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.
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."
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.
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.
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 (Children = wrong) 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.
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.
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.
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 meachanism, 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.
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. 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're 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 judgement 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!