/cancertreatment/q/laetrile/california_cancer_advisory_council_1963.pdf]
According to Merriam-Webster's online medical dictionary, a therapeutic effect has been frequently defined as follows:
therapeutic (adj): of, relating to, or used in the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents or methods; having a beneficial effect on the body or mind
(See 'therapeutic', Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, 2024, [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/therapeutic#medicalDictionary])
Despite all these lies, which even a simple researcher like myself can uncover, the National Cancer Institute (cancer.gov) says:
"No controlled clinical trials of laetrile have been reported. Anecdotal reports and case reports have not shown laetrile to be an effective treatment for cancer. "
-National Cancer Institute, "Laetrile/Amygdalin (PDQ) Patient Version," retrieved Dec 10, 2024, [https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/laetrile-pdq]
And to noone's surprise, one of their references is the California Medical Association report from 1953. The National Library of Medicine goes one step further and tells physicians that laetrile is dangerous:
"Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous."
-National Library of Medicine, "Laetrile treatment for cancer," retrieved Dec 10, 2024, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6513327/]
When looking at their references, would you like to take a wild guess which report is one of the first on their list? Of course, the California Medical Association report from 1953.
The general claim from many of these corrupted institutions is that they have tried many experiments with laetrile, and all of them have failed to show any efficacy. The problem with these experiments are that mice are used instead of men (i.e. mouse metabolism is much different than ours), the tumors are transplanted into mice for experimentation (i.e. neither xenograft or syngeneic models are in situ, meaning that the reaction will be different than naturally spontaneous tumors in men), they were only testing for size of tumor (because medical scientists today foolishly think that the tumor itself is cancer), and at the end of all their "testing," if they lazily report a failure, they still get a paycheck.
Furthermore, these corrupted institutions demand control groups and double blind studies, but this is insanity that could only be performed by depraved people with unsound minds. When a group of cancer patients are dying, how could one simply allow half of the group (who have family and friends holding on to hope) to suffer and die for the sake of appeasing a few willingly blind medical officials?
The American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the National Institute of Health cannot find the evidence of laetrile's effectiveness for the same reason a murderer cannot find a sheriff. It is extremely difficult for a man to find the thing from which he is fleeing.
#6 - The Success of B17
Before continuing, it is vital that readers understand that laetrile/B17 is not a miracle cure, and that anyone who has cancer cannot simply eat a few seeds and magically heal all their cancerous ails. By the time anyone has contracted cancer, and tumors have appeared, there are numerous habitual problems that MUST be addressed, including processed food intake, nutritional deficiencies, mineral deficiencies, lack of exercise, and other bad lifestyle choices, all of which are necessary changes that will contribute to a healthy metabolic system that is necessary not only to cure cancer, but to be alive.
Another important note to the reader is that, most often, medical skeptics will claim laetrile is harmful because, frequently, patients die some months or years after they begin to take it, and this is deceptive. The problem is that most of the people who turn to laetrile/amygdalin/B17 do so as a last restort, not as an initial treatment, which means many patients who take laetrile have already done irreparable damage to their flesh through poisonous raditation quackary at the recommendation of "professionals," and although laetrile can help patients return to a somewhat normal life, they are often too far gone at that point to save them from organ failure.
Richardson operated his laetrile clinic in the 1970s, and author Patricia Griffin helped him compile the data as a co-author of his book. She rightly pointed out:
"It is possible that not all the patients... will be alive five or ten years from now. Some will pass away of heart attack, some in accidents, some from the delayed effects of radiation or toxic chemotherapy, and some, of course, from the damage already caused by their cancer before starting the Laetrile therapy. But bear in mind that the majority of these cases were classified as 'terminal' before they ever came to the Richardson Clinic.That some of them will not make it is to be expected. That any of them should be alive a year or two later is a major victory for Laetrile. That virtually all of them should experience a loss of pain, a return of strength, and a dramatic improvement in the quality of life—for as long as that life may be theirs—is an enviable achievement that consensus medicine so far has failed to match. "
-Patrician Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richarson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 110, ISBN: 0553114913
In short, mainstream medical institutions could only dream of achieving the therapeutic effect that laetrile has accomplished, and yet, they condemn it at every turn. Chemotherapy (i.e. radition treatment that has nothing to do with the word 'therapy') has led to the deaths of countless patients (even if the tumors subside), and for something as simple as laetrile to be a safe, inexpensive answer, while medical "professionals" recommend poisoning their patients and putting them into life-long debt, is an insult to their pride and presumed intelligence, so they find it easier to condemn laetrile than to admit their own error, an admission that could lead to malpractice lawsuits, keeping them on "team chemo" out of fear.
"John Peterson had been given less than a year to live as a result of inoperable cancer of the prostate. His disease progressed rapidly, causing intense and constant pain. His body jerked in spasms, he began bleeding from the rectum, and often passed out from pain and weakness. It was at this point that he turned to Laetrile.Within 30 days of his first injection he was able to drive his own car and lead a near-normal life. He is shown here two years later, enjoying one of his favorite activities. "
-Patrician Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richarson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913
Although some immediate therapeutic results can be experienced by patients who take laetrile, the results can vary depending on the condition of the patient. Sometimes, a complete reversal of ailments can take years if the symptoms have grown severe.
"Shane Horton was six years old wehn he developed osteosarcoma of the right upper arm and of the spine. This was confirmed both by X-ray and bone-marrow biopsy. His doctors advised that there was no hope. It was at this point that his parents elected Laetrile therapy.Three years after beginning Laetrile therapy, all evidence of bone cancer had vanished, and Shane was enjoying the life of a completely normal nine-year-old. "
-Patrician Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richarson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913
"Mrs. Lorette Lau was told by her doctor in 1975 that, unless she submitted to radiation or chemotherapy as treatment for her cancer of the ovary, she could not live longer than a year.She declined his advice and came to the Richardson Clinic for metabolic therapy instead. She has responded beautifully and continues to enjoy good health. "
-Patrician Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richarson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913
Of course, it is very likely that some of the people mentioned in this chapter have died from old age since then. However, these real patients with real cancer actually went to Richardson's clinic to get laetrile treatment, and walked away with great improvement in their overall health, which is already more than antecdotal; it is empirical evidence based on practical application.
"Mrs. Lorraine Ford suffered from inoperable cancer of the liver, with privious cancer of the breat. Statistically, most patients in this caegory are dead within six months of diagnosis.After the failure of chemotherapy, she turned to Laetrile as a last resort in December of 1974. Today she leads an active and normal life. "
-Patrician Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richarson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913
"Ben Reynolds is enjoying good health with his wife four and one-half years after he was diagnosed as having chronic lymphatic leukemia. Except for three days on chemotherapy, he has had no treatment other than metabolic therapy including Laetrile. "
-Patrician Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richarson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913
"Mrs. Linda Barton developed cancer of the cervix, confirmed by biopsy, in 1975.Rejecting surgery, she chose, instead, metabolic therapy, including Laetrile. Subsequent tests have shown no trace of cancer. "
-Patrician Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richarson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913
Richardson has documented many more cases. The following are but a few of those listed in his book, and none of the patients listed reported any new tumors after laetrile treatment and dietary changes:
|
Some skeptics might not believe that a physician would say such a thing about a patient, but sadly, American hospitals have become a conveyer belt of self-induced illness, which has transformed them from patient care into a McDonald's-style of medical drive-thru. I am certainly NOT arguing that all physicians have that attitude, but many who work in hospitals become apathetic over the years of witnessing many failures of modern medicine, and the following is the 72-year-old female patient's pathology report of the tumor biopsy:
"She certainly needs local suppression, but did not yet get X-rays of the chest, liver scan, chemistries, etc... After 5-6,000 rads, maybe I might consider abdominoperineal resection [i.e. rectal tumor surgery]—although mortalities in her age group barely make it pay in terms of salvage ."
-Patrician Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richarson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 146, ISBN: 0553114913
In another case of cancer of the rectum, a 64-year-old woman was informed that her tumors were inoperable, and the best they could do was a colostomy, which was essentially rerouting her colon through her abdomen. (She also had tumors in her lungs, but no attempt was made to remove them either.) For her particlar diagonsis, John H. Morton, Professor of Surgery, and a Member of the Clinical Cancer Training Committee at the University of Rochester in New York, wrote the following, and although most readers will not understand what he is saying, please bear with me because I will provide a summary afterwards:
"Gastrointestinal neoplasms [i.e. tumors] are mainly of surgical interest since theradiosensitivity of normal gut is high and most adenocarcinomas are radioresistant, producing an unfavorable radiotherapeutic ratio [i.e. it does more harm than good]... Colostomy for incurable rectal lesions is rarely palliative [i.e. the solution does not outweight the detriment]; such lesions should be removed by abdominoperineal resection [i.e. rectal surgery] when feasible whether or not cure is anticipated...Chemotherapy in the author's experience has rarely been beneficial in metastatic colon cancer. The following statments have, however, appeared in the literature.
'Progressive, symptomatic, disseminated colon carcinoma can be palliated to some degree in about 20% of the patients with 5-fluorouracil...Objective responders show prolonged survival (20 months vs 10 months mean survival for non-responders) .'"
-Patrician Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richarson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 137, ISBN: 0553114913
Although I could summarize Morton's very bleak findings, Griffin summarized it so well, I thought it best to document her words instead:
"Now, what all this means is(1) radiation generally does more harm to the healthy gut than to the cancerous part of the gut, (2) surgery is the treatment of choice, and it cannot be expected to do much good if the surgeon can't get all the cancer, (3) chemotherapy, in his opinion, rarely does anyone any good. Some doctors, however, think it might help one patient in five—at least a little bit. Some other doctors think you'll be dead in less than two year if you do just great, and you'll be dead in less than a year if you don't do so great. "
-Patrician Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richarson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 137-138, ISBN: 0553114913
So as we can see, our society has labeled laetrile as poison snake oil quackery, despite the fact that it has been show to produce the best therapeutic effect against cancer. However, ACTUAL poison from radiation is called "therapy," which is built into the name "chemotherapy," automatically given the title of "therapeutic" to the poisonous procedure, despite the fact that it does more harm than good, which is the OPPOSITE of real therapy.
therapy (n): remedial treatment of mental or bodily disorder; an agency (as treatment) designed or serving to bring about rehabilitation
(See 'therapy', Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, 2024, [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/therapy#medicalDictionary])
Joanne Wilkinson, mother of six from Walnut Creek, California, had tumors in her left thigh, groin, hip, bladder, and kidney, and in 1967, she decided to reject the poison "therapy" from mainstream medical institutions and try Laetrile treatment. Her doctor, upset by her decision, warned her that if she did not have her left leg and part of her hip amputated, she would die in about three months.
Wilkinson testified:
"Dr. Krebs [referring to Byron Krebs, M.D., brother of Ernst Krebs Jr.] gave me an injection of Laetrile — and the tumor reacted. It got very large — from walnut size to the size of a small lemon — and there was bleeding four or five days. I went back on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday each week for five weeks to get injections, and the tumor then started getting smaller. Five weeks later I could no longer feel it. "
-Joanne Wilkinson, quoted by G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer, Second Edition, American Media, 1997, p. 134, ISBN: 0912986190
Famous comedian and actor Red Buttons testified that his wife, Alicia, was saved by the use of laetrile:
"Laetrile saved Alicia from cancer. Doctors here in the U.S. gave her only a few months to live last November. But now she is alive and well, a beautiful and vital wife and mother, thanks to God and to those wonderful men who have the courage to stand up for their science ."
-Red Buttons, "Comedian Red Buttons Says 'Laetrile Saved My Wife From Death By Cancer,'" The National Tattler, Aug. 19, 1973, p. 5
Many years ago, I was working a shift at a shipping yard with a co-worker, and when I told him about B17, it was one of the rare instances that the person I was talking to found it interesting because his family developed a habit of eating seeds when he was young. He told me that, when he was very little, he remembers his grandfather having cancer, they ordered a large amount of seeds, and afterwards, he never remembers his grandfather having cancer anymore, and no one in his family has ever gotten it.
It is no wonder that, once people figure out the truth about laetrile, they do whatever they can to get it. In the documentary Cover-Up of Promising Cancer Treatment (also called Second Opinion - The Lie of America's War on Cancer), an interview was shown of Joe Kehoe, a cancer patient who left Canada to come to the United States to get laetrile treatment:
"INTERVIEWER:When you go home to Canada, where laetrile is not available, what will you do?
KEHOE: [long pause]I guess I'll die. I can't get it.
INTERVIEWER: Would you be prepared to buy illegally-obtained laetrile in order to have it?
KEHOE: I'd steal it.
INTERVIEWER:Do you plan to take any laetrile with you when you leave, even though it's illegal?
KEHOE:Yes.
-Joe Kehoe, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=78]
There used to be many testimonials on YouTube about people curing their cancer through the use of B17 and laetrile, but during the Big Tech censorship of the 2010s and 2020s (who were colluding with government agencies and mega-corporation interests), YouTube (a subsidiary of Google) took down any videos that called into question the poisons of the pharmaecutical industry. This included any truth coming out about the dangers of vaccines and natural cancer therapy. My videos about cancer and vaccines were also removed from my channel on YouTube between the years of 2021 and 2024. However, there are still some ways to go back and view some of these videos, one of those being the Internet Archive Wayback Machine that (as of 2024) had archived one in particular I had reposted on my website about "cancer reversal testimonies" from 2008.
(See Internet Archive Wayback Machine, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20220913125235/https://www.youtube.com/embed/vjVGd2yw_To]; It can be difficult to get it to play for some connections, and some browsers may auto-mute the video, so you will have to unmute it to listen.)
In that video, a man named Brad talked about a tumor he had on his heart. The tumor was surgically removed, but Brad gives us more of the story:
"[@3:41] We waited three months and went back to my normal work, and we came in for scans again, and the scans showed that this thing had started to grow again. So chemo was our next option because we hadn't heard of any other treatment. We had four courses of the standard chemo... got through it pretty well without many side effects, but then on our final scan, we found out that the chemo wasn't effective, and the cancer was still there... and then they suggested we have stronger doses of chemo or a stem cell transplant; together most likely, or we could have another surgery and have a lump of my lung cut out, just to make sure that they removed everything. We decided that was basically step one, back to the beginning, and we're not going to try that option again... I wasn't going to do that again... but in that time, we just found a lot of people said, hey Brad,have you heard of apricot kernels, and have you heard about diet change... well, we've got nothing to lose; the medical system was still on our side to fall back on. So for about twelve months we did apricot kernels... got into a flaxseed buckwheat diet... we were really looking forward to our next line of scans to find out if we've had any success. To our amazement, what was in my chest had started to shrink from giving that go for about twelve months with vegetable juices... and now we've had all clear results, the scar tissue is shrinking, and we've done very well. "
INTERVIEWER: "Have you had any follow-up from anyone in the cancer research industry?"
BRAD: "No I haven't. I know my case was a case study; that I was a different one that had been a tricky situation all along, where the doctor hadn't known what to do. So it was a bit surprising... I haven't been asked how it all happened. "
Let's make sure we clarify what this means because a case study is defined as a "detailed description and assessment of a specific situation in the real world created for the purpose of deriving generalizations and other insights from it." So a physician will start a case study (typically in a unique case that does not conform to most other cases) to create a basis of research that other physicans can draw upon in future to help them diagnose and treat unique variations of illness.
(See 'case study', Britannica, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://www.britannica.com/science/case-study])
The physicians and surgeons involved had spent months working on Brad's case study, but then, when Brad had been cured of cancer, the medical staff did not follow up with him. Not only was there no follow up, but no one bothered to inquire how he was healed, which demonstrates that, in mainstream medical institutions, there is no interest in natural remedies; they only have interest in methods which agree with their corrupt, preconceived ideology.
But what about the claim that no scientific studies have ever been done to prove efficacy for laetrile? In 1972, a research program on laetrile was conducted at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan under Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, a highly respected senior laboratory researcher with over 60 years experience.
"The results clearly show that Amygdalin [B17] significantly inhibits the appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary tumors... Laetrile also seemed to prevent slightly the appearance of new tumors... The improvement of health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to controls is always a common observation... Dr. Sugiura has never observed complete regression of these tumors in all his cosmic [i.e. vast] experience with other chemotherapeutic agents. "
-Kanematsu Sugiura, "A Summary of the Effect of Amygdalin Upon Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Mice," Sloan-Kettering report, July 13, 1973
Most Americans are still unaware of Sugiura's full report, and we would never have been able to see it if not for the courageous efforts of Ralph Moss, former Science Writer for Sloan-Kettering from 1974-1977. Sugiura was very protective of his research papers, but Moss befriended him, and in 1975, Sugiura gave Moss a photocopy of his research on amygdalin.
"Table 2 shows that repeated intraperitioneal [i.e. abdominal] injections of 1000 mg/kg/day ofAmygdalin for 2 to 15 weeks failed to destroy the spontaneous cancer in mice. However, itcaused an inhibition in about 50 percent of the tumors . It also showsAmygdalin had a strong inhibitory effect on the development of new tumors and on lung metastases (11% against 89%) in mice.The general health and appearance of the Amygdalin-treated animals with tumors was much better than that of the controls. "
-Kanematsu Sugiura, Mar 1, 1974, research papers provided by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2010]
From this, we can see that B17 treatment stopped the growth of half of the tumors tested. B17 also prevented new tumors from appearing, and increased the overall health of the mice in the experiment, demonstrating therapeutic effect.
Two months later, Sugiura reported that B17 was very effective in the prevention of new tumors:
"The Table results show that repeated intraperitoneal injections of 2000 mg/kg/day of amygdalin for 4 to 9 weeks had astrong inhibitory effect on the development of ung metastases."
-Kanematsu Sugiura, May 31, 1974, research papers provided by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2063]
Sugiura also tested to see if B17 would completely prevent cancerous tumors, which it did not (for reasons I will give in a moment), but it did REDUCE the amount and size of the tumors that developed:
"The present study shows that for the three quarters of their life span (21 months) the daily prolonged intraperitoneal injections of a large amount of amygdalin did not prevent the development of mammary cancers in mice complete[ly].However, it had a definite reduction in development of mammary tumors — 70% in controls against 48% in amygdalin-treated mice. It also shows amygdalin had a strong inhibitory effect on the development of lung metastases in mice — 75 per cent inhibition against 22 per cent in controls. The general health and appearance of the amygdalin-treated animals were as good as that of the controls in animals without tumors and that of amygdalin-treated animals without tumors all gained weight. "
-Kanematsu Sugiura, May 31, 1974, research papers provided by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2109]
Once again, this demonstrates a significant reduction in tumor growth and a therapeutic effect in the mice treated with B17, and Sugiura noted that the B17-treated mice looked much healthier, with better skin and fur, than those without. The reason the tumors would not be completely removed is that the metabolism of mice is drastically different than the metabolism of men, and so when naturally ingesting amygadlin (i.e. substances like bitter apricot kernels), with a healthy metabolism through proper diet, the tumors will melt away over the course of weeks or months, depending on the prior health and age of the patient.
In another Sugiura report the following year, called "Effect of Amygdalin on Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Swiss Albino Mice," he wrote:
"It also shows that amygdalin had a strong inhibitory effect on the development of lung metastases in mice — 77 per cent inhibition against 7 per cent inhibition in controls. It is possible that these metastatic growths have been destroyed by the repeated treatment with amygdalin. The general health and appearance of the amygdalin-treated animals were much better than that of the controls. "
-Kanematsu Sugiura, "Effect of Amygdalin on Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Swiss Albino Mice," Feb 8, 1975, research papers provided by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2152]
The effectiveness of tumor prevention in this experiment was 11 times greater with B17 than with the control group. Sugiura also concluded a strong possibility that the tumors were being destroyed by B17.
These papers were given to New York Times reporter Jane Brody, who specialized in health journalism. She came to Sloan-Kettering, interview the staff, but never asked to interview Sugiura, and after she left, she wrote a negative review against laetrile in July of 1975:
"The researchers involved said in interviews that the findings had provided no scientific justification for testing laetrile as a possible therapy for cancer patients. "
-Jane E. Brody, "4 Cancer Centers Find No Proof Of Therapy Value in Illegal Drug," New York Times, July 21, 1975, retrieved Dec 19, 2024, [https://www.nytimes.com/1975/07/21/archives/4-cancer-centers-find-no-proof-of-therapy-value-in-illegal-drug.html]
Was this reporter paid to lie about this? Was this reporter just lazy and put out an article without due diligence to collect her paycheck? Did she believe she was reporting the correct information because she was lied to by the staff at Sloan-Kettering? It could be any of these, or all of the above, we cannot know, but what we do know without a doubt is that what Brody reported is NOT the truth.
In the previous chapter, we covered the pharmaceutical takeover of American medical schools, and if you are curious as to why the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center was covering up the cure for cancer, please note that John Rockefeller began donating to Sloan-Kettering in 1927 to get his paid representatives on the board of directors. During Sugiura's laetrile tests in the 1970s, there were three key people sitting on the board of directors: James Rockefeller, Lawrence Rockefeller, and William Rockefeller. In fact, the Sloan-Kettering headquarters in New York City is sitting on land that was donated by the Rockefeller family, and therefore, the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center operates in the best interests of its benefactor, namely, Big Pharma.
In the off chance that some readers might not think all of this is enough evidence to say the Rockefellers and Sloan-Kettering are involved in a conspiracy to hide legitimate cancer treatments from the public for the sake of money, the following image is a document from Sloan-Kettering that was retrieved in a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. This document contains the minutes of a meeting on June 2, 1974, in which the staff at Sloan-Kettering discussed with FDA board members the details of laetrile testing.
Please note the highlighted quote:
"Sloan Kettering is not enthusiastic about studying amygdalin, butwould like to study CN [i.e .Cyanide] releasing drugs ."
-H.L. Walker, Meeting with NCI, FDA, and Sloan-Kettering, July 2, 1974, p.4
To clarify, in the summer of 1974, Sloan-Kettering knew FULL WELL that Sugiura's experiments yielded positive results in fighting cancer, and we know this because they had interest in "
One of the physicians from Sloan-Kettering, Chester Stock, admitted that more studies should be done on amygdalin's positive results:
"Dr. Stock thinks studies on amygdalin should be made particularly regarding pain relief and reduction of lung metastases. "
-H.L. Walker, Meeting with NCI, FDA, and Sloan-Kettering, July 2, 1974, p.4
Remember, laetrile had already been invented, and Sloan-Kettering did not have a patent for it. They also cannot patent apricot kernels. Therefore, they hid the results from the public so they could continue work on developing a drug (utilizing cyanide, because they knew it worked in laetrile) that they could patent and make billions, if not trillions from it over the coming decades.
If you still do not believe what I am saying, namely, that Sloan-Kettering knows about the effectiveness of B17 and are hiding it, read this quote from the minutes of that meeting:
"The Sloan Kettering group believe their results show thatamygdalin used in animals with tumors show:a decrese in lung metastases; slower tumor growth; and pain relief ."
-H.L. Walker, Meeting with NCI, FDA, and Sloan-Kettering, July 2, 1974, p.3
So to summarize, on page three of the minutes, Sloan-Kettering admitted that amygdalin (B17) had a positive effect in treating cancerous tumors in mice, but on the next page, no more than three paragraphs later, they said they have no interest in studying amygdalin, and would rather create "
"Dear Dr. Soto: It was indeed a pleasure to have you and Dr. Sanen visit our Institute and share with us your clinical experience with Amygdalin in cancer patients. I was pleased to hear from Dr. Sanen that our proposed collaborative controlled trials have the approval of your hospital. We are looking forward to a fruitful exchange of information."
-Lloyd Old, cited by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=1355]
Notice that Lloyd Old said "
-Cited by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=1421]
Martin was the primary inventor of the CD8F1 mouse (which produce tumors at rougly 10 months after birth) that were used in cancer clinical trials, and this was the type of mouse Sugiura had used in his experiments with amygdalin. Martin filed a lawsuit against the institution he worked for, and he lost that battle, which cost him his savings and career, the NCI turned down all of his grant requests, and he lost all of his customers for his CD8F1 mice.
Soon after the 1975 meeting he attended, the NCI gave Martin a million-dollar contract, which would be almost $6 million in 2024:
"A million-dollar contract has just been given to Dr. Martin for his unique breeding colony of 30,000 spontaneous-mammary-tumor-bearing mice, the NCI director points out, 'to make those animals avilable for further tests, to see whether Dr. Sugiura's initial findings at Sloan-Kettering might not have been right.' "
-Medical World News, Vol. 16, Aug 11, 1975, retrieved Dec 20, 2024, [https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/medicalworldnewspub/2732/]
This should raise eyebrows because they had already declared that Sugiura did not find any therapeutic effect in the use of amygdalin on the mice, so why would they be spending a large amount of money to run tests to disprove an experiment that allegedly showed no efficacy anyway? Martin, who was forced into the medical wasteland of has-beens, was suddenly resurrected from his grave, somehow magically transformed into an amygdalin expert, and spoke prolifically against laetrile.
In the summer of 1977, Martin was featured in the New York Times in an article called "Laetrile: A 'Fraud'." Later that fall, he wrote an opinion piece that was published in an American Cancer Society journal called "Laetrile—A Dangerous Drug," and many newspapers regurgitated his public relations statements in various articles.
What is hilarious about Martin's "Dangerous Drug" article (which was clearly a declaration of his loyalty and undying devotion to the medical mafia's religion) is that he said that laetrile was "
(See Cost Helper Health, "How Much Does Chemotherapy Cost?," retrieved Dec 20, 2024, [https://health.costhelper.com/chemo.html])
If any reader cannot see the deception and conspiracy in these statements, then you may as well stop reading this book and go do something more productive with your day, because nothing else in this book is going to convince you otherwise.
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
-Proverbs 6:16-19
"Federal health officials warned Internet users to beware of a concoction made of apricot seeds that's touted as a cancer cure, as a Florida court case became the government's latest attempt to quell a resurgence of laetrile. In the 1970s... a National Cancer Institute study concluded that the substance did not fight cancer. Experts also warned that laetrile pills could cause cyanide poisoning. "
-ABC News, "FDA Cracks Down on Laetrile Resurgence," Sept 7, 2014, retrieved Dec 19, 2024, [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117990]
The truth about laetrile has not just been discovered in America, but also by other nations. In 1976, an Israeli group of physicians did research on the results of laetrile at clinics in the USA and Mexico, and when they returned, Dr. David Rubin, Surgeon and Cancer Researcher at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem drafted their report to the Israeli Ministry of Health:
"a. Contrary to many allegations in both the scientific and lay liturature,laetrile [B17] is not quackery. We must do controlled studies to rule out the possibility that prior therapies had some effect on the turmors that stopped growing. However, we doubt that the regressions we observed were due to "delayed effects" of other therapies because, in our experience, such delayed effects rarely, if ever, occur."
b. Laetrile is non-toxic even in very large doses.
c. Laetrile has a definite palliative [relief] effect. We cannot, at this stage of our investigations, say that it inhibits tumors, but the evidence we have suggests that it does.
-Dr. David Rubin, M.D., "Use of Laetrile in the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer," Report #2, Oct 25, 1976
The results have been found time and time again by many other physicians and scientists I have not mentioned in this book. Now let's ask the question which I typically get before I have relayed all this evidence:
Ralph Moss came forward and spoke the truth about the Sloan-Kettering cover-up in a press conference, and he was rewarded by losing his job and having his career ruined. John Richardson started a clinic in which he helped save the lives of hundreds of patients, and he was rewarded by being arrested. So can you think of any reason why vitamin B17 remains unknown to the public?
#7 - Criminalizing the Cure
(See John A. Richardson, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 14, ISBN: 0553114913)
Richardson was thrown up against the wall, frisked, and the entire clinic was searched to find laetrile, although they could not find much because they did not know what they were looking for, and according to Richardson, there were some vials of it sitting out in the open which were not seized because they did not recognize what it was. His car keys were confiscated, and officers were told to get his briefcase out of the trunk of his car, where most of his important papers on laetrile were kept, meaning that he had been under surveillance for quite some time.
All patients were ordered to leave, except one little girl in room #3, who was there for her laetrile treatment for osteogenic sarcoma (i.e. bone cancer), and she was so sick unto death, Richardson did not think she would make it at first, but she had responded well to the treatments, having less pain, increased apetite, and positive weight gain. However, her leg was vile and sickly-looking due to the damage of the tumor, and the inspector from the California Health Department turned pale when looking at it.
The inspector allowed Richardson to treat Kerry because they wanted to know what the vials of laetrile looked like, as well as evidence they could use against him in court, but knowing this, Richardson simply changed Kerry's bandages and sent her back to her parents, who were furious with the police officers. Kerry died three days later, and her life could have been saved if not for the intervention of the corrupt medical mafia and unconstitutional law enforcement.
| This is why Americans should NEVER trust government. Everyone involved in the investigation and arrest at the Richardson clinic should have been charged and put on trial. |
Richardson and his two nurses were cuffed and paraded out the front door, with TV cameras already on the scene. The news media was informed ahead of time, and they were permitted free access to film and photograph any part of the clinic, which means that the Department of Health wanted a trial-by-media, in which Richardson would "appear" guilty of dangerous crimes without evidence.
Four hours later, Richardson and his nurses were released from jail because there was no lawful reason to hold them. After his arrest was aired on the news, many of his patients and neighbors avoided him, as is common with those who assume what they see on television (or today, the internet) is automatically true, without first waiting for the evidence.
However, because Richardson was an honest physician who did good work, some of his friends and family came to his aid to help him with his defense against the medical mafia and government goons. Months of pre-trial hearings and depositions followed, and as is natural, the crowds of protestors dwindled over time, which is one of the reasons they drag it out so long, or to put a finer point on it, the innocent party typically wants a speedy trial, while the guilty party tends to drag it out as long as possible.
The expenses were piling up as the trial began, and the prosecution spend an entire month presenting witnesses to make Richardson look like an evil quack. Despite their efforts to try to paint him as an evil man, seven jury members refused to give him a guilty verdict, and for those of you who understand how the court system works, you will know this is far from being over.
A hung jury means that the prosecution can re-try the case, and these are the most dangerous for defendants because the prosecution learns what kind of jurors will vote guilty, and what evidence is most convincing. The expensive process of pre-trial hearings and depositions, as well as another four-week trial, happened again (because the medical mafia wanted to bankrupt him), costing him what would be today (in 2024) about $600/hour in lawyer fees.
According to Richard's testimony, this new jury may have had some plants:
"Juror Lela Herbert told us later thatshe was offered financial help for her decorator shop if only she would change her vote to 'guilty'. Between shouting insults and threats, on the one hand, and offers of money, on the other, they literally had her in tears. Several of the others ultimately changed their votes under similar pressure, but she stood firm and would not compromise her convictions. The final vote was eleven to one."
(See John A. Richardson, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 73, ISBN: 0553114913)
After another hung jury, the prosecution tried again, but this time, the judge denied another trial, seeing it as a waste of taxpayer resources. In his book, Richardson documented many other instances of fraud, deception, bribes, and perjury on the part of the prosecutor's office, and sadly, this is nothing new when it comes to career prosecutors in just about any state in the country; they have far too much time, power, and funding.
As I said in the last chapter, laetrile/amygdalin/B17 is NOT a miracle cure, and a dietary change is necessary for it to work, and this is something that Richardson always told his patients, especially those who had already received amputations and radiation treatment. There were some of his patients who died soon after they started taking laetrile, but it was not because of laetrile; rather, it was because of the years of damage from the tumors, the surgeries, and the radiation.
Due to the brainwashing of mainstream media into trust the medical mafia, most cancer patients only came to Richardson as a last resort, when they had lost all other hope. Sadly, some did not live very long after laetrile treatments began, but others did make, and those who got B17 in combination with a metabolic diet change were willing to defend it against an oppressive government.
Richardson documented many other physicians who had been persecuted for using laetrile to cure cancer. While orthodox medical "professionals" were using poison that has been proven to be most ineffective at treating cancer, the following was happening to honest physicians using laetrile:
|
So why has no one heard of laetrile? Because the American medical mafia chased down honest physicians and made them an offer they could not refuse.
#8 - Cancerous Charities
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ACS's website states they are strongly supporting the prevention of cancer:
"[T]he American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention & Early Detection Cancer Facts and Figures is a resource to strengthen cancer prevention and early detection efforts at the local, state, and national levels."
-American Cancer Society, "Cancer Prevention & Early Detection Facts & Figures," cancer.org, retrieved Mar 25, 2015, [cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancer-prevention-early-detection]
Most of the public is unaware that this is not true. Carcinogens are substances (typically chemcials) that are known to cause cancer in living tissue, and Dr. Samuel Epstein (Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine) reports his findings on the ACS's track record in their lack of help concerning banning the use of chemicals:
"Indeed, despite promises to the public to do everything to 'wipe out cancer in your lifetime,' the ACS fails to make its voice heard in Congress and the regulatory arena. Instead,the ACS has consistently rejected or ignored opportunities and requests from Congress, regulatory agencies, unions, and environmental and consumer organizations to provide scientific evidence critical to legislate occupational, environmental, and personal product carcinogens ."
-Samuel S. Epstein M.D., National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest, Xilbris Corporation, 2011, p. 105, ISBN: 9781462861361
The actual track record for the ACS has been completely indifferent to the public use of cancer inducing substances.
"In 1971, when studies unequivocally proved that diethylstilbestrol (DES) caused vaginal cancers in teenaged daughters of women administered the drug during pregnancy,the ACS refused an invitation to testify at Congressional hearings to require the FDA (U. S. Food and Drug Administration) to ban its use as an animal feed additive.It gave no reason for its refusal. "
-Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., "The American Cancer Society: Why Prevent Cancer If We're Making Money On It?" Cancer Prevention Coalition, retrieved Mar, 25, 2015, [preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]
"In 1977 and 1978,the ACS opposed regulations proposed for hair coloring products that contained dyes known to cause breast and liver cancer in rodents. In so doing, the ACS ignored virtually every tenet of responsible public health as these chemicals were clear-cut liver and breast carcinogens."
-Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., "The American Cancer Society: Why Prevent Cancer If We're Making Money On It?" Cancer Prevention Coalition, retrieved Mar, 25, 2015, [preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]
PBS Frontline released a documentary in March of 1993 on the use of pesticides in children's food causing cancer in a number of cases, to which they won outstanding journalism awards, but the ACS, just before the release of this documentary, sided with the pesticide companies:
"In 1993, just before PBS Frontline aired the special entitled 'In Our Children's Food,' the ACS came out in support of the pesticide industry. In a damage-control memorandum sent to some 48 regional divisions,the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer, and reassured the public that carcinogenic pesticide residues in food are safe, even for babies . When the media and concerned citizens called local ACS chapters, they received reassurances from an ACS memorandum by its vice president for Public Relations: 'The primary health hazards of pesticides are from direct contact with the chemicals at potentially high doses, for example, farm workers who apply the chemicals and work in the fields after the pesticides have been applied, and people living near aerially sprayed fields... The American Cancer Society believes that the benefits of a balanced diet rich in fruits and vegetables far outweigh the largely theoretical risks posed by occasional, very low pesticide residue levels in foods.'"
-Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., "The American Cancer Society: Why Prevent Cancer If We're Making Money On It?" Cancer Prevention Coalition, retrieved Mar, 25, 2015, [preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]
But despite the ACS trying to justify the use of cancer-inducing chemicals in foods, the National Resource Defense Council took action and got results a few years later:
"The National Academies report on pesticides and children's health, along with intense pressure from NRDC and others,led Congress to unanimously pass the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996 , requiring EPA to consider harm to children when registering pesticides, and to consider risks to groups of related pesticides and not just evaluate them one-by-one. Subsequent negotiations with NRDC forced EPA to review pesticide registrations every 15 years to incorporate new science. Together, these two requirements haveforced millions of pounds of the most toxic pesticides off the market and out of our homes, gardens, and food crops."
-National Resource Defense Council, "The Food Quality Protection Act Helps Protect Kids," retrieved Mar 25, 2015, [nrdc.org/health/pesticides]
I am NOT endorsing any of these organizations; I am simply explaining, in this context, that the ACS has had clear opportunity to help in the prevention of chemicals that are harmful in the realm of inducing cancer, but they refuse to act, and worse still, they attempt to justify the chemicals. This is a good time to repeat what was stated earlier:
"The American Medical Association has strong ties to pharaceutical companies, andthe American Cancer Society owns half of the patent rights of chemotherapy drugs ."
-Zillah R. Eisenstein, Manmade Breast Cancers, Cornell University Press, 2001, p. 101, ISBN: 9780801487071; Eisenstein is a professor and Chair of Politics at Ithaca College in New York.
The ACS owns the patent rights on many chemicals, and therefore would have certain obligations to protect companies that produce their chemical compounds. This is why they do so little when it comes to protecting the public, as was stated in a 1994 Center for Science in the Public Interest press release:
"A group of 24 scientists charged thatACS was doing little to protect the public from cancer-causing chemicals in the environment and workplace. The scientists urged ACS to revamp its policies and to emphasize prevention in its lobbying and educational campaigns."
-Center for Science in the Public Interest, Jan 23, 1994, New York City, quoted by Samuel S. Epstein, Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War, Baywood Publishing Company Inc., 2005, p. 84, ISBN: 9780895033543
If the ACS were to start fighting against the chemical industry's sales of harmful chemicals, they would also have to account for how their own patents on chemicals are justified, which they do through the use of chemotherapy. However, chemotherapy is a realm of "medical science" that has no evidence to it whatsoever:
"Success of most chemotherapies is appalling...There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer...Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland. "
-Abel Ulrich, PhD, "Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer," quoted by Don Benjamin, "Submission to Inquiry Into Services and Treatment Options for Persons With Cancer," Cancer Information & Support Society, Australian Senate, March 2005, retrieved Mar 25, 2015, [aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004_07/cancer/submissions/
sub15_pdf.ashx]
It is no secret that those who have chemo-"therapy" end up dying a few years later. Before Michael Landon died of prostate cancer in 1991, he consulted with the "top experts" that money could buy, and of course, they all recommended chemo. Landon's daughter quoted him in her book:
"'That's the only hope they see,' wrote Dad. Buthe also knew that chemotherapy's rate of success was 'really zero. Less than one percent of the patients treated are alive at the end of five years. And,' continued Dad, 'I'm not sure in these cases what alive means.' Dad was well aware of the horrendous effects that huge doses of chemotherapy had on the body: the sores in the mouth, the peeling skin, the hair falling out and the gradual breakdown of major organs... 'You can die of the cure before you die of the disease,' he commented."
-Cheryl Landon Wilson, I Promised My Dad: An Intimate Portairt of Michael Landon by His Eldest Daughter, Simon & Schuster, 1992, p. 185-186, ISBN: 0671793527
What the average person doesn't seem to understand is that when someone makes a donation to the American Cancer Society, that money is used in research as they claim, but the research they're doing is not to cure cancer, but to find a way to extend their total number of patents to turn a profit. The research being done is only in areas that force someone to take an ADA-approved "treatment," or something in a man-made pill form, and this is so the results of the research can be patented and marketed for the benefit of the very corporate interests that are looking to create a monopoly on a product.
So we either believe that those with money and power would never lie to us, and that they always have our personal best interests in the forefront of their minds, or you have to believe that experiments on laetrile, from people all around the world (who didn't know each other and had nothing to gain), were all a giant conspiracy against mankind. Sadly, for most people, they will never consider either point, and just continue to blindly pour out money, putting their hopes in a rigged game.
"Spokesmen for orthodox medicine - and particularly for the American Cancer Society - continue to cloak themselves in the mantle of their own prestige, deride any scientific opinion that differes from their own, and categorically denounce as absurd those things which they do not understand. Laetrile is the current victim of such scientific arrogance and ignorance."
-John A. Richardson, M.D., Laetrile Case Histories, 2005, p. 34, ISBN: 978-0-912986-38-8
It's not just the corporate conflict of interest, as some investigators are starting to come out with the truth on the financial reports surrounding the ACS. It's get a bit tricky because there are companies that organizations like the ACS hire, which end up getting most of the profits from your donations -- these are called "solicitors," and the ACS enlisted InfoCision from 1999 to 2011.
"In fiscal 2010, InfoCision gathered $5.3 million for the society. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers took part, butnone of that money -- not one penny -- went to fund cancer research or help patients , according to the society's filing with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the state of Maine."
-David M. Evans, "Charities Deceive Donors Unaware Money Goes to a Telemarketer," Bloomberg Business, Sept 12, 2014, retrieved Mar 27, 2015, [bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-12/charities-deceive-donors-unaware-money-goes-to-a-telemarketer]
And it's not just the American Cancer Society; many so-called "charities" are flooded with corporate conflicts of interest, and many of them don't spend hardly any money they receive on the actual charity program they claim to support. The Tampa Bay Times and the Center for Investigative Reporting pulled out the federal tax filings from the past ten years on many major charity funds, and came up with a list of the top ranking worst charities in America.
|
"The 50 worst charities in America devoteless than 4% of donations raised to direct cash aid . Some charities gave even less. Over a decade, one diabetes charity raised nearly $14 million and gave about $10,000 to patients.Six spent no cash at all on their cause. "
-Kris Hundley & Kendall Taggart, "Above The Law: America's Worst Charities," CNN, Jun 13, 2013, retrieved Mar 27, 2015, [cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/worst-charities/index.html?c=homepage-t]
During the 2020 election season in the United States, researchers were investigating Senator Joe Biden, a former U.S. vice-president who (as of 2020, when he ran for president) is being investigated for various criminal activities, and those researchers discovered that Biden had his own cancer research charity organization called The Biden Cancer Initiative. Even though Biden spent many millions of dollars of donations on salaries for employees, tax records show that he did not spend one dollar on cancer research, and he never gave out one grant:
"A cancer charity started by Joe Biden gave out no money to research, and spent most of its contributions on staff salaries , federal filings show. The Biden Cancer Initiative was founded in 2017 by the former vice president and his wife, Jill Biden, to 'develop and drive implementation of solutions to accelerate progress in cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis, research and care and to reduce disparities in cancer outcomes,' according to its IRS mission statement.But it gave out no grants in its first two years, and spent millions on the salaries of former Washington, DC, aides it hired. "
-Isabel Vincent, "Tax filings reveal Biden cancer charity spent millions on salaries, zero on research," New York Post, Nov 14, 2020, retrieved Nov 16, 2020, [https://bit.ly/38PKMsu]
The article goes on to point out that Biden hired many of he personal friends and collegues, including Gregory Simon, a former Pfizer (pharmaceutical company) executive, and Danielle Carnival, Barack Obama's former chief of staff, just to name a couple. Biden's friends made anywhere from $250,000 to $430,000 in a single fiscal year, all paid for by the charitable donations of Americans looking to help their loved one, and any other money that left over went to pay for their meals, travel, hotel rooms, and to put on lavish conferences for their scam charity.
In fact, if you want to know how "charitable" Joe Biden is, reporters discovered that, as of 2008, Biden and his wife had only given an average of $369 a year to charity, meaning that he is more than happy to take millions from average middle class workers and give it to his friends, but not will to step up on his own dime to help others:
"Democratic vice presidential candidateJoe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade , his tax records show. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign today released 10 years' worth of tax returns for Biden, a senator from Delaware, and his wife Jill, a community college instructor. The Bidens reported earning $319,853 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics. The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year — about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade. The low was $120 in 1999, about 0.1% of yearly income.Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income. "
-Matt Kelley, "Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year," USA Today, Sept 12, 2008, retrieved Nov 16, 2020, [abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1]
This is why, in many of our audio teachings, I have warned people not to just throw money at something and call it "charity," because, in most cases, real charity takes people being involved in their giving. If you really want to be charitable to cancer patients, why not visit a cancer ward of a hospital, find a child with cancer, and spend some time with them? If you want to really help the families of cancer patients, why not print off this article and take it to them along with some apricot seeds?
Not only is a huge percentage of these funds going to secure the financial interests of the wealthy, but what little they actually give to the cause goes back into more pills and radiation research which keeps people deep in sickness and debt.
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-Proverbs 14:12
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
-1 Thessalonians 5:21
.
Trial By Media
There are cases where someone is accused, arrested, and convicted properly of a crime they are guilty of committing. There are cases where someone is accused and arrested, but found innocent of the crime. However, most importantly, there are people who are accused and arrested on something they did not do wrong, but are found guilty and punished anyway, and these are the cases that the general public almost never hears about.
| For example, the man in the photograph was arrested for his realistic costume at a themed convention. He was dressed up as a SWAT team soldier, and someone called the police out of fear. He was arrested, handcuffed, and detained for a short time, but he was innocent of any crime. Yet, if you were to simply look at this picture from the news report, without any further details, you would think this man was guilty of breaking the law, because after all, he's being handcuffed by police, so the assumption is that he's guilty. |  |
Accusation of guilt by simply seeing someone arrested on television is called "trial by media," which creates an assumption of guilt by majority opinion whether or not the person is guilt. This is not some recently developed tactic either; it has been used for thousands of years by many governments.
For example, the Catholic Church, for 605 years of The Inquisition, tortured and murdered Christians for their faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures. Some were imprisoned and/or executed for simply owning a Bible, all because the Catholic Church didn't like people reading it. Many of these Christians were handcuffed, and taken away by the "authorities," to be publically displayed and labeled heretics, even though they committed no crime, nor were allowed to give a response, but were used to make an example to the public, similar to how a school bully makes an example of a child who cannot defend himself.
(See "Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism - The Inquisition" for more details; See also John Foxe, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, W. Grinton Berry Edition, 2003, ISBN: 0-8007-8664-5)
Trial by media has been common in supressing the cure for cancer. Laetrile clinics specifically have been hit hard and fast by government enforcers, and we'll take a closer look at Dr. Maurice Kowan who was healing many cancer patients in his clinic, but was arrested and put on trial for the "crime" of using laetrile as a cancer control.
"A Los Angeles physician has beenindicted by the county Grand Jury on charges of attempted grand theft for the alleged illegal use of drugs to remedy cancer , it had been announced today. Named in the indictment was Dr. Maurice H. Kowan... He also was charged withviolating the state Cancer Control Act by purportedly representing to a patient that Laetriles, a drug made from the extract of apricot pits, would alleviate or cure cancer ."
-"Jury Indicts Physician in Cancer Cure," Valley News, Van Nuys, California, Sept 19, 1968, p. 78
During Dr. Kowan's trial, the jury was not allowed to see any of the clinic's results that laetrile was curing the cancer patients, and no witnesses were allowed for that purpose. The Jury was railroaded into a guilty verdict, and Ira Reiner, the prosecuting attorney, faced the jury and stated:
"This is not a kindly old man.This is the most thoroughly evil person the imagination can concoct. He's taking advantage of people for money. We can understand people who kill in rage. What do you think of a man who can kill at nine dollars per visit?... This man has to be stopped. He is very dangerous. This case goes far beyond the walls of this courtroom. The way to stop him is a guilty verdict."
-"Kowan Trial Nearing End in City Court," L.A. News-Herald and Journal, July 23, 1967
It's sad that, although Kowan was only charging $9 per visit for getting rid of peoples' cancer, the media and courts justify radiation "therapy," which costs so much that the American Cancer Society won't even publish it on their website when asked the question, "
(See American Cancer Society, "How much does radiation treatment cost?" cancer.org, retrieved Mar 26, 2015, [cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/radiation/
understandingradiationtherapyaguideforpatientsandfamilies/understanding-radiation-therapy-cost])
Sandi Rog, a cancer survivor who cured her cancer with laetrile, recounts her costs with, and around, her radiation treatments:
"It was around that time, shortly after radiation, that I went to see my naturopathic doc in AZ. He put me on a 'million' supplements (okay, it felt like a million; I had about twenty bottles of supplements prescribed by him). Andvisiting him cost us approximately 1200 to 1700 dollars a day (yes, PER DAY—and that was with HUGE discounts), plus another 9800 dollars for one particular IV. "
-Sandi Rog, "My Cancer Story," Aug 23, 2012, retrieved Mar 26, 2015, [beatcancerwithb17.blogspot.com/p/my-win-against-cancer.html]
But Dr. Kowan's $9 per visit charge made him into a "very dangerous" man that takes "advantage of people for money." Kowan was pressured to sign an agreement that laetrile had no effect against cancer, but he refused to sign, and was charged a $3,000 fine, three months in prison, and was prohibited from seeing a cancer patient for three years, all for the "crime" of saving lives because in America, you don't dare challenge the wealth of the ruling elite.
Earlier, I published some testimonies from patients who had been cured by laetrile through Dr. John Richardson's clinic, and his reward for helping these people was being arrested:
"After my release following the first arrest, I went home and spent the evening in a state of semi-shock. Before the week was over, I came to learn firsthand the tremendous power of TV and the press.My acquaintances, neighbors, and even many of my patients had begun to keep their distance and now were viewing me with a mixture of caution and distrust. After all, I had been arrested. "
-John A. Richardson, M.D., Laetrile Case Histories, 2005, p. 79, ISBN: 978-0-912986-38-8
During this time, Richardson was put through a trial where the prosecution made him look like a quack that was responsible for the deaths of uncountable numbers of people, but despite their intense propaganda, the jury came back with seven to five in favor of the defendant being not guilty. The pharmaceutical companies cannot have the public winning cases in favor of the cure for cancer, so a few days after the first long and expensive trial, the state decided to try the case a second time, which would normally be illegal and unconstitutional.
"The trial was almost a carbon copy of the previous one with one exception: the jury. As we were to learn later, there were several members of the jury who appeared to be personally interesteed in convincing the others to find me guilty.Juror Lela Herbert told us later that she was offered financial help for her decorator shop if only she would change her vote to 'guilty.' Between shouting insults and threats, on the one hand, and offers of money, on the other, they literally had her in tears. Several of the others ultimately changed their votes under similar pressure, but she stood firm and would not compromise her convictions. The final vote was eleven to one."
-John A. Richardson, M.D., Laetrile Case Histories, 2005, p. 81, ISBN: 978-0-912986-38-8
And it's not just John Richardson -- it's anyone who dares to cure cancer outside of the patented permission of the AMA, ACS, and associated cartels. With major corporate wealth backing chemicals and radiation, they can bribe just about anyone in the government to do their bidding.
Dr. Stewart Jones of Palo Alto, CA, was being hunted by James Eddington, head of the Berkeley fraud division, and ordered one of his undercover agents, Natasha Benton, to lie in her report about Dr. Jones's use of Laetrile. Outside the court room, the defense attorney overheard Ms. Benton arguing with her boss that she would not lie on the witness stand, and so the prosecution chose not to call her to the stand. However, the defense DID call her up to the stand:
"BENTON: Before any report is always written, Mr. Eddington left instruction what for me to write. After I read these instructions, I telephoned Mr. Eddington telling him I didn't feel all those instructions were correct. He told me, 'Go ahead and write what I said, because this is what we need to get a conviction .' I wrote as close to what he said as I could, according to my conscience. But I still don't feel that I told the truth in that report. Later, on June 1st, I was shown a quite lengthy report. He told me to sign that report before I went before the Grand Jury, and I could read it later; we didn't have time at that time.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY:Did you sign that report without reading it?
BENTON:Yes, I did. Later I read a small portion of it. That isn't the report I wrote. Outside of this courtroom he admitted that it isn't the report I wrote. He said my report - quote - was so sh**ty, that that's why he changed it - close quote."
-John A. Richardson, M.D., Laetrile Case Histories, 2005, p. 82, ISBN: 978-0-912986-38-8
James Eddington was also the same man who approached Dr. Richardson's patients and families to get them to sue Richardson for malpractice. The media doesn't point out these details, but they do take it upon themselves to fuel the fire for burning doctors in their Inquisitor-like witch hunts, as The Standford Daily reported on Dr. Jones:
"Earlier Friday, Louis Castro, deputy state attorney general prosecuting Jones, said that many patients died 'a very miserable and painful death because they were relying on Laetrile...There is one thing that all quacks have in common: they disregard the rules of evidence ... The scientific method simply does not exist in the quack mind."
-Bob Zuckerman, "Hearing Probes Laetrile Case," The Standford Daily, Vol. 167, Issue 12, Feb 19, 1975, p. 1
The problem is that most patients who go to laetrile as a treatment, do so as a LAST RESORT, meaning that they have already gone through radiation injections that have done a large amount of permenant damage to their bodies. Many patients who turn to laetrile too late, and even after laetrile fixes the cancer problem, he/she will still die from the damage already done to their internal organs through radiation, but in the media, it's laetrile that takes the blame for it.
While mainstream media helps the public remain ignorant of the truth, the American Cancer Society, with support of the mainstream media, tells the public that chemotherapy is a "proven" cure.
"There areproven cures ...surgery and/or radiation and, more and more, chemotherapy is playing a part."
-Letter from Mabel Burnett, American Cancer Society Headquarters, to Dr. John Richardson, Dec 18, 1972
If these liars and hypocrites would stop playing Duck Hunt against honest physicians and listen for a few minutes, they might find some interesting evidence:
"A survvey of128 US cancer doctors found that if they contracted cancer, more than 80 per cent would not have chemotherapy as the 'risks and side effects far outweighed the likely benefits' ."
-Cancer Active, "20 Things You Need to Know About Chemotherapy," retrieved Mar 31, 2015, [canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=248]
A professor of oncology at the State University of New York said:
"Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors. "
-Albert Braverman, M.D., quoted by Raymond Francis, Never Fear Cancer Again: How to Prevent and Reverse Cancer, Health Communications Inc., 2011, p. 26, ISBN: 9780757391903
| These professionals are warning you that chemotherapy does not work. |
The late oncologist Glen Warner said:
"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."
-Glen Warner, M.D., quoted by Peter Havasi, Education of Cancer Healing, Lulu.com, Vol. 2, p. 59, ISBN: 9781291453584
A former president of the American Chemical Society stated:
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence thatchemotherapy does much, much more harm than good ."
-Alan Nixon, PhD, quoted by Andreas Moritz, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Ener-Chi Wellness Center, 2007, p. 338, ISBN: 9780979275753
French cancer specialist Charles Mathe stated:
"If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Only cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance. Yet, day after day, year after year, the Cancer Industry continues to put these toxic chemicals into the bodies of cancer patients. And the patients let them do it, even volunteering for new 'guinea pig' studies, simply because someone with a degree from a school of disease (also known as medical school) told them it was their 'only option.' It costs lots of money for them to poison the body of cancer patients, and the patients gladly pay it.Sadly, some people will spend six figures a year poisoning their bodies because their 'doctor told them to do it.' The truth is that there are many effective natural cancer treatments that don't require a barbaric procedure like chemotherapy. '"
-Charles Mathe, PhD, quoted by Margaret B. Mba, The Cancer Odyssey, Xlibris Corporation, 2011, p. 50, ISBN: 9781456885397
But let's see what happens when someone actually cures himself of cancer outside of the approved raditation death treatment:
Jason Vale got into trouble because the FDA says you can't claim laetrile is a cure while selling it. I can say these apricots seeds cure cancer all I want because I'm not selling anything, but Vale went into business over it. That's where the government attacks, through corporate business, because it's too much labor to unconstitutionally try to attack people who want to use apricot seeds to cure themselves of cancer, but if no one can sell it, no one can get to it.
Jason Vale didn't understand the whole story, and got himself into a mess he may never get out of because there are major corporate interests that are threatened by these seeds. In the video above, you'll notice that the media never once even mentions the many people who have been healed from B17, even though many thousands of Americans have been more than willing to come out and testify to their healing of cancer through the consumption of apricot seeds.
(For testimony, see John A. Richardson, M.D., Laetrile Case Histories, 2005, ISBN: 978-0-912986-38-8; For details on chemotherapy death rate statistics, and how the real results are kept quiet, see Dr. Ralph Moss, Questioning Chemotherapy, 1995, ISBN: 978-1881025252)
It is interesting to note that the chemicals initially used when radiation therapy was in its infant stages was mustard gas used by the Germans in World War II.
(See -Charlotte Jacobs, Henry Kaplan and the Story of Hodgkin's Disease, Standford University Press, 2010, p. 83, ISBN: 9780804774482)
"[S]ystemiccancer chemotherapy is a recent development with itshistorical origins in observations of the toxic effects on humans accidentally exposed to chemical warfare agents, mainlymustard gas, during WWI and WWII ,"
-Guy Faguet, The War on Cancer: An Anatomy of Failure, Springer Science & Business Media, 2008, p. 69, ISBN: 9781402036170
"[T]he first class of 'modern' cancer chemotherapeutic drugs were born from the observation that 'mustard gas' developed as a military antipersonnel weapon in World War II caused lymphoid and bone marrow suppression. "
-Michael C. Perry, The Chemotherapy Source Book, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008, p. 30, ISBN: 9780781773287
While there are no laws that ban the use of laetrile, there are "regulations" set by the AMA and the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) that prohibit its use for the treatment of cancer in the United States, but they turn around and approve the use of varities of mustard gas to poison people directly. So who is the true snake-oil salesman? Simply because they put regulations on it, the people then fear laetrile, and because there are not restrictions on radiation and poisoning, people trust it. This is not only trial by media, but also testing by media, and the people continue to believe that large money-making organizations would never cause them any harm in order to make more money.
Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
-Jeremiah 17:5
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
-Psalm 118:8
.
Walk a Mile in Your Doctor's Shoes
It sounds good on the outside, but once we look deeper, we see a bunch of people throwing money at a problem, and they don't care where that money goes, so long as it says "cancer prevention" on it. It is this very lackadaisical ignorance that has allowed cancer to become such a ridiculous epidemic in the U.S.
Rather, I would like people to start putting themselves in the shoes of the very medical practitioners they so highly esteem. In the hearts and minds of the average American citizen, if someone is a doctor, he/she can do no wrong, and always has the best interests of their patients in mind, and that would be a wonderful world to live in, but in reality, we live in a world of sin.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
-Romans 3:10
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
-Romans 3:23
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
-Jeremiah 17:9
So let's imagine you're a medical practitioner. You have a nice home, a wonderful family, top-of-the-line car, and a well-established clinic in a town where you are highly respected after you spent eight or ten years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical school. Everyone comes to you for advice, and you've been sending them to pharmaceutical pills and chemotherapy.
 |
Now let's imagine you have an author like me, a college drop out, that comes along and tells you that, through your ignorance, you've been responsible for poisoning and killing your patients with drugs and radiation, and that despite all your intelligence and degrees, the cure for cancer is growing on a tree in my backyard, and that if you stand up for this cure, you will lose your clinic, your income, your respect of the community, face fines and jail time, and lose everything you've worked for -- so be honest: How likely are you to listen to me? |
Of course the average American jeers at me because I'm just some nobody and these doctors are prestigious and professionally trained in medicine, but whether or not one has a college degree is not a reflection on knowledge. Henry Ford dropped out of high school at 16. Bill Gates dropped out of college at 19. Michael Dell dropped out of college at 19. Steve Jobs dropped out of college at 21. Elizabeth Holmes, who Forbes 400 named the "youngest self-made woman billionaire" dropped out of college at 19, which goes to demonstrate that the degrees are held up in our society as a respect of persons, which the Bible says is sin, and that we should not judge a person based on the lack of a title, but on the merits of truth.
(Read "Respecting Persons is Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-James 2:9
(See "The United Vacci-Nations" for details on the focus of drugs and pharmaceuticals, rather than health and well-being.)
Most doctors simply refuse to investigate/research any possibility that goes against the direct orders of the AMA, because if they do, they will be shunned out of their practice, and prevented from practicing medicine in the U.S., losing all the years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of investments and schooling they had to go through. Again, the risk is just too high to sacrifice all that for the health and well-being of people they don't even know. I know it is difficult for many people to think of others in that way, but the truth of the matter is that those who would sacrifice their lives to keep their hippocratic oath are far and few between, and most will continue to pump their patients full of harmful chemicals, killing them slowly with each dose.
|
The original Hippocratic Oath was swearing unto pagan gods and goddesses: " -Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About Mythology, HarperCollins, 2009, p. 230, ISBN: 9780061925757 This oath was born out of an evil tree of paganism and witchcraft. Today they simply swear in general, but the Bible is clear on this issue:
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. "I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: -Hippocratic Oath (Modern Version - Written in 1964), Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries, retrieved Oct 12, 2013, [http://guides.library.jhu.edu/content.php?pid=23699&sid=190964]
It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment. "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, -Hippocratic Oath (Modern Version - Written in 1964), Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries, retrieved Oct 12, 2013, [http://guides.library.jhu.edu/content.php?pid=23699&sid=190964] Mustard gas is being used "for the benefit of the sick," and they will end up using "all measures which are required," which means they will follow the standards set by the AMA and FDA for chemotherapy treatment in poisoning their victims. It doesn't matter if a drug is poisoning your body, as long as it is AMA/FDA approved, it will be used on the sick anyway, despite the risks, and the patients will remain unsuspecting and unquestioning to a fault, because they have been taught that doctors are people that can be trusted, all the while a large profit is being made behind the scenes. |
The legal restrictions on drug prescriptions only coming from a licensed medical practitioner is portrayed in the media as a protective restriction that keeps criminals from accessing it, but in reality, that restriction is in place to keep the average person from making the product to protect corporate profits. These profits are shared with the doctors themselves, which how many of them make most of their money.
(Read Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
Former big pharma sales rep Angie Maher, who had worked for four different companies during her career, said in an interview:
"The companies, all four companies that I worked for, at the beginning of the year they will give a list of the top prescribing 20 physicians in the territory, and as a pharmaceutical marketing rep, it's my responsibility to pick three doctors. I have to find three doctors, andI get paid a bonus when I develop a doctor to be a key opinion leader or a thought leader. And I essentially say to a doctor, hey, our company has identified you to be a thought leader. Would you like to be a thought leader for our company? The doctor will normally almost every time say yes and then the next step is that the doctor will have to find ten patients to try the drug out. "
-Angie Maher, interview with Sanjay Gupta, "Big Pharma's Big Payout," Cable News Network, Nov 23, 2010, retrieved Feb 8, 2019, [transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1011/23/acd.02.html]
We have to acknowledge the fact that most doctors in America make an enormous amount of money in drug sales, and this includes the sale of chemicals used in radiation therapy. I know most peoples' thought is that the doctors have the best of intentions with their patients, but the road to hell is paved with those very same intentions.
If you want your family to stay healthy, then the best thing to do is start doing research yourself so you can make educated decisions, instead of putting your trust in someone who only makes money off you when you're ill. If this article has helped you, and you think it can help someone else, please share it with others because we cannot just sit back and wait for our government, media, and medical institutions to speak the truth. Word of mouth, and individual education, is the only way that lives will be saved, so please take the time to pass this along in hopes that they would be saved by the natural healing of the Lord God.
.
Questions and Arguments
|
|
I have to apologize for anyone who has followed our website on this topic in prior versions of this article, as I've previously taught that Laetrile was made illegal in the United States back in the 1980s, which is actually not true. The reality is that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) claims to have legal jurisdiction over Laetrile based on the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act amendment of 1962, also known as the Kefauver Harris Amendment, which requires drug manufacturers to provide proof of effectiveness of their drugs before they can be sold, so because the FDA bases their information on the 1953 McDonald and Garland report that lied and said there was no effectiveness of Laetrile, therefore, they prohibit its sale in the U.S.
However, what most people don't know is that the amendment does not apply to substances commonly in use before the amendment was passed, otherwise you would end up with a mass lawsuit frenzy for a retroactive act. (Retroactive meaning that people would be punished for a past crime to which there was no law or regulation for it yet.) The substances commonly sold on the market prior to the 1962 amendment were "grandfathered" in, and the FDA has stated that amygdalin (Laetrile) was sold for treatment of cancer prior to 1962.
(See Dean Burk, "Fact Sheet," National Health Federation Newsletter, January, 1977, p. 3)
"[T]he Circuit Court emphasizes that Laetrile is not to be considered a 'new drug' under the law merely because the FDA has said so, but rather that said determination must be supported by substantial evidence. The statutory presumption in favor of administrative determinations is based on the premise that such determinations are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence until a reviewing court has determined otherwise. Such presumption was overcome when FDA counsel admitted that no competent administrative record had ever been developed in support of the agency's determination. As a matter of law then, such determination is not supported by substantial evidence and cannot be sustained... the Court then requested that the FDA make available to the Court the written basis for the agency's determination with regard to Laetrile, no matter how casual or unstructured its form or content might be; whereupon the Court was advised that no such rationale existed in any form. Clearly, federal agencies may not rule by fiat invoking only some unexplained application of their own expertise in defense of policy decisions they have made...
Based on the complete absence of any evidence tending to establish a rational basis for the agency's determination , the Court would also be compelled to find... thatthe agency's determination was 'arbitrary, capricious,' and represented 'an abuse of discretion,' and that it should also be overturned for these additional reasons. "
-Rutherford v. United States, NO. CIV-75-0218-B, "Memorandum Opinion and Order," 424 F. Supp. 107 (1977), United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma, Jan 4, 1977
In case you did not understand what was just stated, since substances before the 1962 amendment are not automatically under FDA jurisdiction, if the FDA wants to go after a certain drug in sale before 1962, they need to make a formal case against it and bring it to court. The FDA did not want to do this because bringing Laetrile into a court trial under the basis of evidence would allow the public to finally see the records of the positive test results for Laetrile, as well as eye-witness testimonies, which would solidify the case FOR Laetrile instead of against it, and so the FDA, in deceptive fashion, tried to secretly include Laetrile under the 1962 amendment by labeling it a "new drug," to which the Supreme Court shot it down and told them, in simple terms, "No, you're going to abide by the rules like everyone else."
Dr. John Richardson tells us that even the U.S. Customs Service Office has no record of a prohibition on laetrile 13 years after the 1962 amendment:
"In June of 1975, attorney Richard Frisk contacted the U.S. Customs Office in San Francisco and asked for a list of any drugs or similar substances that were illegal to bring into the country. He asked specifically if Letrile or amygdalin was on that list. In a swarn affidavit dated November 11, 1975, Frisk stated that he 'was told by the different officials in the Customs Service Office thatthere was no proscribed drug or substance list, that Laetrile or amygdalin was not on a proscribed list , and that only certain dairy products were proscribed.' When he asked them to confirm that in writing, they refused."
-John A. Richardson, M.D., Laetrile Case Histories, 2005, p. 100-101, ISBN: 978-0-912986-38-8
In 1975, a cancer patient tried to sue the FDA for restricting laetrile:
"Last spring a cancer patient, now deceased, and her husband sued the government asking that an FDA order prohibiting distribution of Laetrile be vacated.No such order exists ."
(See Dean Burk, "Fact Sheet," National Health Federation Newsletter, January, 1977, p. 3)
People have foolishly attempted to file suit against the FDA for prohibiting Laetrile, but as you can see, you cannot sue the FDA over a restriction that does not exist. And as far as I'm aware, nothing has changed concerning Laetrile, but sadly, the only way to get it is to order it from out of the country, typically from Mexico and Canada. Corporate influence into our government is high enough that the authorities will find any excuse to cut off distribution of the laetrile in the U.S. to keep people sick and keep profits high.
|
|
People can die from eating too much of anything. Water is generally harmless, but drinking too much of it can kill you; it's called water intoxication.
(See Coco Ballantyne, "Strange but True: Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill," Scientific American, Jun 21, 2007, retrieved Mar 27, 2015, [scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill]
To date, there are no known recorded cases of someone dying from eating seeds. People talk about rumors of this happening, but neither I, nor any other researcher I'm familiar with, have ever seen a recorded case of this happening.
If this were to happen, someone would have to eat a ridiculously huge amount of them over a long period of time, and since the average American won't touch the seeds of fruits and vegetables for the most part, I think we're safe from such stupidity. If the consumption of seeds makes you nervous, then eat the fruit with the seeds together to get all the nutrients in one setting (as God had originally intended), and that should keep you safe, but it should be noted that Americans eat seeds all the time (e.g. beans, peanuts, etc) and nobody is injured.
