Debunking the Debunkers
Between the years 1975 and 1980 there were so many things
happening that I am sure I do not remember all of them. Some of them were going
on at the same time. These stories need to be told. While the exact chronological
order of these stories may be incorrect, the stories are true.
Certainly one story that needs to be told is that of Dr.
Kanematsu Sugiura. In 1975, Dr. Sugiura was, and had been for some years, one
of the most respected cancer research scientists at Sloan-Kettering. In working
with cancerous mice, Dr. Sugiura found that, when he used Laetrile on these
mice, seventy-seven per cent of them did not develop a spread of their disease
(metastatic carcinoma). He repeated this study over and over for two years. The
results were always the same. Dr. Sugiura took his findings to his superiors at
Sloan-Kettering, but his study was never published. Instead, Sloan-Kettering
published the results of someone else who claimed that he had used Dr.
Sugiura's protocol. This "someone else's" study showed that there
were no beneficial effects from the use of Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura complained. He
was fired. A book was written about all of this entitled The Anatomy of A
Cover-up. This book has all the actual results of Dr. Sugiura's work. These
results do, indeed, show the benefit of Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura stated in this
book, "It is still my belief that Amygdalin cures metastases."
Amygdalin is, of course, the scientific name for Laetrile.
A few months later, a cancer researcher at Mayo Clinic, in a
private, informal conversation with a friend of mine, stated that it was very
unlikely that any positive effects from the use of Laetrile would ever be
published because "the powers above us want it that way."
During this period of time, the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) stated that it wanted to run a study to show the difference between
patients treated with orthodox therapy (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy) and
those treated with nutritional therapy. I was asked to participate in this
study. I went to New York to meet with one of the doctors who was conducting
the study. I will call him Dr. Enseeye (not his real name, of course). There
was a group of perhaps six or seven of us who had dinner that night with Dr.
Enseeye. Betty and I were seated next to him.
Dr. Enseeye explained the study to me. The NCI would take a
group of cancer patients and treat them in the orthodox method. Those of us who
were using nutritional therapy would take a similar group of patients and treat
them by our method. The NCI would then compare the results. This is the
conversation that followed:
"What will the NCI use as a criteria for success or
failure in these treatments?" I asked.
"Tumor size," Dr. Enseeye replied.
I said, "Let me make sure I understand what you are
saying. Suppose you have a patient with a given tumor. Let's suppose that this
patient is treated by one of these two methods. Let's say that the tumor is
greatly reduced in size in the next three months, but the patient dies. How will
the NCI classify that?
"The NCI will classify that as a success"
"Why?" I asked.
"Because the tumor got smaller," he replied.
I then asked, "Suppose you have a similar patient with
a similar tumor who was treated with a different method. Suppose that after two
years this patient is alive and well, but the tumor is no smaller. How will the
NCI classify this?"
"They will classify that as a failure."
"Why?" I asked.
"Because the tumor did not get any smaller," he
said. Dr. Enseeye went on to say, "In this study the NCI will not be
interested in whether the patient lives or dies. They will be interested only
in whether the tumor gets bigger or smaller."
I chose not to participate in this study!
During this period, the FDA was sending speakers throughout
the country to talk about the' "evils" of Laetrile. One such speaker
was scheduled to appear on the campus of Macalester College in St. Paul,
Minnesota in the spring of 1978. It just so happened that my son Rick was a
sophomore at Macalester College at that time. Rick was very knowledgeable on
the subject of Laetrile. When he found out when the talk was to be given, he
called his older brother, Bill, who was a senior at the University of Wisconsin
in LaCrosse. Bill was equally knowledgeable about Laetrile and agreed to come
to Macalester for the speech. Rick had also recruited a friend who was a
freshman at his school, Michelle Kleinrichard, who knew as much about the
subject as the two of them.
The three of them went to the speech, but they did not sit
together. Bill sat near the center just beyond half-way back in the auditorium.
Rick sat toward the front on the right. Michelle sat toward the front on the
left.
According to all three of them, the speaker left much to be
desired. It was easy to see he had been given the speech to read, and that he
had only a superficial knowledge of the subject. At the end of the speech he
asked for questions. The first one on his feet was Bill (in the center). What
happened was as follows:
Bill: "You said that you knew of a patient who had
cancer and was treated with Laetrile. You said that the patient died, and this
proved that Laetrile was worthless. Hubert Humphrey had cancer and was treated
with chemotherapy. He died three months ago. Doesn't that prove that
chemotherapy is worthless too? But, that's not my question. You also said that
a little girl in New York took five Laetrile pills and died from cyanide
poisoning. The parents now state that she took only one Laetrile pill. She was
fine for three days. Then the doctors started treating her for cyanide
poisoning. The next day she died. How do you explain this?"
Speaker: "I have no explanation for this."
Bill: "Another question."
Speaker: "No, we'll go to someone else."
With this, the speaker turned to another nice looking young man
on his left. This other nice looking young man was Rick. (I have to say they
were "nice looking" because I'm their father.) Rick pointed out that
the speaker had stated that work done by Dr. Harold Manner, using Laetrile
alone, had shown no positive results on cancerous mice. This, the speaker had
said, was considered to be of great scientific value. Subsequent work done by
Dr. Manner using Laetrile in combination with pancreatic enzymes and Vitamin A
had shown excellent results. Yet, the speaker had indicated that these latter
results were of no scientific value. Rick's question was why were these latter
results ignored. The speaker could not answer that question.
The speaker then turned to his right. There, standing and
smiling at him, was a pretty young lady. The speaker must have thought,
"At last, a friendly face." The young lady was Michelle. Michelle was
a member of the debate team at Macalester. The speaker was badly out-classed.
She hit him with both barrels. She asked for a full explanation of why, if so
many people die from chemotherapy, is chemotherapy so good? Why, if Laetrile
makes people feel better, is Laetrile so bad? She asked who determined that Dr.
Manner's recent results were not scientific. The poor speaker was in trouble.
He hemmed and hawed, but never answered her questions. Finally, he said,
"The question and answer period is over." He turned and rapidly left
the stage. In five minutes Bill, Rick and Michelle had completely destroyed the
credibility of the forty-five minute speech.
So, you ask, whatever became of those three free-thinking
undergraduates who perpetrated this dastardly deed on this unsuspecting FDA
speaker? (You probably weren't going to ask, but I'm going to tell you
anyway!).
Bill got his law degree from Capital University in Columbus,
Ohio. He worked for Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald as his legislative
director until the KAL Flight 007 incident. Subsequently, he worked for
Congressman A1 McCandliss as his legislative director. Later, he became the
Republican counsel for the House Banking Committee. He has since gone to work
for a private business.
Rick got his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of
Texas. He is a professor of astronomy at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Rick was, incidentally, the first astronomer to view the moon
around the planet Pluto.
The International Astronomical Society has named an asteroid
(a small planet), Asteroid 2873 Binzel, in his honor. In 1982, Rick and
Michelle were married.
Michelle, in addition to being a full-time housewife and a
full-time mother of two children, has also managed to complete her Ph.D. in
Business Management. When those two children become teenagers, Michelle is
going to need all of her debating skills. I don't know anything about business
management, but as the father of six children, I sure do know about debating. I
wish I had taken it in college.
REMEMBERING DR. SUGIURA
From
The Cancer Chronicles #3
© 1989 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
© 1989 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
[Some readers have asked why I dedicated
"Questioning Chemotherapy" to the memory of Kanematsu Sugiura. This
will help explain it. --RWM.]
October 22 [1989] marked the tenth anniversary of the death of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura. Born in Japan in 1892, Sugiura came to the United States as a boy. He lived with the Harriman family's physician and in 1912 became one of the first U.S. cancer researchers. From November 1, 1917 until his death over sixty years later Sugiura was associated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Although he retired in 1962 he continued to do research every day at Sloan-Kettering's Walker Laboratory in Rye, New York.
Sugiura was not just a fine scientist but an outstanding human being. When he was given the unconventional drug laetrile for testing he did so with skill and honesty. When laetrile, contrary to all expectations, turned out to stop the spread of metastases in mice, Sugiura refused to alter his conclusions, despite pressure to do so.
"I write what I see," he said repeatedly. "Laetrile is not a cure for cancer, but a good palliative drug."
With great courage, he publicly supported the underground newspaper Second Opinion, when it went public with these results in 1977. "Your critical review of my positive results and negative results of three investigators at Sloan-Kettering Institute is very well done and accurate," he wrote. "Please accept my sincere congratulations."
In an age when some scientists turn first to the business page to see how their stocks are doing, Sugiura¹s simple honesty and unwavering dedication shine like a beacon.
###
Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. is the author of eight
books and three documentaries on cancer-related topics. He is an advisor on
alternative cancer treatments to the National Institutes of Health, Columbia
University, and the University of Texas. He researches and writes
individualized "Healing Choices" reports for people with cancer. For
information on Healing
Choices, you
can send us an instant message or contact:
can send us an instant message or contact:
Coordinator Anne Beattie
@ 144 St. John's Place,
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Phone 718-636-4433
Fax 718-636-0186
E-mail mail@ralphmoss.com
Web site: http://www.ralphmoss.com
Scientific Cancer Facts
|
To base the whole
argument of whether Laetrile works or not solely on laboratory experiments
and their results is ludicrous.
Since cancer research and treatments run into the
billions of dollars, the government agencies along with the major cancer
research centers will always hide the truth.
To be able to cure
cancer with something so "trivial
and inexpensive" a treatment is tantamount to all
Laetrile research by cancer research centers being sabotaged.
1 Tim 6:10 KJV
"For the love of money is the root of all evil…"
Jer 17:9 KJV
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
However, there are a
few honest researchers with integrity who have not played the political cancer game.
Money is not what motivates these people but the search for truth does.
Here are their
names with a brief synopsis of
their experiments with Laetrile:
Dr. Ernest T. Krebs, Jr. is a biochemist and
the researcher who first isolated Laetrile in apricot seeds and also discovered B-15
(pangamic acid, a vitamin which has been proven to be an important adjunctive
therapy in the treatment of illnesses
related to circulation).
He spent three years in the study of anatomy and medicine
at Hahnemann Medical College and then changed his direction and became a
doctor of biochemistry.
He did undergraduate work at the University of Illinois between 1938-41. He
did graduate work at the University of Mississippi and also at the University
of California.
By 1950, he had isolated the nutritional
factor in crystalline
form and named it Laetrile.
He tested it on animals to make sure that it was not toxic. He then had to
prove that it was not
toxic to humans. There was only one thing to do. He rolled up
his sleeve and injected Laetrile into his own arm. As he predicted, there
were no harmful
or distressing side effects.
I find it interesting to note that Dr. Krebs
was more than willing to test his theory about Laetrile on himself
while cancer doctors
and their personnel take great precautions to be sure they themselves are not
exposed to the drugs they administer to their cancer victims...I mean patients.
Dr. Krebs authored many scientific papers in
his lifetime. He was the recipient of numerous honors and doctorates
both at home and abroad. He was the science director of the John Beard
Memorial Foundation before his death in 1996.
Dr. Dean Burk, Director of the Cytochemistry
Section of the federal government's National Cancer Institute reported that,
in a series of tests on animal tissue, the (Laetrile) vitamin B-17 had no harmful effect on normal cells,
but was deadly to a cancer cell.
In another series of tests, Dr. Burk
reported that Laetrile was responsible for prolonging the life of cancerous rats
eighty percent longer than those in the control group that were not
inoculated.
Dr. Burk was one of the foremost cancer specialists
in the world. He was the recipient of the Gerhard Domagk Award for Cancer Research,
the Hillebrand Award
of the American Chemical Society, and the Commander Knighthood of the Medical
Order of Bethlehem (Rome) founded in 1459 by Pope Pius XI. He
held a Ph.D. in biochemistry
earned at the University of California.
He was a Fellow of the National Research
Council at the University of London, of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for
Biology, and also Harvard. He
was senior chemist at the National Cancer Institute, which he
helped establish, and in 1946 became Director of the Cytochemistry
Section.
He belonged to eleven scientific organizations,
wrote three books relating to chemotherapy research in cancer, and was author
or co-author of more than two hundred scientific papers in the field of cell
chemistry. He is a
biochemist. If
Dr. Burk says that Laetrile works, I believe him!
For five years, between 1972 and 1977, Laetrile was meticulously tested
at Sloan-Kettering under the direction of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura.
Dr. Sugiura was the senior laboratory researcher
at Sloan-Kettering with over 60 years experience. He had earned the highest
respect for his knowledge and integrity. He was the perfect person to conduct
experiments since his quest
for truth blocked out anything else.
Dr. C. Chester Stock, the man in charge of
Sloan-Kettering's laboratory-testing division wrote this about Dr. Sigiura, "Few, if any, names in cancer
research are as widely known as Kanematsu Sugiura's… Possibly
the high regard in which his work is held is best characterized by a comment
made to me by a visiting investigator in cancer research from Russia."
"He said, 'When Dr. Sugiura publishes,
we know we don't have to repeat the study, for we would obtain the same
results he has reported.'" (Ralph Moss, The Cancer Syndrome, New York: Grove
Press, 1980 pg. 258)
The official report
about Laetrile
from Dr. Sigiura reads:
"The results clearly show that Amygdalin significantly inhibits the
appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and
increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary tumors…
Laetrile also seemed to prevent slightly the appearance of new tumors… The
improvement of health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to
controls is always a common observation… Dr. Sugiura has never observed
complete regression of
these tumors in all his cosmic experience with other
chemotherapeautic agents." (A
Summary of the Effect of Amygdalin Upon Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Mice,
Sloan-Kettering report, June 13, 1973.)
Dr. Sugiura's report was cause for great
alarm at Sloan-Kettering. Remember, cancer
is an industry bringing in over a billion dollars a year.
This report would cause the house of cards to collapse. As would be expected
then many more experiments were conducted by others who were not as honest as Dr.
Sugiura.
At a press conference, Dr. Sugiura was asked
suddenly by a reporter if he stuck
to his report. Dr. Sugiura clearly and boldly stated, "I
stick," even though Sloan-Kettering was trying to discredit everything
that he did. To read about the many times that Sloan-Kettering tried to
discredit their finest
researcher, get the book "World Without Cancer" by
G. Edward Griffin.
Now, even though we have proof from the
laboratories, let us look at what is being discovered in prominent
physicians' studies:
The following is taken from the book "World Without Cancer"
by G. Edward Griffin, published by American Media, Westlake Village, CA
As early as 1974, there was at least
twenty-six published papers written by well-known physicians who had used Laetrile in the
treatment of their own patients and who have concluded that Laetrile is both safe and effective in the treatment
of cancer.
Dr. Hans Nieper of West Germany, former
Director of the Department of Medicine at the Silbersee Hospital in Hanover
is a pioneer in the medical use of cobalt and is credited with developing the
anti-cancer drug,
cyclophosphamide. He is the originator of the concept of
"electrolyte carriers" in the prevention of cardiac necrosis.
He was formerly the head of the
Aschaffenburg Hospital Laboratory for chemical
circulatory research. He is listed in "Who's Who"
in World Science and
has been the Director of the German Society for Medical Tumor Treatment. He
is one of the world's most famous and respected cancer specialists.
During a visit to the U.S. in 1972, Dr.
Nieper told news reporters, "After more than twenty years of such specialized work, I
have found the nontoxic nitrilosides-that is Laetrile-far superior to any
other known cancer treatment or preventative. In my opinion, it is the only
existing possibility for the
ultimate control of
cancer."
N.R. Bouziane, M.D., from Canada is former
Director of Research Laboratories at St. Jeanne d'Arc Hospital in Montreal
and a member of the hospital's tumor board in charge of chemotherapy. He
graduated magna cum laude in medicine from the University of Montreal. He
also received a doctorate in science
from the University of Montreal and St. Joseph's University, an affiliate of
Oxford University in New Brunswick. He was a Fellow in chemistry and a
Fellow in hematology
and certified in clinical
bacteriology, hematology, and biochemistry from the college.
He also was Dean of the American Association of Bioanalysts.
After the first series of tests with
Laetrile shortly after it was introduced, Dr. Bouziane reported:
"We always have a diagnosis based on histology [microscopic analysis of
the tissue]. We have never undertaken a case without
histological proof of cancer...
In our investigation, some terminal cases were
so hopeless that they did not even receive what we consider the basic dose of
thirty grams. Most cases, however, became ambulatory and some have in this
short time resumed their normal activities on a maintenance dose."
(Cancer News Journal, Jan./Apr. 1971, pg. 20)
Manuel
Navarro, M.D., of the Philippines is
former Professor of Medicine
and Surgery at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila; an
Associate Member of the National Research Council of the Philippines; a
Fellow of the Philippine College of Physicians,
the Philippine Society of Endocrinology
and Metabolism; and a member of the Philippine Medical
Association, the Philippine Cancer
Society, and many other medical groups. He has been
recognized 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 1971 Dr. Navarro
wrote:
I ... have specialized in oncology [the study
of tumors] for the past eighteen years. For the same number of years I have
been using Laetrile--amygdalin in the treatment
of my cancer patients. During this eighteen year period I
have treated a total of over five hundred patients with Laetrile & amygdalin
by various routes of administration, including the oral and the I.V. The
majority of my patients receiving Laetrile--amygdalin have been in a terminal
state when treatment with this material commenced.
It is my carefully considered clinical judgment,
as a practicing oncologist and researcher in this field, that I have obtained
most significant and encouraging results with the use of Laetrile &
amygdalin in the treatment of terminal
cancer patients, and that these results are comparable or
superior to the results I have obtained with the use of the more toxic
standard cytotoxic agents. (Letter from Dr. Navarro to Mr. Andrew McNaughton,
The McNaughton Foundation, dated January 8, 1971, published in the Cancer
News Journal, Jan./April, 1971, pp. 19 -- 20.)
Ernesto Contreras, M.D., of Mexico has for over
three decades operated the Good
Samaritan Cancer Clinic (now called the Oasis Hospital) 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.
Dr. Contreras was introduced to Laetrile in 1963 by
a terminal cancer
patient from the United States who brought it to his attention and urged him
to treat her with it. The woman recovered, and Dr. Contreras began extensive investigation
of its properties and use. Since that time he has treated many thousands of
cancer patients, most of whom are American
citizens who have been denied the freedom to use Laetrile in their own
country.
Dr. Contreras has
summarized his experiences with vitamin
therapy as follows:
The palliative
action [improving the comfort and well-being of the patient]
is in about 60% of the cases. Frequently, enough to be significant, I see
arrest of the disease
or even regression in some of the very advanced cases.
(Cancer News Journal, Jan./April, 1971, pp. 20. We must bear in mind that
these are terminal
patients--people who have been given up as hopeless by
orthodox medicine. Fifteen percent recovery in that group is a most impressive
accomplishment.)
Shigeaki
Sakai is a prominent
physician in Tokyo, Japan. In a paper published in the October 1963 Asian
Medical journal, Dr.
Sakai reported:
"Administered to cancer patients,
Laetrile has proven to be quite
free from any harmful side effects, and I would say that no
anti-cancer drug could make a cancerous
patient improve faster than Laetrile. It goes without saying
that Laetrile controls cancer and is quite
effective wherever it is located."
Professor Etore
Guidetti, M.D., is of the University of Turin Medical School in Italy. Dr.
Guidetti spoke before the Conference of the International Union Against Cancer held
in Brazil in 1954.
He revealed how his
use of Laetrile in terminal cancer patients had caused the destruction of a
wide variety of tumors including those of the:
"In some cases," he said,
"one has been able to observe a group of fulminating and
cauliflower-like neoplastic
masses resolved very rapidly." He reported that, after
giving Laetrile
to patients with lung
cancer, he had been "able to observe, with the aid of
radiography, a regression
of the neoplasm or the metastases."
After Guidetti's presentation, an American
doctor rose in the audience and announced that Laetrile had been
investigated in the United States and found to be worthless.
Dr. Guidetti replied, "I do not care
what was determined in the United States. I am merely reporting what I saw
in my own clinic." (Cancer News Journal, Jan./April 1971, p. 19)
Joseph H. Maisin, Sr., M.D., is of the University
of Louvain in Belgium where he was Director of the Institute of Cancer.
He also was President Emeritus of the International League Against Cancer which
conducts the International Cancer Congress every four years.
And in the United States there are such respected
names as:
In my opinion, these results are more credible than
something that can be worked up in a laboratory. The proof of whether
Laetrile works or not is undisputed by eyewitness accounts from these highly
respected physicians who have had many years of seeing people recover from their
cancer by using Laetrile
therapy.
Remember, laboratory experiments can be manipulated
to produce any result that the researcher is looking for. Unscrupulous men
have used these reports for their own gain
and benefit, not for the cancer patient's.
Laetrile is
a vitamin that cannot be patented. It is not worthy to be used in cancer treatment
since it is not making the conglomorate pharmaceutical companies, research
centers, etc., any money. To them, the only solution is drugs, even though
they know without any doubt that these drugs do not work.
To prove it, let's take a look at what
surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy really do to the cancer patient.
Surgery is the
least harmful of the three:
Surgery can be life-saving if there
are intestinal
blockages that must be relieved to prevent death of
secondary complications. There is also the psychological advantage of visually
removing the tumor and offering the temporary comfort of 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 the tumor, the less likely that surgery will help. The most malignant
tumors are generally considered
inoperable. It should also be considered what cutting into
the tumor does, even for a
biopsy.
First, there is trauma to the area.
This triggers the healing process, which in turn, brings more trophoblast cells
(the start of cancer) into being as a by-product of that process. (See
chapter IV of the book "World
Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin for more
information on the trophoblast thesis of cancer.)
The second thing is that if not all the malignant tissue is
removed, what remains may become encased in scar tissue from the surgery.
Consequently, the cancer tends to become insulated from the action of the pancreatic enzymes
which are essential for exposing trophoblast
cells to the surveillant action of the white blood cells.
There is also no solid evidence that
patients who submit to surgery have any greater life expectancy, on the
average, than those who do not.
For more information regarding the many
studies that have been done regarding surgery, see the book "World
Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin.
The rationale
behind X-ray therapy is the same as with surgery:
The 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. If this were not so, then X-ray therapy would
have a high degree of success-which, of course, it does not.
It also increases the likelihood of cancer
developing in other parts of the body.
X-rays induce cancer because of at least two factors.
First, they do physical damage to the body which
triggers the production of trophoblast cells as part of the healing process. Second, they weaken or destroy
the production of white blood cells which constitutes the immunological
defense mechanism, the body's front-line defense against cancer.
As with surgery, there is little or no solid evidence
that radiation actually improves the patient's chances for survival.
For more information regarding the many
studies that have been done regarding radiation therapy, see the book "World Without Cancer"
by G. Edward Griffin.
We have now briefly viewed the miserable results
obtained by orthodox surgery and radiation. However, the record of so-called anti-cancer drugs is
even worse.
The primary reason for this is that most of
them currently in use are highly
poisonous, not just to cancer but to the rest of the body as
well. Generally, they are more deadly
to healthy tissue than they are to the malignant cell.
All substances can be toxic if taken in sufficient amounts.
This is true of aspirin, sugar, Laetrile or even water. But, unlike those, the
anti-cancer drugs are
poisonous, not as a result of an overdose or as a side-effect
but as a primary
effect.
In other words, anti-cancerous drugs are
deliberately poisonous. It is the desired effect. Now, these
chemicals are selected because they are capable of differentiating
between types of cells and, consequently, of poisoning some types more than
others.
But don't jump to the conclusion that they
differentiate between cancer
and non-cancer cells, killing only the cancer cells, because
they do not. The cellular poisons used in orthodox cancer therapy today cannot
distinguish between cancer and non-cancer cells.
They act instead to differentiate between
cells that are fast-growing and those that are slow-growing or not growing at
all. Cells that are actively
dividing are the targets.
Consequently, they kill, not only the
cancer cells that are dividing, but also a multitude of normal cells all over the
body that also are caught in the act of dividing. In the case of a cancer
that is dividing at the same rate or even slower than normal cells, there isn't
even a theoretical chance of success in killing the cancer cells before the poison kills the patient.
Poisoning
the system is the
objective of these drugs. The toxins catch the blood cells in the act of
dividing and cause blood poisoning.
The
gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsions causing:
Other Effects on
the Body
I have already said elsewhere on this page
that the personnel who administer these drugs to cancer patients take great
precautions to be sure they themselves are not exposed to them. Because
these drugs are so dangerous, the Chemotherapy
Handbook lists sixteen OSHA
safety procedures for medical personnel who work around these
drugs.
The procedure for disposing of needles and other
equipment used with these drugs is regulated by the Environmental
Protection Agency under the category of "hazardous waste."
Yet, these same substances are injected directly
into the bloodstream of hapless
cancer patients supposedly to cure their cancer!
A report from the Southern Research
Institute dated April 13, 1972, based upon research conducted for the
National Cancer Institute, indicated that most of the accepted drugs in the
American Cancer Society's "proven
cures" category produced
cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been
healthy! Can you believe it?
These drugs are carcinogenic! How can poison and
hazardous waste products cure anyone of anything?!!!!
So why do doctors use chemotherapy if it is toxic,
an immunosuppressant, carcinogenic, and futile?
The answer
is that they don't know what else to do. Doctors do not like to tell any
patient that there is no
hope. In his own mind he knows there is none, but he also
knows that the patient does not want to hear that and will seek another physician who
will continue some kind of treatment, no matter how useless or fatal it may be, so
the doctor will continue to treat the patient himself.
In his book " The Wayward Cell,
Cancer," Dr. Victor Richards made it clear that chemotherapy is used
primarily just to keep the patient returning for treatment and to build his morale while he dies.
But there is more! He said, "Nevertheless, chemotherapy serves an
extremely valuable role in keeping patients oriented toward proper medical
therapy, and prevents the feeling of being abandoned by the physician in patients
with late and hopeless
cancer. Judicious employment and screening of potentially useful drugs may
also prevent the spread
of cancer quackery." (Victor Richards, The Wayward Cell,
Cancer; Its Origins, Nature, and Treatment;
Berkeley, The University of California Press, 1972, pp. 215-16)
Heaven forbid that anyone should forsake the
nauseating, pain-racking, cancer-spreading, admittedly ineffective "proven cures"
for such
"quackery" as Laetrile!
Here we have revealed the true goal of much
of the so-called "educational"
programs of orthodox
medicine-psychologically to condition people to not try any
other forms of therapy.
So let's sum up the
four different options of dealing with cancer:
Wow, what a
difference Laetrile makes !!
It is my opinion that
everyone should read the book "World
Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin for a clearer
understanding of cancer, the way the human body gets it, and the politics
that keep vitamin
therapy outside the masses' grasp.
Even if you do not have cancer, you will benefit from
this book. Cancer does
not have to be feared anymore,
just like we do not fear scurvy, rickets, beri-beri, etc. We have not been
left defenseless
on this earth, but we need to have ears to hear the truth and to apply the truth to our lives for life.
No human being loves you better than you do, no doctor, researcher, politician, etc. Only
Yahweh loves you more. He has provided this information so we will be able to live whole and fruitful lives
not enslaved to the political sources behind the scenes.
|
by Ralph Moss, PhD
"In 1974, I
began working at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the world's leading
cancer treatment hospital. I was an idealistic and eager young science writer,
sincerely proud to be part of Sloan Kettering and Nixon's ‘War On Cancer.’ Ever
since I was a kid, my main heroes were scientists (with the Brooklyn Dodgers
running a close second!) The job at Sloan-Kettering seemed like a dream come
true for me. I wanted to be part of the winning team that finally beat cancer.
“Within three years,
I had risen to the position of Assistant Director of Public Affairs at the
Hospital. At the time, I was 34 years old, married to my high-school
sweetheart, and we had a daughter and son, then 9 and 7 years old. We had
dreams of buying a house and saving for the kids' education, so you can imagine
how thrilled we were when I was promoted, with a huge raise, glowing feedback
from my bosses, and was told that perks of the job would eventually include
reduced tuition for the kids at New York University. Needless to say, we all
were really counting on my ‘bright future’ at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. But
something soon happened that changed the course of my life forever.
“A big part of my job
as Assistant Director of Public Affairs was to write press releases for the
media about cancer news and to write the in-hospital newsletter. I also handled
calls from the press and public about cancer issues. So I was just doing a
normal day's work—or so I thought—when I began interviewing an esteemed
scientist at the Hospital for a newsletter article I was working on. It turned
out that the scientist, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, had repeatedly gotten positive
results shrinking tumors in mice studies with a natural substance called amygdalin.
(You may have heard of it as ‘laetrile’.) Excitedly (and naively!) I told my
‘discovery’ of Sugiura's work to the Public Affairs Director and other
superiors, and laid out my plans for an article about it. Then I got the shock
of my life.
“They insisted that I
stop working on this story immediately and never pick it up again. Why? They
said that Dr. Sugiura's work was invalid and totally meaningless. But I had
seen the results with my own eyes! And I knew Dr. Sugiura was a true scientist
and an ethical person. Then my bosses gave me the order that I'll never forget:
They told me to lie. Instead of the story I had been planning to write, they
ordered me to write an article and press releases for all the major news
stations emphatically stating that all amygdalin studies were negative and that
the substance was worthless for cancer treatment. I protested and tried to
reason with them, but it fell on deaf ears.
“I will never forget
how I felt on the subway ride home that day. My head was spinning with a
mixture of strong feelings—confusion, shock, disappointment, fear for my own
livelihood and my family's future, and behind it all, an intense need to know
why this cover-up was happening. After long talks with my wife and parents (who
were stunned, as you can imagine) I decided to put off writing any amygdalin
press releases as long as I could while I discreetly looked into the whole
thing some more on my own time. Everyone at the office seemed happy just to
drop the whole thing, and we got busy with other less controversial projects.
“So in the next few
months, I was able to do my own investigating to answer the big question I
couldn't let go of: Who were these people I worked for and why would they want
to suppress positive results in cancer research? My files grew thick as I
uncovered more and more fascinating—and disturbing—facts. I had never given any
thought to the politics of cancer before. Now I was putting together the pieces
as I learned that:
• The people on
Sloan-Kettering's Board of Directors were a ‘Who's Who’ of investors in
petrochemical and other polluting industries. In other words, the hospital was
being run by people who made their wealth by investing in the worst
cancer-causing things on the planet.
• CEOs of top
pharmaceutical companies that produced cancer drugs also dominated the Board.
They had an obvious vested interest in promoting chemotherapy and undermining
natural therapies.
• The Chairman and
the President of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's leading producer of
chemotherapy, held high positions on MSKCC's Board.
• Of the nine members
of the Hospital's powerful Institutional Policy Committee, seven had ties to
the pharmaceutical industry.
• The Hospital itself
invested in the stock of these same drug companies.
• Directors of the
biggest tobacco companies in the U.S., Phillip Morris and RJR Nabisco, held
places of honor on the Board.
• Six Board Directors
also served on the Boards of The New York Times, CBS, Warner Communications,
Readers Digest, and other media giants.
“Not surprisingly,
profits from chemotherapy drugs were skyrocketing and the media glowingly
promoted every new drug as a ‘breakthrough’ in cancer. I kept all my notes in
my filing cabinet at work. I had no idea what I would ever do with them. I just
knew that I had to get to the bottom of it, for myself.
“Meanwhile, the
public's interest in laetrile refused to go away. A lot of people were going
across the border to Mexican clinics to get the stuff and my secretary's phone
was ringing off the hook with people wanting to know what Sloan-Kettering
thought of its value. I was once again told to give out the news that the
studies had all been negative.
“At home, I called my
family together for a meeting. With their support, I decided I couldn't lie on
behalf of the Hospital. In November of 1977, I stood up at a press conference
and blew the whistle on Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's suppression of
positive results with amygdalin. It felt like jumping off the highest diving
board, but I had no doubt I was doing the right thing. I was fired the next day
for ‘failing to carry out his most basic responsibilities’ as the Hospital
described it to the New York Times. In other words, failing to lie to the
American people.
“When I tried to pick
up my things in my office, I found my files had been padlocked and two armed
Hospital guards escorted me from the premises.
“Luckily for all of
us, I have a very smart wife who all along had been making copies of my
research notes and had put a complete extra set of files in a safe place. Those
notes turned into my first book, The Cancer Industry, which is still in print
(in an updated version) and available in bookstores.
“That dramatic day,
when I stood up in front of the packed press conference and told the truth, was
the beginning of a journey I never could have predicted. I was launched on a
mission that I'm still on today—helping cancer patients find the truth about
the best cancer treatments.
“Well, we weren't
able to buy a home until years later, the kids went to colleges on scholarships
and loans, and my wife took on a demanding full-time job to help us get by. But
in retrospect, my experiences as an insider in ‘the cancer industry’ were among
the best things ever to happen to me. My values were put to the test and I had
to really examine what was important in my life. It is because of this
difficult experience at Sloan-Kettering that I found a truly meaningful
direction for my professional life, rather than just climbing Sloan-Kettering's
career ladder and losing my soul in the process."
—Ralph Moss, PhD, www.cancerdecisions.com/beatcancer_frm.html
The story of Ralph Moss, which is really the story of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, is just the tip of the iceberg. Numerous alternative cancer researchers have been rewarded for their discoveries with jail, being driven out of the country, loss of license, harassment, and many other things. This war is not for the weak at heart.
The Cancer Industry: The Classic Expose on the Cancer Establishment, Updated Edition (Paperback)
Chapter Seven:
Debunking the Debunkers
Between the years
1975 and 1980 there were so many things happening that I am sure I do not
remember all of them. Some of them were going on at the same time. These
stories need to be told. While the exact chronological order of these stories
may be incorrect, the stories are true.
Certainly one story
that needs to be told is that of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura. In 1975, Dr. Sugiura
was, and had been for some years, one of the most respected cancer research
scientists at Sloan-Kettering. In working with cancerous mice, Dr. Sugiura
found that, when he used Laetrile on these mice, seventy-seven per cent of them
did not develop a spread of their disease (metastatic carcinoma). He repeated
this study over and over for two years. The results were always the same. Dr.
Sugiura took his findings to his superiors at Sloan-Kettering, but his study
was never published. Instead, Sloan-Kettering published the results of someone
else who claimed that he had used Dr. Sugiura's protocol. This "someone
else's" study showed that there were no beneficial effects from the use of
Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura complained. He was fired. A book was written about all of
this entitled The Anatomy of A Cover-up. This book has all the actual results
of Dr. Sugiura's work. These results do, indeed, show the benefit of Laetrile.
Dr. Sugiura stated in this book, "It is still my belief that Amygdalin
cures metastases." Amygdalin is, of course, the scientific name for
Laetrile.
A few months later, a
cancer researcher at Mayo Clinic, in a private, informal conversation with a
friend of mine, stated that it was very unlikely that any positive effects from
the use of Laetrile would ever be published because "the powers above us
want it that way."
During this period of
time, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) stated that it wanted to run a study
to show the difference between patients treated with orthodox therapy (surgery,
radiation, chemotherapy) and those treated with nutritional therapy. I was
asked to participate in this study. I went to New York to meet with one of the
doctors who was conducting the study. I will call him Dr. Enseeye (not his real
name, of course). There was a group of perhaps six or seven of us who had
dinner that night with Dr. Enseeye. Betty and I were seated next to him.
Dr. Enseeye explained
the study to me. The NCI would take a group of cancer patients and treat them
in the orthodox method. Those of us who were using nutritional therapy would
take a similar group of patients and treat them by our method. The NCI would
then compare the results. This is the conversation that followed:
"What will the
NCI use as a criteria for success or failure in these treatments?" I
asked.
"Tumor
size," Dr. Enseeye replied.
I said, "Let me
make sure I understand what you are saying. Suppose you have a patient with a
given tumor. Let's suppose that this patient is treated by one of these two
methods. Let's say that the tumor is greatly reduced in size in the next three
months, but the patient dies. How will the NCI classify that?
"The NCI will
classify that as a success"
"Why?" I
asked.
"Because the
tumor got smaller," he replied.
I then asked,
"Suppose you have a similar patient with a similar tumor who was treated
with a different method. Suppose that after two years this patient is alive and
well, but the tumor is no smaller. How will the NCI classify this?"
"They will
classify that as a failure."
"Why?" I
asked.
"Because the
tumor did not get any smaller," he said. Dr. Enseeye went on to say,
"In this study the NCI will not be interested in whether the patient lives
or dies. They will be interested only in whether the tumor gets bigger or
smaller."
I chose not to
participate in this study!
During this period,
the FDA was sending speakers throughout the country to talk about the'
"evils" of Laetrile. One such speaker was scheduled to appear on the
campus of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota in the spring of 1978. It
just so happened that my son Rick was a sophomore at Macalester College at that
time. Rick was very knowledgeable on the subject of Laetrile. When he found out
when the talk was to be given, he called his older brother, Bill, who was a
senior at the University of Wisconsin in LaCrosse. Bill was equally
knowledgeable about Laetrile and agreed to come to Macalester for the speech.
Rick had also recruited a friend who was a freshman at his school, Michelle
Kleinrichard, who knew as much about the subject as the two of them.
The three of them
went to the speech, but they did not sit together. Bill sat near the center
just beyond half-way back in the auditorium. Rick sat toward the front on the
right. Michelle sat toward the front on the left.
According to all
three of them, the speaker left much to be desired. It was easy to see he had
been given the speech to read, and that he had only a superficial knowledge of
the subject. At the end of the speech he asked for questions. The first one on
his feet was Bill (in the center). What happened was as follows:
Bill: "You said
that you knew of a patient who had cancer and was treated with Laetrile. You
said that the patient died, and this proved that Laetrile was worthless. Hubert
Humphrey had cancer and was treated with chemotherapy. He died three months
ago. Doesn't that prove that chemotherapy is worthless too? But, that's not my
question. You also said that a little girl in New York took five Laetrile pills
and died from cyanide poisoning. The parents now state that she took only one
Laetrile pill. She was fine for three days. Then the doctors started treating
her for cyanide poisoning. The next day she died. How do you explain
this?"
Speaker: "I have
no explanation for this."
Bill: "Another
question."
Speaker: "No,
we'll go to someone else."
With this, the
speaker turned to another nice looking young man on his left. This other nice
looking young man was Rick. (I have to say they were "nice looking"
because I'm their father.) Rick pointed out that the speaker had stated that
work done by Dr. Harold Manner, using Laetrile alone, had shown no positive
results on cancerous mice. This, the speaker had said, was considered to be of
great scientific value. Subsequent work done by Dr. Manner using Laetrile in
combination with pancreatic enzymes and Vitamin A had shown excellent results.
Yet, the speaker had indicated that these latter results were of no scientific
value. Rick's question was why were these latter results ignored. The speaker
could not answer that question.
The speaker then
turned to his right. There, standing and smiling at him, was a pretty young lady.
The speaker must have thought, "At last, a friendly face." The young
lady was Michelle. Michelle was a member of the debate team at Macalester. The
speaker was badly out-classed. She hit him with both barrels. She asked for a
full explanation of why, if so many people die from chemotherapy, is
chemotherapy so good? Why, if Laetrile makes people feel better, is Laetrile so
bad? She asked who determined that Dr. Manner's recent results were not
scientific. The poor speaker was in trouble. He hemmed and hawed, but never
answered her questions. Finally, he said, "The question and answer period
is over." He turned and rapidly left the stage. In five minutes Bill, Rick
and Michelle had completely destroyed the credibility of the forty-five minute
speech.
So, you ask, whatever
became of those three free-thinking undergraduates who perpetrated this
dastardly deed on this unsuspecting FDA speaker? (You probably weren't going to
ask, but I'm going to tell you anyway!).
Bill got his law
degree from Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He worked for Congressman
Lawrence P. McDonald as his legislative director until the KAL Flight 007
incident. Subsequently, he worked for Congressman A1 McCandliss as his
legislative director. Later, he became the Republican counsel for the House
Banking Committee. He has since gone to work for a private business.
Rick got his Ph.D. in
Astronomy from the University of Texas. He is a professor of astronomy at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rick was, incidentally, the first astronomer
to view the moon around the planet Pluto.
The International
Astronomical Society has named an asteroid (a small planet), Asteroid 2873
Binzel, in his honor. In 1982, Rick and Michelle were married.
Michelle, in addition
to being a full-time housewife and a full-time mother of two children, has also
managed to complete her Ph.D. in Business Management. When those two children
become teenagers, Michelle is going to need all of her debating skills. I don't
know anything about business management, but as the father of six children, I
sure do know about debating. I wish I had taken it in college.
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan
Nota: Hanya ahli blog ini sahaja yang boleh mencatat ulasan.