The English transcript and embedding the subscripts and the translation into Japanese have completed. The YouTube video is here:
This year 350,000 Americans will die from cancer.
One out of four of us will develop cancer in our lifetime.
That is over 50 million people in the United States alone.
The purpose of this presentation is to show that this great human tragedy
can be stopped now entirely on the bases of existing scientific knowledge.
We will explore the theory that cancer, like scurvy or pellagra, is a deficiency disease
aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet,
and that its ultimate control is to be found simply in restoring the substance to our daily intake.
We are not in the business of promoting vitamins, food supplements or products of any kind.
We are not prescribing any course of treatment.
We endorse nothing except freedom of choice.
We have nothing to sell but facts.
What you are about to hear does not carry the approval of organized medicine.
The Food and Drug Administration, the American Cancer Society, and the American Medical Association have labeled it fraud and quackery.
The average physician, however, is less dogmatic.
He is more to say, "Let's give it a try and then pass judgement."
Consequently, an increasing number of doctors all over the world
now are testing and proving in their own clinics that the vitamin concept of cancer is true.
With billions of dollars spent each year in research,
with other billions of taken in from the cancer-related sale of drugs,
and with vote-hungry politicians promising ever-increasing government programs,
we find that, today, there are more people making a living from cancer than are dying from it.
If the riddle were to be solved by a simple vitamin, this gigantic commercial and political industry could be wiped out overnight.
The result is that the science of cancer therapy is not nearly as complicated as the politics of cancer therapy.
In the past, the FDA and other agencies of government
have used every means at their disposal to prevent this story from being told.
They have arrested citizens for holding public meetings to tell others of their convictions on this subject.
They have confiscated films and books.
They even now are prosecuting doctors who apply these theories in an effort to save the lives of their own patients.
With this background in mind, it may appear to be the height of folly to proceed this presentation.
But ladies and gentlemen, if the story that follows is true, as we firmly are convinced it is,
then, in the name of humanity, someone simply has to stand up against the bureaucracy.
And we are determined to do it.
The history of science is the history of struggle against entrenched error.
Many of the world's greatest discoveries initially were rejected by the scientific community.
And those who pioneered those discoveries often were ridiculed and condemned as quacks and charlatans.
Columbus was bitterly attacked for believing the Earth was round.
Bruno was burned at the stake for claiming that the Earth was not the center of universe.
Galileo was in prison for teaching that the Earth moved around the Sun.
Even the Wright brothers were ridiculed and condemned for claiming that a machine could fly above the Earth.
In the field of medicine, Andreas Vesalius was denounced as an imposter and hereric
because of his discoveries in the field of human anatomy.
William Harvey was disgraced as a physician
for believing that blood was pumped by the heart
and actually moved around the body through arteries.
And Ignaz Semmelweis was fired from Vienna hospital post
for requiring his maternity staff to wash their hands.
Centuries ago, it was not unusual for entire naval expeditions to be wiped out by scurvy.
Between 1600 and 1800 the casualty list of the British Navy alone was over one million sailors.
Medical experts of the time were baffled as they searched in vain
for some kind of strange bacterium, virus, or toxin that supposedly lurked in the dark holds of ships.
And yet, for hundreds of years, the cure was already known and written in the record.
In the winter of 1535, when the French explorer Jacques Cartier
found his ships frozen in the ice off the St. Lawrence River,
scurvy began to take its deadly toll.
Out of a crew of one hundred and ten, twenty-five already had died,
and most of the others were so ill they weren't expected to recover.
And then a friendly Indian showed them the simple remedy.
Tree bark and needles from the white pine
– both rich in ascorbic acid, or vitamin C –
were stirred into a drink which produced immediate improvement and swift recovery.
Upon returning to Europe, Cartier reported this incident to the medical authorities.
But they were amused by such "witch-doctor cures of ignorant savages"
and did nothing to follow it up.
Yes, the cure for scurvy was known.
But, because of scientific arrogance,
it took over two hundred years and cost hundreds of thousands of lives
before the medical experts began to accept and apply this knowledge.
Finally, in 1747, John Lind, a young surgeon's mate in the British Navy
discovered that oranges and lemons produced relief from scurvy,
and recommended that the Royal Navy include citrus fruits in the stores of all its ships.
And yet, it still took forty-eight more years before his recommendation was put into effect.
The Twentieth Century has proven to be no exception to this pattern.
Only a generation ago large portions of the American Southeast were decimated by the dread disease of pellagra,
which was thought to be contagious and probably caused by an as yet undiscovered virus.
As far back as 1914, Dr. Joseph Goldberger had proven that this condition was related to diet,
and later showed that it could be prevented simply by eating liver or yeast.
But it wasn't until the 1940's – almost thirty years later –
that the medical world fully accepted pellagra as a vitamin B deficiency.
By 1952, Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., a biochemist in San Francisco,
had advanced the theory that cancer, like scurvy and pellagra,
is not caused by some kind of mysterious bacterium, virus, or toxin,
but is merely a deficiency disease aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet.
He identified this compound as part of the nitriloside family
which occurs abundantly in nature in over twelve hundred edible plants
and found virtually in every part of the world.
It is particularly prevalent in the seeds of the fruits
but also is contained in grasses, maize, sorghum, millet, cassava, linseed, bitter almonds,
and many other foods that generally have been deleted from the menus of modern civilization.
A chronic disease is one which usually does not pass away of its own accord.
A metabolic disease is one which arises within the body and isn't transmitted to another person.
Cancer, therefore, is defined as a chronic metabolic disease.
Dr. Krebs has pointed out that, in the entire history of medical science,
there has not been one chronic metabolic disease
that was ever cured or prevented by drugs or mechanical manipulation of the body.
In every case, the ultimate solution was found only in factors relating to adequate nutrition.
And he thinks that this is an important clue as to where to concentrate our scientific curiosity
in the search for a better understanding of cancer.
But there are other clues as well.
Before looking at the more technical aspects of Dr. Krebs' theory,
it is well that we examine some of them.
For example, domesticated pets often seek out certain grasses to eat
even though they are adequately filled by other foods.
This is particularly likely to happen if the animals are not well.
It is interesting to note that the grasses selected by instinct
are Johnson grass, Tunis grass, Sudan grass,
and others that are especially rich in nitrilosides or vitamin B₁₇.
Monkeys and other primates at the zoo when given a fresh peach or apricot
will carefully pull away the sweet fleshy part,
crack open the hard pit, and devour the small seed that remains.
Instinct compels them to do this even though they have never seen that kind of fruit before.
These seeds are one of the most concentrated sources of nitrilosides to be found anywhere in nature.
Wild bears are great consumers of nitrilosides in their natural diet.
Not only do they seek out berries that are rich in this substance,
but when they kill small grazing animals for their own food,
instinctively they pass over the muscle portions and consume first
the viscera and rumen which are filled with nitriloside grasses.
In captivity, animals seldom are allowed to eat all the foods of their instinctive choice.
In the San Diego Zoo, for example, the routine diet for bears,
although adequate in volume and nutritious in many other respects,
is almost totally devoid of nitrilosides.
In one grotto alone, over a six-year period, five bears died of cancer.
It was generally speculated by the experts that a virus had been the cause.
It is highly significant that one never finds cancer in the carcasses of wild animals killed in the hunt.
These creatures contract the disease only when they are domesticated by man
and forced to eat the foods he provides or the scraps from his table.
Dr. George M. Briggs, professor of nutrition at the University of California, has said:
"The typical American diet is a national disaster....
If I fed it pigs or cows, without adding vitamins and other supplements, I could wipe out the livestock industry."
A brief look at the American diet tells the story.
Grocery shelves are now lined with high-carbohydrate foods that have been processed
refined, synthesized, artificially flavored, and loaded with chemical preservatives.
Some manufacturers even boast of how little real food there is in their product.
Millet once was nation's staple grain.
It is high in nitriloside content.
But now it has been replaced by wheat which has practically none at all.
Sorghum cane has been replaced by sugar cane with the same result.
Even our cattle are fed increasingly on quick-growing, low nitriloside grasses
so there is less vitamin B₁₇ residue in the meat we eat.
In some places, livestock now are being fed a diet containing fifteen percent paper to fatten them quicker for market.
And so we see that, in the past fifty years,
the foods that once provided the American people with ample amounts of natural vitamin B₁₇
gradually have bee pushed aside or replaced altogether by foods almost devoid of this factor.
Significantly, it is during this same time span the cancer rate has move steadily upward
to the point where, today, one out of every four persons in the United States
is destined to contract this disease.
The ultimate scientific test of the vitamin theory of cancer
would be to take a large number of people numbering in the thousands
over a period of many years, expose them to a consistent diet of rich nitriloside foods,
and then check the results.
Fortunately, this already has been done.
In the remote recesses of the Himalaya Mountains, between West Pakistan, India and China,
there is a tiny kingdom called Hunza.
These people are known world over for their amazing longevity and good health.
It is not uncommon for Hunzakuts to live beyond a hundred years,
and some even to a hundred and twenty or more.
Visiting medical teams from the outside world report that there never has been a case of cancer in Hunza.
Although presently accepted science is unable to explain why these people should be free of cancer,
it is interesting to note that the average Hunza diet
contains over two hundred times more nitriloside than the average American diet.
In fact, in that land where there is no such thing as money,
a man's wealth is measured by the number of apricot trees he owns.
And the most prized of all foods is considered to be the apricot seed.
It is also interesting to learn that when the Hunzakuts leave their secluded land,
and adopt the menus of other countries
they soon succumb to the same diseases and infirmities – including cancer – as the rest of man kind.
The Eskimos are another people that have been observed by medical teams for many decades
and found to be totally free of cancer.
The traditional Eskimo diet is amazingly rich in nitrilosides
that come from the residue of the meat of caribou and other grazing animals,
and also from the salmon berry which grows abundantly in the Arctic areas.
When the Eskimo abandons his traditional way of life,
and begins to rely on westernized foods,
he becomes even more cancer-prone than the average American.
There are many other peoples in the world that could be cited with the same characteristics.
The Abkhasians near the Black Sea, the Hopi and Navajo Indians of North America,
certain native populations in South America and South Africa,
from all races and all regions of the world.
The one thing they have in common is that the degree to which these people are free from cancer
is in direct proportion to the amount of the nitrilosides or vitamin B₁₇ found in their native diet.
In answer to this, the skeptic may argue that these primitive groups
are not exposed to the same cancer-producing elements that modern man is,
and perhaps that is why they are immune.
Let them breathe the same smog-filled air, smoke the same cigarettes,
swallow the same chemicals added to their food or drinking water,
use the same soaps or deodorants, and then see how they fare.
This, of course, is a valid point.
But, fortunately, even that question now has been resolved by experience.
For over two decades, there has been a steadily-growing group of people
who have accepted the vitamin theory of cancer
and who have altered their diets accordingly.
They represent all walks of life, all ages, both sexes, and reside in almost every advanced nation in the world.
It is estimated that there are many thousands in the United States alone.
Now it is true that there is no way to determine their exact number
or conduct clinical examinations on each of them.
But they constitute a rather well-defined group that is both vocal and conspicuous.
It is significant, therefore, that after starting and maintaining a diet rich in vitamin B₁₇,
none of these people has ever been known to contract cancer.
Now, let's repeat that statement.
While their fellow citizens are suffering from cancer at the rate of one out of every four,
not one of these thousands has ever been known to contract this dread disease.
For many persons, the logic of all these facts put together is so great
that it would be easy to close the case right here.
But, in view of the powerful opposition against this concept,
let us not content ourselves only with the logic of the theory.
Let us reinforce our convictions with the science of the theory also,
that we may understand why it works the way our logic tells us that it must.
In 1902, John Beard, a professor of embryology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland,
reported that there were no discernible differences between highly-malignant cancer cells
and certain pre-embryonic cells that were quite normal to the early stages of pregnancy.
In technical terms these normal cells are called trophoblasts.
Extensive research had let Professor Beard to the conclusion
that cancer and trophoblast are, in fact, one in the same.
His theory, therefore, is known as the trophoblastic thesis of cancer.
The trophoblast in pregnancy indeed does exhibit all the classical characteristics of cancer.
It spreads and multiplies rapidly as it eats its way into the uterus wall
preparing a place where the embryo can attach itself for maternal protection and nourishment.
The trophoblast is formed as a result of a chain reaction
starting with another cell identified as the diploid totipotent.
For our purposes, let us call this simply the "total life" cell
because it contains within it all the separate characteristics of the complete organism
and has the total capacity to evolve into any organ or tissue
or, for that matter, into the complete embryo itself.
About eighty percent of these total life cells are located in the ovaries or testes,
where they serve as a genetic reservoir for future offspring.
The rest of them are distributed elsewhere in the body for a purpose not yet fully understood
but which may involve the regenerative or healing process of damaged tissue.
The hormone estrogen is well known for its ability to effect changes in living tissue.
Although it is generally thought of as a female hormone,
it is found in both sexes and performs many vital functions.
Wherever the body is damaged, either by physical trauma, chemical action, or illness,
estrogen always appears in great quantities,
possibly serving as a stimulator or catalyst for body repair.
It is now known that the total life cell is triggered into producing trophoblast
when it comes into contact with estrogen.
When this happens to those total life cells that have evolved from the fertilized egg,
the result is a placenta and umbilical cord,
a means of nourishing the embryo.
But when it occurs non-sexually as a part of the general healing process,
the result is cancer.
When cancer begins to form, the body reacts by attempting to seal it off
and surrounding it with cells that are similar to those in the location where it occurs.
A bump or lump is the usual result.
Under microscopic examination, most of these tumors are found to resemble a mixture
or hybrid of both trophoblast and surrounding cells;
a fact which has led many researchers to the premature conclusion
that there are many different types of cancer.
But the degree to which various tumors appear to be different
is the same degree to which they are benign;
which means that it is the degree to which there are non-cancerous cells within it.
The greater the malignancy, the more these tumors begin to resemble each other,
and the more clearly they begin to take on the classic characteristics of pregnancy trophoblast.
And the most malignant of all cancers – the chorionepitheliomas –
are almost indistinguishable from trophoblast cells.
For, as Dr. Beard pointed out over seventy years ago,
they are one in the same.
Let us turn now to the question of defense mechanisms.
Before we can hope to conquer cancer, first we must understand how nature conquers cancer
– how nature protects the body and controls the growth of trophoblast cells.
All animals contain billions of white blood cells.
One of the functions of these cells is to attack and destroy anything that is foreign and harmful to our bodies.
For this reason it would seem logical that they would attack cancer cells also.
But since cancer is trophoblast, and since trophoblast is not foreign to the body,
but is, in fact, a vital part of the life cycle,
nature has provided them with a very effective means of avoiding the white blood cells.
One of the characteristics of the trophoblast is that it is surrounded by a thin protein coating
that carries a negative electrostatic charge.
The white cells also have a negative charge.
And, since similar polarities repel each other, the trophoblast is well protected.
Part of the solution to this problem is found in pancreas,
which secretes an enzyme called trypsin.
When this enzyme reaches the trophoblast in sufficient quantity,
it digests the protective protein coat.
The cancer then is exposed to the attack of the white cells and it dies.
Applying this to embryo, we find that the trophoblast cells there
continue to grow and spread right up to the eighth week.
Then suddenly, with no apparent reason, they stop growing and are destroyed.
Recent research has provided the explanation.
It is in the eighth week that the baby's pancreas begins to function.
Now it is significant that the upper intestine, near the point where pancreas empties into it,
is the one place in the human body where cancer is almost never found.
We note, also, that diabetics – those who suffer from a pancreas malfunction –
are three times more likely to contract cancer than non-diabetics.
These facts, which have puzzled medical investigators for years,
at last can be explained in light of the trophoblastic thesis of cancer.
But what happens if the pancreas is weak,
or if the rate of cancer growth is so high the enzyme trypsin can't keep up with it? Then what?
The answer is that nature has provided a back-up mechanism,
a second line of defense, that can do the job even if the first line should fail.
It involves a unique chemical compound that poisons the malignant cell
while nourishing all the rest.
And this is where the vitamin concept of cancer finally comes back into the picture.
The chemical compound in question, of course, is vitamin B₁₇,
which is found in those natural foods containing nitriloside.
It is known also as amygdalin and, as such,
has been used and studied extensively for well over a hundred years.
But, in its concentrated and purified form developed by Dr. Krebs specifically for cancer therapy,
it is known as Laetrile.
For the sake of clarity in this presentation, however, we shall favor the more simple name: vitamin B₁₇.
The B₁₇ molecule contains two units of sugar,
one of benzaldehyde, and one of cyanide, all tightly locked together within it.
As everyone knows, cyanide can be highly toxic and even fatal if taken in sufficient quantity.
However, locked as it is in this natural state,
it is completely inert chemically and has absolutely no effect on living tissue.
There is only one substance that can unlock this molecule and release the cyanide.
That substance is an enzyme called beta-glucosidase,
which we shall call the "unlocking enzyme."
When B₁₇ comes in contact with this enzyme,
not only is the cyanide released, but also the benzaldehyde,
which is highly toxic by itself.
In fact, these two working together
are at least one hundred times more poisonous than either of them separately.
The unlocking enzyme is not found to any dangerous degree anywhere in the body
except at the cancer cell, where it always is present in great quantity.
The result is that vitamin B₁₇ is unlocked at the cancer cell.
It becomes poisonous to the cancer cell and only to the cancer cell.
There is another important enzyme called rhodanese, which we shall identify as the "protecting enzyme."
The reason is that it has the ability to neutralize cyanide by converting it instantly into by-products
that actually are beneficial and essential for health.
This enzyme is found in great quantifies in every part of the body
except the cancer cell which, consequently, is not protected.
Here, then is a bio-chemical process that destroys cancer cells
while, at the same time, nourishing and sustaining non-cancer cells.
It is an intricate and perfect mechanism of nature that simply could not have been accidental.
There is much speculation today about carcinogens
– the things that supposedly cause cancer.
We are told that researchers are now proven that smoking or extensive exposure to the sun,
or chemical additives to our food, or even certain viruses all can cause cancer.
But, as we have seen, the real cause is an enzyme and vitamin deficiency.
These other things merely are the specific triggers that start the process.
Anything that produces prolonged stress or damage to the body
can trigger off the production of estrogen as a part of the healing process.
If this goes unchecked because the body lacks the necessary chemical ingredients to fight back,
then the result is cancer.
Specific carcinogens, therefore, do not cause cancer,
they merely determine where it is going to occur.
Of course, nature's defenses against cancer include more than just the pancreatic enzymes and vitamin B₁₇.
Research has shown that an important role also may be played by other enzymes,
other vitamins, oxygenation of the blood, PH levels, and even body temperature.
Vitamin B₁₇ seems to be the most vital and direct-acting of all these factors,
but none of them can be ignored,
for they are an interlocking part of the total natural mechanism.
Fortunately, it is not necessary for man to understand fully every theoretical aspect of this mechanism
in order to make it work for him in practice.
All that he really needs to know is the necessity of eating foods
rich in all the vitamins and minerals
and minimizing damage or stress to the body.
The reality of vitamin B₁₇ concept of cancer
has been proven in the laboratory beyond any doubt.
For example, Dr. Dean Burk, head of the Cytochemistry section of the National Cancer Institute,
has reported that, in a series of tests on animal tissue,
the B₁₇ had no effect on normal cells,
but released so much cyanide and benzaldehyde when it came in contact with cancer cells
that not one of them could survive. He said,
"When we add Laetrile to a cancer culture under the microscope,
we can see the cancer cells dying off like flies."
We have said that vitamin B₁₇ is harmless to non-cancer cells.
This is true, but perhaps it would be more accurate to say that
it is 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 is 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 is 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 do only so much.
It cannot anticipate excess of this kind.
Therefore, it is wise to follow the simple rule
that one should not eat at one time more seeds than he likely could 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 what it comes to the laboratory forms of vitamin B₁₇ known as amygdalin or Laetrile,
there is even less cause for concern.
For over a hundred years standard pharmacology reference books have described this substance as non-toxic.
After centuries of use in all parts of the world,
there never has been even one reported case of related death or serious illness.
In one series of tests, white rats were fed seventy times the normal human does 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
had demonstrated that Laetrile is even less toxic than sugar.
Let us 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 the 1953 report
by the Cancer Commission of the California Medical Association.
The report says 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 prescribe, transport, or even recommend Laetrile.
The report was written by the committee chairman, Dr. Ian MacDonald,
and the committee secretary, Dr. Henry Garland.
There were seven other prominent physicians appointed to the committee,
but, none of them – not even the man who wrote the report – had any personal experience with Laetrile.
They had based their conclusions on entirely written records of other experimenters.
The scientific judgments 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, "Twenty-four cigarettes per day is 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 man actually had falsified their summaries on Laetrile experiments.
For example, their report claims 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 who conducted the examinations,
in fact, did report several instances of tumor destruction,
which he stated at the time could well have caused by the actions of Laetrile.
MacDonald and Garland had not told the truth.
The report also stated that laboratory technicians had tried unsuccessfully to release of cyanide from Laetrile.
This was offered as powerful evidence that the entire theory was a fraud.
And yet, just two months prier 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 had done this also
including the California Food And Drug lab
and, of course, the cytochemistry lab at 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 is not uncommon to administer two or three grams of the material in a single injection.
Generally, thirty or forty grams are required before the patient can report tangible signs of improvement.
But in the California experiment, the maximum total dosage was only about two grams.
And even that amount was divided by twelve injections.
Five patients have received only two injections, and five have received only one.
So it is not surprising that these experiments
have failed to obtain convincing evidence that Laetrile works.
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 us return to the original side of this question:
What evidence is there in that report 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 100%.
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 is caught in time,
and if the patient is not 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 have been given up as hopeless by routine medical channels.
Usually they have been told that they have only a few more months or weeks to live.
And it is 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 is 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 does simply cannot 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 who 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 a 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 would be no chance of saving her anyway.
At the urging of her sister and of 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 did not have the surgery,
she couldn't possibly live longer than twelve weeks.
Five weeks after starting on Laetrile, her lump in the 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 radio therapy.
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 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.
When all of 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 twenty-six 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 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 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 postgraduate 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 Sakai, a prominent physician in Tokyo.
And in the United States there are such respected names as Dr. Dean Burk of the National Cancer Institute,
Dr. Morrone of the Jersey City Medical Center,
Dr. Krebs, who developed Laetrile,
Dr. Richardson in San Francisco,
and many more from over twenty countries with equally impeccable credentials.
These researchers have reported that
most of their patients experience several important side effects
including an immediate lowering 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 if the field of cancer,
those are limited to surgery, X-ray, and drugs.
For comparison, therefore, let us turn now to the results and benefits obtained 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, if 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 ten or fifteen percent.
And once the cancer is 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 is primarily the non-cancer cell that is destroyed.
The more malignant the tumor, the more resistant it is to radio therapy.
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 is a well-established fact that
excessive exposure to radioactivity is an effective way to induce cancer.
This has 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 front-line 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,
radio therapy has the extra distinction of also spreading the very cancer it is 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 are more deadly to healthy tissue than they are to the malignant cell.
Most of these drugs are described as radiomimetic,
which means that they mimic or produce the same effect 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 only 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 are the latest fad in cancer therapy.
As scores of these drugs are developed each year,
cancer patients become the human guinea pigs upon which is tested.
The tragic results are well-depicted in the following statements taken from just a few of
the official Chemotherapy Reports, 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 8.0 mg/kg/day.
No significant of anti-tumor benefit of any duration was observed....
In this study, six of the eight childrend died....
No therapeutic effect was observed.
Toxic clinical manifestations consisted of vomiting,
hypertension, changes in oral mucus membranes, and diarrhea.
Renal damage and cerebral edema were observed at postmortem 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 general deterioration and died within ten weeks after therapy began.
And so it goes year in and year up.
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, sex, cancer location, and the degree of malignancy.
Consequently, the figure shown will be averages for all kinds of all groups together.
This is the story they tell.
Of those with advanced metastasized cancer
who have been told by the physician that there is no hope,
only 15% will be saved when they turn to vitamin therapy, which is not good.
But, under the orthodox treatment, less than one out of one thousand
or one tenth of 1% 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 100% can be expected 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 thirty.
As mentioned previously, these figures will vary widely depending on age, sex, cancer location, and degree of malignancy.
Also they are somewhat arbitrary when it comes to separating
early diagnosed cancers from those that are advanced,
for often there is a grey 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 has been said that voodoo witchcraft would be just as effective.
And, perhaps, even more so, for at least them,
the patient would be speared that 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.
Oh 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 is no doubt that most of the opposition to vitamin therapy
comes from well-intentioned people who simply do not yet all the facts.
But vested interest also plays an important role.
As stated at the beginning of this presentation,
the science of cancer therapy is not 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 does not permit to be told here.
For the full story of both the science and 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 it is amply footnoted so that a serious student 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 would well save their lives.
Once vitamin B₁₇ is as widely understood and available as other vitamins,
cancer then will be as rare as 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 is an objective that can be reached right now by anyone who will act upon this knowledge.
You and your family now may become secure from cancer.
But that is 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.
Transcript, Subscript, and Translation by bumnumbum@gmail.com