In the December 1959 issue of American Medical Association Journal, an editorial was published that boldly stated there was insufficient evidence “to warrant the assumption” that cigarette smoking was the principal factor in the increase of lung cancer. Who were the medical experts who authored such blatant falsehoods? Dr. Ian MacDonald, a prominent cancer surgeon, and Dr. Henry Garland, an internationally recognized specialist in radiology. These two individuals made national headlines with their claims. In fact, Dr. Garland specifically stated that cigarette smoking was actually beneficial as a tranquilizer. MacDonald even went on to note that smoking was a “harmless pastime”— even up to 24 cigarettes per day without consequence. He even went so far as to suggest “a pack a day keeps the cancer away.”
Fast forward to the mid 1960s and 1970s. Doctors Garland and MacDonald were used by government and health agencies to again submit an “expert” opinion regarding the use of laetrile, aka Vitamin B-17, aka nitrilocides on cancer patients. In spite of countless studies by renowned doctors, clinics, universities and specialists worldwide that showed the contrary, Garland and MacDonald claimed that no direct benefits were viable. Neither Garland nor MacDonald ever tested or used laetrile themselves. They merely compiled a mountain of other fraudulent or derelict research data and presented it as factual. What’s interesting is how these two doctors, and countless other trusted professionals in the medical and research industry, have been used to sacrifice medical integrity and cover up information for the sole purpose of the monetary well-being and profit of the medical industry. Unfortunately, that criminal practice continues today . . . particularly with cancer.
Who’s Hiding What?
Evidence is mounting that the FDA, the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society are deliberately hindering American citizens from having access to laetrile, a natural substance which has a proven record to prevent, cure and minimize the effects of cancer. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of cancer fatalities each year, it’s no wonder that expert author G. Edward Griffin calls this “an act of genocide” by the FDA and its other cohorts.
Which begs the question: If there was an easily accessible nutrient that could aid the cure and prevention of cancer, why would such entities fight against its release to the general public? Who would want to hide a cure for cancer and what motivation would they have for perpetrating such an act of horror? My answer to such questions usually starts with “Follow the money.” It always comes down to money.
A study conducted by USA Today shows that over 50 percent of all of the cowardly experts which have been hired to advise the government on the merits of laetrile and any other proposed medicines have heavily-involved financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, their paychecks are affected by their research. If their research were to uncover a non-patentable substance to cure a widespread disease, they would have to pound the pavement for a new job.
In 1971, the FDA reported to an Ad Hoc Committee of Consultants for Review and Evaluation of Laetrile that laetrile could no longer be promoted, sold or even tested in the United States. Why would the FDA treat a natural occurring substance of everyday fruits and vegetables with more alarm and restrictions than it would illegal drugs, poisons and unconventional medicines? Simple: there is no financial or political benefit to endorsing it.
A patent for laetrile is unobtainable since it is a naturally occurring substance. Real money can only be made if you’ve got a medical patent. So, instead of losing millions of dollars in lobbying monies, hundreds of thousands of jobs in research and medicine, our nation would rather force its citizens to flee to foreign shores to access the freedom of choice in treating their cancer without poisons, cutting or burning, and more importantly, by accessing a method that has a higher rate of success than any medical practice put forth now in the U.S. for the treatment of cancer.
In some studies, cancer patients have had an 82 percent improvement rate. There aren’t any other current “anti-cancer” methods that can boast such results, especially without doing harm elsewhere to the body of a cancer victim. 1972, Dr. Dean Burk, director of cytochemistry section of the federal governments National Cancer Institute, reported, “When we add Laetrile to a cancer culture under the microscope providing the enzyme glucosidase also is present, we can see the cancer cells dying off like flies.” The combination of glucosidase and laetrile would occur in human beings 100 percent of the time, as glucosidase is found prevalently in the small intestines. During his participation in the Seventh International Congress of Chemotherapy held in Prague in 1971, Dr. Burk also stated “Laetrile appears to work against many forms of cancer including lung cancer. And it is absolutely non-toxic.”
Laetrile is widely used in Mexico, Australia, Russia, Brazil, Belgium, Philippines, Costa Rica, England, Germany, Greece, Japan, Spain and Switzerland in treating cancer, just to name a few. Are all of the medical and research teams of all of these countries wrong on their views of laetrile? Each year, Mexico and Germany receive thousands of U.S. visitors for laetrile treatment. Some patients are not only able to lead longer lives but are able to fully recover and lead healthy lives.
Apricots are considered sacred and a show of wealth by the famous Hunza tribe in the Himalayan mountains. The more apricot trees they own, the wealthier they are considered to be. The most prized food in this tribe is the apricot seed. This tribe has never had any known instance of cancer among them. Their traditional diet contains over 200% more nitriloside than the American diet.
The Abkhazians which reside deep in the Caucasus Mountains also experience the same health profile as the Hunza. Additionally the Hopi, Modoc and Navajo Indians have had a very low rate of cancer among them. In fact, it’s believed by many medical experts who support the use of a diet rich in nitrilosides that such incidences of cancer are brought about as a result of the “civilization” of these tribes as they replace their diet with that more like the rest of America. The Hopi and Navajo tribes were found to regularly ingest as much as 800 milligrams of nitriloside a day. This phenomenon has continued to be observed in both tropic and arctic regions of the world.
Follow the Money
The average patient will spend between $5,000 and $25,000 for laetrile treatment and rarely need recurring treatment. Compare this to the average cost for U.S. cancer treatment at $55,000 a year—without complications. This does not include the costs for making the patient more comfortable at home. These costs can run as much as an additional 35 percent with complications. For some, cancer treatment costs are so high they can actually prevent any treatment. Last year alone, over $219 billion was spent by patients just on medical costs of cancer treatment. This does not include the nearly $300 billion that was raised and contributed for cancer research. Yes, not curing cancer is a very profitable business for those involved in research and supposed preventative pharmaceuticals.
The money is so attractive that many researchers and doctors actually counterfeit studies and research in order to get some of the money. Between 1977 and 1980 it was determined that 62 doctors had manipulated the research data which they had provided and pocketed the fees. In 1973, a study created by the FDA itself showed that 1 out of 5 doctors would invent research data on the effect of new drugs and submit it for publication.
American drug companies pay doctors as much as $1,000 per patient to test and use their drugs on patients. This compromises the medical integrity of a doctor treating a patient if they know there’s a big check waiting in their bank account when a certain drug is used. This is in addition to the surgery and office fees charged by the doctors to treat patients. What monetary incentives do doctors, scientists, cancer organizations and politicians have to promote the effective use of a naturally occurring substance such as laetrile? None. Not one penny.
Cause and Effect
Even without big cash rewards on the line for not promoting a natural substance for the cure of cancer, is it any wonder there are misperceptions on laetrile among the medical and lay professionals? With so much misinformation being invented by so-called experts, it’s no wonder that the majority of doctors think laetrile is downright quackery. How could anyone relying strictly on hearsay and politically motivated grapevines think differently?
Research shows that none of the experts who oppose the use of laetrile ever actually used it, researched it, or did more than read information which was dispensed by others who were also inexperienced in developing their professional conclusions. Now there are generations of medical professionals misinformed on the use of laetrile—professionals viewing fiction as fact because the proper research was never performed by the FDA in the first place.
In the 1970’s, when a highly regarded scientist was actually used by the FDA to test laetrile, he came to the same conclusion as so many experts worldwide that laetrile was effective in the treatment of cancer. However, this did not bode well with the financial motive of the FDA. Instead they elected to make use of the high percentage of errors which can occur in the study and research of a medical treatment and chose to repeat laetrile testing again and again until their desired results could be founded. Evidence of research error abounds as noted by Dr. Trelford of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University Hospital notes. Dr. Trelford states that “chemotherapy of gynecological tumors does not appear to have increased life expectancy except in sporadic cases.”
Additionally, a report by the Southern Research Institute based on research conducted for the National Cancer Institute stated that “most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society’s ‘proven cure’ category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy!” Ultimately the scientist’s whose studies supported the use of laetrile was labeled as a quack, and the tests were ordered to be repeated again and again while making unscientific changes in the doses administered, and convoluting the tracking of the subjects. Additionally the FDA chose to use exercise an unprecedented high and unrealistic standards of success on the laetrile studies in order that it may be deemed ineffective. Ultimately, the FDA got their studies to “show” that laetrile was “quackery”.
So, the question remains. What are we to do? Frankly, until the Laetrilegate Scandal is fully exposed, the FDA will continue to perpetuate their politically and economically charged agenda—an agenda that now comes with legal results for anyone trying to sell or promote laetrile. National arm wrestling champion Jason Vale, who claimed that his kidney and pancreas were cured by eating apricot seeds—an organic of laetrile—was convicted in 2003 for, among other things, marketing laetrile. The US Food and Drug Administration continues to seek jail sentences for vendors selling laetrile for cancer treatment, calling it a “highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer.” Yet laetrile can be found in common foods like almonds, apple seeds and black cherries.
Hundreds of thousands of cancer patients who undergo surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy die every year, yet these treatments continue to be touted as “safe and effective” by the FDA and the medical and pharmaceutical industry at large. Not a single death of a cancer patient has ever been attributed to the supervised use of laetrile. In fact, there are numerous studies which have shown even the most advance forms of cancer have been able to enjoy more time even though they did not begin a laetrile treatment until they were on death’s door.
Ultimately, the answer to the question “What are we to do” is up to you.
Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.