"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20

Contents: Introduction Chapter 01: What is Cancer? Chapter 02: Cancer & Vitamin Deficiency Chapter 03: The B17 Effect Chapter 04: The Pharmaceutical Cartel Chapter 05: A Medical Masquerade Chapter 06: The Success of B17 Chapter 07: Criminalizing the Cure Chapter 08: Cancerous Charities Chapter 09: What You Can Do to Be Cancer Free Chapter 10: Food for Thought

 

How would you respond if I told you that cancer can be cured and fully
prevented, and that this solution has been known for over a century?

What would you think if I told you that it was very simple and inexpensive?

What would you say if I told you that wealthy and powerful
men have kept this information hidden from you?

Would you be surprised?
Maybe.

Would you be skeptical?
Probably, and that's a good thing.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a physician. I am just a researcher. This book does NOT constitute medical advice in the legal sense. I encourage readers to look at all sides of a medical issue by doing your own research. Remember that the decision to use any of the methods mentioned in this book are made by you alone, and I hope that you make any medical decision for you and your family with full knowledge, after thorough personal investigation.

Your health is YOUR responsibility.

If you have begun to read this book, it is likely that you are a person who has an open mind with a healthy skepticism. To that, I commend you because all men should have an open mind to hear, but also a reasonable caution, that we would not be led astray by every wind of doctrine, so we can have a good understanding to stay on the narrow path of truth.

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
-Ephesians 4:14

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit
in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1 Corinthians 14:20

Although the context of these verses is speaking of corrupt spiritual and religious doctrines (of which there are many coming from fraudulent preachers in the vast majority of church buildings across the world), there is also a general principle of wisdom and understanding that should be gained by these verses. In other words, if we understand the dangers of false doctrines preached by seemingly "nice" men, wearing a suit and holding a Bible in their hands for pretense, who are looking to gain money and clout by fooling their audience, then we should beware people in other professions who might do the same.

Though some may find a health topic such as this to be quite a bit different from my other books exposing the false doctrines of fake Christians, the purpose of this book is the same as my others, namely, it is my effort to challenge the philosophy (i.e. way of thinking) of the reader. The only difference is the subject matter, and I believe it to be an important subject for reasons I will discuss in greater detail in later chapters.

I have grieved in my heart countless times over those who have cancer, and over those who have loved ones who have died from cancer; meanwhile, I have been outraged by the appalling lies and deceit by those who make money off of those who have cancer. Thus, the purpose I had in writing this book was to arm readers with knowledge, and to expose the lies that have enslaved us all.

Please note that I am not selling you anything, no remedy, nor even this book. Although I publish my books into physical format which can be purchased if people want a copy, this book (as all of my books) is available free to read on my website, creationliberty.com. I offer this for free because, not only does the Word of God instruct us Christians to do so (concerning wisdom, instruction, and understanding), but also because we are called to charity in Jesus Christ, and so I offer you all my research free of charge that you can learn what cancer is, how it harms us, what the cure is, how it heals us, and why the cure has been supressed for so long.

Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom,
and instruction, and understanding.
-Proverbs 23:23

In this book, we will not only learn what the cure is, but what the cure is not. I will demonstrate that chemotherapy is deceptively named because it is no therapy at all, and radiation "treatment" will only mistreat you and your wallet, so the lofty who preside over medical institutions can make more in the trillion-dollar cancer industry they have created.

Perhaps you are reading this book because you have contracted cancer, and if that be the case, I hope you will finish this book in its entirety to gain as much understanding as possible. There is hope for you to return to health, but you need to unravel the rudiments of what you have learned from mainstream institutions since your childhood, and be renewed in your mind with a better understanding about your health, which I pray will improve if you are willing to change your way of thinking and day-to-day habits.

Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper
and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
-3 John 1:2

 

Before I can explain the cure for cancer, we need to define the term 'cancer' in a meaningful way, so we all understand what it is and how it works, but in face-to-face conversation, before I can begin to explain the cure, I have often had people quickly and fervently object by saying, "Why hasn't my doctor heard about this?!" In my experience, this question has never been asked to me as a legitimate inquiry looking for information, but rather, it has always been asked as an accusation, which is a roundabout way of saying that there is no possible way I could know something that physicians and other "health experts" do not generally know.

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 only by his status rather than facts, and this is 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

Sadly, this is one of the most common sins committed by the mankind (not just church buildings), and most people are willingly and blissfully unaware of their guilt. Please do not misunderstand because I am not saying that the vast majority of physicians are scamming people, but rather, physicians themselves have been scammed (as we will find out later in this book), and they have (unknowingly, in many cases) perpetuated the scam onto their patients, and because patients respect the persons of physicians, they end up paying a heavy price.

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," or "a tumor," 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, and that diet lacks some vitamin content that is required for an overall healthy diet, which is why a lengthy meat-only diet is typically not a good idea. The above author claimed 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:

DISEASE VITAMIN SCIENTIFIC NATURAL FOODS Scurvy C Absorbic Acid Cherries, Rose Hips, Peppers, Oranges, Lemons, Strawberries Rickets D Calciferol Liver, Raw Milk, Salmon, Tuna, Sardines Pellagra B3 Niacin Liver, Chicken, Tuna, Salmon, Anchovies Beriberi B1 Thiamin Liver, Beans, Salmon, Lentils, Ham, Mussels, Peas, Rice Night Blindness A Retinol Liver, Salmon, Eggs, Fish Eggs, Raw Milk, Cod Liver Oil

Please note that the "cure" for these diseases was not found in a bottle, it was not crafted in a pharmaceutical laboratory, it did 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, succumbing to the laziness of frozen processed foods, and losing their grandmothers' accumulated knowledge to the deceit of mainstream "health" institutions. 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 a 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 is completely wrong 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, and despite this, federal "health" institutes forced this propaganda on millions of Americans, who learned it in their public education classrooms throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The winners 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, and 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), all of which (in this authors opinion) should be competely dismantled and made unlawful to form any such agency in future generations.

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 "great for its time." However, even the new guidelines for healthy eating according to the USDA are WRONG, and in the follow image, I have fixed "MyPlate" so that it looks the way it should, meaning that my image on the right is much better assessment of what the average healthy diet should look like.
(See USDA, "What is MyPlate?" retrieved Nov 14, 2024, [https://www.myplate.gov/eat-healthy/what-is-myplate])

(Please note that all grains should be whole grains, which should be limited to 2-3 servings per day. Fruits and vegetables should be 5-9 servings per day. Your body needs some fat and cholestoral, especially for brain function.)

Remember that everyone's health and dietary needs are going to be different because 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 strenuous 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, generalized 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 to the 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 a sprained ankle.

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 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

Cancer is a vitamin deficiency. So the obvious question is: What is the vitamin solution to cancer?



 

In the book of Genesis, the first chapter is about God's creation of the world, and when He created vegetables and fruits, He made seeds to go along with them, which would bear themselves after their own kind:

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

God told us that these would be "meat" for us, which is a word commonly used today to describe the flesh of animals, but the word 'meat' general means "food," or anything eaten for nourishment. Therefore, the herbs and fruit were made for us to eat, and so were the seeds of those plants.

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 an example of the sin called "respecting persons," which I talked about in the last chapter.
(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

I am certainly not saying that physicans should not be listened to, but I am saying that we should listen to all sides of a matter, and determine the truth, while at the same time, do our best to stop automatically believing everything we hear just because someone has a college degree or wears a white lab coat. There is a reason it is called "practicing medicine," because medicine is not the same for every person, requiring trial, error, and adaptation at many levels, which is why we are often told to "seek a second opinion," and I hope this book will be that second opinion for some readers.

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 (supposedly "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 a lone wolf snake-oil salesman try to get rich quick, but in his lengthy chapter on Krebs, Young conveniently omitted any information 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), he 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 likely did was looked up an online AMA database, and simply regurgitated the AMA propaganda back to you, but they did not do any actual 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 realized that we eat seeds from plants all the time (e.g. nuts, beans, etc), which led me to consider why I was told this, and where the information originated because, later in my life, I ate apple seeds, as well as seeds from many other fruits, and nothing harmful ever happened to me.

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)

This means that cyanide and benzaldehyde are sealed away in the B17 compound, sort of like being inside a chest that is locked, and they have no effect on your body unless something first has the key to unlocking it. This B17 chest has only one key that can unlock it, and it is a special enzyme called "beta-glucosidase," which some readers will be surprised to learn can only be found one place in the known world: cancer cells.


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. (And we will learn more about the importance of metabolism in chapter nine.)
(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 the unnatural 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...



.

In 1933, author James Hilton wrote a fiction novel called Lost Horizon, which speaks of a mystical valley called "Shangri-La," said to contain a fountain of youth that allowed people to live much longer lifespans. Few people today know that this legend is an exaggerated version of a real valley called "Hunza," which has no fountain of youth, but they do have a very unique culture that gives us some interesting clues to longevity.

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.

(See Vegetarian Times, "How People of Hunza Live To Be in Supreme Health," October, 1984, Issue #86, p. 13, ISSN: 01648497)

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)

(Photo by Renee Taylor, Hunza Health Secrets For Long Life and Happiness, Keats Publishing, 1978, p. 118, 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 been no 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 be remarkably 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 do so unless your body has a balance of other nutrients to get the job done, and B17 alone 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 will study more about diet, exerecise, and cleanliness, which we will cover more about towards 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

The whole grain of wheat is extremely beneficial for heart health, but in early 21st-century America, we are eliminating the healthy parts of grain, and creating a version of "bread" that is contributing to make us fat and sick. The outer covering of wheat grain is called 'bran', and it is what gives bread a brownish color, which commercial kitchens eliminated to give their bread an appealing white color. The part of the grain which is the reproductive seed is called the 'germ', and when grain is ground into flour, corporate manufacturers remove this key nutritrious element, sifting it out of the flour, essentially removing the vitally important, anti-inflammitory vitamin E, and also Omega 3, which is a fatty acid that improves heart and brain health.

Why remove the bran and germ? I short, it is so the bread looks more appealing on the shelf, and I firmly believe 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 depends 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 it, maintain it, and defend it, which is why men have traditionally owned property, since men have to take full responsibility for it), Hunza women could be granted ownership of individual apricot trees 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 a diet 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 the Hunza 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.

(See Vegetarian Times, "How People of Hunza Live To Be 120 in Supreme Health," April, 1985, Issue #92, p. 3, ISSN: 01648497)

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 these abnormalities 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 leads him to call them "savage," people and animals who eat a more natural diet do not have the same problems of disease that "sophisticated" cultures suffer. In fact, 2017-2019 data from the National Cancer Institution says that 40.5% of Americans will contract cancer at some point in their lives, and farm animals today would likely be at that same rate if they lived as long, but they are often slaughtered for meat instead of kept for their life expectancy.
(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 47,362 cattle, slaughtered at Glasgow in 1903, 131 had some form of malignant tumor, or 2.8 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, he searches for a certain type of grass that grows around here 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 a 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 theater 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 these animals will 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."
-Joe Hutto, Touching the Wild: Living with the Mule Deer of Deadman Gulch, Simon and Schuster, 2014, ISBN: 9781628735536

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 (who we will cover more in chapter seven), 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 for cancer, 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 data to show that cancer is a vitamin B17 deficiency, and that we are starving ourselves to death on a full stomach.

Now we can begin to answer the skeptic's question: "Why hasn't my doctor heard about this?!"



 

A man rolls into a dusty farming town on his horse, pulling a fancy wagon with the sound of bottles and vials rattling. "Come one, come all!" shouts the well-dressed man, "Try Doc Morton's Miracle Elixir, the cure for every ail! Aching joints? Back pain? Troubled mind? Worry no more! Morton's Miracle Elixir will solve all your problems!"


(Created using Grok 2.0 on X, 2024)
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. Effie 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.

Effie 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 company logo plastered on everything concerning the charity fund-raiser, meaning that he receives a huge amount of free public advertising at no extra cost, and gets a 50% discount on the donation he would have normally had to give in full.

The followin is a summary of the matching donation scheme:

The corporation name gets full credit for a donated dollar amount at half the price. The corporation now has an entire community of hard-working, dedicated volunteers to raise half of the money at no cost. The corporation will get an enormous amount of free advertising. As volunteers go door-to-door asking for donations, the company name will have to be mentioned in their pitch as the "matching donor." Such door-to-door advertising would cost a company many times more than what they paid for the low-cost of matching donations. The company not only gets free word-of-mouth advertising, but also physical banners at drives that carry the company name, all at the cost of the public, rather than the corporation. The corporation will see a rise in sales because often, if a consumer supports a charitable organization, they will switch their household product brands to the company that donates to the "charitable" corporation, thinking that if they purchase the product of the company behind the "charity," they also become charitable by association.

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 that his 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

This verse means that when a man (or in this case, the public at large) takes a gift that is given with conditions or implications, meaning that it is more akin to a bribe than a gift, it is given for the purpose of corrupting righteous judgment. In other words, righteous judgment (John 7:24) does good for the poor and needy, and rids them out of the hand of the wicked (Psa 82:4), but when the public accepts such gifts from wicked men, the end result will oppress the poor and needy.

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 am showing the dark side 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

In 1890, just a few years after Rockefeller hired Fred Gates to do his bidding, the Baptist University of Chicago received a $600,000 donation under the condition that they raise $400,000, and the willingly ignorant and greedy Baptists jumped on the opportunity without thinking about the consequences of partnering with a man who they knew had a bad public reputation. Within a year after accepting this donation, Rockefeller's true intentions were revealed as he appointed William R. Harper to become the president of the Baptist University of Chicago, and within two years, all anti-Rockefeller teaching staff were removed, and replaced with those who would follow John D. Rockefeller's ideals.

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

While the blissfully ignorant churchgoers were applauding, singing, and shouting "God has kept Chicago for us!" their religious institutions were simultaneously being infiltrated by men who would permenantly alter the landscape of society to serve the benefit of the wealthy elite. One short-sighted pastor of Cleveland's Euclid Avenue Baptist Church, in his vigorous stupidity, said, "People charge Mr. Rockefeller with stealing the money he gave to the church, but he has laid it on the altar and thus sanctified it." While foolishly believing that the oil and steel tycoons had become "Christians," their pride blinded them to the fact that these so-called "Christian" organizations were taken over by the masters of industry in exchange for a handful of paper currency; mere pocket change for men of their status and power.
(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

With an army of fundraisers, glorifying themselves for what they considered to be charitable works, a three-step process was repeated in major schools around the country, especially schools of medicine:

A rich man offers a donation to a college, and gets other people to pay a large percentage of the cost. The rich man offers over 50% to put more pressure on the school to abide by his wishes. The rich man receives a positive public image boost, while creating pressure to have his chosen corporate representative on the board of directors, forcing the school to allow corporate advisors to sit in on meetings for added influence in corporate ideology. Restructure the school to center courses around promotion and use of that corporation's products that will benefit the profits of the company.

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 $125,000, 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 paragraph, in late 2024) 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 the 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 (and other corrupt cancer "charities") 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 the 2016 version of their site by saying, "Established in 1913 by a small group of physicians and businessmen," while the 2024 version simply says "1913 The American Cancer Society was founded." -American Cancer Society, "About Us," retrieved Dec 3, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160730093410/cancer.org/aboutus/whoweare/governance/index]; See also American Cancer Society, "110 Years of Wins Against Cancer," retrieved Dec 3, 2024, [https://www.cancer.org/about-us/who-we-are/110-anniversary.html]

Many people think that the American Cancer Society is a non-profit organization 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, and the 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 the founders 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 you 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 on the 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 as I indicated earlier, 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 are 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 by the 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 philosophy will be taught in the classrooms, and it only took a few decades to tranform the practice of medicine into 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 medical complex ever since.



 


"A pack [of cigarettes] a day keeps lung cancer away."
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). (Photo LEFT from Dwight L. Wilbur, "L. Henry Garland 1903-1966," American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 100, Issue #2, retrieved Dec 5, 2024, [https://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/ajr.100.2.482]; Photo RIGHT from L.A. County Medical Bulletin and San Francisco Medical Society; World Without Cancer, Second Edition, 1997, ISBN: 0912986190)

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. (See National Library of Medicaine, "TREATMENT of cancer with laetriles; a report by the Cancer Commission of the California Medical Association", Calif Med, April, 1953; 78(4):320-6, retrieved Dec 5, 2024, [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13042670/])

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 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 "feel" any more research was necessary. This is why I have advised people for many years not to blindly trust physicians because there have been many cases in which they have no idea what they are talking about, they sometimes get tunnel vision when looking at illness, and the best physicians out there know this, which is why the honest ones will sometimes tell patients to "seek a second OPINION."
(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. But when 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. However, 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; retrieved Jan 21, 2025, [https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9582711])

The first case looked at a Mrs. A.B., age 51, treated for one month on laetrile, and found that "palpable abdominal masses were smaller and that the patient was 'improved'," but that further data was not collected to provide sufficent evidence of an objective therapeutic effect. The second case looked at Mr. H.G., age 58, treated for roughly five weeks, and found that "There was improvement in the blood picture postoperatively," but once again, there was a lack of follow up to gather enough evidence to claim an objective therapeutic effect.
(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 said 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 "sleeps well and has a good appetite," but they added that "no objective evidence of benefit is included," and the key word here is 'objective' because, although there was practical therapeutic effect while taking laetrile, it would be dishonest of them to conclusively say that laetrile was proven therapeutic from that study alone without more testing, or in other words, the patients reported improvement in their day-to-day health as a result of taking laetrile, but the scientists did not "include" those benefits because they could not directly tie them to laetrile without more testing.

It was even more deceptive that MacDoanld and Garland concluded that, "No evidence of cytotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants," because cytotoxic changes were not being examined in these case studies. They were not testing for laetrile's ability to eliminate harmful cells in tumors, they were simply examining the basic overall health of the patient when taking it, and in some cases, they DID observe a reduction in the tumorous area, only they were unable to conclude if it was due to laetrile without further experimentation.

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:

Case #1: Tumor shrinkage, improved overall health. Case #2: Improved blood picture. Case #3: Improved sleep and appetite. Case #4: Improved overall health, improved sleep and appetite, strength increase. Case #5: Positive weight gain, pain relief, patient left hospital because she felt better. Case #6: Tumor shrinkage, liver improved, pain relief. Case #7: Improved blood picture. Case #8: No change reported. Case #9: Positive weight gain, improved sleep and appetite, improved demeanor. Case #10: Pain relief. Case #11: Positive weight gain, pain relief, improved sleep and appetite. Case #12: Improved blood picture. Case #13: Improved blood picture, improved appetite, positive weight gain, improved energy. Case #14: Positive weight gain.

(See "Supplementary Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenic Glucosides ['Laetriles']," UC Berkeley, California Department of Public Health, 1965; retrieved Jan 21, 2025, [https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9582711])

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, and this 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 "No evidence of cytotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants." We just read that Zundell noted that his experiment potentially showed cytotoxic changes in the patient, that cancerous cells were being destroyed at tumor locations, followed by signs of repair, which proves without a doubt that MacDonald and Garland LIED to the American people, unless you want to go with the common conspiracy theory the U.S. government typically regurgitates, namely, that they were "incompetant."

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. There appears to be more degeneration in the tumor cells in the lymph node. I would consider this as a possible result of chemical agent."
-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 "chemotherapeutic toxic cellular changes," even though MacDonald and Garland said that "No evidence of cytotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants." Later that same year, on Dec 15, 1952, John Budd reported his findings when he was asked to give his assessment on blind samples:
"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 but an 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 labeled "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, "the most frequent single cause of death in cancer," and that still applies today, as reported in 2024 by Cleveland Clinic, an organization with many locations throughout eastern Ohio:
"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])

Thus, gain in appetite, positive weight gain, increase in energy, and better sleep are all therapeutic improvements of cachexia. However, the California report said that they were not, without any reasoning other than they did not want to believe it, demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that the authors behind this report were being deceitful.

Despite all these lies, which even a simple researcher like myself can uncover, the National Cancer Institute (cancer.gov) said:
"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.



 

In this chapter, I will be taking a number quotes from the book Laetrile Case Histories by Dr. John A. Richardson, a well-written book I would recommend for anyone who wants to look into the results of laetrile that are ignored and avoided by modern medicine. Although so-called medical professionals claim that all evidence for laetrile is anecdotal, firstly, anecdotal does not automatically mean false, and secondly, there is empirical and scientific data to reinforce the success stories, as we have already seen.

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:

July 1974, Female, Age: 55 Tumor in Left Breast She had surgery to remove most of the tumor in her breast. Surgeon suspected tumor would return and recommend breast amputation. She refused amputation surgery, and came to the Richardson clinic. After laetrile treatment (6-9 grams/day) and change of diet to increase metabolism, tumor never reappeared and she returned to normal health. February 1975, Female, Age: 53 Tumor in Left Breast and Lymph Nodes Surgeon performed amputation of left breast, and afterwards found more small tumorous areas. Surgeon believed radiation treatment would not help, told her there was no hope, and told her she would have to face the fact that she would die soon. She came to Richardson Clinic, got a change of diet recommendation to increase metabolism, as well as 1 gram of laetrile per day and I.V. injections of laetrile every month. Two years later, she was living a normal life full of energy, doing house and yard work, and caring for her family. May 1974, Female, Age: N/A Tumor in Left Breast Surgeon performed amputation of left breast, and patient was given radiation treatment. The following year, the tumors returned to the same areas. The last resort was to put her on Stilbesterol, which caused her abdomen to swell and she lost bladder control. She came to the Richardson clinic, got a change of diet recommendation to increase metabolism, and started taking laetrile. Soon after, the tumors stop spreading, and she went back to living a normal life. June 1967, Female, Age: 50 Tumor in Both Breasts Surgeon performed amputation of one breast, and patient informed they "got it all." Later, lumps started appearing on surgical scars, she had to have her second breast amputated, and then was told she would have to have her uterus and ovaries removed. By 1976, patient chose Laetrile therapy at Richardson Clinic, noticed significant improvement in her energy and health within a few days, went on to have a healthy normal life in the years after, but still lamented the mutilation of her body by mainstream physicians. October 1974, Female, Age: N/A Tumor in Right Breast Surgeon performed amputation of right breast, and she received radiation treatment from Nov to Feb of that year. Patient was then put on chemotherapy, and refused to take more after two shots. Patient spoke with surgeon about laetrile, and got angry with her suggestion to try it. March 1975, patient started laetrile therapy with change of diet to increase metabolism, and quickly felt better. One year later, patient lives normally, sleeps normally, does all her work normally, and enjoys her time with family and friends again. August 1974, Female, Age: 34 Tumor in Left Breast Noticed strange symptoms on left side of her body, and the following year, surgeon performed amputation of left breast, but postoperative reports showed that tumors were not completely removed. Tumors had spread to shoulder, and amputation of ovaries was also suggested. Patient came to Richardson Clinic to get laetrile treatment and recommendations for dietary change to increase metabolism. Patient reported that after the 3rd-4th injection of laetrile, the pain was gone, her arm function returned to normal, she had increased stamina, and her overall health improved. Over a year later, patient's tumors were gone and never returned. December 1973, Male, Age: 17 Tumor in Lungs and Bones Patient had tumor in the left knee, and leg was amputated above the knee. Three months later, tumors were found in the lungs. Surgeons removed tumors in both lungs, and patient went on chemotherapy for five months, losing all his hair and being perpetually sick. Another tumor appeared on a chest X-ray. Family traveled from Indiana to the Richardson Clinic in California, and was immediately put on laetrile treatment, diet change for metabolic increase, and pancreatic enzymes. Over a year later, patient reported that his tumors went away, he was able to build up his muscles, and now he goes biking, swimming, fishing, hunting, works forty hours per week, and does many other activies he could not do under mainstream medicine. December 1972, Female, Age: 38 Tumor in Lungs Surgeon performed amputation of right breast, and received radiation treatment. Over two years later, patient developed tumors at the site of radiation treatment. Tumors found in both lungs, and patient was told she had only two months to live. Surgery would result in permenant hospitilization on a breathing machine, so patient decided to visit the Richardson Clinic. Patient was started on laetrile and dietary change for metabolic increase, and within three months, she reported she felt much better. She no longer coughed up blood, she could breathe easier, and even started jogging. Soon after, patient reported the tumors never returned, she has no pain, and continues her normal daily routine. April 1975, Male, Age: 55 Tumor in Colon and Liver Patient had a tumor the size of a tennis ball in the descending colon, along with many other small tumors in various locations, including the liver. A colostomy was performed, but the liver tumors remained because surgery was impossible. Patients who suffer inoperable tumors on the liver usually die within six months. A week after surgery, patient came to the Richardson Clinic, was put on laetirle and a diet change to increase metabolism. Soon after, all of patient's symptoms were gone, and two years later, reported that he was living a normal, healthy life. January 1975, Female, Age: 72 Tumor in Rectum Patient developed tumor in rectum and surgeon removed it. Postop analysis discovered more tumors, and patient overheard her physician say to another physician that she was "too old to bother salvaging." Patient refused further treatment and, never had been a drinker in her life, decided to drink herself to death since she was too old to "salvage." She was later discovered passed out from attempting suicide through alcohol, and after rescued, a friend suggested the Richardson Clinic. Patient was started on metabolic diet change and laetrile, and just one week later, she reported that she had never felt better in her life. Patient never went on to have any suggested surgeries, radiation, or chemotherapy, and two years later, she reported that she never had any more symptoms, and remained in excellent health.

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 the radiosensitivity 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

In simple terms, Morton explained that surgery is preferred over radiation when it comes to any tumors in the gut because the gut is extremely sensitive to radition, while the tumors are resistant to it. This means that if radiation was used it would do more harm than good.

Morton went on to say that when it comes to colostomies, it is rare that the benefits outweigh the negative effects, and that his recommendation is to never do them, despite the fact that they are still done. He also adds that chemotherapy has almost never been helpful, which tells us that mainstream medical institutions do not have a viable path to health.

Furthermore, Morton adds that only 1 in 5 radiation-treated patients show signs of improvement. Of those 20% whose positive effects outweigh the negative, they only increase their lifespan a short while, or more specifically, if you are part of the 20%, you will be dead in less than two years, and if you are part of the 80%, you will be dead in less than one year.

What options does a person have under the "treatment" of the medical mafia? Either you die now, or you can put yourself through horrifying pain, and put your family in crippling debt, to die next year.

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 nothing to rehabilitate the patient, 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])

Again, medical professionals claim "success" in "curing" cancer through surgery which is nonsensical because they fallaciously believe that tumors are cancer. They practice symptom-based medicine by cutting flesh, and in many cases, they end up chopping up organs, but far be it from me, as a simple-minded ignoramous unworthy to walk the great halls of medical science, to suggest that chopping people up is primitive, barbaric, and as stupid as believing that the cure for an ear infection is to cut off your head.

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

(See Public Squate, "Red Buttons Says 'Laetrile Saved My Wife From Death by Cancer'," Cancer Control Journal, 1973, Vol. 1, No. 3, retrieved Dec 17, 2024, [https://www.publicsquare.com/products/845d52c0-69d8-11ed-b465-50eb7179fd78/V4727241/pdf-red-buttons-says-laetrile-saved-my-wife-from-death-by-cancer--cancer-control-journalsepoct-1973])

Many years ago, I was working a shift 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, which means that his family was getting B17 and did not realize 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 preconceived poison 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 of Amygdalin for 2 to 15 weeks failed to destroy the spontaneous cancer in mice. However, it caused an inhibition in about 50 percent of the tumors. It also shows Amygdalin 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 a strong 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, interviewed 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 under the Rockefeller family.

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.

(Click for larger image.)

Please note the highlighted quote:
"Sloan Kettering is not enthusiastic about studying amygdalin, but would 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 "[Cyanide] releasing drugs." Imagine if we applied this to scurvy, it would be like saying, "We are not interested in Vitamin C, but we would like to study absorbic acid releasing drugs." If they believed that amygdalin showed "no change in effects" on tumors (as they lied about in their meeting), then why did they want to explore more into cyanide drugs?

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 that amygdalin 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

Let's summarize all this: 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 "drugs" that release cyanide. Furthermore, one of the Sloan-Kettering Institute's representatives at this meeting, Lloyd Old, went on to do more collaborative experiments in attempt to create a drug from amygdalin, the substance he just helped to condemn publicly, as seen in a letter he wrote to Dr. Mario Soto De Leon on Jan 24, 1975, just six months after the July 1974 FDA meeting:

"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 "OUR proposed collaborative controlled trials," which means it was by request of Sloan-Kettering to set up trials in a Mexican clinic. This is conclusive evidence that Sloan-Kettering was studying the benefits of amygdalin long after they told the public it had no effect, and that it was poisonous quackary.

Six weeks after this letter, on March 4, 1975, another meeting was held at Sloan-Kettering about amygdalin and laetrile, which was led by Frank J. Rauscher, the leader of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the time, and attended by officials from the FDA, the previously mentioned members of Sloan-Kettering—Lloyd Old, Chester Stock, among others—and one in particular that should be noted, which was Dan S. Martin of the CMC. (Catholic Medical Center)
-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 produced its own 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, which makes no sense... unless he was being paid to do so.

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. (See Daniel S. Martin, "Laetrile: A 'Fraud'," New York Times, June 3, 1977, retrieved Dec 20, 2024, [https://www.nytimes.com/1977/06/03/archives/laetrile-a-fraud.html]; See also Daniel S. Martin, "Laetrile—A Dangerous Drug," American Cancer Society, Sept/Oct, 1977, DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.27.5.301, retrieved Dec 20, 2024, [https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3322/canjclin.27.5.301])

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 "a cunning, money-making fraud" because all one needs to do is look at the money being made when comparing cancer treatments. A bag of organic, bitter apricot kernals (which is what you should get if you want a high concentration of B17) costs about $25-50 (as of 2024, depending on the size of the bag), and a shot of laetrile would cost only a few times more than that at most, but depending on where the tumors are located, an entire chemotherapy treatment can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $200,000 or more (not including other meds and surgeries required before and afterwards), so which method do you think is "a cunning, money-making fraud?"
(See Cost Helper Health, "How Much Does Chemotherapy Cost?," retrieved Dec 20, 2024, [https://health.costhelper.com/chemo.html])

In July of 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy was going to hold a Congressional hearing on the "Banning of the Drug Laetrile From Interstate Commerce by FDA," but this was going to be a problem for Sloan-Kettering because Lewis Thomas, the President of Sloan-Kettering Institute at that time, was scheduled to speak. The reason it was a problem is because they were afraid that pro-laetrile speakers were going to be there to explose what they had covered up, and so they needed to use the corrupt corporate media to get ahead of this by swaying public perception.
(See GovInfo, "Senate Hearing, 95th Congress - Banning of the drug Laetrile from interstate commerce by FDA: hearing before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources," July 12, 1977, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CHRG-95shrg96492O])

If Thomas had to testify about the experiments directly, then he would have to admit under oath that laetrile showed positive results, so the strategy was to create an offcial conclusion from the top dogs at Sloan-Kettering, so Thomas could refer to the conclusion rather than the experimentation at the Congressional hearing. Sloan-Kettering rushed to put together a press conference that was held in Manhattan on June 15, 1977, which was organized in part by Ralph Moss, and nearly 100 reporters gathered to hear the results of the four-year study on amygdalin/laetrile.

Robert Good, President of Sloan-Kettering Institute, said:
"We tried to find out from scientific information available whether there was any real scientific evidence that the drug amygdalin, or so-called "laetrile," had any effect on cancer in any form... and there was no such scientific evidence."
-Robert Good, quoted in "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2889]

If you read the quote carefully you can see this was a redundant public relations statement because of the repetition of certain words that they thought would make the audience feel like it was very prestigious and technical. Essentially, what he said was "We tried to look at science to find the science, but we couldn't find any science," and I thought to myself that perhaps if he had brought his science kit with him, the science would not have so eluded him so scientifically.

Chester Stock, one of the Vice-Presidents at Sloan-Kettering Institute, said:
"Our summary statement is: We do not have evidence supporting taking amygdalin to clinical trial."
-Chester Stock, quoted in "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2881]

Lewis Thomas, the Director of Squibb Pharmaceuticals and President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, said:
"There is no evidence in the several animal models that have been studied that laetrile, or amygdalin, possess any biological activity with respect ot cancer, one way or the other."
-Lewis Thomas, quoted in "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2881]

By the documentation, we can clearly see that these men lied to the media and the American public. 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 would 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

Sugiura was interviewed by the press after conference, and his response was confusing:
"REPORTER: Dr. Sugiura, do you agree with the conclusions of the summary statement?
SUGIURA: Which conclusion?
REPORTER: The conclusion that laetrile does not either cure or prevent cancer.
SUGIURA: I agree—of course, my results don't agree—but I agree with what our institution says.
REPORTER: Why? If your results don't agree?
SUGIURA: Well, I don't know why, but I think—
REPORTER: Dr. Sugiura, do you stick by your results?
SUGIURA: Yes, I stick! I hope somebody will be able to confirm my results later on."
-Kanematsu Sugiura, quoted in "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2956]

The way Sloan-Kettering deceived the public was by crafty wording, in that the experiment was supposed to be double blind, meaning that Sugiura would not know the details of the experiment until it was completed. Sugiura was only to observe the mice, but he did not treat the mice; it was another scientist who injected the mice with laetrile, so Sugiura would not know which mice had been treated, and which ones had not. (To specify, the "untreated" mice only received a salene [salt] solution.) However, Sugiura stated to the media that he knew which ones had been treated with laetrile because they had shiny coats, better weight, and were much more active, and once he said that, Sloan-Kettering declared it was a compromised experiment that had to be thrown out because it was supposed to be blind, which is ludicrous.

The fact that Sugiura could tell which ones had been treated proved that laetrile was effective at fighting cancerous tumors, but despite his efforts to tell the public the truth, Sugiura's words had no effect. To this day, the legacy, mainstream (fake) news media parrots the conclusions of the liars without any further investigation:
"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]

If any readers are interested in looking at Dr. Sugiura's full report, it was published by the Journal of Surgical Oncology, but that publication was a crafty deception because it stuffed Sugiura's research into the middle of a lengthy, negative review of his work by some of the previously mentioned liars. (e.g. Chester Stock, Daniel Martin, etc.) Most researchers and reporters will only read the abstract to that report, which says they, "do not have evidence to support taking amygdalin to clinical trial," but will not read Sugiura's study (entitled "Six Experiments on the Therapy of Amygdalin on Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in CD₈F₁ Mice") that came to drastically different conclusions, namely, that tumors in the mice without laetrile treatment were three times more common (i.e. 90% metastasis in untreated, versus 27% in laetrile treated), and the untreated had much worse health overall.
(See Chester C. Stock, Daniel S. Martin & Kanematsu Sugiura, "Antitumor tests of amygdalin in spontaneous animal tumor systems," National Library of Medicne, 1978;10(2):89-123, DOI: 10.1002/jso.2930100203, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/347176/])

The truth about laetrile has not only 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, David Rubin, surgeon and cancer researcher at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, submitted his report to the Israeli Ministry of Health:
"a. Contrary to many allegations in both the scientific and lay liturature, laetrile [B17] is not quackery.
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. 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."
-David Rubin, "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. Now let's ask the question which I typically get before I have relayed all this evidence:

If it works, why do so few people seem to know about it?
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?





 

Seven-year-old Kerry Alderson was waiting patiently in examination room #3 in the Richardson Clinic when wailing sirens sounded, and police and unmarked vehicles surrounded the clinic. A dangerous substance called "laetrile" was in use, and so officers surrounded the building with guns drawn, and ten officers burst through the front door to show their warrant to the receptionist.
(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 spent 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 was far from being over.

A hung jury means that the prosecution can re-try the case, and those trials 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 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."
(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, in addition to growing bitter and losing natural affection over many years in a job that requires one to think negatively to win a case.

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, which 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, most cancer patients put their trust into the medical mafia, and 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 survived, 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:

1956 - Arthur Harris: Threantened by a California medical board (at a 2AM meeting) with suspension and prosecution. Picketers were hired to stand in front of his office and label him a "quack." 1967 - Maurice Kowan: Charged with fraud, and found guilty by a jury who was not allowed to see the evidence that laetrile worked. At 70 years old, he was sentenced to 60 days in jail and a $4400 fine. 1973 - Byron and Ernst Krebs: Arrested, charged, and convicted for using laetrile. Fined $500 each and given three years suspension from practicing medicine. 1975 - Stewart Jones: Had medical license suspended for two years by California Board of Medical Examiners. Five months later, state agents arrested him for having one vial of laetrile and ten tablets. 1975 - James Privitera: Arrested, charged, and convicted with conspiracy to use laetrile. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail and five years probation. 1976 - Seymour Weisman: Arrested, charged, and convicted in Arizona for transporting an illegal substance, laetrile. He spent 90 days in federal prison.

Let's look closer at Dr. Maurice Kowan's case:
"A Los Angeles physician has been indicted 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 with violating 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."
-Valley News, "Jury Indicts Physician in Cancer Cure," Van Nuys, California, Sept 19, 1968, p. 78

A Grand Jury is a group of around 20 people selected to hear a prosecuter's case, to see if it could be brought to trial. Please keep in mind that a Grand Jury hears a case ONLY by the evidence presented by the prosecution, without any defense attorney or contradictory evidence presented, and so the old saying goes, "You can get a Grand Jury to indicte a ham sandwich," (a phrase coined by Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals) because the secrecy, standard of proof, and lack of defense make it far too easy for prosecutors to get Grand Jury indictments that sound convincing enough to be reported by the corrupt news media to a ignorant audience that is accustomed to reacting emotionally to the first thing they hear without the facts.

During Dr. Kowan's trial, the jury was not allowed to see any of the clinic's results that laetrile was healing cancer patients, and no witnesses were allowed to testify of the therapeutic results they received from Kowan's treatment. The only thing allowed in court was whether or not he used laetrile. 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."
-L.A. News-Herald and Journal, "Kowan Trial Nearing End in City Court," July 23, 1967, retrieved Jan 3, 2025, [https://newspaperarchive.com/logan-herald-journal-jul-23-1967-p-1/]

In the last chapter, we learned that chemotherapy alone, without any other additional treatments and fees, can range from $10,000 to $200,000, but Kowan, in his supposedly "evil" intent, sought to prey on these poor, helpless victims for a mere $9 per visit. Based on the words of this prosecutor, should we not conclude that corporate medical giants and pharmaceutical cartels the most evil people "the imagination can concoct?" Are they not "taking advantage of people for money?" Are these not people who can "kill at [thousands of] dollars per visit?" Are they not "very dangerous?" Must they "be stopped?"

Sandi Rog, a cancer survivor who was healed by the use of B17, recounts the costs of 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). And visiting 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 Jan 3, 2025, [https://web.archive.org/web/20161011115352/beatcancerwithb17.blogspot.com/p/my-win-against-cancer.html]

This prosecutor was bickering and railing over $9 per visit, but did not mention a word about the costs of radiation poisoning from "orthodox therapy." That nine dollars in 2024 would be about $50 per visit, while Sandi's chemo treatment would have averaged about $2200 per visit. Even the American Cancer Society will not list price averages on their website (i.e. the only thing they say is that "cancer care and treatment can cost a lot"), and if you find it odd that the ACS will not give any details, the reasons for that will become clear in the next chapter.
(See American Cancer Society, "Things to Know About the Cost of Your Cancer Treatment" retrieved Jan 3, 2025, [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/financial-insurance-matters/managing-costs/the-cost-of-cancer-treatment.html])

But Dr. Kowan's $9 per visit charge made him into a "very dangerous" man that takes "advantage of people for money." Government officials offered Kowan a deal to sign an agreement to drop the charges if he signed a written statement that laetrile had no therapeutic effect on cancer, but he refused to sign it, so he was charged a $4,400 fine (which is roughly $26,000 in 2024), 60 days in prison, and was prohibited from seeing a cancer patient for three years, because in America, you must be whipped for the crime of challenging the medical mafia.

Many of the proponents of laetrile were shut down in the 1970s by the government gangsters, and not many have picked up the fight since then because it is too costly. However, one man, whose life was saved by B17, led the charge once again in the 21st century, and was quickly arrested and put in prison.

Jason Vale was an arm wrestling champion who, at age 18, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He had a tumor the size of a grapefruit, and he went through surgery and chemotherapy, just as the doctors told him to do (and just as those same doctors would not do themselves), but it did not fix the problem.

I have had people very angry with me when they tell me that their friend or family member "beat cancer" through surgery and chemotherapy because I tell them that it did not "beat" anything, it did not fix the source of the problem, and the tumors would come back. It happens far more often than not, and it happened to Jason Vale too, so he knew that continuing surgery and chemo was not going to solve the problem.

He instead turned to B17 and laetrile, and it saved his life. His tumors went into remission and did not come back. He was so inspired by this, he wanted to help others, so he sold apricot seeds as a "cure for cancer," even saying in interviews that it was a "miracle cure," and the FDA stepped in immediately to put Vale behind bars.

"REPORTER: He's in a maximum security prison in Westchester with some of the most dangerous criminals in the state. His bail's been set at almost a million dollars, but he's not a murderer. He's not a rapist or a drug dealer. Believe it or not, the reason this guy's behind bars is because of... apricot seeds."
-FOX News, "Natural Cancer Cure? (Vitamin B17) Man Cures Himself Then Thrown In Jail," DAVID TRAVIS, Jan 13, 2011, retrieved Jan 7, 2025, [https://youtu.be/WvKQrATZ6bU?si=e6Exg5MHf1kLo7Me]

The first mistake Jason made is not understanding that B17 is only one part of the cure for cancer, not a "miracle cure" because it is only one part of a metabolic diet, which we will cover in more detail in chapter nine. Because of this misconception, he labeled the seeds a "cure for cancer" and sold them via an internet business.

The second mistake Jason made was selling laetrile, which has been banned by the FDA for sale in the United States. This is one of the many reason the FDA needs to be completely dismantled, and never return. The FDA, contrary to the interests of the American public, has arrested and charged anyone they can find who sells laetrile because it is a direct threat to the multi-trillion dollar cancer industry, and Big Pharma lobbyists use the strong arm of government to choke it.

The third mistake Jason made was not researching the history of laetrile. Perhaps if he had understood what has happened to previous generations of Americans who fought to help people heal their cancer, he would have known how dangerous Big Pharma can be when the competition threatens their business.

I want readers to note that there is no law (and there can be no law) preventing you from eating apricot seeds. You are well within your rights to buy apricots seeds and eat them (and I eat them almost every day), and no one is going to show up at your door to arrest you for it, but if you choose to sell them, you must be careful how you advertise it because the medical mafia and government gangsters will swoop in to attack if you say the wrong thing, despite the fact that we have a First Amendment that is supposed to protect our right to free speech.

The last news I heard about Vale was that he had served a five-year prison sentence, and was released, but his tumors returned while he was incarcerated and forced to eat a prisoner's diet. He had two tumors on his liver, and after he got out of prison, he went back to eating apricots seeds, the tumors went away, and he has not had any problem with cancer since, albiet he no longer sells seeds or laetrile out of fear of the medical mafia and government gangsters.

So once again, getting back to the question I am so often asked before I can provide any details about how to heal oneself of cancer: Why has no one heard of this? Why does your physician not know about it? Why have most Americans never heard of B17, amygdalin, or laetrile? Because the American medical mafia uses government gangsters to chase down honest Americans and make them an offer they could not refuse by forcing them into a trial-by-media, ruining their reputation, bankrupting them, and jailing them.

Dr. Stewart Jones was being tailed by Natasha Benton, an undercover agent for the Food and Drug Branch of the California Department of Health, who was ordered by James Eddington, head of the Berkeley fraud division, to investigate Jones. Jones was charged and brought to trial, and outside the courtroom, the defense attorney overheard Eddington order Benton to lie in her report about Jones and his use of laetrile, but she refused to lie under oath.

Because the prosecution could not get their key witness to lie for them, they did not call Benton to the stand to testify. However, because she was already on the witness list, the defense could call her to stand, and they did:
"BENTON: Before any report is always written, Mr. Eddington left instruction what for [sic] 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.
ATTORNEY GILL [Defense]: 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."
(See John A. Richardson, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 74-75, ISBN: 0553114913)

James Eddington also investigated John Richardson at his clinic. He tried to get his agents to say that laetrile was a "cancer cure" so they could bring charges against Jones, but Jones, like Richardson, never said that laetrile was a "cancer cure," but rather, laetrile is a treatment for tumors, while the real "cure" was a balanced, organic, metabolic diet.

The media does not report these details, not only because they do not understand them, but in many cases, they do not care to understand because the headline "Quack Doctor Scams Patients" is much more sensational, and therefore, more likely to get views. This creates the trial-by-media narrative that fuels oppression against honest medical practices.

For example, The Standford Daily reported on the case:
"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

But as I have already pointed out in earlier chapters, the problem is that most patients who turn to a metabolic diet and laetrile treatment do so as a LAST resort, only AFTER they have gone through radiation poisoning, which does a huge amount of damage to their vital organs. Most patients turn to laetrile too late, and even though metabolic diet and laetrile can heal the cancer and tumors, the patient can still die from the damage done by amputation and radiation, but the government, the medical mafia, and the fake news media put all the blame on laetrile because, otherwise, they would have to blame themselves, for their own ignorance and arrogance, and they will never do that.

Ralph Moss, former Science Writer for Sloan-Kettering, and author of The Cancer Industry, along with 14 other books, devoted his life to cancer therapy research around the world. Moss admitted in interviews later in his life that he lied on behalf of Sloan-Kettering for a time, but there reached a point where he knew they were covering up the truth about laetrile as a cancer treatment, and he could not lie for them any longer.

Without Sloan-Kettering's prior knowledge, Moss spoke at a press conference on Nov 18, 1977:
"The scientists involved had made what you could generously call 'errors' in the report. The most glaring error was they said that all of the chemotherapy that's currently in use against human breast cancer could cure, or cause objective anti-cancer effect in the mouse, and that laetrile could not cause any anti-cancer effect in the mouse, so therefore, laetrile was obviously much worse than standard chemotherapy. So this was an out-and-out lie. It could not have been a mistake because the man who wrote the statement himself proved that no known drug could cure or even partially relieve cancer in this mouse. Their own papers prove that chemotherapy didn't work in this system.
There's two implications to this: If laetrile did indeed have the effect in mice, then laetrile is in fact better than all the known anti-cancer drugs. The other implication is that since no drugs were known to cure tumors in this mouse, and then they went ahead and tested laetrile in this same system, it seems pretty obvious that they expected laetrile to fail in this system. But laetrile didn't fail.
All told there were twenty positive experiments with laetrile done at Sloan-Kettering between 1972 and 1977. Laetrile alone never cured any cancers in mice at Sloan-Kettering. Laetrile had certain positive effects in stopping the spread of the cancer. Sugiura said 'It was the best effects he had seen in 60 years'."
-Ralph Moss, quoted in "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=3917]

Sloan-Kettering fired Moss the following Monday, and the company had already sent a press release about his firing to every major newspaper to establish the narrative they wanted the public to believe:
"The assistant public affairs director of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has been discharged because he helped write a report charging that the center's research into the controversial cancer drug laetrile was incomplete and scientifically invalid.
The assistant director, Ralph W. Moss, was discharged Monday after he told another center official he was the co-author of the report for a group called Second Opinion, which consists of staff members of Sloan-Kettering who investigate problems at the institution. At a news conference last Friday; Mr. Moss appeared on behalf of the group and released the report, which alleges that a negative report on laetrile released by the center last June omitted some experiments that indicated the drug might be effective in treating cancer."
-Sheila Rule, "Cancer Aide Out in Laetrile Dispute," New York Times, Nov 24, 1977, p. 35, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://www.nytimes.com/1977/11/24/archives/cancer-aide-out-in-laetrile-dispute.html]

Moss never said they omitted the experiments. They LIED about the results of the experiments, and this is key because if anyone wanted to know what experiments were "omitted," then Sloan-Kettering can say that no experiments were omitted, which is the truth, and that misleads the public.

Moss was involved in passing information to a newsletter called "Second Opinion," which was a publication that had its articles written by Sloan-Kettering insiders under pseudonyms to protect their identities so they would not lose their jobs. The only person whose real name was attached to the publication was a scientist named Alec Pruchnicki, who was not connected to Sloan-Kettering, and so Moss was the first person connected to that publication to come forward and give it validity.

Once Moss had told the truth, there was no going back. It was not just that he was fired, but that firing would ensure that he would never work any meaningful job in the medical field ever again, and so this spurred Moss to travel the world to help with cancer research, has roughly 15 books published on similar topics, and was featured in the documentary "Second Opinion: The Lie of America's War on Cancer," which I would recommend to anyone who wants to hear more details about Moss's experience fighting for the truth about laetrile.
(See Kurio, "Second Opinion: The Lie of America's War on Cancer," Kurio - The Documentary Channel, Aug 14, 2022, [https://youtu.be/STc1ROk4JLA])





 

Shocking words came out of the mouth of Harold Varmus, Obama-appointed Director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) from 2010 to 2015:
"You can't do experiments to see what causes cancer—it's not an accessible problem, and not the sort of thing scientists can afford to do."
-Harold E. Varmus, quoted by Logan Christopher, Medical Monopoly Musings, 2020, p. 65, ASIN: B08RPBY843

If this statement is true, then what has been the point of all these cancer charities over the past century? I will soon explain why "affordability" is a major problem for them, but it has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with "profitability."

This will be a sensitive chapter for those who have been involved in volunteer efforts for cancer charities, or for those of you who have donated to them. Please keep in mind that there are many well-intentioned volunteers who have worked in low-level positions in organizations such as the American Cancer Society, who honestly believe they are doing the right thing, but if they will consider it for a moment, they have no idea where the money changes hands, they have no idea where funding is actually going (i.e. even if they are told, they cannot know for sure), nor do they typically know the charity's financial ties to major corporate cartels who run the pharmaceutical industry.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-Proverbs 14:12

To understand this, let's take a closer look at the American Cancer Society, which professes to help with 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," 2015, retrieved Dec 4, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20151108040813/cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancer-prevention-early-detection]

Although many who have volunteered their time and money to the ACS believe this to be true, it is nothing more than propaganda. However, they know that because most of the public assumes their statement to be true, the public will continue to support them with volunteer work and donations.

I am not saying that the American Cancer Society started out as an evil organization that intended to fool the public, because most charities that exist are typically started by a small group of kind people who want to help the poor and needy, but in nearly all cases, many years down the road after it grows in size and funding, the organization is corrupted by greedy men. The ACS was formed by 15 physicians in 1913 who, presumably, had good intent, but wealthy businessmen incorporated it in 1922, and soon after, John Rockefeller moved in to take it over after it had already gained positive public notoriety.

In this author's opinion, the ACS today is nothing more than a front group for Big Pharma. The ACS uses its false narrative of "charity" to "fight cancer" as a cover, so they can employ PR (public relations) tactics to divert negative attention away from the hazardous activities of pharmaceutical companies.

Samuel Epstein (1926-2018) was a physician and professor in the School of Public Health at the Unversity of Illinois in Chicago. He authored a book in which he reported his findings on the ACS's lack of effort to prevent cancer by ignoring and avoiding opportunities to make factual statements about the damage caused by chemicals which induce cancer:
"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, National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest, Xilbris Corporation, 2011, p. 105, ISBN: 9781462861361

A carcinogen is any chemical or biological agent which can cause cancer, or increase the risk of it, which means the ACS has gone out of their way to avoid condemning many cancer-inducing chemicals that might be a detriment to the income of the pharmaceutical industry. The real track record for the ACS has been one of almost complete indifference 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 Dec 24, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20120109035725/preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]

Of course, some readers might condemn me as a lunatic for daring to suggest that the ACS WANTS people to get cancer, but what is the purpose of the ACS? Is it not true that the ACS continues to get grants and donations based on the continuing epidemic of cancer? If the public became hyperaware of B17 (with a metabolic diet), and cancer were no longer an epidemic, what do you think would happen to the ACS? Every business owner knows that if a demand for his goods and services does not exist, then he will no longer have a business, and likewise, the ACS knows that if no one gets cancer, then they have no goods or services that the public wants, and they will therefore cease to exist because the funding will dry up.

"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 Dec 24, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20120109035725/preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]

Imagine for a moment that a new cheap chemical went on the market to help build inexpensive roads, but it was discovered that every time it rained, this chemical released something into the air that was making drivers sick and killing crops. Scientists did studies, and proved the new chemical was the culprit. Reports were sent and read, and a politician had the opportunity to vote on a bill to ban the chemical's use in building roads, but voted 'No' — what conclusions could you draw from this?

There are many things we could surmise, but one general principle that we know for certain is that this politician's vote was NOT in the interest of public safety. What other interest could he have? What is his motivation? What is it that the politician values MORE than public safety?

Now let's suppose some investigation was done into the politician's financial records, and it was discovered that his wife had a large amount of stock in the company which produced this chemical — would you say that was a conflict of interest? This would be a classic example of "the fox guarding the hen house." Now let's consider this: When has the American Cancer Society ever been audited and investigated (by an independent third party) for conflict of interest and other potential criminal activity?

The ACS is a disease-mongering institution, meaning that they are selling you on perpetual disease. They make their money on hope, while hiding or avoiding any legitimate cure, and keep people away from prevention methods that would harm the bottom line of their corporate interests, so the people will continue to hope for a better future without actually reaching it, because that better future would end the ACS.

The American Cancer Society is the real cancer.

"As the American Cancer Society's wealth grows, its spending on prevention research remains at lowest priority. Responding to a 1999 article in Sierra, the magazine of the Sierra Club, which charged the ACS with indifference to prevention, Dr. Harmon Eyre, executive vice president for research and medical affairs for the Society, released details of its allocations for research on environmental carcinogenesis. Yet while Eyre claims cancer cause and prevention are a high priority and receive generous funding from the ACS, his documentation says the contrary. Eyre's figures indicate the Society spent $2.6 million in 1998 on nineteen large research grants on environmental carcinogenesis, but only three grants could reasonably qualify as environmental cancer research. And although the Society claims it allocated $100 million of its $677 million budget to support cancer research in 1998, analysis reveals that actual expenditures on environmental carcinogenesis totaled less than $500,000, well under one-hundredth of one percent of the Society's total annual budget."
-Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., "The American Cancer Society: Why Prevent Cancer If We're Making Money On It?" Cancer Prevention Coalition, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20120109035725/preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]

Harmon Eyre first volunteered to work with the ACS in 1988, became their Chief Medical Officer in 1993, and then retried from the organization in 2007. He also co-authored a book called The American Cancer Society: A History of Saving Lives, which had its foreword written by former President George H.W. Bush, and I point this out so that readers will understand that Harmon is a staunch believer in the mission of the ACS (assuming all this was not done for show), despite the fact that his report of the ACS's funding allocation numbers were not just embarrassing, but downright criminal.
(See American Cancer Society, "American Cancer Society Names New Chief Medical Officer," July 23, 2007, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://pressroom.cancer.org/releases?item=49]; See also Irvin D. Fleming & Harmon J. Eyre, The American Cancer Society: A History of Saving Lives, American Cancer Society, 2010, ISBN: 9780944235911)

To put it another way, the ACS claimed to allocate only 14% of their total budget to support research for the prevention and cure for cancer, despite the fact that (as we read at the beginning of the chapter) the ACS's stated goal was cancer prevention, and despite the fact that, in my estimation, the general public assumes that number is (or at least should be) much higher. However, when their Chief Medical Officer ran the numbers in 1998, the total amount allocated for research into "environmental carcinogenesis" was only a half million, meaning that a mere 0.07% of their total budget was given to investigation into cancerous potential in chemicals, demonstrating their blatant lack of concern in banning the use of things produced by Big Pharma.

The reason I point this out is that the ACS (as well as the NCI, National Cancer Institute) has long held cancer prevention as a very LOW priority, which is important to note because, if you consider everything we have learned in the book, namely, that cancer is a vitamin deficiency, then there will never be a "cure" for cancer because cancer is based completely on nutritional prevention. Therefore, knowing that cancer charities have a bottom line to make sure cancer is prevelent in society, it makes perfect sense why they put such a low emphasis on prevention.

Epstein aptly said:
"The ACS and NCI have long continued to devote virtually exclusive priority to research on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, with indifference to prevention, other than faulty personal lifestyle, commonly known as 'blame the victim,' to the exclusion of a very wide range of then well-documented avoidable causes of cancer. The longstanding exclusionary emphasis of the ACS, and to a lesser extent the NCI, on the 'blame the victim' cause of cancer was based on the claims of Sir Richard Doll, a closet industry consultant. The NCI's current budget of about $6 billion until very recently remains largely directed to these very limited objectives. Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding."
-Samuel S. Epstein, "American Cancer Society: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," p. 5, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/american-cancer-society-doc.pdf]

When Epstein condemned these organizations for their "blame the victim" mentality, please do not misunderstand his meaning because he is not saying that personal responsibility is not a huge contributing factor to cancer. Obviously, it does play a primary role. The context of this quote is that the chemical industry is producing carcinogens without proper regulation, and these organizations are doing almost NOTHING to stop the influx of cancer through contact with chemicals, blaming the public instead of themselves or the industry, because the men and women on the boards of these institutions have financial ties to the chemical industry.

The problems with these organizations ramped up when President Nixon declared a "War on Cancer" in 1971, which is just another excuse to spend money on things that will make him look good in the public eye. We should almost always oppose those who declare a "war" on anything, most especially when the terms of victory for that "war" are never specified. The "War on Poverty" only increased poverty and taxes, the "War on Drugs" only increased drug use and taxes, and the "War on Cancer" has only made the cancer epidemic worse and increased taxes because it is never about "defeating" anything upon which "war" was declared—it is ALWAYS about stealing more money from the public via taxation, so the deep state can money-launder it to their pals.

"In 1992, the American Cancer Society Foundation was created to allow the ACS to solicit contributions of more than $100,000. A close look at the heavy-hitters on the Foundation's board made it clear what conflicts of interests were at play, and from where the Foundation expected its big contributions. The Foundation's board of trustees included corporate executives from the pharmaceutical, investment, banking, and media industries."
-Samuel S. Epstein, "American Cancer Society: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," p. 6, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/american-cancer-society-doc.pdf]

Prior to 1992, the ACS could only collect donations in small amounts, which made it much more difficult for them to legally accept large contributions from big corporations. Once the Foundation was open for business, contributions came from many big donors of conflicting interests who influenced their decisions, some of whom include the following:

David Bethune, President of pharmaceutical giant Lederle Laboratories, a division of American Cyanamid Company, which made chemical herbicides, fertilizers, and introduced its own anti-cancer drug. Gordon Binder, CEO of biotech company Amgen, producer of chemicals administered to chemotherapy patients. Diane Miller, daughter of Walt Disney, and wife of the former President of the Walt Disney Company George Dessert, CEO of CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System), and ACS board chairman Alan Gevertzen, former chairman of Boeing Summer Redstone, former chairman of Viacom International

Why does this matter? Because insiders are funding other insiders, to gain more power and influence, and where the money goes, greed and corruption follow:
"A 1992 article in the Wall Street Journal, by Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola College and veteran investigator of nonprofit organizations, revealed that the Texas affiliate of the ACS owned more than $11 million of assets in land and real estate, more than 56 vehicles, including 11 Ford Crown Victorias for senior executives, and 45 other cars assigned to staff members. ACS chapters in Arizona, California, and Missouri spent only 10 percent of their funds on direct community services. Thus for every $1 spent on direct services, approximately $6.40 was spent on compensation and overhead. In all ten states, salaries and fringe benefits were by far the largest single budget items, a surprising fact in light of the characterization of the appeals, which stressed an urgent and critical need for donations to provide cancer services. In 1993, The Chronicle of Philanthropy published a statement that the ACS was 'more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives.' Fund-raising appeals routinely stated that the ACS needed more funds to support its cancer programs, all the while holding more than $750 million in cash and real estate assets."
-Samuel S. Epstein, "American Cancer Society: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," p. 7, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/american-cancer-society-doc.pdf]

The vast majority of all funding going to the American Cancer Society, and other similar international charities, goes to pay for the luxurious lifestyle of its executive employees. If that was not bad enough, these corporate fat cats (living the high life on "charity") have convinced millions of women that it is in the best interest of their health to take their clothes off so medical "professionals" can feel them up and take pictures of their boobs.

I understand that was a bit of a juxtaposition, but I say this bluntly because I want females to understand that not only are these exams unnecessary (when you understand the natural remedy), but they are a huge money-maker for Big Pharma. The ACS created National Breast Cancer Awareness Month with special funding from Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, who merged with Astra in 1998 to form the global pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca:
"Conspicuously absent from the widely promoted National Breast Cancer Awareness Month is any information on environmental and other avoidable causes of breast cancer. This is no accident. Zeneca Pharmaceuticals—a spin-off of Imperial Chemical Industries is one of the world's largest manufacturers of chlorinated and other industrial chemicals, including those incriminated as causes of breast cancer. Zeneca has also been the sole multimillion-dollar funder of the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month since its inception in 1984, besides the sole manufacturer of Tamoxifen, the world's top-selling anticancer and breast cancer "prevention" drug, with $400 million in annual sales. Furthermore, Zeneca recently assumed direct management of 11 cancer centers in U.S. hospitals. Zeneca owns a 50 percent stake in these centers known collectively as Salick Health Care."
-Samuel S. Epstein, "American Cancer Society: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," p. 11, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/american-cancer-society-doc.pdf]

It is Big Pharma and the Medical Mafia that put emphasis on different "types" of cancer depending on the location and size. However, a metabolic diet change with B17 will heal breast cancer in women the same as it will heal prostate cancer in men, so long as they avoid the use of harmful chemicals in their daily lives.

But women rally around the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM) with their sentimental pink ribbons, pinning them to their blouses as if, by upholding this idol of their perceived righteousness, it grants magic power to cure cancer. These women are blissfully unaware that the very people profiting off of cancer-inducing products are the same ones rallying these women together so they can profit off of the medication for the disease they caused in the first place.

All NBCAM press releases, pamplets, posters, and commercials are produced through funding by Zeneca (or today, AstraZeneca). Thus, Zeneca controls the media narrative around the pink ribbon army, controlling women like mice, feeding them harmful substances, then watching them run in circles trying to fix a never-ending problem because they are blind to the cause.

Repeatedly over the past few decades, the ACS has been rebuked by Congress for not doing enough. This is typically because scientific studies and bills that demand the removal of chemicals, and cleaning air and water to prevent cancer, has rarely seen endorsment by the ACS, despite their claim to promote prevention of cancer.

In 1971, Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was prescribed to young women to prevent miscarriage and other complications in pregnancy, but it was proven to cause vaginal cancer. Strangely enough, it was also being used as an animal feed additive, which caused other countries to ban import of U.S. meat, so Congress had a hearing to require the FDA to ban the drug's use, but the ACS declined the invitation to testify at the hearing, and gave no reason for their refusal to speak on the matter.
(See National Cancer Institute, "Diethylstilbestrol (DES) Exposure and Cancer," retrieved Dec 27, 2024, [https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/des-fact-sheet])

After battling the government and lobbyists, DES was eventually condemned as dangerous, but the AstraZeneca-funded NBCAM website (breastcancer.org) puts it in the lower half of the list of "Known breast cancer risk factors." The NBCAM website gives very few details about it, and tries to soften the danger by saying that DES "MAY HAVE slightly higher risk of breast cancer." As a priority, at the top of their list, they put a woman's potential risk of breast cancer in the "genetics" category (just like the childish mentality that scurvy lurked the hulls of ships), ranking the primary causes as sex, age, family history, ethnicity, pregnancy, breastfeeding, menstruation, alcohol, and firm breasts. (I am not kidding, that last one is on the list.)
-BreastCancer.org, "Breast Cancer Risk Factors," retrieved Dec 31, 2024, [https://www.breastcancer.org/risk/risk-factors]

Comically, they list "Radiation to Chest or Face Before Age 30" as a common factor that makes a person at "higher-than-average risk of breast cancer." If you click the link they provide and read the details, they mean that if you had any kind of radiation treatment on your chest, you are more susceptible to cancer, but they do not mention a single word about chest x-rays, which is radiation exposure to the chest, and I want readers to understand that you should avoid x-rays at all cost, only having them under the most extreme medical emergency that it would be necessary.

The NBCAM and the ACS heavily promoted regular mammography screening, in which women are expected to set an appointment every six months to go into a doctor's office, expose their breasts, and put them into a machine that squeezes them painfully to take x-rays, which is radiation of the chest, the very thing that the NBCAM website said puts women at high risk for cancer. To clarify, that means studies should be done into women being MORE at risk for breast cancer by participating in early breast cancer detection, and the few studies that have been done so far indicated that early screening does not do much, if anything, to reduce mortailty rates of cancer:
"The long-standing claims that routine mammography screening allows early detection and treatment of breast cancer, thereby reducing mortaility, are, at best, highly questionable. In fact, the overwhelming majority of breast cancers are unaffected by early detection, either because they are aggressive or slow growing. There is also supportive evidence that the major variable predicting survival is 'biological determinism—a combination of virulence of an individual tumor together with the host's immune response,' rather than just early detection. Claims for the benefit of screening mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality have been based on eight interenational controlled trials involving about five hundred thousand women. However, specialized or meta-analysis of these trials revealed that only two, based on sisty-six thousand postmenopausal women, were adequately randomized to allow statistically valid conclusions. Based on these trials, it was concluded that 'there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast cancer mortality—not even a tendency towards an effect.' Accordingly, the authors concluded that there is no longer any justification for screening mammography. Further evidence was detailed at the May 6, 2001, annual meeting of the National Breat Cancer Coalition in Washington, DC, and published in the July 2001 report of the Nordic Cochrane Centre."
-Samuel S. Epstein, Stop Breast Cancer Before It Starts, Seven Stories Press, 2013, p. 52, ISBN: 9781609804886

However, the medical institutions cannot allow mammography to fade away because, without insurance (as of 2024), a mammogram costed around 200-300 dollars, and federal funding spent on providing mammograms was close to $8 billion. This is a multi-billion dollar market for the medical industry, and it is easy to sell because all they need to do is strike fear into the hearts of women by telling them that they must spend money on these screenings or suffer the fate of having their breasts cut off.
(See Anna Vlahiotis & Brian Griffin, "Analysis of utilization patterns and associated costs of the breast imaging and diagnostic procedures after screening mammography," National Library of Medicine, PMID: 29618934, DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S150260, retrieved Dec 31, 2024, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5875586/])

In 1977, hair dye chemicals were exempt from regulation under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, but over the next few years, hundreds of complaints from scientists were pouring into the FDA. California House of Representative, John Moss, had a Congressional hearing to revoke that exemption, but the ACS opposed legislative regulations on hair dyes.
(See Jane E. Brody, "Cancer Link to Hair Dye Feared," New York Times, Dec 15, 1977, retrieved Dec 27, 2024, [https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/15/archives/new-jersey-pages-cancer-link-to-hair-dye-feared-cancerhair-dye-link.html])

In 1982, the ACS took an extreme stance against making any kind of endorsement to ban cancerous chemicals:
"The ACS adopted a highly restrictive cancer policy that insisted on unequivocal human evidence of carcinogenicity before taking any position on public health hazards. Accordingly, the ACS still trivializes or rejects evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, and has actively campaigned against laws (the 1958 Delaney Law, for instance) that ban deliberate addition to food of any amount of any additive shown to cause cancer in either animals or humans. The ACS still persists in an anti-Delaney policy, in spite of the overwhelming support for this Law by the independent scientific community."
-Samuel S. Epstein, "American Cancer Society: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," p. 19, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/american-cancer-society-doc.pdf]

A decade later, the ACS, still trying to avoid government regulation of carcinogens in hair dyes, published a misleading report:
"The ACS published a study designed to reassure women on the safety of dark permanent hair dyes and trivialize risks of fatal and nonfatal cancers, as documented in over six prior reports. However, the ACS study was based on a group of some 1,100 women with an initial age of fifty-six who were followed for seven years only. The ACS concluded that 'women using permanent hair dyes are not generally at increased risk of fatal cancer.' However, risks of cancer in women over sixty-three are up to twenty times higher for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma, thirty-four times for bladder cancer, and eight times for breast cancer. As designed, the ACS study would have missed the great majority of these cancers, and excluded dark hair dyes as important risks of avoidable cancers."
-Samuel S. Epstein, Stop Breast Cancer Before It Starts, Seven Stories Press, 2013, p. 196, ISBN: 9781609804886

This is interesting because when laetrile was shown to have cancer-healing effects in mice, Sloan-Kettering ignored it, denied it, and claimed the positive effects were disproven with faulty studies, and likewise, when chemicals were shown to have cancer-inducing effects in mice, the ACS ignored it, denied it, and claimed the negative effects were disproven in faulty studies. It seems to me that the majority of people involved in Big Pharma and the chemical industry just ignore and deny the truth to protect their financial interests, but what is most fascinating of all is that the public at large ignores and denies the fact that these institutions lie to them on a daily basis.

For example, atrazine has been used for many decades in herbicides, but it is a known carcinogin which has been found in surface waters in the U.S. and Europe because the chemical has aquatic stability. It is used on crops and gets into the soil, and because of its aquatic stability, it cannot be easily washed away, meaning that it will remain in the soil, being absorbed by plants and animals, and likewise, people.

"A series of studies exploring the occupational risks of breast cancer were launched in 1995 by James Brophy, Margaret Keith, and a multi-disciplinary team of co-investigators in partnership with the regional cancer centre in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. The work histories for 299 cases of breast cancer were compared to those of another 237 women who had been diagnosed with cancers other than breast or ovarian. The findings, while not statistically strong, revealed a ninefold increase in risk for breast cancer among women who had farmed, particularly among those younger than fifty-five."
-Samuel S. Epstein, Stop Breast Cancer Before It Starts, Seven Stories Press, 2013, p. 14, ISBN: 9781609804886

Although this subject requires a lot more study (and funding from the ACS should be heavily allocated to it, but they will never do it because it hurts their financial interests), the studies that have been done so far have found significant increase in breast and ovarian cancers in female farmers who are exposed to herbicides (such as atrazine) and estrogen-based chemical feeds used for cattle. If that is not infuriating enough, the manufacturer of atrazine is Syngenta, a company that was acquired by Zeneca (i.e. AstraZeneca, the owner of NBCAM and producer of the harmful Tamoxifen, the world's top-selling breast cancer "prevention" drug) in 2000, and in 2017, AstraZeneca sold Syngenta to ChemChina, making Syngenta a Chinese Nationalist State institution, which (as of 2025) has spent almost a decade selling poison herbicides to American farmers.

To this day, the American Cancer Society has made no public statements condemning atrazine as a carcinogen.

These mainstream cancer charities are smokescreens used to hoodwink the public. Big Pharma attach themselves to the charity so the public thinks they really care about your health, while simultaneously doing everything they can to increase profits on substances they full well know are dangerous to your health.

For example, in the mid-90s, a Swedish study showed a link between tamoxifen and uterine tumors in women, and Zeneca sent out hundreds of thousands of letters to physicians to do damage control for their product:
"When the news came out that breast cancer patients who took tamoxifen for five years or longer (the same regimen that seems to prevent recurrence) might have tripled their risk of uterine cancer, British cancer researcher Richard Peto, head of the cancer research unit at Oxford University, sought to dismiss it. If caught early, he said, endometrial cancer seldom kills, so 'it's no big deal'. That statement infuriated critics who noted that the treatment for uterine cancer is hysterectomy. [i.e. surgical removal of the womb] Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a leading women's health activist, angrily responded: 'To some of us, it is a big deal to lose your uterus.'"
-Sherrill Sellman, "Tamoxifen: A Major Medical Mistake?" quoted from Nexus Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1998, retrieved Jan 1, 2025, [https://oawhealth.com/article/tamoxifen-a-major-medical-mistake/]

Please do not think that every physician cares so little for the well being of others. I would guess that the majority probably do care, even if they are brainwashed into pharmaceutical ideology from their education. However, there are still a substantial amount of physicians out there who have no concern about the lives of those around them because they chose the career for money and respect, so all of us need to practice discernment and make wise decisions, rather than blindly trust someone who has the title "doctor" in front of his/her name, whether it be in medicine, science, politics, economics, philosophy, or religion.

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:14

The ACS claims to follow the guidelines of the EPA (the Environmental Protection Agency), but this is a cop-out because the EPA is just as corrupt as the ACS, and completely controlled by Big Pharma lobbyists. One of the more recent examples of this was former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who took bribes from lobbyists, and wasted taxpayer money on luxurious amenities, over-the-top security, and millions of dollars in travel expenses.

American Oversight, a U.S. watchdog organization, spoke of legal action against Pruitt:
"The level of secrecy at the EPA has also been unprecedented, and Pruitt took several steps to increase security at the agency and suppress information that the public has a right to know. American Oversight is currently suing the EPA to fight back against the agency's pattern of wrongly rejecting FOIA requests as not 'reasonably described.' Former Administrator Pruitt took every opportunity he could to use his position to his advantage and keep the public in the dark—including maintaining secret calendars. Even though Pruitt resigned in light of these scandals, our investigation into the EPA have continued."
-American Oversight, "Scott Pruitt's Mismanagement of the EPA," July 24, 2020, retrieved Dec 31, 2024, [https://americanoversight.org/investigation/investigating-the-epa-administrator-scott-pruitt/]

As far as I know, Pruitt has still never been charged with criminal activity, he went on to work as a lobbyist in my home state of Indiana (which infuriates me to no end), and in 2022, he ran for U.S. Senate in Oklahoma, although (thankfully) he lost the primary with a measley 5% of the vote. These weasels always try to find a way to get back into lofty government positions so they can scam the public for money and clout, but the point is that the EPA is no different than the NCI and ACS; they are all bought-and-paid-for institutions that are controlled by those who have special interest to keep their poisonous products under legal and tax-funded support (because they would not make near as much money without it).
(See Emily Hopkins, "Scott Pruitt left the EPA mired in scandal. Now he is lobbying Indiana lawmakers," Apr 18, 2019, retrieved Dec 31, 2024, [https://www.indystar.com/story/news/environment/2019/04/18/scott-pruitt-now-lobbyist-indiana-legislature/3511759002/])

The ACS has the influence, and the EPA has the public's perceived authority, so by working together, they can fully deceive the American people to believe whatever they want us to believe. This is not only to deceive the public about harmful chemicals, but also to deceive the public about alternative, non-pharmaceutical means of cancer treatment that are not controlled by the medical mafia (i.e. the AMA), one of those being laetrile/amygdalin/B17.

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 Dec 24, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20120109035725/preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]; See also PBS, "In Our Children's Food," Frank K, Dec 13, 2013, retrieved Jan 1, 2025, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXlIMmJg05A]

Despite the attempts by the ACS to quell public outrage, 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 have forced 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]

Of course, this does not solve the problem by any means, and there are countless ways the titans of industry can get around all this. The real solution to the problem is to pass law that prevents any governing entity to allow any lobbying to be done by any corporation, and more law that guarantees that civil lawsuits by private citizens against chemical and food industries will be paid for by federal funding (via tariffs, not taxation), uniting attorneys by financially incentivizing them to find nefarious activity in industry and file lawsuits on behalf of the American people.

The ACS has had countless opportunities to help the prevention of carcinogens being sold to the public, but time and time again, they refuse to act, and worse still, they attempt to justify the chemicals. We read this in chapter four, but let's look at it one more time:
"The American Medical Association has strong ties to pharaceutical companies, and the 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.

I could not find a single non-patented substance or therapy approved by the FDA for the use of treating cancer. Everything they approve has a corporate patent on it. That should tell you everything you need to know about why the FDA exists, namely, to protect the financial interests of Big Pharma.

This is why the ACS does 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 that ACS 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

They "urged" (or rather, begged) the ACS to do something because they have no power over them, and our federal government is controlled by the same people who control the ACS, so all our spineless representatives can do is plead and whine, "Oh please ACS, won't you do something for the American people who donate to you?" Until the American people wake up to the source of the problem, and stop giving their money to the very people who poison them and their children, this will continue endlessly.

To think that using poison through "chemotherapy" is going to heal us is absurd to the point of admiration when you consider the extreme effectiveness of their disinformation campaigns. The ACS cannot speak a negative word about radiation through chemotherapy because the patents of their board members are connected to radiation treatment, despite the fact that there is no medical science that proves its effectiveness in the treatment of cancer:
"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,, "Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer," Hippocrates Verlag GmbH, Stuttgart, 1990, 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 Jan 1, 2025, [https://web.archive.org/web/20190528112432/aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_
inquiries/2004_07/cancer/submissions/sub15_pdf.ashx]

Famous actor and producer Michael Landon, most well known for his TV shows Little House on the Prairie and Highway to Heaven, died from prostate cancer in 1991. I would like to note that he was not a Christian in any sense, but rather, he was a new-age mystic, and I have an article exposing his beliefs called "Wolves in Costume: Michael Landon" at creationliberty.com if any readers want more details. Landon was wealthy after years of producing popular TV shows, which means he could afford the top medical professionals available to help him, and they all recommended chemo, as his daughter tells us in her book:
"'That's the only hope they see,' wrote Dad. But he 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 Landon said was true, that their "cure" will kill you faster than cancer, but it comes recommended by the ACS, NCI, FDA, AMA, and many other organizations and institutions. Meanwhile, the majority of the people working in these institutions condemn natural health therapies as "quackary."

I find this hilarious because of a statement made by Ralph Moss (previously mentioned PR writer for Sloan-Kettering), who said that one of his bosses at the time (previously mentioned VP of Sloan-Kettering, Lloyd Old) said that all the ideas they get for their experiments comes from quackary:
"He [Old] did something and said something that I will never forget. He got up from his chair—when I said all these things—he got up from his chair, and he said to me, 'Do you want to know where we get all of our new ideas?' You have to understand, here is the Vice President of the Sloan-Kettering Institute talking to a fledgling science writer. 'Well, of course.' And he kind of tip-toed behind me, behind the couch, and went over to his book shelf, and took down a book, and came back, and he said, 'Here. This is the bible." And I took a look at this. It was the American Cancer Society's book, Unproven Methods of Cancer Management. I had this book. It was the quack list. We were supposed to refer to this book so we would know what quackary and what was authentic science. I mean, this was the most—scientifically speaking—the most mind-blowing moment of my life because here's the Vice President of Sloan-Kettering telling me that the basic source of new ideas within orthodox science came from what is regarded generally as quackary."
-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=1691]

This demonstrates that the ACS is only a link in the chain that binds the American people into a prison of the mind. This medical mafia prison is built to protect the hierarchy of their religion, to safeguard the medical clerics loyal to the corporate hivemind, and to ostracize anyone who has a free-thinking mind, who would innovate and create for the benefit of the poor and needy, so the mafia can maintain its ruling authority and income from those who would break the chains of the prisoners.

If you want to know what reality looks like when it comes to cancer charities, the following diagram should summarize everything we have learned in this book so far, and this is true for the vast majority of charities that exist today:


When a donation is given to the American Cancer Society, the expectation of the people is that it will go to research a "cure for cancer," but that is not what they are really doing. As we have already seen, a very small percentage of that money goes to research and development, and what little does, it is invested into creating patentable drugs that (allegedly) relieve cancer symptoms so the pharmaceutical giants who own the laboratory can make profit.

The public is giving money to Big Pharma for the privilege of paying Big Pharma to scam them.

I must confess that in order to get the full financial details about ACS transactions, it would require someone with much more accounting and research experience than me because it gets a bit complicated. The ACS hire what are known as "solicitors," which (in this context) means that they are companies which get profit from the donations, making the ACS more of a channel through which money flows, rather than a recipient, which makes analyzing the details about ACS transactions a bit of a nightmare.

For example, the ACS enlisted InfoCision from 1999-2011:
"In fiscal 2010, InfoCision gathered $5.3 million for the society. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers took part, but none 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 Jan 2, 2025, [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-12/charities-deceive-donors-unaware-money-goes-to-a-telemarketer]

(Click for larger image.)

The above image is the activity report from the ACS, and their CFO (Chief Financial Officer) signed off on it. If you look closely, you will notice the amount Incision received was MORE than they raised in donations, and worse still is that the willingly ignorant public refuses to believe that anyone on the side of "cancer research" could possibly deceive them, which is why the ACS is never brought up on criminal charges. (i.e. The public has to demand it.)

Not one dime was ever returned to those who donated.

As I said before, the vast majority of charities in general (no matter the focus of their organization) are scam organizations, in which very little of the amount they receive goes to the cause it proclaims to serve. 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.

(MM = Millions -- The total percentage spent on aid is after the other expenses of the organization.)

NAME DONATIONS VIA SOLICITORS PAID TO SOLICITORS % SPEND ON AID Kids Wish Network $137.9 MM $115.9 MM 2.5% Cancer Fund of America $86.8 MM $75.4 MM 1.0% Breast Cancer Relief $63.9 MM $44.8 MM 2.2% Children's Cancer Fund of America $43.7 MM $34.4 MM 4.6% Children's Cancer Recovery Foundation $38.5 MM $28.9 MM 0.7% Woman to Woman Breast Cancer Foundation $19.4 MM $18.2 MM 0.3% National Cancer Coalition $42.1 MM $16.4 MM 1.3% United Breast Cancer Foundation $12.7 MM $7.2 MM 6.3% Children's Leukemia Research Association $9.8 MM $6.8 MM 11.1% Hope Cancer Fund $2.1 MM $1.7 MM 0.5%

-Tampa Bay Times, "America's Worst Charities," tampabay.com, December, 2014, retrieved Mar 27, 2015, [tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities]

As you can see, based on their investigation, these charities typically spend less than 10% of what they receive on aid of any kind. Some of them went as low as less than 1%, depsite the fact that they received tens of millions of dollars in donations from the public, and once again, no federal or state prosecutions, and not a single dollar was returned to the donators.

Even CNN (one of the worst news companies in the world) reported on this travesty:
"The 50 worst charities in America devote less 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 former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who (as of 2020, when he ran for president, and later "won" via cheating, due to a massive influx of fake ballots) was 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 Jan 2, 2025, [https://nypost.com/2020/11/14/biden-cancer-initiative-spent-millions-on-payroll-zero-on-research-report/]

The article goes on to point out that Biden hired many of his 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 ones, and any other money that was 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 per 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 will NOT step up to help on his own dime.

"Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe 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 Jan 2, 2020, [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1]

This is not including all the pay to play schemes going on behind the scenes, in which Biden extorted people using his political influence. We learned a lot more about that after 2020, but the point is that these are just more examples of cancer charities being scam organizations to defraud the American people.

Over the years, in my audio teachings (which are free to download at creationliberty.com), I have warned people not to just throw money at something and call it "charity." In many cases, the real charity takes people being involved in giving, and most often, those on the ground doing the work face-to-face are the real charitable heroes.

You would do more good for a man with cancer by giving him a copy of this book (which is free-to-read online) than to throw your money away on a corporate so-called "charity." If you have a neighbor with cancer, and you want to be truly charitable, taking a bag of apricot seeds and a copy of (or link to) this book would save you and your neighbor far more time and money.

If you decide you want to give money to a charitable cause, you should do your due diligence, meaning that you should look at the facts, investigate where the money is really going, and make an educated decision. There are some charities out there who generously give the majority of what they receive, but they are far and few between nowadays, so be cautious because by giving to these fake charities, you could unknowingly be making the epidemic of cancer worse than it already is.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
-1 Thessalonians 5:21

 

Most people have heard of the word 'metabolism', and in my experience, a lot of people associate it with weight loss. They will often say that those who are thinner have a "higher metabolism," but what exactly is metabolism?

To put it in simple terms, metabolism is just chemical reactions in the body, and the set of chemical reactions that take place in your body are essential for maintaining your life and health. For example, every chemical reaction in your body requires water, which is why if you do not drink enough water, you become dehydrated, which can lead to delirium (a serious medical condition of extreme confusion and lack of mental capability), and eventually, once your body can no longer process chemical reactions, you will die.

Thus, metabolism is vitally important, or rather, I should say, giving your body what it needs to perform chemical reactions is vitally important. Please take note of this because I want this to be abundantly clear to all readers: What goes into your mouth provides the chemical compounds for your metabolism to work as designed.

This means that your body must have a variety of chemical compounds to make the reactions work, otherwise, it will eventually run out of what it needs to see, hear, breathe, move muscles, and think, or rather, the process of thought, which is something we use everyday and do not consider that our body needs proper chemical compounds, otherwise, you would not be able to read and understand this sentence.

For example, a single cell in your body does not absorb water just by giving it water. You could put your cell into water, and it would not be able to use the water in any meaningful function. Your body must acquire other chemical compounds called minerals, used in combination with water, to make the water useful for the cell's intended functions.

Vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, and carbohydrates are all things the body needs, and you typically get them by eating fresh, organic fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy, grains, and water. However, fresh, organic foods have taken a back seat to process foods, which are made by removing many of the necessary elements your body needs to have a healthy metabolism, and infusing chemicals that are foreign to your body's required tasks.

Whenever your body interacts with a foreign chemical substance it does not recognize, it must use vital resources to extract that chemical from the body. Your body will try to get rid of it through various means, by any orifice available, even via the skin if necessary. If the body becomes overwhelmed with foreign chemicals, it goes into emergency mode to eject the harmful substances, shutting down non-vital functions first to deal with the problem, which is why people experience bodily pain and deterioration.

One point of interest is that a cell's capability to duplicate itself takes less energy than it takes to repair itself. In the world of cells, duplication gets preferential treatment over repair. However, when cells are damaged and cannot repair themselves, they still duplicate, and that duplication process without repair causes your body to accumulate more weakened cells, and as they stack on top of each other, they form what is called a "tumor."

This is why modern medicine under a pharmaceutical philosophy will never "cure" cancer because what they call "cancer" is not actually cancer. When they say "cancer," what they mean is a "tumor," but as we learned in earlier chapters, the tumor is only a SYMPTOM of the cancer, not cancer itself. Cancer can only be cured through proper diet, and because pharmaceutical "medicine" makes diet an afterthought rather than a foundation of health, patients in stuck in the pharmaceutical system will continue to devolve in an endless cycle of disease, and die slow and painful deaths at early ages.

When I was a teenager, I had a problem with eating garbage, processed foods, like cookies, snack cakes, and candies, but I was still very thin and that is because I was active (going to school full time and working full time, as well as extra-ciricular activities) and I did not eat much. Never once did anyone educate me that what I was putting into my body is what I was made of, or in other words, my cells are made up of that which I eat, and therefore, due to lack of knowledge and education for proper concern, my diet consisted of junk, and I did not eat much of it, which is why that, despite being over six feet tall, I only weighed about 135 lbs.

Into my 20s and then later my 30s, I only weighed about 145 lbs, which is far under weight since the average proper weight class for a man of my height and build should have been about 170. As I am writing this chapter, my wife and I have changed many things about our diets to focus on healthy metabolism, and over the past few years, I built an exercise regimen for myself.

Before I talk about all the changes we made, I first want to point out that I am just like everyone else, not caring much about my health until I reach a point of serious injury or illness. Sadly, we all seem to be this way, caring nothing for the warning signs our body gives us, urging us to change our ways, and then one day, we end up sick in bed, wondering what to do to fix a problem that, for most of us, has been deteriorating for many years before we end up sick and injured.

For me, it was a spinal hernia, which is a swelling of the soft tissue in the spine that pressed against the nerves in my back, causing intense pain, and eventually, I ended up in bed for almost three weeks straight, unable to move the right side of my body. This was my major wake-up call, and our first step was to see a chiropractor.

The chiropractor was helpful, and I do encourage people to see them if they have problems, but I want readers to understand that chiropractors should always be viewed the same way as aspirin: It is a TEMPORARY solution while you fix the cause of the problem. Most people visit chiropractors like any other physician, expecting the doctor to fix their problems for them, but chiropractors diagnose, and offer temporary fixes, while in the meant time, you are supposed to get your diet, stretching, and exercise in order so that, one day, you do not have to visit the chiropractor any longer.

I started getting chiropractic adjustments and took some supplements that were geared toward building and repairing my soft spinal tissue. This took about a year before I could function normally again, but I had loads of neck and back pain, especially since I have had minor scoliosis my whole life, which is a curvature of the spine, and it got so bad over the years that I could only take jobs that allowed me to sit most of the day.

Meanwhile, my metabolism was diminishing, and it got to a point where I started to get belly fat, which was the first time in my life I ever experienced it. I HATED it with a passion, so a couple of years after starting chiropractic sessions, I decided it was time to do some research into exercise.

My exercise, at first, just consisted of doing sit-ups to strengthen my core, and I got some advice not to count reps, but to work "to fail," or rather, do them until I could not do another. I did three types of sit-ups to fail 4-5 days per week.

I started out with only this quick and simple method for exercise because I hate exercise. I had no motivation to work out because I spent my entire life being told I was just a skinny boy, so I believed it, and it never occurred to me (because no one ever told me) that I could change that if I worked hard enough.

After months of doing core exercises most days of the week, I noticed some improvements in my day-to-day life. Some of my pain disappeared, and my fat belly tightened up a bit. I then decided it was time to start adding in pushups, so I found three types of pushups to do to fail, and added those on top of my situps.

I did this faithfully, 4-5 days every week, without focusing on changing my body mass, but rather, I only focused on my need for exercise to maintain my health and general wellness. Everyone needs to find a reason to exercise and keep yourself healthy, and over time, my primary reasons to continue working in physican exercise were as follows:

The Lord Jesus Christ created my body and gave it to me. It is my responsibility to upkeep it, and not take it for granted. My family needs me to provide for and protect them, and I cannot do that if I am weak, so I need to strengthen myself to do my job. The more I exercised, the more I found pain relief in various parts of my body, and so that itself became another motivator. If my body heals through dedication to diet and exercise, I can become an example to the church, to show other Christians the path they ought to take to lead healthy and productive lives.

Please note that if your only motivator is to "look good," that's perfectly fine. That is a motivator, and any motivaor is better than none. However, you need to remember that it will not happen overnight, so do not try to do too much all at once or you will get burnt out and stop soon after you start; rather, start small and simple, and then slowly work your way into more difficult things.

As I continued with my situps and pushups, I began to experience new pain in my shoulders that was intense and would not go away, and this was part of my educational process in understanding how muscles work. Because I worked on my core (with situps), arms and chest (with pushups), I neglected my back, which caused my newly built, tightened muscles in the front to pull heavily against my weak (or nonexistent) muscle in my back, putting a sharp load on my shoulders which left me with chronic pain.

As I started to look into back exercises, it took me some time to discover that pullups were the answer, and with that, I discovered something call "calisthenics," which is a form of strength training that utilizes compound exercises, using your own body weight as resistance. Although the workouts are hard, the previous training I had already done helped me transition into this, and it is the first time I found workouts to be enjoyable and rewarding. I started out having to do what are called "negatives," which means I jump to the bar and slowly lower myself down, but now I can do pullups and chinups because I have increased in strength, and I am working towards muscleups, which is to pull the top half of your body above the bar with your arms. As I write this paragraph, I am almost five months into my calisthenics training, I now weight 175 lbs, most of which is muscle, and I have never felt better and more physically fit, meaning that now, in my 40s, I feel better than I felt as a teenager, and I have future goals I want to meet over the next couple of years as I train.

Remember that this is in combination with dietary changes I made, and I will get to that in a moment, but I want readers to understand that exercise is vital to create a healthy metabolism because you are directing (or informing) your body on what it is to be used for, or you could say you are giving your body orders, and your body responds in obedience to that non-verbal communication by increasing metabolic rates to match the strain you are putting on it. This means that you need to have some sort of resistance-based exercise regime to push yourself.

If you are like me, and hate exercising, the best thing to do is find one thing and do it faithfully for a few months before adding in anything new. It could be squats, pullups, pushups, situps, or any other basic exercise, so long as there is weighted resistance (via dumbbells or body weight) that you can do "to fail," and it should make you grunt to try to finish your last rep. Dedicate yourself to 15-20 minutes of strenuous exercise at least 3-4 days per week, starting with something basic, then adding something new every few months as you get stronger, because the most important thing to do is build a habit of exercise that you do consistently as part of your day-to-day routine, and the more you do it, the easier it will be to maintain.

Now on to the metabolic diet, which is a major hurdle for a lot of people because there are many people who want to drop the fat and be healthy, but few people who are willing to take the steps needed to do it. If you are doing any of these things already, that is great, but all of them will eventually need to be combined, and I am only providing a beginner's level of information because countless books and videos are available online if you want to go deeper into these topics, and the more you know, the better protected you will be.

Be advised that I would NOT recommend doing all of these at once if you are a beginner. Do these things one step at a time because your body needs a while to adjust. Just like with exercise, if you try to do everything at once, it will be too hard for the body to handle, you will get burnt out quickly and fall back into your old habits, so select a few things, do them consistently for a few months, then slowly add in more as you get used to it.

Eat a balanced diet.

As we learned in chapter one, the dietary recommendations that have been published by the U.S. government over the past century have mostly been phony and fraudulent, and influenced by corporate financial interests that are contrary to public health. The following is a Metabolic Food Pyramid that will hopefully tear down the deceptive FDA food pyramid in the minds of readers, and construct a better dietary philosophy in its place.


There are people who recommend vegetarian diets, or sometimes a meat-only diet, but I would not recommend any of these because your body needs a variety of nutrients. For example, one of the things that has fooled the American public is the idea that they must avoid foods high in "fat and cholesteral."

Your brain needs fat and cholesteral to function, and these important nutrients also protect the brain against metals (a buildup of which causes Alzheimer's disease), so fats are good for your body, but the problem is that people have attached themselves to processed foods with dangerous chemicals in them, which puts the body in a state of repair, having to spend resources ejecting foreign substances, rather than processing the fats, and since your body needs the fats, it keeps them by storing them. The mainstream medical institutions then release public service announcements claiming that fat and cholesteral are bad, and this childish analysis from mainstream medical professionals is mind boggling. The correct way of thinking is not to avoid fat and cholesteral, but to eat a proper (chemical-free) balance of organic foods so your body can effeciently process fat and cholesteral.

The same goes for salt, which is something that I have heard negatively preached about ad nauseum from the mainstream media and medical institutions, namely, that you must find foods low in salt. Salt is good for you, and it is a vital mineral that your body needs for metabolic stability.

When I was younger, I worked in fast food restaurants (which I thank God I have never had to do again) in which some people would occasionally order low salt or no salt on their fries because they thought it was healthier, but the problem is NOT the salt. The problem is that those fries are not simply raw potatoes (e.g. McDonald's fries consist of 17 ingredients), and then to make matters worse, they fry their non-potatoes in vegetable oil. (e.g. corn, canola, sunflower, soybean, etc.)
(See Chef's Resource, "What are the 19 ingredients in mcdonald's french fries?" retrieved Jan 10, 2025, [https://www.chefsresource.com/what-are-the-19-ingredients-in-mcdonald%CA%BCs-french-fries/])

Frying should always be done in moderation (i.e. frying should be occasional, not daily), and if you fry, you should use things like tallow, lard, butter (ghee), and coconut oil, which are saturated fats. Again, we are told by the mainstream ad nauseum to avoid saturated fats, but natural saturated fats (like those I just mentioned) are healthy for you in moderation, high in nutrients, and can withstand heat, so they will not break down when cooking.

Vegetable oil is highly processed, and because it is synthetic (as opposed to natural), it breaks down more easily, which means it is essentially rancid while it is sealed in the bottle on the shelf at the grocery store, so if you buy it and use it, you are eating rancid oil in your food. Consuming vegetable oil causes inflammation, a major contributing factor to most illness, and introduces what are known as "free radicals" into your system, which are unstable molecules that damage other healthy molecules (e.g. protiens, DNA, fats, etc), and are well known to increase the risk of cancer.

Many Americans may ask: What about olive oil? Olive oil can be used as dressing and in dishes that do not require heat, like brushcetta, for example, but you should NOT use olive oil when you cook on the stove or in the oven.

For those of us who are not accustomed to eating organ meats, liver can seem disgusting, but liver is a powerhouse of nutrients. In fact, if you eat liver, you should stop taking multi-vitamins because they are FAR inferior, if not counter-productive in many cases because multi-vitamins are disproportionate according to man's interpretation of nutritional balance. If you get too much of one vitamin, your body will eject it through your urine, meaning that you are peeing away your money. Liver is perfectly balanced in its nutritional content based on the Lord Jesus Christ's natural design (because Christ is the creator of this world, and all that is in it, Col 1:16), and so liver provides nearly everything the body needs in high quantity, including vitamins, minerals, protein, and fats, and if you are like me and cringe at the thought of eating it, there are more palatable ways to consume it.

You can mix a small amount of liver into meat dishes, which is done commonly in certain prepared meals like dirty rice for example, a traditional southern dish. However, my wife and I take them raw by cutting them into tiny pieces, placing them onto a cooking sheet with wax paper, freezing them overnight, and then eating them in the morning with some juice during breakfast, just like we would swallow vitamins.


Remember that, if you are new to this, do not try to change all of this at once. Select a few things that you know you need to change in your household, and work on those for a few months to get used to it. Your body will need time to adapt to the changes.

Exercise.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the things you must absolutely change, if you are not doing it already, is getting proper exercise, and as I said before, this was difficult because I hated doing exercise (mostly because I found it to be boring). Perhaps some of you are like me, where your work requires you to sit at a desk most of the day, and that means you will need to start making an activity schedule because, although your change in diet will be good for you, your body will not fully take advantage of everything it has been given unless you are active.

When a person is sick in the hospital, one of the first things nurses do is get you on your feet and walking, no matter how much it might hurt. If you lay in bed all the time, you will die a slow and painful death, and so if you are not moving enough in your daily life, you will not have a healthy body.

My recommendation is to make sure you walk three miles (5km) every day. This seems like a lot for some people, but if it is, then walk 1.5 miles in the morning, and 1.5 miles in the evening. Although this is rare in America because most Americans are oblivious, I have listened to testimonies of people living to their 90s, and even over 100 years old, who walked three miles every day consistently, rain or shine, and that is part of the reason they lived so long. It is understandable if weather does not permit, but if it does, you should be outside walking because it will kick start your metabolism, it gets your blood flow moving to prevent stagnation, it helps your body to process the minerals in your system and detoxify, and it will also get you the sunshine you need.

Getting sunshine during the day, especially in the morning, will help your circadian rhythm, which is your natural sleep-wake cycle, which will help you get a good night's rest, and that is another key factor for a healthy metabolism. Although medical "experts" claim that sunshine causes skin cancer, that is not true because what is causing skin cancer is a lack of proper nutrients in combination with a consumption of chemicals and other free radicals which leaves your body unable to properly utilize the light of the sun. (e.g. Consuming processed vegetable oil is a major contributor to skin cancer because of the free radicals.)

Once you have gotten into a routine of daily walking, and are comfortable with the habit, you need to add in resistance exercise, which is meant to be any type of exercise that involves weights, either with external weights, or using your body weight. As I said earlier, you need to do exercise that makes you grunt to try and finish the last rep. I have seen people, women especially, who will pick up tiny weights and walk around with them as if they are doing real exercise, but they are not challenging themselves to become stronger, which is why the exercise they are doing has very little effect on their overall health.

Women often make excuses because they are generally weaker than men, but in the Bible, the wise and valuable woman (as describe in Proverbs 31) strengthens herself to make up for that weakness, and the Christian woman understands that she change her attitude to have a hard-working philosophy like adult men do. This is a philosophy of charity, that she would make her mind and body as useful to her family as possible:

She girdeth her loins with strength,
and strengtheneth her arms.
-Proverbs 31:17

Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you [i.e. carry out your duties] like men, be strong. Let all your things be done with charity.
-1 Corinthians 16:13-14

It is not charitable to be undisciplined and get fat. It is not charitable to your family to disregard your own health, forcing them to pay enormous medical costs on your behalf, and have to take care of you constantly. Take these things into consideration, and use them as fitness motivation.

Your muscular system is the body's largest organ, so maintaining your muscular system is a vital part of metabolism. Your muscular system is responsible for maintaining blood sugar, hormones, bone density, and other quality of life issues that are common problems among Americans, like mobility, flexibility, and balance.

Once you have established a comfortable walking routine, I recommend strenuous exercise for at least 20 minutes, 3-4 times per week. Some people want to purchase special equipment like dumbbells or exercise machines, but that is unnecessary because you can utilize your own body weight.

Start out with push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, and/or squats, and I would recommend what is called the "2-Set" method to build strength. This means that you do what is called "push to fail," or in other words, you do the exercise until you can no longer do another rep, count the amount of reps that you did, then rest for 5 minutes, and do it again, trying to do 80% of the reps you did the first round.

In other words, let's suppose you are starting this for your first time, and you can only do 5 push-ups to fail, meaning that you had to grunt and push really hard to get that last push-up. Good job. Now rest five minutes, then come back and do 4 more pushups, then stop, and do not do any more arm exercises for the day.

From that point, you can do squats or sit-ups, to work your legs or core muscles. Choose one, do as many reps as you can the first round, then stop, rest five minutes, then do the second round at 80% of the first round's reps, and at that point, you should have finished your 20 minute workout, which should be done AT LEAST three days per week, but no more than five days per week because your body needs to rest to build muscle.

This is a good starting point to build your muscular system. Some readers might be obese and have a hard time doing these exercises, and there is no shame in starting out a bit easier if you need to, so here are some suggestions to reduce the load:

PUSH-UPS: Do them on your knees to reduce the weight load on your arms. PULL-UPS: Do "negative" pull-ups, meaning that you jump to the bar, and slowly lower yourself down. If you cannot do this, try body weight rows, or "Australian pull-ups," which is to get a bar (or rings) that is about waist height, lay under it, and pull your chest to the bar. (You can further reduce weight load by planting your feet flat on the ground.) SIT-UPS: Instead of coming all the way up, simple use your core to move your chest straight up towards the ceiling as high as you can, activating your core, and then come back down. You can also do this by laying down, reaching your hands up towards the ceiling, then lifting your chest up straight towards the ceiling (a variation of an exercise called "toe taps") that will activate your core. SQUATS: Use chairs for balance, or use a wall for an assist to decrease your weight load until your legs get stronger, but make sure you get your butt below your knees if possible to make full use of the exercise.

If you did push-ups and sit-ups on Monday, then do pull-ups and squats on Wednesday. Alternate between exercises because you need to give your muscles time to rest since exercise breaks the muscle down (i.e. your muscles rip and tear), and rest time helps your muscles recover, building strength and growing your bones at the same time.

I would recommend searching the internet if you need more help or suggestions because there is no way I would be able to mention everything without writing a completely separate book. There are countless videos from physical therapists to personal trainers who provide near endless suggestions for what you can do to start, or to do more advanced exercises, so utilize that information and find out what works for you.

Eliminate processed foods.

Let's first make sure we understand what a "processed" food is:

processed (adj): prepared or modified by an artificial process or procedure
(See 'processed', Random House Dictionary, 2025, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

If you are not accustomed to reading packaging ingredients, then you need to start getting accustomed to it. Anything that has dyes, artificial flavors, gums, or natural flavors on the packaging should be left on the shelf because consuming these things will slow down your body's metabolism by causing your body to have to spend resources ejecting harmful chemicals that will cause long term problems in your organs, brain, and gut.

If you are getting angry by this, or already thinking to yourself that this is the hardest part of the change, and that you are not sure you will be able to do this because there are certain processed foods you do not want to stop eating, then you are an addict. Disappointment is one thing, but the "I don't think I can do that" mentality is something else entirely because drug addicts and alcoholics say the same thing. You need to admit that you are addicted, and you need to admit that you need help, so tell that to family and friends, and seek help from them, because discipline is a necessity to get off of your addiction.

My best advice to combat that addiction is this: LEARN TO COOK. If you will brave yourself to go on this journey, you will find that the end of the road will result in the most flavorful, natural meals you have ever eaten, but the first step is to move away from the fake foods created by chemical manufacturers.

In January of 2025, I had my wife take some photos of commonly purchased products at a local grocery store. I want readers who are unfamiliar with this process to see what to look for and why these processed ingredients are so dangerous, so I selected just three to keep things simple.

The first example is the breakfast cereal, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, which was my favorite breakfast cereal when I was child:

Although we might be able to find major problems in the production processes of ALL of these ingredients (given the opportunity to see the entire production from start to finish), there are only a few we need to highlight. The first highlight, and what I would consider the biggest warning, is any food that contains a warning that it is "Bioengineered."

Bioengineering is a fancy way of saying it is "Genetically Modified" (GMO), and GMO foods involve splicing foreign chromosomes into plants, which transforms them into something completely different. Deceptive companies like General Mills love to put "Whole Grain Wheat" as the first ingredient because it sounds good and healthy to the consumer, but if it is bioengineered, it is not actually whole grain wheat. They are simply permitted by the corrupt, lobbyist-infested FDA to say that on the packaging so you will not know the difference. In other words, they are introducing foreign DNA (typically from animals) into plants like grain (typically to make them pesticide resistant), which means that GMO wheat is no longer wheat because its genetic makeup has been altered into something else, and that is why your body has a very hard time breaking it down into something useful.

Even though the packaging lists out vitamins and minerals, we do not know how much of these vitamins and minerals are in the product, nor do we know the ratios (which is an important factor I will mention in a moment). Furthermore, the vitamins and minerals may be added synthetically (sometimes called "enriched" or "fortified"), which is not good because your cells cannot use them properly. As I pointed out earlier, the Living God designed our bodies to process the natural things He created for us to consume, and so if we change that, we cannot get any benefit out of them.

For example, most vehicles in American (as of 2025) operate on an internal combustion engine that is designed very precisely to use petroleum, or gasoline, in combination with a fine tuned amount of oxygen to create miniature explosions that (through the use of many mechanical operations) push the vehicle forward. If I were to pour tomoto juice into my gas tank, not only would my car not operate, but it is very likely that I would destroy the engine because it was not designed to process tomato juice, and likewise, your body is designed to intake only certain types of vitamins and minerals in a specific format, and not only will your body not function properly on the wrong intake, but you can destroy your body by giving it something it was not designed to handle.

Let's suppose you decide you want to put gasoline into your body, and you start drinking it in significant quantities; obviously, you will die because your body cannot process it, and it cannot eject the foreign substance quickly enough to prevent death. If you were to swallow a very small amount of gasoline, you might get a little sick, but it would likely not be fatal because your body would have enough time to eject it from your system. However, let's suppose that you were to swallow a very small amount of gasoline every day for many years, do you think that might make you sick unto death?

This is precisely what many Americans are doing, and they are completely oblivious to it. On the Cinnamon Toast Crunch packaging, it says it uses "BHT" (Butylated Hydroxytoluene) as a preservative, which is made from petroleum, and American medical institutions sit back in their arrogance, being completely baffled as to why America (despite its many technological advances) has more cases of cancer than almost any nation in the world.

The cereal box also lists out Canola and Sunflower oil as an ingredient, and once again, these are known causes of cancer. As I mentioned earlier, they introduce free radicals into your system (i.e. damaged molecules that cause damage to the molecules in your body), which manufacturing "experts" claim are just small amounts that are allegedly "harmless," but no studies have been conducted to find out the long-term effects, and we should not need long-term studies to know that eating food that does damage to the molecular structure of your body is harmful, no matter the quantity.

As a side note, I find it ironic that we are told that B17 is bad for you because it has cyanide, and yet, all these chemicals which are known to be dangerous are readily accepted, and manufacturers put them in most of the foods you buy at the grocery store without a second thought. If only the American people knew how much their lives and health were being controlled and destroyed by the whims of snake oil salesmen (i.e. Big Pharma), there would be an armed revolution tomorrow.

Sugar is not bad for you, so long as it is natural, organically grown cane sugar, but that is not what is typically used in most products at the grocery store. When natural cane sugar is cooked, it becomes brown, which means it is healthy for you, and that is why syrups like molasses ought to be used, however, these manufacturing companies use things like beets to make sugar, which some people might consider healthy, until you learn that they use bleach to give it a white color, and furthermore, they are heavily processed during prodcution which makes them empty calories in your body that make you fat.

Almost any product that contains "soy ingredients" should be avoided because they use unfermented soy. Soy beans are legumes, and legumes need to be soaked in preparation because they are high in phytic acid, which prevents your body from absorbing nutrients. The soaking process of soy beans removes the phytic acid blocker, but manufacturers simply roast them and put them in their products, meaning that no matter how many "vitamins and minerals" this cereal claims to have, they are meaningless if you have a phytic acid blocker that prevents you from absorbing them.

Also note the "caramel color," which is interesting because, when I was a child, products used to use the word 'dye', but they no longer use that term because of the negative association people now have that dyes cause cancer. In other words, they have changed the word, but the use of dyes or "coloring" is still dangerous to consume. To make things simple, if there are any colors used in the product, even if they say "natural colors," you should leave that product on the shelf, and many people are blissfully unaware that the processed foods they eat on a daily basis are storing up tiny amounts of cancer-causing chemicals in their system.

We need to remember that your liver does a lot of the work in removing harmful chemicals from the body, and your liver can only do so much at once. This is why liver cancer is a common problem because once it runs out of the nutrients it needs to do its job, the damaged cells stack up, and tumors form.

There was a saying that I heard when I was young, "If you can't read it, don't eat it." Sadly, that is not as common as I remember it, and I would advise readers to return to that philosophy because, most of the time, what you cannot read is causing you to get sick slowly over time.

However, the one caveat to that rule would be the vitamins and minerals list. Generally, you want to apply the reading rule only to the ingredients list because, even if you cannot read the technical names for vitamins, they are still good for you, but there is another important problem with vitamins and minerals in manufactured products that needs to be addressed.

Vitamins and minerals are vital for our life and health, but what most people do not understand is that certain vitamins and minerals cancel each other out, or in other words, if you take them together, your body will get no benefit from them. This is one of the pit falls when taking multi-vitamins because the producers of them, in the vast majority of cases, do not take this into consideration.

Sadly, many Americans have been fooled in a similar way they have been fooled by the corrupt Catholic Church, in which they have people come to their temples and perform pagan rituals so they can feel "holy," despite the fact that no one can be holy unless Christ imputes His holiness into them as a gift of grace, not of works. (Rom 4:22-24, Eph 2:8-9) In the same regard, most multi-vitamins are simply a ritual that make Americans feel "healthy," but without eating the natural foods God gave us to eat, it is all for show.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Vitamin C and B block each other, as do calcium and magnesium, which is why, if you take them in a multi-vitamin, you get little (if any) benefit from them. For example, consider that calcium blocks iron, which is why parents who let their children drink milk all the time, with every meal, end up with an iron-deficiency in their children. This is why I pointed out earlier that taking something like liver bites are much more efficient, far beyond anything mankind designs, because the Christian God of the Bible designed it with perfect balance, and so all the efforts to "reinvent the wheel" (so to speak) are meaningless, except to create a patentable process by which corporate giants can turn more profit by fooling consumers, and addicting them to their products.

Next, let's look at the ingredients on a bag of Doritos, a popular corn chip:
Once again, we see vegetable oils and soy, which are to be avoided. Also, it uses monosodium glutamate, which is a chemical flavor enhancer that is highly addictive, and quite a few people are allergic to it, myself being one of them, and I still vividly remember the violent vomiting reaction my body had after consuming it for the first time.

Corn syrup is another unnatural, highly processed substance that your body cannot use properly. Sugar from corn is extremely inefficient for your cells to process, and so your body ends up storing up the corn syrup in fat, almost like clogging a drain, which contributes to obesity and slows down your metabolism.

We also see again the coloring, which are dyes that are known to induce cancer, they have been found to affect the brain in an assortment of negative ways, and today, they are typically listed as "Red 40," Blue 1," and "Yellow 5" (just as it reads on the Doritos packaging), but to put a finer point on it, any ingredient that lists a color could be left on the shelf. The day I wrote this paragraph was Jan 15, 2025, and Robert Kennedy Jr., who Donald Trump appointed to the be the head of the Department of Health and Human Services on the 20th, has vowed to ban all such chemicals in food, and to try and seem benevolent, the FDA banned "Red 3" today, but they banned it in cosmetics 35 years ago, and refused to ban it in food, which means they did this for pretense because they are afraid Kennedy will expose them, and obviously, if they were truly doing their job in the interest of the American public, they would have banned ALL dyes in food decades ago.

Solving the root of the real problem would mean abolishing the FDA entirely, forever.

And one last example is Ensure:
We have already covered some of these ingredients, such as natural/artificial flavors, sunflower oil (that has the same effects as vegetable oils), and gums, which should all be avoided. There are more substances which cause inflammation in the body, such as carrageenan, listed an as ingredient in Ensure, which is a man made derivative of seaweed, used as a thickener, and it is known to make your blood resistant to insulen, and that is important as I will demonstrate in a moment.

We can see soluble corn fiber listed, which is corn fiber that is highly processed and added to the shake, which can negatively affect gut health and cause digestion problems. We can also see acesulfame potassium, which is an artificial sweetener, and all artificial sweeteners can cause diebetes.

When I say that artificial sweeteners (like those in the Ensure product) can cause diebetes, I do not say this lightly, and readers should take a moment to understand this because in the early 21 century, nearly 12% of the U.S. population suffers from diebetes. It is well known that those with diebetes must take insulen, but not many Americans understand that insulen is naturally produced in the body, nor do they understand what causes the body to stop producing it.

Insulen is produced by your pancreas, an organ located in your abdomen behind the stomach, and it produces a hormone called insulen, which is how your body breaks down sugar. As soon as your tongue tastes sugar, it triggers your pancreas to start producing a proper amount of insulen to break down the sugar into a substance the cells in your bloodstream can use.

However, what happens if your body takes in FAKE sugar via an artificial sweetener? Your pancreas does not know the difference between real and fake sugar, and it will produce insulen no matter which one is being consumed, but the problem is that when fake sugar is consumed, your body has a very difficult time breaking it down into something your cells can use.

Fake sugar (via "artificial flavors" and also "natural flavors" which are highly processed) lack natural carbohydrates which real sugar has. Those natural carbohydrates in real sugar are part of what is needed to break the sugar down so it can be used by your cells.

This fake sugar stays in your bloodstream much longer than normal, since the body needs a lot more time and insulen to break it down. So when your body cannot break down the fake sugar it has in your bloodstream fast enough, and you keep intaking more fake sugar, it causes your blood sugar to rise, creating a condition known as hyperglycemia.

Furthermore, when your pancreas is working over time, producing more and more insulen to break down a never ending cycle of fake sugar that overloads your bloodstream, eventually, the pacreas breaks its insulen production. This creates diebetes, which requires the patient to get regular insulen shots because their pancreas cannot do the job any longer, and the more their diet is filled with garbage (like those ingredients in Ensure) the more insulen shots they will need, but if they do not stop the intake of harmful, processed so-called "foods," they will continue to get sicker and sicker.

Acesulfame Potassium and Sucralose are both artificial sweeteners made in a laboratory. Both have many other side effects I have not mentioned in this book, and both are in many products you will see in early 21st century grocery stores.

Another problem to note is that there are 30 grams of protein in this product, but only 150 calories, which is a mathematical anomoly because 30 grams of protein is roughly 120 calories, while the other 30 are made up of fats and other chemicals added to the shake. The problem is that this product could only be healthy for you if it were a higher calorie count that had the necessary carbohydrates to break down the protein, but they have removed natural carbohydrates to take the calorie count down so it seems "healtheir" to the average, uneducated consumer (contradicting the fact that this is often used as a weight gain product), despite the fact that these are empty calories that are putting heavy stress on the body because you do not have the nutrients necessary to break down almost anything in this shake.

This is in addition to the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, it contains carrageenan, and I pointed out that it makes your blood resistant to insulen. So to summarize, Ensure is causing your pancreas to work overtime to produce far more insulen than it normally does, only to not be able to break down the artificial sweeteners, while at the same time adding substance that blocks the very substance your body uses to break down sugar.

And let us not forget, this is labeled as the "#1 Doctor Recommended Brand." It is quite possible that could be a lie, and Abbott Laboratories (the makers of Ensure) know that no one would sue them for false advertising because it would be a very difficult case to prove, or it actually is highly recommended by physicians, which would only prove once again that physicians are so brainwashed by the pharmaceutical industry, they cannot see how they are harming their patients with their dangerous recommendations.

Though most of you likely do not consume this product, the reason I wanted to cover it is because it is most often used to feed the elderly. To that, I would note that if you hate your elders and want them to die faster, by all means, feed them Ensure, but if you have even the slightest care in your hearts for their well being, make sure this product never reaches their lips.

Stop consuming pasteurized dairy products.

My final warning for those new to the metabolic diet is about pasteurization, which damages the protein structure in milk-based products, and eliminates the natural probiotics in the milk that are needed for good bacteria growth in your gut. Pasteurization is one of the primary reasons why there are so many lactose-intolerant people in America.

If you received a typical (and pathetic) public school education like I did, then you will remember learning that Louis Pasteur was a brilliant scientist that developed a number of inventions in the 19th century that we use today. However, what they do not tell you is that the inventions he is known for, such as "pasteurization," are doing far more harm than good.

Pasteur invented pasteurization because people were getting sick from drinking raw cow's milk, but it was soon discovered that farmers in the area were milking sick cows, and so at the same time pasteurization was implimented, farmers stopped milking sick cows, which solved the problem. However, in a grand display of stupidity, mainstream medical institutions declared that pasteurization (which no one has needed for thousands of years) cured the illness people were getting from milk, instead of using Occam's razor (i.e. a philosophy in which the simplest explanation should take precedence over other, more complex explanations).

Purchase and drink raw milk from local farmers, but make sure that it is milk from cows that are grass fed from the pasture. Do not be afraid of farmers because they are typically quite friendly, and they will give you any information you need to know, so ask them directly if they milk cows that are pasture raised and grass fed, and try to avoid farms that feed their cows processed grains.

If you have trouble finding a place to buy from, I advise seeking out an Amish farm. Although I heavily disagree with their anit-biblical religion, they are mostly honest people that have exemplary work ethic and farming practices, and it is a good place to start looking if you want fresh and natural products.

It is understandable if you are unable to eliminate all things that have used the pasteurization process, such as cottage cheese or yogurt, but there are basic things you can get from local farmers that will be good for your family's health. To start out, just focus on getting your household milk changed, and once you get used to it, switch to butter and cheese made from the milk of grass-fed cows, and if your local farmers have other products available, you can make changes when you are ready.

As a site note, beware buying things from the "health" aisle in your grocery store, as there are many products among them that use ingredients that are not good for you. Do not trust what the grocery store labels as healthy, and always check the label yourself because you are the last line of defense for your household.

These are just a few examples to help you get started watching what you eat, and many people fear this because they think they must eat things that taste terrible as a replacement for their fake flavored products, but this is not the case. Natural, home-grown foods are the best tasting foods you can get, and again, if you learn to cook, you can eat dishes that you would normally only find in 4-star restaurants, which is why poor farmers usually eat better than anyone else in the world, both in terms of health and flavor.

As I briefly mentioned in chapter one, it is sad state of affairs that, due to the destructive ideology of feminism, many women have left their guard post in the kitchen. The kitchen is the watch tower that oversees the battleground where women can war against the corruption of the pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries, to be the safe guard of her family against the principalities and powers that seek to do them harm, and to be loved and honored by her healthy husband and children, who see her as a blessing to all who enter the domain of her home.
(Read Feminism: Castrating America here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In summary, if you want to rid yourself of cancer, you can do it in four steps:

Stop the intake of harmful substances by removing processed foods. Start eating raw dairy and natural foods. Go for walks daily, and add resistance exercise to your regime. Get B17 from organic, bitter apricot kernels.

Again, there is much more you can learn beyond this, but it is a great place to start. My wife and I have taken a decade to learn many of these things and implement them, so take your time. Build your foundation on these principles, form good habits, and learn as you heal and grow stronger.



 

In chapter six, we learned about the leaders of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute, and how they fooled the public by using the media to lie about the positive results of amygdalin in their experiments. Although we often think there is little justice in this world, we who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ should always remember that He brings justice at His preferred time because He warned us:

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
-Galatians 6:7

Sadly, these men did not take this warning seriously:

Lewis Thomas, President of Sloan-Kettering Institute who lied about the results of laetrile, died of lymphoma cancer in 1993. Robert Good, President of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research who lied about the results of laetrile, died of esophageal cancer in 2003. Lloyd Old, the Director of the Cancer Research Institute who lied about the results of laetrile, died of prostate cancer in 2011.

They lie and lie and lie, and they end up dead along with the millions of others they lied to, thinking nothing bad will happen to them, or that they will not be held accountable on the Day of Judgment when all men must stand before God in the ultimate trial for their souls. Without the Lord Jesus Christ, and His shed blood to pay for their sins before the day of their death, there will be no end to their suffering for their crimes.

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
-Luke 12:5
(Read "Hell is Real And Many People Are Going There" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Most physicians and surgeons who counsel others about cancer secretly know they would never take their own advice:
"A survvey of 128 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," July 7, 2016, retrieved Mar 31, 2015, [https://canceractive.com/article/20-things-you-need-to-know-about-chemotherapy]

They KNOW FOR A FACT that orthodox pharmaceutical medicine has no answer, and yet, they torture patients under their poisonous so-called "care." A professor of oncology at the State University of New York wrote:
"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

There are some people who will scoff at my book because they will complain that I have no medical expertise, but how do they respond to the fact that I am quoting those with medical expertise who have argued the same thing I am arguing? Another oncologist 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

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 that chemotherapy 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

This is why, many years ago, I created the following demotivational poster meme about Russian roulette, which is a game of chance where gamblers take turns pointing a six-chamber revolver (loaded with only one bullet) at their heads and pulling the trigger. Whoever shoots themselves dead first loses, and the living winner takes all the money. My argument is that chemotherapy is WORSE than Russian roulette because, in roulette, you die quicker with less pain, your odds of survival are greater, and if you win roulette, you get your money back.


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

During World War I, chemical warfare was introduced in a way that the world had never seen before, as the Germans and Italians began to use mustard gas to kill enemy combatants, which resulted in horrifying medicals ailments of the affected soldiers, and in about 15% of cases, death, which if you knew the details, might have been the preferably way to go. I do not care to share those details here because, to be frank, I was disturbed just by reading about it, let alone having to redescribe it. American scientists began to experiment with mustard gas to find out how it affects the body, and during their research, they found that it rapidly destroyed cells, and so to test it further, they needed something in the body with higher-than-normal cell growth.

Being this far into the book, you have probably already deduced what they used to test the mustard gas:
"They found mustard gas and one of its chemical derivatives, nitrogen mustard, had a propensity to kill rapidly dividing normal cells, such as bone marrow. This led them to look beyond chemical warfare to the most rapidly growing cells—cancer. But with the war ongoing, work with chemical warfare agents was considered classified. Gilman was impatient. So under strict secrecy, he and colleagues at Yale University treated six terminally ill patients with infusions of nitrogen mustard."
-Charlotte D. Jacobs, Henry Kaplan and the Story of Hodgkin's Disease, Standford University Press, 2010, p. 82, ISBN: 9780804774482

Of course, mustard gas is not specifically what they are using for chemotherapy, but it is the same principle, namely, that a biological agent that, under normal circumstances, is designed to kill people, is now said to alleged "cure" people of cancer. Have we all lost our minds to think this is a solution?

"[S]ystemic cancer chemotherapy is a recent development with its historical origins in observations of the toxic effects on humans accidentally exposed to chemical warfare agents, mainly mustard 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

Do we not have the ability to reason that substances that could be easily labeled to be biological weapons are something much different than medical treatment? What planet do we live on in which chemicals designed to torture and kill men are now called "therapy?" To say that chemical warfare will cure cancer is like saying that shooting someone in the leg will cure athlete's foot.

Of course, most of us can reason that these are ridiculous notions, so why do the majority of physicians recommend these toxic procedures which they would never do themselves? Why are more physicians not speaking out against chemotherapy? I called it the "medical mafia" for a good reason, and that is because if they speak up, they will likely lose everything they have worked for their entire lives.

Many of the people who go into the practice of medicine were not popular in their early school years, preferring to study rather than party, and as they enter college, they are in the same situation, where they have to spend long hours in study and memorization, suffering the stress of both debt and the pressure to get high scores on their tests, and after many years of work, spending a fraction of their entire life span in preparation, they get their medical degree.

Now they can begin the work of helping people, which is (presumably) one of the driving motivations of most medical students. They start a practice or begin working in a hospital, and find it to be very lucrative, meaning that they can start paying off student loans, get a nice house, own a reliable vehicle, get married, and give their children many good things, all while earning the respect of their communities.

Now imagine that some average guy without any medical training, like myself (who is a college drop out), tells them that there is a simple solution to cancer that the medical institutions of America have not only ignored, but actively fought to cover up. Do you think someone who has gone through all the hardship, medical training, and rewards as a physician is going to be willing to listen to me?

In most cases, no.
As I have already demonstrated, the AMA has established what we could call "medical apartheid" on our nation, and anyone who dares to question them will be cast out, prosecuted, and have their licenses stripped. Do you think someone who has gone through the all the hardship, medical training, and rewards as a physician is going to be willing to give up all they have earned to fight for what is right?

In most cases, no.
So once again, I will restate the question I mentioned at the beginning of this book, the very question I am so quickly asked before I can get out any information about the solution for cancer and how it works: Why has no one ever heard of this before? Or, why does my physician not know about this? By now, you should be able to answer this question for yourself.

The ultimate reason why very few people have heard of the solution for cancer is fear. Fear of what others might think, fear of losing a job, fear of losing respect, fear of persecution, fear of prosecution, and most importantly, fear of guilt.

Imagine you are that physician who has spent years recommending harmful treatments for cancer to patients, many of them dying over the years, and now someone like me, who has far less formal, orthodox education than you do, who is far less intelligent and experienced in your own field, tells you that the cure has been something as simple as a vitamin deficiency, and because you overlooked it, many of your patients have died. The intensity of such guilt could drive you crazy, and for the sake of your sanity, you would have only two choices: Either convert and risk everything to help as many people as possible, or deny it, and condemn your opposition as "quacks" to give yourself a justification for your career.

Hopefully, readers can now understand why so few physicians are trying to do the right thing. There are some who are fighting the good fight because they have been brought to their knees in conviction of the evil they have seen and done, and they honorably share responsibility for causing harm.

To those men and women who have chosen to forsake all you have worked for to do the right thing, you have my forgiveness, respect, and support. However, for the vast majority, they would rather kiss the ring of the medical mafiosos to keep their lofty paychecks, even if it means the death of patients, forsaking their oath.

The oath I am referring to is known as the Hippocratic Oath, which I tend to call a "Hypocritic Oath," that is viewed by the general public as something holy and sacred. However, it was actually started as pagan oath, sworn to false gods:
"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:"
-Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About Mythology, HarperCollins, 2009, p. 230, ISBN: 9780061925757

The modern Hippocratic Oath says the following:
"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."
-Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries, "Hippocratic Oath, Modern Version," 1964, retrieved Jan 15, 2025, [https://web.archive.org/web/20150612190940/http://guides.library.jhu.edu/c.php?g=202502&p=1335759]

Notice that the oath requires them to follow the "the hard-won scientific gains" of other physicians, but as I have already demonstrated, there have been many physicians who have worked hard to hide the truth, being awarded for their lifetime achievements, despite the fact that they have hindered "scientific gains." Thus, this oath requires physicians to potentially walk dark paths, sharing only that so-called "knowledge" that comes from "approved" institutions, and it is one of the reasons why I am in firm disagreement with the oath as it stands, swearing to things that can be antithetical to basic reason and the scientific method, and because of that, I cannot trust a physician as much as I have in years past when I was ignorant of these things.

My irony detection meter overloaded when I read the line that said, "I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure," because this is the opposite way that the majority of clinics and hospitals operate today. They are all about treating symptoms, not causes, and by their own words, they are looking to "cure" cancer, not prevent it, and as we have learned, even the "prevention" aspects that are preached by mainstream institutions withhold information, lie about data, and ignore major contributing factors to prevention because they have adopted a chemical-based philosophy to rule over all aspects of health in the name of protecting the profits of Big Pharma.

I believe that many people look at these oaths as nothing more than a formality, but there is one major reason why oaths are taken in any profession, whether it be a physician, a firefighter, a politician, or a police officer, and that is the freedom to lie. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, and whether we like it or not, that also includes lies, meaning that, if someone wants to lie about someone else, that is protected speech. Of course, we have a First Amendment remedy for lies that cause damage, as we have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances (i.e. we can get court-ordered payouts against the liar for libel and slander against us), but if someone wants to spread false information to someone else, they have the right to do so. Because lies are protected by the First Amendment, we then need a contingency to prosecute those who work in areas of public service and lie to the public, so that they can be prosecuted for harming the public, but as it stands, the physicans who have been knowingly lying to the public about B17, amygdalin, laetrile, and chemotherapy have suffered no reprocussions for breaking their oaths, while those who have told the truth have lost their careers, their reputations, and their freedom.

I cannot emphasize enough that a man wearing a stethoscope around his neck does not automatically make him right in what he says and does, it does not absolve him of guilt of wrongdoing, it does not automatically mean he knows what he is talking about in every medical aspect, nor does it automatically mean that he has your best interest at heart. To blindly believe and follow everything that man tells you because of his status is to respect persons, and I say again, it is sin.

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit
sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-James 2:9

It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment.
-Proverbs 24:23

To have respect of persons is not good: for
for a piece of bread that man will transgress.
-Proverbs 28:21

In the end, it does not matter how many physicians you consult, your health is YOUR responsibility. You must take the reigns. You have to discipline yourself, and hold yourself accountable. Physicians are consultants, not miracle workers. Do not expect a doctor to wave a magic wand, or give you a mystic pill, and make you well. No one in this world owes you anything, and thus, it is no one else's responsibility to take care of your health except you.

Surprisingly, there are a substantial number people who simply do not care, and would rather die a slow, painful death than take any personal responsibility, or even learn a few things to improve their health. I worked as an in-home caregiver for a while, and I helped an elderly man at the time who had lost some control over his bladder and bowels due to his bout with cancer, and when I offered to share with him the information you have read in this book, he told me that he did not care and directly told me he refused to look at anything.

I knew another man whose wife had cancer, and I repeatedly tried to get this information into his hands, and I even pulled up my teaching on his computer for him so he would have easy access to it. I checked in with him a number of times over the following weeks about it, and he kept telling me he was too busy, and then, a few years later, his wife died, which could have easily been prevented, but whereas he had countless hours of time and loads of money to put into orthodox "treatment" for his wife's cancer, he would not spend a tiny fraction of his time to look at this book.

I knew another young woman who, when I began to explain the natural health solution to cancer, she stopped me and started yelling at me in defense of orthodox medicine because she was so blindly dedicated to the mainstream narrative. The point is that I cannot make anyone listen, and I refuse to force feed this information to anyone because someone will only listen if the Lord God has opened their minds and hearts to do so, and typically, that first comes through hardships that humble us.

I have experienced these same situations so many times over the past couple of decades since I started talking to people about it, and it is still shocking to me how obtuse many people can be to life-saving information, even when they are in pain and dying. However, I would warn readers that if you choose to share the information in this book with anyone you know, please prepare yourself to be shocked because it will happen to you too.

The western diet of processed foods and chemicals is one of the most deadly plagues in our modern era, and it is sweeping the world, even to the Hunza, who have already lost some of their way of life, and are experiencing new illness like they had never seen before. This began with the construction of the Karakoram Highway, which is a road built by China and Pakistan (and opened up for public use in 1986) that runs through Gilgit (where the Hunza live), which allowed shipping that was previously impossible to now readily flow through Hunza Valley.

(See Seeds of Discovery, "The Secret of the Fountain of Youth: Hunza Food Culture," June 18, 2023, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://youtu.be/f0OiaSrU0tQ?t=1187])

Today, Hunza has been "modernized" with fiat currency and processed foods. They still grow food in their fields and cook with it as they traditionally have done for centuries, but now they mix it with processed and packaged food and drink from modernized culture, which has taken a heavy toll on their community's overall health, shortening their life spans, and affecting their children with terrible habits, as the elders of their community have testified in interviews.

In the documentary called The Secret of the Fountain of Youth: Hunza Food Culture, the owner of the local Shimshal Hotel said that about 90% of what the youth are eating is not healthy food anymore. The young men and women only eat about 10% of pure food grown locally by the Hunza farmers because they do not enjoy it like they once did, as they have become addicted to a processed diet, and many young people in Hunza are not staying with their families to farm, preferring to move to the big cities to find jobs.
(See Seeds of Discovery, "The Secret of the Fountain of Youth: Hunza Food Culture," June 18, 2023, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://youtu.be/f0OiaSrU0tQ?t=1314])

Some Hunza men are developing businesses in Hunza Valley to help combine Hunza cuisine with modern recipes, introducing their healthy eating in different ways. Karim Khan Saka is one of those men, who opened a pizza parlor called "Pizza Pamir," and in an interview, he said:
"People here no longer eat what is precious for our health. Dried fruits for example, like cherries, apples, apricots, etc. We dry them and sell them in the market, and then we buy things that are not healthy. That's because there is a big demand from tourists for dried apricots, apricot kernels and oil, and in almost every home, we harvest these and sell them to buy bad products that we use for ourselves... People don't have the same activities. Before, they were working all day long in the fields, leading the animals to the pastures. It has changed. Now, people are shopkeepers. They stay in their shops all day long. They don't have the same stamina and physical activity. As a result, the life expectancy has decreased. Now people don't live 100 years old. Now it is more around 80 years old."
-Karim Khan Saka, quoted by Seeds of Discovery, "The Secret of the Fountain of Youth: Hunza Food Culture," June 18, 2023, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://youtu.be/f0OiaSrU0tQ?t=1460]

Believe it or not, a pizza man just told you the secret to a long, healthy, cancer-free life, but in the West, we are so arrogant, many of us refuse to listen to those who do not have prestigious rank, title, class, and office. It was very disheartening to hear what has happened to Hunza culture over the past few decades, but the lessons are still there, the information is still available, and we have the power (by the grace of God) to change our own households for the better, to be examples to others.

The Hunza have not given up on their culture, and are (as is their tradition) adapting to their new environment by finding inventive ways to bring a healthy diet back to their community. They have large herds of yaks, which produce a lot of milk and meat from the eating the natural herbs of the field, and so they have created yak burgers and yak pizza, using the cheeses they create from the milk, the bread from their own grain, the meat from their own animals, and sauces from their own vegetables and herbs.

The Hunza continue to drink the waters that flow down from the mountains, which provides them with much-needed minerals, and that is something Americans should consider. Sadly, most Americans are so obsessed with getting clear "purified" water, due to all the chemicals that big companies put into our water, either purposefully (like floride) or through sewage run-off, but never consider that if we do not get enough minerals, like the Hunza get in their water, our cells will not be able to process vitamins, which is a major contributing factor to our poor health in the West.

B17 and laetrile are meaningless if we do not get a proper metabolic diet because they are of little or no efficiency without it, so I hope readers will remember that, but some of you might be curious how to get laetrile. There are a few things you should know about it first, and please keep in mind that these were all issues at the time I wrote this book, and things could change in the future, hopefully for the better.

The FDA claims to have legal jurisdiction over laetrile based on the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, but specifically under the amendment to it that was made in 1962, also known as the Kefauver Harris Amendment, which required drug manufacturers to provide proof of effectiveness of their drugs before they can be sold. However, the FDA is deceiving Americans on this point. This amendment cannot be applied retroactively, meaning that because laetrile was sold as a cancer treatment before 1962, the only way it could banned under the 1962 amendment is if a hearing was held in a public trial to discuss the science behind it, and they do not want to do that because information might get out that it was effective in treatment of cancerous tumors, so they simply "grandfathered" in laetrile and did not tell anyone about it.

To understand this in more detail, let's take a look at Rutherford v. United States, which is a court trial in the mid-1970s based on plaintiff Glen Rutherford suing the federal government for damages against his Constitutional right to seek the medical treatment he believed was best for his own health—in this case, laetrile. Rutherford did not want surgery, so he elected to go to Tijuana, Mexico to get laetrile treatment, and after a few weeks of treatment, he was relieved of all his cancer pain, and returned to his home in Witchita, Kansas, living a normal life, working 10-12 hours days.

Rutherford needed to keep using laetrile, and purchased it for personal use, not for sale, but the U.S. Secretary of Health tried to stop him by seizing the supplies he ordered. After reviewing the testimonies, letters, and receipts presented by the plaintiff, the judge concluded:
"The Court is compelled to find from the testimony and the exhibits that plaintiff Glen L. Rutherford was in late 1971 suffering from invasive adenocarcinoma and that by the use of laetrile, B17 or amygdalin (all being the same drug) his condition was cured, as there is no evidence to the contrary."
-Glen L. Rutherford v. United States of America and Casper Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, United States District Court, Oklahoma, 399 F. Supp. 1208, Aug 14, 1975, No. CIV-75-0218-B, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/399/1208/1489145/]

This does NOT mean that the district court ruled that laetrile cures cancer, and I want to emphasize that so no one starts false rumors on the internet, but rather, in this case, the court had to conclude it for the sake of direction for a ruling, since no other evidence had been provided to disprove the claim. The court had to determine that there was no other purpose for ordering the laetrile than for the plaintiff's personal use, and the evidence supported that fact. The carrier who was delivering the laetrile was jailed and fined $10,000 ($58,000 or 0.58 Bitcoin in 2025), and the court, without understanding the law, ruled in favor of the defendant that it was against the law for Rutherford to receive his package of laetrile, under the argument that laetrile was a "new drug," and therefore, they attempted to justify their actions under the Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962.

Rutherford's lawsuit did not end there because he appealed that decision, and in 1977, the Western District of Oklahoma Court, presided by Judge Bohanon, said:
"The point can be couched in simple terms. Many intelligent and mentally competent citizens in this nation have made a deliberate decision that they would like to employ an unproven and largely unrespected treatment in an effort to comfort, if not save, lives that orthodoxy tells them have already been lost. They do so with an acute awareness of professional medicine's assessment of their choice. Their decision should be respected... IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants in this action, the United States of America, its agents, agencies and instrumentalities, including, in their official capacities, Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Donald Kennedy, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Vernon D. Acree, Commissioner of U.S. Customs Service, and their successors and agents are enjoined from impeding or preventing the importation and interstate transportation of laetrile by any members of the plaintiff class or their duly designated agents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that such laetrile can be imported and utilized solely for the personal use and benefit of the plaintiff class members."
-Glen L. Rutherford v. United States of America, United States District Court, Oklahoma, 429 F. Supp. 506, April 8, 1977, No. CIV-75-0218-B, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/429/506/1554980/]

To summarize his well stated point, American citizens have the right to decide for themselves how they will treat their own illness, and the FDA was ordered to stand down. To further lay the smack down on the FDA, in another hearing on the same case, Judge Bohanon eloquently ruled:
"Having ascertained, during the December 30, 1976, hearing, that a competent administrative record did not exist, 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 [i.e. authoritatively] invoking only some unexplained application of their own expertise in defense of policy decisions they have made."
-Glen L. Rutherford v. United States of America, United States District Court, Oklahoma, 424 F. Supp. 105, Jan 4, 1977, No. CIV-75-0218-B, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/424/105/1444550/]

In short, the courts have ruled that the FDA has no business in your decisions for your treatment of your disease, but rather, they have taken it upon themselves (without any official clarification about its qualms against laetrile) to ban the sale of it within U.S. borders. There are records of other cancer patients suing the FDA for banning the use of laetrile, but their cases have been quickly thrown out because the FDA has no such order, rule, or law on the books. However, just because you could purchase it and have it shipped to you for your own personal use within the U.S., it is difficult to find those who are willing to take that risk, knowing that federal agents could harass whoever they wanted for extended amounts of time in drawn-out court hearings, even if those agents are in the wrong.

So to conclude, laetrile is not banned for use by the U.S. government, but it simply cannot be sold by any business operating on U.S. soil. However, I would advise that it would be impossible for the FDA to prevent American citizens from eating apricot seeds (because that would be an absurdly gargantuan task requiring the FDA to ban and sieze all apricots in the U.S.), and so if you simply consume apricot kernels, which have the highest known concentration of B17/amygdalin in the world, that is just as good as getting laetrile.

I want to briefly thank any of you who took the time to read this book, as all my work is for nothing if no one reads it. If you found any information in this book helpful, please share it with someone else in the hope that they also might save a life.

If any readers want to learn more about the corruptions of Big Pharma, and how they have deceived nearly all Americans (and the world) through propaganda, I have another book you may be interested in reading called Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil. As always, all my books are available free to read at creationliberty.com, but if you decided to purchase a copy of this (or any other book), I thank you for helping to support my family while I work.


No matter how long you might live, death is a guarantee, and so there is nothing more important to understand than the Gospel of Salvation in Jesus Christ, and sadly, there are millions upon millions of churchgoers around the world who put their faith in a false gospel that cannot save them. This is why I wrote a short book called Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell which you can find at creationliberty.com, and I hope you will consider reading that as well.


Without the Lord Jesus Christ, I would have never found all this information, nor understood it, and so all praise goes to Him for His blessings of mercy on us. I hope that the health of your family will be strong, and that you will set an example that will be followed by your posterity.

My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. 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 3:1-8

🔍