-9
World
without Cancer - G. Edward Griffin:
Movie and Audio Transcript.
Part 2.
Common
Sense and Toxicity Level:
We've said that vitamin B17 is
harmless to non-cancer cells. This is true, but
perhaps it would be more accurate to say that
it's as harmless as any substance can be. After
all, even life-essential water or oxygen can be
fatal, if taken in unnaturally large doses. And
this is true also of vitamin B17.
For example, there's one
case of a man, who reportedly died from devouring
almost a cup of apple seeds. Incidentally, the case
never has been authenticated, but assuming it's
true, if the man had eaten the apples also, he would
have obtained enough extra rhodanese from the whole
fruit to offset the effect of even that many seeds
in his stomach. But that would have required that he
eat several cases of apples, which, of course, would
have been impossible in the first place.
Nature can only do so
much. It cannot anticipate excess of this kind.
Therefore it's wise to follow the simple rule that
one should not eat at one time more seeds, than he
likely would consume, if he also were eating a
reasonable quantity of the whole fruit. This is a
common-sense rule with a large safety margin that
can be followed with complete confidence.
And when it comes to the
laboratory forms of vitamin B17 known as amygdalin
or Laetrile, there's even less cause for concern.
For over a hundred years standard pharmacology
reference books have described this substance as
non-toxic. After a century of use in all parts of
the world there never has been a single reported
case of related death or even serious illness.
In one
series of tests white rats were fed seventy
times the normal human dose of Laetrile and the
only side effects produced were greater
appetite, weight gain and superior health, just
what one would expect from taking a vitamin. Aspirin
tablets are twenty times more toxic, than the
equivalent amount of Laetrile. And in
fact, Dr. Burk of the National Cancer Institute
has demonstrated that Laetrile is even less
toxic, than sugar.
B17 - Does
It Really Control Cancer:
Let's turn now to the
all-important question: Does Laetrile or vitamin
B17 actually control cancer in human beings and
if it does, is there statistical evidence to
support that claim? Spokesmen for organized
medicine say no. Almost all official opposition
to Laetrile is based upon a 1953 report by the
Cancer Commission of the California Medical
Association. The report said flatly: "No
satisfactory evidence has been produced to
indicate any significant cytotoxic effect of
Laetrile on the cancer cell."
Idiots and
Liars!
Using this report as a primary
reference, government agencies soon declared
that it was illegal to prescribe, transport or
even recommend Laetrile. The report was written
by the committee chairman, Dr. Ian MacDonald
and the committee's secretary, Dr. Henry Garland.
There were seven other prominent physicians
appointed to the committee, but none of them,
not even the men, who wrote the report, had any
personal experience with Laetrile. They had
based their conclusions entirely on the written
records of other experimenters.
The scientific judgment
of these men perhaps can be best appreciated by
noting that MacDonald and Garland were the doctors,
who had made headlines claiming that there was no
connection between cigarette smoking and lung
cancer. In fact, MacDonald had claimed that
twenty-four cigarettes per day was a harmless
pastime and then he said: "A pack a day keeps lung
cancer away."
But even more important,
than this scientific ineptitude, is the fact that
both men actually had falsified their summary of the
Laetrile experiments. For example, their report
claimed that microscopic examinations of tumors
taken from patients treated with Laetrile showed no
evidence of beneficial chemical effect. Yet ten
years later it was learned that one of the
pathologists conducting the examinations in fact did
report several instances of tumor destruction, which
- he stated at the time - could well have been
caused by the action of Laetrile. McDonald and
Garland had not told the truth.
The report also stated
that laboratory technicians had tried unsuccessfully
to release cyanide from Laetrile. This was offered
as powerful evidence that the entire theory was a
fraud.
And yet, just two months
prior to that the American Medical Association
chemical lab had reported that it had been
successful in releasing cyanide from Laetrile. And
of course, other labs have done this also, including
the California Food and Drug Lab and of course, the
cytochemistry lab of the National Cancer Institute.
Again, MacDonald and Garland had obscured the truth.
Another important aspect of this report is that the
patients had received extremely small doses of
Laetrile, much too small to prove anything.
Today it's not uncommon
to administer 2 or 3 grams of the material in a
single injection. Generally, 30 or 40 grams are
required, before the patient can report tangible
signs of improvement. But in the California
experiment the maximum total dosage was only about 2
grams and even that was divided among 12 injections.
5 patients had received only 2 injections and 5 had
received only 1.
So it's not
surprising that these experiments had failed to
obtain convincing evidence that Laetrile worked.
What is surprising, however, is that this and
similar discredited reports continue to be cited
by the American Cancer Society as proof that
Laetrile is a hoax.
Can B17
Restore Health Once Cancer Has Begun?
But let's return to the original
side of this question! What evidence is there to
support the claim that Laetrile does work? As we
have seen, the health records of the Hunzakuts,
the Eskimos and many other groups around the
world are statistically conclusive that vitamin
B17 does control cancer in human beings with an
effectiveness approaching one-hundred percent.
There can be little controversy over that. But
what about cancer, once it already has started?
Can B17 restore a person to health, after he has
contracted the disease? The answer is
yes, if it's caught in time and if the patient
isn't too badly damaged by prior x-ray
treatment or toxic drugs.
Unfortunately, most
cancer victims start taking Laetrile only after
their disease is so far advanced that they've been
given up as hopeless by routine medical channels.
Usually they've been told that they have only a few
more months or weeks to live and it's in this tragic
state of near-death that they turn to vitamin
therapy as a last resort. If they die, - and indeed
many of them do - then they are counted as
statistical failures for Laetrile. In reality it's a
victory for Laetrile that any of them should be
saved at this stage. For once a deficiency disease
has progressed so far, the damage it did simply
can't be reversed.
A man, who has been shot
with a gun, can have the bullet removed, but still
die from the wound. Likewise, a patient can have his
cancer destroyed by vitamin B17 and still die from
the irreversible damage already done to his vital
organs.
And so in view of this
tremendous handicap the number of terminal patients,
who have been restored to health, is most
impressive. In fact, there literally are thousands
of such case histories in the medical record. The
American Cancer Society has tried to create the
impression that the only ones, who claim to have
been saved by Laetrile, are those, who merely were
hypochondriacs and never really had cancer in the
first place. But the record reveals quite a
different story. Let's take a look at just a few
examples!
Mr. David
Edmunds of Pinole, California was operated
on in June of 1971 for cancer of the colon,
which also had metastasized or spread to the
bladder. When the surgeon opened him up, he
found that the malignant tissue was so
widespread, it was almost impossible to remove
it all. The blockage of the intestines was
relieved by severing the colon and bringing the
open end to the outside of his abdomen - a
procedure known as a colostomy. Five months
later the cancer had returned and Mr. Edmunds
was told that he had only a few more months to
live.
Mrs. Edmunds, who is a
nurse, had heard about Laetrile and decided to give
it a try. Six months later instead of lying on his
deathbed, Mr. Edmunds surprised the doctors by
feeling well enough to resume an almost normal
routine.
An exploratory
cystoscopy of the bladder revealed that the cancer
there had completely disappeared. At his own
insistence he was re-admitted to the hospital to
see, if his colon could be put back together again.
In surgery they found nothing even resembling cancer
tissue. So they re-connected the colon and sent him
home to recuperate. It was the first time in the
history of the hospital that a reverse colostomy had
been performed.
Mr. Edmunds now is
living a near normal life of health and vigor.
In 1967
Mrs. Joanne Wilkinson had a tumor removed
from her lower left leg just below the thigh.
Four months later there was a recurrence
requiring additional surgery and the removal of
muscle and bone. A year later a lump in the
groin appeared and the biopsy revealed that her
cancer had returned and was spreading.
Her doctor told her that
surgery would be necessary again, but this time they
would have to amputate the leg, the hip and probably
the bladder and one of the kidneys, as well. The
plan was to open up her lungs first, to see, if
cancer had located there. If it had, then they would
not amputate, because there wouldn't be any chance
of saving her, anyway.
At the urging of her
sister and a mutual friend Mrs. Wilkinson decided
not to undergo surgery, but to try Laetrile instead.
Her doctor was upset by this. He told her that if
she didn't have the surgery, she couldn't possibly
live longer, than twelve weeks. Five weeks after
starting on Laetrile, the lump in her groin had
disappeared. Today, years later, she is living a
healthy and productive life.
In 1972 Dr. Dale Danner,
a podiatrist from Santa Paula, California, developed
a pain in the right leg and a severe cough. X-rays
revealed a carcinoma of both lungs and what appeared
to be massive secondary tumors in the leg. The
cancer was inoperable and resistant to radiotherapy.
The prognosis was: incurable and fatal.
At the insistence of his
mother Dr. Danner agreed to try Laetrile, although
he had no faith in its effectiveness. Primarily just
to please her, he obtained a large supply in Mexico.
But he was convinced from what he had read in
medical journals that it was nothing, but quackery
and a fraud. "Perhaps it was even dangerous", he
thought, for he noticed from the literature that it
contained large amounts of cyanide.
Within a few weeks the
pain and the coughing had progressed to the point,
where no amount of medication could hold it back.
Forced to crawl on his hands and knees and unable to
sleep for three days and nights, he became
despondent and desperate. Groggy from the lack of
sleep, from the drugs and from the pain, finally he
turned to his supply of Laetrile.
Giving himself one more
massive dose of medication, hopefully to bring on
sleep, he then proceeded to administer the Laetrile
directly into an artery. Before losing consciousness
from the medication, Dr. Danner had succeeded in
taking at least an entire ten-day supply - and
possibly as high as a twenty-day supply - all at
once.
When he awoke thirty-six
hours later, much to his amazement not only was he
still alive, but also the cough and pain were
greatly reduced. His appetite had returned and he
was feeling better, than he had in months.
Reluctantly he had to admit that Laetrile was
working. So he obtained an additional supply and
began routine treatment with smaller doses. Three
months later he was back to work.
Doctors Who
Have Used Laetrile:
Since Laetrile was developed in
1952, there have been literally thousands of
similar case histories reported and documented.
And when all these are viewed as a group, they
begin to take on the form of numerical
statistics, which of course are more meaningful,
than individual cases. There have been at least
26 published medical papers written by
well-known physicians, who have used Laetrile
experimentally in the treatment of their own
patients and who have concluded that Laetrile is
both safe and effective in the treatment of
cancer. The American Cancer Society and other
spokesmen for the medical establishment would
have us believe that only crackpots have
endorsed this conclusion. But the doctors, who
conducted these experiments and those, who share
their conclusions, are not quacks. Here are just
a few of the names:
In West Germany there is
Dr. Hans Nieper,
director of the Department of Medicine at the
Silbersee Hospital in Hanover. He is a pioneer in
the medical use of cobalt and is credited with
developing the anti-cancer drug cyclophosphamide.
Undoubtedly, he is one of the world's most
famous and respected cancer specialists.
In Canada there is Dr. N.R.
Bouziane, director of Research Laboratories
at St. Jeanne d'Arc Hospital in Montreal. He is a
member of the hospital's tumor board in charge of
chemotherapy. Also, he is dean of the American
Association of Bio-Analysts.
In the
Philippines there is Dr. Manuel Navarro,
professor of medicine and surgery at the
University of Santo Tomas in Manila. He is
distinguished internationally as a cancer
researcher and has over one-hundred major
scientific papers to his credit, some of which
have been read before the International Cancer
Congress.
In Mexico there is Dr. Ernesto
Contreras, who for over a decade has operated
the famous Good Samaritan Cancer Clinic in Tijuana.
He is one of Mexico's most distinguished medical
figures. He received post-graduate training at
Harvard's Children's Hospital in Boston. He has
served as professor of histology and pathology at
the Mexican Army Medical School and as the chief
pathologist at the Army Hospital in Mexico City.
In Belgium there is Dr. Maisin
of the University of Louvain. In Italy there is Dr. Guidetti of the University of
Turin. In Japan there is Dr. Sakai,
a prominent physician in Tokyo.
And in the United States
there are such respected names as Dr. Burk of the National
Cancer Institute, Dr. Morrone of the Jersey City Medical
Center, Dr.
Krebs,
who developed Laetrile, Dr. Richardson of San Francisco
and many more from over twenty countries with
equally impeccable credentials.
Brilliant
Side Effects:
These researchers have reported
that most of their patients experienced several
important side effects, including an immediate
lowering of blood pressure, improved appetite,
an increase in the hemoglobin and red blood cell
count and above all, a release from pain without
narcotics. Even if the patient has started
Laetrile therapy too late to be saved, this last
effect is a merciful blessing in itself.
Orthodox
Treatments:
In the United States if a doctor
wishes to avoid being labeled a quack, he must
practice what is called consensus medicine. In
other words, he must use only those treatments
that generally are also used by his colleagues.
At the present time in the field of cancer those
are limited to surgery, x-ray and drugs. For
comparison therefore let's turn now to the
results and benefits attained through these
so-called orthodox treatments!
As we shall see, surgery
is the least harmful of the three and in some cases
it can be a life-saving stop-gap measure. Surgery
also has the psychological advantage of visibly
removing the tumor and from that point of view it
offers the patient and his family some comfort and
hope. However, the degree, to which surgery is
useful, is the same degree, to which the tumor is
not malignant. The greater the proportion of
cancer cells in that tumor, the less likely it is
that surgery will help and the most highly malignant
tumors of all generally are considered inoperable.
The statistical rate of
long-term survival after surgery is at best only 10
or 15 percent. And once the cancer has metastasized
to a secondary location, surgery has almost no
survival value whatsoever. The reason, of course, is
that, like the other
therapies approved by organized medicine,
surgery removes only the tumor, it does not
remove the cause.
The rationale behind
x-ray therapy is essentially the same, as with
surgery. The medical objective is to remove the
tumor, but to do so by burning it away rather, than
cutting it out. Here also it's primarily the
non-cancer cell that's destroyed. The more malignant
the tumor, the more resistant it is to radiotherapy.
In fact, this procedure has all the same limitations
and drawbacks of surgery plus one more: it actually
increases the likelihood that cancer will develop in
other parts of the body.
X-Rays:
Yes, it's a well-established fact
that excessive exposure to radioactivity is an
effective way to induce cancer. This had been
demonstrated not only among the survivors of
Hiroshima, but a research team at the University
of Buffalo recently reported that less, than a dozen routine medical
x-rays to the same part of the body
increases the risk of leukemia by at least
sixty percent and these routine x-rays are nothing
compared to the intense radiation used on
cancer patients.
X-rays induce cancer
because of at least two factors. First, they do
physical damage to the body, which triggers off the
production of trophoblast cells as part of the
healing process. Second, they weaken or destroy the
production of white blood cells, which, as we have
seen, constitute the immunological defense
mechanism, the body's frontline defense against
cancer.
As with all forms of
currently popular treatments, once the cancer has
metastasized to a second location, there is
practically no chance that the radiology patient
will live. So in addition to an almost zero survival
value radiotherapy has the extra distinction of also
spreading the very cancer it's supposed to combat.
Anti-Cancer
Drugs:
The record of so-called
anti-cancer drugs is even worse. Most of them
currently in use are highly poisonous not just
to cancer, but to the rest of the body, as well.
In fact, generally they're more deadly to
healthy tissue, than they are to the malignant
cell.
Most of these drugs are
described as radiomimetic, which means, they mimic
or produce the same effects as radiation.
Consequently, they also suppress the immunological
defense mechanism and thus help to spread the cancer
to other areas. But whereas x-rays usually are
directed to one or two locations, these chemicals do
their deadly work on every cell in the entire body.
The use of exotic and highly toxic drugs is the
latest fad in cancer therapy.
As scores of these drugs
are developed each year, cancer patients become the
human guinea pigs, upon which they're tested. The
tragic results are well depicted in the following
statements taken from just a few of the official
Chemotherapy Reports of the National Cancer
Institute:
"An effort was made to
choose patients, who were well enough to withstand
the anticipated toxicity... Early death of two of
the first five patients treated caused a reduction
to eight milligrams per kilogram per day. No
significant anti-tumor benefit of any duration was
observed... In this study six of the eight children
died... No therapeutic effect was observed. Toxic
clinical manifestations consisted of vomiting,
hypertension, changes in oral mucous membranes and
diarrhea. Renal damage and cerebral edema were
observed at post-mortem examination in each of the
six patients, who died, while receiving this drug...
The death of two patients was unequivocally caused
by drug toxicity... Eight of the fourteen patients,
who survived their initial courses of therapy,
showed rapid and general deterioration and died
within ten weeks, after therapy began."
And so it goes. Year-in
and year-out. Deadly experiments fully approved by
organized medicine. Experiments that can be viewed
only as a form of human vivisection.
Vitamin
Therapy For Cancer:
This then is the comparison
between vitamin therapy and orthodox treatments.
The statistics, that follow, are taken from the
National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer
Society and from the clinical records of those
physicians, who have used Laetrile in the
treatment of their own patients. They vary
widely depending on the age of the patient, the
sex, the cancer location and the degree of
malignancy. Consequently, the figures shown will
be averages for all kinds and all groups
together. This is the story they tell.
Of those with advanced
metastasized cancer, who have been told by
their physician that there is no hope, only 15% will
be saved, when they turn to vitamin therapy, which
is not good. But under orthodox treatment less, than
one out of one thousand - or one-tenth of one
percent - will survive five years.
Of those with early diagnosed
cancer at least 80% will be saved by vitamin
therapy, but no more, than 15% will survive under
orthodox treatment.
And of those,
who presently are healthy with no clinical
cancer to begin with, close to one
hundred percent can expect to be free from cancer as
long as they routinely obtain adequate amounts of
vitamin B17.
But those,
who subsist on the typical American diet and
rely only on the therapies of organized
medicine, are doomed to a survival rate of just
84%. And that figure includes all ages. It
is much less for those above 30.
As mentioned previously,
these figures will vary widely depending on age,
sex, cancer location and degree of malignancy. Also,
they're somewhat arbitrary, when it comes to
separating early diagnosed cancers from those that
are advanced, for often there's a gray area between
the two. Nevertheless, in general they are as
accurate as any such tabulation can be and they tell
an impressive story that cannot be brushed aside.
Considering the lack of
results obtained by orthodox medicine, it's been
said that voodoo witchcraft would be just as
effective and perhaps even more so, for at least
then the patient would be spared the deadly side
effects of radiation and chemical poisoning. Just as
we are amused today at the primitive medical
practices of history, future generations surely will
look back at our own era and cringe at the senseless
cutting, burning and poisoning that now passes for
medical science.
No matter, how useless
or even harmful current practices may be, consensus
medicine demands that they be used by every
physician. Regardless of how many patients are lost,
the doctor's professional standing is upheld,
because those, who pass judgment through peer
review, are using the same treatments and getting
the same tragic results.
On the other hand, if a
doctor deviates from this pattern and dares to apply
nutrition as the basis of his treatment, even if he
attains a high degree of success, he is condemned as
a quack. He may lose his hospital privileges and
even is subject to arrest.
There's no doubt that
most of the opposition to vitamin therapy comes from
well-intentioned people, who simply don't yet have
all the facts. But vested interest also plays an
important role. As stated at the beginning of this
presentation, the science of cancer therapy isn't
nearly as complicated as the politics of cancer
therapy. The history of how these vested interests
have succeeded in influencing the medical
profession, government agencies and public opinion
is a fascinating story by itself. But, of course,
time doesn't permit it to be told here.
For the full story of
both the science and the politics read "World
without Cancer". This
book contains all the information presented in this
film plus a great deal more. It includes extensive
extracts from primary research documents and is
amply footnoted, so that the serious students can
pursue his own avenues of investigation. We
recommend that you obtain several copies of this
book for the purpose of lending to your friends. The
information contained could well save their lives.
Once
vitamin B17 is as widely understood and
available as other vitamins, cancer then
will be as rare as is scurvy or pellagra
today. When nitrilosides are used perhaps
as a routine seasoning to our food like iodized
table salt, then the battle finally will be won.
This is our goal and it's an objective that can
be reached right now by anyone, who will act
upon this knowledge. You and and your family now
may become secure from cancer. But that's only
because someone else has helped to bring these
facts to your attention. Can you do less for
others? Join with us in this noble task!
Together we can create a world without cancer.
- World
without Cancer - G. Edward Griffin. Movie and
Audio Transcript.
NOTES:
1) It is illegal to sell Apricot kernels,
even in health stores but you can order them thru
various sites on the internet - type 'Apricot Seeds'
in any search engine.
2) B17 is
less effective if the patient does not have a
properly functioning immune system.
3) People
already devastated by chemo may be too late for B17
to be effective.
4) Detoxification
of the cells is critical. Far
Infrared is an option for serious
detoxification including heavy metals
and drugs.
5) Other factors
that MUST be addressed in the prevention and killing
of cancer cells
- The Mind/Body
Connection // Oxygenation
/ pH
balance
6) "Whilst eating
foods and vitamins such as B17 may help protect the
body from disease (and even reverse many
conditions), in order to be truly effective,
vitamins and minerals need other substances to react
with in the body. Probably the most important group
are SYSTEMIC ENZYMES, these are the ones that do
more than help with food digestion, they work all
the way through the body in every organ. Enzymes are
known as bio catalysts which means they help other
things to do their job quicker. There are about 3000
enzymes in our system which causes over 7000
(enzymic) reactions to take place." -
www.cart.apricotshop.co.uk
7) Watch the video 'WORLD WITHOUT CANCER'
on YouTube - six parts.
Audio:
www.worldwithoutcancer.com/flashmovies/cancer.ram
8) Great
site for research: www.laetrile.com.au/copy.asp?sect=q1&page=mystory
World Without
Cancer - Pt. One
One of
the biggest cover-ups regarding
the prevention and treatment of cancer.
