G. Edward Griffin: A World Without Cancer - The Story Of Vitamin B17

F

FrankRep

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
28,885
G. Edward Griffin: A World Without Cancer - The Story Of Vitamin B17

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507


G. Edward Griffin marshals the evidence that cancer is a deficiency disease - like scurvy or pellagra - aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet. That substance is vitamin B17. In its purified form developed for cancer therapy, it is known as Laetrile.
 
The National Cancer Institute says there is no benefit to Laetril treatments for cancer.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/patient/20.cdr#Section_20
The following has been reported from these 2 clinical trials about the use of laetrile in patients with cancer:

The first trial, a phase I study, tested doses, schedules, and ways to give amygdalin in 6 cancer patients. Researchers found that amygdalin caused very few side effects when given by mouth or intravenously. Two patients who ate raw almonds while taking amygdalin, however, developed symptoms of cyanide poisoning.


In 1982, a phase II study with 175 patients looked at which types of cancer might benefit from treatment with amygdalin. Most of the patients in this study had breast, colon, or lung cancer. Amygdalin was given by injection for 21 days, followed by oral maintenance therapy using doses and procedures similar to those in the phase I study. Vitamins and pancreatic enzymes were also given as part of a metabolic therapy program that also included dietary changes. One stomach cancer patient showed a decrease in tumor size, which was maintained for 10 weeks while the patient was on amygdalin therapy. In about half of the patients, cancer had grown at the end of the treatment. Cancer had grown in all patients 7 months after completing treatment. Some patients reported an improvement in their ability to work or do other activities, and other patients said their symptoms improved. These improvements, however, did not last after treatment ended.


Have any side effects or risks been reported from laetrile?
The side effects of laetrile treatment are like the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. These symptoms include:

Nausea and vomiting.
Headache.
Dizziness.
Blue color of the skin due to a lack of oxygen in the blood.
Liver damage.
Abnormally low blood pressure.
Droopy upper eyelid.
Trouble walking due to damaged nerves.
Fever.
Mental confusion.
Coma.
Death.
The side effects of laetrile appear to depend on the way it is given. More severe side effects develop when laetrile is given by mouth than when it is given by injection. These side effects may be increased by:

Eating raw almonds or crushed fruit pits.
Eating certain types of fruits and vegetables, including celery, peaches, bean sprouts, and carrots.
Taking high doses of vitamin C.
Click to expand...

The American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Laetrile.asp
According to a 1991 review, the current use of Laetrile can be directly attributed to the theories of Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., MD, first proposed in the 1920s. Krebs tested an extract from apricot pits to treat cancer, but the pills proved too toxic for human use.

Around 1952, his son, Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., changed the process of extracting amygdalin from apricot pits and named the product Laetrile. He claimed that the new extract was more potent as an anti-cancer drug than previously believed. So, what is actually used in Laetrile is amygdalin, and these terms are used interchangeably in many reports.

The same 1991 review notes starting in 1957, Laetrile was repeatedly tested against tumor cells implanted in animals. At least a dozen separate sets of experiments were done at seven institutions. Targets included several different types of cancers. No anti-tumor activity was found in any of these studies with the use of Laetrile.

The FDA placed sanctions against the sale of Laetrile. In 1977, the FDA commissioner stated that there was no evidence for the safety or effectiveness of Laetrile. Because of the risk of cyanide poisoning, the government has banned the transport of Laetrile into the United States or across state lines, as well as the use of Laetrile in states without laws specifically allowing it. Since 2000, there have been several instances of prosecution because of Laetrile transport across state lines.

What is the evidence?

From the 1950s through the 1970s, Laetrile grew in popularity in the United States as an alternative treatment for cancer. For this reason, and despite the lack of scientific evidence that Laetrile was effective, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) studied it in 1978 through a retrospective case review (a study that looks back at cases from the past). The NCI sent out letters to more than 400,000 doctors and other practitioners, asking them to submit positive results from cases involving Laetrile. While an estimated 75,000 people in the United States had taken Laetrile, only 93 "positive" cases were submitted, and only 6 of these were found to have evidence of major tumor shrinkage.

A 1991 review of the evidence stated that, "scientific studies were conducted for more than 20 years, starting in the mid-1950s, looking for evidence of antitumor efficacy by Laetrile. In no instance was evidence found that treatment with Laetrile results in any benefit against tumors in animals. Despite this negative record, a clinical trial in humans was conducted in 1981. It did not show any anticancer effect of Laetrile."

The clinical trial of Laetrile on humans was performed between 1979 and 1981 at medical centers around the country. About 175 patients with different types of cancer were treated with a commonly used regimen of Laetrile plus metabolic therapy (see Metabolic Therapy). Published in 1982, it reported that one patient had major tumor shrinkage (a partial response) at first. Of the patients, 91% of their cancers had progressed by 3 months, and median survival was less than 5 months. All the patients had their cancer grow within 8 months of starting treatment.

In contrast to the findings by the NCI, one of the leading proponents of Laetrile claims to have treated nearly 30,000 cancer patients in several studies of the drug with promising results. However, these results have not been reviewed nor repeated by the scientific medical community.

The consensus of available scientific evidence does not support claims that Laetrile is an effective anti-cancer treatment, either in animal studies or in human clinical trials. Cancer cells do not seem to be more susceptible to the effects of Laetrile than normal cells. The successes claimed by its supporters are based on individual (anecdotal) reports, testimonials, and publicity issued by promoters.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vitamin B-17 is one of the main sources of food in cultures such as the Eskimos, the Hunzas, the Abkasians and many more. Did you know that within these tribes there has never been a reported case of cancer? According to Dr. Krebs, we need a minimum of 100 mg of vitamin B-17 (the equivalent of about seven apricots seeds) too nearly guarantee a cancer free life. Foods that contain vitamin B-17 are as follows:

* KERNELS OR SEEDS OF FRUIT: The highest concentration of vitamin B-17 to be found in nature, aside from bitter almonds. Apple, apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, prune.
* BEANS: broad (Vicia faba), burma, chickpeas, lentils (sprouted), lima, mung (sprouted), Rangoon, scarlet runner.
* NUTS: Bitter almond, macadamia, cashew.
* BERRIES: Almost all wild berries. Blackberry, chokeberry, Christmas berry, cranberry, elderberry, raspberry, strawberry.
* SEEDS: Chia, flax, sesame.
* GRASSES: Acacia, alfalfa (sprouted), aquatic, Johnson, milkweed, Sudan, minus, wheat grass, white dover.
* GRAINS: oat groats, barley, brown rice, buckwheat groats, chia, flax, millet, rye, vetch, wheat berries.
* MISCELLANEOUS: bamboo shoots, fuschia plant, sorghum, wild hydrangea, yew tree (needles, fresh leaves).
Click to expand...

Added this to the diet.
 
Eskimos do not get cancer? Really?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1580163
The authors collected and analyzed cancer incidence data for Alaska Natives (Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts) for the 15-year period 1969-83 by ethnic and linguistic groups. Compared with U.S. whites, observed-to-expected ratios are high in more than one ethnic group for cancer of the nasopharynx, salivary gland, liver, gallbladder, and cervix. Low ratios were found for cancer of the breast, uterus, bladder, and melanoma. In Alaska, Eskimos have the highest risk for cancer of the esophagus and liver and the lowest risk for breast and prostate cancer. Risk for multiple myeloma in Indian men in Alaska exceeds not only those of other Native groups in Alaska but that in U.S. whites as well. Despite the short period studied, increases in cancer incidence over time can be documented for lung cancer in Eskimo men and women combined, and for cervical cancer, especially in Indian women.
Click to expand...

Never been a reported case?

More: [urlhttp://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/3/388][/url]
The records of the two main referral centres for the western and central Arctic were reviewed for Eskimo patients with cancer diagnosed between 1949 and 1974 inclusive. To these were added the records for the past 6 years of patients from the eastern Arctic, giving the toatal of 180 histologically proved cases of malignant disease. Athe data were analysed for prevalence, relative frequency, geographic distribution and changes with time of the various neoplasms. Salivary gland and renal neoplasms have in recent years been displaced by cancer of the lung and uterine cervix as the most common malignant tumours in Canadian Eskimos. The prevalence of lung cancer in Eskimo women, particularly of the central Artic, is striking. Cancer of the nasopharynx kept the same relative position during early and late years of the survey period. Breast cancer is still uncommon in Eskimos. Lactation rather than gestation history appeared to be an important protective factor. Cases of cervical cancer outnumbered those of breast cancer by 18 to 4, in sharp contrast to the relative proportions of these tumours in all Canadian women
Click to expand...

One more? http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/3/388
BACKGROUND: Although colorectal cancer rates are low among most groups of Native Americans in North America, rates for Alaska Natives have been substantially elevated compared with US rates for all races combined.

METHODS: To better describe the epidemiology of colorectal cancer incidence and survival among Alaska Natives, stratified by gender and tribal/ethnic affiliation, we examined data collected by the Alaska Native Cancer Registry 1969–1993. We calculated age-adjusted and age-specific incidence as well as actuarial survival rates, and examined histological type, site, stage at diagnosis, and treatment. We compared these data to colorectal cancer data from whites living in western Washington.

RESULTS: In all, 587 colorectal cancer cases were identified among Alaska Natives over the 25-year period, for an age-adjusted annual incidence rate of 71.4/100 000 in women, and 69.3/100 000 in men. Compared to Alaska Indians, colon cancer rates were significantly higher in Aleuts, while rectal cancer rates did not differ by race/ethnicity. Alaska Natives experienced a 50% higher incidence rate of colorectal cancer overall compared to western Washington whites (RR 1.5, 95% Cl: 1.3%1.6), although rectal cancer rates were similar in the two populations. The highest RR were seen among Alaska Native women; Aleuts and Eskimos had colon cancer rates more than twice that of western Washington white women. No unusual qualitative features were found in the cancers occurring in Alaska Natives. Actuarial colorectal cancer survival rates for Alaska Natives overall were 74% at one year and 42% at 5 years; these rates were very similar to those observed for the western Washington population. Both one and 5-year survival rates showed a significant trend towards improvement over time.

CONCLUSIONS: Alaska Natives had substantially higher colorectal cancer incidence rates compared to western Washington whites. Rates were particularly high for Aleut and Eskimo women. These data suggest a need for intensified secondary prevention strategies for this high-risk population, while further research is needed to identify modifiable risk factors.
Click to expand...

Eating a healty diet including fewer saturated fats and more fresh fruits and grains will help to improve your health (especially when combined with regular exercise) but it does not guarantee you will be free of cancer. There are more factors involved than simple diet.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, does everyone have a basic understanding of cancer? From what I understand, its a genetic disease at the start...
  • Five classes of oncogenes need to be mutated, and all five must be malfunctioning for cancer to progress (growth factors, trascription factors, apoptosis pathways, etc). Basically all the crucial control checks of a cell need to be thoroughly destroyed by accumulated mutation.
  • Next its gotta destroy its own tumor supressor genes, or else a cancerous cell will just get killed by signal proteins telling it to commit suicide. Again, through accumulated mutation.
  • Next its gotta break free from where it was born and travel (metastasis). So that it can invade some tender part of you (ie. your lungs) then kill you by making you cough up blood, and eventually stop your breathing by suffocating u from the inside.

So its not as simple as calling it a metabolic disease with a one-treatment wonder cure. For example we know insulin is the treatment to poor glucose intake for diabetes patients (a metabolic disease), and most research now is going into understanding insulin resistance. We KNOW how to cure it, but conditions such as obesity complicate the disease. So basically we are tweaking the formula, but the fact remains: we know the cure.

However, cancer is NOT diabetes, it doesn't have a singular cure(and it is not exclusively metabolic in nature)! Claiming B-17 is the end-all be-all cure is ridiculously naive. Who honestly compares Cancer to anemia and scurvy? That all we need is some orange juice and a T-bone steak and suddenly it goes away? Its like saying all we need to get to the moon is some rocket fuel and elbow grease, so why dont we go ahead and get that process started right now. Get real here people... :mad:

Accumulation of these mutations generally comes with age. The longer you live the more mutations you build up. And one day all conditions are just right for the tumor cell to form. Tell me how you can avoid mutations if UV light itself acts as a carcinogen? You stop going outside? Anyone know what melanin pigments in our skin do anymore? Anti oxidant properties ring any bells? :confused:

That being said, nutrition is an important part of preventing cancer from spreading. Lots of antioxidant rich foods, as well as proper nutrients allow your body to function optimally instead of being deficient and ripped apart by oxidizing agents that F' up your cells. I agree wholeheartedly that the modern diet is an atrocity compared to what it was half a century ago. How about putting away that cheezburger made of leftover pulp and paper and start eating some organic food? :) Do yourself a favor, and avoid eating these GMO wonder foods that focus on sapping away nutrition for flavor. Eat organic and live happy. :D

And finally, Not all scientists working on Cancer are corporate assholes who don't want to share their research. Cancer IS A TOUGH PROBLEM TO SOLVE. Its genetic in nature, but kills people through metastatic destruction. It involves 5 oncogene families, tumor supressor genes, and a host of biochemical pathways that I was never able to memorize. This is what we're taught in university and for once the corporations aren't making this shit up. So please don't underestimate good scholars and researchers with this bullshit, cancer is tough on everyone.
 
A word on Trophoblasts as they were brought up in the movie. The information given is outdated, they are NOT fetal cells. They make up the outer membrane of the blastocyst (if anyone still remembers biology). After they plant the embryo on the endometrium of the mother, they become inert and useless. They are neither part of the mother's tissue nor the babies tissues and if they were to invade either individual they would be quickly killed by the immune system. So Mr. Griffin's theory doesn't exactly hold up...

I respect G. Edward Griffin for his work on Jerkyll Island's history but honestly.....leave the biology out of this.... the intentions are good, but its doing a great deal of injustice to the study of biology.
 
Good to see this information getting out. I know several people who refused treatment and cured themselves of cancer through simple diet and lifestyle changes. The big difference between someone with cancer and someone without it is their immune system.

We all have cancer in our bodies at this very minute, the difference between people officially diagnosed people and those who haven't been is that those who haven't been diagnosed have immune systems that are keeping in control. If I were to get cancer, it's because I've allowed my immune system to lose control of the disease in my body.

That said, some people are more genetically "programmed" to get cancer, as in the environment affects everyone differently, but everyone can still overcome it through lifestyle.
 
How about the amouint of IODINE in our diets and cancer?

Interesting to note the amount of iodine in the diets of Japanese women (lots of sea weed sushi wrap and fish eaten in japan) - they have extremely low rates of breast cancer...

When they are tracked (if they relocate to the USA), after 20-30 years of living here, the rate of BC increases and ends up the same as women born and raised here. The theory is it's some + or - diet item (not genetic race trait). Could even be exposure to our crappy MSM debate/election coverage.

Dr Derry says it's the iodine - way too little in our diets (iodized salt has just enough to prevent a goiter but that's a small fraction of the level required for good health (to prevent prostate, thyroid and breast cancer). http://thyroid.about.com/library/derry/bl1a.htm
 
That is your choice. I prefer things which have been carefully tested and shown to work. There is not reliable research which demonstrates B-17 preventing or curing cancer. If you can point me to studies supporting the success of B-17 I would be interested in looking at them. I would not be willing to literally bet my life on some internet rumour. The actor Steve McQueen is the most famous person to lose that bet.
 
Last edited:
Zippyjuan said:
That is your choice. I prefer things which have been carefully tested and shown to work. There is not reliable research which demonstrates B-17 preventing or curing cancer. If you can point me to studies supporting the success of B-17 I would be interested in looking at them. I would not be willing to literally bet my life on some internet rumour. The actor Steve McQueen is the most famous person to lose that bet.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the notion's that Steve McQueen died because he bet his life on Laetrile (an "internet rumor") is itself a rumor, and a false one at that.

Here's G. Edward Griffin's treatment of the subject in the preface of the book World Without Cancer (pg. xvii):
In 1980, movie actor Steve McQueen also made news when he went to Mexico for Laetrile and other unorthodox therapies. When he died following surgery four months later, the press had a heyday telling the American people that Laetrile didn't work. What they failed to report is that McQueen's cancer was, indeed, apparently cured by Laetrile, and that only a non-cancerous tumor remained in his abdomen. (Most tumors are composed of a mixture of cancer and non-cancerous tissue.) McQueen was feeling great and decided to have the bulge removed for cosmetic reasons. It was a complication of that surgery, not cancer, which caused his death. Not a word of his prior recovery was to be found in the major press. Consequently, millions of Americans who followed the story came away with the conviction that Laetrile is just another hoax. That, too, is merely an extension of the kind of biased media reporting that has become a permanent part of the coverage of Laetrile. It continues today.​
I implore you to do more research on this topic, starting with this book, and also Alive and Well by Dr. Philip Binzel. In fact, here are some links for everyone here:

The Science and Politics of Cancer (Google Video)
A fairly recent lecture by G. Edward Griffin

World Without Cancer by G. Edward Griffin
You can download the full PDF here. The most complete and authoritative treatise available on this topic. Much more thorough than the video.

Alive and Well by Dr. Philip Binzel
Full text available for free here. Dr. Binzel used Laetrile and other nutritional therapies in the treatment of cancer patients since the mid 1970s. His record of success is astounding. He tells of his ongoing battle with the medical establishment, but this is primarily the story of his alive-and-well patients, many of whom had been told by their previous doctors that they had only a few months to live. Medical case histories are included.

Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience
Here are 62 case histories proving beyond any doubt that Laetrile (Vitamin B17) works in the control of cancer. These are not anecdotal stories or cases of people who never had cancer in the first place. Each history is authenticated by a firm diagnosis and meticulous medical documentation. This new, updated and revised edition includes a follow up 30 years after the patients were diagnosed with incurable cancer. Proof is in the actual life-span of these people who, previously, had been told by their doctors that they had just a few months or weeks to live. This book also recounts the personal battle of Dr. John Richardson who incurred the wrath of orthodox medicine when he and his patients elected to use vitamin therapy instead of surgery, drugs, and radiation as the treatment of choice.

WorldWithoutCancer.com.uk
Despite the title I do not believe this website is endorsed by Griffin. Nonetheless, it is a pretty good resource.
 
Last edited:
I came across this article http://cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Evidence.html which actually focuses more on a Dr. Kelly who also uses nutrition as a cancer treatment ("metabolic" but not leatril) and I have a couple of questions. It says that Dr. Binzel had 288 patients "who qualified for statistical analysis" -which sounds like a small number given that he has been practicing since the 1970's- of which it is claimed that 80.9% were cured.
It is not uncommon for alternative health doctors to have documented cure rates of 75% to 85% and higher. Dr. Binzel had 288 patients who qualified for statistical analysis. This number represents 30 types of primary cancer and 23 types of cancer that had metastasized. His overall cure rate was 80.9%. Only a handful of his patients died of unknown causes. This cure rate is fairly typical for alternative health practitioners. Some doctors had higher cure rates and some less, depending on a number of factors.
Click to expand...

The article says that these patients were people who doctors had sent home to die basically. This means terminal. but then the article closes with this comment:
Let me put things in perspective. In my treatment plan section I have a treatment plan called "The Hospice Cancer Diet - For Advanced Terminal Cancer Patients." This treatment plan is a combination of seven alternative treatment plans that have been proven to be fast acting in treating advanced terminal cancer cases.

These seven treatment plans are considered fast acting because they work by killing cancer cells directly, and do not wait for the immunity system to be built up enough to kill the cancer cells. It takes significant time for the immunity system to be built up enough for it to start killing cancer cells, especially after a patient has been through chemotherapy and radiation. Thus, these seven plans were chosen because they are effective without the immunity system.

Neither the Kelley plan nor the Binzel plan is included as one of these seven treatments. Both the Kelley Metabolic plan and the Binzel Laetrile plan are in the "top 100" and even the "top 50" treatment plans for alternative treatments. They are very effective treatments under the right circumstances. But they are slow working, and that is why they may not be suitable for advanced terminal patients and that is why they are not part of the Hospice Cancer Diet.
Click to expand...

They worked on over 80% of patients sent home to die but it is not suitable for advanced terminal patients? I thought this was said to be exactly the patients cured. I am confused. I have not yet had the time to read Dr. Binzel's own writings you posted links to.
 
Zippyjuan said:
They worked on over 80% of patients sent home to die but it is not suitable for advanced terminal patients? I thought this was said to be exactly the patients cured. I am confused. I have not yet had the time to read Dr. Binzel's own writings you posted links to.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that it worked on over 80.9% of patients "sent home to die". It says that is his "overall cure rate" (emphasis mine). However, I'm not sure where they got that figure from; it does not appear in his book. Actually, his "overall cure rate" is slightly higher.

Keep in mind that ANY cure rate at all for "terminal" patients should raise eyebrows. They are called terminal by orthodox medicine for a reason: these are people that supposedly cannot be saved and are condemned to death. Dr. Binzel was in fact able to "cure" a number of these people, but I don't know what the exact percentage is.

It should be noted, however, that, as G. Edward Griffin puts it:

Dr. Binzel does not use the word "cured" in describing the condition of his patients who have returned to normal life after treatment. That is more a question of semantics than substance. It is true that, once a person has developed full-blown clinical cancer — even after all their symptoms have vanished — they will have a greater-than-normal tendency to develop cancer again. That, however, assumes they return to their original life styles and eating habits. On the other hand, if they do continue to follow the dietary regimen described in this book, they will throw off that handicap.​

Dr. Binzel himself says this of regarding patients he has "cured":

The patients are told that they also must stay on their vitamins, enzymes and Laetrile until the age of 130. They are instructed to call me on their 130th birthday (although I am not sure what my area code will be at that time), and we will discuss the possibility of reducing the dosage of some of these. This is simply my way of emphasizing to the patient the fact that you don't cure cancer. You can control it as long as the defense mechanisms continue to function normally. If a patient goes back to his old eating habits, he will soon be back in trouble again.​

A detailed statistical analysis of Binzel's patients, along with specific case studies, can be found in Chapter 12 of his book. I'd encourage you to read the whole book though (and Griffin's book as well).

The main factors that determine the likelyhood of success on a nutritional program which includes Laetrile are:
1) Whether or not the cancer is primary or metastatic (whether or not it has spread)
2) Whether or not the patient has already undergone chemo, radiation, and/or surgery, which can weaken it's natural ability to rid itself of the cancer, which is what nutrition therapy attempts to enable it to do.

This will all make more sense to you the more you learn about it. In a nutshell, the orthodox physician sees the tumor as the cancer, whereas the physician using nutritional methods sees tumors as a symptom of the cancer. It is abundantly clear that this is the correct view.
 
Last edited:
I just watched my neighbor die to cancer. Well the chemo is what killed him. He was fooled into thinking that chemotherapy cures. They rig those success numbers for chemotherapy. I believe that is discussed in G. Edward Griffin's book. If the tumor responds to the treatment whatsoever, they use that as a success. Even if it shrinks 1% and you die 3 months later, you get counted on the books as a chemotherapy success! It is sickening.

75% of oncologists said they would not take chemotherapy because it is ineffective against it! Those oncologists probably can't sleep at night.
 
Frankly I dont know how most medical people sleep at night. Mercury poisoned vaccines, every form of "recognized" cancer treatment, every magic pill for every possible problem you have. They ALL unbalance the body. Of course I think thats what the guys at the top of the top who control the information and what we can and cannot use really want.

Doctors make no money from healthy people.

Just briefly off topic, mercury in vaccines, funny how we went from 1 in 5,000 kids ended up with autism, now its 1 in 66. But hydrocholorplastoformulobenzocotozolocide is GOOD for you!
 
Zippyjuan said:
That is your choice. I prefer things which have been carefully tested and shown to work. There is not reliable research which demonstrates B-17 preventing or curing cancer. If you can point me to studies supporting the success of B-17 I would be interested in looking at them. I would not be willing to literally bet my life on some internet rumour. The actor Steve McQueen is the most famous person to lose that bet.
Click to expand...

If you "prefer things which have been carefully tested and shown to work", then you must NOT be talking about chemotherapy and radiation therapy, which have proven to be noticeably less effective on a percentage basis than Laetrile.

Nobody, including Krebs and Griffin, is claiming that Laetrile is a "cure-all" for cancer. But there are numerous documented cases where it DID cure cancer, and it has also proven valuable as a PREVENTIVE measure.

I suggest you do some in-depth research, rather than rely on 15-second soundbite science "research" from major Cancer organizations that have a vested financial interest in perpetuating treatments that involve drugs and other expensive options, that have never been proven to work well.

If you're open-minded and willing to do some research, start here:

33090615.JPG


* Publisher: American Media
* Pub. Date: January 1997
* ISBN-13: 9780912986197
* 368pp
* Edition Description: REVISED
* Edition Number: 2

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/World-without-Cancer/American-Media/e/9780912986197/?itm=1


.
 
I am still skeptical but was wondering if anyone can point me to some statistics comparing the two therapies (or just cure rates of laetrile and cure rates for chemo). I have been able to find quite a few studies which show no benefit to laertil for cancer patients. The people hyping laetrile also have a profit motive as do the drug companies.

Meanwhile, you may find this read interesting: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html (or not if you do not have an open mind to both sides of the issue).

Just one portion:
John Richardson was a general practitioner who began practice in the San Francisco Bay area in 1954. In 1971, after discussions with Krebs, Jr., he decided to become a cancer specialist. He had not encountered overwhelming success as a general practitioner. His 1972 income tax return revealed that he had grossed $88,000 in his medical practice, leaving a net of only $10,400 taxable income.

Richardson's practice boomed as a result of his newly found status as a cancer "expert." He states that "Our office soon was filled with faces we had never seen before—hopeful faces of men and women who had been abandoned by orthodox medicine as hopeless or "terminal" cases." In 1974, he reported that his medical practice had grossed $783,000, with a net income of $172,981. By charging patients $2,000 for a course of Laetrile, Richardson managed to increase his net income 17-fold in just two years. According to his income tax returns, Richardson grossed $2.8 million dollars from his Laetrile practice between January 1973 and March 1976. The actual amount of money he received may have even been higher. In Laetrile Case Histories, he claimed to have treated 4,000 patients, with an average charge of $2,500 per patient. Culbert states that by 1976 Richardson had treated 6,000 patients. If these figures are correct, Richardson would have grossed between $10 and $15 million dollars during this time.

Richardson's practice changed significantly after he began treating cancer patients with Laetrile. He also began treating what he termed "pre-clinical syndrome" patients with Laetrile. These were patients with no identifiable tumor or lesion who complained of feelings of "impending doom, malaise, unexplained or vague pains, headaches, bowel changes, loss of appetite, loss of energy, and depression." According to Richardson, cancer patients reported a reduction in pain, an improved appetite, return of strength, and an improved mental outlook. In addition, high blood pressure returned to normal.

In spite of these "dramatic improvements," Richardson admitted that most of his cancer patients died. In an attempt to overcome this, he increased the Laetrile dosage to nine grams, six days a week, and placed patients on a vegetarian diet and "massive" doses of regular vitamins. Richardson coined the phrase "metabolic therapy" to refer to this combination of diet manipulation, vitamins and Laetrile.
Click to expand...

This article seems to be much more balanced: http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001976/Rorvik/Rorvik02/Rorvik02.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

donnay
An Argument for Consuming Apricot Seeds: MisInformation is Endangering an Inexpensive Canc
Replies
7
Views
883
donnay
donnay
F
G. Edward Griffin: World Without Cancer - The Story of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile)
Replies
15
Views
5K
FrankRep
F
donnay
Big Pharma’s Lies Exposed – Cancer IS Curable
11 12 13
Replies
251
Views
22K
PaulConventionWV
PaulConventionWV
M
Proof that Vitamin B17 cured Cancer
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
18K
donnay
donnay
F
Free Market Medicine and the FDA
Replies
1
Views
587
Zippyjuan
Zippyjuan
Back
Top